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 3
Sorry. Just checking. Okay. Thank you. My name is Allison Lyman.
I'm here on behalf of my beautiful 23 year old son, Connor. I'm here to give Connor a voice that he no longer has and to give a voice to all the innocent lives taken by reckless drivers on our roads. I'm here to ask you to save lives by voting yes on s p 953. Connor was senselessly killed by a reckless and negligent driver on 04/23/2025 in Elk Grove while coming home from the gym. We are nine days away from the one year of my son's death.
Connor was my only son. He was a devoted big brother. His little sister is here today. He was a classically trained pianist. He was so gifted.
He was teaching piano while attending college. He had dreams. I heard his music every day. The silence is now excruciating. I saw Connor's broken body in the hospital when I buried my child, and I saw him in his casket.
The funeral home covered only his hands. His beautiful hands that had played piano nearly his entire life had been crushed. The violence of his death is something I will carry forever. Under California law, my son's death is a misdemeanor. Because his killing is considered low level and nonviolent, the driver charged with taking his life is eligible for a diversion program, meaning they can avoid a conviction simply by completing coursework or community service.
Speaker 25
There will be no record of Connor's death, no record of their crime on their criminal or driving record. As mentioned, CalMatters wrote about Connor in their series License to Kill. They titled it When a Speeding Ticket Can Be Worse Than Killing Someone With Your Car in California, and sadly, this is correct. At least with a speeding ticket, there are points on your record. The system fails families who have lost loved ones and endangers every Californian each time these individuals get behind the wheel.
Speaker 3
SB nine five three is a necessary common sense reform by adding two points two DMV points when a misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter case is dismissed through diversion. The state will finally have a mechanism to track repeat dangerous drivers and hold them accountable. They do it again. This is the heart of this bill, a way to track reckless drivers that have taken lives, human lives on our roads. Takes four points to suspend a license.
SB nine five three does not overreach. It simply ensures that if fatality is not erased and the state is able to track repeat dangerous drivers, it will save lives. Please support SB nine fifty three. Thank you for hearing Conor's story.
Speaker 1
Thank you, and, condolences, in the memory of Conor. Thank you for being here. Next witnesses. Next witness.
Speaker 24
Thank you, mister chair members. You, mister chair members. Cody Boyle, on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, represents nearly 16,000 active and retired CHP officers, I would like to thank senator Nilo for bringing this bill forward. Under current law, driver who commits a misdemeanor, vehicular manslaughter, but completes diversion, can avoid receiving the full two points on the record and as a result can avoid the full consequences of, what they have done. SB nine five three ensures that even in the case, even if a case is dismissed for diversion, two points will still be applied to that individual's driving record.
Speaker 4
This matters because the point system, while not is not about a punishment, but it's designed to identify high risk, drivers and keep them off the road and hopefully avoid these types of horrific accidents in the future. CHP officers understand better than anyone that vehicular manslaughter is not a minor mistake, and it has life altering and devastating consequences for victims and for their families. It's for these reasons that we strongly support SB nine fifty three.
Speaker 1
Thank you for being here. Any witnesses, for identification purposes, to, voice for support?
Speaker 5
Good afternoon, Vice Chair and committee. Yeah, strong support of this bill, Mark from Streets for all strong support of the bill, appreciate the author bringing it forward. You.
Speaker 3
afternoon. Iria Rapitiam, on behalf of AAA Northern California and Southern California in support.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 14
Afternoon. Mike Sherif with Fans Law Government Affairs on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition in support.
Speaker 3
Christine Clinkenbeard, grandmother of Connor Lopez, and I'm in strong support
Speaker 1
of this Thank you. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 2
Yes. I would most appreciate an I vote and at the appropriate time when you have a quorum.
Speaker 1
We will move this when we have a quorum. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for being here. Thank you. For folks in the audience, we'll just wait until we have a member show up for presenting a bill.
Thank you. For the audience, we have a we have an author here. It's gonna be file item number 13, s B1292 by senator Richardson.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. It's you like that seat, I may have to pry you out of it. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members.
I would like to start by thanking the Chairman and Committee staff for working with me and my office to incorporate the amendments that strengthen the bill's language and clarifies the intent of this legislation. I am accepting officially those amendments. Importantly, within those amendments, I want to highlight the narrowing scope of the bill to now be limited to only select cities such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, Inglewood, and others. Parking curb space, particularly in urban communities, downtown businesses, and residential districts, are some of the most valuable and contested pieces of public right of way across California. Traditionally designed around short term parking and passenger pickup to maximize use, parking space is now even further limited due to the additional vehicles and e commerce deliveries, food delivery services, ride hailing, and emerging autonomous vehicle fleets.
In particular, commercial need to have increased I'm sorry, in particular, commercial curbs need to this isn't sorry has increased rapidly over the past decade, and is projected to grow substantially through 2030, yet much of this use occurs without effective price monitoring, time limits, and worse compliance. So what we're saying there is that the curb the use of curbs is increasing. It's getting even more significant as we're looking towards 2030. And if we don't look at ways to effectively monitor that people are exceeding the time limits, we're not going to have available parking. As a result, double parking, blocked bike lanes, unsafe loading behaviors, and more have become more common in many communities.
Local governments currently lack the adequate authority, manpower, and tools to manage modern curb activity effectively. First, the rapid growth in the last lane delivery and on demand services have overwhelmed existing curb regulations. Research from the Los Angeles Department of Transportation conducted under USDOT SmartGrant found that nearly half of all loading activity was noncompliant, with vehicles overstaying posted time limits and crowding out legitimate loading needs. Commercial vehicles paid for curb access less than 5% of the time, undetermining the turnover and the fairness that's needed of other people who need these spots. Second, poor curb compliance creates measurable public harm.
Double parking and illegal stopping reduces traffic speeds, increases congestion, blocks transit and bike lanes, and introduces significant safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers themselves. These impacts are especially acute in dense commercial and residential districts near schools, hospitals, and transit hubs. Third, autonomous vehicles are now in the discussion. Because AVs cannot receive traditional citations and do not interact with meters, cities are unable to manage AV curbs use in the same manner as they would with human driven vehicles. This creates an enforcement inequity and limits cities' ability to plan for the future in which autonomous vehicles may represent most of the parking curb users.
Under SB twelve ninety two, local government would have the authority, if desired, to adopt an ordinance and or resolution authorizing the use of stationary cameras or sensors with clear public signage to manage parking curb activity at specific locations. I want to re highlight that. Again, it is the local government that would have the ability, through proper governing process, city council meetings and so on, to adopt a resolution. This is not a mandate, but simply giving them the opportunity to do so. Eligible locations, including passenger and commercial loading zones, smart and zero emission delivery zones, bike lanes, non stopping zones, and crosswalks, all would potentially be in play and could benefit.
Participation is entirely optional, and each jurisdiction retains full control over where and how systems are deployed, and frankly, whether they continue at all, if they find them to be helpful. Importantly, SB twelve ninety two requires human review of all citations. So we want people to understand we're not talking about doing away with parking enforcement. Parking enforcement individuals would still need to review the citations. This would just give us the opportunity to make sure that more people who are misusing the zone area would, in fact, know, seek the just punishment to say, Hey, you can't just park here indefinitely.
Frankly, don't have enough parking officers throughout to monitor properly. Importantly, SB twelve ninety two, as said, requires human review of all citations. This bill is designed to be a tool in the toolbox for parking enforcement, non substitute parking enforcers excuse me, not substituting parking enforcers' work, and that is expressed clearly throughout this bill. Here with me today to speak in support of the bill is, Mark on behalf of Streets for All alongside Jordan Justice from Autonomous to provide technical support. Excuse me.
Jordan will be here to provide technical support and additional questions if needed. With that, I'll pause.
Speaker 5
Good morning. Good afternoon, vice chair and members. Maybe there we go. Good afternoon, chair and members. Mark Fuksevich from Streets For All, sponsor of the bill.
SB twelve ninety two is a and and fundamentally a local control bill. It gives cities a tool that they increasingly need to manage a curb environment that has changed dramatically in a very short period of time. As the birthday senator mentioned, fifteen years ago, cities were not dealing with today's combination of Uber and Lyft pickups, app based food delivery, same day package delivery. We're talking about three hour delivery, six hour delivery, same day delivery, you know, zero emission delivery zones, autonomous vehicles. But cities our cities are dealing with all of that right now.
And many in dense commercial corridors in downtown areas, the curb has become one of the most contested parts of the public right of way. Local governments should not be forced to manage a curb, a twenty twenty six curb with 2,006 tools. Cities know where their problems are. They know which commercial corridors are clogged by double parking, which loading zones are abused, which crosswalks and bike lane block bike lanes are routinely blocked, and which areas need better turnover, clearer rules, and more reliable enforcement. And s b twelve ninety two gives them those tools to do that.
Speaker 7
And that matters for safety too. When crosswalks, bike lanes, loading areas and no stopping zones are blocked, that results not just in inconvenience, but an actual safety issue, a predictable safety issue. And it matters for small businesses and economic health of commercial districts. When curbs are chaotic and loading loading zones are constantly blocked or misused, and when delivery pickups and short customer stops have no reliable place to happen, it is businesses and commercial downtowns that pay the price. This bill gives a better way to keep curbs functioning and improve turnover and support deliveries to make busy commercial corridors work.
Speaker 5
Importantly, the bill moves forward, out of this committee with a more tailored approach. The amendments make it a measured pilot, give a small number of cities the ability to use this modern tool. A number of those are Olympic cities, I'll note as well. Lastly, I just want to note that we won't we don't want parking tickets. We want parking compliance, and we think that's what the bill's gonna fundamentally help with.
Yeah. We believe this bill matches the tools or gives tools for the moment, and we respectfully urge an ICE a vote. Thank you.
Speaker 10
I'm just here to answer any technical or operational questions. I'm Jordan Justice, CEO of Automotis.
Speaker 1
Thank you for being here. Any other witnesses, for identification purposes, for support?
Speaker 12
Chair and members. Matthew Seiberling, on behalf of the California Mobility and Parking Association in support.
Speaker 13
afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair. A bit of a tweener position, but with the committee amendments, the California Trucking Association is gonna be neutral on the bill. Just wanna thank the author and sponsors for working with us and wish the author a happy birthday.
Speaker 1
Any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition? Seeing no questions. Oh, witness opposition. Go ahead.
I'm sorry. Yeah.
Speaker 4
Happy birthday, by the way. Tracy Rosenberg, on behalf of Oakland Privacy, and I just wanted to say that we thank the author and the committee for the amendments. I'm optimistic that we will be able to lift our opposition down the line, but we are still taking a look. But thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for being here. Seeing nothing else, I'd oh, go ahead. Senator Archuleta. Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 9
Thank you for bringing this bill forward. You realize that three of my cities in my district are supportive, that, we're we're hoping that the entire, committee, will approve. But, also, have to point out California contract cities, city of Norwalk, city of Pico Rivera, and the city of, of course, Los Angeles, but Norwalk, Pico Rivera and the surrounding areas. So I would like to point out to everyone that with technology that we have, this will just keep traffic moving and keep the businesses to be able to receive the clientele they need. And that's why contract cities is for and I think it really expedite things.
Speaker 15
And I know it'll be posted that so important that it's posted and then for reviewing, then it'll be done if there's an issue. And so, I I think it's a win win all the way around. I would like to be a, co sponsor if you wish. I'd love to. And, with that, I'll move it at the appropriate time.
Speaker 16
It's actually on me, Andrew Antwee. I apologize for the late timing, but I hope, the committee will indulge, expressions of support on behalf of the city of Santa Monica and the city of West Hollywood.
Speaker 1
Thank you for being here. I really appreciate it. Thank you. I Go ahead, senator.
Speaker 19
Thank you for this bill, and I appreciate hearing information from the supporters, supporting testimony. I just wanted to share that there's nothing more frustrating and irritating as a bike rider than having the bike lane be used as a parking assist lane. And that happens all the time when the way that we design our streets is that the people riding the bicycle are right next to those who are trying to parallel park. And in really busy areas, it becomes a big problem because if they're speeding traffic, you have to come to a full stop or swerve out into traffic. So, being able to use tools like this to actually enforce the laws to say, Actually, you can't use this as a parking assist lane or a part or, you know, temporary parking to run-in to drop things off or all the different things.
Speaker 17
And as I run a book club through my senate districts, the District 38 book club called Our California, and we're reading right now Paved Paradise, and the book is How Parking Explains the World. And one of the things that's so interesting in the book is a description of how many times people are trying to find parking, and they're stopping in the traffic lanes, and it's creating enormous amounts of congestion, especially in really dense cities. The suburban cities are maybe a little bit different, but in really dense cities, it can substantially affect the experience of businesses and being downtown and people who are trying to use the sidewalk, the streets, the bike lanes, and other ways. So, I appreciate looking at the tools that we have and trying to move us toward a system where we are more efficient. We are using the areas that have been designated in the ways that they should be.
It's just basically a modernization. So, I applaud the author for doing it, and thank you again.
Speaker 1
Ms. So I just want to say, coming in, I was leaning against it, but I really like the amendments and the fact that you're doing a pilot program. Let's see how it works moving forward. You'll have my support when, at the appropriate time, this comes up.
Speaker 1
And then I see members, we have Senator Rubio. Senator, are you prepared? Yes. Okay. As file item four, members, SB twelve twenty eight by Senator Rubio.
Happy birthday again. We're ready when you are.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, chair members, for the opportunity to present this bill, SB twelve twenty eight. This is a bill that is narrowly tailored to preserve existing economic activities in former redevelopment areas. Thank you to the chair and, his committee for, the the work that was done on this bill.
The goal of this bill is simple. It allows a small number of existing outdoor advertisement displays to continue operating under current law rather than abruptly shutting down due to statutory sunsets. Without legislative action, a handful of legally established LED messaging centers will be forced out of compliance. This creates unnecessary disruptions for local governments, businesses, and workers who rely on these displays. More importantly, these displays generate critical local revenue that are really needed to support law enforcement, senior services, youth programs, and so much more.
And in some communities, these revenues make up a significant share of their revenue. This is the same bill from last year. We just worked out the concerns, and it follows these three requirements. It needs to be deemed in compliance with the California Outdoor Advertising Act. It applies to apply for permits for permanent placement and applies only to existing qualifying displays.
It doesn't allow for new billboards or an expansion of development. It is very targeted, very necessary, and it's not again, we took it out last year with no no votes, but we tackled some of the concerns. So I think we're in a good place. Thank you. And I would like to invite my main witnesses, Ed Manning from the Garden Casino, and Jeff Sievers representing In N Out Burger.
Speaker 5
I'm subbing in for Ed Manning, John Dougherty from KP Public Affairs. Poor, poor man substitute for Ed. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Gardens Casino, and we're pleased to be a cosponsor of Senate Bill twelve twenty eight. For over a decade, the legislature has recognized the importance of preserving these on premises LED messaging centers that were legally operating within former redevelopment areas. When redevelopment agencies were dissolved in 2012, there was sort of an inadvertent result that created a conflict for those signs under the Outdoor Advertising Act.
Speaker 19
Previous legislation, which was SB originally six eighty four and then AB eleven seventy five just moved to extend the life stage of the exemptions. Last year, after the governor vetoed SB seven eighty three by Senator Rubio, he cited the need for a lasting, permanent solution. The sponsors got to work over the fall, worked with Caltrans and the governor's office to come up with this solution, language provided by Caltrans and the governor's office, and it's a direct result, of that effort. So, creates a permanent compliance path for a small, narrowly tailored universe of messaging centers that existed as of 12/31/2011. And this is not just a corporate concern.
The urgency of the bill is a local concern. In our particular instance, the our city relies on us for 60% of their revenue. And if we don't either pass the bill or remove the sign, we're looking at up to $10,000 a day in fines and penalties. So, it's a simple, noncontroversial fix. Hope you will support.
Respectfully ask for your I vote and happy to answer any questions as well after
Speaker 10
you, everybody. Jeff Sievers here today on behalf of In N Out Burger. In N Out Burger has over 300 stores in California, 30,000 employees, and a lot of signs. All of them are compliant. But this one in the city of Glendora, which was originally permitted by the city of Glendora and Caltrans back in 2002, runs the risk of being out of compliance without this kind of fix.
As John mentioned, last year, Senator Rubio put a bill to extend it further. And to the credit of the Governor's staff and with the help of Senator Rubio, they said, Enough kicking the can down the road. Let's come up with a solution that actually solves the problem instead of just extending a sunset. This language is a result of that conversation that was drafted by Caltrans with input from the Senator's office and input from those in support. So we're trying to make sure that a sign that has been there for over twenty years remains there.
It stands as significant investment. It advertises in an area around the Glendora marketplace. It brings in revenue for the city. And once again, I want to say it was permitted by the city and Cal trans. It's been legal.
Speaker 2
It was all part of redevelopment. And we just want it to continue to exist. So this very narrowly crafted solution created by Caltrans allows a few of these signs, if they go through the process and get a new permit, not a new sign, we're not talking about that, just comply with the laws in this, then they can continue to operate and not be subject to needing sunset. So, we are greatly appreciative for Senator Rubio and Caltrans and the Governor's Office for coming up with a solution. We strongly support it and hope you will, too.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any witnesses in support for identification purposes? Witnesses in opposition?
Speaker 20
Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Amy Lurseth. I'm here testifying on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, very respectfully opposing the bill. We were able to meet with J.
D. As recently as yesterday, and we think that we have some fixes that would satisfy both sides, perhaps. We understand the intent to address the redevelopment era signage. This bill raises serious concerns, though, for us related to federal compliance, regulatory consistency, and fairness within the industry. Outdoor advertising adjacent to highways is governed by both state law and the Federal Highway Beautification Act.
Maintaining compliance is critical to preserving California's eligibility for federal transportation funding. SB1228 would allow certain nonconforming signs to continue operating without requiring compliance with federal standards, which increases the risk of noncompliance. The FHA has previously indicated that continued operation of noncompliant displays violates federal law, and failure to maintain compliance could put up to 10% of the state's federal highway funds at risk. That's approximately $580,000,000 Additionally, creating project specific exemptions undermines the uniform regulatory framework established under the Outdoor Advertising Act and creates inequities by allowing some operators to function outside the rules that apply to everyone else. Importantly,
Speaker 28
of these redevelopment area signs can be brought into compliance under existing law, which is something we discussed yesterday. We disagree that it's an abrupt change. The system ended in 2012, about fourteen years ago, so the sunset has been coming repeatedly. We remain committed to working collaboratively with the author and the sponsors to develop a path forward. But for these reasons, we must respectfully oppose.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Other witnesses, for identification purposes and opposition? Seeing none, Senator Blakespeare. Yeah. Subtask.
Okay,
Speaker 17
thank you. I appreciate the author's effort to tackle this problem, which, as was noted, has gone on for several years. I and I plan to support the bill. I am concerned, though, about, in general, basically, billboard visual pollution. So I you know, recognizing that it's still a value that we have seen at corridors, and we want to be able to experience driving along them without being barraged by advertisements.
So and that's why we have the Federal Highway Beautification Act was to address that. So, I just want to make sure that that's logged for the record, that there are those of us who care about that, and that having signs, trying to figure out ways for them to be more permissive and be more places and be larger without going through a review and also just in general as a policy is something that I'm not I just basically don't support that. But I guess one of the things that I wasn't able to get my bearings on with this because I know that this is specifically for RDA, redevelopment areas. So, how many places in the state does this affect? Do we have any And, I think your sponsors
Speaker 19
Sure. Just heard from I asked this from Caltrans and this morning they told me it's 37 signs.
Speaker 17
Okay. And, is a site Can you describe what a site is? Is it like one sign or what's a site?
Speaker 17
37 signs. Okay. And that's statewide or are they concentrated in one part of the state?
Speaker 19
I've also asked for cities. I do not have that yet, but I will share with your office as soon as we get them. But they're not all like, they're obviously not all really congregated, but I'm not sure if there's
Speaker 20
But the preponderance is Southern California. There's only a couple in Northern California.
Speaker 17
Ah, okay. This is all through the chair? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, thank you.
Yes. And so, I guess, one question. The governor did veto a comparable bill from the author last year, and it was because of the risk of losing this I think it was $400,000,000 in annual federal highway funds that was referenced by the opposition. What do you think has changed, you know, this year that would make that different?
Speaker 18
So, again, I'm just going to because there was a lot of negotiations with not only with my office, the governor's office, but they were in the throes of it. So, I'm going to defer to them to answer that question.
Speaker 10
Yeah. And I would just add that it wasn't vetoed because of the threat of the money. It was this determination to actually create a solution for a few of these signs that, you know, were deemed to say these are of value to the community and we want to keep them there. So in this in the case for the In N Out sign, it sits along an elevated freeway, so it has a very long pole, but it's a monument sign. So no lights, and it just says In N Out Burger on it, that's it.
You wouldn't know that it was there. It used to advertise the entire marketplace, but because Caltrans said, well, hey, that violates it. So it had to just have In N Out Burger name on it. But it's it doesn't jeopardize it. The decision to veto it was to come up with a permanent solution, and that's why with, you know, Senator Rubio's help, her staff's help, Caltrans, the governor's office, and us, we all sort of got together and said, Hey, how do we actually solve this?
And the language that Caltrans came up with is they look at it as a very, very narrow extension for a few of these signs.
Speaker 10
No. Our sign was permitted by the locals. So, we're not talking about changing a sign. This sign's been around for twenty four years. Don't know how long your sign has been, but the same these signs have been there.
They were permitted by the city. So all we're talking about doing is getting under the rules for Caltrans, under the Outdoor Advertising Act, a new permit, but not to change the sign, which is just going to allow it to continue to exist. There's value in those signs, and there's value for the community. Right.
Speaker 18
If I may add a little bit to that. So, I mean, I do share your concern because I know you were a former council member, and Solas, Iowa, and redevelopment went away. And it left a lot of our communities with a lot of very significant issues. And and I think you could do both. So by way of example, you know, I had these billboards that that were already there, that were already existing.
And as I'm pushing for this, very narrow exemption, I'm also on record passing an ordinance locally in my city to stop oversaturation. So again, I'm with you on that. This is just to try and make sure that they can maintain what they have. It's not a new billboard, not an expansion. And so the fear of all these billboards puppy popping up is just not gonna happen.
Speaker 11
This is, again, 37, I believe he said, just to help the locals keep by, you know, a little bit of advertisement because I know as a council member, that was a way of encouraging people to stop by and shop in our communities. You know? I will take credit for In N Out since it started in my city of Baldwin Park, and we have In N Out University and Burgers. And so, again, it was just a way of preserving what we have, not an expansion. So I see your I hear your concern, and that's not going to happen.
Speaker 17
So, if there was a proposal through the chair. If there was a proposal to expand, like, the lighting or the footprint or something, it would have to go through a local process still. This isn't attempting to exempt that.
Speaker 19
Yeah. We there's no attempt to do anything with the building permit question that you had. What the bill does do is it says that Section 5,443, which is the savings clause, doesn't apply to these signs, but that's as they exist. So, if we wanted to change or you would go and but and by the way, neither of the sponsors have any problems with their local government like entities supporting. But, that would, you know, so Yeah.
I understand where your question comes from, but like changes and things like that would require the normal.
Speaker 17
Right. And I do I mean, unless they've come in late, I do note that the opposition doesn't include any of these three dozen or 34 different locations, none of those cities. So, nobody is voicing that they feel that their power is being taken away from them. So, okay, that's the end of my questions. Thank you, chair.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
sign in Hawaiian Gardens is used to be in my district until we changed. Beautiful sign, well maintained, very professional, and it's right off the freeway and it does attract people to go into the casino. Obviously, in and out, that speaks for itself. So I think what we're trying to do here is maintain a business professional friendly state, not just the cities but the states. And I know that do you foresee any problems in the permitting process once this bill goes through from each of the municipalities?
Speaker 19
Sure. So, what what the bill does is it says you have to go through the regular Caltrans permit. So, it's sort of like it's a reset and now you apply. And Caltrans has said that they do not anticipate any problems with getting that permit. As I, you know, as I was talking about with Senator Blakes here, we don't anticipate any local pushback or problems.
And, certainly, the entities we represent would make sure that we were working together with them.
Speaker 15
Okay. And so with that in mind, again, if we're ever gonna be business friendly, this is the way to start. So I'll move the bill at appropriate time.
Speaker 1
And I would just like to add, I have local pressure to support this bill. And if you do amend it down the line, would love to be a coauthor. I do represent Hawaiian Gardens, and I do eat out in and out all the time. So, would you like to close?
Speaker 18
Yes. Thank you. Again, I can appreciate all the concerns. But, you know, in years past, it was just extending and extending what we currently had. And so, you know, I agree with the governor's office that at this point, we just needed a solution instead of just bringing it up every single year.
And and, again, as a local former local council member, you know, who took this issue very seriously, you know, I don't see an issue, and I don't think it's gonna have any conflict with local elected officials. They still retain the right to to speak up and and do what they normally do. So with that, I respectfully ask for a nigh vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
And we'll bring it up right when we have a quorum, but thank you for the hard work on this bill.
Speaker 1
Senator Cervantes, you're ready? Are you ready? Thank you. Members, this is file item number 3SB1013. We're ready when you are.
Speaker 22
Mister chair, thank you and committee members for allowing me to present senate bill ten thirteen today. This bill is about one simple principle, protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while ensuring law enforcement tools are used responsibly. SB ten thirteen mandates that operators and end users of automated license plate recognitions, ALPR systems, strengthen their safeguards regarding employee access and usage of these systems. The bill requires the Department of Justice to condemn.
Speaker 1
I'm Senator, do you mind if I cut you out? I'm sorry. We very rarely have a quorum. I don't wanna get a quorum established right away. I'm sorry about that.
Clerk, please call the roll.
Speaker 11
Blakespeare here. Dali, Gonzalez, Grayson, Menjivar? Here. Menjivar here. Richardson?
Here. Richardson here. Sayarto, Valderas, Weiner? We
Speaker 22
The bill requires the Department of Justice to conduct annual randomized audits of public agency operators and end users to ensure they have implemented a usage and privacy policy in compliance with the law, which we have seen gross violations of despite SB 34 Hill and SB 54, the California Values Act. SB ten thirteen also requires ALPR operators to operate to require data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. The bill additionally stipulates that any ALPR data collected must be retained for no longer than thirty days if on a hot list. This legislation seeks to protect individuals' privacy rights while ensuring that law enforcement tools are used responsibly and ethically. Over the past decade, automated license plate recognition systems have quietly become a tool for law enforcement already used by over 230 police and sheriff departments in California.
While these systems can aid investigations, they collect and store the location and images of every vehicle, not just those tied to criminal activity. That means millions of law abiding Californians are having their movements tracked, creating vast databases of sensitive personal information. In 2016, the legislature passed s b 34 hill to require safeguards around ALPR usage. Yet a 2020 state audit report found widespread noncompliance. Agencies shared ALPR data with hundreds, even thousands of outside entities, including federal immigration authorities in direct violation of state law.
Many agencies failed to establish required policies or had none at all. Some commingled ALPR data with other sensitive personal information with few safeguards on employee access. Six years later, the violations continue. Privacy advocates reported in 2023 that 71 California law enforcement agencies had broken the law. Still, just late last year, San Francisco police department allowed out of state officers to run 1,600,000 illegal searches, including for ICE.
We have also seen abuses in Marin, Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Sacramento counties, where ALPR systems have been used to track immigrants, facilitate unlawful data sharing, and even stalk or harass private citizens. When law enforcement officers misuse ALPR data to stalk ex partners, harass journalists, or target immigrant communities, it erodes public trust and puts lives at risk. The Associated Press has documented officers across the country abusing access to confidential databases for personal gain. California is not immune. In fact, several cities and counties have suspended their ALPR contracts, such as, the plea the police department in the Northern California city, Mountain View, who suspended the use of automated license plate reader cameras after the discovery and unauthorized access to data by federal and state agencies earlier this year.
And we continue to see more articles that are being published around, LPR data in cities that are stopping that within their jurisdiction and stopping those contracts. Last month in March, the state of Washington signed legislation to regulate use and retain ALPR data for just twenty one days. We cannot allow this technology to become a tool of surveillance, intimidation, or abuse. My bill provides the accountability needed, and I want to, just share with you today, we have two witnesses who are here, expert testimony who's going to be a professor, a clinical professor of practice and technology of law at UC Berkeley. That is Professor Krempe.
And that we also have a second witness, a director of the Samuelson Law and Technology Public Policy Clinic, Mike Katz Lacabe, who's joined us.
Speaker 8
Hi. Thanks for having us. Good afternoon to you all, and thanks for inviting me. I'm going to focus on the data retention piece of this, and then I urge the committee to support a data retention limit. I think the thirty day limit proposed in the bill is a reasonable and evidence based approach, but the most critical step is to impose some bright line rule that limits the extent to which we're aggregating this data and that recognizes the privacy harm caused by mass data aggregation, which can be done while preserving the ability of law enforcement agencies to use this tool.
According to the California State Auditor, over 99.9% of the 320,000,000 plate hits Los Angeles stored at the time of its 2020 audit were not on a hot list when the image was created. Those people were overwhelmingly innocent, and they're now logged in a law enforcement database. Los Angeles is not anomalous. The auditor found that between 8292% of all investigator searches were for records less than six months old. This objective evidence suggests that while very old plate reader data may occasionally be useful, its primary investigative utility is realized almost immediately.
Speaker 29
Beyond this, the auditor's report demonstrated that law enforcement agencies unfortunately do not consistently treat ALPR data with care, suggesting that data deletion at some point is necessary to protect Californians' privacy. Many major California law enforcement agencies have already recognized the need for a retention limit. My co witness is going to talk more about this, but San Diego, Oakland, San Jose all have thirty day limits already, and many other states have retention limits. In addition to what the senator mentioned, Maine, Montana, and Arkansas also have statewide data retention limits for ALPR. Finally, I just wanted to say something about the opposition letters I reviewed, which is that they contain a lot of anecdotes, but they don't contain any data.
Speaker 8
Not a single one of those offers any data to contradict the auditor's report that the vast majority of ALPR usage takes place quickly after the data is collected, undermining the idea that you need to keep this data for a long time. So, with that, I'd be happy, when the time comes, to answer any questions about any aspect
Speaker 12
for being here in Next Witness. Two minutes. Good afternoon, honorable committee members. My name is Mike Katslikabe. I'm the Director of Research for Oakland Privacy.
I come before you today and to speak in support of SB ten thirteen. In February 2020, the California State Auditor issued a report on automated license plate readers that began, To better protect privacy of residents, local law enforcement agencies must improve their policies, procedures, and monitoring for the use and retention of license plate images and corresponding data. SB ten thirteen helps to ensure that, more than six years later, these recommendations are implemented. Research by journalists and privacy organizations have documented that law enforcement agencies are typically unaware of who they are sharing data with or the reason that their data is being searched, despite policies that require periodic audits. Too many times, audit logs obtained from public records requests have revealed that law enforcement performing searches on behalf of immigration agencies that were somehow missed by those periodic audits.
Speaker 26
SB ten thirteen addresses this by requiring audits by the California Department of Justice. In nearly every law enforcement agency that we have reviewed, there are no documented policies or procedures for how or why a license plate is added to a hot list or when, if ever, it is removed. Hot lists are ad hoc and can even be created and maintained by individual users with no oversight, putting California drivers at risk of being stalked by those with access to ALPR systems. SB ten thirteen addresses this issue by defining legitimate sources and reasons for license plates being added to a hot list. Finally, SB ten thirteen implements a maximum data retention time of thirty days for license plate reader data.
Speaker 12
Why is this reasonable? Our review of 191 California agencies using license plate readers showed that 164 of them retained data for thirty days or less, and that is in the absence of any restrictions currently.
Speaker 12
The argument that more than a thirty day retention period is necessary for investigations or public safety is just not borne out by actual practice, and agencies with longer retention periods
Speaker 1
Thanks for being here. Other witnesses in support for identification purposes?
Speaker 14
Good afternoon, Chair, and members. Tracy Rosenberg, Advocacy Director, Oakland Privacy, to register support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any others? Witnesses in opposition? Come forward. You have you have two minutes each.
Thank you for being here.
Speaker 6
Thank you, mister chairman, members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association here in opposition to SB ten thirteen. SB 34, as the author noted, installed ALPR operator and end user requirements, including a provision that requires an end user to implement a usage policy, a usage and privacy policy that includes the length of time that ALPR information will be retained and the process that the ALPR end user will utilize to determine if and when to destroy ALPR information. This law, however, did not take the excessive step of installing a thirty day or any time frame, as SB ten thirteen would. Law enforcement agencies across the state and nation have used ALPR data to solve crimes and apprehend criminal suspects and continue to do so today.
While some cases are solved quickly using this technology, it can also be exceptionally helpful in solving crimes that have occurred deeper in the past. Setting a data retention limit such as thirty days in statute will significantly hinder the use of a valuable law enforcement tool. This is not a tool of intimidation. It's a tool to find murderers and kidnap victims. Additionally, the bill limits the hot list to which ALPR data can be compared.
Speaker 31
The bill also prohibits an ALPR query unless the requesting entity has a case file number. In many situations that necessitate the use of ALPR data, there will be no case file. And this will drastically reduce the availability and utility of this vital crime fighting tool, especially in fresh cases where a crime has just occurred or a person has just gone missing. I would note that a nearly identical bill was vetoed last year. That bill had a sixty day retention limit.
Speaker 6
And to the question of data, I would just ask the committee, how many cases that are solved or crimes detective would be enough to overcome the perceived harm allegedly caused by collecting license plate data and location info? For those reasons, we'd ask for
Speaker 20
California Narcotic Officers Association and a number of other law enforcement groups in opposition to the bill. We'd like to just note and concur with the comments from my colleague. We don't have an issue with the training or the policy requirements or even the audit requirements in the bill. Our biggest concern is that because there is no expectation of privacy in public, limiting the access to this data and restricting it, that's the big concern for us. And also with the limitations on what would qualify in the hot list, as Mr.
Speaker 24
Salzello stated earlier, that's a concern as well. If violations do occur, and as the proponents have suggested that there have been some, if violations occur, then those should be dealt with accordingly pursuant to the law. I don't know that we need to apply more laws and more restrictions to this technology if they just need to be essentially, you know, prosecuted. If people violate the law, they should be held accountable for that. And adding more laws and restrictions, I don't know that that will actually address the concerns of the proponents without that.
So for those reasons and those others stated, we respectfully request no vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you for being here. Other witnesses in opposition for identification purposes? Seeing none. Members? Senator Archuleta?
Speaker 15
Yeah. Thank you for bringing it forward. I'm gonna support the bill, and, I'd rather catch a handful or maybe double hand of these people that come through our cities that have committed crimes and so on. And I think with the technology that we have in law enforcement today, I think we can be pretty proactive and I'd rather see ten, fifteen or 20 in a month be captured, caught and prosecuted than not have any system at all. And as we progress along that the privacy issues have been addressed and I and I think that overall justice will be served if we go forward with the bill rather than not.
And, and I know that my brothers and sisters in law enforcement are probably going, what are you thinking? Well, I'm thinking about those that might get away if we didn't have a system at all And that's what I'm talking about. And I think the author has put down as many provisions as he possibly could for public safety and and of course privacy as well. So I'm gonna move the bill at the appropriate time. Appropriate time right now.
Let's Can I move the bill? Okay.
Speaker 22
Yes. Thank you, mister chair. There are exactly over 338 agencies nationwide that have implemented best practices and policy in a thirty day retention policy for ALPR data. Colleagues, this bill is not about taking tools away from law enforcement. It is about ensuring that those tools are used lawfully, ethically, and responsibly before it's too late.
No entity should void accountability, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 11
The motion is do you pass with the Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection, Senators Cortezi?
Speaker 11
Cortezi, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta?
Aye. Archileta, aye. Adegaine? Blakespeare? Dally?
Gonzalez? Grayson? Mentjivar? Aye. Mentjivar, aye.
Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? Valadares?
Weiner?
Speaker 1
That's four to one, and they'll remain on call. Thank you, senator. Members, let's go to, our consent calendar. It's, file item one five six seven nine eleven and fourteen. Can I get a motion?
The it's been moved. Secretary, call the roll for the consent calendar.
Speaker 11
Archeleta aye. Adeguin? Blakespeare? Dally? Gonzalez?
Grayson? Aye. Menjivar aye. Richardson Aye. Richardson aye.
Aye. Sayarto, Valadares, Weiner?
Speaker 1
That's 60 remains on call. Members, we went through a few of these bills. File item number two by Nilo. Do I have a motion?
Speaker 11
The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortezi?
Speaker 11
Strickland aye. Archeleta? Aye. Archeleta aye. Arreguin?
Aye. Arreguin? Aye. Blakespeare? Dally?
Gonzalez? Grayson? Menjivar? Richardson? Aye.
Richardson I. Sayarto? Valadares? Weiner? Menjivar I.
Menjivar I.
Speaker 1
60 that remains on call. Members of next, file number four, s b twelve twenty eight by Rubio. Can I get a motion?
Speaker 11
The motion is due to pass with committee on appropriations. Senators Cortezi? Aye. Cortezi aye. Strickland?
Speaker 11
Archeleta aye. Adegine? Aye. Adegine aye. Blakespeare?
Dally? Gonzalez? Grayson? Menevar? Richardson?
Aye. Richardson aye. Mengevar, aye. Sayarto, Valadares, Weiner?
Speaker 1
60. That remains on call. Last item, file item 13, s b twelve ninety two by Richardson. Can I get a motion?
Speaker 11
The motion is due passed to the committee on privacy, digital technologies, and consumer protection. Senators Cortezi?
Speaker 11
Archuleta aye. Aragain? Aye. Aragain aye. Blakespeare?
Dally? Gonzalez? Grayson? Menjivar Richardson aye. Richardson aye.
Sayarto? Valadares? Weiner?
Speaker 25
we're gonna go out of file order and move to file item 12, SB twelve eighteen, Senator Aragine. And welcome, and please begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 26
Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, fellow committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB twelve eighteen, which establishes an accountability mechanism for illegal dumping by requiring the California Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner has outstanding illegal dumping fines following the same processes in existing law for outstanding parking citations. Illegal dumping is a persistent public health, environmental, and quality of life crisis in the city of Oakland, which I live in and represent, as well as across the state of California. Abandoned waste attracts additional dumping, creates fire hazards, blocks sidewalks, harms local businesses, and disproportionately impacts low income communities and communities of color.
And despite significant investments across many jurisdictions in cleaning up illegal dumping sites, including expanded weekend staffing, increased bulky pickup services, and aggressive pursuit of grant funding, enforcement remains the critical missing component. Currently, in Oakland and across jurisdictions, illegal dumping citations are routinely ignored, and collection rates for administrative citations remain unacceptably low. Cities across our state lack a meaningful enforcement tool to ensure compliance, and repeat offenders face little deterrence. Between 2021 and 2024, as an example, the city of Oakland issued nearly 3,000 illegal dumping citations totaling $1,300,000 in fines. However, the city was only able to collect 11% of the total fines issued.
Speaker 23
Last year, Oakland received 25,000 calls reporting illegal dumping. And as a result, Oakland crews have removed 15,000,000 pounds of trash. While this is a necessary action for cities to take, when the city routinely cleans up these hot spot areas, it sends a signal to perpetrators that their actions do not have consequences, and that their dumping will be addressed by the city, and further allows for that type of repeat behavior. Assembly Bill twelve eighteen Senate Bill twelve eighteen provides a straightforward and proven solution. The bill will amend the California Vehicle Code to require payment or resolution of illegal dumping fines before the DMV vehicle registration can be completed.
Speaker 26
This aligns with an existing enforcement mechanism already in place for unpaid parking citations. By establishing a meaningful consequence for unpaid citations, SB twelve eighteen will deter repeat illegal dumping, improve compliance, and support cleaner and safer neighborhoods. With me to testify in support of the bill is Liam Garland, the Director of Public Works for the City of Oakland, and Cesar Mesias on behalf of Oakland Mayor Barbaralee.
Speaker 28
Good afternoon, honorable chair and committee members. My name is Liam Garland, and I am the Public Works Director for the City of Oakland. I am here in strong support of Senate Bill twelve eighteen. First, I want to thank Senator Aragine for his leadership on this important policy topic and for his work on this bill. Illegal dumping is not a minor nuisance.
It is a serious public health, environmental, and quality of life issue affecting communities across California. In cities like Oakland, we see firsthand how abandoned debris creates fire hazards, blocks sidewalks, harms local businesses, and disproportionately impacts low income communities and communities of color. Despite significant investments in cleanup, which includes expanded services, staffing, and grant funding, enforcement remains the missing piece. As Senator Aragine pointed out, our current collections rate at 11% means that these dumping citations are routinely being ignored. Without real consequences, repeat offenders continue to dump waste and communities continue to suffer.
SB twelve eighteen offers a simple, practical, and proven solution. It requires illegal dumping fines be paid or resolved before a vehicle registration can be renewed using the same framework that California already successfully applies to unpaid parking tickets. This bill does not create a new bureaucracy. It uses existing systems to establish clear and enforceable consequences. When a citation is tied to a vehicle and remains unpaid, registration cannot be completed until the issue is resolved.
Speaker 6
Importantly, this bill is not about generating revenue. It's about accountability and fairness. Cities like Oakland already provide due process protections, including appeals, payment plans, and community service options for those facing financial hardship. What SB twelve eighteen does is create a real deterrent, one that will improve compliance, reduce illegal dumping, and allow cities to invest limited resources into prevention rather than constant cleanup. This is a practical, cost effective step to protect our neighborhoods, our environment, and our public resources.
Speaker 7
afternoon, Chair and Committee members. My name is Cesar Macias. I manage state and federal affairs for mayor Barbali. I want to thank senator Aragain for his leadership on this important, policy topic and for his work on this bill. I want to stress that addressing illegal dumping, which includes this piece of legislation, is a top priority for mayor Barboli.
We are currently revising our own local ordinance to provide greater enforcement, and we are grateful for the support from the legislature. We're happy to answer any technical questions you all may have, and thank you for your consideration. I respectfully urge your aye vote on SB twelve eighteen. Thank you.
Speaker 25
All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak, name, affiliation, and support?
Speaker 1
Mr. Chair, Paul Yoder, on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Chair members, Gyal Dentas, on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in support.
Speaker 19
Honorable Chair Niccolo DeLuca, on behalf of Compton Mayor Emma Sherif, in strong support, City of Union City, the City of Antioch. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Andrew Anthwe with Schalleder, Anthwe Schmelzer, and Lang here today on behalf of Alameda Stop Waste and Sport.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon. I'm Leila Romero on behalf of League of California Cities and Californians Against Waste in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you. Do we have a lead opposition witness? Seeing none, do we have anyone who wishes to speak in opposition in the committee room? If so, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee.
Senator Blakesford.
Speaker 17
Thank you. I just want to commend the author on this really great idea and good bill and the supporters. When I was in local government and the chair of SANDAG, we established a litter abatement subcommittee, worked on tarpier load, focused on the reality that our public spaces need to not be dumping grounds. And we have pride in our state. We want it to be clean.
And so figuring out the mechanisms to actually get from 3,000 illegal dumping citations totaling 1,300,000 and only collecting 100,000 of that, you know, that really shows that it's clearly what we currently have in existence is not working. So, I appreciate the focus on this and I very much support it. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, what a great idea and I am in strong support of your bill. But I do have a question.
Can we, and I'm hoping that Alameda County is, going to publicize this to include the general public because a 100,000 from a million, that's $900,000 that you're not getting, to promote your city or provide for public safety or whatever. And I think that you really have to step it up on promotion because this is very, very important. A cleaner city, a cleaner Oakland, a cleaner Alameda County. My god, that that's fantastic. And I think it'll be an example for all the cities here in California that we need to step it up to take care of our cities and to make these people pay.
So because of that, now they have to be caught in the act, obviously, right? So in order to be cited. So we talked about cameras not too long ago. Maybe those can be implemented as well. But dumping trash in the streets and and the waste that's there and everything else, I I'm I'm so glad you're gonna do something about it, senator, and I think this is a great step forward.
So if I could be a coauthor, I would love to do that. So, I will move the bill.
Speaker 25
Thank you. Thanks, Senator Archuleta. Senator Menshawar is next and then followed by Senator Richardson.
Speaker 21
Thanks, mister chair. I wouldn't ask for the same thing. I'd love to be a coauthor. I think the very clever approach to this, when I was a staffer, I would work with the city attorney of L. A, and we would have investigative teams literally hiding in bushes because we had hot spots in my district.
And I've been trying to figure out, find a way on how to just change human behavior, and I think this is a very clever way to approach that. Thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 9
Senator Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to join with my colleagues in requesting to be a joint or coauthor. I think this is an excellent tool in the toolbox. It's also consistent with other bills that you did last year, and I think it shows your intent to really put teeth into this and to address the issue.
So, I commend you and wanted to move the bill, but we'll definitely support it and hope that you'll add me to your list. Thank you.
Speaker 25
All right. Thank you. You, Homosud, Mr. Chair. I'll serve with you on another committee.
Thank you very much for your hard work on this, and please continue in the future. I think Senator Archuleta has a good idea about maybe AI will get us to the point where cameras can surveil only people who are dumping and not everybody else in the surrounding area if it gets that good. That said, you're welcome to close.
Speaker 26
I take note of the request to co author. Very much appreciate the support. And really, this is intending to have a tool to hold people accountable and to make sure we can keep our neighborhoods and communities safe. Respect faster than I vote.
Speaker 25
All right. Thank you. With that, we'll call the roll. Oh, we need a motion, I'm sorry.
Speaker 25
It's been moved by Senator Archerich. Richard? By Richardson. All right. Well, we have two motions.
I'll let the Assistant sort that out.
Speaker 11
The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortezi?
Speaker 11
Cortezi aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland aye. Archuleta?
Aye. Archuleta aye. Arreguin? Aye. Arreguin?
Blakespeare?
Speaker 11
Blakespeare? Aye. Dally? I. Dally.
Gonzalez. Grayson. Menjivar. I. Menjivar.
Richardson.
Speaker 25
next? Please. While senator Blakespeare's making her way up, I have a I have a silly thing I say sometimes or have been for years when I forget to thank someone. I tell them I'm going to thank you twice the next time. And so I want to thank our Vice Chair, Strickland, for presiding at such length last committee meeting and then doing so the same here.
I know it's a bit of work to do it, obviously, and appreciate the help very much. I'll probably have to thank you a third time before the day is over. Senator Blaisfer, you may begin on item 10, SB eleven thirty six, whenever you're ready.
Speaker 17
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and colleagues for the opportunity to present SB eleven thirty six. I'd like to first thank the committee for working with me on this bill, as well as the statewide rail operators for their collaboration. Rail ridership dropped significantly during the pandemic, and it has not fully recovered. People's work patterns and their transportation needs have been changing, and rail needs to keep up and respond.
That's why I have authored SB eleven thirty six. We know that large events, such as concerts and sporting events, attract tens of thousands of spectators to go to the same place who need to get to and from that very specific place at a specific time. Rail could and should be shouldering a much larger share of the transportation burden for those events. I heard on the radio just yesterday that BART had its biggest day of ridership ever due to people using it to get to and from a Giants game. SB eleven thirty six is focused on riders and meeting their needs, making sure rail lines are coordinating and planning so passengers can easily get to and from a large event without the hassle of driving and parking.
Intercity rail services typically connect passengers between cities over long distances, generally along a single rail corridor. The operations of intercity services are fully state funded and locally managed. So, they're state funded and locally managed. This bill requires that the state's three intercity rail agencies that are responsible, its Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and Gold Runner, identify large event venues near stations and find ways to improve the service to those events. Additionally, SB eleven thirty six improves coordination with the state's commuter or regional rail operators.
These services include Metrolink, Coaster, Caltrain, Smart, and ACE. These regional services are also locally managed. However, these services include more frequent train stops than intercity rail and services, and they're funded with a mix of local and state resources. When these operators have a service line that operates fully within an intercity rail corridor, all operators must improve trip planning and integrate fares. These strategies make it easier to take the train, giving potential riders more options and increasing ridership.
With me today to testify in support is Steve Roberts, President of the Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada.
Speaker 25
on up. You may take a seat anywhere. You'll have a couple minutes to present. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Chair and members of the committee. My name is Steve Roberts, and I'm the President of the All Volunteer Rail Passengers Association of California and Nevada. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. I think it's a good one. Recommend RailPack recommends the approval of SB eleven thirty six because Metrolink and Coaster are in the midst of transition to become regional rail operators and not rush hour oriented commuter rail operators and expand to a focus on a variety of travel markets.
And it's also these important these agencies fully leverage the synergies of their systems as well as with low sand corridor service. SB eleven thirty six's goal is to maximize the service package offered to the residents of Southern California and accelerate the transition to regional rail operations by incentivizing the managing agencies to coordinate and expand their service packages. These strategies can include through service with a one seat ride, single integrated timetable listing all services, ticket cross honoring, scheduled coordination where transfers are required. RailPack also recommends that Caltrans and the managing agencies utilize some of the tools under development as part of California's integrated travel project to fulfill some of the goals of this legislation. However, moving forward, there are challenges.
Speaker 30
The first is capacity. The network must have the capacity to offer auto competitive service for these special events. We're talking about moving large numbers of people to a single point, and that often requires capacity. Unfortunately, there are capacity projects planned for decades and some even funded that the current governance structure in Southern California can't seem to get built. The second difficulty is in agreeing on the revenue division for joint services.
Speaker 27
The issue is concerns of ridership not increasing and revenues being shifted from one carrier to the other carrier. I have experience with this in my years at Amtrak in trying to work this out. So I urge the committee to support this legislation.
Speaker 25
Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Anyone else who wishes to speak in support, please come up now.
Speaker 22
the California Transit Association. Have a tweener position, have issued a work with author position to the committee. We look forward to engaging with
Speaker 31
Spencer Street, on behalf of North County Transit, San Diego Railroad, similar to CTA, in a tweener position, appreciative of recent amendments removing the state rail assistance tie in, working with the author's office on the fare integration piece. Looking forward to that connection. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you. Seeing no others in support, is there anyone is there a lead opposition in the room? If not, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee at this time. Any comments?
Senator Archuleta?
Speaker 15
I just, have one question. Senator, are you coordinating the bus system to coordinate with the rails? I mean, if there's a huge activity in San Diego, hypothetically, and you wanna get people moved and to, bring the buses in to get off the buses, get on the trains, and and come into Los Angeles, hypothetically. Whatever it is, are you working on that? Because this is a great bill and I think it's it'll it'll pass the committee no no problem.
But I'm just wondering if you've taken it to that next level. Look into that window.
Speaker 25
you senator. Anybody else wishing to ask a question or comment? Seeing none, we have a motion by Senator Archuleta. We can call the roll. I'm sorry.
Would you like to close, Senator?
Speaker 17
Yes, thank you. Yes. This bill is a really important beginning step into figuring out how the legislature can meaningfully be involved in helping transit be more successful, particularly fixed rail. Fixed rail is has obviously received enormous amounts of public investment. Hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars have gone into building these train lines.
And they really are struggling. There's a fiscal cliff coming for most of the transit agencies. And in my part of the state, Southern California, being down a million riders from pre pandemic levels and not being able to get back, is really, to me, it begs the question of recognizing where do people wanna go? If they aren't going to work five days a week in the office, they used to go across city lines, potentially long distances, 40 or 50 miles, But they do want to go to the sporting games, and they do want to go to the concerts, and they do want to go to the Olympic venues. Mean, all the different things that draw tens of thousands of people.
We should be figuring out ways to make it clear that these should be priority trips. So transit agencies and our inner city rail should be taking as many people as possible to those trips. And it's for every reason. It's for our climate goals. But it's also for people's quality of life.
I have had complaints in the southern part Southern Orange County about someone wanting to go to a Padres game. And there was only one train, and it was full. And it had been full for three days because she looked three days before the game and couldn't get a ticket. And it's like that kind of thing really is a problem. So this bill is meant to try to get inside of that.
And it's enormously complex, of course, and we're working very closely with the transit association and the different operators. And I look forward to our continued partnership there. But we really do need to have some, innovation and creativity if we're going to have rail be part of our future in California, which I really very much want it to be.
Speaker 25
All right. Well, thank you for all your efforts in that regard, especially Malang Loisan.
Speaker 25
We'll come back to the assistant now on the motion by Archuleta and ask for a roll call vote.
Speaker 11
The motion is due pass of committee on appropriations. Senators Cortezi? Aye. Cortezi aye. Strickland aye.
Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta aye. Aragine? Aye.
Adegine, I. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, I. Dally?
Aye. Dally, I. Gonzalez, Grayson, Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, I.
Richardson? Aye. Richardson, I. Sayarto, Valadares, Weiner? Eight zero.
Speaker 25
Alright. Eight zero, the bill's on call. Maybe we can get word out to Senator Stern that we need him here ASAP unless unless there's some kind of a conflict that he has. And in the meantime, I can present my bill if the vice chair will allow it.
Speaker 1
No. No. We're not lifting it right now. Okay. Members, so now second to last bill, we're almost there.
File item 15 SB fourteen twenty five by the chairman. So whenever the chairman's ready, you can open.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Vice Chair Strickland, acting as chair currently and members. I'm pleased to present SB fourteen twenty five. As we all know, California is building the nation's first two twenty mile per hour fully electrified high speed rail system, and there will be massive development potential along that corridor. While the authority is charged with managing the land, it lacks the legal authority to regulate encroachments that may delay the building operation and maintenance of the project. SB fourteen twenty five will facilitate Tommy construction by establishing a permitting program for new encroachments that are consistent with the functions and operations of the project's right of way.
To be clear, this bill does not impact or replace existing agreements for utility relocation identified during the project's scoping process. It simply applies to new or expanding encroachments. A codified permit process will provide the authority of the tools necessary to work more effectively with local property owners, businesses, and public entities to bolster the surrounding communities and expand along the corridor. With us today to testify in support is Robert Persol, the California political director of the U. S.
High Speed Rail. Thank you, and at the appropriate time, I'd ask for your I vote.
Speaker 23
You have two Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Robert Pearsall. I'm the California political director for U. S. High Speed Rail, the proud sponsor of Senate Bill fourteen twenty five.
A coalition of over 50 leading unions, public agencies, and companies, U. S. High Speed Rail is co chaired by former U. S. DOT Secretaries Ray LaHood and Anthony Fox, and formerly by the recently passed Rod Dierdon Sr.
USHSR works with its members and allied progressive and environmental groups to advocate for public support for world class high speed rail projects across The U. S. SB fourteen twenty five will establish a permit program administered by the authority for encroachments on its rights of way. This measure allows the authority to accommodate utilities that are trying to expand their business in the Central Valley. Right now, those businesses and utilities cannot access rights of way because there is no permitting process.
Speaker 18
While the authority is charged with managing these lands, it lacks the legal authority to regulate encroachments that interfere with high speed rail construction and operations. Common encroachments include utility and broadband lines, signage, fencing, water pipes, sewage drainage, vegetation management, all of which are critical to the region where the project is developing. It is vital that the authority be able to protect the infrastructure from encroachments that may interfere with or delay construction, operation, or maintenance of the high speed rail project. Without statutory authority, the project will continue to experience unauthorized encroachments and barriers to land development. A clear permitting process will help and ensure the authority can protect the project's land, facilities, and rights of way while working more effectively with local property owners and businesses.
Speaker 23
For these reasons, U. S. High Speed Rail supports SB fourteen twenty five and respectfully request your I vote on this important measure. And we are thankful to the chair for authoring this bill. And I'm happy to take questions.
Thank you.
Speaker 33
Thanks for being here. Are there members in support? Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council.
I would just add that this project has got a lot of challenges, but we should all be able to come together and decide that it's for agencies to talk to other agencies to find the most efficient ways to move forward so that we can decrease some of those ongoing obligations. We have other agencies that do it fairly well. I was just reminded that DWR does this. Caltrans has an existing authority, and I think there's some space to find a way to work together to save costs on this project. We ask for your support.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon. Jonathan Cole with Climate Action California, in support.
Speaker 16
Good afternoon, mister chairmembers. Brian White here on behalf of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. First, I want to say we don't have an approved position. We are working on getting an approved position, but I have been talking to the author staff and the high speed rail authority. Our main concern is that as the largest utility in in the country, we also have infrastructure ourselves.
Speaker 34
We have right of ways and encroachments. So we wanna make sure that the high speed rail authority's infrastructure doesn't supersede the protections that we also need when we actually have to do projects as we're trying to meet climate change projects, wildfire threats, and and other, infrastructure, things that our ratepayers have to pay for. So we'll we'll continue to work with the author, try and fix some language, but we are worried about the enforcement and the penalties that are in the bill, and those are things that we don't want take lightly. So appreciate your indulgence. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Member Sharon Gonzales, on behalf of the City of Burbank, in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Any other witnesses? Back to the members. Any questions? Seeing none, the only thing I would add, you know where I stand, Mr. Chairman.
I don't even go far into that, but would you like to close?
Speaker 3
Yeah, thank you very much. With regard to the opposition, I mean, all so many of us have served in local government or dealt with local government in our positions that we currently hold. And I just want to make sure that, whether it's Los Angeles or anybody else, they know that if we need to put clarifying language in the bill to make sure it's understood that encroachments will tend to be a reciprocal thing here along the way and the process needs to be fair and streamlined for everybody as things go along. I do want to mention with regard to Burbank, that I read their opposition letter. They have an issue with water wells in an aquifer in their particular area.
Speaker 25
I don't feel like that is directly pertinent to the bill, but we'll keep talking to them. I'm extremely sensitive to it. As someone who came from a farming background and had to defend wells and aquifers from encroachment and from eminent domain actions. Hopefully that message is getting to Burbank, who's here loud and clear. If there is a direct connection here, we'll, we'll work on it.
I don't think there is, though. I do think it's been an opportunity for them to air a grievance that they've had for some time, and I respect that. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thanks, Mr. Chair. The bill's been moved by Senator Archuleta. Clerk, please call
Speaker 11
The motion is due passed to the committee on judiciary. Senators Cortezi?
Speaker 11
Strickland, no. Archoletta? Aye. Archoletta aye. Adegine?
Aye. Adegine aye. Blakespeare?
Speaker 11
Grayson aye. Menjivar Richardson aye. Richardson aye. Sayorto? Valadares?
Weiner? That
Speaker 25
Thank you again Mr. Vice Chair for your efforts and we're welcoming Senator Stern to the podium. He is, I believe, the last bill that we will be hearing today. Great position to be in. Everybody's suddenly in a happy mood.
That said, you can begin whenever you like.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will I'll be brief here. I know you've had a long hearing. I just want to start by thanking the Chair and the committee staff for their help with the bill.
And I want to be clear, I'm going to accept the amendments on page twelve and thirteen of the analysis. I've been working on this issue since I got to legislature, and even before I was a legislator, when High Speed Rail first came to be, and we identified the cap and trade program as the funding source. As someone who believes in the system, and wants to see it work, part of the original deal was that while we started in the Central Valley and focused there, that we would ensure that at the bookends, where ridership was awaiting and had a ton of demand, both in the North and South, that we would be concurrently working. So, this bill is really a continuation of what that original commitment was, which is not to derail this project in any way, or delay at all our efforts in the Merced to Bakersfield segment. We want to see that happen.
And the code section already makes this segment a priority, and the amendments adopted in the committee today make clear that this bill is not intended to delay that segment of the project. This bill is really about ensuring that the High Speed Rail Authority has all the tools it needs to meet its long term goal of developing the statewide network that extends well beyond Merced to Bakersfield, and that we start building concurrently. There is work to be done, And especially if we're going to leverage private dollars, in an era where we know the feds can't be counted on anymore, and that limited state funds, and ever more limited supply of state funds from our cap and trade program are available, we need to be looking at these P3 partnerships to make this project work. Last year, as you all may know, the Trump administration clawed back about $4,000,000,000 in high speed rail funding. That does jeopardize some of these efforts.
But to avoid the delays that may be caused by this effort, and to get back on track, SB fourteen eleven makes a few important changes to help them succeed in this mission by leveraging private capital, currently sitting on the sidelines, that's waiting to hop on board on local transit feeder lines that will ultimately connect to bookends, bringing passengers in the North and the South to high speed rail stations. Concurrent law the current law also imposes a $500,000,000 cap on projects, effectively setting a bar on what can be planned and developed between the high speed rail authority, its local transit partners, and private partnerships, essentially sidelining a bunch of private capital that's just waiting there to be invested. SB fourteen eleven would remove the project cap, sending a bigger market signal, and giving flexibility to the authority to attract that capital from those partners seriously discuss and potentially invest and develop transit projects that create jobs and advance our goals. It also clarifies the High Speed Rail Authority's ability to engage in additional activities that maximize the efficiency of delivering the project, including projects developed that authorize public and private partnership agreements, allowing the authority to develop what we call, quote, early works that include design, engineering work, identification, and acquisition of long lead strategic right of way parcels.
The bill is supported by a diverse group, including the Associate General Contractors, California Conference of Carpenters, Streets for All, Climate Action California, L. A. Metro, Metrolink, and the building trades. With me here today, Michael Turner, Executive Officer of Government Relations with L. A.
Metro, and Keith Dunn with State Building Trades. I'll defer to them.
Speaker 25
Welcome. And you'll have two minutes each, and you can proceed whatever order you like.
Speaker 32
you. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and members of the committee. As the senator mentioned, my name is Michael Turner with LA Metro, and I'm here to convey the board's support for SB fourteen eleven.
I'd like to thank Senator Stern for bringing this, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for working with us on on this measure. LA Metro has long supported the state high speed rail project. We supported the original legislation that placed a one a on the ballot. We continue to support the project, and we've worked with the authority since its inception to complete the project as they've identified in the Central Valley.
Speaker 12
Through our partnership, we've also demonstrated how investments can be made in projects that both support the high speed rail project, but provide benefits now. Specifically, I'd like to mention the Rosecrans Barkard grade separation in the city of Santa Fe Springs. That was an opportunity for us to leverage money from the state high speed rail fund to support the state's most dangerous grade separation. We were able to match that money with local and federal money and bring that project to fruition, and it's now in service today. That project is ultimately needed for the high speed rail project, but it is an example of how we can build something now that has benefits today.
Speaker 32
SB fourteen eleven allows us to continue that partnership, to make smart investments in early works, while the state continues its effort to complete the Central Valley segment. Making smart investments in these early works and the development of key projects in Los Angeles, in particular, will position all of us to take advantage of future funding opportunities and to leverage local funds. LA Metro is in this for the long haul. As I mentioned, we supported the original legislation, we worked with the authority, and we're going to continue to do that. Thank you again to Senator Stern and Chair Cortezi, and that concludes my remarks.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Senator Stern, moving this forward. Keith Dunn, on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, I'd like to echo the comments of LA Metro and just mention that, you know, the cost of dollars today is 25, 30% less than they will be in five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. The more work that we can do as an a as a high speed rail authority to prepare projects for the future, you're gonna save that money in construction, increased costs, and labor costs, and materials. The commitment to the valley remains.
Speaker 15
This does not shift the state building construction trades, I know this legislature or this governor's office commitment to finishing the valley. But what we have seen is private equity partners who are looking to jump start ridership. Those riderships today are in those book in projects. So, an ability to do some early construction work, some engineering design, partner with other local agencies to move forward projects today ultimately saves money, saves dollars. Absent a federal partner, is it critical that the state look at every opportunity to leverage dollars, whether they're from private equity or from other state programs.
Speaker 33
Additionally, moving the authority's ability to do some of that work upfront would cost our local agencies dollars. We gotta we need to do everything we can to encourage this partnership. For those of you that don't support this project, I would ask you to look at the opportunity to save money. Take the opportunity to save some money. It doesn't have to change your position, but we should all be looking for opportunities to save some money.
This is one of them. I would ask for your support.
Speaker 25
Alright. Thank you both for your testimony. We'll open it up now to people who would like to express the support position. Please come forward.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Stern. California Conference of Carpenters. My name is Don Wilcox, and we're here to support this flexibility and innovation. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 18
-Mckinley Thompson Morley on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, in support.
Speaker 23
-Robert Pearsall on behalf of U. S. High Speed Rail, in full support. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Good afternoon, chairmembers. Isela Bravo with Cruise Strategies on behalf of the city of San Jose in support with amendments.
Speaker 17
Mr. Chair, members, Andrew Antwee, Weischauder, Antwee, Schmelzer, and Lang thank the author for the bill, here today on behalf of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, otherwise known as Metrolink, in support.
Speaker 25
All right. Thank you. Do we have a lead opposition witness in the room? Are you here to speak as a me too?
Speaker 37
I'm going to say that we appreciate the amendments. Chris Lee here, on behalf of the Merced County Association of Governments, we had an opposition position on the bill as in print. Appreciate the amendments included in the analysis and the author for working on those and look forward to reassessing our position based on those amendments. Okay. Perfect.
You.
Speaker 35
Sharon Gonsalves, on behalf of the City of Merced, similar to the position that MCAG took. Really appreciate the author's office engaging with us over the weekend and yesterday to talk about our concerns and the author's intent and look forward to continuing conversations. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Okay. Thank you for being here. We are going to come back to the committee at this point, see if we have any questions, concerns. Yes, Senator Vice Chair Strickland?
Speaker 1
So today, I am gonna support this bill because I do believe it it gives flexibility, but it's almost like a Disneyland and kind of a fairy tale because I do wanna say, in case you haven't been keeping up with this project, it's decades behind schedule, it's hundreds of billions of dollars over budget, unable to build even the short, hop, and easiest geological conditions in the state, highly speculative that any private company would come even anywhere near this investment and put money on the table, I would support that. I just don't think it's a private investment as you look forward and see what has happened and transpired. This is a project that was supposed to be $33,000,000,000 projected at a $128,000,000,000. It's supposed to be done 2020. We're not even really started.
And, if you think you can get private capital, I will gladly vote for this bill and give you the authority to go get the private capital and give you that flexibility. So with that, I still don't believe this project is, is ever gonna be built as proposed to the people of California, but, I'm certainly willing to let you go try to get those private capital dollars that I I'm sure we're gonna rush in to invest.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Vice Chair. Others who wish to comment or ask questions? Yes. Senator Gonzalez.
Speaker 10
Yeah. Just want to say thanks to the author from Los Angeles for bringing it forward. And I know we've often exchanged about, you know, what we can do to improve the bookends and having seen it in the Central Valley and and knowing that we need a a real plan for especially for Los Angeles in our economic development plans, cohesiveness with Eliemetro and other economic regional plans. I absolutely believe this. And the Shinkansen in Japan, thankfully, has public and private dollars value capture, and it took some time, as we know, to get completed, but nonetheless was a very successful and continues to be one of the most successful public transit high speed rail projects.
Speaker 25
Thank you. Anybody else? I've seen none. Thank you very much. Let me just before you close, let me just thank the author for your cooperation with the committee staff.
I know I don't say things like this often and probably that's best, but in some sense a lot of folks come in, especially direct stakeholders on certain bills and wouldn't necessarily be aware or even take a look at the amendments that are in somebody else's bill. And there's a lot of that work that goes on in this committee week after week. And I know the members of the committee recognize that. They're brief, they do their reading and they see what's going on. But I not only want to thank the author but thank committee staff, I know you've already done that for hard work, not just on this bill but on prior bills that look like they're going to pass out of this committee today.
They went through pretty smoothly, I believe, because of all the work that was done to try to get them into that shape. Thank you for bringing this forward, and we look forward to your close.
Speaker 30
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll just re echo your gratitude for staff for working through this. This is not an easy one. I guess I'll just I'll say, speaking of Disneyland, there is a day where I would like to go with my kids to Disneyland, but not have to sit on the four zero five or the five for nineteen hours to get there.
When you think of ridership and going from, say, Burbank Airport down to Anaheim, That, that is something that we think we'd have a shot at private capital getting excited about. And, you know, even out to Las Vegas, people take that, you know, either a five hour, six hour commute at rush hour, or a Southwest flight, but we think we have a shot at beating that. The kind of investments that we're interested in attracting will hopefully see that potential for ridership, and bolster the entire financial viability of this project, so that we lift all boats. And if we're bringing private capital into Southern California projects, and Northern California projects that make financial sense without subsidy, we're actually going be able lift the boats, hopefully the Central Valley as well, and make everything happen. So, I don't want to be overly optimistic about all this, but I'm just going to be sober about it, and say that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 25
All right. Thank you very much. All comments have been appreciated today, including the vice chairs. So thank you very much. Do we have a motion on this one?
Yes. Senator Archuleta? And we'll go ahead with the roll call vote now.
Speaker 11
The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Environmental Quality. Senators Cortezi?
Speaker 11
Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archeleta, Aragine? Aye.
Aragine, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Gonzales, aye. Grayson, aye. Aye. Richardson, aye. Richardson, aye.
Richardson, Siarto, Sarto, no. Valadares? Weiner? I. Weiner, I.
Speaker 25
Okay. We are going to lift the call for absent members at this time. Thank you. Thank you again, vice chair Strickland, and I think senator Archuleta, only two that might have been here the whole time. Appreciate it.
Appreciate it.
Speaker 1
The consent the consent calendar consists of file item one, five, six, seven, nine, eleven, and fourteen. The current vote is six zeros, and the motion is to adopt the consent calendar. Senators Blakespeare?
Speaker 11
Blakespeare aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson?
Speaker 11
item two s b nine five three by senator Nilo. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is six zero. Senators Blakespeare?
Speaker 11
Blakespeare aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye.
Serrato, Serrato, aye. Valadares, Weiner? Aye. Weiner,
Speaker 11
File item three, s b ten thirteen by senator Cervantes. The motion is due passed to the committee on privacy, digital technologies, and consumer protections. Their current vote is four to one. Senators Aidegine?
Speaker 11
Aidegine, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Dally?
No. Dally, no. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzales, aye.
Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Siarto?
Speaker 11
File item 4SB1228 by senator Rubio. The motion is due pass with committee on appropriations. The current vote is six zero. Senators Blakespeare?
Speaker 11
Blakespeare aye. Dally? Aye. Dally aye. Wean Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez aye. Grayson?
Speaker 11
Grayson aye. Sierto Sierto aye. Valderas? Weiner? Aye.
Senator Weiner? Aye. Yeah.
Speaker 11
File item eight s b fourteen eleven by oh, no. That was yeah. File item 10 s b eleven thirty six by senator Blake Spear. The motion is due passed committee on appropriations. The current vote is eight zero.
Senators Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grayson? Aye.
Grayson, aye. Sierto? No. Sierto, no. Valderas?
Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye.
Speaker 11
File item 12 s b twelve eighteen by senator Aragine. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is eight to zero. Gonzales? Aye.
Gonzales, aye. Grayson?
Speaker 11
Grayson, aye. Sierto? Aye. Sierto, aye. Validarius?
Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye.
Speaker 11
File item 13, s b twelve ninety two by senator Richardson. The motion is to pass the committee on privacy, digital technologies, and consumer protection. The current vote is six zero. Senators Blakespeare?
Speaker 11
Blakespeare? Aye. Dally? Aye. Dally?
Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzales aye. Grayson?
Aye. Grayson aye. Serrato? Serrato no. Valderas?
Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye.
Speaker 11
File item 15 s b fourteen twenty five by senator Cortezi. The motion is due passed to the committee on judiciary. The current vote is eight one. Senators Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzalez aye. Sierto? No. Sierto no. Valadares?
Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.