Assembly Transportation Committee, Monday, April 20, 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 1
Oh, wait. Let me have you press the microphone button so everyone can hear you.
Redner 16
Good morning, chair Wilson, vice chair Davies, and members of the assembly transportation committee. My name is Benjamin Shee, Star2089. I'm a sergeant with the San Francisco Police Department, an attorney and a member of the bar in good standing, and one of my specialty areas is sideshow investigations and enforcement, responding to the needs of the community when it arises. I'm here today to speak in support of Assembly Bill fifteen eighty eight, which seeks to address the worrying trends of illegal sideshows and street races taking place in San Francisco, the Bay Area, and in the wider state of California. AB fifteen eighty eight simply closes some loopholes in current law by adding missing vehicle classes such as motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs.
Redner 6
They add these vehicles into state sideshow law, which are commonly used vehicles in sideshow events. Secondly, this bill also brings sideshow offenses online with existing law related to exhibition of speed and speed contests. As part of my role in San Francisco, I respond to community town halls. It's part of what I do. In these town halls, a recurring plea of the community is requesting action on some of these missing categories of vehicles, I e, dirt bikes, motorcycles, off road vehicles.
A common question I receive from the community is simply this, is there pending legislation to address this topic? Also, in my experience, I simply go to these illegal sideshows. I went to six this weekend. I haven't slept since Friday. These illegal sideshows, street takeovers, and street races have become increasingly common and a dangerous problem in San Francisco and throughout California.
The CHP is keeping numbers on this. In 2021, there was 7,003
Redner 6
7,300 SciShow's resulting in two hundred and sixty four crashes and thirty fatalities. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Redner 37
Madam Chair, members, Jolina Voras, legislative advocate here on behalf of the League of California cities. We are in support of AB fifteen eighty eight, which would increase some penalties and consequences for operation of sideshows. As you may know, vehicle sideshows and street takeovers are dangerous events where public spaces are taken over to engage in reckless driving behavior and stunts that pose a danger to drivers and pedestrians. These events threaten the safety of those involved as well as cause nose pollution, traffic obstructions, and property damage. Organized groups continue to endanger communities with these reckless activities.
Redner 7
Recent incidents highlight the seriousness of this issue, including the death of a 16 year old who fell from an overpass during an East Bay sideshow last September and the killing of an 18 year old during a sideshow in Monterey County last November. Calcities has heard from many of our member cities across the state on this issue. Many have been forced to enact local ordinances to address this ongoing threat that sideshows pose to public safety. In Southern California, the cities of Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and Paramount have expressed that sideshows put their residents at risk and often occur in high traffic areas and impede emergency services. McCoyne, I think he mentioned Department of Highway Patrol,
Redner 7
AB fifteen eighty eight would help to address the continuation of these incidences by making sideshows equivalent to street racing and allow for the impoundment of vehicles at a sideshow. Without additional statewide determines or funding for continued enforcement by law enforcement, these organized incidents will continue to harm our communities and strain local resources. Therefore, we are in strong support of AB fifteen eighty eight and urge the committee to pass this important legislation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Redner 1
Thank you. With that, we'll move on to members of the public who would like to add their support, name, affiliation, and position. We'll get the mic on for you just a moment. Go ahead.
Redner 6
Clifton Wilson on behalf of mayor Daniel Lurie, city and county of San Francisco, proud sponsor of the bill and in support, and also would like to register support for the city of Beverly Hills and the board of supervisors for San Joaquin County. Thank you.
Redner 10
Chair members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Strong support.
Redner 11
Good afternoon. Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California in support.
Redner 12
Good afternoon. Irena Rapital on behalf of AAA Northern California in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now we'll be moving on to opposition. We do not have any registered opposition, so there won't be that type of witness testimony, but allowing folks in the community to come and give public testimony, noting opposition, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 1
Seeing no others, as a reminder, we are operating as a subcommittee. I would encourage members of this committee to make their way here so we can establish a quorum. But looking to our committee members for questions, comments, concerns. Rogers.
Redner 11
Thank you, Chair. So I actually just wanted to chime in a little bit on it, because we, in Santa Rosa, we were experiencing a really significant rash of sideshows a couple of years ago when I was on the council and when I was mayor. And we did all of the things that I suspect San Francisco was doing, the bot dots and the coordination to try to get pre pre staging of public safety personnel. But what we really found moved the needle was actually passing an ordinance to allow our city attorney to hold people who had been a part of the sideshows accountable for the damage to the roads and the water quality violations. And that actually was an opportunity for to get them into court and into diversion programs, ultimately, is what we had settled on.
Redner 14
But that was the thing that seemed to capture people's attention the most was the price tag of the damage that was being done to the community. We talk about the noise, we talk about the public safety interference, but that was the other component that the public was really just fed up with, was that their roads were getting torn up by these events. And once we started to do that and hold the folks who are helping to organize via social media accountable for that same damage with an economic incentive, that's when we really started to see the the needle moving. So I just wanted to make that suggestion if San Francisco has not done that yet or some of the East Bay folks, because we had a lot of folks coming from the East Bay coming to our small community, and we were quickly able to kind of stamp that out. So thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say thank you so much for bringing that. Having the South Orange County area too, when I was on City Council, we were dealing with this, and we still are. And I think it's important that we realize that a lot of them are juveniles that are coming and to make sure that they understand as well that this isn't okay, but it's very dangerous. And I'm glad that we have this bill, it sounds like a good solution.
So I'd be honored to be coauthor as well. Thank you.
Redner 1
All right. Seeing no other comments from the committee, I'll note that the rise in sideshows and street takeovers across the state really is alarming. And I appreciate you working with the Public Safety Committee to align the penalties in this bill with the existing penalties for speed racing. And I thank you for removing the provisions of this bill that would have allowed locals to crush the cars involved and instead permit them to be impounded after conviction. I will be supporting your bill today at the appropriate time, but I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 2
Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate that. And thank you for asking to be a coauthor, Member Davies. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. And at the appropriate time, we will entertain a motion. All right. With that, let's see. I see our next author is in the room.
So moving on to file item two, AB sixteen fifty four. To the author, you can begin at your convenience. Oh, I didn't know you were active. Oh, okay. That's what it was.
Okay. All right. To the author.
Redner 16
Good afternoon, members of the committee. I'm here to present Assembly Bill sixteen fifty four, which has garnered a good amount of national media attention. First, let's start with the fatalities, a number of fatal accidents where we had individuals that were unlawfully driving large vehicles, trucks, getting into accidents. They never should have had commercial driver's licenses in the first place. These commercial driver's licenses, CDLs, were issued by the state of California unlawfully in violation of federal rules.
As a result of the fatalities and the national outrage, the Department of Transportation Secretary announced that if California continued to issue CDLs in violation of federal regulations and federal law, that we would lose our privilege as a state to issue any commercial driver's licenses. As you know, CDLs are an important tool for the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Californians. It's important that we keep the ability to issue CDLs, and that is why AB sixteen fifty four is being brought forward to ensure that this legislature clarifies that we as a state will comply with federal law. Under AB sixteen fifty four, the commercial driver's license cannot be issued to an individual who's not compliant with federal law. In order to show compliance with federal law, the individual must show that they are lawfully eligible to get a CDL.
One way to do that is to check their status through something called the SAVE program, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. This would allow someone here who is lawfully present in The United States to continue to get a CDL. And this is a program that works very well across the country. This is no mystery. There's no rocket science here.
We're simply bringing California into compliance with federal law. Now, we do listen to critiques of people who oppose the bill. And as a result, I will be amending Section A1 to clarify that the Department shall verify the applicant's U. S. Citizenship or lawful presence.
Redner 51
There was one letter that we don't agree that the with their interpretation, but to be crystal clear, we want to make sure that if an individual shows that they are a citizen or that they qualify under the SAVE database, that they certainly can participate in the commercial driver's license program. If they're not, then they should not get a CDL, because we need to make sure that we're compliant with federal law. Jobs are at stake, and of course, I would argue that this state was negligent in issuing the CDLs to people who were not lawfully eligible. And as a result of this state, California, issuing the CDLs, we have people who have died. And that is on this state government's back.
Redner 16
Let's make sure that we've learned the lesson, that we can clean up the act, and that's why I urge your support for AB sixteen fifty four.
Redner 1
Thank you. I see you have no witnesses with you, but I would like to note, if there's any member of the public who would like to rise in support of this bill, now would be appropriate time to do so. Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving on to opposition. Do we have opposition testimony today?
I don't think we do. We do have registered opposition. But for those who would like to note their opposition publicly, now would be an appropriate time to come to the microphone, name, affiliation and position. Seeing none, moving it to members of the committee who would like to make any comments, questions or concerns? All right.
Seeing none, I'll note. So, the act that you referenced, called the SAVE Act as a short, stands
Redner 1
Yes, right. You're right. You're right. SAVE Program is called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program is the full name, and it was created to verify immigrants. The DMV, per federal regulation, uses SAVE, this program, to verify legal status for immigrants applying for a commercial driver's license.
Now, your bill goes beyond federal regulations and requires everyone to be verified using SAVE. And SAVE is not a complete database of U. S. Citizens per Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In your haste to demonize immigrants, you drafted a bill that would take away commercial driver's license from U.
S. Citizens that are not in the SAVE database. It was noted during your testimony that you would like to amend the bill to have an or statement related to that. But I would like to note that the DMV had to revoke over 10,000 drivers' licenses because the federal government changed what legal immigrants were eligible for commercial drivers' licenses. DMV complies with federal law, and codifying federal regulations could potentially cause issues should those regulations change.
I see no need to codify federal regulations. And so, with that, I will not be supporting your bill today. We are meeting right now as a subcommittee because we do notwe're missing members. And I would say to members who are not here, please come so we can establish a quorum and hear testimonies as a full committee. But at the appropriate time, I'll entertain a motion.
But now I will give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 16
I would ask for an aye vote. I would note that we simply are trying to make sure that we don't lose the ability for Californians to earn a good income by having commercial driver's licenses and engaging in trucking. The message was sent loud and clear. California is not operating in a manner that's consistent with other states. It's not operating in a manner that manages risk and negligence.
This is the least we can do to show the families of those that died, because we unlawfully issued CDLs to people who were not here legally, that we are sorry for what was done, and that we will bring California into compliance like all the other states. It's not difficult. To suggest that somehow this is a burden or difficult, I think, is an inadequate statement to those victims' families. I urge you and I vote at the appropriate time.
Redner 1
All right. And at the appropriate time, we'll entertain a motion on that bill, and I would note that I was the only one who spoke on the bill and did not in any way say that it was a burden or difficult to do. With that, I'm moving on to item numberlet's see. So, the author that is here is item number six, and I believe you have three bills, six, seven and eight. So we'll do those in order.
I have to go present in another committee. It's time sensitive. So I'm gonna pass this over to madam chair, and hopefully, two more members come to this room to make up for me being gone so we can establish a quorum and vote on your bills.
Redner 18
All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start with AB 17 sorry, nineteen seventy six, if we could. Appreciate your leadership share in this space and the conversations we've had both with you and your committee consultants. As many of you know, I've done work in the housing space by looking at how we can make our process more streamlined and more efficient in getting projects approved and implemented.
And in fact, we've looked at that across permitting reform across many different issues, making sure we can expedite renewable energy projects, making sure we can expedite climate resiliency projects. And I've now been very eager to get involved in transportation projects and making sure it's easier to get what we need done for our communities. And the reason I care a lot about pedestrian and bicycle safety is pretty simple. We have about eleven hundred, twelve hundred pedestrian cyclist deaths every year in California. That is a 50% increase since 2014, an increase in pedestrian cyclist deaths.
That is not the direction we should be going in. So I've been radicalized on pedestrian bicycle safety and think we should make it easier to implement these projects. And there are many well intended laws out there and a number of processes and regulations that have made it harder to get much needed transportation projects approved and done, specifically projects that would improve safety in local communities and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. For example, we've seen different jurisdictions having high thresholds just to get the process of getting a simple speed bump approved. There are also instances where excessive public meetings have delayed projects from being completed or approved at all.
To address some of these challenges that have caused these delays for these much needed projects, this bill would limit public meetings after the approval of a bicycle or pedestrian safety project through the circulation element of the general plan, limit canceling of contracts without having a public meeting if a city or county makes specific formal findings limit the threshold for the request of a traffic calming measure to no more than a majority of the total number of persons whose residents are located in whole or part within 1,000 feet of the proposed traffic calming measure and update the Pedestrian Mall Act. There are some concerns that stakeholders have raised around some of these issues, specifically as it pertains to the limitation of public meetings and and the canceling of contracts. And I've had a lot of good conversations with both members on this committee, as well as some organizations as well. We had some meetings on Friday around this. So I will be making amendments to that, and I've heard some of the concerns raised by members of the committee.
Should the bill get out today, and going to local gov next and then into appropriations committee, where I'm committed to making those amendments. But I do think we have a real problem here that we're trying to solve. It's not an easy solution, and I think hopefully we can find the sweet spot that allows for the much needed public input, but also doesn't allow for the weaponization to stop projects from happening in their tracks. I'm actually going to let my witnesses here self introduce, because I think they can best describe their work. And when the time is right, respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 19
Thank you. Hello. Thank you all. My name is George Spees, and I'm an advocate with Traffic Violence Rapid Response, a pedestrian safety organization in Oakland. Oakland, like a lot of cities around California, has many dangerous high traffic streets, especially for pedestrians and people on bicycles.
The status quo on California streets is killing four thousand people a year and seriously injuring hundreds of thousands of others, an outside proportion of whom are children, seniors, and disadvantaged people who are out on foot. Currently, our laws and governance procedures give outsized power to those objecting to change, creating a systemic bias for this deadly status quo. However, the problem can actually be solved, and transportation engineers know the solution. We need to allow them to enact these solutions in their jurisdictions as quickly as possible to lessen fatalities and serious injuries and the permanent impacts for the families and communities they leave behind. And there is plenty of evidence that streets safer for pedestrians and bikes are also safer for everyone in cars and is a boon to retail businesses.
In Oakland, we saw how excessive project delays can lead to loss of life. The 14th Street Complete Streets project on the most dangerous street in Oakland's downtown went through three years of public review. One week before the final vote, Dmitry Putilov was struck and killed in front of his children when trying to cross 14th Street. This is not a fluke, it's a pattern. By examining the state's Twitter's database, one can see that death on our roads is not mysterious, but utterly predictable.
Redner 30
Dmitry's death was not the first on 14th Street, but hopefully it will be the last. It took far too long to get it done, and our DOT staff watched in helpless horror as people continued to die while they spent their time mollifying people who did not understand the threat or the engineering principles or the solutions. I urge you to pass AB nineteen seventy six and allow lifesaving projects to move forward swiftly. Thank you.
Redner 20
Good afternoon, chair and members. Mark Fuksovich on behalf of Streets for All. People in the state too often are killed and injured on our streets where we know that design is the answer or had a factor in that. And we know how to make those streets safer. We know that traffic calming works.
We know that protected bikeways and pedestrian improvements and people centered design save lives. But even after communities do the work and plans are adopted and engagement has happened, after that project is ready to move, our outdated laws and process and procedure hurt and that those hurdles still give opponents endless chance endless chances to stall, we can and kill those projects. I just wanna I'm gonna go off script and just I wanna make an analogy to the housing process that we have. With housing, we adopt the zoning code. We all have the community input to adopt that zoning code.
We agree as a community to adopt that zoning code. And then once there's a housing project that's in compliance with that zoning code, that housing project does not have to go through additional levels of public review or public process because the project is in compliance with the zoning code. And that's what we're proposing to do here. And as the summary member mentioned, we are planning on limiting that portion. But I wanna just acknowledge that that's what we're really trying to do here is that when something is within a, an approved planning process that we wanna make sure we can deliver that project, that's critical safety project as fast as possible.
And so that's what this is about. This is about getting projects built without duplicative process, especially if it's already an adopted plan. Once the project is advancing into implementation, it simply can't be canceled on a whim. There must be real findings. It also makes neighborhood traffic calming more attainable by stopping unreasonable petition thresholds that often make basic safety and improvements impossible to achieve when a neighborhood is asking for it.
And lastly, the AB nineteen seventy six modernizes the Pedestrian Mall Act of 1960. I'm assuming everyone's been reading up on that. This is the law that enabled 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, the little pedestrianized area in front of Mayawala in here in in Sacramento. This is a a wonderful thing that we think we just need to improve and and upgrade to make sure we can have more pedestrianized spaces as well. So we respectfully urge an eye vote on AB nineteen seventy six.
Thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you very much. We're gonna move to public testimony. Me too. So if you'd like to come on up to the microphone, name, organization, position on the bill. Do we have any in support?
K. Seeing none, we're gonna move back and see, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Gentlemen, two minutes each. Thank you.
Redner 21
Good afternoon, chair and members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the urban counties of California. Respectfully oppose unless amended. There's definitely some positive aspects to this bill, and we appreciate the overarching goal of improving safety and quickly delivering projects. But we have fundamental concerns with the limitations on public outreach as well as local budgetary decisions.
Taking the public outreach portions first, we really think that the restriction on community input meetings could actually backfire. There's plenty of opportunities where when projects have been included in a general plan two or five or ten years ago, and when you're finally actually going forward to design and build that project, that community input can actually provide helpful input from people who are going to use the facility. And so the idea that by limiting the opportunities for public input, we're going to expedite these things, we might not be achieving the goals that the sponsors actually want to receive. It's also inconsistent with funding requirements that we often have from the state and federal government for public outreach. I don't think hanging our hat on a very old plan update is going to be sufficient for very competitive funding from the active transportation program or from the federal government.
Speaking specifically to the budgetary related language, these are fundamental legislative decisions taken by local government agencies who need to be held accountable to the voters who are ultimately funding all of these projects. So we wouldn't be opposed to things like timely use of funds policies. We're not objecting to similar provisions in the author's other bill that's up today. But this extends beyond just state funding. It includes local general funds, sales tax revenues, federal funding, and things of those natures.
Redner 15
And we just fundamentally think that those budgetary decisions belong at the local level between legislators there and the voters that they're accountable to. So with those changes to sections five and six, we would be happy to remove our opposition to the bill, look forward to reviewing the amendments, and continuing to have conversations with the author. But today, respectfully oppose unless omitted.
Redner 44
Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities shares similar concerns, as previously noted. Our members are aggressively working to build these projects. We're incentivized. We want to see more multimodal transportation projects in our communities. But this bill, unfortunately, as it's currently written, assumes that once a project is identified in that circular element, which are aspirational policy frameworks, that, you know, however, these are not general plans.
Redner 22
These are not site specific approvals. Cities need to look at a corridor level, issues such as emergency access, ADA, egress, curb management, space removal, traffic diversion. And we want outreach to businesses to see how they're going to be impacted. Just because food and cocktails and beverages thrive potentially in a particular pedestrian mall, some businesses that have different types of products that lend to having vehicles traffic. So they should be allowed to have some opportunity to comment and provide local leaders on those impacts to their businesses.
And so when we've looked in San Mateo for the pedestrian malls there, we've looked at the Miracle Mile in Stockton, those all resulted in hundreds, if not near a couple thousand community input. Respect the community to be able to have that opportunity to help refine and partner with us to shape and shift some of these projects. And so, you know, we feel that this bill is, makes some good efforts in some aspects, but for undermining kind of the local community input, we unfortunately must respectfully oppose.
Redner 15
Thank you. We're gonna pause for a moment, and it looks like we have quorums. So we'll go ahead
Redner 23
Davies here. Aguirre Curry, Avila Farias Here. Here. Aaron's Carrillo, Arabedian, Hart, Hart here, Hoover? Hoover here, Jackson, Jackson here, Lackey, Lackey here, Massito, Pappin, Pappin here, Ransom, Ransom present, Rogers, Rogers here, Sharp Collins.
Redner 15
Alright. We have a quorum. We'll be moving on to public testimony. In opposition, if we have anyone in the audience, they'd like to come up to the mic. And again, name, organization, and position on the bill, please.
Redner 24
Mark Neuberger, California State Association of Counties. I'd to line our comments those provided by urban counties of California and Cal cities were also opposed unless amended as provided by in the testimony of urban counties.
Redner 15
Thank you. Alright. Seeing no more opposition, we're gonna move it to the members. We'll go with the assembly member doctor Jackson.
Redner 25
Thank you very much, madam chair. Assembly member Wilson wanted me to convey some comments to you, assembly member Wicks. She just wants to first thank you for working with the committee on amendments and that remove the speed limit provisions from the bill. Also, as you've stated before that you've heard from local governments in which you have been having discussions with. And as you know, assembly member Wilson also sits on local government, and so her vote today doesn't necessarily reflect her vote in committee.
But she also understands that, you're trying to expedite the development of bike and pedestrian projects and measures to increase safety in our neighborhoods. However, she does have concerns with prohibiting a city council or board of supervisors from seeking community input on the details of the project. But with that, she will be supporting your bill today so that you can continue to work with the opposition and address any outstanding concerns. So with that, Madam Chair, I'll move the bill.
Redner 19
I think Assembly Member Jackson just said everything I was going to say, which is, keep working on the bill, I'll vote for it today, but have definitely some serious concerns about squelching public input at the local government level. That's important. It makes projects better, and that's an important part of the process. But I know you're gonna try and hit that sweet spot. So thank you for your work.
Redner 14
Thank you so much. I just wanted to brag for a minute. A couple of days ago, we got to do the groundbreaking for a new bicycle pedestrian over crossing in Santa Rosa, a community that has historically been bisected by the freeway. They started that when I was five. And to be able to be there at each of the iterations over the last fifteen years in particular, you do see how every single well intended policy can just create delays or create challenges.
And I'll say even with that one, even though the response from the public with the groundbreaking was overwhelmingly positive, we do still continue to hear from people who don't ride their boat their their bikes that this isn't how they would have planned things because they're car drivers. And I think that that attitude has made it so it's much more difficult to get pedestrian bicycle infrastructure in place, which creates a chicken and the egg because then we don't have safe infrastructure to get people to walk into bike. I think that you've identified a very real issue that isn't just for bike and ped. We talk about it with housing. We don't wanna remove people's ability to participate in local government, but the question is, at what point in the process do we have their participation?
And allowing for the upfront discussions about what people's community will look like is a really key component of making sure that people feel heard, but then also making sure that the folks who frankly don't get their way can't just do death by a thousand cuts for the next three decades to prevent a project from getting built. I think, is also something that this legislature should be working on. I hear your commitment to to continue to work with our local government folks. I know that you will. But I think you've been a strong advocate for no sacred cows in the legislature, and this has more committees to go.
So I'm happy to support today.
Redner 27
Yes. Thank you, Assembly Member. I, too, understand exactly what you were trying to solve, having been in local government and council and planning commission and understanding the whole, you know, delay and kick the can down the road mentality, I appreciate exactly what it is that you were trying to do. And with that said, I also share concerns about local government because sometimes, especially when it comes to general plans and the circular plans that happen, the way that it's experienced by actual people and experienced in the community is different than how we plan it to be. And I do feel that it's really important that we have that input.
And I can list several examples, but I think Miracle Mile was brought up which is a city, a long stretch in my community where the way it was originally planned did not work well for safety. And so I think it's really important that we hear from, you know, give more opportunity for public input before we plan these things, especially since general plans have, you know, you're planning well into the future and you need to really take into consideration how it's being used with the businesses and the actual flow of traffic and things like that. So I will have an opportunity again. I know that you're working on amendments and we know that you're very gracious when it comes to being able to work with folks. And so I look forward to seeing this again in local government.
Redner 28
talked earlier. I know we'll get to a balance. I I will be voting for it today. I just needed to state for the record, especially since the opposition mentioned my city and a thousand people getting input on their pedestrian mall. So I thank you, and I know we'll reach the balance.
Thanks for the effort.
Redner 18
Thank you for the conversations we've had. I think, Ms. Rogers, you kind of articulated exactly what we're trying to do here. And to the other comments from members, we're trying to find that sweet spot. Know, think, you know, the Abundance book came out, was it a year and a half ago, and it was all about high speed rail.
And that's a sexy topic in the transportation world to talk about how it hasn't worked. And yet we see the similar problem for pedestrian and bicycle safety across the state of California, projects taking way too long to actually deliver. And I think at the end of the day, constituents want our government to deliver for them. Right? They want safety.
They want to be able to know they can walk down the street, their kids can walk to school, they can ride their bikes safely. And so that's what really what we're trying to do is do it efficiently. I welcome conversations with opposition as I always do. I do think there's a way we can land in a place that I think honors the need for local input, but doesn't allow for sort of the weaponization and death by a thousand cuts. So that is my mission that I've chosen to accept.
Hopefully, we will get there. I I I believe we can. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 15
Alright. We have a motion by Jackson and a second by Rogers. Please take roll.
Redner 23
AB nineteen seventy six due passed to local government. Wilson, Davies. No for now. Davies, no. Aguirre Curry, Avila Farias, Avila Farias, I.
Arons, Carrillo, Arabedian, Hart, heart I, Hoover, Hoover, no, Jackson, Jackson I, Blackie, Lacido, Happen, Happen I, Ransom, Ransom I? Rogers? I. Rogers I? Sharp Collins.
Redner 15
Okay. We don't have enough votes. We're gonna hold the roll open. And, Assembly Member Wiggs, are you good to go with twenty fifteen next?
Redner 18
Thank you, madam chair and members. This is my third bill focused on, again, traffic safety. So I drove up here and every day I plug in work in my Google Maps. And I do that because I want to see if it's going to take me up by 80 or six eighty depending on if there's a car accident or not. We all do it.
We do it everywhere we go. So there's a lot of utility to the map apps, right? Waze, Google Maps, etcetera. They've also fundamentally altered how we drive in our cities and our towns. And they really optimize for the fastest route possible, which again, especially when you're late, is such a value.
You want to know the fastest way to get there. But often without regard to weight limits, any sort of restrictions, school zones, you know, other slower speed limits, all the other pieces of traffic safety that we put in place to accommodate. They send streets down really narrow local roads that are not prepared for the high volume of traffic that they're receiving because that's faster than going through an arterial that has stoplights. Well, it has stoplights for a reason because it's got, you know, crosswalks and other things. And so I don't know the solution to this challenge, but I think we should figure it out.
And so that's what this bill does. It's basically requires Caltrans to conduct to conduct a study on third party navigation apps on our state highway system and our local streets and our road networks so we can understand the impacts of this. Our cars are really dictated now by map apps. Long are the days gone when we used to know how to get somewhere from point A to point B in our towns, and which is a whole other thing, but we'll set that aside. Understanding how the map apps have impacted our streets is really important.
Obviously, there's stuff cities can do to deal with the high volume of traffic that some local streets are experiencing, but that all comes at a cost. It costs money to put in that type of traffic calming. So the goal of the bill is to really understand the problem and see if there's potentially going to be a solution. I welcome anyone to the table who wants to figure out this challenge and see if we can come up with some kind of a solution so that we can, you know, ensure that the map apps are not just optimizing for speed, but also optimizing for safety. And with that, Mark is going to provide comment as well on this one and respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 20
Good afternoon, Chair and members. Mark Frickswitch on behalf of Streets for All. AB twenty fifteen addresses a real problem on California streets, which is private navigation apps are making routing decisions that can directly undermine local goals. And that's local safety goals, that's local congestion goals, noise goals, even small business district goals, economic opportunity. Across the state, cities are working to create safer, calmer neighborhoods.
They design slow streets, invest in pedestrian safety, try to keep cut through traffic off of roads that were never meant to function like highway relief valves, but too often a third party app sees a few seconds of time saving and sends a driver through those neighborhoods anyways. Because this grid that we have in our neighborhoods was designed sixty years ago before we could have predicted an algorithmic app sending people through it. And so that means more speeding on local roads. It means more conflict in pedestrian heavy areas, more wear and tear on roads the local governments have to maintain and didn't expect to maintain. And some in cases, it can make it also harder for emergency vehicles to get where they need to go in in some circumstances.
Problem is simple. Local governments are making these decisions and yet a unelected algorithm is deciding what actually happens on the road. And cities don't really have the tools to respond or or the actual tools to respond are incredibly expensive or involve redesigning a street grid back, you know, like it was a hundred years ago. And so AB twenty fifteen is smart and measured in terms of, you know, where we are now. We're studying the problem and trying to really figure out what are we going to do about congestion displacement, infrastructure safety, emergency response, and develop real time policy recommendations for how platforms should better align with state and local goals.
Yeah, this is a community issue. And if the community decided a residential neighborhood should be residential, I think that matters and that that really matters for how our streets should be laid out and how the feel of our neighborhoods should be. So this bill helps California better understand the problem and prepares the state to act responsibly with any policy recommendations. We respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.
Redner 15
Okay. Thank you. We're going to move to public testimony. If we have anyone, me too, or in support, head on up to the microphone. K.
Seeing none, do we have any opposition come on down.
Redner 19
George Spees, Traffic Violence Rapid Response, Oakland, strong support. Thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you. All right. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, do we have any public testimony in opposition? Seeing none, I'm going to move it over to committee members, and we'll go with Assembly Member Rogers.
Redner 14
Thank you, Madam, Vice Chair. Just as a kind of a questionsuggestion, I like the direction that you're going with the bill. It also raises for me that many folks now are getting into their car, plugging in an address, and then the car is literally driving them. And so just wanna make sure that you capture that in the bill as well, even if it's not one of those third party apps that we typically use, still probably has the same impact on our local roads and would hate for you to to come back and do the bill again.
Redner 25
I don't know why he's giving you more ideas, but Lord, have mercy. But on behalf of the chair, she approves you accepting the amendments that direct Caltrans to study this issue and make recommendations to the legislature to see if there's a way to balance the benefits of the navigation systems with the harms. And she will be supporting the bill today.
Redner 18
Well, again, appreciate mister Rogers' comments. Happy to take more wild crazy ideas that we can put into bills. And I think this is a real issue that hits low income, high income neighborhoods across the board. So we want to figure out a solution with that respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 23
AB twenty fifteen do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson, Davies? Yes. Davies, yes. Aguirre Curry, Avila Farias, Arons, Carrillo, Arabedian, Hart, heart I, Hoover?
Aye. Hoover I, Jackson I, Jackson lackey?
Redner 23
Lackey? Not voting. Macedo? Happen? Happen I, ransom?
Ransom I, Rogers I, I, Sharp Collins Sharp Collins, I.
Redner 15
Okay. We're still holding off on more votes, and we'll leave that roll open. And you've got that seat warming up there. Yep. So let's finish up with a b twenty one sixty eight.
Redner 18
Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. AB 2,168 makes a series of modest common sense improvements to ensure California's active transportation program funds are spent effectively and efficiently. The ATP is our state's primary funding source for biking and walking infrastructure, supporting projects that increase safety, promote public health, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The program is chronically oversubscribed. Current ATP guidelines do not adequately prioritize the locations where active transportation investments generate the greatest turn on investment.
Redner 38
Specifically, the program's existing definition of safe routes to transit fails to specify the broader landscape of transit supportive geography where active transportation improvements can most effectively connect people to transit and reduce VMT. The ATP also lacks meaningful accountability mechanism for grantees who fail to spend awarded funds on time. AB two thousand one sixty eight modernizes the definition of safe routes to transit, shifting focus towards transit rich corridors, infill opportunity areas, station walk sheds, and underserved or rural areas, places where active transportation investments provide the deepest community benefit, giving people the option to potentially not drive at all. This legislation adds transit access as an explicit project selection criteria, aligning with California's broader climate and housing goals. It directs the state to provide recommendations to maximize complementary commitments of state transportation improvement projects or programs, to scale funding for larger or network level active transportation improvements, and it establishes a graduated penalty structure for grantees who fail to spend funds on time.
Redner 18
Taken together, this bill reasonably reforms the program's focus, rewards strategic investment, and holds awardees accountable. Kendra Ramsey will be testifying in support today, who's the Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition.
Redner 30
Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. We are really excited about this bill and thank Assembly Member Wicks for her leadership on bicycling and walking and for sponsoring this bill or introducing this bill. Our our organization has been deeply engaged with the active transportation program since advocating for its creation and are a proud sponsor of this bill. Investments in active transportation infrastructure not only improves safety and mobility in our communities, but also support public health, economic vitality, and environmental sustainability.
AB twenty one sixty eight represents a thoughtful and necessary step on better aligning transportation funding with these goals. The intent of the program has always been on biking and walking as transportation modes. And including safe routes to transit, the focus is on the full trip someone takes. Biking and walking can be part of a full trip. The bus might be needed to get you on your full destination.
This bill modernizes the definition of safe routes to transit to include more than just the mass transit and school bus stops included in the original description. It also includes critical infrastructure such as transit facilities in rural communities and small towns, as well as other types of transit facilities and infrastructure that we know and use today. This bill also addresses a critical issue where agencies have failed to utilize funds in a timely manner, at a time when the lion's share of eligible projects to this program are going unfunded. We're talking about hundreds of projects in each two year cycle that spend their time and energy applying for funding and are not awarded funding. And these are areas where you heard earlier testimony about areas needing improvements and people are being killed in the time that it takes to get projects funded and built.
And this is just critical investments that we need to be made. It also adds a provision to help leverage the small amount of ATP funds needed to bring in other funding, specifically from the STIP program to help bring in full networks for biking and walking in our communities. And that just basically gives an incentive for agencies to provide more funding throughout their network. Really, our communities can't wait for these investments. And for these reasons, we respectfully request your support of this bill.
Thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you. All right. We're going to move to public testimony. Do we have anyone in support? Name, organization, and position on the bill?
Redner 11
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the Monterey Salinas Transit District. We have a supportive amended position. We've had some really good conversations with the author and look forward to continuing in those. Thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you. All right. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Are you gonna be testifying or just
Redner 21
Brief comment. Chris Lee with Politico Group here on behalf of the Nevada County Transportation Commission. We had an opposed position on the bill, the prior version of the bill. The amendments address most of our concerns. We just have some lingering technical concerns with the stip related language, but we think we can work those out and want to thank the author for working with us.
Redner 15
Okay. Thank you. I'm going to move it over to members. Comments? Alrighty.
Assembly member Doctor. Jackson.
Redner 25
Channeling my best Lori Wilson. She appreciates you amending your bill to address her concerns about disadvantaging less urban areas of the state and requiring local agencies to spend a set percentage of their transportation dollars on ATP projects. She believes the biggest underlying problem is that this program cannot meet the overwhelming demand for funding for ATP projects, but she will be supporting this bill today, and I will move the bill.
Redner 15
Alright. Alright. We have a motion by doctor Jackson and a second by assemblymember Ransom.
Redner 23
Call roll, please. AB twenty one sixty eight do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Davies? No.
Davies? No. Aguirre Curry? Avila Farias? Arons?
Carrillo? Arabedian? Heart? Heart, I, Hoover, Hoover, no, Jackson, I, lackey, lackey, no, Massito, no, Happen, Happen, I, ransom, ransom, I, Rogers, Rogers I sharp Collins, sharp Collins I.
Redner 15
Alright. Again, we're going to hold off until we have more of the quorum here. Okay. We are now going to be moving with Assembly Member Bauer Kehon on AB nineteen forty seven. 1942.
I promise, Mr. Lacki, I will be fast.
Redner 15
And then Mr. Lacki, you'll be next. As for the witnesses, just a reminder, two minutes each, please.
Redner 12
Yes, Lisa. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and members of the committee, and I want to thank the committee staff for their work and collaboration on this bill. I'm not going to belabor the point that e bikes for many of our communities are becoming a real concern and frankly a safety issue. We get calls in my district office every week about this issue. Two weeks ago, it was a grandmother who was walking one of her grandchildren home on one of our bike and pedestrian trails who was hit by a young rider who took off.
Just this weekend, I heard from a friend that she was going through a green light at one of our intersections in one of the towns I represent, and three teenagers on what appear to be teenagers on e bikes ran the red light, she almost hit them. This bill is really
Redner 12
the question of accountability. Our streets have laws. People cannot run stop signs even on bikes. They cannot run a red light. But these bikes, which go speeds that, frankly, are more than I go when I'm driving through town, are not you will hear from my my witness, one of my police chiefs, they are struggling to hold these individuals accountable because they either have to chase them, which frankly is dangerous, or let them go, which results in the behavior continuing.
And so the bill, as drafted, would have required would require the DMV to put registration onto these cars under on these bikes. I understand that, this committee has issues with us giving this responsibility to the DMV, and so the chair and I have had many productive conversations. If this bill moves out of committee today, we will continue to work on how to create this kind of accountability, but in a way that does not burden the DMV. And so, you know, I'm here because our kids are hurting themselves, the safety issue is real, and we really want to make sure people are following the rules of the road. So with me to testify in support is Thomas Rossberg, Chief of Police at Danville Police Department, and Doctor.
Russell Rodriguez, our Chief Medical Officer and Emergency Medicine Physician at John Muir Medical Center.
Redner 31
Good afternoon. Chief Tom Rosberg on behalf of the Town of Danville, support of AB nineteen forty two. From a law enforcement perspective, this is about safety through clarity. We're seeing dangerous mismatch between high powered e bikes and rider readiness, particularly among our youth. Many young riders are operating e bikes at significant speeds across parks, trails and sidewalks, creating risk for themselves and the public.
While statewide data varies, our local experience is clear. Young riders account for a growing number of our accidents. Our partners at John Muir Health report that e bike injuries have doubled in the past year. And many of our teens are suffering motorcycle level trauma injuries. The challenge we face is accountability.
Many of these devices look identical but have very different capabilities. In the field, it is extremely difficult for officers to distinguish between an e bike or take appropriate action in real time. AB nineteen forty two addresses this gap by requiring registration and visible license plates for Class II and III e bikes. This revisions a way to identify higher speed devices and intervene before unsafe behavior results in serious injury. We recognize the potential burden on the DMV and support workable alternatives and achieve the same goal in safety and accountability.
Redner 1
As with many complex issues, a single new requirement may not be the only solution. California law enforcement needs clearly identified laws to encourage and enforce safe riding behavior. Local agencies are doing everything they can through education and enforcement, but we need clear statewide tools to be successful. Our goal is simple, keep our young riders and our communities safe. We ask for your support and additional guidance and regulations.
Redner 9
Thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Russell Rodriguez. I'm the Chief Medical Officer at John Health in Contra Costa County. I'm also a practicing emergency medicine physician for the past about twenty years.
On behalf of John Health, I want to thank Assembly Member, Bauer Cahan, for leadership and calling more attention to this issue and for looking for ways to make riding e bikes safer. As the chief police said, over the past year, John Muir Health Trauma Center has seen about double the number of injuries in both riders and pedestrians struck by riders of e bikes, which is a very alarming trend for us. I've taken care of several of these patients myself in the emergency department. And I would say that the injuries are suffering are not consistent with what we would usually see with a bicycle. These are motorcycle level accidents.
They're high speed. And these are oftentimes young adolescents or kids that don't know the rules of the road. We're seeing a lot of neurologic and orthopedic injuries among these riders. So with obviously faster speed comes more severe collisions and the likelihood of serious or even fatal injuries. We've seen skull fractures, significant back and spinal cord injuries, broken bones and dislocations.
Redner 17
This trend that we're seeing is mirrored across the country. According to the American College of Surgeons, the rate of e bike injuries is increasing annually and head injuries are occurring more frequently. E bikes can be a great transportation option, but they need to be operated safely and responsibly like any motorized vehicle. John Muir Health wants a healthy and safe community. Our responsibility as a trauma center is to treat injuries, but it is also to do what we can to prevent them, which is why I'm here today.
Redner 15
Thank you very much. We're going to have public testimony in support. If you'd like to come up again, name, organization, and position.
Redner 5
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association in support.
Redner 11
Matt Robinson on behalf of the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 18
Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in support.
Redner 31
Carlin Shelby on behalf of the Tri Valley Cities Coalition comprised of the communities of Danville, Dublin, San Ramon, Livermore, and Pleasanton in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 33
Ryan McCarthy on behalf of the cities of Irvine, Santa Barbara, Lafayette, Arinda, and Newport Beach in support. Thanks.
Redner 15
Any more witnesses? Nope. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Alright. Do we have any, witnesses in opposition? If so, please come up.
Redner 20
Madam Vice Chair, I need to run to another committee. So if don't mind, I'm taking my testimony from here.
Redner 20
Good afternoon. Mark Vuksevich on behalf of Streets For All. We really understand the concern that is driving this policy. You know, we've we've sponsored five different ebike bills over the last four years because we are trying to address the growing pains that are on our roadway. But we we have fundamental challenges with this bill.
You know, this bill requiring registration and license plates for class twos and class threes means new cost, new bureaucracy, new enforcement burdens placed on legal ebike riders who are following the law that compared to all of the illegal e bike riders who are either writing devices that are not legal or not following the laws. And that's sort of their core issue here is that, you know, the Moneta Transportation Institute report that this legislature commissioned really identified eMotos as the main problem. These devices that look like ebikes, it's like turtles turtle tortoise, but they are different fundamentally. They look like ebikes, and yet they're they're tearing up our roadway. And if I may, share as well to the you know, at the assembly member's press conference in in her district, you mentioned, bicycles going 35, 40 miles per hour.
Those are not illegal ebikes in the state of California. That's the problem. And that's the issue that we want to solve. That's an issue that we're trying to tackle in November by some by senator Blake Spear this year. And, and and yeah.
And I think that's sort of the challenge that we have with this policy here. I'll also add that there's also an equity based concern here. We were supported a b nineteen o nine by Freedman four years ago or three years ago, which decriminalized or sorry. Excuse me. Which eliminated the licensure requirements that some cities had for bicycles because a lot of cities were openly saying to us I I called the city in Orange County, which openly said that they were using that as pretext to remove, homeless people from their parks.
And so by instituting this, you know, registration requirement, this licensure requirement again, we feel like this we feel like this takes steps backwards in terms of what we're trying to achieve in terms of our VMT and bikeability goals. And fundamentally and most problematically before the safety aspect does not solve the eMoto problem, which is destroying our neighborhoods and destroying even the reputation of legal ebikes. Thank you so much.
Redner 30
and you have two Kendra minutes. Thank Ramsey again from California Bicycle Coalition. We are the voice of the everyday bicyclist. We have relationships with bike coalitions throughout the state that represent tens of thousands of folks that use bikes for transportation, and we oppose this bill. We feel it's a significant step backward for the sustainable transportation landscape and climate policy in California.
E bikes are a critical tool in reducing car dependency, improving air quality, and expanding access for mobility, especially for working families, older adults, and communities underserved by transit. A car averages cost of about $12,000 for a family, and that's if you own it outright. So the ability to have an e bike to get to daily needs, it's how I pick my daughter up from preschool, is really a great resource for folks. And imposing motor vehicle style registration requirements really undermines these goals. This would create unnecessary financial and administrative barriers for people who rely on e bikes for their daily transportation.
It would disproportionately impact lower income riders, discourage adoption of a mode of travel that California has actively worked to support through multimillion dollar incentive programs administered by a state agency. Further treating e bikes like motor vehicles contradicts adopted state policy. Legal e bikes are recognized as bicycles. They have substantially lower speeds, weight, and public safety risks than cars. Requiring license plates is counterproductive and doesn't address the safety concerns, as Mark just mentioned.
Redner 34
Emotos, as my colleague just mentioned, are really the safety challenge here. The Mineta report on ebike safety really outlined this well. Instead, we feel that this bill targets law abiding riders of legal e bikes, creating a bureaucracy that will really not take any high speed devices off this road off the road. We've talked to many of our partners in the micro mobility industry that share our concerns with how folks would access their products. We've talked to many folks who ride legal e bikes that are concerned about how they would continue to do so, and really that this would not help increase safety outcomes for e bike riders or the public.
Redner 15
Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right. We're gonna go to opposition testimony. Again, name, organization, and opposition, please.
Redner 3
Scott Mace on behalf of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations in opposition.
Redner 25
Hi. Carl London on behalf of Goldhorn Strategies, which represents Lyme. They're also opposed to the bill, hoping to work with the author on a, amendment that addresses micromobility issues. Thank you.
Redner 4
Ethan Nagler on behalf of the city of San Mateo, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Redner 24
Ross Parish, a member of the public, born and raised in Oakland, now Sacramento resident. Just encouraging the assembly member to treat the crisis of auto safety with the same level of alarm as the current ebike concern.
Redner 36
Jeanie Wardwaller on behalf of People for Bikes in opposition. I've also been asked to add on for San Diego three fifty, three fifty Bay Area Action, and the Environmental Protection Information Center.
Redner 28
Susan Georgia, public citizen, also e bike rider, senior, and physician, and I oppose.
Redner 37
Bob Middlestead for e bike access. We oppose, unless amended, to exclude class three e bikes, and we'd like it to focus on e motorcycles, are the real problem. Thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you. Alright. Members, comments? We'll we'll start with the assembly member Pappin and then follow with the assembly member Sharpen.
Redner 28
Thank you, madam chair. And thank you to the author for bringing the bill. I think there's no dispute that we've got injuries that are increasing, and the severity of those injuries are certainly increasing. So I just want to talk, though, about the logistics of the bill. In my college days, I wrote a moped, and I had a California license plate right on there that I paid for.
So I I will be supporting the bill because I do not see that this is such a significant burden that we will be impeding the use of what is a clean vehicle. Getting people to the last mile has a lot of value. So but I don't see this as a huge impediment. So I thank
Redner 39
Alright. I'm on the opposite side. I understand the intention of this particular bill. I do agree with opposition that this bill will place a strain on the DMV as far as the registration of all bikes as there is no VIN number right now for ebikes, but also many of the bikes do share an actual serial number. And then when you start looking at the serial numbers that are put on batteries, once the batteries die, you're gonna go get a new battery, and then that number changes as well.
So that that's that's that's one of the issues. However, one of the main reasons why I cannot support this today is because I'm looking at my own community. I'm looking at Southeast San Diego and other parts of the 79th District. Black and brown communities often face over policing. And because of that, I strongly have a fear that this bill is gonna open up the door for children to be stopped for not having a registered bike.
When you think about the underserved communities, a lot of people just cannot afford it. So furthermore, there is no way to demonstrate proof of of the purchase for the e bike, which places our children in a difficult situation if they're stopped by the police because now they cannot show proof that it belongs to them. So then what actually happens? So I recognize the importance of, you know, the need to keep California safe as e bikes, you know, there there is a rise in them. They're super popular.
They look cool. I I totally get the whole issue. I was driving the other day, and somebody shot across the street too. So I definitely I I understand that. But for me, the fear is that that this bill itself would put people in harm's way, whether they're providing protections and particularly for the black and brown community when you have a lot of over policing.
And so with that, that's that's the reason why I cannot support today. I'm I'm open to hear should the bill get out. I'm open to hear additional conversations, hopefully hopefully that there were some other changes to the bill. And if it gets out and gets to the floor, we can have a deeper conversation for me to come back to reconsider. But just for today, I I won't be able to to support.
Redner 1
Alright. I didn't see it wanting to make a comment. So oh, that's true. Just comments. Thank you, Vice Chair Davies, for chairing this committee while I was over in Natural Resources.
With that, I think you wanted to make comments on the bill, so the floor is yours.
Redner 15
Thank you. Appreciate it, and welcome back. Hopefully it was a good experience.
Redner 15
I want to thank you for bringing this up. I've been working since I've been up here six years now, working with e bike safety and trying to get certifications so that our kids do have a little bit better idea of the rules of the road. And the bottom line is, law enforce law enforcement, it's very tough to do what you do if you don't know whose whose bike that is. And so I know you can't stop them. You don't wanna be chasing them.
But you can't tell if someone's 16 years old and is okay with the class three or if they're 13 years old. And we're looking at accidents happening every day. We just had an 80 year old man and his dog run down. He's in critical condition by a 14 year old. Again, no rules of the road.
And so I think there's a lot of complications in putting this together. I understand that. I've talked to law enforcement. It's like and I think that's what we were talking about is trying to put together even, you know, sitting down going, what is it that we need to do? So just having everyone come to the table so everybody's input is in there.
So we are protecting we are protecting those that are riding these as well. It's the bad actors that we're trying to deal with. And so I think I think we can find a a good medium. I would like to be coauthored on this bill. And I I trust that and I know the how thorough you are that everyone comes to the table, we'll have good solutions.
Thank you. And I'd like to be a co author if I didn't say that. Thanks.
Redner 40
Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I I'm not gonna ask to be a coauthor, but I I do share some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleague just in terms of the logistics of this and and sort of how it can work. But I I do think that you'll continue to work with opposition, I would hope. And so for today, you know, I definitely think it's a really important issue. It's an important that, you know, we're protecting our kids.
This could be one of the the best solutions to do that. And and I do appreciate that this is sort of addressing this without going after the bikes themselves and, like, the flexibility and freedom for adults to continue to ride them and access them. So I think I will be supporting the bill today, but would just encourage you to continue working with the opposition. Thanks.
Redner 1
Seeing no other. Thank you to the author. I've appreciated the conversations that you and I have had on this bill, and we have talked about ways to work together on this in the future. And as I noted, I had several concerns about how it would be implemented, whether it is appropriate to require e bikes to have a license plate. This bill would require DMV to stand up a new license and registration process for e bikes.
Unlike motor vehicles, e bikes do not have a standardized vehicle identification number or VIN, which could make it difficult to properly register the device to an individual person. Moreover, bikes do not come with proof of purchase that connects the purchaser to the serial number on the e bike. DMV has indicated it would have to manually inspect every bicycle order to register it, which could create a massive backlog at DMV offices at a time when the state is trying to reduce in person visits. Moreover, the motor vehicle account, which funds the DMV and CHP, is facing insolvency. I'm concerned that the registration fee required to fund implementation of this bill would wind up costing e bike purchasers more than what we pay to register cars or mopeds.
I'm also concerned that the bill would place a burden on e bike riders that would discourage people from purchasing them and could potentially make thousands of people violators of the law if they are aware, unaware of that suddenly have to register the e bike that they have owned for years. And with that, that's we've talked about this already of, well, I wouldn't be able to support your bill today and will be staining. However, if it gets out of this committee, I know you've committed that you will continue to work to figure out the sweet spot on balancing registration and who appropriately should do that as well as safety. And so I'm looking forward to that conversation. With that, is thereoh, there has beena move by Pappin and a second by Macedo.
Give you an opportunity to close. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Redner 18
And just because you were not in the room, in my opening, I did commit to continuing to work on you and referenced also our conversations and appreciate your willingness to work with me and the many conversations we've had on this subject, because I know both of us, first and foremost, are committed to protecting our communities. And so that is the goal of this legislation, and I want to thank all of my colleagues for their comments, and especially, not especially because I appreciate you all the same amount, but thank you to our colleague from San Diego for her comments. The perspective you bring is different than mine, and so I appreciate you bringing that and look forward to continued conversations on this if it gets out or if not. I think this is an important issue that I will work on either way, but appreciate the perspective. This bill takes a new form, which I anticipate it will moving forward, we'll see where that goes.
Redner 12
I appreciate all of the conversation and this committee is so dedicated to addressing what we heard from my witnesses today, which is the real safety issues that exist.
Redner 1
Thank you. With the motion made by Poppin and seconded by Mesito, madam secretary, please call the
Redner 23
Wilson not voting. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre Curry, Avila Farias.
Arons. Carrillo. Arabedian. Heart. Heart I.
Hoover. Hoover I. Jackson. Jackson I. Lackey I.
Lackey Masito. Masito I. Pappin. Pappin I, Ransom. Ransom, not voting.
Rogers. Rogers I, Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins not voting.
Redner 1
Okay. We'll hold that role open for members to add on. As, assembly member Lackey prepares to, present his bill, we did ask for a special order, because of time sensitive nature. We'll work on consent calendar. Can I get a motion?
I got a motion by Sharp Collins and a second by Davies. Madam Secretary.
Redner 23
Wilson. Aye. Wilson, I. Davies. Aye.
Davies, I. Aguirre Curry, Avila Ferrias, Arons, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover? Aye. Hoover, I. Jackson?
Consent. I, Lackey?
Redner 23
Lackey, I, Masito? Aye. Seto, I, Pappin? Pappin, I, Ransom? Ransom, I, Rogers?
Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins,
Redner 1
That bill is out, but we'll hold the roll open for members. Those bills are out, but we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. With that, moving on to itemwe have two items for this author, AB sixteen eighty five and AB sixteen eighty seven. Did you have a preference for order? Okay.
We'll start with 1685 at your convenience, sir.
Redner 29
Okay. Again, thank you for allowing us to present this bill and we like to thank you for working with our office on these DUI bills. And, of course, we'll be accepting the amendments. And as a former CHP officer, I've seen the dangers and heartbreak of drunk driving. They're very, very real and they're very personal to me.
The California DMV uses the negligent operator treatment system, also known as NOTS or NOTS, to assign points to a driver's record based on traffic related convictions and violations. These points are used to determine whether a driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle should be suspended or revoked. If a person accumulates four points in twelve months, six points in twenty four months, or eight points in thirty six months, the DMV may suspend their licenses. Currently, a conviction for vehicular manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated results in a person having two points on their license. This is the same number of points assessed for reckless driving and driving over a 100 miles an hour.
This is grossly unacceptable and taking a person's life should not be equal to speeding on the freeway. AB sixteen eighty five, which is this bill, makes the necessary change to the NOTS system by adding three points to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicating, becoming the first conviction to have this high of a a point assessment. And so with me to testify on behalf of this bill is Terry McHale with the California Highway Patrol Association and Mike Sherif on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition.
Redner 41
Madam chair, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. We've represented the Highway Patrol for over forty years. And the stories that are always the most poignant, the stories that always bring the greatest grief, are those that deal with fatal drunk driving accidents, the most avoidable of the accidents. The analysis that was written, Madam Chair, was poignant also when I recognized it was pointed out that over a six year period, forty five thousand people died from drunk driving. If we were to put that in a sports perspective, that fills a baseball stadium.
Over a six year period, we have filled a baseball Stadium with people who have died from drunk driving. We appreciate very much this committee also dealing with the gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, making that a three point offense also. I'd conclude with this. Even with the three points, the suspension of the license continues to be cumulative. This is a very fair, long overdue, very necessary bill, and we ask for an aye vote.
Thank you very much.
Redner 5
Thank you, madam chair and members. Mike Sherif with Fanzlau Government Affairs on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. As mentioned, this bill increases points on the driver's record for vehicular manslaughter and other offenses. Quite simply, when driving offenses result in a fatality, our administrative consequences should match that level of harm. Today, they fall short.
Redner 42
For victims' families, no policy can undo their loss, but aligning our laws with the severity of these crimes points in a meaningful way that California takes these offenses seriously. AB sixteen eighty five promotes safer roads and underscores the responsibility every driver has to protect others. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. With that, we'll move on to members of the audience who would like to add their support, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 25
Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in support.
Redner 44
Usha Metzler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Redner 44
Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Rhonda Campbell with Mothers Against Drunk Driving here in support.
Redner 7
Brian Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, and a coalition of local law enforcement, groups also in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
With that, we'll move on to opposition testimony. At your convenience. Thank you.
Redner 13
Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I'm a alleged advocate with ACLU California Action. I wanna start by commending the author for his commitment to public safety and his intentions with this bill as we can acknowledge his heart is in the right place even if we often find ourselves on opposite sides many times. Our main issue with this proposal is that assessing an additional point on a person's driving record for vehicular homicide with while intoxicated with gross negligence as duplicative and unnecessary if the overarching goal is to get people convicted of this type of homicide off our streets. The DMV is already required to revoke the driving privilege of a person convicted of this crime, which is found in vehicle code 13351, subdivision a, subparagraph three. In addition, our courts and the DMV may suspend a person's driving license for receiving conviction for several other offenses.
At the ACLU, we encourage policymakers to search for alternative solutions to this issue that aren't carceral or overly punitive. When it comes to road safety, our approach should be rooted in belief that human life is worth protecting before tragedy strikes, not responding after the fact. ACLU National recently published a report on April 13 last week titled Safe Roads for All that discusses evidence based strategies for keeping our roads safe. In this report, we discussed road designs where a town in Indiana installed more than 150 roundabouts, more than any other city in The US, and experienced 80% fewer crashes with injuries. We found that traveling in passenger vehicles is 74 times deadlier than traveling by bus, emphasizing the importance of public transit.
Offering a voucher program for rideshares is effective at reducing rates of impaired driving as well, and usage of these programs depend on community buy in, awareness, and reduction in barriers. Finally, DUI treatment and diversion programs should include free, appropriately tailored IID technology with meaningful due process and privacy protections. Given the punitive and duplicative approach in this bill, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition. Now would be appropriate time to come to the microphone, name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of the committee. We have a motion by Sharp Collins.
Second by Davies. Alright. Assembly member Lackey, so thank you for working with this committee to strengthen this bill. You know, when analyzing the bill, we discovered that vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated carried two points and that gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the more serious events, carried only one. So I really appreciate you working with the committee to make this a stronger bill to target gross vehicular manslaughter by making it a three point offense.
And people may be wondering why these points matter. And it was noted from the analysis that was prepared from committee staff is and this is on page four that I'm reading an individual is considered a negligent operator if they receive four or more points in a twelve month period, six in twenty four months, or eight in thirty six months. So although these points might not prevent somebody, they've already done it, it's after the fact, but it will be sure that if they do that again within a certain amount of period, that they are a negligent operator and should not have a license. I'll be supporting your bill today, giving you an opportunity now that we have a motion and a second to close.
Redner 29
Thank you, madam chair. I would just close by, stating that, in my opinion, when we have loss of life, this is not only a matter of justice, but it's also a value statement that we actually, we care about the fact that someone has lost their life. And, that's a permanent penalty. So I think this penalty is more than fair, and I hope we can earn your support.
Redner 1
Thank you. With that, motion made by Sharp Collins, seconded by Davies. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 23
AB sixteen eighty five do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, I. Davies?
Aye. Davies, I. Aguirre Curry, Avila Farias, Arons, Carrillo? Carrillo, I. Harabedian, Hart, Hoover?
Hoover, I. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, I. Lackey?
Lackey eye, Moseto eye, Pappin. Pappin eye, Ransom eye, Ransom eye, Rogers, Sharp Collins Sharp Collins eye.
Redner 1
bill is out, and we'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Now moving on to a b sixteen eighty seven. Microphone again, please.
Redner 29
Appreciate that. AB sixteen eighty seven is my last DUI bill, which will increase the Department of Motor Vehicles revocation period for a third DUI conviction from three years to eight years. And I know that sounds like a lot, but hear me out. This bill also adds that a person may be able to apply for an interlock device after four years with the requirement to have it within their vehicle for at least two years. A recent DV analysis followed drivers who received a DUI in 2005.
Over the next fifteen years, over twenty five percent of those drivers were arrested again for another DUI. Among those drivers, forty percent already had three or more DUIs at the time of the 2005 arrest. California was one of the leaders in the nation against driving under the influence. No longer is that the case. In New Jersey, a person convicted of repeat DUIs cannot get their license back until eight years after their conviction.
Redner 33
While in Nebraska, it is fifteen years, And Connecticut will permanently revoke a license for that repeat offense. However, in California, a person can get their license back after three years and can continue to add more DUIs to the record. This bill will require the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke the license of a person convicted of three DUIs for eight years unless the driver agrees to install the interlock device. By expanding the revocation period for repeat offenders, a b sixteen eighty seven will help make California roads safer by keeping repeat drunk drivers from being behind the wheel. I have two witnesses to the right of me, and, I have Rhonda Campbell on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Ryan Sherman, legislative advocate for the California Narcotics Officers Association.
Redner 44
Hi. Thank you so much for having me this afternoon. My name is Rhonda Campbell, and I'm here on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in strong support of this bill. I'm not here today to just talk about policy. I'm here today because my sister Irene is gone.
Irene was killed by a repeat offender drunk driver, someone who had already been given chances and someone who had already showed a pattern of dangerous impaired driving and yet still made the choice to get behind the wheel impaired again. Because of that choice, my family will never be the same. Irene isn't here for birthdays. She's not at our holidays. No more phone calls.
No more laughter. No more memories to be made. There's just a space where she should be for the rest of our lives. There are moments that never leave you. I will never forget standing next to the casket as it was closed and hearing the scream that came out of my mother's mouth.
It was gut wrenching, and it was haunting. It was the sound of a parent losing their child in a way that should never happen. That moment replays in my mind and it always will. That is the real impact of repeat DUI offenders. When someone has three or more DUI convictions, it's not a mistake.
Redner 13
It's a pattern, and that pattern destroys families like mine. Under current law, they can regain their driving privileges after just three years. Three years is nothing compared to what my family and others have lost. Every day, I work with families just like mine, families whose lives have been shattered by the exact same preventable choice. Their stories are different, but the pain is the same.
Redner 44
This bill is about accountability. It's about prevention, and it's about stopping repeat behavior before it becomes another funeral. Irene's life mattered. My family's loss matters. And the families I represent at MAD, their lives matter as well.
Thank you.
Redner 45
Good afternoon, madam chair, members. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and a number of other law enforcement groups around the state in strong support of the bill. As the author stated, AB sixteen eighty seven will better hold repeat DUI offenders accountable and does so by requiring the DMV to immediately revoke the driver's license of individuals with three or more DUI related convictions. Importantly, sixteen eighty seven prohibits reinstatement of the license for at least eight years following the revocation, ensuring that these dangerous drivers will be legally restricted from endangering everyone else on our roads. There have been a lot of bills introduced this year, with the DUI crisis in mind in our state.
AB sixteen eighty seven is a reasonable, measured approach which seeks to protect California drivers from the careless and deadly acts of repeat DUI offenders. This is not a silver bullet on its own, however. AB sixteen eighty seven, though, better reflects the severity of the crime and will help accelerate license revocations for those who pose real and present danger on the road, and this will make our roads safer by keeping them off our roads, at least for the period of time that this bill prohibits. We owe it to the families of the victims and repeat offenders of the repeat offenders and to those we may be able to protect to pass a b sixteen eighty seven. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support for this bill. Name, affiliation, position.
Redner 44
Good afternoon, chairs and members. Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 43
Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in support.
Redner 41
Terry McHale with the California Association of Highway Patrol in support.
Redner 13
Chairman members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a alleged advocate with the ACA of California Action. I wanna start by thanking the witness for sharing your story. I know it takes a lot of courage to be that vulnerable in public. Under this bill, after four years, a person may apply to the DMV to have their driving privilege reinstated on a condition they install and maintain an IED for two years.
We do not have issues with IIDs when they are implemented in a way that is evidence based, publicly funded, appropriately tailored, and with meaningful due process and privacy protections. But this bill falls short of the simple standard. Mandating IIDs without making it accessible to everyone creates a two tiered system of justice. One where affluent Californians can comply with IID requirements, whereas other who are lower income are more severely punished. And although existing law allows for discounted IEDs fees based on income, these programs are often poorly advertised, difficult to access, and inconsistently enforced and still require significant upfront payments.
Redner 23
I mentioned last time in this committee that some may believe is irrelevant, but our public transit infrastructure is very much relevant to this conversation when you deprive someone of a vehicle, which is a necessity to survive in our economic system. Many Californians live an hour or more away from their place of work in order to survive our housing crisis to afford a place to rent. Depriving them of a car without proper public infrastructure then dooms them to economic ruin. By vastly increasing the period of license revocation without providing accessible mental health and substance use services and robust robust investments in public transit, we are setting people up for job law job job loss, housing instability, and social isolation, which creates more tragedies. I implore every legislator to reimagine public safety and try to solve these issues at their root cause rather than being reactive with excessive punishment that only exacerbate these problems and not solve them.
Redner 13
For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB sixteen eighty seven. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Moving on to members of the public that would like to note their opposition as well. Now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic, name, affiliation and position. Seeing none, moving back to members of the committee. Jackson.
Redner 25
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is the revocation for eight years, does that happen after the first DUI? Not the second, but the third. You know, I I totally understand the issues of of equity when it comes to people being able to afford devices and those type of things. But it seems to me that this legislature this year is taking a stance.
That we are going to value human life. And that too many people have been losing lives unnecessarily due to other people not taking human life seriously. And the reason, mister Lackey, I've been in support of your bills is probably one of the I don't even know if I've ever voted for one of your bills, to be honest. And nor have you voted for mine. But we do agree on one thing and that is the value of human life.
And that one time may be a mistake, the second time, you know, I don't know, maybe you're just but a third time means that you believe that your actions are more important than someone else's life and we have to draw the line. For the witness of mad, I I understand what it means. I've I've heard the wail of a mother, my mother, when my brother died. And you never forget that sound. Never forget that sound.
Never heard it in my life before. And so I think that we are agreeing at this point, that we're gonna value everyone's life. And you lose your freedom or your privileges when you start determining that someone else's life is not worth your own discipline, self discipline. And so that's why I'm voting for these bills because at some point, enough has to be enough. And so I do believe that it is a balanced approach.
Redner 47
I do believe that there's a measure of accountability that needs to happen. And if you value your own ability to be self sufficient, be able to get to work and all those things, In some cases, you need to have better self restraint and in some cases you need to recognize when you need help. And so if you're someone who has a second DUI, it's time for help so you don't need to get to that third one. And so this is also a call that we value their life too because we don't want them to lose their life by continuing their intoxication habits. And so I just want to go on record to say, you know, and even though you've been working with Terri McHale, I won't hold that against you either.
Redner 27
I'm gonna be very brief because I believe Doctor. Jackson pretty much said it all. I just want to say that this is an important step for the State of California. When we talk about data and evidence base, the evidence is very clear when you look at the data for California that in extreme cases over ten years repeated drunk drivers have up to 16 DUIs and still continue to have a license. That is unfathomable.
It is reckless. And we have to have this balance of accountability. This state and these legislators, we care deeply about making sure that people have access to mental health and trauma informed care and substance use treatment. And at the same time, we also have to value the lives of innocent people who, at no fault of their own, they're not the ones making these choices because these are ultimately choices. Yes, you might have some problems, but you are still making a choice that impacts someone else's life and their families are ever changed.
It's just the fact that twenty five percent of our fatalities on the roadways are DUIs who are not their first offense, not their second offense. This is not only a call to action, this is a responsibility. And we really need to rethink how we approach victimizing offenders. We have to find a way to really be fair to just the innocent people. And so while I appreciate that we don't want people to be, you know, double jeopardy or this is this is not that.
This is also, you know, I appreciate that people need to get to work. Well, you have to make better choices. You have to make better choices. And I really think that this is a tool that we're behind. California is behind in this area.
And as a result, families have suffered great losses. And I think we need to say that in this year, the buck stops here. And with that, I'm happy to support this bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. Before I go to Vice Chair Davies, I want to clarify that it's not even three or more. That if you look on the first page of the analysis, A through I, it's a combination of any one of these three things. And within those three things, you have to have repeated it within that. So it really is serious and repeatedly.
You know, I think the minimum times that you would have to have done something is five or six times before this actually goes into effect, which is, you know, terrible.
Redner 29
Vice Chair Davies. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say to my members up here, I am so proud that we are finally attacking this the way we need to. For too long, being up here watching the victim being put last and watching the lives go and watching our numbers go up with DUIs and the number of deaths, I'm just so proud that we're really concentrating on this and putting human life first and accountability as well. So I would like to thank Assembly Member Lackey for bringing this up.
Redner 1
All right. Seeing oh, we have a motion and a second. Thank you. I appreciate you workingfor, first of all, being a part of the whole DUI package. And I know this is something that you've cared about since the moment you've gotten to the assembly, and finally, as you're sunsetting your legislative career to see this, really, all of this come to pass.
And part of it is around the advocacy within the legislature, but good journalism as well, that laid it out so clearly what the issue was in California and how we had an opportunity through legislation to fix that. I appreciate you working with Public Safety Committee to narrow the focus of this bill to the serious and repeat violators, as we've talked about and discussed. The bill passed out of Public Safety Committee unanimously. That is a hard feat. And you were able to do that.
And so I will be supporting this bill today in this committee. We have a motion made by Sharp Collins and a second by Macedo. I'll give you an opportunity to close. Yeah.
Redner 29
As you can tell, this, it's pretty heartfelt for me. When I got here in 2014, this had no chance. And I've been here since that time, and I continue to try to have an impact. And I'm very thankful. I don't take any credit.
CalMatters is what woke people up. And I'm very thankful whatever it takes and not taking any credit away from any of you and your objectivity. My colleague from Riverside is right. We we see things from a different lens most of the time. But the fact you can come together on this issue is big.
It's different when you see the numbers. We see a lot of numbers as legislators, and they're all important. But when you see the tragedy, it's different. And when you see it over and over and over and over again, it becomes part of you. And this problem will always be part of me.
And I'm just thankful. Thankful for your eye support. And I think people forget how dangerous it is to drive under the influence. I don't drink, so I don't have that challenge, but I I can tell you I see it. And what's really heartbreaking is when you have taken someone into custody that has taken the life of another person, you see them cry.
It's a terrible thing. I get no satisfaction about placing people under arrest or putting them into custody, but my heart goes out to people who lose their life and lose their family. Their family loses to people. It's really real to me more so than it is to you, and I don't hold that against you. I just want you to know that it feels good that you're actually believing me.
I appreciate it. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member Lackey, and thank you for your service to California. We appreciate you and glad to have you on this committee and the expertise that you bring. Madam Secretary, we have a motion made by Sharp Collins and a second by Macedo. Please call the roll.
Redner 23
A b sixteen eighty seven do pass to appropriations. Wilson? A. Wilson, I. Davies?
Redner 45
A. Davies, I. Aguirre Curry, Avila Farias, Arons, Carrillo, Arabedian, Hart, Hoover, Hoover, I Jackson, I Lackey, lackey, I Massito, Macedo, I Pappin, Pappin, I Ransom, Ransom, I Rogers, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins, aye.
Redner 1
Thank you. That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. With that, we're moving on at the top of the file item, and our next author is here, file item number nine, AB 2,196, ta. To the author, you can begin at your convenience.
Redner 35
Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm pleased to present a b twenty one ninety six. This bill will allow DMV to reciprocal foreign travel license exchange program as closely for class c licenses with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. This does not apply to trucking or motorcycle licenses. California already let visitor from other country try here using their phone driver license.
Redner 3
In practice, we already trust these licenses as proof that someone can try safely. AB twenty one ninety six seem to extend the same idea to people who become California resident to a clear and structure process. If we trust someone to try on their first day here, we should not suddenly trust them when they become a resident. This bill ally our law with what we already do like adding accountability to formal agreement with trust partners. It is not a new idea across the country.
Redner 35
46 out 50 states already have at least one driver license exchange agreement with a foreign country. 37 states have agreement with Taiwan. 25 state have agreement with at least two of the country in this bill, and eight state have agreement with all three. This show the plot is widely used and accepted. California has strong economy and cultural tie with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.
Focus at this country follow the same approach of the state use when creating agreement. This bill is also fiscally responsible. The state have already created similar agreement, giving California a clear model to follow. Product program in the past raised concerns about the high cost and and really communicated. AB twenty one ninety six take a focus and practical first step.
I'm happy to introduce deputy director general John Chew of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in San Francisco, and Kajiro Hora, the executive director of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Northern California. Sir, please.
Redner 28
Honorable chair Wilson and distinguished distinguished members of Transportation Committee, good afternoon. My name is John Chew. I am the Deputy Director General of the Taipei Economic and Culture Office in San Francisco, which is the de facto Consulate General of the Government of Taiwan in Northern California. On behalf of my government, I would like to call for your support of bill AB two one nine six, which authorizes the California DMV to complete a reciprocal driver's license agreement with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea and waive road test for qualified foreign applicant. This bill will benefit both California and these countries under the following reason.
Redner 3
First, the ease of living is a crucial factor for attracting foreign investment. During recent years, the surge in AI demand had accelerate accelerated a strategic influx of Taiwan leading semiconductor and high-tech firm into California. More than 1,500 Taiwan invested on firms are established in California. Around 8,000 to 9,000 new Taiwanese student come to study in California every year. If we aim to attract more Taiwanese and foreign investment enterprises and the student, this bill will be an essential supporting major and incentive.
Second, Taiwan uphold strict standard of road safety and criteria for the issuing of driver licenses. Currently across The United States, 37 out of 50 states have signed driver's license reciprocal agreement with Taiwan.
Redner 3
Thank you. So far, more than 16,000 Taiwanese people with US residence visas have exchanged exchange for US driver's licenses in the state in which they are residing. This widespread precedence affirm that Taiwan rigorous driver's license standards are like those within The United States.
Redner 43
Hi. My name is Keijiro Hora, executive director of Japan Chamber of Commerce for Northern California. I'm here, JC Shienushi, and Japan Business Association of Southern California representing more than 700 member companies. So we do understand our challenges, JC Shinushi and the j JBA, together, we conduct the survey on the foreign driver's license issue among our members and we received around 400 responses. The results are clear.
Redner 46
Obtaining a California driver's license is significant burden. Many respondent reported long DMV appointment, wait times, multiple steps, and needed to take several days off work to complete testing requirement. On average, the product process takes twenty, thirty hours and also to around two months to obtain the license according to our survey. Everyone even everyone have that driver's license in Japan. This delay directly impact both daily life and the business productivity.
And importantly, around over 80% of the respondent support a mutual waiver system, and of and 86% indicate that even waiving the driving test alone would provide a meaningful benefit. In addition, many of our members are aware that several other states already have similar waiver arrangement in place. This makes California current system comparatively more burdensome. At the same time, many respondent recognize the importance of understanding local traffic law and support maintaining the appropriate requirement such as return knowledge test. This bill offered practical and balanced solution reducing the unnecessary burden while maintaining the safety.
On behalf of JC Shinushi and the JBA, the biggest foreign direct investment to California, we respectfully request your support for a b twenty one ninety six. Thank you so much.
Redner 1
Thank you. With that, looking to members of the public who would like to add on their support of this bill. Now would be appropriate time to come to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 42
Hi. My name is Takeshi Shihara, deputy consul general of Japan, at the Japanese consul general in San Francisco. This bill, will have a
Redner 47
Yeah. We strongly support the Japanese consulate. This bill will have a very good impact as explained by mister Hora. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. And just to note, during this time, it's just add on testimony, and so it would be just name, affiliation, and position. Thank you.
Redner 2
I'll sit here from Taiwan, Taiwan Economic and Culture office in San Francisco, and represent the Taiwanese community in California. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Redner 34
Takaki Nakajima, member of Japanese chamber of commerce Northern California, I strongly support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. With that, now we'll move on to opposition testimony. You may begin at your convenience. Standing at the mic.
Okay.
Redner 20
Good afternoon. Mark from Streets for All. I just wanna acknowledge this is this is not our highest priority bill. We're we're not gonna roast the member over this, but I just wanna flag something from the analysis that, you know, the the country of Japan drives on the left and has completely different driving laws and just like every other other country. And so I just wanna acknowledge that fact and have that acknowledged by the legislature.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. With that, giving an opportunity for other members of the public who would like to add on in opposition to this bill, now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, we'll move on to members of the committee. We have a motion and a second. Any other comments?
Alright. Well, we've had an opportunity to talk, but California law requires all foreign residents who establish residency in California to take the behind the wheel examination to get a driver's license. I believe this is a fair rule to ensure driver safety. I do not support creating a two share system where residents from some countries have this process waived while others are subject to the rule. I will note in the committee analysis on page three that it's noted that the legislature is not the appropriate body to determine when foreign jurisdictions, excuse me, maintaining driver standards equivalent to California.
And by selecting specific countries for reciprocity via statute, we risk making these determinations based on geopolitical relationships rather than objective safety. There is a process which, by DMV, can allow reciprocity. And so I support using that process for reciprocity. There was a motion made by Hoover and seconded by Lackey. I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 35
Yes. I understand your concerns, and I respectfully ask you for your I vote.
Redner 23
AB twenty one ninety six, do pass to the appropriations committee. Wilson? No. Wilson? No.
Davies? Davies not voting? Aguirre? Aguirre? No.
Avila Farias? Arons? Carrillo? Caribbean? Caribbean not voting?
Hart? Hoover? Jackson? Jackson, no. Lacky?
Not voting. Lackey, not voting. Mesito? Mesito, not voting. Pappin?
Pappin, no. Ransom? Ransom, no. Rogers? Rogers, no.
Sharp Collins? Sharp Sharp Collins, no.
Redner 1
Okay. We'll add sorry. We'll add we'll leave the row open for members to be able to add on. Thank you. Alright.
With that, moving on to in file item order. Let's see. File item 10. AB2263. Caller, you can begin at your convenience.
Redner 33
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. And I want to thank the committee and their staff for working with us on this bill AB2263. Will give the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, also known as VTA, the statutory authority to build affordable housing for their employees. VTA employs an estimated 2,300 employees who manage and operate Santa Clara County's public transportation services. While VTA workers may be making competitive middle class wages, they work and hope to live in one of the most expensive housing markets of the nation.
For instance, the median home sale price in 2025 was over $1,600,000 and the median rent in 2025 was $3,400 The high cost of housing has priced many of the VTA workers out of the area, leading them to live outside of the immediate work area or in many cases outside of the county, thereby creating long commutes for these workers, which is counter to the transit agency's goals. AB two thousand two sixty three will give VTA the authority to build affordable housing for its employees, ensuring their workers can live closer to work, decrease, their commutes, reduce driver fatigue, and improve their overall safety for all drivers and pedestrians on the road. With me to provide supporting testimony is the chairperson of the VTA Board of Directors, Sergio Lopez, and Jessica O'Malley Solis, VTA's Director for Multimodal Planning and Real Estate, to answer any technical questions. Thank
Redner 27
you. Thank you, Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Davies, members of this committee. My name is Sergio Lopez. I serve on the Campbell City Council, and I'm here as Chair of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Thank you, Assemblyman Mercado for authoring AB2263 and for your steadfast support of VTA and our employees.
Redner 48
VTA has a very robust transit oriented development program. AB2263 would enable VTA as part of this program to designate a percentage of the housing units that we provide to our community with a preference for our employees. A majority of the housing units proposed under AB2263 would be open to the general public and would serve a mix of households including low and moderate income residents, consistent with VTA's existing Transit Oriented Communities Program. AB2263 would help VTA address workforce retention and commute challenges, while still serving our broader community and ensuring compliance with federal and state fair housing principles. With a median rent nearly double the national average in our county, VTA employees are often forced to choose to live in more affordable communities which are farther from their work.
One in four VTA employees are commuting more than an hour each way, and 10% are commuting more than two hours each way. In a survey of employees, 90% indicated interest in an employee housing program. By offering opportunities for employees to live close to work, we hope to contribute to their quality of life and allow more opportunities to ride our public transit system while ensuring the welfare and well-being of our employees. I want to thank Assemblyman Recaro and this committee for hearing AB two thousand two sixty three and respectfully urge your approval of this bill.
Redner 1
We actually do have a motion and a second already. Now we have a third. Are we going get a fourth? No, it's fine. Okay.
With that, your turn.
Redner 43
Good afternoon, Chair Committee members. My name is Jessie O'Malley Solis, and I'm Director of Multimodal Planning and Real Estate for VTA. I'm here to answer any technical questions you may have regarding TOD, our program, and our employee need for this bill. And we're so thankful for Assembly Member Kalra, for authorship, And on behalf of VTA employees, we hope that you support this bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. With that, moving on to members of the public who would like to note their support for this bill. Now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic, giving your name, affiliation and position. Seeing none, notingmoving to opposition testimony, we do not have any registered opposition. But if there's a member of the public present who would like to note their opposition, now would be an appropriate time to come forward, name, affiliation and position.
Seeing none, moving to members of this committee for questions, comments, concerns. Seeing none. All right. I appreciate you working with committee staff on amendments to this bill. It would provide an unprecedented explicit authority to construct employee housing that has not been granted to any other transportation agency.
And so, I'm concerned about the necessity of granting new authorities to deliver housing projects, given the fact that you already have the authority, with over 1,400 projects or proposed units in development. This will go to local gov, and I'm looking forward to continuing that conversation next week. I appreciate the amendments that you have taken in Transportation Committee, and we'll be supporting your bill. We have a motion made by Pappan and Haravedian, executive by Haravedian. I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 39
Again, thank you, Madam Chair, to you and your staff for working with us on this legislation, Being able to have the opportunity to develop some of the properties at VTA into mixed use opportunities, but in particular to provide housing for our workforce is of critical importance. And I think this will be an innovative opportunity for us to see 100 how this might be able to be replicated statewide.
Redner 1
With that, I'd ask for an aye vote. Absolutely. Madam secretary, please call the roll. AB 2,063
Redner 23
do pass to local government committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Davies, aye. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry, aye. Avila Farias? Aarons?
Carrillo? Arabidian? Aye. Hart? Hoover?
Jackson? Lackey
Redner 23
Lackey, not voting, Massito, Happen, Happen, I, ransom, ransom, I, Rogers, Rogers, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins, aye. Aaron's? Aye. Aaron's, aye.
Redner 1
That bill is out, and we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Can you say that over the microphone, please?
Redner 1
Okay. With that, moving on in file item order, number 13AB2284. You may begin at your convenience.
Redner 8
Thank you, madam chair. Good evening. I think we're getting close to evening. Good evening. Good afternoon.
And members of the committee, a v twenty two eighty four is a straightforward bill that requires the attorney general in partnership with biking nonprofit groups to maintain and publish an online list of ebike products that do not comply with the state's labeling or advertising standards. There's no such central repository in existence in the state of California. And this bill is I'm proud to have the sponsor by bike Streets sponsored by Streets for All. It's also received support from the California Orthopedic Association, People For Bikes, the city of Carlsbad, the city of Huntington Beach, the city of San Mateo. There is no registered opposition to the bill.
Redner 26
Some bad faith companies are engaging in false marketing by advertising high powered electric vehicles such as mopeds, motorcycles, and other devices that exceeds, excuse me, exceed speed or power thresholds as electric bicycles. These products do not meet the legal definition of an e bike, yet are falsely labeled and sold as such. This deceptive practice misleads consumers, exposes them to unanticipated risks, and undermines public trust. AB twenty two eighty four is a common sense measure that will improve rider safety by enabling consumers to easily identify e bike products that do not meet California standards or requirements. Ultimately, this isn't about stopping people from riding e bikes.
Redner 8
I want them to be safe. This measure will provide a useful resource for law enforcement, school districts, and parents when identifying noncompliant or potentially dangerous devices. I have with me today Mark Bukosevic from Streets4All and Bob Mittelstad from E Bike Access who can answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
Redner 37
Good evening. My name is Bob Mittelstedt. I'm a co founder of E Bike Access. We advocate for expanded access for legal e bikes and we are against illegal electric motorcycles. Based on my two years plus working on this issue, I am here to tell you that this bill will be the most consequential bill, the most important bill on solving the e bike, e motorcycle problem if it's enacted along with a b eleven sixty seven, which we also support.
And here's why. We all now agree that there's a difference between e bikes, throttle e bikes that cut off at 20 miles per hour, and the electric motorcycles that don't. Most e bikes that are sold with a throttle now can go faster than 20, so they are electric motorcycles and they need registration, driver's license, safety equipment and so forth. I wanted to see what the kids were actually riding. So I volunteered with Safe R Us to school and I went around and counted the bikes and figured out what brands they were.
Redner 4
My work is reported in the New York Times and it forms the basis of part of the Maneta Transportation Institute. The conclusion that over 80% of what our kids are riding to school with the throttles are illegal motorcycles, not e bikes. The 80 but people tend to call these e bikes even though they're not you heard testimony earlier about an 80 year old who was killed by a 14 year old on an e bike. Not so. The press release said it was an e motorcycle.
Redner 37
You heard the doctors say that they're seeing motorcycle like act injuries. You know why that is? Because the kids are riding motorcycles. So the beauty of this bill is the challenge that the law enforcement have on the street and the schools have on the street is how do you tell the difference? What this bill does is it helps the police tell the difference by coming up with a list of the brands.
It's just like if there was We'll
Redner 37
If there was contaminated baby food on the shelf, we would tell the public who's manufacturing that. And that's what this bill does. Thank you.
Redner 20
Good afternoon, chair and committee. Mark Brooks with Streets for All. Across California, schools, parents, and local PD are dealing with dealing with this growing problem and confusion about these electric two wheel devices that are shaped or look like e bikes are called e bikes and are marketed and even perceived as e bikes, but they don't actually fit California's legal definition of e bikes. And the problem is these devices are incredibly dangerous. I I'm looking at here I did not have time to share this with the committee.
I I think I handed some to your offices. I'm looking at here a device that my boss went into a middle school last week. And this device, for all intents and purposes, looks like a dirt bike. It's labeled as being 1,200 pounds and it is at a middle school right now. And yet our schools I I I talk to schools all the time and they don't know what the heck is on their campus.
Redner 52
They are lost as to what's on their campus because they can't, like a lawyer, understand the three classes of e bikes and the wattage changes and all of things that the legislature is doing and good changes by the way the legislature is doing. And so you have these devices that parents are buying that are they think is a is a device for a child and yet is not legal is exceedingly dangerous and brands that are sold at I'm looking at this one sold at Costco that a colleague shared with me the other day or this device sold with the brand Segway that they think is appropriate for their child but is not. And so this idea the the bill idea here is let's give the lawyers at the attorney general's office. Let's let's have them write a list so that local law enforcement and school districts can say, hey, what what the heck is this in front of me? Because I can't identify this in the field if it's at night or I can't identify this at all because I'm I'm not an attorney.
Redner 20
I don't understand what is an e bike, what is an e bike because I'm a school administrator and I do school policy. And that's the purpose of this bill is to help our locals with something that they are struggling with. They are struggling every single day to identify what the heck a child is riding, but not just children, but especially and most dangerously and most worrisome children are riding. So we think this is a modest bill and we urge your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to register their support, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 15
Good afternoon. Sharon Gonzales on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad and San Mateo in support.
Redner 36
Good evening. Jeanie Wardwaller on behalf of People4Bikes and CalBike. I've also been asked to add on for San Diego three fifty, three fifty Baria Action, and the Environmental Protection Information Center in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. None was registered. So now would be appropriate time, if there's any members of the public who would like to note their opposition, to come to the microphone and give your name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of the committee.
I get curry.
Redner 50
I was just looking through the bill. Want to apologize. I didn't see it. Has there been consultation with the attorney general's office yet?
Redner 20
No, it's only our we we initially introduced this bill as being a CHP mandate, and we talked to CHP and we understood that they had issues. So we made it an attorney general mandate. We haven't had a chance to talk to them, but they just released a press release, a very comprehensive press release as of, I think, Tuesday of last week, urging and identifying this as a rampant problem for consumers and parents to be aware of, and we've reached out since.
Redner 8
And I also would mention that in my community interactions with all of our local law enforcement. They can't just as the witnesses said, they cannot identify these bikes. They say they want a central repository, an official place where law enforcement can go to check the efficacy, the legitimacy of these bicycles. So when the Highway Patrol wanted to do it, they actually supported it, but they felt they didn't have the wherewithal to do it. But it wasthe Attorney General was a likely repository.
Redner 37
And if I could just add very quickly, the committee analysis recommends that the Attorney General be encouraged to investigate and to prosecute these companies. This preparing a list of the illegal ones would be a first step that they presumably are undertaking already. So this would go hand in hand with that approach.
Redner 1
I don't believe that would be an accurate statement as a first step, but I'll note, seeing no other committee members. So the issue and and the author and I have had a chance to talk about this with hopes to figure out a way, a pathway forwardis tasking the attorney general with maintaining a list of commonly perceived e bikes that are actually illegal creates a never ending task. A list that is not updated weekly becomes obsolete immediately, leading to a scenario where the state is effectively providing outdated or incorrect legal guidance to the public. If the attorney general fails to update the list to reflect new software patches hardware modifications that bring a once illegal bike into compliance, riders face an immediate risk of having their property seized. In an enforcement scenario, if a bike's model name is on the AG's blacklist but the owner has legally modified it to meet class one or class two standards, law enforcement is likely to default to the state's official list.
Even if the owner is allowed to do it because they have gotten appropriate licenses, which you can do. You can get additional licenses to be able to ride bikes that are e bikes that are considered legal if you don't have those licenses. It's noted in the analysis. And so, without a real time list of legal bikes, cyclists could have their bikes towed based on an administrative error rather than a mechanical reality. And as I've talked to with the author, I believe there is a better approach.
There's two opportunities to engage the attorney general, which note that attorney general's office hasn't been engaged on this bill as of yetis, for one, the bicycle organizations and the public to help the attorney general's office and city attorneys identify devices that are falsely advertised or falsely advertising themselves as electric bicycles and use the existing law to bring false advertising claims against those companies to stop them from entering the market. Secondly, the AG has a voluntary voluntary, not by law bulletin program about issues in the community, being able to call on the AG when they're seeing consistent problems with particular bikes entering the market that are absolutely legal and shouldn't be writing them, being able to then do those types of bulletins to the community. And the suggestion was, as a committee, writing a letter to the AG noting those two avenues that the AG has the authority to do already and doesn't need a new law. I encourage you to go on that route. And because of that encouragement and the issues involving the AG's office, without any type of technical assistance, given the fact that when it was given to the CHP, the technical assistance they provided said it wasn't able to be done with their resources.
I estimate that the AG significantlyI mean, similarly, do not have those resources, so I won't be able to support your bill today. Looking for a motion from the committee. I haven't heard one yet. But actuallyoh, there we go. I was gonna say you can actually close without a motion, but I have it from Vice Chair Davies and seconded by Assembly Member Lackey.
I got you. I got you. To the author. You. Opportunity to close.
Redner 8
Thank you very much. I I certainly respectfully request an I vote, and in I enjoyed our conversation last week and talking about it and your recommendation about a letter. I've looked into the letter with a number of law enforcement people, and their position is those letters are not on a regular basis from the attorney general's office of bulletins. And it it's not the same as a website that would have illustrations of the bikes that are permissible. So it's just in terms of being effective in the in the information, the distribution of information of what is legal and what is not legal.
In fact, right now in Orange County, there's a case going on where a parent bought a bike, a class three bike for his child who's now in the hospital under in critical condition. And if a parent is going to buy make that purchase or a friend or a parent, they need there needs to be a place to go, a central repository. No one's going to know to look up the attorney general's bulletins. Very few people know that's an outlet. But just like the gentleman said, there if you know that something is being marketed and it's illegal and the law enforcement's involved or the Department of Justice's involved people, we through communication and and this is what these folks will do is communicate the availability of such information.
My belief is that well, I appreciate there may be something a little bit different approach, but we are at such a crisis. Just this weekend, a young boy injured critically injured an 84 year old man in my district in Lake Forest. These accidents, we all are reading these news reports every single week, but parents do not have a place to go to say, is this legal? And the stores will not tell them. They they are the store some nefarious stores are selling bikes that are clearly not legal.
So I'm just trying to help parents be safe in our communities. We hear this all over. I'm sure we all hear this. So long winded answer. I truly respect your point of view.
I'm just trying to move this a little bit forward to keep our communities safe, and I respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you very much.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you. And I appreciate your passion on this subject. We have a lot of bills in this area this year that are doing a lot of things. I will note for the public is that a Class III bike is legal in the state of California.
It's who can ride it is where the illegality comes in. Madam Secretary, we have a motion by Vice Chair Davies and a seconded by Lackey. Could you please call the roll?
Redner 23
AB 2,284 do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? No. Wilson, no. Davies?
Davies, aye. Aguirre? Aguirre? Aguirre? Not voting.
Avila Farias? Aaron's? Aaron's not voting. Carrillo? Carrillo not voting.
Arabedian Arabedian not voting. Hart. Hoover. Jackson. Lacky.
Lacky I. Mosito. Happen. Happen not voting, ransom, Rogers Rogers not voting, Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, no.
Redner 1
We're going to hold that role open for members to add on. If your bill does not have the sufficient votes to get out of committee, would you like it held for consideration? Thank you. We have a note from the author to hold it for reconsideration if it does not get out of committee. And we're waiting to hear that for Assembly Member Ta earlier, so if he can make his way back to the committee room so we can get that confirmation.
Thank you. Okay. And I will note that we did receive an email from Assembly Member Ta, and if his bill does not get out of committee, he is not interested in reconsideration. Thank you. With that, we are moving on to item number 15.
We have an author here, AB 2,560. You can begin at your convenience.
Redner 24
Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And taking the cue from the fine colleagues on this committee, I'll be brief and simply ask here, I vote at the appropriate time. I will, however, allow my technical experts to provide a little background on the importance of the bill. Thank you all so much.
Redner 36
Good evening, chair and members. Thank you so much. Jeannie Wardwaller here on behalf of ClimatePlan. I will also be really brief. Our organizations that are members of ClimatePlan have been engaged process of developing and implementing CAPTICE since the very beginning.
Redner 2
This is the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure. Since it was put in place, this has really established a new paradigm for planning, developing, and funding transportation projects to reduce climate impacts while improving public health safety and equity. The 10 goals in CAPTI are really a balanced approach. It's the right way forward. We want to continue to see progress into the next administration.
Redner 36
And so we really support this bill, which enshrines this framework in law, or dry vote. Thank you.
Redner 14
Good evening, Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Davies, the whole committee. I will follow and abbreviate my prepared remarks appropriately. Transportation remains the largest source of climate pollution in California, and was designed to bring the state's transportation spending and our climate goals into better alignment. By that standard, CAPTI has been an unequivocal success. NRDC analysis as well as Moneta Transportation Institute analysis commissioned by CalSTa validates that not only has Captive considerably improved the alignment in key program spending with climate goals, but it has also done so without compromising the economic benefits of transport of transportation investments in the state, including both the number and quality of jobs created by these investments.
Redner 51
Assembly Member Schulz's bill today will ensure that the progress made under CAPTAI continues regardless of who the next governor is. Respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to members of the committee who are present who would like to note their support. I get oh, that said members of the committee. You're right. Members of the public who would like to note their support.
Name, affiliation, and position. Good
Redner 20
Good evening, madam chair. Chris Schmot on behalf of the California Trucking Association. We did have an opposed position on the prior version of the bill, but with the amended version, we are removing opposition. And I was asked to convey a removal of opposition by the Cal Chamber as well. Thank you.
Redner 1
Good afternoon. Kiana Valentine, also here to remove opposition to the bill as amended on behalf of Transportation California, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, the Nevada County Association of Governments, and the Tulare County Association of Governments. Thank you.
Redner 25
Eric Turner on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association, also removing opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. With that, we're gonna move on to opposition. I believe we have no more registered opposition on this bill, if I'm correct. And so, any other folks who are in opposition, now would be an appropriate time to approach the mic, name, affiliation, position? Seeing none, moving to members of the committee.
Any comments, questions, concerns? All right. Well, to the author, thank you for working with me and the committee staff on the amendments to this bill. With the amendments, I believe this bill gives future governors the flexibility to set goals while at the same time, no matter who they are, because we don't know that yet, maintain a minimum standard of progress towards achieving climate goals when building transportation infrastructure. I strongly support efforts to minimize environmental and equity impacts of our transportation sector and commend the Transportation Agency, California Transportation Commission and Caltrans on their work incorporating Captide goals to our discretionary transportation programs.
As a result, we're seeing a greater mix of transit, rail, ZEV and active transportation projects. More progress can certainly be made, and I trust that these agencies will continue their hard work next year and beyond, and your bill ensures that they do that. I'll be supporting your bill today. We have I thought we had a motion. We do.
We have a motion by Pappin and Rogers. And with that, I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 46
I'll just briefly say, Madam Chair, I should have probably mentioned I'm here to talk about AB 2,560, so for the record, that's what I'm talking about. I just really wanted to thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership and the work of your staff. We are happily accepting the amendments today. Thank you.
Redner 1
Great. Thank you. Oh, you know, we keep talking about amendments, but we were able to work them out and cross them before today. So don't want to confuse anybody. It's a due pass without a due pass as a means because we figured it out in time.
With that, Madam Secretary, please call
Redner 23
AB 2,560, due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Heart I, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Macedo, Pappin, Pappin I, Ransom I, Rogers I, I, Sharp Collins Sharp Collins I.
Redner 1
Okay. With that, that bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for members to add on. We are down to our final three bills, I think. Okay. We we do confirm that we only have three bills left.
We have three bills left. So if you're a member of this committee, I'd ask that you make your way now that we are down to three bills. We're gonna move on to committee member bills, starting with Assembly Member Pappin. There are two bills that she's presenting on, a b 19 I'm sorry. A file item 19, a b fifteen fifty seven.
And then as I noted at the beginning of this committee pending joint rule 62 a suspension, we have a bill without reference to file a b twenty five ninety five at your convenience.
Redner 28
Thank you Madam Chair and colleagues. I want to start by saying that I'll accept the committee's amendments and I am truly thankful to the committee for all the work that we're able to accomplish both with the chair and the committee staff. So today I'm presenting AB fifteen fifty seven, which does two things. It closes a loophole in California law that has allowed for the proliferation of high powered e bikes. Think e bikes have become increasingly popular in California over the last decade as a form of recreation and transportation for people of all ages, particularly youth.
While e bikes offer many environmental benefits that's undisputable, they've also resulted in a concerning rise of public harm. Now you may be thinking bicycle accidents have been happening since bicycles were invented. And that would be absolutely right. Accidents will occur on bicycles of all kinds. The difference we're seeing with e bikes is not simply that accidents are happening, it's the severity of those accidents.
In a moment, my witness Doctor. Bhopali will speak to the data on injury severity. But the overall theme is clear: the increased speed and power of modern e bikes, particularly when used by young or inexperienced riders, has led to more traumatic outcomes across our state. And this is not just a statewide issue. It's personal to my district.
We've experienced the heartbreaking loss of two young people. Those families and many others are looking to us for thoughtful, responsible action. When I began reviewing the data last fall, one pattern became very clear: the e bike technology. This is a bill that's directed at the technology itself. The e bike technology is directly contributing to the troubling statistics we're seeing today.
And we did issue an ad that should have gotten. And right there, the ad is like Exhibit A. It says it's seven fifty watts. And then right below it, it says the peak wattage is 1,300. So that's where part of the problem lies.
Currently California law doesn't define an as a device that has less than seven
Redner 6
50 watts, but it does not clearly specify whether this limit pertains to peak power or continuous power. And that's why this ad is very important because it says seven fifty watts and right below it, it says 1,300 watts peak power. As a result, manufacturers have been building e bikes with motors that have a continuous power of seven fifty watts but they're actually capable of a much higher output. AB fifteen fifty seven provides clarity by specifying that the existing seven fifty watt limit applies to the maximum output capacity of an e bike, closing that ambiguity in current statute. In addition, the bill then establishes what we mean by continuous power, and that will be two fifty watt limit.
Redner 28
And at the direction of the committee, a maximum assisted speed of 16miles per hour for Class I and Class II e bikes. These standards will ensure that riders are traveling at reasonable and predictable speeds while also bringing California closer into alignment with widely recognized safety frameworks, including those used in the European Union, Japan and Australia. I'd like to pass the microphone now to my two witnesses. We'll start with Doctor. Jonathan I just made you a doctor, congratulations.
We'll start with Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the Police Chiefs Association and then we will turn it over to Doctor. Bhopali who will talk about their experiences with both e bikes and enforcement.
Redner 10
Thank you. Good afternoon or good evening at this point. Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, I want to start by thanking the author, the chair and this committee for prioritizing addressing the public safety issues identified very clearly around the use of these devices. And I'll start with saying simply, police chiefs really don't want to be in a position of having to police e bikes. Yet everywhere I went this fall when I traveled the state, going region to region, talking to police chiefs, this was the one issue that they all had.
It's really like, it's not guns or murder or violent crimes. No, it's e bikes is what they're hearing consistently about from their communities. And what we really need is a standard that addresses these problems and stops them from occurring in the first place, and that really is what this bill is about. From a public safety perspective, speed is the number one factor when you start looking at statistics for significant injuries and the severity of those injuries and lowering speeds, especially in the devices used by children, reduces risks and aligns with these international standards that we've heard that reduce the risks of serious injury. Ultimately, this bill is about prevention, not punishment.
And from the police chief standpoint, you know, clear rules reduce confusion, improve safety, and allow law enforcement to focus on real public safety priorities. And for that reason, we are in strong support and urge your eye vote today.
Redner 38
Good evening. I'm Doctor. Sunil Bhopalay, and I'm an emergency physician practicing at Kaiser Redwood City for over twenty six years. I work in a community hospital in suburban Redwood City. Through my many years of practice, I've taken care of patients with injuries related to both regular bicycles as well as e bike related injuries.
What's interesting, though, is that I take care of patients who have regular bicycle injuries much more frequently than I do e bikes. And the reason is the speed. Regular bikes can go anywhere from 10 to 20 miles an hour typically while pedaling pretty rapidly. E bikes routinely can go up to 30 miles per hour with very little effort on the part of the rider and that makes a significant difference. If you have a bicycle crash that occurs at 10 miles an hour, you'll sustain a certain amount of injury.
If you're traveling at 20 miles an hour, it's not twice the amount of injuries, it's four times the amount of injury. And as a corollary, a 30 mile per hour crash means nine times the amount of power that's inflicted on the rider compared to 10 miles an hour. So my point is the math is unforgiving when people are traveling at these speeds. What is the result of these increased speeds? Higher odds of admission to the hospital, to the ICU, and traumatic brain injuries.
Regarding e bikes specifically, and calling them out distinctly from regular bicycle injuries, we see many more head injuries than compared to bicycle accidents. This is due to a number of factors. You heard me discuss the speed issue. The type of helmet. A regular bicycle helmet is inadequate for an e bike.
Redner 48
They need special helmets because of the higher speeds that these riders travel at. In general, e bike riders tend to wear helmets less often compared to a regular bicycle rider, even though they are traveling at faster speeds. And then, and I'm sure all of you have seen this, e bicycles are ridden differently than regular bicycles. They are often ridden on sidewalks and bike paths not intended for motorized vehicles. Riders often ignore stop signs and other traffic rules, including weaving in and out of traffic, making more work for my colleague to the right here.
Redner 38
So my three takeaways are e bicycle injuries are more severe due to the speed and how they're used E bicycle injuries are avoidable with proper oversight and adherence to safety regulations, and the math is unforgiving. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to note their support, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 4
Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Redwood City, Carlsbad, Foster City, Mountain View, and the town of Hillsboro in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 5
Brian Spencer on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association in support.
Redner 11
Matt Robinson on behalf of both the City County Association of Governments of San Mateo, as well as the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 18
Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in support.
Redner 32
Carlin Shelby, on behalf of the Tri Valley Cities Coalition in support, comprised of the cities of Dublin, Danville, San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Thank you.
Redner 33
Ryan McCarthy on behalf of the cities of Lafayette, Arinda, Irvine, and Bray in support. Thanks.
Redner 12
Good afternoon. Irena Rapichan on behalf of AAA Northern California and Southern California in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. Go ahead. Take your seat. As a reminder, two minutes of ease.
Redner 17
Good evening, everyone. Chair and members, I'm Brett Thurber, co owner of The New Wheel. My wife and I have sold and serviced electric bikes in the Bay Area for sixteen years with stores in San Francisco, Oakland, and Marin. Our daughter grew up on the back of an e bike. We raised our family without a car.
In 2016, we worked with former assembly member David Chu to pass AB ten ninety six, the three class framework that matches federal law and is now law in 45 states. Tens of thousands of our customers today rely on legal class one, class two, and class three e bikes as safe, sustainable, healthy, and critically affordable transportation for their families. I'm here to respectfully urge you to reject AB fifteen fifty seven. The real problem on our streets is illegal e motos. This bill does nothing about them.
Redner 12
It just punishes the workers, families, and commuters by making legal e bikes more expensive and less capable. And it will decimate the legal e bike industry, which is really important, including my shop. Small businesses like ours and other bike shops in California, and the fact is also California is a leader in e bikes and the bicycle industry in the nation. Many of the bicycle shop bicycle brand's headquarters are in California, and those those businesses will also be threatened because of this bill. AB fifteen fifty seven's 250 watt cap effectively bans hub drive e bikes, which also happen to be the most affordable segment of the market.
Redner 17
Hub motors can't climb California's hills at 250 watts. My bike, for my daughter, that's a 350 watt e bike just to climb a hill in San Francisco. Only a more expensive mid drive motor can do that. And I'd love to talk about the science on this because it's really interesting, but as the doctor pointed out, he was talking about 20 mile per hour bikes, regular bikes going 20 miles per hour, e bikes go 20 miles per hour. It's the same same there.
And a and a and a strong cyclist, they put out about 350 to 400 watts.
Redner 17
So this this bill would give California the dubious distinction of of having different standards in every other state and country in North America. So one last thing I'll just mention is I talk to many of your aides. Many of them have electric bikes currently. They ride legal hub drive e bikes. One of them bought that e bike after the Strait of Hormuz crisis.
And with spiraling gas prices, that's exactly who this bill is gonna affect.
Redner 20
Good evening, chair and members. Mark Fuksovich on behalf of Streets for All Were Opposed Unless Amended. First and foremost, I just wanna acknowledge the committee amendments and really appreciate the author accepting those. I think they moved the bill in the right direction. But first and foremost but most importantly, wanna say that we have serious and maintained concerns about the bill, and namely that we don't believe the bill is addressing the real problem on our roadways.
This legislature, through SB three eighty one by, state senator Dave Minn at the time, now congressman, authorized a report out of the Moneta Transportation Institute. And the Moneta Transportation Institute said it pointed to motorcycle like devices or e bike like devices called e motos, not traditional e bikes being a primary challenge on our roadway. The report also noted the lack of good classification data that makes it difficult to justify sweeping changes to the legal e bike framework. In other words, the biggest problem on our roadways is illegal devices flooding the market, not ordinary e bikes being used as intended. This but we all make this mistake, and that's the problem here that this that we have with this bill.
Even the example that assembly member Pappin brought up, the KingBull Hunter two point o, there's a paper in front of you that all has that image from the assembly member's office, is not a legal e bike in California. It is a multiclass device that goes 28 and has a throttle that was made illegal by s b twelve seventy one by Dave Minn. So excuse me. State senator at the time, Dave Minn. This is a problem that we cannot identify what's right from wrong.
And by punishing the legal industry, It's like rearranging the the chairs on the top of the Titanic. It's a nice thought, but the problem is the Emotos on our roadway. And so this is gonna do a ton of damage to ebike companies. I I tried to give everyone a document. I don't know if I made it to everyone's office of all the ebike companies that are in your district that if this bill was to go into effect 01/01/2027, it would effectively make illegal somewhere between, I don't know, 30 to 90% of their stock.
I can let you speak to that more than I can. And so I I think that's a challenge that we have here. I think that's a challenge that we're facing here that this bill is trying to revamp the three class system and the three class system is flawed and I wanna acknowledge that. But the more important problem is that it's missing the mark in terms of the problem it's trying to solve. So for all that reasons, we requestly oppose unless amended is our position.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition to the bill. Name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 36
Jeannie Wardwaller, on behalf of People for Bikes and Cal Bike, I've also been asked to add on for the Environmental Protection Information Center San Diego San Diego three fifty three fifty Bay Area Action and the Center Progressive Reform in opposition.
Redner 32
Richard Tidd from Daly City, ebike rider. I have any legal e one, legal bike that I use for touring. I can't do that with the two fifty
Redner 1
and sixty. Limit everyone at this point, to name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 49
Steven Wilborn, San Francisco resident, and I oppose. Ed Merrill, San Francisco senior, and I strongly oppose this. And I'm here with six other senior friends that use this in San Francisco.
Redner 1
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Alrighty. Seeing no further public testimony moving it now to committee.
Sharp Collins. Push button. Thank you.
Redner 39
Thank you, assembly member Pappin, for bringing forth this important conversation. We we're doing a lot of talking about ebikes and safety and all these other different things. And I want you to know that I like the intention of this particular bill. However, I do share some concerns with opposition. I am worried about the the unintended consequences that may be brought forward, meaning that this bill could cause several bike shops in my district to lose majority of their inventory, and they can lose that at the start of the year.
So my question is, would you be open to a delayed implementation of this measure? Should this be able to move forward?
Redner 28
Well, a couple of things. First of all, all the stock can be sold. It just cannot be sold as a class one and two e bike. So it's not like the inventory goes away. There's there's no question about that.
What we have though is we're getting class one and class two are being sold like they're just 750 watts peak, and they're not. So the inventory does not go away. What we have done with the bill, thanks to the committee amendments, is that anything sold pre 01/01/2027 will be exempt. Anything sold after 01/01/2027 would be subject to the bill. So we did try to accommodate, you know, what inventory looks like at the end of the year and whatnot.
So that's kind of where we are in the bill. I mean, did a lot of amending just to satisfy that
Redner 39
very To try to satisfy that. I I just saw the opposition shaking their head. But but I'm sure it's okay if they can respond to
Redner 1
Yeah. You can respond to narrowly to the exchange around the inventory and whether it's legal or not legal or the I think I believe the comment that you were shaking your head on is whether it would no longer be class one and class two and would now be in a different class.
Redner 20
Absolutely, Chair Wilson and Summator Richard Collins. A legal I believe what the member is indicating is that some of these devices would become class threes. Class threes require two things in California. Sorry. In addition to specifically require two things.
They need a label that's permanently affixed that describes them as a class three that none of these devices would have. And they also require a speedometer. Class threes are the only device until Assemblyman Wilson's bill passes and gets signed into law this year. It's the only device that's required to have a speedometer. So any device that either has a throttle, so that's a class two, or a class one that has no speedometer will not be a legal class three in California.
Redner 17
All of our all of our most affordable bikes will be illegal after this bill is passed. And we have about a million dollars in inventory, and we're a larger shop. That would all be illegal after January 1. Or not all of it, except our class three. All of our family bikes would be illegal because of this bill.
Mhmm. It's it's it's just not accurate. It's gonna hurt all shops in this country in this state.
Redner 39
Okay. So thank you guys for for that for that response. I know that in in reading some of the letters, your opposition also raised some good points regarding the cost rising for bikes based on the new definition. And and so I just wanted to see if the member can speak a little bit more about about the rising cost concerns.
Redner 28
I'm not in the bike business. I'm in the safety business, so I can't really speak to the cost assembly member.
Redner 35
Understood. Thank you very much. But what I what I what I what I like to see happen is just if you can continue I know that that you've taken the amendments to address the the initial question that I did ask, but also continue to work with the opposition to ensure that local bike shops do not risk losing their business and that the cost does not rise for for consumers as we are currently seeing that gas prices are out of control and so as they continue to climb. So whatever you can do to continue to work with opposition, I would greatly appreciate that. Once again, I do believe in your intentions for this bill as it as it being good.
Redner 39
But in order for me to be able to to move forward and actually support the bill, I just would like to have that continued commitment to work with opposition to find some type of middle ground.
Redner 40
Thank you. So I guess my guess my first and maybe only question would be why 16 miles per hour? Is that Oh, sorry. Based on anything specific or?
Redner 28
Excuse me. That was at the suggestion of the committee, and and that is what they have as a European standard.
Redner 40
see. European Union standard. So, yeah, I guess I'm I'm really struggling with this one. So I I've had a lot of questions and and some concerns about a number of the ebike proposals that have come through this committee. However, I have supported all of them up until this point.
I think after sharing those concerns, I do think this is going to have a tremendous impact on small business. I think it's going to have a very negative impact on many of the bike sellers in my district, which is very concerning to me. I also think we're getting rid of a tool that people are currently using to replace driving to work or replace, you know, using their commute to get from place to place. I think that's going to have a tremendous negative impact on my constituents as well. And I so I guess where I'm at right now is I I understand I think you have another bill you're going to be bringing forward in a few minutes here.
I understand the bills that are directly aimed at protecting kids because I do think there is a huge problem when it comes to kids using either legal or illegal e bikes on our roads, not understanding the rules of the road, not understanding traffic laws, going the wrong direction on streets. These are all very real problems. What I struggle with with this bill is we're actually going after products that are available to adults, that adults are using responsibly, that adults are obviously purchasing in their local economies, supporting small businesses, using for their commutes. So I guess I'm just trying I'm not sure I I think you've identified the correct problem. I just don't see how this should be the solution when it actually goes after, a lot of the, know, the really, the legal uses that people are using responsibly.
And so, I mean, you're you may or may not I mean, you're welcome to respond. I I I'm happy to do it back and forth, but I also just I think those are my current thoughts on the bill. And unfortunately, unless there's something I'm missing here, I I don't think I'll be able to support the bill today. But I but I do wanna continue to work with you on on this and other legislation that you have, because I know you care about this issue a lot, on how we can better target the solution that doesn't impact, you know, the adult riders that are actually using this technology responsibly.
Redner 28
Yeah. I mean, they can certainly buy other products if they don't want to buy these ones as as mandated to be sold and manufactured. And as I said, the pre January 2027 are still going to allow it to be used as well. So and we'll continue to talk with the opposition. If there's some way of modifying the current inventory so that they are an acceptable Class III, we can certainly talk about that as well.
We are concerned about, though, is that there are models out there, Class I and Class II, being advertised as e bikes. Parents think they're buying e bikes. And when they have a wattage of 1,300, wattage of 1,300, that is way faster than what people think they are buying for their kids. And we're just having too many accidents and serious accidents. I don't want to impede the industry as well.
And I don't want to impede the use of adults using these, especially I as last think it's a tremendous opportunity. But, you know, technology sometimes the laws don't keep up with technology, and we didn't have a definition in the code as to what we meant by 750 watts. Was it to be continuous or was it to be peak? And we just wanna clarify that so that when parents are buying e bikes for their kids, they know what they're getting into. And they know that a 12 year old boy who's got 1,300 watts to accelerate with is not gonna get injured when you have that big acceleration and the big, whiplash that you can get back.
So that's kind of what we're dealing with. We're trying to reach that happy medium and focusing on this particular, you hear a lot about eMotos, but these bikes, e bikes, are going fast.
Redner 40
Yeah. I I do appreciate that, and I fully agree with you when it comes to the kids. I I can't I cannot agree more. I I think that the hard part I have is that 20 miles per hour for an e bike that is operated safely by an adult is not unreasonable in my opinion. I think that's something that is something that should be available to people to purchase and use in their commutes.
I think in its current version, you know, this bill does threaten that. And so I think for those reasons, I won't be able to support today, but happy to continue looking at it as as we move forward. Thank you.
Redner 27
Yes. Thank you. So thank you, assembly member. I think you have shown a lot of tenacity in this area. This is clearly a really important area to you.
And I don't think that you're off base because we have seen, you know, injuries happening. And also, we're seeing more people on e bikes. And so I think we definitely need to have a solution. I appreciate taking the amendments. The thing that just is unsettling for me is thinking about how as a parent, these different levels.
You purchase one bike and you you might want the bike to grow with your kids. Sometimes families share share bikes and you know what I'm saying? So now they would have to buy several different bikes in order to be able to handle, you know, each the 16 year old versus the 12 year old, etcetera. And the adult can no longer share with young person. And so in addition to looking at the economic impact to our local businesses in our districts, I really think about like the impact to families who now have to buy multiple bikes or have to keep upgrading their bikes.
You know, with that said, I understand what going after. I understand why you're going after it. And I do think that safety is paramount. I would encourage and hope that you will continue to try to work on some of the issues that were uplifted today. I believe this is the last stop here in the assembly before approves in on this bill.
Judicial. Oh, judicial. Judicial. Okay. Great.
Redner 53
So I'm I'm hoping that we can continue to work on some of the things that would balance the outcome you're looking for which ultimately is safety and how do we find a way to not have, you know, families priced out of being able to have multiple kids or even themselves share these different items. I know we talked about kids not having wearing helmets and things like that. So I don't know if there's other ways that we can get to what you're looking for. I will support it today, but I definitely would love to hear how you are working with the opposition to try to solve for some of the concerns. Thank you.
Redner 1
All right. Seeing no other members speaking, I'll note I had the opportunity when I first got elected to serve on bicycle advisory committee for our local transportation authority. And one of the members, who was an elderly woman who was an avid bike rider, had been racingI mean, like, avid bike ridershe was so excited about electric bikes, because then she can ride a bike again. As the opposition noted, people use this in lieu of cars, so e bikes are a good thing. And I think this committee has done its starness to balance between those of the need for people to use e bikes, which extends the life of our seniors who want to ride bikes.
It allows for people to have low it allows for our environment to be cleaner, lower emissions. So e bikes are a good thing. But at the same time, we have to keep folks safe. And recognizing, as the support, testimony or witness has given, is that we are seeing more and more people in the emergency room and more and more people who are young in the emergency room, And the damages to their bodies and to their families who are having to deal with this is pretty bad. So we have talked a lot about amends.
The amends were actually taken prior to today. So this committee had this bill as a part of their packet last week. It was pulled, and the men's were taken, and so we have it today. So we do have a motion by Harbetian and a second by Aggar Curry, but that is on the bill as it is in print today and do pass to judiciary. And so I appreciate you working with this committee, working with me, and I'll be supporting your bill today.
To the author, now you have an opportunity to close.
Redner 28
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your work on the bill. I'm glad we're all on the same page about two things. One, e bikes can be a very good thing. And number two, kids are getting hurt. So I'm hopeful as we go forward that this bill continues to appeal to the members as something that is finding a reasoned approach to to both the value of e bikes and also the dangers of e bikes.
So with that, I request respectfully request an aye vote.
Redner 23
AB fifteen fifty seven do pass to judiciary. Wilson? Aye. Wilson I. Davies?
Davies I. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry I. Avila Farias. Aaron's.
Aaron's I. Carrillo. Carrillo, I, Harabedian, heart, Hoover, Hoover, no, Jackson, lackey, lackey, not voting, Macedo, Pappin, Pappin,
Redner 1
That bill is out, but we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Before we go to our next bill by Assembly Member Pappin, we are going to do one pass through through all the bills for people to add on. We do have people who have some time sensitive things and have to go. And so we had 12 bills on our consent calendar calling Madam Secretary, please call for members to add on.
Redner 23
Aguirre Curry? Aguirre? Aguirre? Yes. Avila Farias?
Aaron's? Aaron's eye. Creo? Aye. Carreo aye.
Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian aye. Heart? Heart, aye.
Rogers?
Redner 1
We have 15 what's that? 15 votes. All right. We'll roll open for members to add on. We still have a member outstanding, so we ask that that member make their way to the committee room.
Going to item number one, AB fifteen eighty eight. Stephanie, we still need a motion.
Redner 1
Moved by Aguirre Curry, seconded by Hera Bedian. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 23
AB fifteen eighty eight, due pass to appropes. Wilson? Aye. Wilson I Davies? Aguirre Curry?
Aguirre Curry I. Avila Farias. Arons. Arons I. Carrillo.
Carrillo I. Harabedian I. Harabedian I. Hart. Hart I.
Hoover. Hoover I. Jackson. Lackey
Redner 23
Lackey eye, Moseto, Pappin? Pappin eye, Ransom? Ransom eye, Rogers? Eye. Rogers eye, Sharp Collins.
Sharp Collins eye.
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll hold the roll for members to add on. Item number 21654, De Mayo. We do not yet have a motion Moved by Hoover, seconded by Lackey. Roll call.
Madam secretary?
Redner 23
AB sixteen fifty four do pass to appropriations. Wilson? No. Wilson, no. Davies?
Aguirre Curry? Aguirre? No. Avila Farias? Aaron's?
Aaron's, no. Carrillo? Carrillo, no. Harabedian? Harabedian, no.
Hart? Hart, no. Hoover? Hoover I. Jackson, lackey, lackey, Moseto, Happen, Happen, I.
Oh, apology. Happen, no. Ransom?
Redner 23
Ransom, no. Rogers? No. Rogers? No.
Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins? No. Two to 10.
Redner 1
That bill that bill, wait. That bill, fell to leave committee, but we will hold the roll open for members to add on. Item number sorry to the witnesses. We have quite a few to get through real quick. Item number six a b nineteen seventy six.
Oh. Oh, I'm so sorry. Item number five a b nineteen forty two.
Redner 23
The motion was due passed to appropes. Aguirre Currie? Aguirre Currie I. Avila Farias. Arons.
Arons, I. Carrillo, Harabedian, I.
Redner 1
Bill is out. We'll hold the roll for members to add on. Item number six, AB nineteen seventy six.
Redner 23
The motion on that was due passed to local government. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Aguirre Curry?
Aguirre Curry, aye. Arons,
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Item number seven, AB twenty fifteen.
Redner 23
AB twenty fifteen do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Aguirre?
Aguirre Curry, aye. Avila Farias? Aarons? Aarons, aye. Carrillo, aye.
Harabedian? Harabedian, aye. Moseto?
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll hold the row open for members to add on. Item number eight, two thousand one hundred sixty eight.
Redner 23
AB 2,168 do pass to appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Aguirre?
Aguirre? Aguirre? Avela Ferrias? Aaron? Aaron, aye.
Correo? Correo, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye.
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Item number nine, a b twenty one ninety six, Ta. A b
Redner 23
twenty one ninety six, do pass to approves. Villa Farias, Aaron's, Aaron's not voting. Carrillo? Carrillo, no. Hart?
Hart, no. Hoover? Hoover not voting.
Redner 1
Alright. That bill failed to pass. Item number 10 oh, we'll hold the roll open, though, for members to add on. Item number 10, AB2263.
Redner 23
A b twenty two sixty three do pass to local government, Avila Farias, Carrillo? Carrillo, yes. Heart, heart I, Hoover? Hoover I, Jackson, Massito?
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Item number 13, a b twenty two eighty four.
Redner 23
A b twenty two eighty four do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Avila Farias, Hart, Hart not voting. Hoover? Hoover I, Jackson, Moseto, Ransom.
Redner 1
That was it. That bill has failed to get out of committee. We'll hold the role open for members to add on. I was noted by the author that she had asked for reconsideration, and and we're granting reconsideration without objection. Okay.
Redner 23
The motion was due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Hoover? Hoover? No. Jackson?
Lackie? No. Lackey, no. Mosito?
Redner 1
Alright. That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Moving on, we did we just did 19, AB fifteen fifty seven. Moving on to item 21 a b sorry.
Was everybody in the room? Do I need to do it anyway? Is that a courtesy? Okay. I'm at nineteen, the one we just did.
Anybody come in? Okay.
Redner 23
A B1685, due pass due appropriations. Aguirre? Aguirre? Aguirre? Aguirre?
I. Avila Farias? Arrens, I. Arabedian. Arabedian.
Heart. Heart. I. Rogers.
Redner 1
I. Rogers. We have Our last one, item numb oh, sorry. That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on.
The last bill is item number 22AB 1687.
Redner 23
A b 1687, due passed to appropriations. Aguirre Curry. Aguirre Curry I. Avila Farias. Arons.
Redner 1
With that, thank you so much for your patience as we took care of some administrative tasks. Moving on now to, as was noted earlier, without reference to file, AB 2,595. You may begin.
Redner 28
Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. For my second e bike bill of the day, I'd like to present AB two thousand five and ninety five, which is a district bill that allows San Mateo County and its cities to adopt an ordinance prohibiting children under the age of 12 from riding e bikes. As you heard in my prior testimony, e bikes have grown increasingly popular across the state, particularly among young people and especially in my community. My community is filled with a lot of tech. They were early adopters of e bikes, and they've got money to buy e bikes.
And while these devices, as we've noted, offer great convenience and mobility, they've raised also serious safety concerns. This bill comes in response to tragedy. Two children in my county have died. My community has been devastated by these losses. My constituents have repeatedly voiced their concerns about very young children operating these devices and are asking for a solution.
While existing law allows jurisdictions to regulate the use of e bikes on sidewalks and trails, it does not allow local governments to enact stronger age based regulations without specific authorizing legislation. That gap in authority is why we have introduced AB 2,595. This issue is not unique to California. Across the country, states and cities have already taken steps to establish minimum age requirements for e bike use. For example, Alaska has a fourteen year minimum age for e bikes.
Minnesota has a fifteen year minimum age. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and D. C. Each have a sixteen year minimum age. Cities across The U.
S. Are also acting them. Highland Park, Illinois established a minimum age of 16 for all classes of e bikes. Coleyville, Texas restricts riders under the age of 10 to Class one and two e bikes. And Phoenix, Arizona has adopted a sixteen year age requirement for all e bikes.
Here in California, we've seen jurisdictions have taken similar steps. In 2024, this committee, AB2234 and AB1778 created pilot programs allowing San Diego County and Marin County to restrict the age of riders for Class I and Class II e bikes. Residents of San Mateo County are asking for the same authority and tools that have already been provided to San Mateo and Marin. AB 2,595 provides those tools. It doesn't mandate any jurisdiction to enact an ordinance.
Instead, it simply gives cities and the county the option to establish a reasonable age restriction if they determine it's necessary to create a safer environment for drivers, pedestrians and e bike riders alike. With me today to testify is Robin Peng Maganares, and she is a middle school principal and also a council member from one of the cities in my district. And Mr. Ming Fang, the father of Aidan Fang, a four year old boy who tragically passed away just a few months ago in August 2025 as a result of an ebike related collision. So with that, I'll with you, Robin, and then we'll go to Ming.
Redner 8
Madam Chair and Committee, my name is Robin Peng Maganares, and I serve as a city council member in Belmont but I'm here today equally if not more importantly as the principal of a TK8 school in Pacifica California where I see firsthand the real world impact of students on e bikes. Every morning, every single morning, I stand at the curb greeting our students and families and increasingly what I am witnessing is deeply concerning. Young children are riding electric bikes, weaving in and out of traffic without the developmental capacity to fully understand traffic flow or right away. Recently, the San Mateo County of Office of Education did a bicycle audit on my campus and found that one half of the bikes on my campus are e bikes and most all are class two throttle assist bikes. E bikes move faster, accelerate quickly, and require a level of judgment that young and situational awareness that young children simply are not yet equipped to handle.
Redner 53
What results is not just a burden for what results is not just a risk to those children, but an undue and unfair burden on drivers, parents, teachers, and community members who are forced to anticipate the unpredictable movements of these young e bikes in an already congested school zone. This is not about limiting independence or access. It's about aligning responsibility with developmental readiness. AB 2,595 provides local jurisdiction with the ability to thoughtfully and responsibly address this growing safety concern. It allows us to lead with education and set reasonable age based guardrails and ultimately prevent harm.
From both a policy perspective and an educator's lens, I urge you to support this bill.
Redner 54
Committee chair and member, thank you for the opportunity for me to speak today. And also thank you in advance for the programs that you passed for Moreno and San Diego County. From the families and local safety traffic advocates, they're already seeing meaningful changes, improvements on the ground. And our families in San Mateo needs that same protection. We all recognize that more and thoughtful e bike regulations state and nationwide need to be worked on.
While that's in progress, no more children should be hurt. That's what AB 2595 offers. And here's our story. On the fateful evening, Friday night, August eighth twenty twenty five, a 19 year old SUV driver was pulling out a public parking lot onto a busy street in Downtown Burlingame. Her view was obstructed by a car parked on the street, so she edged forward.
At the same time, an 11 year old boy on a class two e bike was traveling 18 miles an hour with her 10 year old sister on the back. By the time he saw the SUV, he couldn't stop. It was too late. He tried to brake, but inside crashed into the SUV. The SUV driver panicked, drove across the street into a restaurant.
Our son, who was only four and half years old at the time Aiden, was killed instantly by the SUV from a factory skull. Aiden's death was fully preventable. There were multiple responsible parties at multiple points where this could have been voided. Today, I'm asking you to act on one of them. And you 11 year old should not be riding a motorized vehicle that can go up to 20 miles an hour.
Redner 50
The kids that age, they do not have full appreciation of traffic rules, they do not have the right understanding and the actual situational awareness and reaction time. That essentially represents a lack of policy and a failure of our society, and AB two five nine five helps put an end to that. Two days before Ayden died, he did something out of the ordinary for his night routine. He really wanna build a Lego tower. The one he's holding the photo right here and also in your binders.
Redner 54
The Lego tower happens to have two blocks facing the outside that say protect our city. And that's all I'm asking you to do here today to protect our city. We absolutely need comprehensive stay in nationwide regulation on e bikes, but we cannot wait while more families suffer from preventable tragedies and go through the same things that we're going through right now. And I want have you
Redner 54
Two sentences. We must pass AB two five nine five. It's an opportunity to save lives. So I thank you, the chair, the members of committee for hearing Aiden's call to protect our city.
Redner 1
Thank you. Moving on to members of the community I'm sorry, public, who would like to come in and add on your support, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 4
Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Foster City, Redwood City, San Mateo, and the town of Hillsborough in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 36
Jeannie Wardwaller for People for Bikes. We are supportive amended. We recommend this being a countywide pilot rather than city by city. So, So it's not patchwork.
Redner 11
you, madam chair. Again, Matt Robinson on behalf of the City County Association of Governments of San Mateo as well as the California Medical Association in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. All right. Moving on to opposition. We do not have any opposition registered on file, and so this would be an appropriate time for any member of the public who would like to note opposition to come to the microphone, name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving it back to committee if there's any questions, comments, concerns.
Aguirre Currie?
Redner 50
Assemblymember Pappin, thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. Your pain, I see every single day down I back out of my car out of my driveway right by middle school. And I have been blessed that I haven't hit someone yet. I even have all the backup cameras. I've got all that.
And out of nowhere, someone's going with their child, two of them, two people down the road without a helmet, like a bat out of hell. And I don't know how many times I have narrowly missed them. I want to thank you for sharing your story. It's heart wrenching because I don't think any family should go through that. We're trying to protect our cities, and I I will say that I'm really happy that the police group was here on your prior bill because they see it every time, and they want a solution as well.
So I'm hoping as we move this thing forward that we can protect your families and other families and the schools. So, thank you very much for bringing that forward. I think I already moved the bill.
Redner 15
Thank you. Again, thank you for bringing this bill forward. And as the one witness said, said, look at this as a county because that's one thing that I wanna I I think this is great. And we're watching this these pilot programs, I think, in Carlsbad and some other areas that are working with the county. Because within my area, the my district, you can definitely get on e bike in ten minutes, get into another city, another city, another city.
So I think for law enforcement and regulation, having something consistent. So perhaps just sitting down with the members from the cities and but, I mean, you definitely have my support for this, just making it more consistent so you can work as a whole.
Redner 1
All right. Seeing no other members, I'll note I'll give my comments and then give it to the author to close. And so, it has been a standing policy of mine as chair to not support bills that expand an existing pilot program before we have received data from that pilot program. And your pilot program expands on a pilot that's already going on, as you noted, as a part of your opening remarks, that this committee approved to have a pilot program in San Diego. It was sponsored by the city of Carlsbad.
And it was prior to the committee, to the Mineta Institute report. And at that time, we were concerned that there wasn't data that supported an age based system in order to do that pilot. But because we didn't have the Moneta Institute, we said, Okay, we'll do it, and we'll do a pilot program at the request of Carlsbad for the cities within San Diego County, as well as San Diego County. And like I said, we noted that it was premature. We should wait.
But we decided that, because we didn't have the report, that we would go ahead and let the pilot occur. Now we have the pilot going on, which the first report is due back in 01/01/2028. We have the Moneta Institute, which did not make recommendations on prohibiting the use of electric bicycles based on age. It did make a ton of recommendations, as you know. And I believe the amendments to AB fifteen fifty seven that creates a statewide prohibition on anyone 16 year old riding an extra bicycle with greater than two fifty continuous watch actually addresses this issue and is more in line with the recommendations from the Moneta Institute report.
Numerous members of this legislature who wanted to expand various pilotsnot this pilot in particular, but other pilotsin the transportation pacefollowed the advice of waiting for those pilot reports to come back, which some are due back next yearlater this year, some are due back next year and the subsequent year, like this one, they didn't introduce those bills to expand the existing pilots that we have operating in transportation space, because I believe we, as a legislature, need to make data driven decisions. And part of thewhen we do these pilots, part of it relates to opposition and agreements with opposition that it'll be a pilot program. And they either remove to neutral or or take off their heavy opposition. And so out of respect for the members who took that direction and just my long standing view withI've given exceptions to it, but very fewas it relates to expanding pilots prior to their finish, I won't be able to support your bill today and will be abstaining. I'll give you an opportunity to close, but I will note that we did have a motion already.
And is there a second? Second. Second byso, we have a motion made by Edgar Curry and a second by Rogers. With that, I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 28
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I would just say that it is my hope that we can answer Aiden's call. I want to thank you for being here, Ming, and the outcry of my community that has suffered with an I vote. So thank you, madam chair.
Redner 23
AB 2,595 do pass to appropriations. Wilson? I'm not voting. Wilson not voting. Davies?
Davies, aye. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry I. Villa Ferrius. Arons.
Arons I. Carrillo. Carrillo I. Harabedian. Heart.
Heart I. Hoover. Hoover I. Jackson I. Jackson I, Lackey.
I. Lackey I, Mussito. Happen. Happen I, Ransom. Rogers.
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Now moving to our final bill and a request from any member of this committee who is not present to make themselves present so that we could dispense with our last bill and do one final call, hopefully, for members to add on. Moving on to item number 23, AB twenty twelve.
Redner 40
Thank you, madam chair, members. Appreciate the opportunity to present twenty twelve. Wanna start by thanking the chair and committee staff for working with us. We're accepting the committee amendments that essentially clarify that a special permit is not required to move a manufactured home if the applicant has already obtained an annual permit. That is all the bill does.
It is late. Would love your support. Respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 22
Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Graciela Castillo Crings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in strong support. I wanna echo the member's comments. Really appreciate all the work that you and your staff did to get us here. At the end of the day, what this bill is trying to accomplish is expedite housing by look taking a page from the Ford Model T and really trying to figure out how we can actually industrialize production of housing so we can deliver predictability, enhance quality control, economies of scale, and job opportunities.
Redner 55
And being so late at night, we appreciate all of the work and hope that everybody on the committee votes aye. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who might want to add on, not might, who would like to add on their support. Now would be appropriate time to come to the mic, name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving on to opposition. We don't have any registered on file.
Oh. Did did you okay. I might be looking at an old note. Please come forward. Did you send in a letter?
Redner 56
Lassiter. I'm a cutting I'm I'm with Cutting Edge Modular. We're a factory built housing manufacturer in Woodland. Generally speaking, we're supportive of the provisions of the proposed bill. My concern was with the adoption of factory built housing under the standards for manufactured housing transport.
I want to make sure that the committee understands that for as many years as I've been in this business, twenty one years, factory built housing has been transported basically under the standards for manufactured housing without any adoption under that statute that I'm aware of. So it's very hard to track all of the different revisions, including the ones you did. I was unaware until I had a lot of time today to read the changes about the revisions. What I noticed was first that all of the innovations and basically the things that would help us provide housing at a more affordable rate in California, including recognizing the wits that we need to provide housing that people want to buy, had been stripped out of the bill. And I wasn't happy to see that, and I think that the consumers in California were not well served by that.
I will say that factory built housing is a distinct product that is under the California factory built housing law. I would encourage the committee to look at what that product is, what the law is, the differences with the federally regulated manufactured housing as compared to factory built housing. Factory built housing is regular housing built in components in a factory, And it's intended to standardize the product so that housing can be built affordably, safely, and in my opinion, at a higher quality than it can be built on-site. So understanding that you will probably not take all of my advice in the current session, I would encourage the committee to look over time at something where hundreds of millions of dollars of product is being delivered each year without following under a clear statute in California.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you so much. And for the committee to note that there was a support, if amended, and then because we had no opposition, given an opportunity to note the concerns. As committee staff noted to me that the issues that, even though we have amended the bill heavily, that the issues that you brought up in your letter, which we did receive, thank you, is still relevant with that. Now moving todid Ioh, opposition in public.
I think we did that part. Yes. Okay. Any members, questions, comments, concerns? Agaire Curry?
Redner 49
I just wanted to comment. Thanks to you for the opposition for coming today because I think it's a great ways to have these manufactured homes. I think they're fabulous. However, I think about how many times I see people trying to transport them. And are there design standards that they have currently right now on on these as you transport them?
Redner 50
Because I would imagine the Department of Transportation and others or would be or CHP would be very keeping an eye on these as we move them. Am I correct?
Redner 56
Manufactured housing is a mature industry with probably in the high hundreds of millions to billions of dollars of product being transported throughout California from 15 to 20 different factories. So yes, there are many standards. There's a comprehensive regulation. There's housing policy. And I think only to get in my bit about my comments is that it's distinct.
Redner 9
It's a federally regulated product that comes on a double I beam chassis and tends to sit in mobile home parks, sometimes on private property. And the the bill, the six package bill that has been mentioned in various committees for housing has really been focused on factory built housing, which is a rapidly growing portion of the market and is I wouldn't say it's under regulated, but it's not directly addressed. And that is something that you know, there was a lot of time spent tonight on a single type of transportation. And this is just big, oversized load that do create hazards going down the road in California, and no one has addressed it specifically at all.
Redner 1
And I think that's the intent of this bill, and I'll get into those comments shortly.
Redner 50
That's fine. Thank you very much. But, it was nice to hear from the opposition. Yeah. They've actually built them for twenty one years.
I want to give you some credibility on that.
Redner 1
Yes, thank you. Seeing no other So, thank you for working with the committee staff on these amendments. I appreciate. I know Assembly Member Lackey had to leave. Appreciate his involvement on this bill as well, having been with CHP.
We did get technical amends late from CHP, which is why you see almost complete gutting of this bill. And the intent of the bill is to seek is to reduce regulatory barriers and deliver manufacturing homes more quickly. As we noted, that you wanted more time to work on this and figure out the lane, and I would give you an opportunity to figure out that lane, and you'd stay in contact with this committee as you navigate forward should this get out and make its way to our other house and their transportation committee. So I look forward to continuing the conversation and finding innovative solutions to the housing crisis in the state while also maintaining safety standards on our highways. I'm sure everyone has driven on our highway and seen one of these things go down it.
And so I am going to be supporting your bill today. I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 40
Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, I think it was sort of mentioned this is part of a larger bill package to encourage and really make more cost affordable the use of factory built housing in California, something that is very distinct from manufactured housing. It's sort of complicated, but certainly a technology we want to embrace in California to address our housing crisis. But in awareness of the safety concerns that were raised pretty late in the process by CHP, we would love the opportunity to continue that conversation, and this will help move We'll keep all of those concerns in mind, and appreciate an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. And I'll clarify, I misspoke. I meant Caltrans, not CHP, but as you know. Yes. CHP.
Yeah, both. They were comments. We have a motion by Sharp Collins and a second by Rogers Rogers. Madam Secretary.
Redner 23
AB twenty twelve do pass as amended to appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies I. Aguirre? Aguirre? Aguirre?
Avela Ferrias? Aaron's? Aaron's I. Carrillo? Carrillo I.
Harabedian? Heart? Heart I. Hoover? Hoover I Jackson.
Jackson I Lacky. Moseto. Moseto I. Pappin. Pappin I Ransom.
Rogers. Rogers I Sharp Collins Sharp Collins I.
Redner 24
That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. We'll take a brief two minute pause to confirm where the other member is. Think hold on one second. We're gonna
Redner 1
from the top. Let us go. We'll start with consent calendar. Or do you want it? Oh, we're good.
Oh, that's right. For just the one. Okay. Item number 1, AB1588.
Redner 23
You're an I and asking for reconsideration. I. Moseto? I. Moseto, I.
I'm sorry. Jackson? No. Jackson, no.
Redner 1
That bill fails, and a request for reconsideration granted without objection. Item number 5, a B1942, Bauer can. Okay. Item number Okay. Do file file item six, a b 1976, Wicks.
Mosito. Mosito, no. 124. That bill is out holding for members to add on. File item seven, a b twenty fifteen, Wix.
Redner 1
We have thirteen one. That bill is out. We'll hold for members to add on. File item eight, a b twenty one sixty eight, Wix.
Redner 1
That was it. File item nine I'm sorry. That that bill is out. We're holding for members to add on. File item 9AB2196, ta.
Oh, I'm sorry. Let me wait. Hold on. File item 10AB2263, Cholra. Avila Farias.
Jackson.
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll hold the members. Hold the roll open for members to add on. File item 13, AB2284, Dixon.
Redner 1
Four to three. Bill, fails committee. It was noted earlier that Assembly Member Dixon asked for reconsideration, and it was given without objection. File item 15. File item 15, a b twenty five sixty, Schultz.
Redner 1
thirty. That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on item number 19. AB fifteen fifty seven, Pappin.
Redner 1
13 to one. That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Item number 21AB1685, Lackey. Oh.
We'll keep consent. Do we have any more where members are present? File item number 23AB2012, Hoover. Avila Farias, Arabedian, Lackey, Ransom.
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. I believe that satisfy all members that are present. Okay. Where is that one?
Oh, sorry. Without reference, Cephale, AB2595Pappen.
Redner 27
Alright, we're gonna call this meeting of the Transportation Committee adjourned.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.