Senate Transportation Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Transportation Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
And I was the chair of the Sacramento region MPO at that that delivered that project and testified in this very building in support of SB three seventy five the first time around. And SB three seventy's promise was was immense that we could by integrating land use planning, transportation planning, and investments, ultimately housing investments as well that we could achieve we could reduce con we could reduce congestion, improve mobility, support housing development and economic development, battle, air pollution, but also advance our climate goals. And and the region region scale contributions to climate emissions are substantial. So this was the promise of s p three seventy five, and for the first time, it meant bringing all of these these topics together and doing it at the regional scale, because none of those issues respect to our individual city borders. That was the promise.
It has, in many ways, achieved several of its goals, and it has become a foundation for many other state policies as well that require conformity with the the sort of the main document that the S. Three seventy five process produces, which is the sustainable community strategy or the alternative planning scenario associated with the federally mandated regional transportation plan. So what we built is a system where the regions are working hard, local governments and stakeholders at the regional scale are building and have built plans to accomplish this. It turns out to be hard work and not as simple or as easy as we had anticipated. Many other forces are at play, but also things other things have changed since SB three seventy five was passed in terms of the overall economy.
Also, the state the state of California's commitment to building housing everywhere, which isn't exactly the same frame of SB three seventy five, which was let's build housing in particular parts of the state. And so the regions have had to harmonize, maybe not conflicting, but not always consonant state policies together. And they have to do it with a lot of effort. And so they're required to produce these regional plans, which are full scope, transportation, land use, climate, air pollution, and housing, every four years at the regional scale. They are immense efforts.
I've participated in, I think, six six of these twenty five year plans. They are immense efforts. San Diego said that they they've spent $42,000,000 on their last one. $42,000,000 on the planning process, the outreach, and and and everything else. It doesn't need to be that expensive.
It doesn't need to be that involved, especially given that we're not achieving the objectives in terms of actual reductions in emissions. So what SB, ten eighty seven seeks to do is to modernize these the the the system in order to to accomplish two things. One is to make it more efficient, so we are not constantly planning and spending money. I was just senator Blake's barber was just referring to your comments about 42,000,000 that Zandex spends, on on these processes. And that so we can do that more effect more more efficiently, but also so that we can do it more effectively towards accomplishing the goals that we set out to do, which we have made progress on, but nowhere near enough.
And so the bill accomplishes this in its current form in a couple of ways. One is to say that those regional plans need to be produced every eight years instead of every four with a significant progress checkpoint in the middle. And so that's sort of foundational to making sure that we're doing them right, rather than doing them daily. Second is seeks to try to address some of the challenges of the execution, the implementation, the conflicts between the regions and CARB, which is responsible for setting the climate the the climate targets, what have you. There's been disputes, disagreements, both about the content, but but largely about, well, you know, when are getting back when are you getting back to us?
How did you actually come up with this target? How do we model this? And so so so the the the frame of the bill today that you have before you is really focused on these areas from the perspectives of the regional governments, the metropolitan planning organizations like SANDAG or SCAG or SANDAG. How can we make this system work bet work work more efficiently and then more effectively achieve those outcomes? That said, this is the what's before us is the is that lens on this issue.
Speaker 4
But what we are attempting to do is to is to with a group of all the stakeholders across the environmental groups, environmental justice groups, housing groups, transportation construction groups, the metropolitan planning organizations themselves, cities and counties separately from those groups, and others is to construct a comprehensive modernization of this project that recognizes that every that many stakeholders have are experiencing challenges or disappointments with the s p three seventy five process, maybe we can try to solve them together. It it feel the committee analysis reminded me how much of an impossible task this is, as I think with the exception of one reporting requirement in 2019, every single piece of legislation relating to SB three seventy five noted in the analysis, all of them for the last eight years, they've all failed. They've all died. So the even small changes, s p three seventy five, have been a challenge to achieve. Our hope is that this year, by trying to not just not just, like, triangulate the interest, but really figure out how to advance the interest that that that that transportation builders, housing builders, environmentalists, climate advocates, environmental justice folks, and the cities and counties and regions themselves are advocating that we will be able to to to achieve a consensus about a bold modernization that will make sure that three seventy five delivers on its promise and it does so in a way that's effective.
Speaker 2
So with that, I would certainly respectfully ask for an I vote on SB ten eighty seven and to testify in support of the bill, is first Komendrejesse, the the executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments. And he'll be followed by Julie Snyder, the principal legislative advocate of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments.
Speaker 3
you Senator. Kome Agiso with the Southern California Association of Government. SCAG, we are the MPO for the Southern California region. Thank you for allowing me to be here with you today in support, in strong support of this critical bill. But if you if you would permit me, I would like to also thank Senator Cabaldon for taking the lead on this.
He of any, has a very rich background in regional governance and regional planning. And so his experience in this is invaluable. As already stated, SB three seventy five directs NPOs to develop sustainable community strategies to meet carbs greenhouse gas target reductions by 2020 and 2035. While the law strengthened coordination very well between housing, land use and transportation, major changes since its adoption from near zero emission vehicles mandates, the panic, the pandemic issues that we have had and the things that came out of the pandemic. We have seen significant weaknesses in its effectiveness.
Meanwhile, state policies have continued to expand without sufficient alignment of state policies. As an NPO, SCAG is tasked with preparing SCSs and we've done this since the inception of March. So we know the process very intimately. Our most recent SCS which was adopted in 2024 took about four years to get to. We spent about 20,000,000 on that and another 40,000,000 on the companion RTP, so a $60,000,000 endeavor on that effort.
Speaker 6
After submitting the SCS to the California Air Resources Board, substantial amount of staff time was still required to go back and forth produce supplemental documentation Ten seconds. That were required. As a result of that, we were able to it took us about three zero nine days to get approval. And so the distance between planning and implementation basically was gone. So the collaboration that has occurred as a result of Senator Cabaldon's leadership, I think is intended with October to really reform the process.
Speaker 3
I want to thank you for the opportunity and respectfully ask for a yes vote on you. This bill.
Speaker 23
Mister chair and members, Julie Snyder with MTC ABAC. We're pleased to be one of the bill's four co sponsors. Wanna start by noting that amendments taken in Senate Environmental Quality Committee at chair Blake Spears' request strengthen the environmental impact of the bill by adding a twenty forty five GHG target. This was sought by stakeholders and aligns the SCS with the state scoping plan. The committee also shifted back to the Air Resources Board.
Speaker 5
Most of the responsibilities that the bill had assigned to the California Transportation Commission with one exception. The bill continues to leverage the commission's current role promulgating guidelines for the regional transportation plan including travel demand models by requiring the commission to incorporate the SCS guidelines into those overall RTP guidelines. We believe a single set of guidelines will really facilitate our ability to coordinate and meet the full range of statutory obligations. SB ten eighty seven also begins to address one of the major challenges to achieving our climate and mobility goals as noted in the analysis that is inadequate and disjointed funding. The bill aligns two key state programs more closely with the SCS.
It prioritizes solution for congested corridors funding for the near term projects that will help regions meet their GHG targets. It also in ensures that the SHOP or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program funds projects more consistently in terms of their scope and their timelines with the SCS. So from across the group of stakeholders that the senator mentioned in our in our now going on seven month stakeholder discussions, we've heard a consistent message. That region should devote more time to programs and to projects that reduce GHE, improve housing affordability, and provide mobility options. SB ten eighty seven will drive this change and that's why we are thrilled to be co sponsoring it.
We respectfully request your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, chair and members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, a proud cosponsor in support, and also on behalf of the Sonoma County Transportation Climate Authorities in support.
Speaker 1
Thanks for being here. Mario Orso, CEO of Sandak and cosponsor in support of the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon. Vincenzo Caparelli here on behalf of California Association of Council of Governments in support.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon. My name is Han Kang from the city of San Jose, and we're in support of the bill as well.
Speaker 1
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Jordan Grimes with Greenbelt Alliance. We have a supportive amended position and align ourselves with other organizations, environmental organizations, but deeply appreciative of all the work the center has done that the MPOs are doing, and look forward to continuing those conversations.
You. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Witnesses in opposition? Go ahead. You can go right here. Go right here.
Thank you. You'll both have two minutes each. Who would like to open?
Speaker 27
Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Sophia Fekola. I'm a policy advocate with the Cohesion for Clean Air. We have an oppose unless amended position on SB ten eighty seven as we are concerned this bill would lessen the intent of SB three seventy five and would no longer hold agencies accountable to meeting their regional climate targets. While recent amendments have clarified the CTC no longer has the authority to approve SES plans, under SB ten eighty seven they would still be tasked with updating the SES guidelines.
Speaker 10
CTC does not have the same technical expertise that CARB has and isn't bound by the scoping plan to the same level of commitment in reducing climate emissions. With CTC's track record of approving polluting projects, we're concerned that giving authority to CTC would further slow down progress on complying with SB 32. SB ten eighty seven would also allow agencies to still access SB one funding even if they can no longer demonstrate how their climate, how they will reach their climate targets and have to submit an APS. Despite state efforts, TCEP and SCCP programs still generate a net increase in VMT through the projects they fund. Though SB ten eighty seven states that only GHG reducing projects may be funded, our own analysis shows that highway expansion projects are often flagged as reducing GHG emissions because environmental analysis fails to account for induced demand.
Similarly, ten eighty seven would require GHG targets to include all on road transportation sectors, including progress made on zero emission vehicles. Our state already has many regulations and funding programs that encourage this transition to zero emission, and CARB already tracks how those programs reduce GHD emissions. With SB three seventy five remaining as one of the few regulations focused on reducing BMT, having targets also Chris considers EBS would dilute its focus and make it harder to meet climate targets. And finally, recent amendments have created a blanket exemption from CEQA from the SES planning process, meaning that nothing that local agencies would not be required to engage in with and incorporate feedback from members of the region with developing SES plans.
Speaker 10
We're committed to working with the author to address these concerns to the stakeholder process, but urge you not to pass this bill without additional steps to ensure the regions do their utmost to reduce the climate emissions. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good afternoon, mister chair and member. Cassie Gilson with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in an oppose unless amended position. I wanna thank the author and his staff and the sponsors for their early outreach and continued vigorous engagement with us. It's really appreciated. And we look forward to the continuous discussion should the bill pass out today.
We don't dispute the premise of the bill. After close to two decades, it's prudent to examine what is working in March and what isn't. And for context, CBIA was one of the infamous coalition of the impossible that supported the original passage of March, so it's not an inherent objection. But and there are several components of the bill that make a lot of sense going from four years to eight year cycles and ensuring greater transparency with the methodology that CARB is using to set the regional targets are all common sense measures included in the bill. But the consequences of getting the totality of this revamp wrong can be really catastrophic for housing.
With that in mind, I just want to flag two of the primary concerns for CBIA. The first is with regards to vehicle miles traveled. It's really important that the COGS in implementing their statutory mandate here focus on greenhouse gas reductions, and there is not a focus on VMT being used as a proxy for environmental benefits. GHG reductions is appropriately the statutory mandate here, and we would like to work with the author going forward to ensure that there isn't an unrelated focus on VMT that isn't tied directly to GHG reduction. The second issue is that if additional monies are to be given, granted to the COGs, it must be with the explicit prohibition that they not be used to promote
Speaker 11
Yeah. To to promote policies like rent control or zoning or affordable housing that aren't the appropriate mandate of March. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thanks for being here. Thanks for being here. Other witnesses in opposition for identification purposes?
Speaker 18
Good afternoon, Vice Chair and Senator Blake Spear, Jeanie Wardwaller on behalf of Climate Plan, NRDC, and the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. With deep respect to the author, we are in a tweener position still. We've submitted a letter of concern to the committee. We still have a few significant concerns and also some recommendations to strengthen implementation of the SCSs.
Speaker 2
Good afternoon, senators. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation. They were signatories of the same letter of concern, but we thank the author for his leadership on this issue and his willingness to work with all those stakeholders. We're committed to seeing that process through. We think it's headed in the right direction.
Speaker 5
Good afternoon, Vice Chair and members. Mark on behalf of Streets For All, also a signatory to that letter. But we really appreciate the stakeholder engagement process and appreciate the amendments that were taken in Senate EQ.
Speaker 15
Yes. Thank you. Well, I appreciate the author for bringing this forward. This is an enormously complex topic. As was mentioned by the author, there are so many bills that have attempted to make changes that have been unsuccessful.
So I appreciate you digging into this. I think it is a real problem when our governmental agencies are spending 40,000,000 and 60,000,000 on rounds and layers of of planning that that we are just by nature not spending on implementing. So it's it is really an urgent problem. I I I just wanted to make a couple comments about what the opposition said. So one is I I'll lend my support to the idea that these should not be hijacked for other uses like rent control or other.
Social engineering type of things so I hope that that's not something that is going to be happening I don't perceive it's currently in the bill I wanted to give the author a chance to. Respond to that.
Speaker 2
It's not currently in the bill. It's not in the bill, period. There has been an issue raised in our stakeholder conversations specifically about MTC ABAG and the barriers plan, I'll be honest I had heard nothing about, still don't know much about. The issue has been raised about whether what Regent's scope of authority should be in their plans. So that's one of the, now one of the 4,000 issues that's on the table.
But it's not authorized in the bill it's not blessed in the bill in any way.
Speaker 15
Right well if there's a need to clarify that this is actually related to. G. H. G. Emissions and transportation planning and not a whole bunch of other things I'd be supportive of that.
The other thing is this issue around VMT which having been the chair of sandbag and gone through the regional planning process which we actually rarely referred to it as SCS is that wasn't my. The the nomenclature we use we more more referred to it as the regional plan the regional plan update. And that the disconnect between that and the housing element process which I also went through. As the mayor of my city of figuring out how to get compliant with housing element laws it changed And not referring back to the SES or the regional plan really much at all. I'm I'm having a hard time reconciling the opposition's statement and maybe miss Gilson, if she wanted to say a little more about that, but I was gonna ask the author to address it.
But the question of of how VMT relates to the density that cities need to add because of the housing element update, I'm not I'm just not really seeing that connection. So maybe if you could just elucidate that a bit.
Speaker 11
The issue with VMT is that it's layered on top of GHG. Right? So in the context here, COGS are given a target by CARB to reduce their GHG. We want them to focus on GHG. What we're seeing more and more is that folks are going after VMT reductions without the clear corresponding, like, oh, this is the GHG reduction we need.
Speaker 16
And the fact that we I think this comes out of a larger VMT conversation that we're having in the legislature, which is why are we talking about VMT disconnected from greenhouse gas emissions reductions and the cost per door to new homes of this conversation around VMT is quite significant. In the 15 to, some argue, hundreds of thousands of dollars per door impact, and so I think that's why you see CBIA with such a sort of visceral reaction to this. And I appreciate the author's comment that this ought to be focused on GHG. And then also very much appreciate the focus that it stayed to your comment on the planning purposes for which three seventy five was originally conceived. And that's I think why we're hopeful continuing to work with stakeholders that we will be able to get there.
Speaker 11
But the cost of the VMT being disconnected are really quite significant. Significant.
Speaker 15
Right. Okay. Thank you. And thank you. Through the chair, if it's I'm just gonna ask the author, do you have any response to that concern or issue or
Speaker 2
This probably one of the top one, maybe the top three issues in stakeholder conversation. Of all of the individual issues, the hardest one to crack, because there are folks who feel strongly in both directions: VMT instead of GHD, GHD instead of VMT, some both. So if we fall down on this, that is likely to be the contributor. So I have a personal point of view about it at this point, just trying to help folks sort this out. But it is it is a critical issue for all the reasons that have been said about its impact on climate and also its impact on our ability to achieve the the other goals that are also in the in the regional transportation plans.
Speaker 15
Okay thank you and then my last comment is- I made this comment and the amount by a mental quality committee but I just want to make sure. To say it here to that it's really important that the bill not get bogged down with so much obligation around the four year update, that moving it to an eight year planning cycle effectively doesn't change things because the four year update is so onerous and extensive that you're basically doing the same thing as you're already doing. So I just wanna make sure that that, I say that I support keeping that to a minimum so that we're able to, see the savings that we were hoping for with this bill in time and energy and money. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you, mister mister chair, thank you also to the other member of the committee for both the the leadership on this issue over over time, but also surfacing all of the key the key questions. Look, we this is a this is a challenging process, but we're trying to trying to put together a a multi stakeholder comprehensive agreement on the big on the on the major reforms that are needed in order for March to to work and to cost less in both cash and in time and in in litigation and everything else. That's really the the purpose here. I mean, you know the challenge as well as I do.
If every for every stakeholder group that has 10 items is insistent on getting all 10 items or nothing, then we will we will, you know, we will not get much further on on this legislation That we're trying to figure out what are the key. What are the absolute essential elements. The folks are concerned about but also things that they really want to see happen some of which will be bills that have failed over and over and over and over again in the legislature. So I think what's in the bill today is a useful start in this effort. It is really driven by the MPO's needs, but they are the closest to it.
So that's no surprise And the case that they're making about how inefficient the system can be, how mind boggling, as Executive Director Jisi was saying, to spend four years making a plan that you have to do every four years and then waiting three hundred days to get it up, get it through the state approval process. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's worse than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. You're, you're still, you're still, you have to start over again before you're even done. You're a year, you're, you're a year still work trying, trying to get the prior plan done. So, it just doesn't make sense.
We cannot and you can disagree about the the original SB three seventy five, you know, goals and what have you. But if if we're in this we're in this in in this now, we wanna make sure it's efficient, it's effective, and and so that we can achieve the climate goals that we're trying to achieve. Also, other housing and community goals that SESs and MTPs and everything else are intended to accomplish, but do it in a way that's efficient and that's going to accomplish it. I mean, just highlight also the CEQA exemption piece that just it was heavily surfaced in the EQ committee. And that is and this is was not my position when we started the bill, but the EQ committee pointed out that no one has ever used a RTP SCS sequel document to tear off of.
No that no one's ever used it further down the line to say, hey, I don't have to do as much environmental analysis on this project because it was all done in the SES. No one has done that. So it's not working. It's not contributing to the all these projects will have the individual projects, the general plans, everything else will continue to be subject to CEQA as is appropriate. But the regional document itself doesn't contribute to the CEQA, the revelations that should come through the CEQA process, and it's just an unnecessary expense.
So with that, I appreciate hopefully the committee's indulgence to let us keep trying to advance the goals that all of the stakeholders, supporters, opponents have articulated today and and hope and I so I'd respectfully ask for an I vote and perhaps say wish me luck.
Speaker 1
We'll we'll bring that up once we have a quorum moving forward. Center you have a second item File item number two SB thirteen fifteen. Would you like to open on that on that bill.
Speaker 2
Press anything. Thank you, mister chair. So SB thirteen fifteen, is an attempt to start to build the the data and the information that we need to be to have a more thoughtful, comprehensive response to, not autonomous vehicles, where we have the legislature and DMV have spent a lot of effort, but in the space in between, the the autonomous features that are available on cars that are intended to be driven by humans. We do have regulations in this space as well, but not not nearly as much. And and some of the preliminary evidence shows this is actually the most the most problematic area for safety.
I mean, there's areas both human drivers and autonomous vehicles also have lots of problems for safety, But one particular one is in this space. And, and there's also been some moves by several of the autonomous vehicle, the the car companies that are in this space, signals, about where they're intending to go and using insurance policies and other things in order to move more and more people towards a subscription based semi autonomous driving feature. So this build doesn't tackle all of that. Our original vision was to try to take some of that on directly. Some of the challenges are emergent though.
You know, we're it it's clear that stuff is coming and potential threats to to the ability of Californians to drive cars that they bought that were human driver human driven cars when they purchased them. We're trying to get ahead of that issue, but this is the the bill is a modest attempt now to simply make sure that we start to build the information infrastructure to do that. And so it merely requires manufacturers when they push out software updates in this space of semi autonomous vehicles that they provide that report to the insurance commissioner, which we will then be able to use over time in order to make smarter policies here as well. So now it's a modest bill in that respect, but it but the looming the potential of an instant change in California as a result of semi autonomous features, plus tort law, plus insurance policies, potentially inducing a wholesale change in our right to drive our own vehicles that we purchase to drive as human beings. The potential is there and it's been described as an infinite money glitch by at least one of the car company's owners.
And so this bill doesn't stop it, but it starts to build the tools and the and the data for us to be able to be responsive and so I would urge and I vote.
Speaker 1
Do you have witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? See none. So, we'll, once we get a quorum, we'll bring that up. Thank you senator for both the measures thanks for being here.
Members we have senator McNerney is see he's in the crowd right there and that's file number four SB twelve seventy five. Yeah, no. I would love to have you there. Thank you senator for being here. You may open when you're ready.
Speaker 7
Well good afternoon vice chair Strickland and distinguished member of the committee. It's my pleasure here today to present SBL twelve seventy five. The point of twelve seventy five is to send is to save taxpayers California taxpayers money and to send less money to Washington DC in one fell swoop. It's an innovative approach and it attacks a significant problem. As you may know California is a donor state.
Speaker 16
We spend much more money to the federal government than we get in return. One number is that last year we spent, we received about $25,000,000,000 less than we paid into the federal government in taxes. That's the largest imbalance in the nation. And this is an incentive when tax payers buy a new car. Basically what SB1275 does is it eliminates the general fund portion of the state sales tax and of motor motor vehicles is the five year bill with a one time addition to the vehicle license fee.
Now the sales tax portion is is not federally tax deductible, so you're going to pay a tax on that and you're not going to get a deduction. But the registration fee, the one time registration fee is federally tax deductible. So California buyers will get a tax deduction when they buy a new car and it could amount to thousands of dollars. So I think this is a one time deal when you buy a new car and it will save, it will reduce the federal tax burden by about $250,000,000 annually. That's the estimate on it.
So that's a very simple way to describe what I'm trying to do here. With us today I have a technical witness, Chaz Alamo. He's a legislative analyst for the LAO and he will provide brief comments and answer questions. He is not opposed or in favor of the bill, but just a technical witness. And with that, I will turn it back to the chair.
Speaker 17
I'm happy to introduce myself and sort of the premise of the the bill idea if that's okay. Yes. Thank you. Again, my name is Chaz Alamo. I'm the income tax analyst at the Legislative Analyst Office.
Thank you for having me, committee chair and member. Senator McNerney reached out to our office for some counsel and ideas last fall about ways to address the affordability challenge facing Californians, but within the federal tax space, if you will. And so that's why I got called in, because I do tax policy. As you may know, federal tax law allows tax filers to deduct either their state income and property taxes or their state sales taxes. Most California filers deduct their income and property taxes because they tend to be higher here California.
And so our office sought to find an area where you have a large one time purchase that we currently, that taxpayers currently owe a sales tax on, but we could in a feasible and sort of seamless way for the taxpayer, transition that sales tax to instead be an ad valorem property tax in the form of the VLF. The best example of one of these opportunities is when someone purchases a newer used vehicle, it's a large purchase. The the dealers are managing the tax transaction both for sales and VLF at the time of purchase. And in many ways, under this tax policy change as proposed, the buyer may not even notice a difference, except when they are filing their taxes in the next year, if they are an itemizer, they will be able to deduct an additional amount of this additional VLF from their federal income taxes. As a bit of an example, because this is sort of abstract, the average car now in the state sells for about $50,000 and so the state's general fund portion sales tax on that purchase is $2,000 Under SB1275, the taxpayer would instead pay an additional VLF of $2,000 instead of the sales tax, and then they'd be able to deduct, if they itemize, that $2,000 from their federal income taxes.
Speaker 21
Most filers who are in this sort of itemizing gap Ten seconds, ten seconds. Course, are subject to a federal income tax rate of about 25%. So that's a $500 savings on their federal income taxes for those filers. Happy to take any questions.
Speaker 1
Thanks so much for being here, I really appreciate it. Any witnesses in support for identification purposes? Any witnesses in opposition? Back to the committee.
Speaker 15
Yes. This is a novel idea, and it's quite creative, and I applaud you for coming up with it. So I'm curious to see how it goes as it moves through the process, if there are any problems that emerge that we haven't thought of. But I'm looking forward to supporting it and we'll make a motion when it gets to it.
Speaker 16
Yes. Thank you. I thank the committee for for entertaining the bill. As chair of revenue and tax, I want to find ways to send less money to Washington. I reached out to the LAO.
They responded with this idea, and so we we went with it. I think it's a great way to save taxpayers' money and to send a little bit less to Washington.
Speaker 25
Well, thank you. Once we have a quorum, we'll bring it up. Thank you, senator, for being here. Thank you. For the audience we're gonna bring up the chairman's bill- file item number nine SB thirteen ninety two by the chairman Cortez.
Speaker 18
Okay. You have a seat right here if you want. Thank you for being here. Thanks for day. Anytime.
Anytime for you, you know, there's let us take this out of order. So Sure. I done. Appreciate Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate the presentation opportunity on SB thirteen ninety two, otherwise known as Leno's Law.
We feel it's a common sense update to the existing smog exemption statute. The last year this committee heard SB seven twelve the original and those lock bill proposing to exempt a small group of vehicles from smog requirements and I do want to indicate Not sure was at the top of my speaking points but once again this is a joint authored bill although I'm the lead author it's joint authored by senator Grove as well. That said here we are in SB thirteen ninety two is a narrowly tailored version of last year's bill. Making eligible small fraction of cars of the total. Fleet of cars out there on the road the cars must be used principally for historic display charities and parades and cannot be daily drivers.
As a car guy myself I've been first hand Seen first hand how the current emissions mandates impact. People who maintain renovated vintage vehicles From screening tools that can't gauge emissions to a lack of facilities and professionals to lack of parts that are available For cars in the years that we're talking about here with the exemptions California smog exemption for the oldest vehicles which is 1975 and older currently has not been meaningfully updated in nearly two decades actually I think this twenty two years to be exact. Haven't looked it up earlier today. In that time the vehicles that sit just outside that threshold Of nineteen seventy five- have kept aging into a new reality not only are they aging out through permanent retirement- no longer in California's fleet I mean obviously this is a diminishing number of vehicles over time- but the ones that around are 40 or 50 years old and in that means the ones that we're talking about here today- for potential exemptions these are vintage vehicles in every meaningful sense the cars this bill would impact- are typically show cars. They've been meticulously renovated and minimally driven for the sake of historic preservation, and yet the law doesn't treat them that way.
They're not daily drivers. They're carefully maintained and often driven just a few 100 miles a year and used for shows, parades, charitable events, exhibitions. The Bureau of Automotive Repair confirms that mid-1970s through mid-1990s vehicles account for fewer than 600,000 of California's 35,000,000 registered vehicles. I realize that data point includes a whole bunch of vehicles that aren't covered by this bill so I don't want to confuse matters. This bill is trying to add or create an exemption that's similar to the 75 an earlier exemption- for maximum ten years so we're talking about through 85 if you add everything up that's in this bill- definitely pre nineteen nineties.
So it's a smaller, even smaller fraction of the total number of vehicles that are out there. We have 35,000,000 registered vehicles in California, so to put it in perspective. SB thirteen ninety two addresses very little of that but an important part of it for folks who are dealing with these vehicles. The emissions impact is minimal. Valley Clean Air Now, an organization focused on the San Joaquin Valley, of the most pollution burdened regions in the country, supports this bill.
They know that roughly 3% of California's cars produce approximately 35% of light duty vehicle emissions and those are high mileage malfunctioning daily drivers not collector cars save for display or modified To operate more cleanly. The infrastructure to test and repair these vehicles is disappearing. Fewer smog stations maintain the equipment to test late nineteen seventies early nineteen eighty systems. Parts from defunct manufacturers. Like American motors and also bill are no longer available ironically the current smog requirement prevents restores from installing cleaner aftermarket equipment that would actually reduce emissions.
If you do that you're not gonna get it. A smog check. At least you're not gonna pass. S. B.
Thirteen ninety two provides a tailored exemption for vehicles that are at least 41 model years old. You meet the statutory definition of a collector vehicle. It includes meaningful safeguards including a prohibition on use as a primary chance patient and a requirement the vehicles are used primarily for shows parades and store displays. So again the bills narrow it's well defined It's an adjustment that aligns all the actual use and impact these days of this particular class of vehicle. And I want to be transparent the bill will be a work in progress to some extent- it was last year that's how we got to this more narrowed.
Point this year- and my goal is to just make the laws clear and simple and easy to follow friend. Enthusiasts while ensuring that the law includes the right guardrails. I think we can have environmentally sound policies that are also policies that allow average Californians who do this kind of work and collect these kind of cars to live with a scheme that actually works for them. We'll try to strengthen the verification framework going forward will try to ensure that compliance is very straightforward to make sure the exemptions are not misused. Of those of us who have listened carefully to DMV and any number of hearings including informational hearings know that.
It's significant for them to. When we create programs that cause them to have to go back into Standing up a program for lack of a better way to put it And so we've narrowed this down to the point where. I having their algorithm stop sending the small renewal notices out Especially in this first five year tranche Should be at the simple matter of. Moving the dial from seventy five Five years forward there's really nothing that people have to fill out or create in terms of this bill We have a long tradition of supporting automotive. Heritage like this Big big events From Pebble Beach to Pomona The Peterson automotive museum the antique automobile club of America valley can Monterey County and the classic car community across the state support this bill.
The law hasn't kept pace with the times and these cars have. I ask for your support for SB thirteen ninety two and I'd like to introduce. Our witness Mike Hennessy with Hennessy automotive. Actually have witnesses I'm sorry in Francine Mata with the Sacramento all riders council Victor Munoz of CEMA will be available for technical questions and I should indicate that Mr Hennessy's Quite capable of responding to A technical questions as he is operated not just as a restorer but also as a DMV licensed transferr dealer auctioneer bidder and car show enthusiast who's actually won awards for his own NPR style program, called the car guy if I remember it properly and, You watch this show. Thank you informing people, you know how to try to navigate some of these rules.
So, we're happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. We'll turn over to witnesses So
Speaker 1
thank you. I don't know which one of you wants to go first, but two minutes each.
Speaker 19
only thing I do know is I don't think I I lectured at college, on this topic. I must say I'm an expert at it. Never been an expert really anything too much, but I know this topic pretty well. I talk teach it. I do a television show.
Been in the business for forty something years. And I know by looking at everybody here, I cannot educate you all on this topic. But I do know that their change needs to be done, and I thought senator Cortez, he started it and talked to me about it, threw in my inputs, and there's no doubt that this is a clean bill. This is the right thing to really do. The cost of these things, if any of you remember, some of you might not have a car or old enough, over 50 years old.
Speaker 12
How often do you see a 70, I mean, an '80 Camaro driving down the street during the week? You don't. These cars are used on weekends, events. And by the way, if you believe in charity, I would like you to support it in one way. These people bring these cars to charity events so people see them, remember them, and they they pay to be there.
Speaker 19
And if we take away some of this the technology in the eighties, I I was promised not to go there, but it was terrible. It was terrible for the technology. So there's people like my shop to smog them. I mean, we're pulling our hair out. The equipment to smog these vehicles is not updated.
The equipment is the manufacturers that make it don't even have equipment good enough to even do it anymore. We're pulling our hair out and trying to get parts for them, like senator mentioned, like figure American Motors. People remember Rambler, of course, that's who American wrote. Started from Nash, and I'm not gonna give you history lesson. But that's how these things started.
These companies went out of business, and the automobile drops the ball. So trying to get a part called OEM, which means manufacturer, original manufacturer's parts, they're not out there. And if you gotta get a used part from an auto wrecker, I mean, we're not gonna, we're not fixing the smog problem. There's ways to cure it. And I think this is a good program.
It's a good bill and I recommend it highly.
Speaker 20
Hi I can attest I just went through that problem it took me four weeks to get my tags. It's been wild. Good afternoon chair committee members my name is Francine Mata president and co founder of the Sacramento low rider commission. Also co founder of the California low rider alliance representing over 28 cities across California. I'm here on behalf of the low rider community our community is rooted in family culture and community service.
For us, these cars are not just vehicles. They're passed down through our generations. I have one of my mom's cars. I have I'm actually a owner of two cars. They are built in our garages with our families.
Besides us teaching respect, discipline, and pride, and beyond that, we are a major community contributor. We organize charity events, give back to families in need, mentor young people, partner with schools, and create safe, positive spaces in our communities. Our lowriding is not just a culture, it's a pathway to connection, purpose, and opportunity. It's a form of positive mental health. It's our art on wheels, And, it all each one tells a story.
These are not daily drivers. They are used for shows, parades, community events. We just did an exhibit at the California State Fair, record breaking 200,000 attendees. And, we will be doing that again this year. They are preserved with care and driven sparingly.
Speaker 8
SB thirteen ninety two reflects that reality. It provides a limited responsible pathway for our collector vehicles that represent only a small fraction of cars on the road that are very rarely driven. Maintaining compliance is becoming harder and harder, more expensive, not because we don't care, but because the systems and parts for these vehicles are disappearing. This bill strikes a balance protecting our environment while preserving culture and community. We're asking for
Speaker 20
I'm asking for fair recognition of a culture that continues to give back to California. And, I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thanks for being here. I understand you're here for technical questions. Yes, Thank you. Thank you. Any, witnesses in support for identification purposes?
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Tina Tatale from Modesto in support of SB thirteen ninety two.
Speaker 1
Jerry Thompson, Modesto, Home of American Graffiti, and and also a member of the California Low Rider Alliance and the Cultural Low Rider Police Car Project with Modesto High. We're heavily in support of this Litter T92. Thanks for being here. Next up.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. My name is Gloria Baca. I'm support Francimata is my daughter, and I support I support this bill.
Speaker 26
Thank you, mister chair. Matt Robinson. Was asked to convey the support of San Joaquin County Supervisor Rickman.
Speaker 11
My name is Colonel Steve Portola Stockton, and I'm here to again support Gleno's law. I'm leaving each of you an explanation of why I'm supporting this law.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Is there any witnesses in opposition? We'll have to clear a couple of the seats here. Thank you for being here.
Please come have a seat. You'll each get two minutes. You can decide which one goes first.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chairman. Brendan Tewig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts. Air districts don't administer the smog check program, but we're supporters because it's an equitable way of achieving emissions reductions essential to meeting federal and state health based clean air standards, which is much more difficult now with the federal rollbacks. While we appreciate California's rich automotive history, unfortunately, this bill will substantially increase air pollution and harm public health.
Speaker 23
This bill changes the definition of collector motive motor vehicle, including removing the requirement that you actually be a collector. So a vehicle owner can now qualify for the exemption if they just think to themselves that the vehicle will be used primarily in shows, parades, charitable functions, and that it will not be used as their primary mode of transportation. With the words primarily and primary and no accountability, it's basically ten years of old cars that would automatically be exempt. California Air Resources Board data shows that a nineteen eighty two passenger car that passes smog would emit approximately a 123 times the emissions of a twenty twenty five car. If the nineteen eighty two car is driven 7,500 miles a year, which is allowed under this bill, that's the equivalent of a twenty twenty five car being driven 922,500 miles a year.
So while there are only about eighty two hundred nineteen eighty two cars, if they're all on the road in one day, that's the NOx emissions equivalents of one million twenty twenty five cars. So, these are just numbers from one model year of cars that actually pass smog. So we're concerned that emissions control systems degrade over time.
Speaker 23
Yes, sir. That emissions controls emissions degrade over time, and then also we're concerned about tampering. And so if all that happens, they don't go through through smog, then, all the emissions data I just mentioned goes up. Thank you. We're opposed.
Thank you.
Speaker 31
Bill McGavern with the Coalition for Clean Air in opposition. We've been supporters of the Smog Check program since it started in the nineteen eighties, and it's been an effective program. But despite that and other successes, California still has by far the worst air pollution in the country, and we're in violation of both federal and state air quality standards. That puts us at risk of federal sanctions, which could mean the loss of transportation funding. It also damages our health.
Speaker 24
Thousands of Californians die every year from air pollution. So we should be doing everything we can to reduce that air pollution. This bill goes in the other direction. It would add, according to the Air Resources Board, 1.58 tons per day of excess emissions of NOx oxides of nitrogen, which is the pollutant we worry about the most because it leads to both smog and soot. Since I know most people don't think in terms of tons per day of NOx, let me put that in perspective.
It would be the equivalent of adding roughly 30 additional model year 2020 vehicles to the road for each exempted model year 1976 to 1985 vehicles so- for those reasons we ask you to hold the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you- other witnesses in opposition for identification purposes? Thank you.
Speaker 3
Alan Ebbes with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Jacob Evans with Sierra California in opposition and registering opposition for California Environmental Voters, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, Regional Asthma Management Prevention, and Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Well, regrettably, I am going to need to vote no on this, as we communicated to the chair in advance. But this is the second year of this of this effort. So Jay Leno's law two point o basically, based on last year's SP seven twelve from senator Grove, which I also voted no on in transportation and also on the floor. And the reason for that is basically what the opposition said, which is that it will increase air pollution and reduce public health.
And I think this bill actually is possibly worse than last year's because it removes the requirement that a vehicle be insured as a collector vehicle. And the insurance process is actually a check on making sure that, the vehicle is used on a limited basis. So I'm I'm very concerned about it just being the fact that somebody can self attest to themselves that this car qualifies and then they don't need to to get any type of a smog check. And so I I'll just I just wanna highlight the opposition argument. It's just three sentences, and I'd just like to read them because I think that this is really instructive.
Speaker 24
Without regular inspections through smog check, vehicle emissions control systems can degrade to the point of being entirely ineffective, be tampered with or removed altogether, which will result in untold air pollution impacts even greater than illustrated above, making California's already challenging air quality issues even more difficult to address. Again, older vehicles are not held to the same emission standard as newer vehicles. In fact, they are not even held to the emission standards they achieved when they were new many years ago. This is because smog check takes into consideration factors such as the age, make, and model of each vehicle and allows for the expected deterioration of the vehicles emissions control over time. Is therefore important to ensure that the emissions control systems of significantly older vehicles are still operating as intended.
Speaker 15
I'm so I as I said last year about the bill I would be willing to consider something I'm not concerned about the good actors something that allowed for- an older vehicle to be to be- driven to a parade and it's driven on the road for one mile along the parade as a collector item but to me this just opens the potential floodgates for an enormous number of cars to qualify- which is not in the best interest of the state. So with that I respectfully I'm going to need to be voting no today thank you.
Speaker 1
The center of If I don't mind I I would just say I'm co author of this bill I think this is a very sensible bill I think autos and classic cars are part of our culture. Here in California. One of my favorite bands of all time is the Beach Boys, and almost every song is having to do our car culture here in California. As a former mayor of Huntington Beach, we've had a lot of classic cars come through. Main Street was economic development for our city in Huntington Beach.
And many of the coast of Orange County I know, they've had classic car shows where people come in and and see a lot of the old cars that are out there. And and we have the largest parade West Of Mississippi, fourth of July parade. And you see a lot of these classic cars in our parade. And so I think this is a reasonable measure. I'm proud to be a coauthor.
I'm hoping that this actually gets the governor's a desk and get signed because I think it'd be very good for for California so With that We don't have a quorum Mister chairman so we'll have to take that up when we have a quorum. Would you like to close?
Speaker 18
Yeah, first of all, let me thank the witnesses for being here In some cases Who traveled a long distance to be here and to offer their expertise I would I thought one of the most important things that Mr. Hennessy said had nothing to do with data and details, specifically, although I think it should be explored, was how many nineteen eighty Camaros do we see out there and I would invite a tour of Sacramento in just even a five square block area and all the parking garages I'm willing to take a look at all of them and I would challenge the opposition to identify the five years of cars in this first tranche and the five years of cars in the second tranche. You aren't gonna find them. I drive back and forth from San Jose. Don't get to fly, twice twice a week up and down Highway 5 with an EV of two EVs, of two old collector cars that don't need exemptions because they're already exempt, by statute.
The only time I see a car in this era, in this vintage, is on the back of a trailer, being pulled by a pickup truck because people aren't gonna, put miles on a 41 old collector car and depreciate the car. And I and I worry that how the sequence of things actually works, and I'll be quick, how the sequence of things actually work in terms of the registration and the small certification of a vehicle, is out of whack with some of the opposition arguments. For example, to put collector car insurance among on a vehicle at initial transfer when it's in all likelihood at 40 years old a project car that's barely running or not running And to say that you now have to go out to The very select group of insurance companies and pay a high premium to put collector car insurance on that vehicle just so you can transfer it from the seller to the buyer because only way you can transfer the seller to the buyer. Is with the small check. A small check probably on a car with the parts aren't available to comply with the small check which is you know the biggest.
A problem that we're having on the on the author side with. The status quo so. You know I wish the opposition formal opposition could come up with something better than the idea that all these cars whatever the number is it's not many will get better data if we can out of DMV. You know how hard that is, senator. But it's few cars.
But to even think that all those cars would be traveling on the road all in the same day, I'm sorry. I it's it's it's fanciful I mean it's just it's it's not gonna happen it doesn't happen if it did happen we could all go out there right now and take a look at it it's just not the way the real world operates but with that I would respectfully ask for your I vote and of course to the
Speaker 1
chair I appreciate your co authorship Yes no thank you thanks again and thanks for the witnesses for being here thank you.
Speaker 1
We closed I'm sorry I'm sorry thank you for traveling up here though thank you.
Speaker 1
yeah thank you I appreciate it. Mister chair would you I don't see another- witness would you like to bring up your other item. Mister chair. There's no other witness would you like to bring up your other item. Oh sure sure.
For the audience this would be file item number eight SB 1375 by chairman Cortez. May I open when you're ready Mr. Chairman?
Speaker 18
Okay, thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and member. We're working on plural still. I will start by accepting the committee amendments and expressing gratitude to you and your staff.
For the work on this. On this bill which is on SP thirteen seventy five. SP thirteen seventy five is a narrow and targeted solution for situations where major transit and rail projects have already completed extensive environmental review. Through multiple adopted plans and prior environmental documents. In those cases repeating the same analysis does not improve environmental protection and only adds years of delay millions of cost.
S. B. Thirteen seventy five allows qualifying projects to avoid that duplication. That resources can be invested directly in delivering public projects and improve mobility, reduce emissions, and strengthen communities. The Derradon Station Modernization Project in San Jose is one example on which years of environmental work has already been completed for several partner agencies.
The modernization effort there will connect multiple rail and transit systems, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enable transit oriented housing and economic development. SB thirteen seventy five keeps all other environmental laws, permits, and community commitments fully in place. That includes protections for water and habitat historic resources construction impacts. And continued public engagement- all left alone or worked into the bill. The committee amendments strengthen this balance as they reinforce our commitment- to community engagement and environmental stewardship while recognizing environmental mobility benefits of these transit and rail projects.
SB1375 responsibly saves time and public funds to enable the delivery of key statewide mobility climate economic development projects. I do want to say before I forget, we appreciate the work of policy committees, plural, so far on on this- because it has taken- a lot of work- to get it right including at the prior committee and- my gratitude again for that with us today is Sergio Lopez. Campbell City Council Member Chair of the Santa Clara Valley transportation authority. And I believe Eric island is here station planning manager for the city of San Jose department transportation which has a project that would fit into this matrix. Thank you for being here two minutes each thank you
Speaker 32
thank you very much chair and committee member My name is Sergio Lopez and as noted I serve on the Campbell City Council and as chair of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. I want to thank senator Cortezi first of all for his leadership and unwavering commitment to bring critical projects like this one to life in our region and across the state. I'm here to express my strongest support for Senate Bill thirteen seventy five, which will thoughtfully reduce duplicative reviews and save public funds to enable the timely delivery of critical transit projects. SB thirteen seventy five helps our communities deliver public transit projects that will create a cleaner, more connected transportation system and support our regional economy. Across Santa Clara County, we are working to build a world class multimodal transit network.
Speaker 26
The Dierdont Station modernization project in San Jose is a leading example of the type of public project that will benefit from SB thirteen seventy five. It's made possible by bringing together multiple systems, including Caltrain, BTA, Capital Corridor, ACE, and eventually BART, all in partnership with our neighbors such as the city of San Jose. This kind of investment opens and supports thousands of good paying jobs. It opens the door to new housing near transit and drives economic development in the heart of our communities, And all this while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by making transit the most reliable and attractive option. Thank you again senator Cortez he for championing this effort now respectfully ask for I vote.
Speaker 17
Just very quickly, I'd like to echo first thanks for hearing this bill, and thanks for senator Cortese for championing it. No, I think the speakers have already said everything there's to say about this. It's a project with great Long term environmental benefits. There've been there's been a lot of study in the area We've had rigorous No Community outreach So yeah we think This is this is something worth supporting. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thanks for being here. Any witnesses in support for identification purposes?
Speaker 28
Steve Hansen from Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, also known as SPRRR, in strong support.
Speaker 25
Mister chair and members, Michael Pimtel here on behalf of Caltrain. We don't yet have a formal position of support. However, we're bringing it to our board with the support recommendation soon. Thank you. Thank the author.
Speaker 8
Afternoon, chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in identification opposition? Seeing none. Any questions?
Seeing none. Or senator?
Speaker 15
I was gonna say I saw this bill in EQ and we were happy to work on it and I think it's a great bill and I will support it and make a motion when we get to that point thank you.
Speaker 18
yeah I I again appreciate. The opportunity today to present a bill in another policy committee hopefully with your support and I do want to again acknowledge Senator Blakespeare in her committee. She did more than just see the bill. She really guided the policy process significantly before it got to the Transportation Committee to make sure that we would have the kind of support that you saw today. So with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll bring it up as soon as we get a quorum. Members if you're watching and you have a bill in transportation please come down we only have a few more bills left and please come down and present your bills.
Speaker 18
Just for purposes of, making sure people are clear who might be watching from, watching virtually, we'll formally recess, but just for a few minutes, we hope, until the author comes in and immediately end the recess and reconvene. This is the first bill I'll preside over. Thanks to vice chair Strickland who has carried the day thus far and center Hurtado. Whenever you're ready for witnesses are here you may approach. And present.
This is our file item five I believe SP twelve eighty seven.
Speaker 30
Thank you Mr chair and members I am here to present SB twelve eighty seven the short line railroad modernization act of 2026. SB twelve eighty seven is about making smart targeted investments where they matter most in our transportation network. It creates a modest targeted tax credit to encourage private investment in short line railroad infrastructure, improving track, strengthening bridges, reducing emissions, and improving safety and reliability across California's short line rail network. For the Central Valley, this is critical. Short line railroads are the backbone of our goods movement system.
Short line railroads move some of the most productive agricultural goods in the world, linking small and mid sized growers, processors, and manufacturers to ports, major rail carriers, and national and international markets. The problem is that many of these rail lines are operating on infrastructure that is decades old and in some cases over a 100 years old. That means lower weight limits, lower speeds, and missed economic opportunities. When short line rails can't operate efficiently, that fright shifts onto trucks. One rail car equals three to five trucks.
And in my district, we see our rural highways more congested, more wear and tear on our roads, and more emissions in communities that are that are already struggling with some of the worst air quality in the nation. SB twelve eighty seven helps change that by modernizing short line rail. We reduce truck traffic, lower emissions, and improve air quality in the valley and across California, especially in communities that have carried a disproportionate pollution burden for far too long. This bill is also about economic opportunity. Upgraded rail infrastructure lowers transportation cost, allows for heavier and more efficient shipments, and helps our small businesses and agricultural producers stay competitive in a global market.
Speaker 28
It also encourages new development near rail serve sites, supports job creation, and strengthens local economies throughout the valley. This proposal is also grounded in prior state work. The concept was identified in Caltrans 2019 short line rail improvement plan, aligning with our broader goals around climate, freight movement, and sustainable infrastructure. I do want to make clear that it's it's not a handout, it's a public private partnership and rail operators must make the investment first to qualify for the credit and while the program is capped at 18,000,000 annually, if fully utilized, these investments are expected to generate new economic activity, increase property values, and ultimately grow state and local revenue state and local tax revenues. With me today, I have Ross Lane from, Genesee and Wyoming, and Ken Beard, president of the California Short Line Railroad Association.
Speaker 30
We also have Justin Bentes from Mikkelsen and Company available to answer any technical questions related to tax credits.
Speaker 18
Right we can move to the witnesses at this time and you can proceed in whatever order you wish all a couple minutes each.
Speaker 28
At will thank you Mister chairman the vice chair members of the committee my name is Ross lane I represent Genesee Wyoming we operate six small class three freight railroads in the state. None of them make up what you would consider a network but we really operate from a border with Oregon all the way down to the border with Mexico. I want to thank the senator, her staff and committee staff as well for all their work to get us this far and for all the support supporting our short line railroads. Short line railroads connect farms, manufacturers, ports, inland ports, and coal supports the small businesses to our national freight rail network. Think of us as the Horizon Airlines to the Alaska Airlines system or the county and dirt roads to our nation's interstate system.
Without short line railroads, Californians would pay more and even higher prices in the form of worse air quality in overcrowded public roads in addition to what they would pay at their local grocery stores and other manufacturers. Small railroads like the San Joaquin Valley Railroad that operates in the Centers District and the California Northern Railroad, both G and W properties that operate in Sacramento area, mirror the local economies in which they operate. On any day, California Shoreline Railroad could be moving wine, televisions, fertilizer, lumber products to build more housing in the state, or agricultural products to feed more Californians. Many of these shoreline railroads are operating on infrastructure that's a 100, over a 100 years old in some cases. They operate safely today but they don't generate enough revenue to make the kinds of transformational investments needed to support the state's goals of reducing emissions, reducing wear and tear on public roads, and increasing economic development activity in both rural areas and coastal communities.
Speaker 13
Excuse me. This bill would also partner with the state of California to reduce emissions and reduce public roadway damage, which we believe using a conservative benefit cost analysis more than pays for itself, just by the reduction in wear and tear on public roads itself. In short, this is a targeted bill. It supports our state's shoreline railroads and supports communities across the state. I respectfully urge and I vote today.
Speaker 30
Good afternoon Mister chairman members of committee my name is Ken and beard and the president of the Sierra northern railway a freight operating short line with operations throughout the state of California. In addition I'm also the president of the California short line railroad association this is a trade association representing more than 25 short line railroads in the state of California. Today I'll be speaking on their behalf. Short lines of the first mile last mile of our freight rail network We handle over 25% of the freight rail coming to and going from California. Many of these lines that the short lines operate were acquired from class one operators after years of neglect.
Speaker 31
Today, line operators are brought new life to these branch lines. They continue to require significant investment to remain safe, reliable, and economically viable. Short line railroaders typically spend 85% of their revenue in operating the railroad. That leaves very little money left over to upgrade and maintain the railroad. Bills like 12 87 will allow us to improve the track, upgrade our bridges, and add safety improvements along the railroad.
It allows us to stretch every dollar further. Freight rail is the safest form of re ground transportation in The United States. Railroads can move one ton of freight over 500 miles on a gallon of diesel, three to four times more efficient than diesel trucks, producing 75% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Every freight car shipped takes three to four trucks off the highway which reduces wear and tear on our California roads congestion and creates a safe safer environment on the highway. Short lines are vital to the state of California and a rural commuter and agricultural economy.
All major ports in California are served by a short line railroad. In addition, line railroads connect disadvantaged communities to the National Freight Network. Short line railroads operate transloads inland ports, enabling small communities to have access to clean efficient rail transportation. For these reasons, respectfully ask for your support of SB twelve eighty seven. Thank you.
Speaker 18
All right. Thank you for being here. We'll go to others in the room who would like to express support at this time.
Speaker 25
Mister chair members, Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Good afternoon. I'm Tracy Alles with Modesto and Empire Attraction Company, and Modesto in support of twelve eighty seven.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon. Justin Bentes with Nicholson and Company. We support the bill.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon. Kennen Beer with Sierra Northern Railway and we support twelve eighty seven. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Dennis Albioni on behalf of the California Grain and Feed Association and Pacific Ag and Poultry Association, support. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Alright. We'll now go to opposition witnesses. Do we have anyone Who is a lead opposition witness. Seeing none anyone who wishes to speak in opposition you can come forward at this time. I'm seeing none will come back to the committee.
For comment questions or a motion
Speaker 18
We don't have a quorum thank you for reminding me by sure. And so you're welcome to close at this time center and when we get a quorum We'll take it up.
Speaker 1
I'm sorry to the audience, but we're gonna go for a brief recess, and we'll come back once we get authors or a quorum.
Speaker 18
Really senator Dolly. We have so I thought you guys got Mr Stern over here. Alright our second to last author senator Dolly on SB ten sixty four is our file item seven. And you may proceed whenever you're ready. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Thank you, chair and members. As Senate Bill ten sixty four bringing comments into ARB's clean truck checks. The the this is a simple bill about the old used vehicles. These vehicles driven nose lexton 1,000 miles a year. This bill applies to on road heavy duty equipment, heavy duty vehicles, off road diesel vehicles, and special equipment vehicles.
This bill does not change emission standards. Under XB ten sixty four, these vehicles will be texted no more than twice no. Once a year. According to ARB, less than 1% trucks fail the clean air check, eight months. Eight months.
Speaker 9
This is a fractional adjustment in the House for Affordability. Did the state omniscient speeches?
Speaker 33
Hi, good afternoon. Thank you very much. So as the Assembly Member, I'm sorry, Senator. As the
Speaker 33
these supplies to very low mileage trucks and yardage vehicles. We, Dennis Albioni, behalf of California Grain and Feed Association of Pacific Egg and Poultry, These, we use the yard vehicles to pull, materials around the yards. The trucks are under 1,000 miles. And so if you're in a rural area and you have to drive, say 50 miles to the smog check, that leaves, you know, 900 more miles left. And if you have to do that twice a year, you can see the challenges.
Speaker 20
It also takes, you know, a truck driver off the duty for that period of time, both transportation as well as the smog check. And as the Senator, articulated, this does not change any of the standards. It's just less frequency. And these, vehicles are being driven less frequently by this fact that they are under a thousand miles if they're on road and yard, carts are usually used seasonal, within like the packing shed or those types of variants. So, we actually believe that if you really sharpen your pencil and do the calculations, that this could actually save air emissions due to the fact that they're still meeting the standards and you're not having to travel those distances more than once a year.
Speaker 33
And now, right now it's twice. So we think this is a good practical approach and look forward to working with you folks as the bill moves along. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Moving and Storage Association, we also operate a lot of low mileage trucks. In California appreciate the senator's efforts thank you.
Speaker 18
All right do we have opposition witnesses. The lead opposition witness. Please come forward. Have a couple minutes?
Speaker 24
I'll take not nearly that much. Bill McGovern with the Coalition for Clean Air also speaking this afternoon for the Union of Concerned Scientists. We're strongly opposed to the bill in print, which of course is much broader than what was just presented. With the proposed amendment, we look forward to reviewing the text of the amendment and also getting an analysis from CARB of what they expect to be the emission impacts. If Mr.
Albiani is correct and it will reduce emissions, then we'll be very happy to see that. So we look forward to seeing that analysis. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Let me, before we come back to the committee, let me ask if there's anyone else who wants to express opposition. You may come forward.
Speaker 9
Doctor. Pam O'Dell, climate action California still remain opposed. Looking forward to carbs analysis. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Seeing no others let me ask senator Dolly you referenced in your opening I think in a couple places the committee amendments. Just wanted to make sure you are on the record as accepting them. Yeah. Okay.
Thank you so much. We'll bring it back to the committee. Guess we Only have
Speaker 18
We don't have the quorum yet. We've been like this all day long. We're asking we're asking colleagues to send members this way if you see them, and we'll take up your bill as soon as we can. Thank you so much for the presentation. Oh, did you have a question?
I apologize, senator. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. There's no further comments or questions for the committee.
Speaker 18
Thank you. We're gonna be in another short term, we hope, recess until we get the remaining author. And then we're hoping to get the entire band together so we can go through these bills and get everybody's votes on the record. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Essentially, the the premise of this bill was now that SB 79 is law and it is coming into effect, there are lot of areas like mine that are captured within that bill, where you can't walk safely on the street or ride a bike without fear of getting run over. This is what I do. I live along the orange line in Los Angeles and have to walk my kids in a stroller on streets without sidewalks where people are driving 70 miles an hour and it is scary and yet we are technically a transit oriented zone even though we have no sidewalks, no bike lanes somehow we're gonna be adding more density there. I want to make that paradigm work even though I did not support the measure I still want to make 79 work. So this is really an effort to get more active transportation projects in those zones so that the communities at least will start to trust these projects before they come in so that I don't have to weave in and out of traffic with the stroller Well Thousands of new units come online In our region So anyhow I'm I'm hoping this study does go somewhere and we don't Just leave it sitting on the shelf but You know we know how these things go so just wanted to put that on your radar for those of you who are also impacted by '79 and, and want to see more ATP in your, your region so people can walk, bike and live safely in their communities.
I would respectfully ask for I vote on it. I'll turn to Mark Bukovich.
Speaker 14
Mark Wieschelich on behalf of Streets for All. I'll also be brief. You know, when we introduced this this version of the bill, it was a very, you know, big swing. I think, you know, ruffled a lot of feathers understandably. But with the the goal was to just get more street safety funding when the great senator from Pico Rivera at the DUI hearing asked the first panel, what would you do if you could wave a magic wand?
You know, their answer was, was fund more street safety projects in California. And, you know, the ATP is a really constrained source of funds. And so we were looking just to try to find a way to get more street safety funding. You know, what we proposed didn't work, and we we get that. And so just appreciate working.
And I'm sincere all sincerely appreciate working with the committee staff and the chair so deeply on on this policy, and and I think we're we're thrilled to take the amendments, and thank you so much.
Speaker 18
Alright. Before we take any more testimony, we're gonna establish a quorum.
Speaker 9
Senators court Senators Cortez Here. Cortez here. Senator Strickland? Hello?
Speaker 9
Senators Cortez here. Cortez here. Strickland? Archuleta? Adeguin?
Atagine Here. Here. Blakespeare. Dali?
Speaker 9
Dali here. Gonzales. Grayson? Grayson here. Menjivar.
Richardson? Here. Richardson here. Segarto? Here.
Sierto here. Valadares? Weiner? Here. Weiner here.
Speaker 18
Alright. We have a quorum. We'll come back to the bill presentation at this time, and others who wish to express support come up now. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeanie Wardwaller on behalf of People for Bikes and Climate and support.
Speaker 10
Good afternoon. Sofia Afikova with the coalition for clean air in support of the bill as is in print. Also registering support on behalf of the planning conservation link.
Speaker 18
Okay. Opposition? If you lead opposition you can come on up and sit down here. You have a couple minutes you can identify yourself.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon, chair members. Chris Lee with Politico Group here removing opposition on behalf of several clients, including Transportation California, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Merced County Association of Governments, the Nevada County Transportation Commission, and the Tulare County Association of Governments. Largely, a lot of rural communities that would have had, funding taken away from priorities projects that they have, but appreciate the work of the committee and the author to address all of those concerns. And again, we'll be removing opposition based on the amendments.
Speaker 18
Thank thank you. Let me pause and just make sure, the senator is the author is taking the amendments. Okay. Thank you. And, next witness, you're welcome to express opposition if you wish.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon, chair and members. I just wanna echo who spoke for me. Vin oh, sorry. Vincenzo Caparelli here on behalf
Speaker 6
We're removing opposition on behalf of the California Association of Council Governments for the same reasons that the previous speaker spoke.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Thank you for being here to do that. Anyone else wishing to come forward. Express a position sorry to see none will come back to the committee I'm center grayson
Speaker 18
right we have a first motion of the day. Is there any other. Comments questions if not I'm will hurry up with get to the roll call right after we allow the senator close.
Speaker 15
Thanks for consideration I do hope that will stay committed to trying to find some way to make SP 79 work especially in those areas where it's. Not safe to walk on the street or to bike To get around we know we know we want more people biking walking but not everywhere San Francisco So With the author here I'm hoping that. We can all Pitch in and help along for areas like mine where people drive very fast and I'm trying to walk so. That respect the S. Rival.
Speaker 18
Thank you for working with the committee staff. I will call the roll on this bill.
Speaker 9
The motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortezi? Aye. Cortezi, I. Strickland, Archuleta, Aragine?
Aye. Aragine, I. Blakespeare, Dali? Gonzales, Grayson. I.
Grayson, I. Menjivar, Richardson. I. Richardson, I. Sallarto.
Valadares, Weiner? Weiner, I.
Speaker 18
Okay. We're at five zero. We'll keep the roll open on that bill. Thank you again.
Speaker 18
You wanna take you wanna switch? I guess you can't do that. You could probably just move over. You want to move over one and then let her take this one? Okay.
Seems like we have enough spaces anyway. It's remarkably for such a big committee. Okay which is up to a musical chairs up here to. Allow for microphone issues. And we'll come back to the assistant now with the call of first of all actually we can entertain a motion on the consent calendar.
All right do we have a motion. Move by senator Grayson. And we'll call the
Speaker 9
roll the motion to adopt the consent calendar senators Cortez I Cortez I. Strickland Archuleta at a game Adeguin, I. Blakespeare, Dali? Aye. Dali, I.
Gonzalez, Grayson? Aye. Grayson, I. Menjivar, Richardson? Aye.
Richardson, I. Sarto, I. Valadares, Weiner? Weiner R.
Speaker 18
Alright. Seven-zero on consent. We'll keep that open for absent members. Yeah, let's continue now to lift the call on for absent members on the bills, which is
Speaker 18
Would you please, we need a quorum on everything. I'm sorry, we need a motion on everything except the last bill, the Stern bill? Alright, so if we can have a motion on SB ten eighty seven, Cabaldon, that's file item number one, then we move by Eragine.
Speaker 9
The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations senators Cortezi.
Speaker 9
Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta aye. Aragine?
Aragine aye. Blakespeare? Dally? Aye. Dally aye.
Gonzalez aye. Gonzalez aye. Grayson aye. Grayson aye. Menjivar Richardson Aye.
Richardson, aye. Sallarto? Valadares? Weiner? Aye.
Weiner, aye. Eight
Speaker 18
one on call for absent members. Is there a motion on file item to 13 SP thirteen fifteen cabal.
Speaker 9
The motion is due passed with committee on appropriations centers Cortez he I Cortez he I Strickland. Strickland aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta aye.
Aragine aye. Blakespeare? Dally? Aye. Dally aye.
Gonzalez aye. Gonzalez aye. Grayson aye. Grayson aye. Menjivar?
Richardson I. Richardson, I. Sarto? I. Sarto, I.
Valadares, Weiner? I. Weiner, I.
Speaker 18
Ten zero and we're leaving the roll open on that one as well. Next item is file item four, McNerney SB twelve seventy five. Do we have a motion? Move by Grayson roll call please
Speaker 29
the motion is due passed the committee on appropriations there is Cortez I Cortez I Strickland no Archerletta I Archuleta I at a game Aragine aye. Blakespeare? Dally? Aye. Dally aye.
Speaker 9
Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzales aye. Grayson aye. Grayson aye.
Menjivar? Richardson aye. Richardson aye. Sayarto? Valadares?
Weiner aye. Weiner aye.
Speaker 18
81, we'll leave the bill on call. File item five, Hurtado, s b twelve eighty seven. Move it. Move by Strickland, We'll call.
Speaker 9
The motion is due pass to the committee on appropriations. Senator Cortez? Aye. Cortez, aye. Strickland?
Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye.
Articun? Aye. Blakespeare? Dally? I.
Gonzalez? I. Gonzalez? Grayson? I.
Menjivar? Richardson? I. Richardson? Sayarto?
I. Validaris? Weiner? Weiner, I.
Speaker 18
File item six, s p fourteen twenty three. Stern, we already have a motion. We'll lift the call.
Speaker 9
The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta?
Aye. Archuleta, I. Blakespeare? Dally? Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, I. Menjivar? Sayorto? Valadares?
Speaker 18
Seven one, the bill is on call. And the previous bill, I'm not sure I announced, Totto, it's, five ten zero? Got it. Thank you. Items file item seven SB ten sixty four.
Speaker 18
Alright. That's Senator Dolley's bill moved by Vice Chair Strickland. Call the roll please.
Speaker 9
The motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senator Cortez?
Speaker 9
Cortezi, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta?
Aye. Archuleta? Aragain? Aye. Blakespeare?
Dally? Dally? Aye. Gonzales? Aye.
Grayson? Menjivar? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, I.
Sayarto? I. Sayarto, I. Valideres, Weiner? I.
Weiner, I.
Speaker 9
The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Cortez? Aye. Cortez, aye. Strickland?
Aye. Strickland, aye. Archeleta? Aye. Archeleta, aye.
Aragine? Aye. Aragine, aye. Blakespeare? Dally?
Dali I. Gonzalez I. Grazen I. Greyson I. Mentivar Richardson I.
Richardson I. C. R. To. C.
R. To I. Validators weiner weiner I.
Speaker 18
Ten zero keep it on call and then SB thirteen ninety two. Move by Strickland
Speaker 9
the motion is due passed the committee on appropriations centers Cortez I Cortez I Strickland Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Aragine?
Aye. Aragine, aye. Blakespeare? Dally? Aye.
Dally, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson?
Aye. Richardson, aye. Sierto? Aye. Sierto, aye.
Valideres? Weiner? No.
Speaker 18
Let's go ahead and call through one more time because we had members come in. You are.
Speaker 9
Yeah. Consent calendar, sirs Strickland? Aye. Strickland, I. Archuleta?
Aye. Archuleta, I. Blakespeare? Gonzalez? Menjivar?
Valadares?
Speaker 18
All right, nine-zero, bills on call. That's it. We stand again in temporary recess. We'll reconvene as, as soon as we have some folks back here. Alright we are gonna end the temporary recess reconvene senate committee on transportation and I'm gonna ask the assistant to lift the call on bills for absent members And I'll let you go ahead and do that at this time.
Speaker 9
File item one. The current vote is eight zero with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye.
Medjevar, Sayarto, Valadez?
Speaker 9
File item two, the current vote is ten zero. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Menjivar, Valadares?
Speaker 18
Eleven zero. We'll leave it open for the absent member. The consent calendar will be next.
Speaker 9
The current vote is nine zero. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Mengevar?
Valadares? Thank
Speaker 9
File item four, the current vote is eight zero with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Lakespeare, aye. Mengevar, Sciarto, Valadez?
Speaker 9
File item five, the current vote is ten zero. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Lakespeare, aye. Mengevar, Valadares?
Speaker 9
File item six. The current vote is seven one with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators, Blakespeare.
Speaker 9
File item seven, the current vote is ten zero. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Mendjivar, Valadares?
Speaker 9
File item eight, the current vote is ten zero. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Lakespeare, I. Mentorvara, Valadares.
Speaker 9
File item nine. The current vote is nine one with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Blakespeare? No. Blakespeare, no.
Mentovar, Valadez?
Speaker 10
one you're waiting Valadares. For No. Valadares. We are Thank you. In a temporary temporary recess again, we're waiting for one member to, conclude a bill in another committee as soon as she's here.
Speaker 18
We can wrap up our voting and we'll adjourn the committee. Thank you. Okay. We are going to reconvene the senate committee on transportation and end the temporary recess we were into. So we are fully back in session and I'm gonna turn to the assistant.
And ask her to starting with the consent to a call through- today's bills- at this time for absent members thank you.
Speaker 9
SB twelve thirteen raise on consent the current vote is eleven zero centers mentor Valadez. Valadez I.
Speaker 9
File item one, SB ten eighty seven by Senator Gabaldon. The motion is due passed with the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is nine one, with the chair voting I and the vice chair voting no. Senators Mentovar, Sarto, Valadares.
Speaker 9
File item two, SB thirteen fifteen by Senator Cobaldin. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is eleven zero. Senators Medjevar? Valadares?
Aye. Valadares, aye.
Speaker 9
File item four SB twelve seventy five by Senator McNerney. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is nine one. With the chair voting I and the vice chair voting no. Senators Medjivar, Segarto, Valadares?
Speaker 9
File item five, SB twelve eighty seven by Senator Hurtado. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is eleven zero. Senators Medjevar? Valadares?
Aye. Valadares, aye.
Speaker 9
File item six, SB fourteen twenty three by Senator Stern, the motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is eight one with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Dali, Mediovar, Sarto, Valderas?
Speaker 9
File item seven, SB ten sixty four by Senator Dali. The motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is eleven zero. Senators Menjivar, Valadares? Aye.
Valadares, aye.
Speaker 9
File item eight, SB thirteen seventy five by Senator Cortezi. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is eleven zero. Senators Mentorvara, Valadares? Aye.
Valadares, aye.
Speaker 9
File item nine SB thirteen ninety two by Senator Cortezi. The motion is due passed with committee on appropriations. The current vote is nine two, with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Midgevar? Valderas?
Aye. Valderas, aye.
Speaker 18
10 to the bills out that concludes our committee meeting for today. And I want to thank the committee staff from for another excellent effort in preparation of for today's meeting and support today's meeting thank you for that. And thank you for being who participated today. So transportation committee is now adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.