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 1
Thank you. Before we, before we call for opposition witnesses, is there anyone here who wishes to speak in support? Please come up now. The usual. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Mister chair, Brendan Nerpike, on behalf of County Connection, wanna thank the author in support.
Speaker 1
Anyone else, name, affiliation, and support? Now it's time for that. Seeing none. Is there a lead opposition witness to speak? You can come up to the front table.
That would be fine. Take your time.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is JC Lee, and I'm with the California taxpayers association testifying in opposition to s b 14 o eight and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak today. California has the highest state imposed sales and tax sales and use tax rate in The U. S. At 7.25% and Contra Costa County the combined state and local use tax is already over 10% in some areas.
Speaker 5
We consistently hear from taxpayers who are concerned about affordability in the state and we believe that circumventing the transactions and use tax cap could drive the cost of goods even higher. Because of the potential for an increased tax burden and affordability concerns Caltax respectfully opposes the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in opposition? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee at this time. Senator Archuleta, then senator Grayson.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Senator. Bill, I know it's a local bill, but transportation across California. It's imperative we start acting now and and look into the future. My question is will the additional funding go 100% towards transportation and issues pertaining to that?
Speaker 2
Yes senator. This bill would allow for the imposition of a transactions and use tax that would go specifically as stated in the statute the county wide transportation programs including the many things that the CCT is already implementing highway projects state of good repair funding public transit. I think that's why we have County Connection here in support of the bill. This will help a myriad of transportation programs in Contra Costa County and projects.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to thank you, mister chair, and thank you for bringing the bill forward. Transportation is vitally important, especially I live right in the middle of the commute that you spoke of from Brentwood to the places of work that people have to go to make a livable wage. They spend literally hours on the road. And so I am supportive of the efforts of Contra Costa Transportation Authority who has done exemplary at providing transportation boats for us. However, I just wanna clarify and state the obvious today.
Speaker 7
Forgive me, chair, for having to do this. But I just wanna state the obvious. The vote that we make today is not to approve a tax. The vote that we make today is to put it before the people so that the voters can decide for themselves whether to tax or not. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you, senator senator Strickland. I let the record show. Has vice chair Strickland has arrived? Any comment on this is an arrogant bill.
We took it out of order. It's file order number 9. I just wanna give you appropriate heads up on that in case you had a comment on the And then we're going back to file order at the top of the file. No Okay. It looks like that's all the comments from committee.
Just thank you chair for bringing a good bill forward and we can entertain a motion from the good senator at this time Senator Archuleta. Got it. Alright. Motion by Archuleta and we can't actually take a vote because we don't have a quorum. We'll come back to that motion when we do have a quorum.
Thank you for being here.
Speaker 1
Senator Grove, thank you for your patience. You are file number one, and I know the previous presenter asked me to thank you for allowing him to get over to chair his housing committee. Appreciate you being here.
Speaker 9
Thank you, mister chair and members. Guess I should get to the beginning of this. Sorry. Thank you, mister chair and members. Today's senate bill nine ninety improves highway exit information along a a key rule corridor to better connect travelers with essential services and local businesses.
In the Ridgecrest area in the East part of Kern County, there's Highway 395, which has beautiful Red Rock Canyon and and miles and miles over a 125 miles worth of the most beautiful desert that you've ever seen. There's a beautiful little community that's isolated just off of 395 in the middle of that 120 mile stretch that offers excellent amenities and hotel reservations or accommodations that are just beautiful brand new hotels. You have, museums that depict our national security issues when you look at our base, which is the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center that gives great opportunities for kids to stop and travel and look at the beginnings of where we started in the space and the warfare industry and all the planes and everything that are available. It's a great little isolated community, and there's no signs on 395 to tell the people driving down that road on their way to Bishop that this community is available. Existing law already authorizes similar signage in rural areas to help drivers locate fuel and food and lodging and other essential services.
However, certain statutory limitations have prevented signage in this specific location. Travelers specifically that are unfamiliar with the area don't even know we exist out there. S p n I ninety supports both public safety and public health. We have an excellent hospital in the area in case that's needed as well. And importantly, this program is fee structure or fee struts free support fee supported, meaning that businesses that wish to advertise on that sign will pay for the installation and the signage itself on that, and there'll be no expense to the California taxpayers.
By enhancing to these essential services along the corridor of the this corridor, S B 990 helps to ensure safer and more efficient travel experience. Today, in support with me of s b nine ninety is Carrie Kretscher. She's the executive director of the Ridgecrest Area Convention and Visitors Bureau and Mario Issette, who's the chief police of Ridgecrest.
Speaker 1
Alright. And I don't know if you walked in after the announcements, but it's two minutes each for lead witnesses. And please proceed.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Like senator Griff said, my name is Carrie Crutcher. I'm the executive director of the Ridgecrest Area Convention and Visitors Bureau and I appreciate the opportunity. Ridgecrest is asking for support for a targeted exemption to senate bill nine ninety because this is ultimately an issue of safety, visibility, and rural access. Our community is more than a stop along the road.
Speaker 10
Ridgecrest is a regional service center that provides hospital care, medical services, lodging, restaurants, fuel, and other essential amenities to travelers. Yet, under current signage restrictions, too many drivers are never clearly informed when they are making travel decisions that those services are available just minutes away. That matters because Ridgecrest is already recognized by the state as an essential traveler waypoint. Ridgecrest is home to an official California welcome center within Visit California's statewide network of welcome centers, demonstrating the important role our city plays in serving travelers and connecting them with lodging, food, travel services, and location destinations. Our contention is that the problem is not traffic volume, but missed opportunities with both safety and economics.
Even a modest one percent increase in traveler capture could generate meaningful new annual spending for local businesses. In a rural city, that kind of impact supports jobs, tax revenue, business stability, and the services both residents and travelers depend on. California has already made similar allowances for Lincoln and Truckee. Ridgecrest is asking for the same thoughtful consideration. The proposed amendment is narrow and practical authorizing information science at two specific State Route 395 locations through 01/01/2037.
This is not a broad exemption. It is a disciplined fix for a real rural economic and public service need. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 11
My name is Mario Wissett. I'm the chief of police for the city of Ridgecrest. It's always hard to follow Carrie, but realistically, the Highway 395 Corridor, especially the Hundred And 20 miles that we're talking about, has a number of crashes since twenty twenty twenty twenty to 2024. There have been thousands of crashes along the 395 Corridor, a portion of which is in the near the Ridgecrest community. Those are often attributed to people who are driving tired.
They don't realize that we're just off the highway with lodging, medical services, and things of that nature. That's why the police chief, I think it's critically important that we give those folks an opportunity to realize there is some place safe. If you've ever been driving along that corridor, you don't wanna stop and pull over and take a nap. It's literally the middle of nowhere. When I took the job there, I thought I was lost because we weren't there yet.
It was just a little further. So I understand how people can think there's just no option for them. We wanna make sure that they understand that Ridgecrest is an option for them and that we have the services that can make their travel safe. Thank you very much for having us.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We'll call now for others who wish to speak in support of the bill. Please come on up. Name, affiliation, and support is what's allowed at this point. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Seeing none, do we have, a lead opposition witness on this bill? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition?
Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. Senator Archuleta?
Speaker 6
Thank you senator for bringing this forward. Your committee I know is very important to you. When you mentioned out in the middle of nowhere, what what would it be a a sign? What what would the sign do? Would would be able to light up?
Are you gonna be able to direct people? How is that gonna help? I I could see the importance of it. There's no doubt. I've got family out that way, so I agree.
Speaker 10
Yeah. No. Thank you. This simply would allow Caltrans to install the business logo signs. So think of when you're traveling on the freeway and you see the Caltrans sign with the business logos of what businesses are at the next exit.
That's what we're requesting. And so, we don't currently qualify under the Caltrans regulations, so that's simply what we're asking for is an exemption to put those Caltrans signs in two locations on our highway.
Speaker 9
And that's because we're not considered a rural community. We're isolated community. So there's legislation and there's regulatory processes around a rural community,
Speaker 9
have a large population in an isolated location. And it's just a few miles off the freeway, but it's very isolated and people don't know it's there. So when they drive down the freeway, you'd see a Caltrans, and it would say Starbucks and Taco Bell and the steakhouse and different things that are available. The hospital.
Speaker 6
Ah, good. Yeah. Well, I could see how important it is. My god. Well, I'm glad you brought Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. We are at the appropriate time because we don't have a quorum, but is there any other comments or questions from committee members? Seeing none.
Speaker 1
Good bill. We got a good bill comment. That's always a good sign. Thank you, senator Grove. And as soon as we have a quorum, we'll take up a vote on the bill.
Speaker 9
Thank you, mister chair. And this district bill is really important, I really appreciate your support on the bill.
Speaker 1
Is senator McNerney in the house? How about senator Blakespeare? I see her over here to my right. Alright. You may
Speaker 1
You may present as soon as you're comfortable and ready, senator. This is file item six, SB eleven sixty seven.
Speaker 16
I do have two witnesses. Should I invite them up now? Yes. Okay. Well, thank you chair and colleagues.
I'm pleased to author s b eleven sixty seven, which is sponsored by four of the biggest groups working on ebike issues, Cal Bike, People for Bikes, Streets for All, and Streets are for Everyone. I gladly accept the committee's amendments. Thank you for working with us on this bill. Thank you. This bill represents this bill addresses misrepresentation in the ebike marketplace and strengthens consumer protections around how electric bicycles are marketed and sold.
Often any bicycle shaped device with an electric motor is labeled an e bike regardless of power and speed capabilities. This can lead consumers to think that they're all similar and that there's no real difference between the vehicles, the speeds they go, and the danger that's involved or the safety requirements. But that's simply not true and that's why California law already clearly defines what qualifies as an e bike. An e bike can have no more than 750 watts of power and go no faster than 20 miles per hour on a throttle or 28 miles per hour when it is pedal assisted. Due to the popularity of e bikes manufacturers and sellers have not held fast to this legal definition.
They have blurred that distinction advertising more powerful motor vehicles as e bikes. This false advertising can cause consumers to underestimate the danger of using these faster motor vehicles. Just to illustrate e bike popularity, according to people for bikes, e bikes are the number one growth driver for the bike industry over the past five years responsible for 63% of the growth in dollar sales of all bicycles between 2019 and 2023. In my hometown of Encinitas, indeed throughout my entire district in Southern California, e bikes are hugely popular and they are everywhere on the street. We've see people of all ages using them and I also receive complaints about them from throughout my district.
We've heard or read about e bike crashes and kids getting hurt. In San Diego County, research released from Rady Children's Hospital showed there were two hundred and sixty two traumatic emergencies on electric two wheel devices that were handled by the hospital in 2025. SB eleven sixty seven will address the lack of clarity in the e bike marketplace by better regulating motor vehicles that look like e bikes so purchasers are aware of safety risks and manufacturers and sellers are held responsible for misleading advertisements. Specifically SB eleven sixty seven will clarify the definition of e bikes and specify that motor driven cycles, mopeds and other motor vehicles are not e bikes. Require manufacturers and sellers to disclose if a device is not an e bike including advising consumers that vehicle registration and rider licensing is required.
Failure to do so would constitute false advertisement and unfair competition under the business and professions code. The bill would standard standardize the location of e bike labels so they are easily seen without turning the bicycle upside down or requiring law enforcement officers to look underneath a bicycle seat in order to find the label. The law the bill also requires law enforcement officers to include label information on incident reports so we can actually track what's happening with e bikes. It would also prohibit any two or three wheel devices that can exceed 20 miles per hour from being used on public roads unless it meets the requirement of advice explicit explicitly authorized for use on public roads. With me today, I have Jeannie Wardwaller on behalf of People for Bikes and Kendra Ramsey on behalf of CalBike.
Speaker 17
Great. Thank you. Good afternoon chair and members of the committee. My name is Kendra Ramsey and I'm the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We're the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the state capital and we work directly with local local bicycle coalitions throughout the state representing tens of thousands of members.
I'd like to thank senator Blake Spear for her leadership on this issue, and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. I wanna share with you why legal e bikes are an important part of our transportation landscape. Simply said, legal ebikes are sustainable transportation options that open up bicycling for more trips for more people. Legal ebikes are bicycles. They provide a way for people to go further for more types of trips than a traditional bicycle might.
E bikes are an option for people who might not be physically able to bicycle at all or for more than a short distance who may need to carry a passenger or cargo or who may need to carry, or who may need to travel on hilly terrain. E bikes help older adults ride to get coffee with friends, maintaining connections, and having, physical activity. They help workers get to jobs on time when their family can only or afford one vehicle. Car ownership can cost around $12,000 per year, and e bikes can afford a huge cost savings for families when they are able to replace a car. People who bike get more physical activity, which helps reduce chronic health conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers while improving mental health.
Speaker 26
More bikes on the road means fewer car trips. That means cleaner air, less traffic congestion, which is great for all of our communities. It also means that drivers see more people on bikes, which helps drivers expect to see people on bikes, which creates safety for all of us. I respectfully request your support on this bill.
Speaker 18
Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeannie Wardwalla representing People for Bikes. People for Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of bicycle products, including electric bikes. People for bikes worked with 45 states and the federal government to create consistent electric bicycle standards across The US based on California's three class law. We thank senator Blake Spear for her authorship and are proud to cosponsor this bill to address the explosion of high speed e motos and their impacts on safe streets.
Electrical electric bicycles are the only reliable reliably growing segment of the bicycle market and they expand access to affordable sustainable transportation at a time when the cost of driving is climbing fast. Protecting the integrity of what qualifies as legal electric bike and access to them is essential to maintaining safe streets and public confidence in this important mode. However, consumers are increasingly encountering e motos instead of e bikes that do not that are marketed as e bikes that do not meet California's legal definition. Some e motos have motors with thousands of watts of power and can reach highway speeds of 65 miles per hour. Particularly terrifying are the growing safety risks to children and teens as eMotos are marketed to younger riders on social media.
Recent research tallied devices in bike racks at San Mateo and Marin County schools and found that 90% were actually eMotos. Reports from the medical community and in local news about increasing crashes do not do not make the distinction between legal e bikes from eMotos. By clarifying the definition of what is not an electric bicycle, s b eleven sixty seven ensures that e motors cannot legally be marketed as e bikes. The changes in this bill will help consumers make informed decisions, provide a clear framework for e motor regulation, and align vehicle use with safety standards. We urge your support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, for your testimony. We have others I see lining up to, express support. And anyone else who wants to do that, please line up now. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Mark Vuksevich, director of state policy for Streets for All. We're, one of the sponsors of the bills. Proud to be doing this with senator Blake Spear, with the EVAC industry, our fellow advocates, evidence backed policy. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, mister chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Hi there. Elisa Arsidia Kono with Townsend Public Affairs representing the city of Oceanside in support. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon. I'm Rita Repetown on behalf of triple a Northern California in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Looks like, that's it for support witnesses. Do we have a lead opposition witness on this bill? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition?
You may come up to the microphone now if that's the case. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee.
Speaker 8
I'd like to move the bill and I want to thank the senator for all our hard work on this very important issue. It's an important issue in my district and throughout the state of California. So I'll move it at the appropriate time.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chair, and also thank you, vice chair. Excellent bill. And this is something so vitally important for parents. I've I've been battling this in the district for over a year now. And something vitally to have the bikes appropriately labeled.
For parents, it's an educational issue and and knowing what's appropriate for their child that they're buying this bike for for Christmas or a birthday. So it's, not only educational for the parents, but it's safety for the children and young people. So with that, if, the author's okay, I'd love to become a coauthor
Speaker 6
Yes. Senator, I know you've been working on bills like this for years, it seems like. And I know San Diego's very, very supportive of the the work you've been doing. Does the bill address, to your satisfaction, reckless driving, having someone alter the the bike in such a way that it'll exceed what it was built for? Tell me about that.
Speaker 16
Well, the bill is trying to recognize that the DMV is at times reluctant to take on more work. So they having the DMV need to be involved in licensing different types of e bikes doesn't seem like it would be a successful bill. So this bill is really focusing on the reality that when you look at an e bike and and there's a great chart that was put out by the Moneta Institute that shows it's about 25 different bicycles in little boxes and it is impossible to tell which ones are actually e bikes versus e moto, some version of a motorcycle, but many of them you don't pedal at all. It's just all throttle. And you know focusing on the fact that parents don't know what they're buying, want their kid to have independence, they want them to be able to go to their soccer game or to school from ages about maybe 10 or 12 to 16 before they can get a driver's license and they and so they end up buying these devices that are so overpowered and they don't actually know what they're buying.
So the bill is really focusing on that particularly because we do see that as an area that has exploded in popularity and is essentially the Wild West. So so we're focusing on that and not on things related to reckless driving or DMV categories in that way. I think it's also important to note that there is a role for local governments and you see Huntington Beach and other cities, Oceanside in my district, doing this where they're prohibit they're empowering law enforcement to to stop reckless riding, to confiscate the bike, to call the parents, to mandate that there be a safety course that's taken. Are things happening at the local government level around e bikes that are really important, but this is just one piece of that puzzle.
Speaker 6
Thank you for clarifying that and I'm definitely supporting the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Seeing none other. So thank you very much. I I wanna acknowledge your efforts as well. Senator Archuleta mentioned you've been working in this space for a while.
And it does give the committee, I think, I'd want to speak for the entire committee, the consultant that did so much work on this, I'll speak for myself as a chair, Some comfort to know that when you bring in a bill in that is modifying the law literally in 100 different ways that you've taken a deep dive that you've had this background in it as do your sponsors. So we're charting new territory here, and I don't mean this to be dismissive of the bill in any manner, but maybe it's not perfect somewhere. And I didn't feel like that was our charge here in the Senate Transportation Committee to try to figure out what the perfect bill is today, but to get the law going in the direction of a significant framework, and you've done that. I hope you continue the work in this area and as you mentioned there's other things going on that aren't included in this bill and as somebody, you know, in terms of the, as somebody who is a runner and a dog walker and who deals with the interface out there frankly not in my district because I think my district is too poor still to afford these things but here in Sacramento it feels perilous as recently as this morning because they're very quiet.
It's almost the same kind of signaling issue that we get with very quiet EVs coming up on an intersection and folks don't always have the courtesy to let you know what's happening or that they're coming along. So all of this is gonna have to be worked out in the future. I have been down to your district and have seen firsthand some of what goes on in ordinary what would otherwise be ordinary cul de sacs and sidewalks and what have you. So I can understand why you've taken this on. So I certainly support the bill as well.
And as soon as we have an opportunity to formally entertain the motion, take a vote, we will.
Speaker 16
Oh, no. It's okay. I I I very much appreciate the testimony today and just want to say how important it is to have these four major groups that work on bike issues and e bike and safe streets be focused on what we can do to to firm up the laws and deal tackle this one particular area because it it is a clear area that needs attention and there are a lot of other things to do in the ebike space in order to make our roads safer. But but I'm grateful for the partnership and I appreciate the help of the committee and I have high hopes for this bill being successful. So thank you very much again, chair.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. We'll welcome you back to the dais and thank you to the witnesses. We'll move on now to actually go to file item three which we kind of leaped over Senator McNerney is here and you're welcome to come forward and present if you're ready Senator. This is SB ten thirty four file item three.
Welcome.
Speaker 12
Good afternoon, chair Cotezzi, vice chair Strickland, distinguished members of the committee. I'm here this afternoon to present s b ten thirty four. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work. There weren't any amendments proposed, but we are open to working with veterans groups and others to improve the bill at all times. SB ten thirty four is a common sense measure.
Right now, it's more difficult for disabled veterans to get a parking placard than disabled non veteran civilians. So I'll repeat that. It's more difficult for veterans that are disabled to get parking placards than it is for civilians that are disabled. That doesn't make sense. We need to change that.
Speaker 28
Because of this, many eligible veterans don't even apply for benefits that they've earned. This bill lines the state law, federal standards, and existing rules for civilians. SB ten thirty four recognizes that veterans often have multiple disabilities It ensures that veterans aren't excluded just because of a condition that isn't labeled as service connected if they are already rated as 100% permanent and total disabled. For veterans on fixed incomes, these parking benefits provide important cost savings and gives them their independence. Reliable access to a car is essential especially for those who struggle with public transport transit as a result of post traumatic stress.
Speaker 12
This bill removes barriers so disabled veterans can access care and maintain their quality of life. With that, I will introduce my testimony what do you call them? Testifiers? You come in. Witnesses.
Right.
Speaker 12
JR Wilson on my right here is a legislative director for the Department of California Disabled Veteran Americans and Hector So to, a veteran advocate for my district. And with that, I will yield to mister Wilson.
Speaker 24
Thank you. My name is JR Wilson. I'm the legislative director for the Department of California Disabled American Veterans. A little bit about my background, I started with the DAV in 1997 as a national service officer and eventually becoming a supervisor in our Roanoke, Virginia office in Reno, Nevada, and San Diego National Service offices. In 2016, I was elected as the Department of California DAV state commander, and I have been the Department of California DAV legislative director since 2018.
I am here today in strong support of senate bill ten thirty four. This bill is about administrative alignment and eliminating unnecessary barriers. California recognizes disabled individuals through the DMV issued placards and plates based on medical certification. At the same time, the federal government, through the Department of Veterans Affairs, operates the most comprehensive disability evaluation system in the nation. Within that system, a designation of permanent and total disability has two distinct and equal important meanings.
Permanent means the condition is not expected to improve and the veteran will not be subject to future examinations by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Total means the veteran is disabled at the 100% level and compensated at the maximum VA disability rate. Both matter. Together, they represent a final lifelong federal determination of severity of disability. However, current law does not fully recognize that that that federal determination.
Speaker 7
Veterans who have already been deemed permanently and totally disabled must still navigate additional duplicative verification requirements to access certain DMV related benefits. From a policy standpoint, This creates inefficiency and inconsistency between the state and federal system. It is also important to be clear of what this bill does not do. SB ten thirty four does not eliminate the requirement for a California disabled person placard. Veterans must still meet California medical eligibility standards and obtain verification from a licensed physician.
Speaker 24
A doctor must still certify mobility related disability required under California law. This bill simply ensures that once a veteran has a verified medical condition under California standards and a federal designation of being both permanent and total, they are not subject to additional redundant barriers beyond that point. Let me briefly illustrate. Maria is a veteran We have
Speaker 1
wrap up so we don't have too much time for case studies right now. You're two and a half minutes.
Speaker 24
You are very good. From a transportation and DMV perspective, this is common sense reform. It reduces duplicative and medical clarification. It improves ministry administrative efficiency and aligns state processes with federal determination. It ensures a consistent treatment and consistent similarity situated disabled veterans.
On behalf of the 72,000 DAV Life members of California, we respectfully ask for an eye on vote SB ten thirty four. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Hector So to. I'm here in support of SB ten thirty four. As a disabled veteran myself I've also spent time advocating for fellow veterans and helping them navigate the veteran benefits administration the department veteran affairs amongst various organizations through that work I've seen firsthand how California's current law creates confusion inconsistency and unfair barriers for disabled veterans seeking parking benefits they rightly rightfully deserve.
Speaker 25
That's be ten thirty four is important because helps bring fairness and clarity to law right now disabled veterans can face stricter eligibility requirements and other disabled Californians when trying to access parking related benefits that creates an unnecessary benefit barrier for better veterans who already live with serious mobility challenges. This bill helps correct that the by aligning the rules for disabled veterans more closely with the standards already used for other disabled individuals Provides clear descriptions of qualifying with mobility limitations makes it. Makes a lot easier to understand and helps ensure that veterans with legitimate disabilities are not left out simply because the current statue is too narrow or too vague. As we ten thirty four also matters because it recognizes the real life challenges disabled veterans face. For many veterans access to parking benefits is not a minor inconvenience It can affect their ability to attend medical appointments among other quality life challenges.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to speak in support of the bill? If so, please come forward to the microphone. So opportunity for name, identification, and support.
Speaker 22
Good afternoon, chair members. My name is Seth Reeve with Reeve Government Relations representing American Legion Department of California, Amvets Department of California, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, all in strong support representing nearly three quarters of a million veterans. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Anyone else, here to speak in support? I've seen none. Do we have a lead witness in opposition?
Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Vice chair?
Speaker 6
Well, thank you, gentlemen. And senator, supporter of veterans that you've been in. I'm just so proud of the work you've been doing as the chair of the military and veterans committee, I think that the work you do is fantastic. But let me just ask you a question. I I have to scratch my head.
Speaker 14
How is it that a disabled veteran who has documentation from the VA that he's a 100% disabled just can't walk into DMV and say, I'd like to apply for the placard. And is he then at that point, DMV is giving him a hard time. Why wouldn't DMV just say, we got the 100% rating. Why wouldn't you be approved right then on on the spot?
Speaker 24
I think the one of the distinctions here is the permanent total status. It actually streamlines the DMV's requirements. Currently, a veteran that is a 100%, and not all veterans that are a 100% Yeah.
Speaker 24
Have that separate distinction. So currently, what they must do is go out and get the the disabled placard application, go into their county veteran service office, get the verification that the mobility issue is service connected. This creates an easier streamline for that veteran that is permanent in total that is also required to get a California disabled placard.
Speaker 6
That's that's what it is. Okay. So obviously, this bill will take care of that and eliminate that and take care of our veterans. Well, it's about time. Thank you so much.
Thank you for your service to the veterans in the room. Thank you for your service and welcome home. Please continue the fight and God bless you for your service. And obviously I'll support the bill.
Speaker 1
Questions or comments from the desk? Seeing none. Still short of a quorum, just barely I guess. All right, so we'll take up a motion and a vote on the bill. Obviously you have an offer of a motion already and as as we have a quorum.
We're a little short right now.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Committee? Did you wanna close, senator? I didn't mean to cut you off on your close.
You're welcome to say a few more words.
Speaker 1
That was that was just humor attempted humor. Please come on. Or make yourself comfortable. And and, senator, you can present whenever you're ready.
Speaker 13
Thank you, mister chair. Good afternoon and members. I'm here to present s b twelve seventy nine, which authorizes the city of Long Beach to place speed safety cameras along the Pacific Coast Highway. In 2023, I worked as chair of transportation as the former chair of transportation with assembly member Friedman, authoring a b six forty five in which we authorized six cities, including Long Beach, to use speed camera safety systems to reduce speeding. This pilot program has strict guidelines for privacy and equity, requiring non punitive warnings for the first sixty days of violation and ensuring that there are a fine starting at only $50 and so many other options for low income recipients of fines as well.
Speaker 30
And since implementation, San Francisco, which is one of the pilot program cities, has seen a drop of 72% in speeding, which has been incredible. And in implementing its own speed safety camera program, Long Beach identified a high injury corridor where they could not place cameras, which is the Pacific Coast Highway. And as you may know, unfortunately, Long Beach is ranked among the deadliest cities in California for traffic collisions per our own California office of traffic safety. And specifically, PCH accounts for twenty percent of Long Beach's crash fatalities that makes up just one percent of its arterial roadways. And the eight mile stretch runs past parks, elementary schools, and Long Beach City College.
SB twelve seventy nine would address this by, this gap by authorizing Long Beach to place speed cameras along this highway with the same guardrails that follows through the pilot program, and we're continuing to work with many of our stakeholders. And testifying in support of the bill today, I welcome councilwoman doctor Sully Sorrow from Long Beach's 6th District and Paul Van Dyke, the city's traffic engineer. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 28
Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I am councilwoman doctor Sully Sorrow from the very cool city of Long Beach. Thank you to senator Gonzalez for authoring s b twelve seventy nine. I am very proud to support it because it is ultimately about saving lives.
As the councilwoman representing the specific section of the Pacific Coast Highway Corridor in the bill, I hear directly from residents who are concerned about speeding and traffic safety every single day. I hear from parents who are afraid to let their children walk to school, from seniors who feel unsafe crossing the street, from small business owners who worry about the constant risk that a high speed traffic will bring car right into their storefront. And I hear from families who have witnessed crashes and near misses. Far too many in the 6th District sorry. For too many in the 6th District, PCH has become a source of fear and loss While it makes up less than 1% of our roadway miles, it accounts for 20% of traffic fatalities in our city.
Speaker 21
So so one in five traffic fatalities in Long Beach happen on this highway. That alone should compel us to act and as said this bill simply allows Long Beach to include its portion of PCH in the existing speed camera pilot program. Right now we are excluded from using this proven safety tool on one of our most dangerous roads. This bill closes that gaps that gap and gives us the ability to act where it's most needed. On behalf of the city of Long Beach, the 6th Council District, I strongly urge an I vote in on this item.
Speaker 36
Good afternoon, mister chair, committee members. My name is Paul Van Dyke. I'm the city traffic engineer for the city of Long Beach, My team is tasked with rolling out our speed safety pilot program authorized by AB six forty five, and I am excited about the possibility of expanding the pilot to include Pacific Coast Highway within the city of Long Beach. Pedestrian exposure is my primary concern on PCH. Thirty of the thirty nine fatal crashes since 2020 have involved pedestrians.
Speaker 31
As mentioned by the senator and our council member, PCH in Long Beach is not a waterfront open road like most of people think of when they think of PCH. It runs through the heart of our city, touching the largest park in Central Long Beach. Its crosswalks lead directly onto the platform for the a line light rail station, and its sidewalks bring kids to school at Cabrillo High School and Long Beach Poly High School. And so, really, making sure that our streets are safe for the communities in Long Beach, for the people in Long Beach that are walking along these streets is why we're here asking for your support for this bill. I'm available for questions, technical questions, and thank you for your interest and support of SB twelve seventy nine.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you for being here in Sacramento. Those who wish to speak in support can come up now.
Speaker 19
Mark Fuksovich on behalf of Streets For All. We are one of the sponsors of a b six forty five by assembly member Friedman and proud to see this expanded. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Bernie O'Hada, LA County Sheriff's Department on behalf of sheriff Robert Luda
Speaker 1
Alright. It looks like that's it for support. Do we have any lead opposition? Seeing none, does anybody wish to speak in opposition? You can come to microphone now.
Speaker 27
Mister chairman, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrol. After really excellent discussion with the senator's office and appreciation for the committee amendments that are being taken, the highway patrol is re the Highway Patrol Association has removed their opposition and are neutral on the bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Just, just to clarify, my understanding is that the author intends to take amendments in the next committee and privacy committee. So just to avoid confusion here, there's no amendments being taken here.
Speaker 1
we are as well. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition or tweet tweener like we just heard? Seeing none we'll come back to the committee at this time.
Senator Archuleta is prepared to move the bill but I think we need one more member if my accountant is right. Soon as as we get one, we'll establish a quorum, and then we can vote on the bill. But we'll give you an opportunity to close. You can do that now.
Speaker 30
Thank you, mister chair. I just wanna thank doctor Saro as well as mister Van Dyke for being here. This also includes the city of Signal Hill support, I should say, because Signal Hill is shared, by PCH with Long Beach. And we just wanna thank you, and our stakeholders for the insightful, information, and we're looking forward to bringing safety to city of Long Beach. Thank you.
I asked for an eye vote.
Speaker 8
Alright, members. We're now going over to the chairman's bills. We'll start with file item 18, s b eleven seventy seven.
Speaker 1
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here to present SP eleven seventy seven as was pointed out. This bill will ensure that the legislature continues to consistently receive critical data on the California high speed rail project. The high speed rail project update report also known as the per provides the public and the legislature an opportunity and an important progress check-in every two years. And that is to ensure that the high speed rail authorities on track to meet its goals.
Current law requires the PRRR to include specific information related to the project's budget schedule and potential risks. Past PRRRs have gone above and beyond, include additional information such as potential revenue options, project timeline comparisons, and background from other international high speed rail projects. This bill will codify the additional information into statute to preserve crucial data for future analysis and ensure long term transparency and accountability in our high speed rail transformation. With us here today to testify in support is Robert Persol. Who is with our sponsor, the U.
S. High Speed Rail Association. It's appropriate time I'll respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 34
Thank you. Good afternoon members of the committee. My name is Robert Pearsall. I'm the California political director at US High Speed Rail. We are the proud sponsors of senate bill eleven seventy seven.
Speaker 32
US high speed rail is a coalition of over 50 leading unions, public agencies, and companies. USHSR works with its members and allied progressive environmental groups to advocate at the federal and the state level for public support for world class high speed rail projects across The US. California's high speed rail project will not only revolutionize our transportation system, it will also be a boon to our economy. In the twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five fiscal year alone, the high speed rail project produced $2,900,000,000 in economic output and investment. In 2025, the California High Speed Rail Authority announced it was conducting a comprehensive review of the high speed rail project including design criteria, scope, cost, procurement strategy, ridership, and schedule.
The review could identify new ways to accelerate construction, manage cost, and bring in additional revenue, but the legislature will need consistent detailed updates on the authority's progress to ensure those outcomes. As the senator said, the project update report is currently required to keep the bill the public and the legislature informed about specific project information including budget, scope, and risk. And it's worth noting historically, the authority has gone above and beyond to supplement the PUR with additional information. The additional information we're discussing, the ancillary revenue options, comparative analysis of past project timelines, and background information about international high speed rail projects provides crucial insights into the authority's strategy and efficiency. SB eleven seventy seven will maintain consistency for stakeholders, legislators, and the public by ensuring that the additional elements from recent PURs are codified in statute and continue to be included in future project update reports.
That's why we're sponsoring this bill. We're thankful to the chair for authoring SB eleven seventy seven, and I'm happy to answer questions here anytime after the hearing. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Other witnesses in support? For identification purposes, support? Witnesses in opposition? Are you a tweener?
Speaker 21
Good afternoon. Kira Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank in opposition to the bill.
Speaker 16
Okay. Members, anything? This is one one issue where I know the chairman and I disagree. I I wouldn't be doing my job if I just didn't say, instead of requiring another report, from my standpoint, I think it's time that we cut bait and just shut down the project personally. But I know I'm in a minority on this committee, but I just wanna put those 2¢ in on this.
Speaker 8
Any other things? We don't have a quorum. Chairman, when the time comes, mister Archuleta will move the bill. Mister chairman, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
And and just respect your position and and always have in the Right. Robust debates we've had over time. This this bill, as as we're putting it forward, is is really to create a a historical record that's in statute that can't be moved. And ironically, I thought of you when I was first looking at the bill because there's been times I know you've appropriately pointed out some of the history in the bill, some of your own comments on the record about the bill. Hopefully in its best version here, this bill would document all of that.
Pros, cons. Whether the project were to continue to fruition, I hope it does, you hope it doesn't. Question, I think, really becomes, does it hurt to have a very, very clear audit trail as to just what the heck happened along the way? So Mhmm. That's all we're trying to do.
But, again, thank you very much. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 8
Okay. Thank you, mister chair. So members now we're gonna move to the chairman's next bill, file item 19, s p twelve forty six.
Speaker 1
We have another witness that wants to come up. Alright. You come from up here, Megan? I can move up. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you again Mr. Chair and members. Next I'd like to present SP twelve forty six which will establish stronger remote operation standards and emergency response protocols for autonomous vehicle operators. Autonomous vehicles are rapidly expanding operations in California I think as we all know and although way more leads the industry with approximately 3,000 deployed vehicles 30 more companies are going through the DMV's permitting process to enter into the market.
Unfortunately, reports of AVs obstructing traffic, competing first responders, and driving through active law enforcement activities have continued to abound. While human drivers can react to ambiguous situations in real time, AVs often require input from remote remote human operators. So, as has been said recently in one of our hearings, there are humans involved even with autonomous vehicles. But when remote assistance gets delayed, AVs can freeze in intersections. They can jam traffic.
They can block emergency responders. In some scenarios, it's our public sector workers, first responders, firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement who then must step in despite the strain it puts on our public resources to standardize these remote operations s b twelve forty six requires remote drivers and assistance to be based in The US and hold a valid California driver's license SB twelve forty six also implements a ratio of one employee to every three vehicles. Our goal is to ensure AV companies have the capacity to respond immediately to emergencies like the San Francisco power outage last December. Furthermore, SB twelve forty six gives our first responders the tools and assistance they need. Under this bill, a trained autonomous vehicle worker must arrive to assist first responders on scene within ten minutes.
SB twelve forty six also requires every autonomous vehicle to include a manual override system and under this bill these override systems must be approved by the California highway patrol in collaboration with the state fire marshal and all autonomous companies must provide proper standardized training. Finally, in addition to mandating monthly reporting on immobilization and response times SP twelve forty six establishes clear penalties that go back to local jurisdictions for vehicles that block traffic or interfere with emergency responses. This bill is still in its early stages, but we've already begun conversations with industry stakeholders to find ways to collaborate toward our common goal, keeping our roads safe. I respectfully ask for your I vote so we can continue our work on this important set of issues and with us here today in support we have Megan Subers with the California Professional Firefighters and Sterling Haywood a parking control officer member of SEIU ten twenty one in San Francisco. Matt Ledge, with our sponsor, SEIU California, is also available for technical questions, and I may defer to him at that point.
Thank you.
Speaker 35
Megan Subers on behalf of the California professional firefighters who represent about 37,000 rank and file firefighter EMTs and paramedics across the state. Just pleased to be in support of this bill and would like to thank the author for continuing to focus on these AV safety issues. As you've heard me and my members say in front of this committee before, we do think it's important for California to have a set of rules and protocols for AVs to operate safely in California. The analysis does a great job and the author mentioned some of the issues that have that first responders have faced on the streets in parts of California where AVs are operating today interfering with emergency response situations, parking on top of fire hoses, blocking fire station exits, and creating more dangerous situations than we think is appropriate. My San Francisco local noted recently in a public hearing that ever since San Francisco became California's laboratory for autonomous vehicles, the San Francisco Fire Department's command staff and labor representatives have asked the AV companies for a public safety manual override option that would allow police officer or firefighter or other first responder to immobilize an AV without the need to contact a remote operator.
They hope the companies would agree to this common sense solution voluntarily, but the years have gone by and here we are. Instead, companies have encouraged first responders to use a hotline that is dedicated for for first responders, but unfortunately, that communication has lacked and not always been quick or effective. In December 2025, the power outage affecting large portions of the city stranded many people across San Francisco. These vehicles blocked intersections and streets and could not be moved without assistance from the company. The hotline that was supposed to be a resource in these situations was not quick or responsive.
The city had reported that emergency dispatchers made a total of 31 calls to the hotline and were placed on hold for long stretches with one dispatcher waiting on hold for fifty three minutes. SB twelve forty six would ensure that in the event of an emergency first responders can get the immediate response and attention from remote assistance that is needed and will ensure that AV operate AVs operating on a highway are equipped with manual override systems accessible to first responders and we would ask for your support today. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Next testimony. Good afternoon. My name is Sterling Haywood. I'm a SEIU member, a parking control officer of eighteen years. I'm here to share what's happening in our streets right now and why it's urgent to have legislation to make autonomous vehicles operate safely along the workers who keep our city moving.
In my work, I support street cleaning crews, manage traffic congestion, and try to keep people safe while directing traffic. And more and more of the autonomous vehicles are getting in the way of the work. Despite clearly posted signs street and street cleaning schedules, I rarely find ATVs where they shouldn't be. And because there's no driver, there's no way to resolve it, I end up having to sight these vehicles. Also, while directing traffic, the risk is even more serious.
Speaker 35
On fifth emission, saw ATV stop in the middle of an intersection and make a legal u-turn and nearly hit another vehicle. Near the Moscone Center, I watched one star ATV block a lane then another pull up right behind it, then another one until there was four vehicles stuck backing up traffic as biz on a busy street. This isn't my experience during well, actually, the Super Bowl weekend, a fellow officer had to physically get into an AV and move it after calling customer service just to clear the road. And during December storms, an autonomous vehicle blocked the emergency responses. City workers and first responders had to stop what they were doing to move these vehicles manually.
Speaker 34
Senators, I'm proud to serve the city of San Francisco and its resident, but city workers and first responders shouldn't be treated as roadside assistance for private AV companies. SB twelve forty six is about accountability and then make sure that these companies take responsibility for these fleets and don't rely on already stretched public workers to fix these problems. It protects the ability of first responders to do their jobs without delay. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on s b twelve forty six. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Elmer Lazardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Chair members Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in support.
Speaker 25
Sean Flanigan on behalf of the Dawn Project in support. Good afternoon. Louis Costa with smart transportation division in support.
Speaker 1
John Mihay, a gig driver for eleven years representing 800,000 drivers in California in support.
Speaker 30
Hi. Margarita from Los Angeles, driver for Uber and Lyft for eight years. Please vote yes on support of SB twelve forty six. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Hi. I'm Janice Jackson and I've been driving for Uber for ten years, over ten years, and I'm in support of SB twelve forty six and and I'm hoping that you are too as well.
Speaker 27
Hi. Hector Hector Castellanos with California Geek Workers Union and also a 100,000 drivers in support of SB twelve forty six.
Speaker 1
Joseph Augusto, a rideshare driver for ten years in the San Francisco Bay Area. Urging you to support s p twelve forty six. Hi. My name is Vikash Shankar. I'm a rideshare driver for ten years.
Speaker 3
Nicholas Cavallar, Stockton California, driver for ten years. Please support SB twelve forty six, urging for that. Thank you.
Speaker 38
I'm Jalil Mathavi from Fresno, California. I'm five years ride share driver, and I'm in support of SB1246. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Hi. I'm requesting support to SB141246. I'm member of California Agit Workers Union. Thank you. Hello.
Speaker 39
This is Harvey Melendez coming from Los Angeles. Please support s b twelve forty six.
Speaker 21
Rosemary Shaham, president of consumers of our auto reliability and safety, proud to support SB1246. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Now witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Thank you. Two minutes each.
Speaker 29
Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Sarah Booth testifying on behalf of the autonomous vehicle industry association in respectful opposition. California has already made significant updates to its AV safety framework that have not taken effect yet. These new requirements will address many of the issues raised today.
In 2024, the legislature enacted a b seventeen seventy seven, which was developed in coordination with first responders. Once it takes effect this July, companies operating a v's must among other requirements continuously monitor each a v and answer calls from first responders within thirty seconds. Have remote human operators who can stop or move an AV as directed by first responders and direct AVs to leave or avoid an emergency situation within two minutes of a geofencing message initiated by first responders. And if companies can't meet those requirements, first responders can then issue notifications that will be reported to the DMV, and the DMV can then limit or revoke their licenses their operating permits. Excuse me.
Meanwhile, the DMV just overhauled its AV regulations after a years long public process, and they're expected to take effect this summer. They govern remote support personnel, first responder interactions, incident response, and data reporting, and they will be the most comprehensive in the country. In addition, key definitions in the regs differ from those in this bill, and that creates compliance conflicts. We should not layer on a second overlapping system before the first one is even implemented, especially after the companies have spent the last two years building up their compliance programs to meet these new requirements. A better approach is to allow a b seventeen seventy seven and the DMV's new regulations to take effect, evaluate how they work, and then address any real demonstrated gaps.
Finally, SB twelve forty six pairs a three strikes you're out rule with very prescriptive mandates even when the violations stem from unrealistic requirements like a ten minute response time in person. On its face, this bill is not a ban on a b technology in California, but it could act like a de facto ban, shutting down operations based on rigid rules rather than actual safety outcomes. So for these reasons and more, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 40
Chair Cortezi and members of the committee. My name is Chris Childs, I am here today to express my opposition to senate bill twelve forty six. I am a native Californian and a retired assistant commissioner with the California Highway Patrol. During nearly twenty eight years with the CHP, I spent the entirety of my career in the pursuit of enhanced traffic safety. As an assistant chief alongside my counterparts at the DMV, I oversaw CHP's regulatory responsibilities toward the autonomous vehicle industry.
My team and I dove deep on AV issues on behalf of the people of this state. We personally visited AV companies across California and developed a strong understanding of how these vehicles support traffic safety on California roads. Based on the many existing requirements for first responder interactions under California's existing AV law and regulations, I know we all share the goal of giving first responders effective tools to respond to activities involving AVs. However, this bill does not achieve that goal. Instead, it would create requirements that are out of touch with reality.
Speaker 18
Requiring local AV technicians to be present on a scene within ten minutes is simply not impossible given California's urban conditions and long stretches of highway between exits. As a tenured member of law enforcement, I have responded to hundreds, if not thousands, of emergency calls rolling code three Even with the benefit of lights, sirens, and the ability to drive much faster than other vehicles, I found that my response times were often longer than ten minutes. Requiring commercial AVs to be equipped with manual override control systems for first responders is also not necessary as this approach puts first responders safety in jeopardy. The safest procedure is often for vehicles to remain where they are and to be towed with specialized equipment by highly trained recovery operators. Never in my twenty eight years of service did I move a big rig truck or witness a fellow first responder move one.
Speaker 40
AV companies have a vested interest in working closely with first responders, and they have been doing so for many, many years. I know they take this role seriously because I have worked with them as a regulator on behalf of the people of this state. Creating arbitrary regulations before new and significant requirements go into effect in a few short months will create confusion and will not make our roads safer. For these reasons, I urge the committee to vote no on s b twelve forty six.
Speaker 8
you. Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition for identification purposes?
Speaker 3
Good afternoon. John Kendrick, California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon. Peter Lorong Munoz with the Bay Area Council respectfully opposed.
Speaker 4
Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and also on behalf of Aurora Innovation in very respectful opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair members. Jose Torres with TechNet in strong opposition.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Members, any questions? Senator Menjabar. Thank you. You mentioned one of
Speaker 41
the last things you mentioned that it would put emergency responders, first responders in jeopardy. But we have a representative of first responders, and they didn't claim that it would put in them in jeopardy. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on if you're advocating for something, how do you think it would put first responders in jeopardy?
Speaker 35
Thank you, senator. I appreciate the question. The engagement that I've had on this issue, not not only specific to this bill, but bills in the past, are relevant to the jurisdictions where they're either already on the roads or have a testing permit and every local that I have talked to every firefighter that has had to interact with these vehicles in one way or another has said to me their number one request has always been the ability to override the system and be able to move the vehicle themselves. They have said to me also, I don't want to be triple a. I don't wanna be triple a for AVs, but some situations dictate that we need to quickly move this car, and sometimes it's not realistic to wait for someone to come from the company and move it themselves.
So I don't know exactly what it means to say that this would put first responders in jeopardy. I hear what the witness said about being able to move a big rig. That's not what I'm envisioning in this situation, but I do think first responders are equipped enough to move a Waymo or a vehicle of that similar size. I think it's dangerous if they come up to a vehicle, and they've said that some multiple situations happen. Sometimes they're shut down completely.
The vehicle's not on.
Speaker 8
So I wanna establish a quorum so we can move forward and get this committee done. Clerk, please call the the roll.
Speaker 22
Archuleta here. Abigail. Blakespeare? Here. Blakespeare here.
Dali. Gonzalez?
Speaker 22
Gonzales here. Greyson? Greyson here. Mentjivar? Here.
Mentjivar here. Richardson, Siorito, Valadares, Wiener?
Speaker 35
Of course. Yeah. I think the situation where they approach the car and the vehicle is not on is oh, sorry. Whether where the vehicle is not on and not operating is one thing. What my members say is sometimes they approach the vehicle, it's not moving.
They don't know why it's not moving, but it's on, And that is when they're concerned about it doing something, you know, that they going the wrong direction, being more dangerous to the community, and that is when they wish they could have that option to be able to override it and have that manual override system.
Speaker 41
I'd love to hear your response to that, and I'm gonna add another question to you. Well, you mentioned this regarding the times, but we heard from the sponsors gave some examples, fifty three minutes, I think, waiting with an operator. You countered with some of your time. So I'm wondering if you can expand a little bit more also on how are you then responding to these long waits that continue to exist.
Speaker 24
Well, I'll I'll just speak to the I I think, if I recall correctly that that particular time was referring to the San Francisco incident, and I'll I'll defer that to for this other witness to answer that. But with respect to the times when the new laws come into effect this summer, AV companies will have to respond to a first responders, like, either calling their line or a two way radio that has to be attached to the car now, within thirty seconds. And if they don't do that, they're in violation of the law, and they can suffer significant consequences for that. They have to have somebody that would answer those calls and then enable a first responder to move the car themselves if it makes sense for that type of car or to do it themselves. And if they can't do that, they're in violation.
Speaker 29
There's some cars like a neuro or a Zoox that don't have, like, steering wheels and that type of a thing. So it's like, it doesn't make sense for every type of car. And so that's that's part of the issue, but these new rules when they come into effect should should address a lot of those situations. And if they don't, these companies will be facing consequences for that. But do you wanna speak to the wait times?
Speaker 40
And I I can testify that police officers across, well, the country move cars all the time. And my testimony was more revolving around big rigs. And I've never seen I've never seen a police officer move a big rig ever. Even officers that I know hold class a commercial driver license, they insist that they won't move a big rig on duty because it puts themselves at risk, especially if they don't know what's wrong with the big rig, which is why there's a lot of specialty equipment to move those big rigs. I I mean, respectfully with to the other witness, I've I've never ever seen a fire department personnel ever move any type of vehicle that usually is, given over to the police officers on scene, which is typically the way it goes.
Speaker 41
Mister Reister, I have one more question to the author. Senator, DMV is gonna come be coming up with these guidelines. Does your bill go above that? Are there gaps that you anticipate these guidelines, are we gonna have as to your bill, the purpose for your bill? Because opposition says is asking that we wait because DMV is coming up with their guidelines.
So I'm asking, does your bill go above the guidelines that are coming up because you think a gap would still exist?
Speaker 1
Oh yeah that's great question so a b seventeen seventy seven to the ting bill was in effect a subset of what's going on here it was it did not address these issues for example did not address the issue of of remote operators and what qualifications they should have. It doesn't it did not address response time as you know in your own communities that EMTs and fire, for example, for good reason have mandated response times contractual response times and if they don't meet those that's it's a big problem including ambulance services private ambulance services those kinds of things just haven't been addressed so far so that direction has not been given to DMV if they go beyond certainly during the course of this year as we're moving the bill forward assuming we can keep moving it forward obviously I'm willing to make adjustments you know amend out areas that are redundant or don't need to be addressed. But the legislative direction so far has not has only touched on a couple of issues, frankly. We just think there's a lot more that needs to be done and things are moving very, very quickly. So kicking the can down the road from a legislative standpoint and waiting for rulemaking to happen, you know, might be awfully late.
Speaker 30
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to the offer for bringing it forward. But I do have a question on the on the coordination amongst the agencies because, you know, AVs in general, as I've worked on this work as well, it's it can be very confusing. And it's brand new. It's sort of still nascent technology. But how do you see the coordination amongst the state agencies working and actually ensuring that there is, you know, the accident data reporting, that you have all of the that we do have the true enforcement, that is the intent of the bill?
So, you know, the DMV obviously regulating the vehicles and then PUC, the robotaxi, side of things. So how do you see that? How do you envision that? And then, so this could be the best bill, possible.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Uniformity is going be a big issue and the bill starts to address that. I'm not sure one bill is going to get all the way. There is no uniform guidelines that have been established by anyone in the state of California in terms of the issues that we've been talking about here response times training. So we have called for CHP to be the agency that given it's a statewide law enforcement agency that takes responsibility for trying to bring uniform guidelines into play in terms of fundamental law enforcement issues, rules of the road issues in terms of training.
You know, as it stands right now, we don't have coordination with this but I know you know this as a former chair of this very committee to this day there's no dispatch coordination so all the work that we've done in local governments and at the state level to make sure that when someone calls 911 and says I've got a problem out here somebody's trapped under a car. We have not only mandated response times but we have dispatch as some of us know from dealing with emergencies you know working right through with us all the way to the point of actual response. Right now, our AV industry is in a separate universe. So that needs to be coordinated. Absolutely needs to be coordinated.
I think the beginning point here was to say there needs to be a set response time. And I want us to say I'm open to moving the ten minutes, but I would just say even to the opposition, let's discuss that because there's very few first responder agencies that are allowed ten minutes and I'm not sure what the liability issues are going to be if we're not synced up with those response issues. For example, a fire coming out because someone's trapped under a car could be could be no responsibility, no direct responsibility of the of the AV company, of the industry itself. But what may become the problem, the liability problem is they don't show up for fifteen minutes and and you've got first responders there that are unable unable to take any kind of meaningful physical control of the vehicle. That's not good.
And and I I I, you know, beg to to differ with the opposition witness that says that or implies that first responders of any type don't come out and immediately call heavy equipment and tow companies. This bill is not about tractor trailer rigs. This is about we all know what the vehicles look like. The ability to move one of those as quickly as first responders need it to be moved or to override it, it just seems critical to life and death situations. Anyway, sorry about the long response, mister chair.
And Right.
Speaker 30
Well, I appreciate it. And I would say, I know sort of, in addition to that is the data as well. I know that we have been talking about some AV, companies do provide data, some definitely do not, as we've known. And the DMV has not been great in some cases in ensuring that we're getting that data on crash accidents and, you know, NHTSA sort of nowadays sort of seems like a black hole, and it you don't under we don't understand which is doing what. So the data is certainly very, very important.
I'm wondering and maybe this is for public safety on either side on on whether, you know, looking ahead, how there there will be categories for this specific issue, maybe not even just on the crash data injury side, like the death or injury side, but also on the you know, just having to be like the triple a, like you said, which we should not be having our public safety personnel do. So I'm wondering what the data will maybe evolve into after this bill or as, you know, you're waiting for DMV additional reporting.
Speaker 40
As as is widely known, the safety rating of autonomous vehicles is far superior in terms of deaths per million miles, which is the mileage death rate, as opposed to human drivers and human error related crashes. So I think we all envision a a future where there's better traffic safety for everybody.
Speaker 30
But on the data side, how is that gonna but Yeah. Don't know if you have
Speaker 35
any senator. I don't know if I have an exact answer to your question, but I think we're also very interested to see that data as well, not necessarily just for incidents where, you know, somebody may die in an accident, but just like the number of incidents reported of, you know, a disabled car in a dangerous location or the ability to to block a fire from leaving this the fire engine from leaving the station. Like, those kinds of things we're hoping get reported as well, and that will hopefully inform our operation and the training that our members do to interact with the vehicles, but also hopefully the way that the vehicles continue to evolve in their rollout as well. Yep. That's helpful.
Speaker 8
Thank you. So I just have a couple things before we go to the chairman to close. I I agree with the center from Long Beach. When we look at the data I hope when we look at the data, we compare apples to apples. Just like when we talk about accidents, what is it accidents from these AV vehicles versus accidents that are normal people driving the car.
The data I've seen that the AVs are actually more are safer. But and and again, going into wait times, more blocking, and I understand first responders. They they're there to try to help keep us safe. The more the most essential role of government's public safety. But I can tell you many times where I've seen cars that broke down, they're in the middle of the road, and it takes a tow truck fifteen, twenty minutes.
So I want to know, like, when we look forward on this and data, let's compare apples to apples. Because a lot of times, oh, it's ten minutes is too long. Yeah. Ten minutes is way too long in an emergency situation. But someone driving a car that breaks down that car, a lot of times, it's longer than that ten minutes.
That you're expecting a an autonomous vehicle to be better than what we have currently today on everyday life. And so are the kinds of things that we need to take a look at. I'm actually excited about this because I think we're gonna have a major reduction in car accidents through these kinds of vehicles. Now it's not perfect yet, but it's gonna get better and better as technology gets better and better. So, members, I always caution everybody.
Let's not kill industry before it gets going. And let's when we talk about data, let's look at apples to apples in terms of data. So those are my 2¢. Senator, did you have someone? I'm sorry.
On my left.
Speaker 43
So, first of I want to thank, I know there are San Franciscans who came up today and some of our amazing city workers. I think maybe some parking control officers who came up. Thank you for managing our roads and doing hard work and dealing with angry people all the time. So, I'm very appreciative of that. And, I know there's been talk about December 20 in San Francisco, a day that will live in infamy, and I I was there also in the middle of it.
I was there in the sunset having a slice of pizza when the lights started flickering, which was the start of a absolutely catastrophic multi day blackout, a complete disaster that was not caused by anyone or anything other than Pacific Gas and Electric company. And I think we have to always remember that what happened, it was initiated by PG and E by their failure to maintain their substations, which over multi decade period keep catching on fire because they're not doing their jobs. And it was horrible for small businesses. It was horrible for for for everyone. And I and I it was just right on the cusp of the holiday.
The holiday, just terrible. And I'm I'm going on and on because I want us to remember that it was PG and E that triggered all of this. I was also there in the middle of the city when I was like, saw a large number of Waymo's who were stopped at stop signs that, know, mostly at stop signs and just not moving. And I think like a lot of people, I was super confused. And I know it was not a good situation at all.
Speaker 20
I think it was definitely a fail by Waymo. And I know there were explanations and rationales, but it caused a lot of problems triggered by PG and E's complete and utter failure. I have been supportive of various regulations of AVs. I supported the Ting bill a few years ago. I supported the large truck bill that the governor has repeatedly vetoed.
Speaker 43
There are pieces of this bill, and I want to thank the author for taking this on, there are pieces of this bill that I think are not just reasonable, but good, reshoring the folks who you're going to need to call. Since there's no driver, have to be able to speak to someone, and reshoring that. There are other pieces of this bill that I think are really good, and that I support 100%. There are some other pieces of the bill that I think need work. The ten minute piece is one of them.
I wish I could get around San Francisco in ten minutes. I can't. And so, I'm going to lay off the bill today. I am not ruling out supporting it on the floor, and I would like to even be part of those conversations, if that's possible, and then see what the bill looks like on the floor. So, again, I want to thank the author.
I want to thank the folks who have come out in support. Like I said, there are some really good and important pieces of this bill, and I'm going to keep watching it, and I'm not ruling out supporting it in the future.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Thank you vice chair and I apologize but I was gonna speak earlier mister chair I appreciate the bill and where it's going I think it's again, I'm just making obvious statements today. It's obvious we have a true, real issue here. It's also obvious that both sides, your main primary goal is safety. And so I would just encourage I'm gonna go the other way than my colleague.
I'm gonna support the bill today, but with the urgent the the urgent request that the chair and and opposition, you work together to try to find that landing spot and that that point, working on the time. And you've already the author's already stated that there's interest in working on the time and all of that. There's gotta be a a better landing spot than than where we are right now. So with that, I am gonna support the bill today, but looking forward to more collaboration. Thank you.
Speaker 8
I just realized we need a motion for the bill. I'll make Okay. By senator Archuleta. Chairman, would you like to close?
Speaker 15
Thank you. Sorry. I was presenting some bills just next door, so excuse my delay. I just wanted to commend the author for taking on this very important issue. I think what everyone saw over the holidays.
Speaker 17
I actually went up to the chairman on the floor and said, you know and I sent the clip to the PT about what was happening with Waymo and when the systems went out and how it impacted traffic. And it's not popular sometimes to take on tough issues, and you haven't shied from that. And I look forward to us all working together and getting to the right place. But thank you for nudging us along because I do think this industry is here. It's here to stay, and so we need to figure out how we better can provide that oversight and make sure that it is safe in our communities.
Speaker 15
I hear a lot in Santa Monica people complaining about the charging locations and all of that. So we do have many things to work on, if this is going to be a system, that we have. But, thank you, mister chairman, for your work on this issue.
Speaker 8
Okay. The bill's been moved by senator Archuleta. Now, mister chairman, you may close.
Speaker 1
Okay. And I'll be brief. I do appreciate all the comments, supportive or not I very much appreciate Waymo representatives being here we do want to work in collaboration you know when you're at the stage of emerging there's nothing better than to have collaboration with the industry partners who understand their own product. The best they understand what their capabilities are the best that may continue to improve. As it improves we most certainly should have their collaboration I think at the legislative level not just at the agency level.
Then Senator Weiner I very much appreciate all your comments and I just I don't expect everyone to share this specific concern of mine but it comes from years years local government and I know you and several others here have served in local government. We will have superseding causes. You know things like PG and E that have nothing to do with the industry, have probably nothing to with the legislature per se. But when something happens on the streets of one of our cities that implicates the literal police powers of the city. 80 to 85% of our municipal budgets and our county budgets are going to police and fire and there is no local control of our municipal and our county streets literally.
That's stunning. If you really think about it it's stunning that even in the situation that occurred, it was well documented that that there was literally no municipal control for a time of of the streets of San Francisco. I I don't blame that on San Francisco. I blame that on we haven't caught up with the emerging technology and figured out, you know, how to make sure that standard ordinary response powers, police powers are are available as immediately as possible. If that's not ten minutes, we'll figure out what it is.
Again appreciate the robust discussion would appreciate all your individual input along the way because I'm not sure anyone says. A real absolute expert on this going forward and we would really like to get something done here and I would respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Cortez? Aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no.
Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta? Adeguin? Blakespeare?
Aye. Blakespeare? Gonzalez? Aye. Grayson?
Aye. Mengevar? Aye. Richardson? Aye.
Richardson? Sayarto? Valadares? No. Valadares?
Weiner?
Speaker 8
That bill is seven two. We'll remain on call. Members, if if you don't mind, let's go really quick to the consent calendar. It's file item two four five seven ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen and 17. Does any member wanted to pull anything off the consent calendar?
If not, I'll entertain a motion. It's been moved by senator Grayson. Please call the roll on the consent calendar.
Speaker 22
The motion to adopt the consent calendar, senators Cortezi. Aye. Cortezi, aye. Strickland?
Speaker 22
Strickland, aye. Archeleta? Aye. Archeleta, aye. Arrigine?
Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Gonzalez, aye.
Grayson? Aye. Mengevar, aye. Richardson, Richardson, aye. Aye.
Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Weiner? Weiner, aye.
Speaker 8
So it's ten zero they'll remain on call. Now members we're going to file item number 20 by the chairman s b twelve fifty.
Speaker 1
Thank you again mr. Chair and members. Wildlife vehicle this I'm sorry I'm presenting s b twelve fifty and wildlife vehicle collisions are a real and growing safety issue on California roads costing hundreds of millions of dollars annually and putting drivers at risk. A test SB twelve fifty ensures we plan for these hazards as part of our transportation system and not after the fact.
Speaker 1
Across California, drivers regularly encounter animals in the roadway with little warning. These situations can lead to serious collisions and do injuries and significant vehicle damage as well. Wildlife related incidents are not isolated events. They occur by the thousands each year and are concentrated in specific well documented locations on our highway system. In many cases it's not only the initial collision that poses a risk.
Drivers may break suddenly or swerve to avoid an animal creating dangerous conditions for surrounding vehicles and increasing the likelihood of secondary crashes. These are recurring, avoidable costs that place ongoing demands on public resources and on California drivers. Importantly, these incidents are not random. We now have strong data identifying collision hotspots, specific stretches of highway where these events occur repeatedly over time. And I've heard directly from rural transportation commissioners across the state who are dealing with these exact conditions on the ground.
For example, along US Highway 50 in El Dorado County, one of the primary evacuation routes connecting the Sacramento region to Lake Tahoe, wildlife vehicle collisions are not just an environmental concern. They're a serious public safety issue. This corridor is one of the highest ranking in the state for wildlife collisions. And when the incidents occur, they can shut down the entire route with no visible detours impacting commuters, emergency response, and evacuation capacity. Because these locations are known, they can be addressed in a targeted and strategic way using the same planning tools we already apply to roadway safety risks.
And I do want to emphasize this is a planning bill. We also know what works. Wildlife crossings combined with appropriate fencing and design features have been shown to significantly reduce collisions in many cases by well over 80%. These are established engineering solutions that improve roadway safety outcomes when displayed in the right locations. I want to be very clear.
SB twelve fifty does not take funding away from other transportation priorities or create new hurdles for projects to move forward. It simply integrates wildlife connectivity into the same planning process we already use. As you know from reading the analysis, there's already been some bill history on this topic that have moved this issue forward. So when the state is investing in a corridor, we need to be able to address multiple safety needs at once rather than coming back later and spending more time and more money to fix the same stretch of road twice. Right now, however, these improvements are often treated as standalone projects, separate from routine highway planning and investment.
I think there's reasons for that and the bill tries to address those reasons. As a result, we miss opportunities to address known safety risks during scheduled roadway work, leading to delays, duplication of effort, and less efficient use of transportation resources. The bill addresses a gap by integrating wildlife connectivity into the state's transportation asset management framework. That's the planning we want to have happen. This bill this builds on the work Caltrans is already doing, as I mentioned a minute ago.
We do have legislative history that's been enacted on this. It's right there in the analysis. This is fundamentally about planning smarter. And for rural regions in particular, this matters because these are often high speed corridors with limited alternatives where a single incident can disrupt an entire region. By allowing known collision risks, by aligning them with existing transportation planning and funding processes, the state can improve roadway safety outcomes, reduce the frequency and severity of avoidable incidents, and deliver infrastructure improvements in a more coordinated and cost effective manner.
This bill reflects a practical approach. I want to briefly address the concerns raised by the one opposition letter that we have. We recently had the opportunity to connect with CBIA. I appreciate the productive conversation. I typically have very productive conversations with them, particularly over the last five plus years.
It appears some concerns stem from a misunderstanding of the bill's intent. We will work with them to make sure that there's whatever additional clarity there needs to be but they are currently refining proposed amendments and remain committed as I said to work that out with them. Here with me today to testify in support of the bill we have Michael Jarrett on behalf of the nature conservancy. And I believe we have Jean Wardwaller on behalf of Pew Climate Plan and National Wildlife Federation. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Michael Jarrett, associate director at The Nature Conservancy, and we are proud to sponsor SB twelve fifty, which would support better planning and agency coordination at for wildlife connectivity. TNC thanks senator Cortese for his leadership on this important issue. TNC's leadership and connectivity conservation spans more than twenty five years and includes the landmark, California Missing Linkages effort launched in 2000. This body of work together with our partnership in the California Wildlife Reconnected Network supports the alignment of ecological movement corridors with planned highway upgrades to deliver safe roads and resilient landscapes.
California's highways connect our communities and carry millions of drivers safely to work, school, and home every day. Too often, same roadways become places where drivers encounter animals with little warning, creating dangerous situations that can lead to serious crashes, injuries, delays, and costly damage. We know these collisions are preventable with the right planning. SP twelve fifty adds wildlife connectivity to the transportation asset management plan, which would change a piecemeal approach to wildlife connectivity to one that is systematic and consistent with other aspects of transportation planning, helping Caltrans to streamline and accelerate work they are already doing. Vehicle wildlife collisions are preventable safety problem on California's roads.
Speaker 30
Analysis by the UC Davis Road Ecology Center documents an annual statewide cost of above 250,000,000. Studies show that wildlife crossings paired with continuous fencing typically cut large mammal collisions by 80 to 97%. There are examples of successes that s b twelve fifty will build on such as Caltrans district 9 Highway 395 Sonora Junction. During the development of a broader safety project, Caltrans staff integrated two wildlife underpasses into a transportation project in an area where over 50% of collisions involved deer with only a 1% increase in cost. Thank you.
Speaker 13
I'll wrap up. Many of these projects are eligible for funding through the Wildlife Conservation Board, federal funds, and private funds. With the right planning, there's a huge opportunity to leverage funds and to make our roads safer, reduce traffic congestion, and benefit our wildlife. For all these reasons, TNC urges your support of SB twelve fifty. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good afternoon again, shared members. Jeannie Wardwalla representing Pew Climate Plan and National Wildlife Federation. I also served at Caltrans for a number of years and oversaw on the planning program, so I understand how this issue functions internally. SB twelve fifty is about bringing structure and accountability to Caltrans efforts to make highways safer through upgrades coincident with planned projects while protecting our unique natural systems. As Michael said, wildlife vehicle collisions have real and significant costs, emergency response, medical bills, vehicle repairs, and traffic delays that show up in both the state and household budgets.
Speaker 18
Well designed wildlife crossings paired with fencing should be treated as a highly effective safety treatments they are, not optional enhancements. That's why the state enacted a b twenty three forty four in 2022 to set the policy direction to identify and address the most significant hotspots. SB twelve fifty doesn't mandate any new projects or create a new funding program. Instead, it does something practical and fiscally responsible. It establishes performance goals for wildlife connectivity alongside other transportation objectives to plan, track, and manage over time.
This bill helps the state address wildlife crossings on routine road maintenance projects through the shop, digging once to address all priority needs at a location at one time. And to be clear, the types of improvements we are talking about may be as minor as replacing a drainage culvert that already needs to be replaced with a slightly larger culvert that can accommodate key species. The alternative is an expensive and piecemeal approach where wildlife crossings are implemented as standalone projects that could involve coming back to a location where a recent pavement project was just completed, disrupting and frustrating the public with traffic closures the second time to tear up the road for a new project.
Speaker 18
In a time of significant pressure on the transportation budget, s v twelve fifty ensures that limited dollars are spent efficiently on multi benefit projects that address all the goals. We urge your I vote on s v twelve fifty.
Speaker 20
Thank you, mister vice chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the state building and construction trades council. Proud to support a bill that is a good idea and not always in our wheelhouse, but happy to support.
Speaker 36
Jake Schultz on behalf of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, and the habitat and the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 37
Kim belt Kim Delfino in behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and California Native Plant Society, but also been asked to read the support for El Dorado County Transportation Commission Climate Center, San Diego three fifty Planning and Conservation League, Road Ecology Center, UC Davis, three fifty Bay Area Action, Wildlife Conservation Network, Endangered Habitats League, Pathways for Wildlife, Eco San Diego Wildlife Habitat Conservation Coalition, the Native American Environmental Protection Coalition, and the Trust for Public Land. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good afternoon. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of San Diego Humane Society and our Project Wildlife in strong support.
Speaker 36
Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation and our thousands of supporters in California. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon. Mari Galloway on behalf of Wildlands Network in strong support.
Speaker 28
Karen Jacques on behalf of Climate Action California in strong support.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon. Tasha Newman on behalf of Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority in support.
Speaker 11
Good afternoon, chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 42
Thank you, committee members. My name is Karen Mason, and I'm with Environment California. This year, we have been working very hard across the state
Speaker 8
to support Sir, only for identification purposes in support. We've already had testimony.
Speaker 8
the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Witnesses in opposition?
Speaker 14
Hi. Audrey with Tychek. I'm here, sorry, with a cold, on behalf of CBIA, and we appreciate the author and the sponsors for working with us and their willingness to engage. We're actively working with them on to address our remaining concerns. It would be helpful for the committee to know that we've also clarified some of the items that are in our letter, and we're currently working with them as the senator mentioned in good faith.
The only outstanding issue we think we have right now is the definition of wildlife connectivity asset, and we're working through. We think it might be interpreted a little bit more broadly than intended, so we're working to to address that and think we'll get to a good spot. So thank you.
Speaker 16
Yes. Thank you. I'm a proud coauthor on this bill. I appreciate, that you are bringing this forward, and I wanna recognize, how great it is that we have multiple legislators that are seeing the need to focus on coexistence, wildlife coexistence. We just had Laura Richardson presenting her bill on grizzly bears over at natural resources.
And I also have a bill that complements this. It's s b eleven thirty five, and it would reestablish the wildlife coexistence program within the Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to better manage and reduce human wildlife conflicts. And so I just wanna recognize that it's so important that we think about our major transportation systems and wildlife. And so to have the chair of transportation focusing on safety, but also on wildlife health and biodiversity and championing this bill is just critically important. And I I really when I read this bill and saw it as an idea, it's it was such a natural next step after requiring Caltrans to think about bicycle and pedestrian planning before when they're doing projects because it's the same idea that was also mentioned by your supporters here who that that we wanna dig once.
You know, we wanna build once. And if you could build a little bit bigger culvert, why not do that? And then also thinking ahead about what it is that's creating the safety problems on the roads, and it's just a win win in every way. So I I I wanna, express my full participation and support and enthusiasm for this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Thank you. I I mean, I don't disagree with anything in that my colleague mentioned. You mentioned the importance of it. I do have some concerns, given especially that assembly member Schultz had a bill in this hearing, and the analysis from a probes kinda worried me regarding the potential of hindering projects from being fulfilled given the increase in cost to it. So if I have infrastructure, highway infrastructures that need to be addressed, which I do have one of the worst highways in in California, is this gonna hinder them getting maintained and upgraded if there's not enough funding to do the extra part that your bill is asking to do?
Speaker 1
This bill is fundamentally does nothing in terms of of the funding side, what what we would call the fiscal side at all. It's just literally requiring institutionalizing awareness at at the planning document level. And that's where there's really been a problem. So just if I can just use a quick case study. In Santa Clara County, if you've ever tried to go from San Jose to Santa Cruz you go over Highway 17.
There's a huge reservoir on one side of Highway 17 and there's know redwoods and open space on the other side. And there's a project there that was being worked on for years by open space authority folks who have some jurisdiction on both sides. Caltrans was somewhat aware of what they were doing, the money they were raising, the grant funding that they had. But there was absolutely nothing in the planning process that even demonstrated that there's a pedestrian bridge going over Highway 17 and a new box culvert for the wildlife, the pedestrian bridge for humans in a box culvert under. When I first met with the folks five years ago I said have you gone through the transportation planning process and they had no idea what I was talking about not because they're stupid or anything, but they know a lot about, you know, outside of the right of way, how to navigate funding issues and right of way issues, purchase property, acquire easements on private property and so forth.
None of that is what this bill implicates. This bill is just saying that when when people are coming into that literal intersectionality with one of our highways, that the CTC in in this TAM process should should have an inventory of that. They should have that mapped, and it should be logged in a planning process. That Highway 17, to my knowledge, other than routine maintenance, would have never had any other project there. So whatever comes of that, ultimately, enterprise is not complete now, would either be, you know, from the open space folks investing without going into the details we have an even more graphic example on Highway 152 going from San Jose over to the Central Valley major goods movement corridor with elk, tule elk on both sides of the highway and no institutionalized crossing and there's going to be roadwork going on there to accommodate San Luis Reservoir expansion now but there's no corresponding planning document that shows that the habitat conservation plan, which is put in a trail again underneath right underneath 152, even has a project that exists from it.
It's as if on the transportation world that project doesn't even exist. So this is what we're trying to do is just raise awareness.
Speaker 1
think there's actually an argument that in those cases, like the last one I just mentioned, it's actually gonna create efficiencies so that the engineering is is factoring in what needs to be done to either get people or wildlife or both back and forth. And in both those examples, by the way, they're they're human pedestrian crossings. They're basically ATV projects, active transportation projects, as well as, you know, wildlife accommodation projects.
Speaker 41
I I'd like to because I don't think I I apologize, senator, that I feel like my question didn't really get answered here. Sorry? Because the sponsor talked about, you know, efficiency, we should do one project versus two instead of coming back. When I hear that, that means at the get go of that first project, it won't be completed unless you're incorporating what we're asking this vote to do. And the senate appropriations message of the previous bill, very similar to this, said adding cost to individual projects may result in the funding of fewer overall transportation infrastructure improvements.
And that's what I'm worried about. Is this
Speaker 1
I think that was a very inappropriate comment in the analysis because it was thoroughly explained, you know, to the staff in this committee that there's no mandate in this bill. In fact, we invited amendments to the bill from this committee staff that would make that even more clear. I'm more than happy going forward to make that more clear, senator. But there's no funding mandate in this bill whatsoever. So and in fact, those projects, you know, unless unless you for purposes of efficiency, are gonna be individual projects.
They're they're not well they're not this this bill does not force the the merger of a wildlife crossing project with an existing project. And, obviously, we have a competitive system. I'm I serve on the CTC. We have a competitive system, a formula based system that rewards the highest and best projects. So it's it's possible if the CTC looks at we have a wildlife project here.
We have this highway project we absolutely have to get done for goods movement. We have x amount of dollars that they move forward to project a and not project b, and you you lose the efficiency of of building the corridor at the same time, but so be it. That's the that's how the process works. And we're in competition with each other in that way. And and our projects, of course, in in our own districts are in competition with each other.
And so it's very Darwinian in that way. But nothing in this bill says that somehow these projects leap ahead or even onto an equal footing with with a project that's, you know, either shovel ready or or or more critical to transportation infrastructure you know, and
Speaker 41
then prioritize, like sorry. I get that point. Thank you for that. And is it the intent of the bill to not also say one project now gets assessed and, there is opportunity to do a wildlife connectivity, there's enough funding for that project and but it cannot address or include funding for wildlife, connectivity, can it still move forward without including that connectivity?
Speaker 1
I want them to answer the question, and I will tell you I'll commit to what the sponsors answer.
Speaker 18
I'll just I'll just describe a little bit of how this works internally to Caltrans now. The asset management plan is where Caltrans sets broad statewide targets. So they've built in things like bike and pedestrian connectivity in recent years. They've also built in things like climate resiliency. So in a lot of cases, culverts, drainage culverts, bridges are already being upsized because we're seeing bigger storms, more precipitation.
What our bill does is they say, also consider the wildlife connectivity needs in priority locations based on a list that Caltrans has already identified, and while you're already doing that work, either either include the connectivity or at least consider it. It's not going to delay projects. It's it's setting this as a goal as at a statewide level, so future projects will consider this. It's not gonna impact existing projects that are moving forward now. Nothing will get delayed that is already in the pipeline.
Speaker 1
As as I said, we've requested language to help clarify that taking the the comment and the analysis in good faith. We don't think the problem exists in the first place, but to the extent we need to call that out so there's no confusion, I'm happy to do that going forward.
Speaker 8
So I need a motion, I assume, senator Blakespeare. It's been moved. Anything else, members? If not, senator, chairman, would you like to close?
Speaker 22
The motion is due passed to the committee on natural resources and water. Senator Cortezi? Senator Cortezi, aye. Strickland?
Speaker 22
No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye.
Arreguin? Aye. Arreguin, aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Blakespeare? Aye. Aye. Gonsalez? Grayson, aye.
Menjivar? Richardson? Aye. Richardson I. Sallarto?
Valadares? Weiner? Aye. Weiner I.
Speaker 8
The bill's eight to one remains on call. Mister chairman, your last bill file M21SER129.
Speaker 1
Okay thank you again sure one last time this I sure this is the last one I'd like to present a CR one twenty nine the Russiareas Highway Resolution which recognizes extraordinary contributions of Russiareas, a former assembly member and former director of the Department of Parks and Recreation for the state of California. Not sure that's exactly the title of our state parks department but I apologize for that. Rusty Reyes spent twelve years in the state assembly where he was widely recognized as a leader on transportation agriculture land preservation issues and more. He authored over 100 pieces of legislation that were signed into law by two republican governors during his tenure on the assembly transportation committee Mr. Reyes was instrumental in securing $150,000,000 for improvements at State Route 152 over Pacheco Pass Highway that's the same highway I was just referring to on the prior bill I do want to of course point out that $150,000,000 in terms of present value today would be a much more significant contribution to our transportation infrastructure Later as director of the California Department of Parks Mr.
Arreyes oversaw the passage of $6,000,000,000 in park bonds and raised park attendance by 23,000,000 people. That's documented. Was also critical in securing 300 acres of farmland in an area I'm very familiar with within Senate District 15 during the time that he served as our parks director. That is now called Marshall Cottle Park in Santa Clara County. This was approximately $500,000,000 of of land surrounded by residential development in the heart of San Jose.
Again, 300 acres which was successfully acquired by state parks as a direct result of Mr. Arreyes' efforts to meet with and get the landowner to agree to dedicate that property to the state of California. SCR 129 pays tribute and by the way that property is fully being fully utilized now as a working farm a 300 acre working farm which accommodates students and field trips and everything else you can imagine. SCR 129 as a resolution pays tribute to a career service by designating a portion of Highway 152 in Santa Clara County as Russiareas Highway. The resolution is coauthored by 21 members of the legislature and supported by former director of Caltrans Will Kempton, former speaker Willie Brown, and congressman John Garamendi.
I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 27
the committee, I'll be brief. Many years ago, forty years ago, I got started in this business working on the 5th Floor of the annex. And two doors down was assembly member Dominic Cortez's office. And I could hear Dominic Cortez coming to work every day. He had no understanding of rank.
And whoever he crossed, it was always a funny comment, usually irreverent. And it was it was great to to know him. And
Speaker 27
While I think his son inherited his mother's personality, I do believe that he got his father's sense of commitment to public safety. Senator Cortezi has seen for over forty five years the work of the person that I worked for, Rusty Areas, in the extraordinary contributions that he has made to California. The offices, mister Cortezi and mister Areas, were adjacent, although the district that mister Reyes represented was more rural. Mister Reyes fit his district. He was an outstanding young farmer in America, and he was also a vibrant leader in a very active rural caucus.
And while it is true that he tended to wear the new Calvin Klein jeans more than the traditional wranglers, and there was probably more snake skin in his boots than there was cowhide, it would be absolutely wrong to suggest that there was more flash than substance. It is a matter of record that two Republican governors signed Rusty Arreyes legislation, a moderate Democrat, more than any other. As part of the gang of five, he came within a heart attack. Richard Longshore flying to Sacramento from San Jose had a heart attack on the morning that he was to give the forty first vote to change the speakership. And because he died, the speakership of Willie Brown continued for fifteen years.
Speaker 12
Subsequent to that battle, Willie Brown and Rusty Arrais became extremely close friends and have for a generation worked together on projects. It is a matter of record that Willie Brown is one of the strongest supporters of this resolution. As the chair of the emergency response committee, Rusty led the response to the Loma Prieta Earthquake and modernized how we respond to emergency services, and he was personally asked by the firefighters of California to be the sponsors of the California Firefighter memorial that is in our capital park. As chair of agriculture, he wrote the legislation that delineated and outlawed the six most onerous and despicable pesticides in the state of California, which made our food safer and made it safer to work in the fields. In education, he wrote the seminal document that created the University of California Merced and has subsequently, in a move and a nod to the people of the Central Valley, and to Rusty Araeus' work in particular, the governor has appointed him as a regent to the University of California system.
Speaker 27
He was the chair of the coastal commission, and in rooms where rancor often reigns, he was a reasoned and reasonable voice, and that area thrived economically while at the same time our precious coastal environment was preserved. As director of parks, he cut fees so that inner city kids could enjoy parks that they had never seen before. But it is on transportation that we remember him today. Highway 152 was considered perhaps the most dangerous area to drive in California, yet urban legislators wanted to focus on congestion issues. Rusty Araez brought up busloads of young people to the capital to talk about the dangerous drive they made every single day.
And consequently, $150,000,000 was set aside to make that road more accessible. Rusty John Arias is in the twilight of a career of public service that is rare and long lasting. The late John Burton said to me that he had been asked by hundreds of people for favors. He said the only time Rusty Arias ever asked for a favor was when he was asking for someone else. His joy and boundless personality that Rusty brought to public service was backed up by doing the hard jobs that needed to be done.
To steal from a great Irish poet, Rusty walked the road less traveled so that those of us who followed him would have an easier pathway to go. I believe this resolution is well written, and I hope that you will support it.
Speaker 8
Thank you for testimony. I would like to, just point of personal privilege, move the bill to a point that you mentioned. As you know, I I spoke on behalf of senator John Burton in his passing at a different time in in this legislative body where everybody got along and could agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I I knew the assemblyman. He's a champion.
He's someone who really fought for California to the point where I got a call today from senator Jim Brulsey urging me to support. I was already supportive before he called, but it just goes to show you, you know, the bipartisan nature that we used to have in this body that we can bring back again. So I would like to be the person who moves this bill on that note. But senator Menjewar?
Speaker 41
Mister vice chair, I think we are still very respectful of each other in the state senate.
Speaker 8
You know? Okay. I'll talk to you offline on some of this stuff, if you don't mind.
Speaker 2
Senator. As an example of bipartisanship, even though Rusty Reyes was part of the gang of five trying to take out Willie Brown, we have a letter support from Willie Brown
Speaker 2
In support of of this resolution. I'm a proud coauthor and happy to support the bill today.
Speaker 33
I know there was a rumor somewhere that I wasn't going to support this bill, but I do because of the work that this guy did, especially as it relates to the the highway through to Gilroy. That that is a brutal stretch of road. I remember driving it when I was younger and and understanding why it was so dangerous. Two lane road going up grades, try to pass somebody, can't get past them, cars coming the other way. It was horrid.
Speaker 25
So, anyway, anybody can get that done. It's okay by me. If we wanna name that after him, that's awesome. I do I do caution us generally to stop naming things after people in until they what you know? Until they're gone.
Speaker 33
But in this case, we can make an an exception for what he's done. So yeah. You know what I'm saying? Thank you.
Speaker 29
Thank you. Just to add just a a snippet here. Maybe there is this perception in the outside world that we're not bipartisan in this legislature. We actually agree on quite a bit. We have some strong disagreements for the record.
Speaker 45
We all know that. But I too received a call from senator Bruhlty this morning. So to make sure that we're supporting this bill, but also a very worthy former legislator. So happy to support the bill. I'm not sure if you can move the bill.
Happy to move the bill.
Speaker 8
Right. Because you're the chair. Right. Yeah. So, is that it?
Alright. The bill has been moved. Oh, would you like to close,
Speaker 22
The motion is to be adopted but first referred to the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortez? Aye. Cortez? Aye.
Strickland? Aye. Strickland? Archuleta? Aye.
Archuleta? Aye. Arreguin? Arreguin? Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye.
Grayson? Aye. Mengevar? Aye. Richardson?
Aye. Richardson, I. Siorto?
Speaker 22
Follow item one, s b nine ninety by senator Grove. The motion is due passed the committee on appropriation. Senator Scortezi?
Speaker 22
Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arreguin?
Aye. Arreguin, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare I.
Dally Gonzalez I. Gonzalez Grayson I. Grayson I. Grayson Menjivar
Speaker 22
Richardson I. Richardson I certo I certo I valduras valduras I wiener wiener I
Speaker 1
120. It has to be 12. You wanna call? If you need a motion, just tell me to call him. He's got him here too.
Speaker 22
The consent calendar to adopt the consent calendar, senators Adegine? Adegain, I. Dali, Sayarto?
Speaker 22
File item three s b ten thirty four by senator McNourney. The motion is due pass with the committee on and veteran affairs. Senators Cortez?
Speaker 22
Strickland? Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta? Archuleta?
Adegaine? Blake's Aye. Blake's beer? Dally? Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Grayson? Mengevar?
Aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson? Aye.
Richardson? Aye. Aye. Sarto? Aye.
Valderas? Aye. Valderas? Valderas? Weiner?
Aye. Weiner? Aye.
Speaker 22
File item 6 s B1167 by senator Blakeshore. The motion is due passed as amended to the committee on natural resources and water. Senator Cortez?
Speaker 22
Strickland? Aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta?
Aye. Arreguin? Aye. Arreguin? Aye.
Blakespeare?
Speaker 22
Blakespeare Aye. Dally Gonzalez Aye. Gonsalez Aye. Grayson Menjivar Richardson Aye. Richardson Aye.
Sigarto Aye. Sierto Aye. Valadares Aye. Valadares Aye. Weiner Aye.
Weiner Aye.
Speaker 1
I believe, s I'm sorry. Twelve zero the bill's out, and I believe, twelve seventy nine Gonzalez is next. Yes. And, Archuleta. So, yes, senator Archuleta offered to move that.
Is that motion still standing? Yes. It is. Alright.
Speaker 22
The motion is due passed to the committee on privacy, digital technologies, and consumer protection. Senators Cortezi? Aye. Cortezi? Aye.
Strickland?
Speaker 22
Strickland, no. Archoletta? Archuleta? Aye. Arrigine?
Arrigine? Blakespeare? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Grayson? Aye. Richardson? Aye.
Richardson, I. Aye. Menjivar, I. Sayarto? Valadares?
Aye. Valadares, Weiner? Aye. Weiner, I.
Speaker 1
We have, again, senator personal. Senator Archuleta has offered the motion on Errigine 14 o eight. This still stands? Motion by Archuleta.
Speaker 22
Motion due passed with committee on revenue and taxation. Senators Cortezin?
Speaker 22
Cortezi, aye. Strickland? Archeleta? Aye. Archeleta, aye.
Arrigine? Aye. Aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Blakespeare? Gonzalez? Gonzalez? Grayson? Aye.
Munjivar? Aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson.
Sarto.
Speaker 1
You wanna run through do you wanna report out mine? Sure. Artuleta move the first one.
Speaker 8
it's next is file item 18SB1177 by the chair. Archuleta, you agree to move the bill. Alright.
Speaker 22
The motion is due passed at the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortez? Aye. Cortez? Aye.
Strickland? No. Strickland? No. Archoletta?
Aye. Archoletta? Aye. Adegine? Aye.
Blake's Aye. Blake's beer? Aye. Dally? Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, I. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, I.
Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, I. Richardson? Aye.
Richardson, I. Siorito? No. Siorito, no. Valadares?
No. Valadares, no. Wiener? No. Wiener?
Aye.
Speaker 32
File item 19 SB twelve forty six by Senator Cortezi. The motion is due passed with committee on rules. The current vote is seven two with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Adegaine? Aye.
Speaker 22
File item 20 s b twelve fifty by senator Corteschi. The motion is due passed to the committee on natural resources and water. The current vote is eight to one with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.