Senate Transportation Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Transportation Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Alright. So the legislature the legislature created the LA Metro Board back in '92, and it was done to streamline transportation planning in LA County by unifying competing transportation agencies. There was a lot of pushback when the legislature proposed to do this, but there was a recognition that it was a necessary thing to do. And I think it's generally served the region well. Metro is now the second largest public transit operator in the country.
It's got over 300,000,000 riders per year. It's responsible for over $9,000,000,000 in taxpayer approved funding for the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of the county's transit and highway projects. We have played a big role in helping that process along. Our gas tax, as you may recall, includes over half $1,000,000,000 a year just for transit construction and development. That was something that several of us worked on to make sure it happened.
Lot of that money is going to help with LA Metro and this big build out. Right now, the authority is governed by a 14 member board of directors. It consists of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors. There are also various council members from different cities representing smaller geographic sub regions of the county. So they give they basically split up the county into several regions, and then each of them have a council member rep that represents the cities.
And then the City Of LA has its own city of LA, City Of Long Beach have their own representation. So that's the current system. Now, in the February, the voters of LA County did something very bold. They voted to create a they voted for measure g, which was a measure that was sought sought to improve representative governance. And it expanded the board of supervisors in Los Angeles County from five to nine.
And it also created a new a new elected county executive with the responsibility of representing the entire county. So existing law requires LA Metro to provide the legislature with governance reform plan after the number of county supervisors increases. And Measure G did indeed stipulate that there should be five new supervisors that will be elected in 2032. After the 2030 census, there should be a redistricting and then a creation, an expansion of the board with new maps drawn. It also, however, created this county wide executive.
And the existing law does not currently account for the creation of the new county wide executive that will be elected in 2028, in just two years. So under the existing timeline for Metro's report to the legislature, the county executive will not be considered for membership of the board or have a voice in the county's transportation goals for at least four years. And this is a position that's going to be elected to represent the entire region and look out for the needs of the entire county. So this bill seeks to expedite the timeline by requiring LA Metro to provide their report with recommendations to update the membership of the board of directors by July 1. There is also a kind of a parallel track where the county has set up a Measure G task force to talk about implementation of Measure G that we'd also like to incorporate in.
I think there's some other things really in the Measure G that we may want to incorporate into the bill. But basically, this is now this does not delineate a particular path toward metro governance. All it says is that the folks in the community should come back to the legislature, which created this board in the first place, with some proposals as to how to best incorporate the passage of Measure G in the governance structure over a metro. So there's no specificity in terms of how to do it, but we want to get their ideas and plans. As part of this proposal, I hope you don't mind me sharing, but the chair has agreed that this committee will hold a hearing on this topic of metro governance sometime during this calendar year.
Hopefully in LA, necessary here. But the central point is that with the voters having passed Measure G, we have to now take some steps to try to figure out a plan for metro governance that incorporates the reality of the passage of Measure G. And it's an open minded spirit, and I certainly hope that ask for your vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator. Any witnesses today? I don't believe so. Okay, I don't believe so either. We will ask if there's anyone in the committee room who wishes to speak in support.
If so, come forward. You can indicate name, affiliation, and support. Alright. Do we have opposition? Are you listed as an opposition witness with the committee?
Yes. Yes? Alright, please come forward to the table. Welcome. You'll have two minutes each in whichever order you prefer.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon, Chair Cortezier and Committee members. My name is Madeline Moore. I am a deputy executive officer from LA Metro. I would like to start by thanking the senator, Senator Allen, for the dialogue on this bill. However, Metro remains opposed to this bill.
While Metro recognizes the importance of considering governance structure in light of the evolving county leadership, this bill is unnecessary and undermines an existing locally driven process already authorized by state law. Following the passage of Measure G in November 2024, the LA County Board of Supervisors established the Governance Reform Task Force to oversee the implementation of sweeping changes in the county, including governance changes to the LA Metro Board and other boards and commissions where the county is represented that also exist in state law. In addition, in light of the upcoming changes to the LA County's governance structure, the Metro Board Chair has created an ad hoc committee to review and consider potential changes to the composition of the Metro Board. This committee will consist of both board and non board members and have public meetings in Los Angeles to discuss possible changes to the Metro Board composition. Metro has always focused on a bottoms up process of engaging our stakeholders that include cities, councils of governments, labor, and other transportation stakeholders.
This bottoms up process and local buy in is how Metro was able to successfully pass four ballot measures to invest local dollars in public transportation. This committee will begin meeting next month and will collect an array of community and stakeholder input. It will conclude with recommendations to transmit the plan to the legislature no later than July 2026. Given that this local process has been created and will finish ahead of the timeline currently in SB two twenty, we do not believe this bill is necessary. We look forward to a robust local conversation with community members and transportation stakeholders.
We would welcome the state legislature and our L. A. County Delegation members to participate in this local, transparent public process and provide feedback in the coming months. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 7
Mister chair and members, Andrew Antwy with Shah Yoder Antwy Schmeltzer and Lang, here today on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. I received direction from, the mayor of Los Angeles to show up in committee today to voice opposition to SB, two twenty Allen. We thank the senator for his many years of thoughtful work on issues related to transit and climate change, but on this issue of local, board governance, especially in the wake of Measure G, we think this proposal has changed a lot and may change again. And it basically, some way, will have an impact on the local conversations that have to take place and that are already set to take place without this legislation. A reminder that the earlier version of this bill, modified the board composition, added supervisors, added the county CEO, and then it changed to establish a due date on a report that is already required to be submitted to the legislature by LA Metro.
The mayor is a voting member of the LA, Metro Governing Board. We have a very direct interest in having the fully vetted conversation locally without influence from Sacramento. There is the capacity to have this conversation locally as evidenced by the testimony from that just preceded me relative to an ad hoc committee that's been established by the metro board to look at metro governance. LA County itself is, in the process of working through a task force to look at LA Metro governance and governance, where LA County has a footprint on many other, boards and commissions, including some created by the state. That's happening without this legislation, so it begs the question of this bill and its necessity.
The mayor believes that this bill is a stalking horse for additional changes that would happen later. I'm not a voting member of this committee and neither is the mayor, but I think a fair question is, is this bill gonna stay in the same form, or is it gonna change? And if it is gonna change, why move it now? Why not have the real proposal in front of this committee? For those reasons, the mayor's asking for a no vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are is there anyone else in the committee room who wishes to express an opposed position? If so, come to the microphone. You may so indicate. Seeing no one come forward, we'll come back to the committee or their committee comments.
Vice Chair Strickland.
Speaker 8
Look, I I respect the center, but I think this bill is here too early. I believe in local control and that we should have the locals led process to this to this issue. Is very important on the member makeup of Metro. And so but I think we're pre we're doing this too soon. We have until 2028.
As said, there's an ad hoc committee already gonna report back to the legislature. I'd I'd rather have the people of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County make the determination and then come to us, because I believe in local control. I believe in local, driven, especially when it comes to Metro. And it says something that the mayor of Los Angeles and Metro are coming up opposed to this bill because, again, we have the time. We have until 2028, to get this right, and they're doing hearings locally.
And I think it's important that they go throughout the whole county of Los Angeles, have those hearings locally, and then come back with those voices from our constituents in LA County, and then come to legislature with their, their proposal on the makeup of Metro moving forward. For those reasons, I oppose this bill. If any legislator believes in local control, they would be opposed to this bill at this time.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Sharon. I want to thank my colleague as well for bringing this forward. I think that, you know, we've talked about it very briefly, but I think this definitely needs more conversation. Coming from Long Beach, which is the second largest city in the county of Los Angeles, which has no voting opportunity, constantly has to fight with my smaller cities, which are Southeast Los Angeles, about 10 cities there, feel that they have no representation.
And so they often feel, as we know, that the county always has more representation than the cities, and it's just an ongoing battle politically. I think we need to have those discussions, excuse me, I'm a little sick, in, Los Angeles first to be able to start figuring out what the next steps might be. You know, here, we're all very ambitious in terms of, you know, ensuring that Sacramento has their say, but I think on this one, I I really do feel that we need to take a step back and really allow our locals to be more involved. And also understand what the real inequities are, because there are a lot of regions of Los Angeles County that are not being served right now with the current makeup of the board. Like like I said, Southeast Los Angeles Agree.
Long Beach. We also have Catalina Island. And all although that they don't have a a direct connection because there is, you know, some waterway between them, their voices also matter too. As you know, you've both we you and I have both represented the the island. So with that, I will, not be supporting the bill today, but I I do look forward to, you know, ongoing conversations with you and how we can make this better from a from an LA collective.
Speaker 2
I I just wanna make I wanna make sure recognize. I mean, it seems like the Opposition. The opposition was raising the earlier version of the bill as a concern. We we we I mean, is a if we are we understood that they didn't wanna see the legislature delineate and and members didn't wanna see the legislature delineate a very particular approach that that that outlined specific a specific plan for the incorporation of Measure G into the measure Metro Board. And so instead, we said, hey, you know, they've got a they got this they already have a requirement to come back to legislature with a plan.
Let's speed up that process. Thankfully, they've now responded by with a speed a sped up timeline. But that's in response to the pressure we were putting on. Because we recognize that we need to have some kind of plan in place in advance of of '28, which really is not very far away. It's literally two years from now.
And I think it behoove us to at least get this conversation moving before we know who the person's going to be in the countywide elected executive. So we're doing this decision based on the structure as opposed to the individual. And all we're asking we're actually asking for exactly what you've just described, is both of you have described, which is a locally driven discussion process whereby but everybody knows that at end of the day, the legislature gonna have to write up the legislation to to to to make the changes because this whole thing is authorized by the legislature. It's it's not it's it's not it's a it's a structure that was created by the legislature. So the legislature gonna have to ultimately sign on or or weigh in or or rubber stamp or or agree to or propose whatever final solution comes together.
And so all we're doing here is making sure that they come to us with proposals, that there really is a broad discussion in LA. But I do think it's really important for us to have the discussion. This measure passed two years ago, and we ought to we ought to be thinking about how to incorporate it into our thinking about Metro board governance. All this bill proposes to do. Andrew, my friend, was worried that we're going to try to do some sort of bring it back to the original proposal or something.
Let me just say very clearly, all we're asking for here and all we ever will ask for in this bill are reports back from the community to give us recommendations and to really start the conversation about what this board ought to look like after the passage of Measure G. This is not going to be a vehicle that will delineate the membership of the board. I want to say that very clearly right now. That's not what's going happen with this And so please don't take the the fear that that may be the the eventual goal of this bill to to spook you into opposing it. Alright.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you, senator. Let's a quorum, then I'll make my comments, and then we'll see if there's nothing else. We'll give you another opportunity to close.
Speaker 10
Senators Cortezi? Here. Here. Strickland? Here.
Strickland here. Archuleta? Aragine?
Speaker 10
Aragine here. Blakespeare? Cervantes? Dally? Gonzales?
Here. Here. Grayson? Here. Grayson here.
Menjivar? Perez?
Speaker 10
Paris, here. Richardson? Here. Richardson here. Sarto?
Here. Sarto here. Umberg, Valadares?
Speaker 1
Alright. We do have a quorum. Look, my my vote with all due respect to the opposition and to a couple of members whose opinions I respect here and certainly respect Senator Gonzalez's comments being domiciled in that area and in the middle of the conversation. I see the bill a lot more like Senator Allen sees it as a vehicle that's available to drive this report back. And nothing else but I've been in conversations with him for two years now because this is a two year bill.
And he, I think, very graciously saw that time was going to be needed during the last year, but wanted to have a vehicle available, not to put words in your mouth either or to misquote you, but in case there was something that came up out of these local conversations that was going to require a vehicle, thoughtfulness looking forward. The bill this committee is not dispositive in terms of what ultimately happens to the bill. And I think it makes sense to keep it alive until some more of these conversations in this kind of January 13 last minute letter, Although I respect it from the mayor dropping what she's doing and getting us a letter, that that can be processed by everybody before the next time this comes up for a vote. That's the way I see it. So if we were to move the bill along, I think there's plenty of opportunity to continue this debate along the way in Senator Allen.
If you can't work it out with locals where they're rallying opposition within the Senate or within the legislature, then, know, because you say that's your problem. If you can, the bill will keep moving. But I don't think we need to stop it today. That's just my that's my that's what the basis of my vote is. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Yes, Senator?
Speaker 12
Senator you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question a couple questions, but I'll start with the first one. Given, in light of some of the more recent comments that have come forward, and I know several of us on this committee and members of the L. A.
Delegation that aren't a part of this committee are getting phone calls, Am I correct that there might be one more, opportunity to vote on this bill, prior to the deadline, if the author, would concur? I wouldn't want you I'm only suggesting this because I don't want you to lose your opportunity, but if there is, in fact, one more opportunity, I think that gives the members of the L. A. Delegation there are several people who actually aren't here yet, and then there's members who aren't on this committee. Isn't it correct that there's one more opportunity this bill could come forward, for a vote for this committee that would give the author a chance to talk to all the members, make the commitments that he's making today, And then that way, more people would feel positive in moving forward, if that's the case.
Speaker 1
Well, not really. Procedurally, this is the day for the two year bills to be heard. And then in March, we'll take up bills introduced before this calendar year's deadline. So this is really
Speaker 1
just wanted my comments, by the way, are and I know the author knows this, I'm not saying this to undercut the author in any way, but I'm speaking as somebody, obviously geographically, from Northern California who's much more familiar with things like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Valley Transportation Authority and San Francisco's Muni and things like that. I'm just looking at it from not a Southern California lens, and I respect, hopefully I made that clear. We came into this knowing, to this committee hearing knowing that this is largely going to be decided by Southern California folks on this committee, presumably, who have their own lens on it. I did want to justify my vote and explain what my vote is. If I thought the author was doing what the opposition said, my vote would be different.
But the author started off down a different track, maybe similar to maybe with less deference to local control in the written version of the bill. We discussed it a couple of times. He came back with this, indicated that all along that it wasn't his intention to get into the governance issues from a legislative standpoint. So I can only take a good colleague at his word on that. That's me.
I'm not my Senate District fifteen is not in your jurisdiction. As they say, you all have to decide.
Speaker 12
Well, let me rephrase my question then. If this is the last day to hear for two year bills, does the author still have the ability to bring it forward as a new bill this year and still work it through the system? Isn't that correct?
Speaker 1
I mean, there's rules about whether or not you can so called jailbreak rules and so forth. He or somebody has a vehicle and is trying to do something different than what's in print right here today. Presumably that could be done. But I don't know how it saves, we're talking about 2027, 2028, and out years. So the difference between what's going to happen now, with all due respect, and what's going to happen in March in this committee, the arguments will still be the same in this committee in terms of the timelines, I believe.
Hey, we talked about this in January, it's March, nothing has changed. 2027 is still out there presumably in the bill. And these other local timelines are still exactly the same as they were in January today. It's really a question of whether or not people are comfortable with a vehicle being available and moving through the process here in the legislature while these 2026 discussions are going on. That's the way I see it.
And at some point, it may make no sense at all. The author's going to have to figure that out at the time. Sasha? I'm sorry. Senator Perez?
Speaker 12
Okay. So, let me discuss just a couple points, and then I'll share my position. I have spoken to the senator, and I've actually also, my staff has spoken to the committee. And, initially, when the proposal was brought forward, I said that I would commit and support the bill. What I'm trying to describe is, since that time, I received a letter of January 9 from LA Metro stating that they were actually beginning to do the very process of what this bill is requesting.
And I shared with the author that I had gone through a similar experience last year with the bill that, you know, sometimes local groups, you know, they step forward, they begin to do the work. We may or may not agree with what they're doing, but they are following their process. So, I brought this to the attention of the author, which he had seen it. And now, as late as since we've just walked over from caucus, several L. A.
Delegation members are now getting phone calls, and maybe even beyond LA delegation, from stakeholders within Los Angeles stating their concern. And my only concern is that if we're going to move forward on legislation that we say we support, it should be reflective of what the communities think. So, I'm gonna ask the author a very tough question. Would you be willing to consider bringing it back as a new bill to give your L. A.
Delegation members which my I can show you, my phone is blowing up like crazy an opportunity to talk to you, to talk about the bill? Because people who aren't on this committee aren't privy to all this information that's happening as we speak. And, I'm not saying I gave you my word that I would, support the bill in its current form, as you had presented it. But I just really do believe that giving your members an opportunity, rather than us, you know, dealing with this on the floor, why don't we just deal with it right now in committee, in the committee of jurisdiction? So, I respectfully would like to ask the author, is there any way you'd consider bringing it forward as a new bill?
Obviously, it'd have to be slightly different. And then, we work and we talk to our delegation. Because I as I've shared with you, I think there is not a collective support in the LA delegation for this. And I just I think it's important, because it does impact all of us. So my first question is, would you consider doing that?
And I volunteer to work with you to call a meeting as a member of this committee, bring people forward, you know, get everybody on the same page.
Speaker 2
Well, I think the the challenge I have with with this is that the chair is right. I mean, end of the day, the the broader discussion is is not gonna change much. I mean, you know, now that we're down to basically a study bill. I mean, let me I guess what I would throw back to you is I would be happy as a full fledged member of the LA delegation along with you to, if the bill moves forward today, to now go to the delegation, have us organize a meeting together with all the LA members and have a really robust discussion. So present what I'm trying to accomplish here.
And if the delegation doesn't want us to move forward with it, I'd be happy to pull the bill. But I don't I don't know that it makes sense for me to pull it prematurely right now when it's the vehicle that I have for this. But we could we could pull it if if there's if there's really, you know, kind of if the delegation doesn't wanna move doesn't want us to move forward on the bill. All we're asking for here is just report backs, which again, under pressure, they've decided to comply with. I'm happy about that.
I do think there's one the only thing that I would that I think needs to be also considered for inclusion in the bill beyond what's in here now is the Measure G task force that's been created specifically to look at the implementation of Measure G by the county. And, again, at the end of the day, if all we're asking for is reports back where people are weighing in on this important question, and there's no action required. If it turns out that, you know, people don't feel as though the reports back are adequately representative, they're unhappy with where things are, we don't have to take action. We're stuck. We just stay with the status quo.
All we're trying to do here is promote a real dialogue on this on this question. And when it's strange to me. I mean, I guess I am I'm we we don't delineate any we don't push this in any particular direction. I understand there were folks that didn't like the original proposal. Again, that proposal is off the table now.
When you talk about the will of the voters, senator Strickland, this was a measure passed by the voters of the county of Los Angeles. So I'm just I'm trying to incorporate the local voice into into the conversation here. This thing passed. We gotta figure out how to incorporate it. And I'm just trying to figure out a way to make sure that conversation's happening.
Speaker 12
Reclaiming my time back, the issue is, and having served in local government, state government, and federal government, the issue is is that now that they've decided to do that. And so just out of basic respect, we don't like it when we're suddenly told, Oh, we have to implement something by whoever, and we're, you know, forced to do it in a particular We may already be moving in that direction, but we don't like it, and the federal no one likes it. Everyone likes to do the work in their lane. And I think where it began to turn south was applauding you, due to your efforts, due to you bringing it forward and saying, you know, this is important, we need to begin to have the discussion, local government has responded. They did exactly what you asked them to do.
They've said, Okay, he's got a good point. We're going to agendize this and work on it. So, that's the difference. But reclaiming my time, clarifying two things. One, as the author, you're committing to meeting with the delegation if this moves And if there's not an agreement, pull the bell.
The second commitment I'd ask is that if any future amendments are concerned, are brought forward, or something different, that you would also come back to not only the L. A. Delegation, but members of this committee as well. Absolutely. Because, it's only fair to us if we're tiptoeing into another, you know, body's, you know, rightful ability to do a job.
It's only our responsibility that if it's not right, then we know it and people vote appropriately on the floor, which for me, myself, I may end up, for the record, voting differently by the time we get to those points. Okay. With that, Mr. Chair, you've been more than generous with your time. Not that he needs defense, he's an excellent chair and has been that for quite some time.
He actually sought input, you know, of where people were going. The problem was this stuff is literally just coming out as we speak, and that's what's caused some of the concern. Thank you for the time.
Speaker 13
I'm filling in for our pro tem limon today, so appreciate the vibrant discussion that my colleagues have had around this bill and received some of the last minute letters that came in, in opposition to this bill as well, and understand that you've made some pretty significant amendments. I do want to acknowledge the San Gabriel Valley COG, which covers the entire area that I represent, including cities like the city of Glendora. I represent over 19 cities, three jurisdictions that are unincorporated areas in LA County. And, you know, they have concerns with this bill because if there's going to be a discussion about representation, about expansions of the board, if there's going to be any sort of study, they just want to be included in those conversations. I used to be in local government.
I was mayor of the city of Alhambra. Unfortunately, we didn't have always a positive response when we needed to reach out to Metro to request things, and we often felt like the concerns of small cities and small jurisdictions really weren't valued as a part of the discussion. And Metro's focus tended to be on the city of Los Angeles, which is a huge part of L. A. County, but it is not all of L.
A. County. And there are diverse needs that we have throughout the San Gabriel Valley and other of LA that need to be served. So I share all of that because I think that this discussion about board representation, about expansion, is a really important one. But it's one that we want to be mindful of for all of the reasons that have been stated already.
But I think especially when I think about the areas I represent, which is not the city of Los Angeles, making sure that we actually are being included in that process in a meaningful way, because we've felt very much shut out of that process. So I think the amendments you've made are good. They're moving in the right direction. I'm happy that Metro has committed to moving up their timeline for producing that report. And I also trust you, Senator Allen, that you'll continue working with Metro and with the city of Los Angeles to deliver something that makes sense, but would appreciate you also taking into account some of our other jurisdictions that are not the City Of Los Angeles that are served by Metro as well.
Speaker 2
Yeah. And I welcome your ideas about how to best incorporate them. That will be largely I'm sure that will be part of our LACD conversation. And I also think I I can only assume that our friends from local government here would welcome, their ideas. I'm as I was listening to you, I was thinking, this is exactly why I wanted to bring this bill forward.
We need to bring these issues up. We need to hear the concerns from the folks in the San Gabriel Valley and, you know, the Southeast cities. I these are these are important conversations that that that have to be brought up in the context of this of this decision that we're all gonna have to make in a couple of years. Okay.
Speaker 14
I'm getting there. I just can't see it. So I'm looking at the opposition, San Gabriel Valley and the South Bay cities. They're opposed to this bill? And metro.
Yeah. Yeah. And metro.
Speaker 14
Yeah. Right. And you you were just talking about the San Gabriel cities, Alhammer being one of them. How are they opposed to it when they're being Obviously they should be
Speaker 2
Let them I I mean, obviously, they they may wanna expand on this, but, you know, I think there's just nervousness about about as I as I have walked into this conversation, I've learned a lot about deep tensions that exist between the cities, the smaller cities in the city of Los Angeles, the cities and the county. You know, my original proposal was, okay. We got we got we just passed this measure g. We got let's give representation to the new countywide executive, and let's give representation to the new Senators. Supervisors.
Well, from the city's perspective, that shifted too much power to the county. Now, don't you know, it's funny. I don't at the time, I wasn't really thinking of these supervisors as as the county. I was thinking of them as elected officials representing a million people apiece whose job it is to look out for all of their constituents as opposed to being instruments of the county. But the cities don't see it that way.
The cities have a you know, so many of them have a contentious relationship with the county and with their supervisors. And I got an earful about that from many people. And so it's it comes down to, you know, nervousness, I think, about any changes in the status quo that might tip the balance in one way or another. Now I'm not trying to, you know, I you know, I understand that was the original proposal, but we're we're not at that place now. We're literally now just asking for for discussion and study.
And yet still, the nervousness is there.
Speaker 2
The Metro board has decided to do it. That's right. Wow. Now, that's true, which I'm happy about. And and I guess one of the things I'd like to say is, if you're do if you really are doing it and you're committed to it, let you know, why why would you be opposed to incorporating?
And we'd give you flexibility. We'd incorporate with a plan you want to have to make sure that it gives us some comfort that it's actually going to happen. And it's going to happen in a truly representative way.
Speaker 1
I'm going to take that as a rhetorical question. Because I don't want to get into debate back and forth with Senator Sartorius.
Speaker 9
Just a real quick question. And I appreciate all this discussion back and forth, because I do think that, as senator Richardson mentioned, you know, you should be coming to the LA County delegation and having this robust conversation. Yeah. A lot of us, you know, hadn't had that, you know, overall collective, which is, both it's a bipartisan, you know, delegation, which is great to have everyone there. Let me ask you, where did this derive from?
Who came up with this idea to be able to do this? I know Measure G is here, but what was the impetus for doing?
Speaker 2
Just the passage of measure g and the fact that we knew this you know, that that the board had been a creation of the I've been following metro governance as an interest of mine for a long time, and the board was created by the legislature. And now we had Measure G having passed. We have to figure out a way to incorporate it. That's that's literally that's literally the the concept here. And I'm look I I'm again, I don't have any regrets in spite of all this tension bringing this up because I think we have to have this discussion.
And I look I'm I think this discussion at the delegation will be really great. I'm sure there'll be a lot of folks that will call in before the discussion. So lots of representative lots of voices will be represented. But I am glad that this has prompted this because I think all of us need to grapple with the realities of this measure having passed. And we've to figure out a way collectively, very much led by our friends at the local level, but certainly very much including our LA members to figure out how to best incorporate it.
That's the spirit with which I'm approaching this.
Speaker 15
Thank you, chair. Pardon my redundancy, but I believe I heard you say at least once or maybe twice that if this bill was to pass out of the committee here today, that you would work with the LA delegation. Delegation. And that if you cannot build a consensus among the LA Delegation, you would pull the bill.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't I don't want one person to be able to veto the whole thing, but but but, yes, if there's a as long as there's a a decent consensus, yes.
Speaker 15
You will pull the bill if you can. I'm hypersensitive. Being from Northern California, I would want Southern California to mandate or dictate something up Of course. Yeah. The Bay Area.
Speaker 15
Likewise. I don't wanna do the same thing for LA. So I'm deferring to the delegation. Yeah. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Alright. If there's nothing else, you you may close. Yeah. I don't know if there's anything else you can add at this point.
Speaker 2
No. Listen, I'm glad we're This is an important discussion. We have to have it. Certainly hope the committee passes it out today. And if it does, Senator Richardson and I will be working with the county delegation leadership and the other LA members of this committee to host a meeting of the full delegation.
There will certainly be a lot of local input, and we'll talk about what we're trying to achieve here and how to do this in a way that is it's gonna work for our our region. You know? The voters passed this measure. It's the new reality, and we've gotta figure out a way to incorporate it. You know, maybe end of the day, we work out a deal with Metro where their process ends up being adequate.
I don't I don't know. I mean, I think we you know, there are there are some other voices that ought to be part of this, some of the things that have come up just now is that maybe the Metro process on its own isn't gonna be adequate. You know, if you if you if you you're gonna hear what senator Perez is concerned. So but that being said, you know, I I I wanna
Speaker 2
represent my district is entirely within the county of Los Angeles. I represent a significant portion of City Of Los Angeles. I am not at all interested in I represent six teams, 18 different cities. So, you know, just like so many of you, I I I I'm I wanted this to work for our region. That's spirit with which I'm approaching this and ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Alright thank you for your close. So let's call the roll call at this time. Do we have a motion? We can entertain a motion at this time. Can I exercise the chair's prerogative to move the bill?
I know that's in Robert's rules of order, but apparently we don't go by that here. Alright. Does somebody want to extend a courtesy motion to the author so we can take the vote?
Speaker 10
The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortezi?
Speaker 10
Cortezi? Aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no.
Archuleta? Aragain? Blakespeare? Cervantes? Dally?
Gonzales? Grayson? Menjivar? Perez? Aye.
Perez, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Serrato?
No. Serrato, no. Umberg, Valadez?
Speaker 1
Alright. We have a three three ayes, two noes, and the bill remain on call for absent members. Thank you.
Speaker 1
up in file order is senator Archuleta, s b six sixty seven. Senator, if you're ready, you may present.
Speaker 16
Good afternoon, mister chair, and thank you so much for the opportunity to present my bill, senate bill six sixty seven, to the the committee. Again, thank you. Today, I'm presenting six sixty seven, the California Railway Safety Act, which will improve public and operator safety in California heavy rail sector by requiring the railroad to operate a network of wayside detector systems on adjacent or on their tracks. By mandating comprehensive detention coverage, Senate Bill six sixty seven will significantly improve California's ability to detect potential equipment failures before they result in catastrophic incidents. The bill specifies spacing of 10 miles for the large class one railroads while providing relief for the smaller short line railroads.
The spacing requirements in senate bill six six seven mirrors what the railroads already comply with in Ohio, which is another large state with significant freight operations. While the railroads may say that mandating wave sound detectors is federally preempted, this is not the case. The federal rail rail system safety act allows for state laws addressing local safety hazards in the absence of federal guidance. Notably, the railroads have not challenged Ohio's law. Senate Bill six six seven addresses critical safety gaps in California's rail system by implementing measures on wayside detectors informed by recent derailments and involving an and understanding of rail safety best practices.
By focusing only on wayside detectors, senate bill six sixty seven takes on a targeted approach to rail safety that prioritizes prevention of catastrophic incidents while maintaining the viability of rail transportation. The wayside detector requirements in the bill are particularly timely in the aftermath of the East Palestine derailment in Ohio. Unlike Ohio, California should not wait until we have our own disaster before mandating wayside detectors. Train accidents and incidents represent a persistent challenge to rail safety in The United States with thousands of incidents occurring annually across the nation's intensive rail network system. Over the past decade, The United States has experienced an average of more than 30 rail incidents per day, indicating that the scale of the safety concern is now, and it should be addressed.
California specifically faces substantial rail safety challenges that necessitate robust regulatory responses. The recent years have seen significant train derailment within the state, including a March 23 incident in San Bernardino where a freight train experienced uncontrolled movement resulting in 55 train cars derailing. This occurred within the national context where the Federal Railroad Administration registered approximately three derailments per day in 2022, totaling over 1,100 per year. Members, I want to finish this by saying that I am continuing to refine senate bill six six seven, and I am open to working with any stakeholder regarding their concerns. Many of the members here today saw this bill last year in senate energy and have been aware of the ongoing discussions on senate bill six six seven when it was previously before this committee last year.
In response to those discussions, I have entirely removed the sections of the bill that dealt with both train length, which was an issue to some, as well as emergency blocking crossings. These provisions, specifically the provisions at limited train length, were the primary concerns from the stakeholders last year. It is not this year. Regarding this wayside detectors, this year we have given exceptions to short line railroads, to have larger spacing between the detectors, and we have also allowed the railroads to submit their own safety response plans to the California Public Utilities Commission. So rather than having the CPUC develop their own, the railroads can develop their own.
This will allow the railroads to better control their own operations while maintaining minimum spacing requirements. Public safety should be their mantle. Senate Bill six sixty seven is sponsored by rail unions who know that Senate Bill six sixty seven needs to be done to ensure the safety and viability of rail transit in California, their employees and staff members, to protect their families. No doubt, the Teamsters, Smart Transportation Division, and the brotherhood of locomotive engineers and trainmen support this bill. With me today to testify on behalf of the bill are two of the bill's co sponsors, Louis Costa, SMART Transportation Division, California State Legislative Board Director, and also we have Ryan Snow, Chairman of the California State Legislative Board for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Teamsters Rail Division.
I respectfully ask for an I vote, and I thank you for your time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Archuleta. We'll go to the support witnesses at this time of hour. Two minutes each in whichever order you prefer.
Speaker 1
It should be on. They say it's on. Go ahead. You might have to lean in though.
Speaker 5
Thank you, mister chairman, committee members. Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division. One of the lessons learned from the East Palestine catastrophe was that average spacing of these detectors does not adequately protect the public. The average spacing of those detectors, the three detectors in question was 15 miles. The problem was the first two were 10 miles apart.
The third was over 20 miles away. And in that 20 mile period, that bearing catastrophically failed and we saw the the build up and the fire that ensued that community. The chair of the National Transportation Safety Board stated that had that detector been closer, that derailment could have been prevented. She also stated that they had some concerns with the railroad's response to alerts from detectors and the notification to crew members of issues with defects within their train. That that train passed through three detectors.
Between the first and the second, there was almost a three times increase in the in the degrees, the temperature above ambient temperature, the the degrees above ambient temperature of the failed bearing. Nothing was told to the crew. Nothing was told to The railroad didn't stop tell them to stop and inspect. In fact, the railroad set their own thresholds for when they are gonna stop a train to inspect a potential defect. Nothing was expressed to that crew until he was in catastrophic failure.
This bill, as the senator mentioned, will require the railroads to submit their response plans to the CPUC for their approval and to have a stakeholder a public comment period so that other stakeholders can have a say in what those responses are gonna be to have better safety on the freight rail systems here in California. I wanted to address some concerns that we've heard about the 10 mile per hour portion that's in the bill. If the railroads address comply with the spacing requirements, there will not be a slowdown whatsoever of any freight trains or any passenger trains or anything else. They will operate as if they're operating today as long as they meet the the spacing requirements in the bill. And I wanted to touch a little bit on preemption as the senator mentioned as well.
In Ohio, when I've talked to my colleagues there, they have had not had any issues with the railroads attempting to seek preemption on those issues. In fact, they've not had any issues with the operation of freight trains or passenger trains with the implementation of the 10 mile spacing and the exception for 15 mile spacing. So there is no preemption here. The Federal Rail Safety Act specifically allows states to regulate railway safety. This legislative body has already done that on several occasions in the past few years, going back to 02/2015.
None of those have been preempted and are enforced today. So with that, I respectfully ask for your high vote.
Speaker 17
Chairman Corkeasy, members of the committee, good afternoon. My name is Ryan Snow. I serve as state chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and training California State Legislative Board Teamsters Rail Division. I'm here today as a proud co sponsor of this critical safety legislation SB six sixty seven. This bill isn't about technology, it's about protecting lives, communities, and the hardworking men and women who operate our state's railroads.
It requires railroads to install and maintain an enhanced wayside detector system. The electronic sentinels is scanned, trained for defects such as overheated bearings. Before these defects become derailments and allow the train crews immediate notification of the issues affecting the train. This is something that did not have happened in Ohio. The crew did not know about the defect until it was already failing.
They should have been notified at the first detector. And reality is simple. If you can hear a train's horn even in a distance, you're close enough to be in danger. And in California that's millions of our citizens. A hazmat train derailment doesn't stop at the tracks.
It spreads through the air, the soil, and the waterways. Any community within 25 miles of a rail line is potentially at risk when safety systems fail or neglected. The recent series of derailments nationwide have shown what happens when safety takes a back to the seat for profit. But California has an opportunity to safeguard its citizens by mandating monitor monitor detecting detector spacing requiring prompt inspection protocols and setting strong penalties for noncompliance. This bill ensures accountability and protect prevention.
We can't rely on luck to protect our communities. We must rely on law and we must pass this bill. I appreciate your time and thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright, thank you for your testimony, both of you. Are there other folks in the committee room who wish to speak in support? Please come forward now. You're limited to name, support, affiliation, of course. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. Brian Mayer Montez with Aspen, California, in support.
Speaker 5
Scott Brent, Smart Transportation Union, Local twelve oh one Stockton, California, in support.
Speaker 16
Good afternoon, chair members. Elmer Lazardi here with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Speaker 1
Trevor Haddock, Smart Transportation version four ninety two at Roseville, California in support. I have the bill.
Speaker 2
Good afternoon, chair and members. Connor Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, proud co sponsors in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Good afternoon. Jeff Sturgis, part of the locomotive engineers out of Roseville, full support for this bill.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon. Jacob Young, Division six ninety two, B L E T, and I support this bill.
Speaker 5
Nathan Cook, Smart Transportation, Richmond, California, in support this bill. James Falsley, Smart TV, Oakland, California, in support.
Speaker 1
JB Paquette, Smart Transportation, in support. All right. Thank you. Looks like that concludes the opposition testimony. I'm sorry, the support testimony.
We're going to call up opposition witnesses at this time. You may stay here or not. There may be questions for you, so you may want to stay here instead of having to come back up. And opposition, you're welcome to come up, make yourself comfortable, grab a microphone, you'll have two minutes each, and I'll let you self introduce.
Speaker 20
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cortezi and members of the committee. My name is James Tilek, and I am the assistant vice president of passenger operations at BNSF Railway. I started my railroad career in Boston on Amtrak and commuter rail before joining BNSF eighteen years ago. I have been in my current passenger operations role for the last four years.
My team has oversight of all Amtrak and commuter rail that BNSF hosts today in shared passenger freight corridors. BNSF hosts more than 6,000,000 Amtrak train miles per year. That's more than any other class one railroad. Amtrak's Gold Runner, surfliners, Metrolink all operate on key California BNSF owned corridors. I ask you to vote no on SB six sixty seven today.
The bill will hurt passenger and freight operations, arbitrarily dictating wayside detector spacing and requiring freight trains to proceed at 10 miles an hour when spacing exceeds 10 miles will certainly cause more train congestion. Just as slowing down for a work zone on a highway causes traffic jams, if freight trains begin traveling at 10 miles an hour, passenger trains that share those same corridors, often on single track routes, will also be impacted. Railroads are the safest mode of transportation, and a fluid network is necessary to bring more trucks off the highway and onto rail. Operating freight trains at 10 miles an hour will undermine passenger train reliability given the resulting congestion in shared corridors. Rail provides tremendous benefits to California and the nation for freight and passenger transportation.
This bill will harm both. Please vote no. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Mister chairman, members of the committee, I'm Ross Lane. I work for Genesee And Wyoming, handle government affairs, and we, are affiliated with six shoreline railroads in the state of California. I'd ask you to raise your hand if you knew what a shoreline railroad is, but I think you have some idea, but think about the local Ace Hardware franchises compared to the Lowe's on Home Depot, with respect to my colleagues from the larger class one railroads. Really, kind of the birth date of the short line railroad industry is 1980 when the railroad industry was deregulated.
And at the time, you saw the larger freight railroads said, thank goodness we don't have to operate these small, unprofitable lines to nowhere. Well, today, thankful, thankfully for some entrepreneurs and holding companies today, we've bought a lot of those small railroads back and we've made a go and made some tremendous strides in maintaining freight rail service to port facilities, rural communities, and other small shippers that then connect to the larger Class I system. So as I mentioned, the economics and operations of short line railroads are just fundamentally different than the larger Class I's. Some of the railroads that are affiliated with G and W, their revenue is measured in below $1,000,000 a year. Short line railroads, again, are classified in terms of revenue, and they simply can't afford the requirements under this bill.
And we're thankful to the to the bill sponsors for their, discussions with us earlier, or excuse me, last year. But today, we still can't afford the wayside detector installation even with the changes that were made in the bill. We're talking millions of dollars to tens of millions of dollars for short line railroads to be able to comply. Well, why does that matter? Well, because of that prior ownership of these short line railroads, we often operate at speeds 10 miles per hour or less and often at 25 miles per hour or less.
We spend millions of dollars a year in our own revenue ensuring that we can operate at those standards. But if we are to make tremendous strides in this state, which is get trucks off of public roadways, reduce congestion, increase economic development opportunities for rural and port facilities, well, we need to increase the investment we're making in short line railroads. However, what this bill would do would force short line railroads to take that capital away from improvements and put it towards wayside detectors. And, data that we shared with the committee, last year at G and W over the last ten years in California, zero derailments would have been prevented by the installation of a wayside detector. Nearly all of the derailments that occur on shoreline railroads occur in what we call other than main track, rail yards, and often at speeds, walking speeds, one to two miles per hour.
This bill, I would urge you to vote no, it's going to make some tough decisions for short lines. They can choose to either go out of business, they can install wayside detectors while they ignore the other safety impacts at their railroad. We want to be partners in rail safety. We just feel there are other ways to do it. Appreciate your time.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Others here who wish to speak in opposition to the bill, please come forward now. State your name, affiliation, and your opposed position, please.
Speaker 5
Afternoon. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.
Speaker 21
Good afternoon, Chair members. Skyler Wanaka with the California Business Properties Association, BOMA, California, and NAOP, California, in respectful opposition.
Speaker 22
Good afternoon, Chair members. Brenda Bass of K. P. Public Affairs, here on behalf of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission and San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, which operates passenger rail in the state. Thanks.
Oh, in opposition.
Speaker 9
Sarah Brennan on behalf of Supply Chain Federation in respectful opposition.
Speaker 14
Nico Molina on behalf of the California Forestry Association in opposition.
Speaker 2
Afternoon. John Kendrick with the California Chamber of Commerce. Opposition?
Speaker 23
Dennis Albioni with California Grain and Feed Association and Pacific Ag and Poultry Association. We work both with the main railroads as well as short lines. So we appreciate those comments as well, and we oppose.
Speaker 5
Matt Roman, behalf of the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.
Speaker 9
Good afternoon. Elizabeth Escobel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Peggy Ighbuhayne, Senior Director of Public Affairs for Union Pacific, in opposition.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
All right. And that seems to conclude our opposition testimony. Comments or questions? Senator Grayson first.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I need to clarify a couple of things. Did I understand it correctly to the author that short line railroads were exempted from your bill?
Speaker 16
Yeah. I'd like mister Acosta to go ahead and and point that out and how we There how we covered that.
Speaker 5
If if a short line railroad has a maximum speed of under 10 miles an hour, they're exempted from any provision of the bill. And it changes depending on their max speed. So it allows for separation of 25 miles and 35 miles depending on the speeds that they're that that is the maximum authorized speed for that particular railroad.
Speaker 15
What currently exists for short line, as far as the requirements for wayside? They don't have to have any They don't have to have
Speaker 5
any wayside detectors. There's no requirement federally, statewide, other than Ohio, and recently New Jersey, to require states to have wayside detector systems. There is no They they could have zero. They could have a 100. It it's totally up to them.
Speaker 15
And you just said that if they operate under 10 miles an hour, so it's not 10 and under, it's under 10.
Speaker 15
But it's 10 and under. So I think I understood that at times they operate up to 25 miles. Is that correct? To the opposite?
Speaker 16
Senator, what what we're talking about is safety. You can imagine a a freight train moving down the track at whether it's 20 or 30 miles an hour. It doesn't matter. What matters, it's moving. And there is a system.
Modernization, technology has brought this to us to save lives, to save those employees that work on the trains and and they're able to get home to their families by detecting that those bearings heated up. And if you heard the testimony from mister Costa, he said there in Ohio that the fires began in the wheels. And had they been notified earlier, they would have stopped, slowed down, stopped, and prevented the tragedy. And that's what this is. Again, last year go around, you heard me say that the length of the train was an issue.
It it you know, not being able to break it to for emergency. All that's off the table. Only only what we're talking
Speaker 15
I appreciate that, Senator Archuleta, I I appreciate that. I I heard your testimony. And I'll ask you a question here in a minute. I was just trying to get a clarification on short rail and what the differences were. And Let me
Speaker 3
Chairman, Senator, good question. So track speed is classified in terms of its class, which is speed. So it could be class one track, class two track, class three, class five. We operate a lot of it at class one, which is 10 miles per hour or less. Class two would be 25 miles per hour or less.
Our concern with the bill is that if we were to make investments in the railroad into the track to be able to go faster than 10, well now it just got a lot more expensive because at class one speeds, at 10 miles per hour or less, no detectors are required under this bill. If we go to 20 miles per hour, now we have to install detectors. In some ways, it acts as a perverse disincentive for a railroad to invest in this infrastructure because now they have to install detectors.
Speaker 15
Okay. Thank you for that clarification. In the testimony, senator, you said that there were 30 incidents a day. Are is that 30 derailments a day that we're having? Or or what does an incident mean?
Speaker 16
It it it means there's several methods of that, and I'll let mister Cost again give you the because
Speaker 16
Yeah. Did use the number 30 because it's it's a derailment and also sometimes it's the wheels. So it's not just the train falling over, but anything that happens to move the the the wheels from the tracks. Mister Acosta?
Speaker 5
I I believe that the number was three per day on average over the year that he discussed. Was 1,100 total across the system for the year. So, $3.65 times three, eleven hundred and somewhat. That's what I heard from the from the senator, but I mean, that's what the reference to was.
Speaker 5
I believe so. Yes. I don't want speak for the senator, but that's what the notes and the information that we were sharing with staff last year was three per se in that calendar year that he
Speaker 15
Just two more questions. What impact would this have? I want to get to a support position. Safety is everything. It really is as far as making sure our communities are safe.
Thank you for your testimony because the incident doesn't just stay at the track. It does go into the air. It does go into the rivers. It does go into the soil. So I appreciate that.
That resonated very much with me. At the same time, we have passenger trains, which I believe you stated that passenger trains are now are they completely exempted
Speaker 16
They do, but they operate under different safety standards. And again, Mr. Costa being the expert, I'd have to refer to him.
Speaker 5
So, it applies to a railroad corporation. That's the language in the bill. And a railroad corporation could include passenger rail folks that own the line and that lease that back to the railroads for use. Very few miles of that situation are in California. We have been asking for those numbers.
We've tried to get the numbers exactly where they're at to see what can be done, if there is an impact on any passenger stuff. We're in conversations with folks, and we're hoping to get some better information so that if we need to move forward, we can move forward with that. But currently, like the San Joaquin's, for instance, over mentioned here, They all run on BNSF track. BNSF track is a railroad corporation. They own the track.
Speaker 15
I'm used to my knowledge. So, we've been stuck sitting on the train because of a freight train that was in the way. And so I've sat on that track substantial amounts of time. And so I understand that. The impact, has there been any kind of
Speaker 15
study or anything done on the impact of delivery of goods for freight trains from this mandate?
Speaker 5
I would just say that the the only state that has mandated the spacing of detectors similar to this bill in fact, this bill came from the Ohio bill. 10 miles with an exception for 15 miles separation for for geographical issues.
Speaker 5
I spoke with representatives in Ohio again this morning. There has been no negative there's been zero negative impact on freight operations or the passenger operations that utilize freight railroad tracks in the state of Ohio since the passage of this bill almost three years ago, about two
Speaker 15
years ago. Okay. And then, senator, at some point in time, maybe in your closing, would you address, because you made the statement that, the railroads could develop their own, was it safety plans or I'm trying to figure out what
Speaker 16
exactly other words, we're hoping that they this opens up a door for other safety measures. It's just not zeroed in one and and they're We invite them to participate because there could be other plans. We have a responsibility to keep our passengers safe, the crew safe, and everyone who operate these trains and whether they come out of Southern California or Northern California, whatever, safety is the main thing. And so we invite the railroads to participate in other methods and we we can embrace that. This is just the bearings that we're talking about.
Thank you, senator.
Speaker 15
And I look forward to seeing the bill as it goes forward and if it gets out of committee today, working together between opposition and the sponsors to try to get to a really good rail spot. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Yeah, a couple of things. One, Senator Archuleta, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I think the disaster that happened in East Palestine, Ohio, was shocking. In my district, Ranaji Sahoo, who's doctor and one of the leading environmental scientists in the nation on hazardous cleanup, led that cleanup in East Palestine and saw how devastating it was for the community. I think what you're proposing here is a very common sense measure to make sure that we have better systems that are able to alert us if we have another catastrophe like this one.
We know that the systems that were in East Palestine failed, which is part of the reason why we saw such hazardous material waste be poured out into the community and have an impact on the environment. And so what you're proposing here, I think, is important. I know and I recognize we read through the opposition that there are concerns raised around federal preemption. But there is a balance that we have here in California. We have a responsibility a state to protect the safety of our constituents and to protect the state's environment.
The reality is that if we were to have a disaster like the one that happened in East Palestine here in California, it could take years potentially to clean up, and that's millions of dollars that are being spent. So, I appreciate what you're doing here. I will absolutely be voting yes to support this. I think this is a common sense measure, and I'm happy that you brought forward this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the author. I certainly support rail safety and the intent of the bill. I do have concerns about the potential impact on passenger rail operations, particularly around Metrolink in my area. As you do consider enhanced safety measures, I think it's critical that we do strike a balance between safety and operational efficiency.
And so I will support the bill today, but I'm hopeful that you will continue to work with the opposition potential unintended consequences.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward and to our witnesses. Safety is paramount. We cannot let what happened in Ohio happen in California. And I appreciate the work that you've done listening to stakeholders to make some amendments to this bill.
I do want to second the concerns, and I have shared them with Mr. Costa that Senator Cervantes had raised around the impacts on passenger rail. But I'll also just say how this impacts the supply chain. I represent the city of Oakland. The Port Of Oakland is situated in my Senate district.
A lot of the produce that is grown in the Central Valley travels along rail lines to be cargoed in and out of the Port Of Oakland. So I have a vested interest in making sure that we get it right in terms of how we balance safety with the impacts it has on our supply chain, which is already impacted because of the impacts of tariffs. In addition, as someone who rides the Capital Corridor every single week, I know what happens when a freight train is or a bridge is elevated because of for some reason, how that impacts scheduling and people getting to work and how that impacts our passenger rail as a means of transportation for people to get to and from different parts of our state. It's an essential part of our state's transportation program. And so, I want to just acknowledge that we did receive a letter of opposition from Capital Quarter, Joint Powers Authority, raising concerns around the impacts on passenger oil.
And I want to encourage you and your sponsors to sit down with those stakeholders to see what we can do to mitigate the impact. We shouldn't compromise safety, but there's no question that there's a ripple effect in terms of delaying something impacts the ability of a train to be able to move expediently down the road. So I don't know what the solution is. I will vote for the bill today to get out of committee, but encourage you to continue to work with those stakeholders And we'll reserve my the right to vote for this bill when it comes to the floor. I will be looking to see what progress we make in addressing these issues.
Speaker 1
All right. I think we've recognized everyone on the dais. No, we haven't. All right.
Speaker 14
Thank you. So, for the author or anybody that can answer the questions, what is the cost per one of these devices? And are there what's the implementation timeline? Kind of some of those questions about what this would take. Because I believe if you've taken the system down to redo it, I believe the speed limit for trains is 10 miles an hour, period.
And that would be extended over a very long period of time. So what is the cost? Because this winds up being a cost benefit.
Speaker 16
Yeah. And and I think as as the senator Perez had mentioned what what's happening in in in her district and everything else, you know, of safety. What is the cost of safety? But to answer your question, that I don't know. To be quite honest with you, each unit, what the cost was.
And Ms. Costa, I can ask you if you might know and then you can have the others weigh in on that as well.
Speaker 5
Yes. It's our understanding that the hot bearing detector, which is the detector that will identify a failed bearing, which is what happened in East Palestine, which is what will be required to be every 10 miles, is in the range of two hundred to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That's what our research has told us. So that's what we have found. But I could just clarify one, for the railroads to implement this, they don't have to shut down the system.
There's gonna be a process of implementation that shall be coming. But they already do maintenance on tracks that requires trains to slow down. They do maintenance on tracks that doesn't require trains to slow down. It's a process of the operation that they have. When mineral equipment are working on tracks, the crews are alerted in advance.
Crews contact those workers. The workers work with the trains in order to expedite the movement and get them through. As twenty three years full time conductor, very seldom out of the hundreds of work groups that I went through, maybe thousands, did we ever not go through at what our maximum authorized speed was. So nothing in the bill makes it slow down unless they don't meet the 10 mile requirement. And there will be implementation time for that process coming.
We've been in contact with the CPUC for that implementation, and we're working through that process with them.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Senator, for that question. I think from a cost perspective, our estimate was $300,000 to $500,000 per device. Timeline, we were thinking eighteen to thirty six months. I also want to just expand on the PassionRail impact that I think was touched on a couple times. As far as PassionRail, I think there's two things that would happen if this bill were to proceed.
One, schedules would have to be elongated because certain trains would obviously be running slower. And then, the second thing that would happen would be degradation of on time performance, right? And I think it's also important to remember, as it relates to some of our passenger rail operators, Metrolink, North County, for example, BNSF operates on their trackage in certain territories. So, for example, between Fullerton, California and Oceanside, California, we are actually a tenant of Metrolink in that territory. So, we're operating on their railroad from Oceanside down to San Diego.
We are a tenant of the North County Transit District. So, in those situations, those agencies would also have to invest significant money to deploy these detectors, as the bill is written, and also change their schedules to accommodate any location that may not have the desired spacing.
Speaker 16
And I would just like to point out, Mr. Chair, that we are trying to get to the point of view from both sides, as I invited the other side to go ahead and comment as well. And if I may just point out that when we gather again to listen to both sides, that's what we're going to do. But public safety, safety of, as I said, with the crews and the trains and everything else, we'll address these things.
Speaker 14
the center side. Yeah. An additional question. What's the science between 10 miles versus 17 miles versus five miles? Is there
Speaker 20
a study that came out that said that 10 miles is the amount that makes it the maximum safety? No, there's no study that supports the 10 miles. After the incident in Ohio, the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, recommended to the Federal Railroad Administration to study the minimum standards and effectiveness of detectors. The Association of American Railroads has proactively worked towards the goal of 15 mile spacing across the industry. We have added detectors, but it is a data approach as far as where those detectors are.
We want to make sure detectors are in advance of critical assets, for example, bridges, tunnels. We want to make sure they're departing specific terminals to inspect the train as a departure. We want to make sure that those detectors are at locations where you can drive up to with access, so you don't necessarily have to shut the railroad down to maintain those detectors. Those are the things that go into detector spacing and placement, and we want to lean in to technology and looking at new algorithms to detect problems. The last thing we want is a derailment.
So, we're doing everything we can to make sure that we continue to lean into safety and avoid derailments before they happen, this bill does not advance those efforts.
Speaker 5
the National Transportation Safety Board has made 81 recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration in the past decade. 81 safety recommendations. Five have been implemented. We don't have a whole lot of faith in the federal government or a study. The 10 miles came from the Ohio bill.
The people that suffered through East Palestine, they enacted a bill with 10 miles separation allowing for 15 miles in the event of there being an issue with location or geography. That's where it came from. The average spacing there was 15, and clearly 15 was not enough to prevent that from happening to that community. And today, almost three years coming up a month away, they're still suffering. They're still monitoring the air.
They're still monitoring the water. And they're still having people suffering from inhalation that experience. I don't doubt
Speaker 14
at all the safety implications. What I'm trying to get at is on a cost benefit, what you're looking at, the benefit is increased safety. But if there's not a study that shows what the increased safety is between five and fifteen, and we're going to spend a half $1,000,000,000 or thereabouts on each one of these devices. That half $1,000,000 in the context of our discussions about additional cost of living in California and those things, all of that adds to that cost of living. Because then the railroads have to charge more for what they're transporting and the goods that are inside those boxcars cost us more to be able to pay for that.
And if we're not getting a substantially proven safety benefit, that concerns me. The other thing that concerns me is the process while they're going through this. I have I don't know if anybody has had the benefit of actually being on a train derailment, but I have. They're no fun. But it's also no fun sitting on the wrong side of the tracks trying to respond to a medical emergency or a house fire with your lights on because the train can't pull over.
And if they're going 10 miles an hour, it's going to be a long time and you can't race down the road trying to beat the train to the next thing on in the in the fire engine. So you're losing some public safety there while you're trying to implement something that we don't know is any safer at 10 or 15 miles an hour. I don't think the Palestine incident indicates that that's not a study that says that wouldn't have happened if it were at 10. We don't know that. If a bearing goes out, a bearing goes out.
It could go out the right after the 10 mile mark and be hot at the five mile mark, and do exactly what you're talking about and what happened in Palestine. So, know, those are the things I'm concerned about is I want to make sure that if we're going to add pile on costs, that there is a proven benefit to that. And that benefit has to be real increased public safety, not just perceived. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Seeing that everyone now has been recognized and wish to speak before the author closes, I just want to thank the author, the sponsors of the bill, but also the opposition for working closely with the committee on the bill, not just recently but over the past year. Certainly, it's true that concerns that we had at the committee level last year were taken into account. I don't see those concerns existent in the bill anymore. It doesn't mean that there aren't remaining concerns.
I think we've heard here today legitimate concerns and I think they're important because we're dealing with a major trusted partner in commerce in the state. I mean, we all, those of you who work in this space and those of you who represent those who own the equipment in this space are all doing California tremendous service to keep things moving, keep freight moving and keep passengers moving. So, I think there's a sensitivity. This is not a new program or a new product that we're standing up that we're debating. We get those in here all the time.
This is something that but for the safety issue that has been brought before us today is an industry that's working quite well. So I do think it's incumbent, Senator Archuleta, on you and the sponsors to keep, first of all, doing whatever legal analysis you need to do on the federal preemption issue to make sure that that doesn't end up delaying everything. I understand there hasn't been a case out of state, But certainly, while this bill is moving through the process, the checking case law every other day is probably not a bad idea in getting legal opinions on that. The costs are iffy, but this committee doesn't really take jurisdiction over cost per se. I think it's important, though, in terms of what I said earlier about keeping things moving, that we're not doing something that is, at some level, so costly that in a state this big that it essentially creates an obstacle to the entire system.
So I know that the sponsors and the author will keep working at that. But I just want to acknowledge those as legitimate concerns. I came in here with more concern than I have now about the frequency and location of the detectors. But clearly that's an issue that there's time to keep working on. If there's a little bit of a better mousetrap in terms of how to set up that formula, I think all diligence should be used in that regard.
And I think all of that is important, again, because it's such a vital part of the industry here in California, transportation system here in California, that votes could be lost, gained or lost along the way. If it gets out of committee today, I don't think that's an absolute assurance that, as you know, we run a lot of bills, Senator Archibald. I think on a bill of this gravity, everything's got to be right. The the rest of legislature is going to demand that. So, with that, you'll have the opportunity to close and then we'll take a roll call vote.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I'd like to point out to the members and the committee that California has a reputation of putting the people first, safety first. You know, we we just addressed the fires in the other committee. How had we invested or pushed a different entity to invest a little bit over years.
Maybe things would have been different right now in Pasadena, Altadena. Those lives would be different in the Palisades if we would have just pushed a little bit. Well, guess what? California pushed for safety belts way back when. California pushed for helmets on motorcycle drivers.
California has pushed, with so many bills to protect our children, our workers, and everything else. And I think that's the spirit of California, not the dollar. I think the investors in the railroad and those who run it, will find a way. Is it 200,000? Is it 300,000?
That's not our issue. That is not this bill. This bill is public safety. This bill, hopefully, will open other doors to get the railroads to join in with additional safety that they might have knowledge of, and we can bring those back. But I will tell you this, I will work with the opposition to go ahead and have a good solid bill when it does hit the floor.
So when it does, we can all come together to think about California first, safety first, and make sure that our transportation system is doing the right thing. So with that, I urge you an aye vote and I thank you for your time.
Speaker 10
The motion is due pass to the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortez?
Speaker 10
Archeleta? Arrighine? Aye. Arrighine? Aye.
Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Cervantes?
Speaker 10
Cervantes, aye. Dally? No. Dally, no. Gonzalez?
Grayson? Benjovar? Aye. Benjovar aye. Bettis?
Aye. Bettis aye. Richardson?
Speaker 1
We're at seven to two and the bill will stay on call for absent members. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Appreciate all for being here. Appreciate the robust discussion. I have to go upstairs to another committee to vote. I'm sorry, to present my own bill and to vote. I just wanted to say, come on up, please, Assembly Member Kalra, on the resolution, the Little Saigon resolution.
I just want to explain to the folks here, because I know there's folks from out of town, not just Sacramento, that I will be back. The committee knows that I'm an I recommendation on this resolution, so my vote is is a yes vote, but I need to go, do my job in the other committee. And I've, the vice chair is not here presently. I asked
Speaker 1
I asked Senator Gonzalez, the past chair of the committee, to, you know, conduct this last item preside. Thank you very much. I will be back. All
Speaker 9
right. Assembly Member Kalra, you have ACR 71 on the list. So, go ahead and present. Thank you, and welcome.
Speaker 19
Thank you so much. I'd like to thank Chair Cortezi. We share San Jose and this particular location in our districts, overlapping districts. ACR 71 would designate a portion of State Route 101 in Santa Clara County as the Little Saigon Freeway. The city of San Jose is home to the largest Vietnamese community in any city in The United States.
Recognizing the significance, in 2007, the city of San Jose officially designated the area along Story Road as Little Saigon. This area serves as a major cultural, social, and commercial center with businesses ranging from supermarkets, shopping malls, and jewelry stores, well as cultural festivals and parades celebrating holidays like that. But Little Saigon isn't just a commercial hub. The name Saigon really stands for freedom and represents the resilience of Vietnamese history and heritage. Last year, we commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Black April and the solemn reminder of the immense sacrifices made by millions of Vietnamese people who fled their homeland in search of safety and dignity.
And as we approach the Lunar New Year, let us take this opportunity to honor the many contributions of the Vietnamese community that have enriched not just San Jose but all of California. The journey of the Vietnamese boat refugees and the Vietnamese American community is the history of America and certainly an important fabric and history of San Jose. By designating the Little Saigon Freeway, ACR seventy one will ensure future generations can honor the name Little Saigon with respect and pride. With me to testify in support are Vun Leh with the East Side Union High School District and Chu President of the United Vietnamese American Community of Northern California.
Speaker 9
Thank you. You can please come forward and sit down. Thank you for being here. Welcome.
Speaker 27
Honorable J. R. Cortesee and member of the Senate Transportation Committee. My name is Van Le. I'm board president of Isa Union High School District and a long time community advocate in San Jose.
We are here in strong support of ACI 71, authored by assembly member Ash Kara to highlight the history of Lilo Saigon in San Jose. And want to thank you for all your leadership on issues that recognize and support our communities. In 2007, as a vice president of the Lilo Saigon San Jose Foundation, I worked with doctor Barry Doe the Vietnamese American community in Northern California to secure official recognition of Lilo Saigon, including names, its banner, and directional signage. I continue this work today, advocating for Lilo Saigon Freeway signage in Southern California under AB 2689 led by State Assembly Trita, building upon the recognition established through ACR 71 for Lilos Saigon Freeway signage in San Jose of Northern California, which affirmed the Vietnamese American refugee aspirian statewide. The city of San Jose designated Lilos Saigon in 2007 with support from local leaders, including Dave Kotezi, who served on the city council the time, supported this recognition.
State Assembly AASHKARA has continued its commitment at the state level to ACR 71, which honors the Vietnamese American community and recognize the historical significance of the South Republic Of Vietnam flag. Last week, the Eastside Board of Trustee vote unanimously to support ACR 71. This resolution aligns with ethnic study, teaching students about identity, history, and resilience while strengthening their pride, belonging, and engagement in learning, especially for student in San Jose, Le Los Saigon community, where 30% are Vietnamese American descendants. ACI seventy one honors this history and ensure its remarks visible for future generation. I respectfully urge your support.
Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good afternoon. Dear chair courtesy and honorable members, my name is and I am the president of executive board of United Vietnam, the American community of Northern California. First of all, we appreciate the transportation community vote yet 100% for Little Segway Freeway in Westminster. We would like to sincerely thank chair Kotigi for bringing ACI seventy one forward and assembly ask Kara for altering principal quarter Cheetah and quarter assembly member Aaron and Gwyn. This mean need full and historic legislation.
Vietnamese American across the California stand united regardless for where we live, why we are proud Americans. We also honor but preserve our culture heritage. Many members of our community are refugee who fled Vietnam after Vietnam war, and our share experience of sacrifice and resilience continue connect us. We are deeply honor the section of Highway 101280, And 680 in Santa Clara County. We will be designated at Little Sioux Freeway.
This recognition is far more than a size. It symbolize the struggle, perseverance, and contribution of Vietnamese Americans since arriving California after phone off Saigon. Sang Hoge was once small agricultural community. Today, Sangwaja is the tenth largest city in The United States and home to largest Vietnamese refugee community in the world. Our community have grown throughout California and across the nation.
And re regardless of the geography, we separate our share history and collective achievement for the reason. We proudly support the Little Sego Freeway designation. We stand united, not a rival, but as a one community working together to build stronger families and community. On behalf of the the United Vietnamese American community of Northern California, I respectfully urge your support for ACI 71 today. Thank you for your time and your leadership.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much for your testimony. At this time, it doesn't look like you have any registered opposition at this time. So we'll take anyone in the room who'd like to come forward to support or oppose ACR 71, please. Please state your name, organization, and your position on the resolution.
Speaker 18
Good afternoon, Chair Gonzalez and the committee member. My name is Hip Nguyen. I'm the resident of San Jose. I am also the senior congressional adviser to congressman Rukhana. Actually, congressman Rocana sent me here today to express his support, the Vietnamese community, Vietnamese American who are in his district.
And he's fully support.
Speaker 9
And, sir, we're just taking name, organization, and we thank you for coming on behalf of the congressman and then whether you support or oppose the bill.
Speaker 28
Good afternoon, chairs and all. I am Connie Nguyen, the resident of Summerville County, actively involved with the Vietnamese community in Silicon Valley, San Jose. And currently, I'm teaching Vietnamese and bible at the lady of A. Lavaughan Church in San Jose, next to the city hall of
Speaker 9
San Jose. Thank you all. Thank you. And name organization and whether you support or I support the bill ARC 71. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon. I am the long dead. I am living in San Jose. I am supervisor, ACR seventy one. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Good afternoon. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.
Speaker 30
Good afternoon, everybody here. My name is Therese Horn. I live in in San Jose, and I would like to support the bill, ARC 71, relate to Little Saigon Freeway. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon, all the senator. My name is Kang Nguyen. I live in Hayward. I need you to support RC 71. I need your support.
Thank you.
Speaker 26
Good evening. My name is. I am a resident of San Jose. I would like to thank The United States for welcoming us and allowing us to build a new life in beautiful and free land. And I come here today to support DRCISSON ACR seventeen up assembly member, Ascara and Trita.
Thank you.
Speaker 11
afternoon. My name is Wing Chen, resident of San Jose City. Today, I came here to strongly support the bill I c r 71. Thank you very much.
Speaker 32
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ngop Do. I'm resident of San Jose, California. Oh, I'm here today because I want to support the ARC seventy one, and I wish everyone both yes. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 33
Good afternoon, the committee. My name is Long Tran. I come from San Jose. I come here to support the ACI seventy one. Even the name Little Circle, zip 42, a little bit of 101 Freeway.
This is the honor of our community, the refugee Vietnamese refugee community in Northern California. And it's also the honor
Speaker 9
I'm sorry, sir. We're just taking name, organization and whether you support or oppose the bill, so we're just equal with everyone.
Speaker 11
Good afternoon. My name, I am come from Stockton, San Joaquin County. I'm so focused Stockton. Appreciate. Thank you.
God bless all you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name, Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good afternoon, Transportation Committee. My name is Joong Lee. I'm from San Jose. I want to support the bill ACR 71. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Nguyen. I was a captain in Vietnam before 1975. And after eight year in the jail, I'm luckily to be here today. Okay?
And I'm in Saint Roselle, resident right now, and I was the president of the Vietnamese Republic Of Vietnam. And now, okay, we are very happy to be here, and I hope you can support us, okay? And we are very strongly to support for the new ACR 75. Thank you very much.
Speaker 9
Thank you so much. ACR 71. That's okay. We know what they're talking about. This is great.
No. ACR 71. Thank so much.
Speaker 35
I am Jimmy Fan, resident of San Jose. I am very happy to be here. I hope I'm here to support ACR 71. That's was by state assembly, mister Oscar. I hope that would be true with all your proof.
Thank you.
Speaker 36
Good afternoon. My name is Cheng Yong. I live in Saint Roger. I support AR ACR 71. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Isela Bravo with Crew Strategies, on behalf
Speaker 9
Thank you. Anyone else in the room who'd like to support or oppose ACR 71, please come forward. Okay. See none. We'll take it back for discussion with members.
Senator Richardson. Yes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to commend the author for bringing this forward. I had a similar experience in the Chair's area when I was on the City Council, and we brought forward Cambodia Town in Long Beach, and it was of much discussion. So, I certainly understand the need and commend you for it. I fully support this bill.
My only ask is that you will also consider working with the southern area because we do have a little Saigon. I believe it's towards the Westminster area. And sometimes when you have two areas and two events, we figure it out. I mean, there's Chinatowns all over The United States, so it certainly can be done, and that's why I fully support. But I would just urge you to work with that representative to make sure we can hopefully find some synergy and build on things, as opposed to groups feeling, Oh, it's up in one area, oh, it's down in my other, that the communities will work together.
Because we did see that, for example, in my area. Just word to the wise. But congratulations, and look forward to this bill passing.
Speaker 19
And thank you, if I could, Madam Chair. The Orange County and San Jose Vietnamese communities are very close, the two largest Vietnamese communities outside of Vietnam. And I was there in April on Interstate 405 in Westminster with some member of Trita. And actually, many of the members from San Jose that are here were actually there in Orange County as well when we did the unveiling of the Little Saigon Freeway signs in Orange County. So, this is absolutely a way of connecting Orange County and San Jose, not just physically with those signs, but it's really a cultural connection that's very beautiful.
So, I really appreciate your comments.
Speaker 9
And we can tell you're from Northern California. You said Interstate 405 instead of the 405.
Speaker 9
Clearly. Okay. Those are nice words, Senator Richardson. Any other comments from members? Okay.
Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?
Speaker 9
We'll entertain a motion. I'm sorry. Do this as well. Go ahead. Go ahead.
And we'll entertain a motion afterwards.
Speaker 19
I want to thank, first of all, Chair Cortez, for his long standing leadership and support of the Vietnamese community in San Jose. We've been good partners in trying to represent the community there. I certainly want to thank Trustee Lei and President Chu for being here as well, as well as the many other members of the community. I've known many of them for many, many years. They give so much to the community in many different ways.
I think this is a small token of appreciation to the Brazilians and the longstanding friendship. I oftentimes say that you can't have San Jose without the Vietnamese community. They're intertwined inextricably. And so it's a great honor for me to have the opportunity to author this legislation. And I would respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 9
Thank you so much. Okay. We've closed on those notes. And I will entertain a motion. I think Senator Richardson, would you like to motion the resolution?
Alright. We've got a a motion by senator Richardson, and we'll go ahead and, call the roll, please.
Speaker 10
The motion is to be adopted to the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortezi, Strickland, Archuleta, Adegine.
Speaker 9
Okay. The bill has 10 votes. It is on call waiting for our chair to come back. Thank you, assembly member. Thank you so much for being Okay.
We will, I believe, be in recess in the moment, as we, have senator Cortese, our chair, about to come back. Thank you. Could we do? Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 9
the call in the meantime. So we'll go through the file. The first one is file item s b two twenty that is by senator Allen.
Speaker 10
The motion is due passed with committee on appropriation. The current vote is three to two. The chair voting aye and and the vice chair voting no. Senators Archuleta? Aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye. Blakespeare?
Speaker 9
Okay. This is seven two. It's on call at the moment. We'll go on to file item two SB six seven by senator Archuleta.
Speaker 10
The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriation. The current vote is seven two. The chair is voting aye, and the vice chair no vote recorded. Senator Strickland? Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Grayson? Aye.
Richardson? Aye. Richardson? Aye. Umberg?
Aye. Humberg? Aye. Valadez?
Speaker 9
Okay. Eleven-two, the bill is on call. And we'll move on to our third file item, ACR 71, Assembly Member Culra.
Speaker 10
The motion is to be adopted. Committee on appropriations. Senator Scortezi, Strickland, Archuleta, Sciartto? Aye. Sciartto, aye.
Valadez?
Speaker 9
110. 110. The bill is or the resolution is on call. Alright. We'll go ahead and recess for the moment, to wait for senator Cortese to come back.
Thank you.
Speaker 10
File item one s b two twenty by senator Allen. The motion is due passed the committee on appropriations. The current vote is seven two with the chair voting I and the vice chair voting no. Senators Archuleta, Cervantes, Dali, Gonzales, Menjivar, Valadares. Seven
Speaker 1
Alright. So seven to two, and we still have an absent member as I understand it. So we'll leave that No. Open or we closing it out? So you have do you want to keep builders?
Speaker 10
File item two s b six six seven by senator Archuleta. The motion is due passed with committee on appropriation. Senator Strickland? Valadares? No.
Valadares? No.
Speaker 10
File item three a c r 71 by a similar color. The motion is to be adopted to the community appropriations. Senator Scortezi?
Speaker 10
File item one, s b 220 by senator Allen. The current vote is seven to two.
Speaker 1
Seven to two. That measure fails. All right. And we'll go to six sixty seven.
Speaker 1
And that was already out. I'm sorry. That concludes our hearing today. Thank you all very much. Thank you, staff, for the preparation for today's committee meeting.
And we are now adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.