TRANSPORTATION. THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE WILL
COME TO ORDER. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYONE, AND WELCOME. WE DO
HAVE A LARGE AGENDA TODAY WITH
17 MEASURES ON THE AGENDA. I
KNOW WITH SOME OF THESE MEASURES
ARE A LOT OF SUPPORTERS AND A
LOT OF OPPONENTS. SO WE CAN
COMPLETE TODAY'S WORK ON A
TIMELY BASIS. AND WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TIME LIMITS ON TESTIMONY.
MOST OF YOU ARE USED TO THAT.
THE TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES FOR
EACH SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TWO
MINUTES EACH FOR ALL OTHERS
WISHING TO TESTIFY. PLEASE LIMIT
YOUR COMMENTS TO YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION, THÀNH AND POSITION
ON THE MEASURES, LET'S ESTABLISH
A QUORUM. THE COMMITTEE
ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATORS CORTEZ HERE. CORTEZ
HERE. NILO HERE. NILO HERE.
ALLEN ALLEN. HERE. ARCHULETA.
BLAKE. SPEER. PRESENT BLAKE.
SPEER. HERE. DALLI. DALLI. HERE.
DODD. GONZALEZ LAIRD. LAIRD.
HERE. LIMÓN NEWMAN. WHEN
PORTANTINO. PORTANTINO. HERE.
SATO SATO. HERE. UMBERG. SENATOR
DODD IS HERE AS WELL. OKAY ALL
RIGHT. WE DO. WE DO HAVE A
QUORUM. BEFORE WE HEAR FROM
AUTHORS, A COUPLE OF
ANNOUNCEMENTS. ITEM 12, SB 1276
BY SENATOR ARCHULETA IS OFF. WE
WILL NOT BE HEARING THAT TODAY.
WE ALSO HAVE TWO MEASURES
PROPOSED FOR CONSENT TODAY. THE
PROPOSED CONSENT ITEMS ARE. ITEM
THREE, FILE ITEM THREE, WHICH IS
SB 1285 BY SENATOR LAIRD AND
FILE ITEM 11 SB 1158 BY SENATOR
ARCHULETA. DOES ANY MEMBER WISH
TO REMOVE EITHER THOSE ITEMS
FROM CONSENT? IF NOT, CAN I GET
A MOTION FOR CONSENT? SO MOVED
THE MOTION FROM SENATOR DODD,
CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL ON THE
MOTION, PLEASE? THIS IS THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. SENATORS.
CORTESE. AYE. CORTESE. AYE. NILO
NILO. AYE. ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE.
ARCHULETA BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE.
SPEER. AYE. DALLY DODD.
GONZALEZ. AYE DODD. AYE. LAIRD.
LAIRD. AYE LIMÓN. NEWMAN. WHEN
PORTANTINO. PORTANTINO I SEE, I
CIERTO, I UMBERG. EIGHT OAN,
UNCLE. SO THERE'S, EIGHT I VOTES
AND WE'LL LEAVE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR ON CALL, NOW LET'S GO
TO OUR FIRST AUTHOR FILE. ITEM
NUMBER ONE IS SB 898, SKINNER.
SENATOR SKINNER, PLEASE COME
FORWARD AND YOU MAY PRESENT WHEN
READY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS I THE BILL WILL HAVE
THESE AUTHOR AMENDMENTS THAT THE
UV WINDOW FILTERING WILL NOW
APPLY TO SPECIFIED LARGE TRUCKS
AND BUS DRIVER SIDE WINDOWS, NOT
TO PASSENGER CAR AND TRUCKS. AND
THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS MOVED TO
2032. SO THOSE ARE THE
AMENDMENTS, SO WHY AM I
INTRODUCE THIS BILL? SB 898
DEALS WITH THE FACT THAT IN OUR
VEHICLES, THE WINDSHIELDS HAVE
UV FILTERING, BUT THE REST OF
THE WINDOWS DO NOT. AND AS A
RESULT OF THE LACK OF UV
FILTERING ON ALL OF THEIR
WINDOWS IN A CAR, WE HAVE A
INTERESTING PHENOMENA OF A LARGE
OCCURRENCE OF LEFT SIDE SKIN
CANCERS. SO IN THE US, ITS LEFT
SIDE SKIN CANCERS, BECAUSE AS
THE DRIVER IT IS THEIR LEFT
SIDE. SO THESE CAN BE ON THEIR
FACE, THEIR ARM THAT IS ON
FACING THAT WINDOW THAT DOES NOT
HAVE THIS FILTERING, THIS SAME,
SKIN PHENOMENA OCCURS IN
AUSTRALIA, BUT ON THE RIGHT SIDE
. SO IT IS A FACTOR OF THE LACK
OF UV FILTERING. NOW, IF WE WERE
TO ADD THIS UV FILTERING TO ALL
OF THE WINDOWS ON ALL VEHICLES
IN THE US, WE WOULD AVOID
200,000 CASES OF SKIN CANCER A
YEAR, 200,000 CASES. SO THIS
BILL IS A HEALTH PROTECTION
MEASURE, A CONSUMER PROTECTION
MEASURE. BUT WITH THE
AMENDMENTS, IT WILL NOW
PRIMARILY PROTECT THOSE FOLKS
WHO DRIVE FOR A LIVING. BUT I
HOPE AS TIME GOES ON THAT OTHER
MEMBERS AND MAYBE THE CAR
MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES WILL
ADD THIS UV FILTERING TO ALL OF
OUR WINDOWS TO PROTECT ALL THE
PASSENGERS IN A CAR OR IN A
VEHICLE AND ALL THE DRIVERS. LET
ME HAVE MY WITNESSES FOR
SUPPORT. OH, LET ME JUST MAKE
THIS OTHER POINT. THERE ARE TWO
RESEARCHERS. THEY WILL NOT BE MY
MAIN WITNESSES, BUT THEY WILL
PROBABLY BE ADD ONS AS, ME TOO
AND SUPPORT. BUT THESE TWO
RESEARCHERS WERE DIAGNOSED WITH
LEFT SIDE SKIN CANCER, WHICH
CAUSED THEM TO BEGIN TO RESEARCH
THIS. SO THEY ARE TWO OF THE
MAIN RESEARCHERS THAT HAVE ADDED
TO OUR BODY OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT
THIS FACTOR THAT THE LACK OF UV
SCREENING ON WINDOWS IS CAUSING
THESE CANCERS. BUT MEANWHILE,
ALLOW ME TO HAVE LOUIE COSTA
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR,
RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS
TO TESTIFY, AS WELL AS DOCTOR
CHRISTOPHER ZACHARY, WHO IS A
PROFESSOR AND CHAIR EMERITUS OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DERMATOLOGY AT
UC IRVINE. SO PLEASE COME
FORWARD. YOU CAN COME ON IN.
THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED IN
WHICHEVER ORDER YOU PREFER, AND
YOU'LL HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES
EACH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR
CORTEZ. AND COLLEAGUES. AS I
SAID, I'M PROFESSOR AND CHAIR
EMERITUS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DERMATOLOGY AT UC IRVINE, I'M AN
ACADEMIC DERMATOLOGIST IN FACT,
LAST 26 YEARS, I'VE BEEN AT UCSF
AND UC IRVINE, AND I'M AN EXPERT
IN SKIN CANCER AND MELANOMA,
HAVING TREATED ABOUT 20,000
CASES, OF SKIN CANCER, INCLUDING
ABOUT 3000 MELANOMAS, I ACTUALLY
HAD SKIN CANCER MYSELF. LEFT
SIDE OF MY FACE, AND MY DAUGHTER
HAD MELANOMA. AND I'M SORRY TO
SAY THAT MANY OF YOU WILL WILL
ARE LIKELY TO GET SKIN CANCER.
OR MAYBE YOU'VE ALREADY HAD SKIN
CANCER IN YOUR LIVES, AND YOU
PROBABLY KNOW A FEW PEOPLE WHO
HAVE HAD MELANOMA AND WHO MIGHT
HAVE PASSED FROM IT, THE CAUSE
OF MELANOMA IS COMPLEX, AND IT'S
NOT ALL UVA. I JUST WANT YOU TO
UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT UVA IS UVA
IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS,
PARTICULARLY IN THIS COUNTRY.
PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS FROM THE
NIH, FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF DERMATOLOGY, THE AMERICAN
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE BRITISH
ASSOCIATION OF DERMATOLOGISTS
HAVE CONSISTENTLY CONFIRMED A
LEFT SIDED, PREDOMINANCE OF
MELANOMA AS AS BEING A REAL
PHENOMENON. SADLY, IN SKIN
CANCER KILLS AND ESPECIALLY
MELANOMA, WHICH TENDS TO SPREAD
TO THE LUNGS, LIVER, THE BONE,
THE BRAIN. AND IT IS A DIFFICULT
WAY TO PASS, IN FACT,
PARTICULARLY SINCE IT WOULD BE
POSSIBLE, POSSIBLY PREVENTED BY
AN AVOIDANCE OF UVA AT RISK OF
THOSE WHO DRIVE FOR EXTENDED
PERIODS, PARTICULARLY TRUCK
DRIVERS, THEIR LEFT SIDE OF THE
BODY'S IS SUBJECT TO 200% MORE
UVA LIGHT THAN THE RIGHT SIDE.
UVA BLOCKING GLASS IS AVAILABLE
IN. SOME VEHICLES ALREADY HAVE
IT. IF WE USE THIS ON ALL
VEHICLES IN THE US, IT WOULD
VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE SKIN CANCER
RELATED VEHICLE RELATED TO
VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION. THÀNH.
THAT WOULD BE 200,000 CASES IN
THE US AND ABOUT 4000 DEATHS BY
MELANOMA. THE FACT IS THAT,
THERE WILL BE A REDUCTION IN
SKIN CANCER IF YOU UVA BLOCKING
TECHNOLOGY IS INSTALLED. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN
CORTEZ. COMMITTEE MEMBERS LOUIS
COSTA WITH SMART TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION, PROUD SPONSOR OF SB
898, AS SENATOR SKINNER STATED,
SB 9898 WILL REQUIRE NEW TRUCKS
AND BUSSES SOLD IN CALIFORNIA TO
HAVE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW
PROTECTION. US 98% OF THE UV
RAYS TO PROTECT OUR OPERATORS
AND TRUCK DRIVERS FROM THE
CONSTANT, CONSISTENT EXPOSURE.
SMART TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
REPRESENTS THOUSANDS OF BUS
OPERATORS IN CALIFORNIA, ALONG
WITH ALL THE OTHER TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF OPERATORS AND
TRUCKERS, PROTECTING THE HEALTH
OF OUR MEMBERS IS THE MOST TOP
PRIORITY. OUR MEMBERS, AS PART
OF THEIR DAILY JOBS, OPERATE
BUSSES AND OTHER VEHICLES FOR
MANY HOURS A DAY, WHILE THE
AVERAGE AMERICAN ONLY DRIVES OR
SITS BEHIND THE WHEEL 55 MINUTES
A DAY, A TRUCK DRIVER OR A BUS
OPERATOR COULD BE THERE UPWARDS
OF 600 MINUTES A DAY, GREATLY
INCREASING THEIR EXPOSURE TO UV
RADIATION AND THE ASSOCIATED
RISK OF SKIN CANCER. SOME OF OUR
MEMBERS, BOTH DURING A LENGTHY
CAREER AND AFTER RETIREMENT,
HAVE DEVELOPED SKIN CANCER. THE
EXPOSURE FROM THE UNPROTECTED
DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW WAS
UNDOUBTEDLY A FACTOR IN THOSE
CASES, AND PRESENTS A CONTINUOUS
HEALTH RISK TO OUR OPERATORS
OVER THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. BY
REQUIRING VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS
TO CREATE SIMPLE FILTERING ON
THE DRIVER'S SIDE, SB 9898 WILL
PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED PROTECTION
FOR THESE ESSENTIAL WORKERS OUT
THERE, PROVIDING ESSENTIAL
SERVICE TO OTHER CALIFORNIA
WORKERS, DAY IN AND DAY OUT. AND
THEY'LL PROTECT THEM FROM THE
ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION OF THE
SUN, WE WANT TO THANK SENATOR
SKINNER FOR BRINGING THIS
LEGISLATION FORWARD. WE THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND YOUR
COMMITTEE, FOR THEIR WORK. WE
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR HEARING
US TODAY, AND WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR. I VOTE NO, THANK
YOU. ARE THERE OTHERS IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM WHO WISH TO COME
FORWARD WITH SUPPORT, POSITION?
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, SCOTT
WETCH, ON BEHALF OF THE WESTERN
STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL
WORKERS AND THE STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, DON SHINSKY, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY
OF DERMATOLOGY AND DERMATOLOGIC
SURGERY AND SUPPORT. SÐNG LARA
WITH THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
. HELLO, SCOTT BRANT WITH THE
SMART TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
HERE REPRESENTING 36 LOCALS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, 7600
MEMBERS. AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ELMER LAZARE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE
PRIMARY OPPOSITION WITNESS IS
KURT AUGUSTINE, I BELIEVE, WOULD
YOU COME FORWARD?
WELCOME AGAIN. YOU'LL HAVE A
COUPLE MINUTES. YES. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. HELLO. MY NAME IS
KURT AUGUSTINE. I'M THE SENIOR
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
FOR THE ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION, THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION OF THE AUTO
INDUSTRY, AS WELL AS MANY OF THE
TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS FOR
AUTOMOBILES. WE STILL MAINTAIN
AN OPPOSED POSITION TO THE BILL,
BUT DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS
THAT THE CENTER HAS MADE TO
REMOVING PASSENGER CAR VEHICLES
OUT OF THING. BUT OUR MAIN ISSUE
IS THE DEFINITIONS ARE A LITTLE
VAGUE, AND IT WOULD, I THINK, IN
UNINTENDEDLY STILL INCLUDE MANY
OF THE LARGER PICKUP TRUCKS
BASED ON WEIGHT. AND WE WOULD
LIKE TO WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE
AND THE CHAIR TO, FIX THIS. SO
WE FOCUS THE, EXEMPTIONS ON WHAT
I BELIEVE IS THE SENATOR'S,
INTENT TO DO THAT. AND THERE IS
ALSO STILL SOME CONCERN AS WELL,
DEPENDING ON HOW THAT COULD BE
WORKED OUT, HAVING TO PRODUCE A
CALIFORNIA ONLY TYPE OF VEHICLE,
AND THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT
UNWORKABLE. AND AGAIN, THERE ARE
SOME EXTENDED CONCERNS WITH THE
THICKER GLASS ABOUT, LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND FIRST RESPONDERS
BEING ABLE TO DO THAT. I THINK
THIS CAN BE WORKED OUT, BUT
AGAIN, WE ARE SEEKING THOSE,
TIGHTER DEFINITIONS AND, TO, TO
REALLY IMPLEMENT THE VISION THAT
THIS SENATOR IS ESPOUSING. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ARE
THERE OTHERS IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM WHO WISH TO COME FORWARD
AND EXPRESS AN OPPOSITION
POSITION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AT
THIS POINT. YES, SENATOR NEIL.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE
SOME QUESTIONS. STARTING OFF
WITH THE STATISTICS, THE STAFF
REPORT INDICATES THAT 53% OF
SKIN CANCERS OCCUR ON THE LEFT
SIDE OF THE BODY. THAT MEANS 47%
DO NOT. THAT'S NOT EXACTLY AN
OVERWHELMING, PROOF, FRANKLY, OF
ANYTHING. THAT'S A PRETTY
RELATIVELY EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF
THE OCCURRENCE, AND THEN
FURTHER, WHILE YOU CITED THE IT
WAS AN AUSTRALIAN STUDY, OR WAS
IT NEW ZEALAND, WHICH, WHERE
THEY DRIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE STREET? WELL, IT WAS IN THE
I USED AUSTRALIA AS THE EXAMPLE,
BUT IN ALL COUNTRIES WHERE THE
DRIVING IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE
AS TO HOW WE DRIVE, THEY FIND
THE, THE SAME KIND OF, PATTERN
OF OCCURRENCE OF SKIN CANCER ON
THAT'S ON THEIR RIGHT SIDE
VERSUS THE LEFT SIDE, NOT
ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT.
IT SAYS THAT, HOWEVER, NO
STUDIES HAVE CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN
THIS LINK. IN FACT, A MORE
RECENT STUDY OF THOUSANDS OF
CASES FOUND THAT MELANOMA WAS
MORE COMMONLY FOUND ON THE LEFT
SIDE OF THE BODY IN THE US AND
IN ENGLAND, FINLAND, THE
NETHERLANDS, SCOTLAND AND EVEN
AUSTRALIA. SO I'M WONDERING WHY
THERE APPEARS TO BE THIS
OVERWHELMING PROOF WHEN THE
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION IS, NOT
THAT CONVINCING? AND THEN
CONFLICTING STUDIES WHERE THEY
DO DRIVE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF
THE STREET. EXCUSE ME, THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE STREET, STILL THE
PREDOMINANT, SIDE OF THE
OCCURRENCE IS THE SAME AS IN THE
US. WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO, THE
EXACT CITATION OF, THE STAFF
REPORT. THERE ARE, HOWEVER,
STUDIES THAT HAVE SHOWN THE
CORRELATION THAT I DESCRIBED,
BUT ADDITIONALLY, THE LEFT SIDE,
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
PATTERN OF LEFT SIDE THAT IS THE
DRIVER. RIGHT. AND SO, WHILE MY
BILL NOW MY BILL ORIGINALLY WAS
FOR ALL WINDOWS BECAUSE I WAS
TRYING TO PROTECT EVERYBODY, BUT
IT MAKES SENSE FOR DRIVERS WHO
PEOPLE WHO DRIVE FOR A LIVING TO
BE PROTECTED, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE
THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN A CAR
MORE. HOWEVER, AS THE PASSENGER
YOU ARE STILL, IF YOU'RE IN THE
CAR JUST AS MUCH AS ANY DRIVER
OR YOUR KIDS, THEN THEY ARE
GETTING THAT UV THROUGH WHATEVER
SIDE OF THE CAR THEY'RE SITTING
IN. SO IF THEY'RE IN A CAR FOR A
LONG TIME, SO. SO THIS MAY
ADDRESS WHY THE DISCREPANCY ON,
YOU KNOW, THAT LEFT SIDE MAY NOT
BE AS DOMINANT. BECAUSE AGAIN,
YOU'RE IT WOULD BE, YOU ARE
GETTING THIS UV THROUGH ANY
WINDOW NOW OTHER THAN THE
WINDSHIELD IN MOST VEHICLES, NOT
ALL. SOME VEHICLES HAVE THE
TINTING EVERYWHERE, BUT NOT ALL,
THAT'S, INTERESTING SPECULATION.
THE PROBLEM IS, I DON'T SEE
WHERE THE DATA PROVES IT.
PARTICULARLY THE. NOW, ONE COULD
SAY THAT THE 5347 DISTRIBUTION
OF RIGHT SIDE, LEFT SIDE IS
BECAUSE ALL OF IT'S CAUSED BY
PEOPLE BEING IN VEHICLES. AND
THEREFORE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A
CERTAIN INCIDENT OF PASSENGERS.
HAVING, BEING INFLICTED ALSO.
SO, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE IN
HERE OR IN YOUR INFORMATION
PROOF THAT THIS IS A CAUSATION
OTHER THAN IT SEEMS TO BE BASED
UPON PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. AND, I,
I THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE'RE
HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
THE PRODUCTION OF VEHICLES,
WHICH MIGHT END UP LIKELY,
AFFECTING THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY, ALSO INCREASING THE
COST OF VEHICLES FOR SOMETHING
THAT I APPEARS TO ME TO BE
TENUOUSLY SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE. WELL, YOU ALL NOTE
THAT I DID NOT ASSERT THAT ALL
SKIN CANCERS COME FROM THIS
FACTOR. PRECISELY MY POINT. BUT
THE POINT IS THAT THERE IS A
HIGHER INCIDENT OF THE LEFT SIDE
CANCERS. AND AGAIN, WHEN
THERE'S, YOU KNOW, I PULL UP, WE
COULD HAVE A LITTLE, YOU KNOW,
DATA FIGHT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW
MANY STUDIES THERE ARE AND HOW
MANY RIGHT. BUT BUT BASICALLY
THE, THE LITERATURE THAT MY
STAFF AND I REVIEWED AND THAT
OUR WITNESSES, INCLUDING THE
DERMATOLOGIST AND THE
DERMATOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION AND
PLUS THE RESEARCHERS THAT ARE
HERE, WOULD DEFINITELY SHOWS
THIS CORRELATION. NOW, WILL THIS
IN ANY WAY END? LET'S SAY WE ARE
LET'S SAY MY BILL WAS BACK TO
ALL WINDOWS. WOULD IT ELIMINATE
SKIN CANCER? NO I WOULD NEVER
ASSERT THAT. BUT I THINK WE
MISTAKENLY THINK THAT SOMEHOW
WE'RE SAFE IN OUR CARS. WE
REALIZE, WELL, NOT EVERYONE USES
THEIR SUNBLOCK. I THINK WE'VE
ALL HAD ENOUGH WARNINGS THAT IF
WE'RE OUTSIDE AND IN THE SUN,
THAT WE SHOULD BE USING AT LEAST
SPF 30 TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM
SKIN CANCER, BUT WE MAY NOT EVEN
THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE ARE IN
A VEHICLE AND IT IS ALREADY THE
FACT THAT THIS UV PROTECTION IS
IN WINDSHIELD WINDSHIELDS. SO
THIS WOULD ADD IT FOR ONLY
CERTAIN CLASSES OF VEHICLES THAT
ARE USUALLY DRIVEN BY PEOPLE WHO
WORK FOR A LIVING TO JUST THAT
DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW. I'M STILL
SKEPTICAL OF THE DATA. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR. SO,
SENATOR BOXER, YES. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE THE BILL. I RECOGNIZE
IT'S BEEN SKINNY DOWN, BUT IT
SEEMS LIKE, IT'S STILL A BENEFIT
AND MAYBE IT WILL EXPAND LATER
OR IT WILL HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY
WHEN CAR MANUFACTURERS DECIDE TO
DO THAT FOR SAFETY REASONS. I
WANTED TO JUST ASK YOU TO
CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT IS THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAKING IT
UV PROTECTIVE AND THE TEMPERED
GLASS, OR, THE, THE TYPE OF
SHATTERING THAT HAPPENS IN THE
WINDSHIELD SO THAT IT FALLS INTO
LITTLE BLOCKS INSTEAD OF IT
BEING IN SHARP SHARDS. I JUST
WANTED TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS
A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN
SAFETY FROM HAVING UV
PROTECTION, OR IF THERE'S NO
EFFECT, THERE ARE SOME SOME AUTO
GLASS WITH UV PROTECTION IS
DIFFICULT TO BREAK. AND SO THERE
HAVE BEEN SOME SAFETY CONCERNS
THAT IF THE STANDARD WERE TO BE
THE KIND THAT IS DIFFICULT TO
BREAK, THAT YOU ARE, THAT WE
WOULD BE, CREATING ANOTHER
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF LESS
SAFETY, SO WE'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE THAT BALANCE OF
PROVIDING THE UV PROTECTION
WHILE STILL ENSURING THAT SAFETY
TO BE ABLE TO IF YOU HAVE TO
BREAK THE WINDOW TO GET OUT,
THAT YOU CAN STILL DO THAT.
RIGHT. BUT SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT IT BEING
MORE DIFFICULT TO BREAK, BUT
WHEN IT IS BROKEN, IS IT IS IT
THE SAFETY GLASS OR IS IT, THE
LESS SAFE ONE SECOND GLASS? THE
QUESTION OF IT BEING TEMPERED
GLASS. RIGHT. I JUST DON'T KNOW
IF EVERYONE KNOWS THE DEFINITION
OF TEMPERED, BUT, YOU KNOW.
YEAH. IN LITTLE BLOCKS. YEAH I
WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THIS. I'M
ACTUALLY BUST OUT. APOLOGIES I
KNOW IT'S OKAY, ASK THE SCIENCE
FELLOW, THE KIND OF GLASS, THE
KIND OF UV PROTECTION WE'RE
SPECIFYING WOULD ALLOW FOR THE
WINDOW TO BE, IN EFFECT, NOT
INTO SHARDS, BUT IN EFFECT, IN
ONE PIECE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY? YES, SENATOR. SENATOR
KIND OF ALONG THOSE LINES, IF
YOU'VE EVER TRIED TO BREAK OUT
OR PUNCH OUT A WINDSHIELD,
YOU'LL FIND YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN
STICK A PICKAX THROUGH IT, AND
IT'LL JUST MAKE A LITTLE HOLE.
AND IT TAKES A LOT OF ENERGY AND
A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY AND GET
THAT WINDOW OUT, THAT'S WHY
GENERALLY, UNLESS THE WINDOW HAS
BEEN POPPED OUT, BY MAJOR,
TRAUMA TO THE CAR, WE DON'T
USUALLY TRY TO USE THE FRONT
WINDOW, IF WE DON'T HAVE IF WE
HAVE TIME, WE CAN DO IT. BUT, A
LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T HAVE TIME
IN AND I'M TALKING EMS AND,
PUBLIC SAFETY, THE SIDE WINDOW,
THOSE WINDOWS, YOU CAN SIMPLY
TAKE OUT A LITTLE PUNCH, TAP IT,
AND THE WINDOW FALLS INTO LITTLE
BEADS AND FALLS OUT OF THE WAY.
AND WHEN THAT'S IMPORTANT IS
WHEN YOU DO HAVE CAR FIRES
ASSOCIATED WITH AN OVERTURNED
VEHICLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IF THE WINDOW ISN'T BROKEN OUT
OR A LOT OF TIMES IT'LL BREAK
OUT ALREADY. AND THAT GIVES THEM
AN ESCAPE PATH, THE ISSUES I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF IT DOESN'T
BREAK OUT AND IT JUST STAYS IN
ONE SHEET, AND A PERSON IS
TRYING TO GET OUT, AND THAT'S
THE ONLY ESCAPE PATH. WHAT DO
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH? BECAUSE
THEY ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF
SECONDS BEFORE THE SMOKE
OVERWHELMS THEM TO GET
THEMSELVES OUT, AND MUCH LESS
WHEN WE GET THERE OR WHEN, YOU
KNOW, LAW ENFORCEMENT OR FIRE
GET THERE AND THEY GO THROUGH
THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO EXTRACT A PERSON,
ESPECIALLY UNDER DURESS, LIKE
THAT, SO MY I GUESS MY QUESTION
FOR THE PERSONS WHO ARE GOING TO
MANUFACTURE AND PLACE THESE INTO
, THE SIDE WINDOWS, IS THIS
GOING TO AFFECT, THE, THE
ABILITY OF THAT SIDE WINDOW TO
BREAK INTO THE LITTLE BEADS,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING
FIRST, BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS A
DRIVER. OR IS IT GOING TO HOLD
IT INTO A SHEET? I HOPE. SO. I
CAN ANSWER BRIAN'S THANK YOU FOR
THE FOR THE QUESTION. FIRST OF
ALL, I WOULD SAY THAT THE TESLA
HAS HAS UVB, UVA, AND FOR THAT
MATTER, INFRARED BLOCKAGE IN
THEIR WINDOWS. AND YOU KNOW,
THIS IS THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO
BE A PROBLEM, SECONDLY, I WOULD
SAY THAT TOYOTA, FOR THE LAST
TEN YEARS HAS UNDERSTOOD THAT
THERE IS THIS PROBLEM WITH
REGARD TO UVA AND THEY HAVE AN
ABILITY ON A TEMPERED GLASS TO
BLOCK UVA. SO I IT IS NOT
WITHOUT THE BOUNDS OF THE MOTOR
MANUFACTURERS TO ACTUALLY DO
THIS IN A MANNER THAT WON'T PUT
MUCH WEIGHT ON THE CAR WOULD
HARDLY COST ANY ANY MORE, MAYBE
$0. AND YET IT HAS THE IMPACT TO
HELP A LOT OF PEOPLE. NOW
ACCORDING TO THE STAFF, STAFF
REPORT, WHICH HAD ONE PAPER
WHICH IN WHICH IT COMPARED
MELANOMA IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND
AND SEVERAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
WHERE BY THE WAY, THEY DRIVE ON
THE RIGHT, IT WAS A SMALL
NUMBERS AND WE SHOULD BE LOOKING
AT SOMETHING LIKE THE SEARS
REPORT WITH 100,000 PATIENTS TO
BE ABLE TO GET THE SUPPORT. AND
WHAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE
IS ACTUALLY WE GAVE THE MINIMUM
NUMBERS. WE SAID A 5% DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THOSE WHO GET MELANOMA
VERSUS WITH UVA AND THOSE WHO
DON'T. IT'S PROBABLY A LOT MORE
THAN THAT. IT'S PROBABLY MORE
LIKE 15. AND IN ANY EVENT, I
WOULD SAY I WOULD SUGGEST THAT
WE LOOK AT THE PAPERS WITH MUCH
LARGER NUMBERS. I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR HIM. FOLLOW UP.
YEAH THAT'S FINE. THAT'S RELATED
. I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THE
Q&A I KNOW YOU HAD DEALING WITH
THE DESIRE TO ANSWER ALL THE
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED
THAT YOU'VE HEARD, BUT WE NEED
TO KEEP IT JUST TO THE THANK YOU
FOR THAT TO THE CURRENT QUESTION
AND, YOU KNOW, IN THE INTEREST
OF TIME AND EFFICIENCY, SO I CAN
QUICKLY UNDERSTAND THE LAMINATE
VERSUS SO THE FEDERAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD HAS
RECENTLY RELEASED SOMETHING
INDICATING THAT A LAMINATED
GLASS CAN BE SAFER FOR ESCAPE
PURPOSES. SO THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY
STILL LOTS OF RESEARCH BEING
DONE ON THAT. BUT IN CRAFTING
THE AMENDMENTS AND IN DESIGNING
IT, WE WERE AWARE OF THE SAFETY
CONCERN AND DID AND ARE DOING
OUR BEST TO ADDRESS IT BASED ON
THE RESEARCH THAT IS AVAILABLE.
OKAY. THANK YOU, IN YOUR
STUDIES, DID IT ALSO DISCERN
BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO DRIVE?
BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DRIVE
WITH THEIR, THEIR WINDOWS ROLLED
DOWN AND THEIR ARM HANGING OUT.
WHEN I'M DRIVING AND THE SUN IS
SHINING, I USE THE THING TO KEEP
THE SUN OFF MY FACE. IF I'M
DRIVING WITH MY THE TOP DOWN OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I ALWAYS
HAVE SUNSCREEN ON. SO THERE'S A
LOT OF HUMAN FACTORS THAT PEOPLE
CAN DO TO GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS
THOSE ISSUES. AND, AND IN FACT,
AT WORK, WHEN WE'RE OUT IN THE
SUN AND WE'RE GOING OUT, WE HAVE
TO PUT SUNSCREEN ON. THAT'S PART
OF OUR SAFETY PROTOCOL, SO THERE
ARE SOME JOBS WHERE THERE IS A
SAFETY PROTOCOL. THERE IS
NOTHING THAT WILL PROTECT US IF
WE ROLL THE WINDOW DOWN AND,
AND, AND SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON
HERE THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE
TO GO ON AT ALL, I THINK I THINK
THE INDUSTRIES THEMSELVES,
BECAUSE WHEN THEIR, WHEN THEIR
WORKERS GET SICK, THEY USUALLY
RESPOND WITH NEW PROTOCOLS FOR
WORKERS THAT ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW,
EITHER DRIVING OR BEING EXPOSED
AND, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE
THIS KIND OF LAYS IS, IS, YOU
KNOW, IT'S IN THE PURVIEW OF THE
PERSON DRIVING AND THE PEOPLE
WORKING, IF WE START MODIFYING
VEHICLES AWAY FROM, QUICK
ACCESS, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
ISSUES. BUT THERE'S ALSO, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE THIS, THIS
SCREENING DEVICES. HAVE YOU
STUDIED THOSE TO SEE IF THEY,
ADEQUATELY BLOCK THE UV RAYS
FROM WHEN YOU SAY THE SCREENING
DEVICES, WHAT WHAT SPECIFICALLY?
WELL, THERE'S DEVICES YOU CAN
PUT ON. THEY HAVE LITTLE SUCTION
CUPS. OH I SEE USE THEM FOR
THEIR KIDS. IT'S NOTED I'M SURE
IT CUTS DOWN ON THE AMOUNT OF
UV-B UVA. AND I WILL TELL YOU
THAT, THAT, THAT IS NOTICED IN
THE PAPERS. BUT NO, THEY HAVE
NOT SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT THAT.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS LET'S NOT
LOOK AT THE NORTHERN CLIMES
WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE.
LET'S LOOK IN THIS COUNTRY, YOU
KNOW, PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTH,
WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF UV, UVB,
UVA AND TO LOOK AT THE RELATIVE.
I LOOK AT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
THAT'S WHERE I GREW UP. AND ITS
SCIENCE SHINES A LOT DOWN THERE,
DOWN HERE. BUT IN, IN, IN
FINLAND, FOR INSTANCE, OR
WHEREVER, YOU KNOW, OR IN
NORTHERN ENGLAND, AS YOU KNOW, I
WAS BROUGHT UP IN A COUNTRY
WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE.
OKAY. WE WANT TO ASK YOU TO GO
ANY FURTHER. THAT'S ALL. YOU
KNOW. THAT'S ALL. I'M FINE,
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? MR.
CHAIR, I JUST WAS WONDERING IF
MR. AUGUSTINE MIGHT HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD TO OUR
DISCUSSIONS. YEAH, I CAN ADDRESS
SENATOR SARDOU'S QUESTION. THE
AS UNDER THE PROPOSAL, THE
WINDOWS DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW
WOULD BE LIKE THE WINDSHIELD,
AND IT WOULD HAVE THAT SAME
CHALLENGE OF BREAKING INTO IT,
SO THAT THAT'S A SPOT ON AND
THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE OUR CONCERN
IS, IS UNDER THE WAY, THE
LANGUAGE IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED,
THERE ARE MANY PICKUPS THAT
WOULD BE ARE SOLD TODAY THAT
WOULD HAVE TO MEET THIS
QUALIFICATION, AND SO THE
EXEMPTION IS NOT AS BROAD AS WE
DID. THERE ARE, THERE ARE, YOU
KNOW, REGULAR SIZED PICKUP
TRUCKS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED
UNDER THIS BILL TO MEET THIS
STANDARD. SO I WOULD CREATE TWO
DIFFERENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE
COUNTRY AND WOULD CAUSE A LOT OF
DIFFERENT DESIGN PROBLEMS WITH
THE DOORS AND ALL THAT. AND NOT
TO MENTION THE GLASS ISSUE.
SCUSE ME. HOLD ON. NO, I WANT NO
, NO. THE BILL DOES NOT SPECIFY
THAT THAT SIDE WINDOW ON THE
VEHICLES THAT WE'VE NOW AMENDED
WOULD AFFECT HAS TO BE THE EXACT
TYPE OF GLASS OF THE WINDSHIELD.
IT CAN BE TEMPERED. SO I WANT TO
PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. THAT IS
THE WAY THE BILL IS DESIGNED. SO
TO MR. AUGUSTINE'S POINT, IT'S
IT IS NOT THE FACT THAT THE BILL
IS WRITTEN TO REQUIRE I'M GOING
TO BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON
THE FLOOR. SO WE'RE DONE WITH
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. AND TO
THE AUTHOR, I APPRECIATE YOU
WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE. THIS
BILL HAS GONE THROUGH, YOU KNOW,
SIGNIFICANT ITERATIONS AND
AMENDMENTS ALREADY. AND I TRUST
THAT YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT YOU'LL
BE YOU'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THESE ISSUES. I THINK YOU'VE
HEARD YOU SAY THAT, IN YOUR
PRESENTATION. YES. THAT'S OUR
UNDERSTANDING HERE, AMONGST THE
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF. YES.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND YOU'RE
WELCOME TO CLOSE, APPRECIATE,
YOUR I VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. UNLESS THE ASSISTANT TO
CALL THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. DO
WE HAVE A MOTION? WE HAVE A
MOTION. THANK YOU. SENATOR
ARCHULETA, THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER ONE. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED, AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS CORTEZ, A CORTEZ. AYE.
NILO NØ, NILO NÓ ALLEN
ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA I BLAKE.
SPEER. BLAKE SPEER I DALLI.
DALLI. NÓ. DODD GONZALEZ.
LAYERED. LAYERED I LIMÓN NEWMAN,
NGUYEN PORTANTINO. CIERTO CIERTO
NO UMBERG. 4 TO 3, UNCLE. ALL
RIGHT. THE BILL. THE VOTE IS 4
TO 3. AND WE'LL KEEP THE BILL ON
CALL. THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE
FILE ITEM TWO. SENATOR LAIRD
WELCOME. YOU MAY PRESENT ONE.
READY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I'M
PRESENTING SENATE BILL 930,
WHICH ESTABLISHES THE MEMORIAL
HIGHWAY SIGNAGE FUND TO PROPOSE
TO, PROMOTE EQUITY AND MEMORIAL
HIGHWAY DESIGNATIONS. LAST YEAR,
I HAD A RESOLUTION TO NAME A
HIGHWAY IN CALIFORNIA FOR ONE OF
OUR LATE COLLEAGUES WHO HAD BEEN
A LEGISLATOR ON THE CENTRAL
COAST. I THOUGHT IT'D BE A GOOD
IDEA IF I GOT COAUTHORS OF
EVERYBODY STILL IN THE
LEGISLATURE THAT SERVED WITH
HIM, AND I HAD TROUBLE FOR A
WHILE GETTING EVERYBODY TO SIGN
ON BECAUSE OF THE 642 MEMORIAL
HIGHWAYS OR TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES IN THE STATE, 82% ARE
NAMED FOR MEN. AND AS A RESULT,
THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS THAT
AREN'T ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT
STRETCHING THAT INEQUITY
FURTHER. SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES
IS SET UP A FUND BECAUSE SIGNS
CAN COST BETWEEN 8 AND $10,000.
AND FOR SOME, THAT MAY NOT BE
ATTAINABLE. AND THEN WE MOVE TO
TRY TO GET TOWARD EQUITY IN THE
NAMING. AND THIS DOES NOT MEAN
WE DON'T NAME, CONTINUED TO NAME
TRANS PORTATION ITEMS FOR FALLEN
OFFICERS OR OTHERS THAT ARE MEN.
IT MEANS THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS
FOR EQUITY TO TRY TO MOVE UP AND
MAKE SURE THAT OVER TIME WE
CATCH UP, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW
WHETHER IT'S SALLY RIDE, THE
FIRST WOMAN TO WALK IN SPACE, OR
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, THE LONGEST
SERVING U.S. SENATOR IN HISTORY,
OR MAYA ANGELOU NOTED, AUTHOR
THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF
QUALIFIED PEOPLE WE SHOULD HONOR
AS WE MOVE TOWARD THAT EQUITY, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH MY OFFICE ON THIS.
I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, CLARIFYING
THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
DETERMINE IF A HIGHWAY NAMING
SHOULD DRAW FROM THE ESTABLISHED
FUND, RATHER THAN CALTRANS. AS
THE BILL CONTINUES THROUGH TO
THE ASSEMBLY, I'LL WORK WITH
BOTH POLICY COMMITTEES TO ENSURE
ALIGNMENT, WE'RE HAVING
CONVERSATIONS WITH CALTRANS AND
WILL WORK ON FUNDING SEPARATELY
FROM THIS BILL. SO THIS BILL HAS
NO COSTS. THE BILL HAS NO
REGISTERED OPPOSITION. I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN IPHONE,
AND I HAVE NO, LEAD WITNESS. ALL
RIGHT. NO LEAD, SUPPORT WITNESS.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO
WISHES TO EXPRESS THE SUPPORT
POSITION? SEEING NO ONE COME
FORWARD? IS ARE THERE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES SEEING NO
ONE COME FORWARD, WE ARE GOING
TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. YES, SENATOR DODD,
I'LL MOVE THE BILL AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. I HAVE A
COMMENT. SENATOR SATO. YEAH. MY
CONCERN ABOUT THE BILL IS THAT
CURRENTLY IT'S PRETTY MUCH,
OFFICERS, FALLEN OFFICERS THAT
THAT GET HONORED ON A MEMORIAL
THING, I FRANKLY, PERSONALLY
DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT NEEDS TO
BE EXTENDED TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS
OR, OR OTHER PEOPLE THAT SHOULD
BE JUST SINGLED OUT TO BE ON A
HIGHWAY THING. THERE'S PLENTY OF
OTHER MEMORIALS THAT CAN BE DONE
THAT WAY, AND SO, YOU KNOW, AND,
YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE, THE
RACIAL AND GENDER EQUITY, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE DOING A SECTION OF
FREEWAY DOWN IN OUR AREA WAS A
AFTER DARNELL CALHOUN, WHO WAS
A, A BLACK OFFICER FROM MY CITY,
THAT WAS WAS SHOT AND KILLED
LAST YEAR, UP ON BY DAVIS. THAT
SECTION IS NAMED AFTER A FEMALE
OFFICER WHO WAS WHO WAS KILLED
UP THERE, SO I THINK THAT'S KIND
OF BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NOT AS
MANY FEMALES IN, IN THOSE, LINES
OF WORK, I THINK THAT ISSUE IS
KIND OF SEPARATING ITSELF OUT,
BUT I REALLY HESITATE TO START
NAMING EVERY STRUCTURE AFTER
EVERY PERSON OR, YOU KNOW, NOT
EVERY PERSON, BUT BUT PEOPLE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO SINGLE OUT
AS SYMBOLIC OF, OF GREATNESS,
HOPEFULLY THAT'S NOT WHAT ANY OF
US ARE HERE FOR, I CERTAINLY IF
THAT EVER HAPPENED IN MY CITY, I
WOULD RAISE UP OUT OF MY GRAVE
AND GO SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT. AND
SO DON'T EVEN TRY IT SOMEDAY, SO
ANYWAY, I'LL BE LAYING OFF YOUR
BILL TODAY, I'D RATHER THIS JUST
BE FOR THE OFFICERS THAT, THAT,
PATROL OUR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
AND DIE IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO
OTHER REQUESTS TO SPEAK, WE DO
HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR DODD,
AND WE'LL CALL THE ROLL. MR.
CHAIR, COULD I CLOSE? I'M SORRY.
YES, YOU CAN THANK YOU. BECAUSE
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE THE
COMMENT THAT THE CAT IS OUT OF
THE BAG. IF YOU ARE IN MY
DISTRICT, THE WATSONVILLE
FREEWAY IS NAMED AFTER OSCAR
RIOS, A FORMER MAYOR. THE
HIGHWAY IS NAMED AFTER SENATOR
HENRY MELLO, A FORMER STATE
SENATOR, BIZZ JOHNSON HAS A
HIGHWAY NAMED FOR HIM THAT IS IN
SONOMA. FRANK BELLOTTI, A FORMER
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, HAS A HIGHWAY
NAME FOR HIM. AND I IMAGINE IF I
HAD A LIST, I COULD GET EASILY
TO A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER. AND SO
THERE ARE NUMBERS OF HIGHWAYS
NAMED FOR, PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT
FALLEN OFFICERS. FIRE FIGHTERS
OR CALTRANS WORKERS. AND WE DO
NEED A PROCESS TO HAVE EQUITY IN
THAT. AND I GET THE FACT THAT
MAYBE NEXT YEAR, WHEN WE FINALLY
HAVE A MAJORITY OF WOMEN IN THE
STATE SENATE, WE WILL FINALLY
GET TO THE POINT THAT WE WILL
HAVE MORE ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES
FOR EQUITY IF WE NAME IT FOR
LEGISLATORS. BUT I THINK THAT
THIS INEQUITY IS FELT ACUTELY BY
THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE
AND PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE 18%
AND NOT THE 82. THIS GIVES A
GOOD PROCESS. I ASKED FOR AN
IPHONE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK
ON THIS. AND THE MOTION BY
SENATOR DODD IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATE. I'M
SORRY. THAT'S THE WRONG BILL. IT
WOULD BE DO PASS. IT IS DO PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROVE. AS FOR
BOTH YOUR BILLS ARE GOING TO END
UP. WELL NO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
END UP THERE. THEY'RE JUST GOING
THERE NEXT. WE'LL SEE. WE'LL SEE
ABOUT THAT. YES. NO WE WISH YOU
THE BEST. OF COURSE. ASSISTANT.
GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO SB 930. SENATORS CORTEZ A,
CORTEZ I NILO NO. HILO NO. ALLEN
ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA I BLAKE.
SPEER. BLAKE SPEER I DALLY DODD.
DODD I GONZALEZ. LAIRD I LAIRD I
LIMON. NEWMAN NEWMAN. I NGUYEN.
PORTANTINO PORTANTINO I SATO.
NO. SATO. NO UMBERG. 72 ALL
RIGHT. THE VOTE IS 7 TO 2. WILL
KEEP THE BILL ON CALL. THANK
YOU. ITEM FOUR IS. NEXT UP,
SENATOR WIENER ON SB 960.
WELCOME. AND YOU CAN PROCEED
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. SENATOR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR, MR.
CHAIR, I'M HERE TODAY TO
PRESENT, SB 960, I THINK A FEW
OF YOU, SENATOR PORTANTINO AND
SENATOR DODD MAY REMEMBER, THIS
IS A WE DID A SIMILAR VERSION OF
THIS BILL WHEN WE ALL FIRST
ARRIVED IN THE SENATE, WORKED ON
IT FOR A FEW YEARS, AND WE'RE
CONTINUING THE WORK TODAY. SB
960 WILL REQUIRE CALTRANS TO
IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST
SAFETY, AS WELL AS PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION ON OUR STATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND THE FOCUS OF
THIS BILL IS THE STATE HIGHWAY
SYSTEM THAT ANY NORMAL PERSON
WOULD JUST SAY, THAT'S A CITY
SURFACE STREET. THAT'S THE REAL
FOCUS OF THE BILL. WE ARE IN A
TRAFFIC SAFETY CRISIS, ABOUT
4000 CALIFORNIANS DIE EVERY YEAR
ON OUR ROADS, AND MANY OF THEM
ARE PEDESTRIANS. MANY OF THEM
ARE DRIVERS, AND THEY'RE
CYCLISTS. AND WE HAVE 1100
PEDESTRIANS WHO DIE, JUST
BECAUSE THEY'RE WALKING ON OUR
STREETS, OUR STATE OWNED ROADS,
MANY OF WHICH FUNCTION AS MAIN
STREETS, EVEN IN LOCAL
COMMUNITIES, ARE ALL TOO OFTEN
QUITE DANGEROUS, MANY LACK,
SIDEWALKS, MANY LACK CROSSWALKS,
ANY KIND OF BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND MANY FACILITATE HIGH SPEEDS,
THESE LOCAL STREETS OFTEN HOST
IMPORTANT BACKBONE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION LINES IN OUR
COMMUNITY, WHERE BUSSES ARE
STUCK IN TRAFFIC AND NOT
PRIORITIZED IN ANY WAY, WHERE
PEOPLE ARE WAITING FOR THE BUS
IN A SITUATION THAT'S NOT VERY
SAFE, IN 2019, AFTER SEVERAL
YEARS OF WORK, THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED A BILL THAT I AUTHORED,
SB 127, THAT BILL WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED CALTRANS AS THE OWNER
AND OPERATOR OF THESE STATE
OWNED ROADS, TO IMPLEMENT
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AS
IT WAS RIPPED, SAVING AND
REHABILITATING THESE ROADS, THE
GOVERNOR DID VETO SB 127 THAT
YEAR, BUT DIRECTED CALTRANS TO
DEVELOP POLICIES TO ACCOMPLISH
THESE GOALS, CALTRANS HAS ISSUED
SUCH A POLICY. UNFORTUNATELY, IN
THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THAT POLICY
HAS ALL TOO OFTEN NOT BEEN
FOLLOWED. AND SO IT'S TIME TO
PUT THIS POLICY IN LEGISLATION,
WE STILL SEE MANY LOCAL STREET
PROJECTS, AND ON OUR STATE
ROADWAY SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF
GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM, THE SHOP
THAT ARE JUST EXEMPTED BY
CALTRANS FROM THE POLICY. SO
THEY'RE DOING THE WORK. THEY'RE
DOING THE REHABILITATION AND NOT
PUTTING THESE SAFETY FEATURES IN
PLACE WHILE THEY DO THAT PROJECT
. IN ADDITION, THE DEPARTMENT IS
NOT TAKING THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT
TAKING STOCK OF TRANSIT PRIORITY
FACILITIES LIKE BUS LANES
THROUGH ITS ASSET MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM OR SETTING PERFORMANCE
TARGETS FOR TRANSIT PRIORITY
IMPROVEMENTS, PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION IS A KEY PART OF
A COMPLETE STREET, AND CALTRANS
SHOULD BE DOING MORE TO MAKE
TRANSIT MORE EFFECTIVE AND
ACCESSIBLE TO RIDERS. SB 960
SEEKS TO INCREASE CALTRANS
INVESTMENT IN BIKE AND
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AND
DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO START
PLANNING FOR AND SYSTEMATICALLY
INVESTING IN TRANSIT PRIORITY
IMPROVEMENTS ON THE STATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM, THE BILL DOES SO
BY REQUIRING ALL SHOT PROJECTS
STARTING WITH THE 2026 SHOP TO
INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE
IMPROVEMENTS, AND FOR PROJECTS
COMMENCING WITH THE 2028 SHOP TO
ALSO INCLUDE TRANSIT PRIORITY
IMPROVEMENTS. SB 960 REQUIRES
ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL
COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THESE PROJECTS.
THE BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH
VULNERABLE ROAD USER
IMPROVEMENTS ON PORTIONS OF THE
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, WHERE
ACCESS TO PEDESTRIANS AND
BICYCLISTS IS LEGALLY
PROHIBITED. WHAT WE WOULD
TRADITIONALLY THINK OF AS A
FREEWAY. NOR DOES IT REQUIRE THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A PEDESTRIAN
OR BIKE FACILITY THAT WOULD
CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL, UNAVOIDABLE
SAFETY RISK TO PEDESTRIANS OR
BICYCLISTS. THE BILL WILL ALSO
REQUIRE CALTRANS TO DEVELOP BY
2026, A TRANSIT PRIORITY POLICY,
AND FINALLY, SB 960 REQUIRES
CALTRANS TO ESTABLISH A
DEDICATED PROJECT INTAKE, REVIEW
AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
JURISDICTIONS, INCLUDING CITIES
AND TRANSIT AGENCIES, THAT ARE
TRYING TO IMPLEMENT COMPLETE
STREET PROJECTS ON THE STATE
RIGHT OF WAY, OR FACILITIES THAT
ARE INTERSECTING WITH THE STATE
RIGHT OF WAY, COLLEAGUES, TIME
HAS COME FOR THE STATE TO PLAY
ITS PART IN IMPROVING SAFETY ON
OUR STREETS. SB 960 WILL DO
THAT, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OUR JEANNIE
WARD WALLER, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA BIKE COALITION, AND
ANITA STROMGREN WITH AARP.
WELCOME TO THE SUPPORT
WITNESSES. YOU'LL HAVE A COUPLE
MINUTES EACH AND PROCEED IN
WHICHEVER ORDER YOU LIKE. YEAH.
GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS DANITA STROMGREN, AND
I'M AN AARP MEMBER, VOLUNTEER
AND ALSO HAPPEN TO BE A RESIDENT
OF DISTRICT THREE IN THE CITY OF
DAVIS. THANK YOU, CHAIR CORTEZ
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE 3.2 MILLION AARP
CALIFORNIA MEMBERS. TRAFFIC
RELATED DEATHS AND INJURIES ARE
SEVERE. PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS
IMPACTING OLDER CALIFORNIANS,
BASICALLY FOR TWO REASONS. THE
FIRST IS SAFETY. PEDESTRIANS AGE
65 AND OLDER ARE MORE LIKELY TO
DIE OR BE SERIOUSLY INJURED IN
TRAFFIC VIOLENCE, ESPECIALLY ON
STREETS THAT DO NOT HAVE
COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
LIKE PROTECTED BIKE LANES AND
HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS. THE
SECOND REASON IS HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING. OLDER ADULTS THRIVE
WHEN THEY CAN SAFELY WALK, BIKE
AND TAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION,
AND STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITIES WITH COMPLETE STREET
INVESTMENTS HAVE INCREASED LIFE
EXPECTANCIES, REDUCED HEALTH
CARE COSTS, AND END UP WITH
HAPPIER RESIDENTS. FOR THESE
REASONS, AARP WAS PROUD TO
SPONSOR CALIFORNIA'S FIRST
COMPLETE STREET ACT IN 2008.
HOWEVER, SIX YEARS, 16 YEARS
LATER, WERE DISAPPOINTED TO SEE
THE LACK OF PROGRESS IN MAKING
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS SAFER AND
HEALTHIER THROUGH MEANINGFUL
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENTS. SB 960 IS URGENTLY
NEEDED NOT ONLY TO ADDRESS WHERE
WE ARE NOW, BUT WHERE WE ARE
HEADED BY 2030, 1 IN 4
CALIFORNIANS WILL BE OVER 60.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO AREN'T THERE
YET, WE ALL WILL BE THERE AT ONE
POINT. WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW
CLEARLY IS KEEPING OUR STATE
MAINTAINED ROADWAYS SAFER FOR
OLDER ADULTS. SB 960 COMPLETE
STREET REQUIREMENT IS NECESSARY
FOR STATE AGENCIES TO PREPARE
FOR A SAFE, HEALTHY FUTURE FOR
GENERATIONS OF OLDER ADULTS TO
COME. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF AARP MEMBERS IN
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF SB 960,
AND WE ASK FOR A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M JEANNIE WALLER WITH
FEARLESS ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
CAL BIKE, ONE OF THE CO-SPONSORS
OF SB 960. AS YOU'VE HEARD, WE
FACE AN ALARMING RISE IN ROADWAY
FATALITIES AS WELL AS A CLIMATE
EMERGENCY CAUSED BY AN
OVERRELIANCE ON PERSONAL
VEHICLES. TO ADDRESS THESE
CRISES, WE URGENTLY NEED A
STRONGER MANDATE FOR CALTRANS TO
BUILD A COMFORTABLE, CONVENIENT,
MULTIMODAL SYSTEM. SB 960
REQUIRES CALTRANS TO IMPLEMENT
THEIR OWN POLICY AND PLANS FOR
WALK, BIKE AND TRANSIT PRIORITY
FACILITIES ON THE STATE HIGHWAY
SYSTEM. CALTRANS ADOPTED ITS
FIRST COMPLETE STREETS POLICY IN
2008, AND ALL 12 DISTRICTS
COMPLETED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS IN
2021. BASED ON THESE PLANS,
CALTRANS IDENTIFIED 15 BILLION
IN NEED FOR WALK AND BIKE
FACILITIES ON THE SYSTEM AND SET
A TARGET TO INVEST 3 BILLION
OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS IN THOSE
FACILITIES. HOWEVER, DESPITE
AMBITIOUS POLICY AND PLANNING,
CALTRANS HAS A LONG WAY TO GO
BEFORE THEIR INVESTMENTS IN
PROJECTS REFLECT THESE GOALS.
CAL BIKE INVESTIGATED THE 2024
SHOP, THE STATE HIGHWAY
OPERATION AND PROTECTION
PROGRAM, WHICH IS CALTRANS $21
BILLION INVESTMENT IN
MAINTENANCE AND REHAB PROJECTS
OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. WE
FOUND THAT 600 PROJECTS IN THE
2024 SHOP WILL ONLY ADD 215
MILES OF BIKE LANES AND 30 MILES
OF SIDEWALK, COMPARED TO
CALTRANS TARGETS. THAT'S LESS
THAN 8% OF THE TARGET TO BUILD
BIKE LANES, AND 2% OF THE
SIDEWALK TARGET THAT WILL GET
BUILT IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.
CALTRANS IS EVEN FURTHER BEHIND,
AND IDENTIFYING AND IMPLEMENTING
TRANSIT PRIORITY. THESE PROJECTS
HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO GET BUSSES
OUT OF TRAFFIC, MAKE SERVICE
MORE RELIABLE, AND ATTRACT
RIDERS OUT OF PERSONAL VEHICLES.
HOWEVER, CALTRANS DEVELOPED A
POLICY LAST YEAR THAT HAS YET TO
BE ADOPTED, AND THE DISTRICTS
ARE JUST BEGINNING WORK ON
TRANSIT PLANS THAT WILL TAKE
SEVERAL YEARS TO COMPLETE. SHOP
REPAVING PROJECTS PRESENT THE
BEST OPPORTUNITY TO COST
EFFECTIVELY BUILD, WALK, BIKE
AND TRANSIT FACILITIES RATHER
THAN HAVING TO COME BACK AND
BUILD THEM AS STANDALONE
PROJECTS. CALTRANS BUDGET IS
LARGER THAN EVER THANKS TO SB
ONE AND THE FEDERAL BIPARTISAN
INFRASTRUCTURE LAW. WITH THIS
INFLUX OF FUNDS, CALTRANS SHOULD
NOT MISS OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE
OUR SYSTEM SAFER, GREENER, AND
MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL USERS. I
URGE YOUR SUPPORT ON SB 960.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM WISHES TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON. RAFA SONNENFELD
WITH YIMBY ACTION ON BEHALF OF
EAST BAY YIMBY MOUNTAIN VIEW
YIMBY NORTHERN NEIGHBORS
PENINSULA FOR EVERYONE SAN
FRANCISCO YIMBY. SANTA ROSA
YIMBY SLOW C¢M URBAN
ENVIRONMENTALIST GROW THE
RICHMOND, VENTURA COUNTY M
STREETS FOR PEOPLE SOUTH SIDE
FORWARD HOW TO ADU PEOPLE FOR
HOUSING ORANGE COUNTY PROGRESS
NÓI VALLEY SOUTH BAY, YIMBY AND
NAPA SOLANO FOR EVERYONE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MONNING
MORALES, ON BEHALF OF THE
GREENLINING INSTITUTE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU LARA SEEKINS
FOR PUBLIC ADVOCATES AND SUPPORT
. JONATHAN COLE FOR CLIMATE
ACTION CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT
MARK VUKOVICH ON BEHALF OF
STREETS FOR ALL IN SUPPORT.
ADINA LEVIN SEAMLESS BAY AREA IN
SUPPORT. STEVE WALLACH, ON
BEHALF OF THE NAPA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY IN
SUPPORT. CATHERINE CHARLES, ON
BEHALF OF HOUSING ACTION
COALITION IN SUPPORT. ZACH
DIJKSTRA, ON BEHALF OF TRANSFORM
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JAMIE
PUGH WITH NEXT GEN CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. LAURA
VOLKOFF, TRANSPORTATION POLICY
DIRECTOR WITH SPUR, HAPPY TO
CO-SPONSOR ALSO AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. ALSO HERE
ON BEHALF OF MOVE LA WHO
COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY OFFERING
THEIR SUPPORT. VIÆT MICHAEL
ZUBIATE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
OAN SOPHIA KEKOA WITH THE
COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR AND
SUPPORT. JODI MEDEIROS,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF WALK SAN
FRANCISCO AND ALSO REPRESENTING
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA FAMILIES
FOR SAFE STREETS. WE SUPPORT.
OUR VISION ZERO NETWORK IN
SUPPORT. BROUGH AND PAM, ON
BEHALF OF KIDSAFE SAN FRANCISCO,
IN SUPPORT. AUDREY RITECHECK
FROM CRUZ STRATEGIES ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE IN
SUPPORT. DAN ALLISON IN SUPPORT.
GEORGIA DORMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION, IN SUPPORT. SYLVIA
SOLIS SHAW, ON BEHALF OF CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
MAYOR LONDON BREED IN SUPPORT
ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AND THE CITY OF
WEST HOLLYWOOD, ALL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CAROL TAYLOR FROM
GENESIS AND SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. LOOKS LIKE THAT
CONCLUDES SUPPORT WITNESSES. AND
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE NOW TO
OPPOSITION, WE HAVE PRIMARY
OPPOSITION WITNESS MARK WATTS.
YOU MAY COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M PLEASED
TO BE HERE TODAY. AND I JUST
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I
UNDERSTAND AND, SENATOR
SKINNER'S BILL VERY WELL. AS A
KID, I HAD A SPORTS CAR WITH NO
ROOF, AND I HAVE THE BEGINNINGS
ON THE LEFT EAR, SO I FIGURED
IT'S ALL TRUE. BUT TODAY, MY
MAIN PURPOSE OF TALKING TO YOU
IS TO OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY
ORGANIZATION, TRANSPORTATION
CALIFORNIA, WAS ONE OF THE
LEADERS IN PUTTING TOGETHER FROM
THE PUBLIC SECTOR THE PRIVATE
SECTOR SIDE, SB ONE. WE WORKED
FOR YEARS GETTING TO THAT POINT.
AND AT THAT POINT WHEN WE WERE
WORKING ON THAT WITH ALL THE
MEMBERS HERE, SUCH AS SENATOR
NEWMAN AND OTHERS, WE KNEW WE
COULDN'T FULLY FUND THE
RECONSTRUCT NEEDS OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, LET ALONE LOCAL
STREETS AND ROADS. AS A
CONSEQUENCE, WE PUT TOGETHER
COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE
GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE A
PACKAGE OF TAXES THAT THAT
ACCOMPLISHED ABOUT A THIRD OF
WHAT WE NEEDED TO IN ANY ONE OF
THOSE THREE CATEGORIES STATE,
LOCAL, STREETS AND ROADS, AND
TRANSIT. AND AS A CONSEQUENCE,
THE STATE PROGRAM, MOST MOSTLY
DEDICATED TO RECONSTRUCTION,
REHABILITATION, THÀNH IS
RECEIVING ON AN ONGOING BASIS
SOMETHING LESS THAN $5 BILLION
OF WHAT IT NEEDS. SO WHEN YOU
DEDICATE NEW PROGRAMS LATER IN
THE PROCESS TO ITEMS THAT ARE
VERY NEEDED, SUCH AS COMPLETE
STREETS, WE BELIEVE THEY NEED TO
FIND THEIR OWN, SOURCE OF
FUNDING RATHER THAN DEPLOY
EATING THE STATE HIGHWAY PROGRAM
SYSTEM OF FUNDING, BECAUSE AT
THIS POINT, WE'RE JUST NOT
SEEING THE EQUITY IN THE, THE
POLICIES. SO AS A CONSEQUENCE,
OUR ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING
THE FOLKS WHO BUILD PLAN AND
CONSTRUCT THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM IN
THIS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
WELL AS THE TRANSIT SYSTEM IN
CALIFORNIA, ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED
TO THIS MEASURE. AT THIS POINT
IN TIME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
ARE THERE OTHERS HERE IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM WHO WISH TO COME
FORWARD AND EXPRESS OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL, SEEING NO ONE COME
FORWARD, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SENATOR BOXER? YES.
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THIS
BILL. AND ITS AMBITION. AND I
WANTED TO, JUST MAKE A COUPLE
COMMENTS AND THEN A COUPLE
QUESTIONS. SO, IN MY DISTRICT
11, WHEN I SERVED AS THE MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS AND
ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, WE HAD A
REALLY GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH
CALTRANS, AND I FELT LIKE THEY
DID BUILD A LOT OF COMPLETE
STREETS, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS. I UNDERSTAND THAT
STATEWIDE IT'S VARIABLE, AND
PART OF THIS IS TO ESTABLISH A
REALLY STRONG BASIC FOUNDATION
FOR WHAT PROJECTS WOULD BE BUILT
, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
WANTED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND,
WHICH I WASN'T ABLE TO FROM THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT REPORT, WAS
WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE ROADS THAT
ARE NOT FREEWAYS THAT ARE
CONSIDERED THESE STATE HIGHWAYS
THAT ARE NOT LOCAL ROADS OR ARE
THE LOCAL ROADS INCLUDED? WELL,
SO, YES. SO AND I'M GLAD THAT
ENCINITAS HAD A GREAT EXPERIENCE
. I'M NOT THIS IS NOT ABOUT
DEMONIZING CALTRANS. THERE ARE
GOOD PROJECTS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED. I KNOW THE CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO HAS HAD UPS AND DOWNS
AND SOME GREAT COLLABORATION AND
OTHER VERY PROBLEMATIC
SITUATIONS. SO IT'S LIFE IS
COMPLICATED AS PER THE NORM, SO
IN FOR EXAMPLE, IN SAN
FRANCISCO, VAN NESS AVENUE, IF
YOU EVER BEEN THERE, STATE
HIGHWAY, 19TH AVENUE, STATE
HIGHWAY PARK. PRESIDIO. STATE
HIGHWAY, SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD
IN LA, OR AT LEAST STRETCHES OF
IT, IS A STATE HIGHWAY. AND SO
WE HAVE ALL ACROSS SOME BIG
CITIES, YOU'LL HAVE MAJOR ROADS
THAT YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU'RE
LIKE, THIS IS A CITY STREET. NO,
IT'S ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY A
STATE HIGHWAY. IT'S OWNED BY
CALTRANS. THE CITY, THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CANNOT JUST GO OUT
AND DO WORK ON IT. ONLY THE
STATE CAN. AND YOU KNOW, AND SO
WE'VE HAD CHALLENGES IN SAN
FRANCISCO EVEN LIKE DOING
TRAFFIC RE SIGNALIZATION ALONG
19TH AVENUE. YOU HAD TO GET
PERMISSION FROM CALTRANS TO DO
IT, AND IT WOULD TAKE FOREVER.
BUT FOR AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF
SMALL TOWNS. AND I KNOW THIS
JUST BECAUSE WE HAD WHEN WE DID
THIS BILL LAST TIME, ALL THESE
SMALL TOWN FOLKS FROM RURAL
AREAS WOULD COME FORWARD AND SAY
THINGS LIKE, OUR MAIN STREET IS
A STATE HIGHWAY, I LIVE TWO
BLOCKS FROM MY KIDS SCHOOL. MY
KID CANNOT WALK TO SCHOOL
BECAUSE THERE'S LITERALLY
NOWHERE TO CROSS THE STREET.
THAT SHOULD NEVER BE WORDS.
THERE SHOULD NEVER BE WORDS THAT
COME OUT OF A PARENT'S MOUTH.
AND THAT IS CALTRANS
RESPONSIBILITY. AND AGAIN, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE'RE NOT.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SAYING YOU
HAVE TO START A NEW PROJECT
THERE. THIS IS ABOUT WHEN THEY
ARE ALREADY DOING A PROJECT.
THEY'RE ALREADY RESURFACING,
RECONSTRUCTING, SAYING WHILE
YOU'RE AT IT, DO THESE OTHER
THINGS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL
OF THEM. THEY CAN DO AN
EVALUATION, BUT THEY CAN'T JUST
IGNORE IT. IT'S NOT TAKING WITH
ALL RESPECT. I WAS INVOLVED IN
SB ONE TWO. SB ONE WAS NOT JUST
ABOUT DRIVING, IT WAS ALSO ABOUT
BIKING AND WALKING AND ALL OF
THESE OTHER THINGS AND, AND
TRANSIT. AND IT'S NOT TAKING
MONEY AWAY. IT'S ENSURING THAT
WHEN WE DO THIS CAPITAL WORK,
WE'RE LOOKING OUT FOR ALL USERS.
YES. THANK YOU. AND JUST JUST TO
CLARIFY, SO IN ENCINITAS, WE DID
HAVE FRICTION WITH CALTRANS.
LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE FREEWAY ON
RAMPS AND THE TIMING OF THE
LIGHTS. AND THERE WERE VARIOUS
THINGS THAT WOULD COME UP
HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS AND THE
CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY. I MEAN,
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT PLACES
WHERE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES NEED
TO WORK WELL TOGETHER. BUT THE
POINT IS THAT THIS IS SETS A
FRAMEWORK FOR WHEN THERE'S
ALREADY WORK BEING DONE, THAT IT
BE BROUGHT UP TO A CERTAIN
STANDARD. AND I THINK GIVEN THE
REALITY AS WELL, THAT A LOT OF
THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MONEY
IS BEING CUT, PROPOSED BY THE
GOVERNOR AND HIS PROPOSED
BUDGET. YOU KNOW, THERE
POTENTIALLY ARE FEWER ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT
WILL BE COMING FORWARD. SO
HAVING MORE OF THEM FROM INSIDE
OF THE CALTRANS RIGHT AWAY IS
REALLY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY, OF
COURSE, TO MEET ALL OF THE GOALS
AROUND MODE SHIFT AND EMISSIONS
REDUCTION THAT WE'RE GOING FOR
ACROSS MANY POLICY AREAS. I
WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU COULD JUST
DIRECTLY ADDRESS, BECAUSE I'VE
HEARD THIS BEFORE, THAT THE
OPPOSITION STATEMENT AND THE
CORE OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING,
WHICH IS BASICALLY WE JUST DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO THIS IF
WE DO ONE PROJECT AND IT
BALLOONS IN COST, THEN THAT
MEANS WE CAN'T DO THESE TEN
OTHER PROJECTS. AND THE STATE OF
GOOD REPAIR IS ALSO A REALLY
IMPORTANT VALUE. SO I'M JUST
WONDERING IF YOU COULD ADDRESS
THAT. YEAH. SO AND THEN I'LL ASK
MISS WALLER TO TALK ABOUT IT AS
WELL, OF COURSE WE ALL WANT TO
ADDRESS THE FULL NEED AND NO
ONE'S CLAIMING THAT, YOU KNOW,
SB ONE AND SO FORTH, LIKE, SOLVE
THE ENTIRE PROBLEM. BUT WE
INFUSED A HUGE AMOUNT OF NEW
INVESTMENT INTO THE SYSTEM WITH
SB ONE, AND I'M PROUD OF THE
WORK THAT THIS LEGISLATURE DID,
TO, TO GET THERE. AND SO WE HAVE
RESOURCES. AND WHEN WE ARE
ALREADY DOING A PROJECT, WE
SHOULD BE IT IS WAY MORE
EFFICIENT TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
ELEMENTS IN A PROJECT. AND
SOMETIMES IT'S AS SIMPLE AS A
CROSSWALK, WAY MORE EFFICIENT TO
INCLUDE IT RATHER THAN TREAT IT
AS A SEPARATE PROJECT. THIS
WHOLE NOTION THAT THE STATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND AGAIN, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT CITY SURFACE
STREETS, EFFECTIVELY THAT THAT'S
SOMEHOW SEPARATE FROM COMPLETE
STREETS. I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH
THAT. AND IT'S MUCH MORE
EFFICIENT TO DO IT ALL TOGETHER.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND
WHEN THE TIME COMES, I'LL MOVE
THE BILL AND I THINK MISS WALLER
CAN PROBABLY ADD TO WHAT I WAS
SAYING. PLEASE DO. YEAH. I JUST
LOVE TO BRIEFLY ADD, IN ADDITION
TO SB ONE, AND I THINK THE
OPPOSITION DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS
DIRECTLY. WE ALSO HAVE FEDERAL
FORMULA FUNDS FROM THE
BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW,
WHICH WE'RE ALSO ADDED HAVE BEEN
ADDED TO THE SHOP. ADDITIONALLY,
AND THAT LAW ALSO HAD PROVISIONS
ABOUT ADDRESSING THINGS LIKE
CLIMATE AND EQUITY AND SAFE
STREETS. SO WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S
VERY APPROPRIATE MONEY AND IT
CAN BE USED FLEXIBLY. OF COURSE,
IT'S IN THIS POT FOR STATE
HIGHWAY OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE, BUT THAT POT ALSO
HAD PROVISIONS IN SB ONE THAT
SAID, EVERY TIME CALTRANS DOES A
PROJECT, TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY
TO IMPROVE BIKE WALK AND TRANSIT
FACILITIES. AND THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE SAYING IN THIS BILL. WE'RE
NOT SEEING YET. SO WE WANT TO
PUSH HARDER. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR ARCHULETA. THANK
YOU. SENATOR. QUESTION,
NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU KNOW, THE
STREETS NEED TO BE REDONE. WE
HEAR IT ALL THE TIME WHEN WE'RE
AS MAYORS OR COUNCIL MEMBERS.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REDO MY
STREET, NOW, ARE YOU TALKING.
ARE ARE THE MUNICIPALITIES GOING
TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY STEP IN
AND CONSULT WITH OR VICE VERSA
WITH CALTRANS IN THEIR
PRIORITIES IN THEIR
NEIGHBORHOODS, RATHER THAN A
THOROUGHFARE THAT MAYBE BE A
HIGHWAY WHO'S GOING TO HAVE THE
SAY, FOR THE OVERALL APPEASEMENT
OF THE CONSTITUENTS? YEAH. SO
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE A LOT OF
COMMUNITIES WHERE THERE'S A MIX.
THERE ARE LOCAL STREETS WHICH
ARE PURELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE CITY. AND THEN THERE'S THE
WHAT LOOKS LIKE A LOCAL STREET,
BUT IS REALLY A STATE OWNED
ROAD, AND SO AND THEN CALTRANS
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. THE
BILL REQUIRES AND ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING
TO DO IS TO REALLY, REALLY GET
CALTRANS TO CONSISTENTLY AND
DEEPLY ENGAGE WITH AND WORK WITH
THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, WHICH
AGAIN, I DON'T I'M NOT BROAD
BRUSHING THAT THAT DOES HAPPEN.
THAT COLLABORATION. BUT WE WANT
IT TO BE EVEN MORE BECAUSE A LOT
OF TIMES CITIES WILL PUT
TOGETHER PLANS FOR AN ENTIRE
AREA THAT INCLUDES SOME STATE
ROADS. AND WE WANT CALTRANS TO
BE COLLABORATING CLOSELY WITH
THE CITY, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT
THESE TO BE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF
SILOED. THAT'S NOT HELPFUL TO
ANYONE. SO WE WANT THAT
COLLABORATION. AND ULTIMATELY,
CITIES REALLY KNOW, LIKE WHAT
WORKS, IN TERMS OF THAT STREET
SAFETY FOR THE ENTIRE NETWORK.
AND SO THAT COLLABORATION IS
VERY IMPORTANT. WELL THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE INCLUDED. YES, I'LL MOVE
THE BILL IF NO ONE'S ALREADY. WE
GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE?
ALL RIGHT, WE DO. WANT TO GIVE
THE AUTHOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CLOSE, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE
MOTION. I THINK WE'VE I THINK
WE'VE EFFECTIVELY CLOSED. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE WE DID. THEY CAME IN
AS AUTHOR AMENDMENTS BEFORE THE
ANALYSIS. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE SET FOR
WORKING WITH US ON AMENDMENTS
THAT WE ALREADY PUT INTO THE
BILL. SO THANK YOU. WE KNOW YOU
DID A LOT OF WORK ON IT WITH THE
COMMITTEE. APPRECIATE IT VERY
MUCH. AND WE DO HAVE A MOTION
FROM SENATOR BLAKESLEE. AND THAT
MOTION IS I'LL LET YOU READ IT
OUT. OKAY THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 960. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASSED AND REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS CORTEZ. AYE CORTEZ.
AYE. NILO NÓ. NILO NØ. ALAN
ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA. AYE.
BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE SPEER. AYE.
DALLY. DODD. AYE. DODD. AYE.
GONZALEZ LAIRD. LIMON. NEWMAN
NEWMAN. AYE. WHEN? WHEN. NO
PORTANTINO. PORTANTINO. AYE.
SATO. NO. SATO NO. UMBERG. 6 TO
3 ON. ALL RIGHT. THE VOTES AT 6
TO 3. AND WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL
AND WE'LL MOVE RIGHT TO ITEM
FIVE. SENATOR WIENER, THAT'S SB
961, AS YOU KNOW. AND YOU'RE
WELCOME TO PRESENT ON THIS ONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
AND AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU
AND YOUR STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
US AND WE'VE TAKEN A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS AS AUTHOR AMENDMENTS
AHEAD OF TIME. BUT THEY WERE
WORKED OUT WITH THE COMMITTEE.
AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT OF THOSE AMENDMENTS
IS TAKING THE BILL FROM WHAT WE
CALL AN ACTIVE SPEED GOVERNOR
REQUIREMENT TO A PASSIVE SPEED
GOVERNOR REQUIREMENT. ACTIVE
MEANS THAT YOU ARE PHYSICALLY
IMPEDED FROM GOING ABOVE A
CERTAIN SPEED. PASSIVE MEANS
THAT YOU ARE NOTIFIED AND
REMINDED WHEN YOU'RE GOING ABOVE
A CERTAIN SPEED. SO THE BILL IS
NOW PASSIVE, SO SB 961, LIKE THE
BILL WE JUST HEARD, ADDRESSES
THE TRAFFIC SAFETY CRISIS IN
CALIFORNIA, AND DOES. SO THIS
TIME NOT FROM A STREET DESIGN
PERSPECTIVE, BUT FROM THE ACTUAL
VEHICLE, SB 961 REQUIRES THIS
COMMON SENSE TECHNOLOGY, A
PASSIVE SPEED GOVERNOR, WHICH
HAS ALREADY BEEN RECOMMENDED.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, THE
NTSB, WHICH IS HERE TODAY, WHICH
IS THE TOP TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY, HAS
RECOMMEND THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR
ALL NEW CARS IN THE US. AND HAS
SUBMITTED A LETTER SUPPORTING
THIS BILL. AND YOU'LL HEAR FROM
THE NTSB TODAY, AND SB 961 WILL
REQUIRE ALL PASSENGER VEHICLES,
TRUCKS AND BUSSES THAT ARE
MANUFACTURED OR SOLD IN
CALIFORNIA TO BE EQUIPPED WITH
PASSIVE SPEED. GOVERNOR
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN
INTELLIGENT SPEED ASSISTANCE
SYSTEM, TO WARN THE DRIVER WHEN
THEY ARE TRAVELING FASTER THAN
FIVE MILES AN HOUR ABOVE THE
SPEED LIMIT, HALF OF VEHICLES
MANUFACTURED OR SOLD WILL HAVE
TO HAVE A PASSIVE SPEED GOVERNOR
BY 2029, AND 100% BY 2032. SO, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS
ESTABLISHED TECHNOLOGY. THIS IS
NOT SOME SORT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY.
IT'S ESTABLISHED TECHNOLOGY THAT
IS ALREADY IN VEHICLES IN THIS
COUNTRY AND IN OTHER PARTS OF
THE WORLD. THE EU HAS REQUIRED,
SPEED GOVERNORS, THE CITY OF NEW
YORK IS IN THE PROCESS OF
EQUIPPING ITS ENTIRE MUNICIPAL
FLEET. THOUSANDS OF CARS SO FAR
WITH ACTIVE SPEED GOVERNORS. AND
THAT HAS GONE VERY, VERY WELL
WITH A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF
ACCURACY IN TERMS OF THE GPS,
AND WE SHOULD DO SO HERE IN
CALIFORNIA FOR ALL NEW CARS
MANUFACTURED OR SOLD HERE, 4000
PEOPLE A YEAR DYING IN
CALIFORNIA ROADS. AS I MENTIONED
WITH THE LAST BILL, NEARLY
50,000 PEOPLE A YEAR IN THE US
THAT IS AN INCREASE BOTH IN
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONALLY OVER
THE LAST 5 OR 6 YEARS. AND I
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, IT'S NOT
NORMAL. AND WE SHOULD NEVER
ACCEPT THIS AS NORMAL. EVERY ONE
OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO DIES IS
SOMEONE'S CHILD, PARENT, FRIEND,
SPOUSE, AND IT CHANGES THEIR
FAMILY FOREVER. AND THE NUMBERS
ARE GOING UP. AND WHEN YOU
COMPARE THE US TO OTHER WEALTHY
NATIONS, WE ARE DEFINITELY NOT
NORMAL. WE ARE AN EXTREME
OUTLIER. IT IS NOT THIS WAY IN
OTHER COUNTRIES, AND WE KNOW
THAT SPEED IS A SIGNIFICANT
FACTOR, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT
PEOPLE LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GO AS
FAST AS THEY WANT TO GO. AND ALL
WE'RE SAYING IS, LET'S DO A
REMINDER WHEN YOU ARE GOING
SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE THE SPEED
LIMIT SO THAT YOU CAN BE
REMINDED TO SLOW DOWN, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
, AND I ALSO, I NEGLECTED TO
MENTION THE OTHER PIECE OF THE
BILL, IN TERMS OF SIDE GUARDS
FOR TRUCKS, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY
PASSING AROUND A PHOTO OF WHAT
IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN A CAR AND A
TRUCK COLLIDE AND THE CAR ENDS
UP UNDERNEATH THE TRUCK, WHICH
SIGNIFICANTLY, DRAMATICALLY
INCREASES THE RISK OF THE PERSON
DYING OR BEING VERY SERIOUSLY
INJURED. AND THIS IS, AGAIN,
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL
PREVENT CARS FROM GOING
UNDERNEATH THE SIDE OF THE
TRUCK. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY ARE ELLEN LEE WITH THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
BOARD, NTSB, AND MARK VUKOVICH
WITH STREETS FOR ALL. WELCOME,
MISS LIAM. MR. VUKOVICH, YOU MAY
PROCEED. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
CORTEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ELLEN LEE,
AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE TODAY
ON SB 961. AND IN SUPPORT OF
NTSB'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTELLIGENT
SPEED ASSISTANCE, OR ISA SYSTEMS
IN ALL NEW VEHICLES. THE NTSB
HAS LONG SUPPORTED ISA, AND
SINCE 2012 HAS RECOMMENDED THE
ADOPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY.
SPEED IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR
IN NEARLY 30% OF ALL ROADWAY
FATALITIES. THIS IS
UNACCEPTABLE, THE NTSB CONTINUES
TO INVESTIGATE MAJOR CRASHES
WHERE SPEED WAS A CAUSAL OR
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR, INCLUDING
ONE IN AVENAL, CALIFORNIA, IN
2020. SOME OF THESE INVOLVE
DRIVERS GOING DOUBLE OR TRIPLE
THE SPEED LIMIT. WE RECENTLY
INVESTIGATED A CRASH IN NEVADA,
WHERE A SPEEDING AND IMPAIRED
DRIVER RAN A RED LIGHT, CAUSING
NINE FATALITIES. THIS LED THE
NTSB TO ISSUE NEW
RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE TO NHTSA TO
REQUIRE ISA TECHNOLOGY IN ALL
NEW VEHICLES THAT, AT A MINIMUM,
WARNS THE DRIVER WHEN THE
VEHICLE EXCEEDS THE SPEED LIMIT,
AND ONE TO. VEHICLE
MANUFACTURERS TO IMPLEMENT ISA
AS STANDARD EQUIPMENT IN NEW
VEHICLES. BROAD DEPLOYMENT OF
ISA WILL REDUCE THE FREQUENCY OF
SPEEDING AND SPEEDING RELATED
CRASHES LIKE THIS ONE, SAVING
LIVES AND PREVENTING INJURIES.
WHILE THIS TECHNOLOGY MAY SOUND
TOO NEW TO REQUIRE AN ALL NEW
VEHICLES, IT IS ALREADY AN
OPTION OFFERED BY MANY U.S.
MANUFACTURERS FOR COMMERCIAL AND
PASSENGER VEHICLES, AND HAS BEEN
AVAILABLE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
FOR YEARS. ISA WILL SOON BE
MANDATORY IN ALL VEHICLES SOLD
IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, YET NHTSA
HAS BEEN SLOW TO TAKE ANY
MEANINGFUL ACTION. ISA IS A
PROVEN COUNTERMEASURE THAT, IF
WIDELY DEPLOYED, WILL SAVE LIVES
ON CALIFORNIA ROADS. AND WE
APPLAUD YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS
POLICY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MARK VUKOVICH. TREATS FOR ALL
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. I'M HERE
TODAY BECAUSE OF ONE SIMPLE BUT
DEVASTATING FACT TRAFFIC
VIOLENCE HAS BECOME HAS BECOME
THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH
FOR CALIFORNIA SCHOOL AGE
CHILDREN. IT'S NOT DRUGS. IT'S
NOT GUNS. IT'S GETTING HIT BY A
CAR. AND FOR CONTEXT, THE
SOCIETAL COST OF CAR CRASHES IS
MORE THAN THE COST OF WILDFIRES.
IT'S MORE THAN THE COST OF
CANCER. PEDESTRIAN DEATHS IN
THIS COUNTRY HAVE SHOT UP 77%
SINCE 2010, AND THAT FACT I
MENTIONED EARLIER WAS ACTUALLY
IN COMPLETE TRAFFIC. VIOLENCE IS
THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF ALL
PEOPLE FROM THE AGE OF 5 TO 44.
AND THAT NUMBER ONE FACTOR IN
CAR CRASHES IS NOT IMPAIRED
DRIVING OR TEXTING, BUT SPEED.
AND THE PUBLIC AT A HIGH LEVEL
IS AWARE OF THIS. I BELIEVE THAT
IF THE PUBLIC WAS ASKED, THEY
WANT THE LEGISLATURE TO TACKLE
THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF ADULTS
IN AND CHILDREN IN CALIFORNIA,
THE LARGEST FACTOR THAT PARENTS
CITE IN ALLOWING THEIR CHILDREN
TO WALK TO SCHOOL OR NOT IS NOT
WHETHER THAT CHILD IS GOING TO
GET KIDNAPED ON THEIR WAY TO
SCHOOL. IT'S THAT WORRY THAT
THEIR CHILD IS GOING TO DIE
WALKING TO SCHOOL AFTER FOR FUEL
EFFICIENCY. SAFETY IS THE
LARGEST FACTOR PEOPLE CITE WHEN
CHOOSING WHETHER OR NOT TO BUY A
CAR. THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO
FEEL SAFE ON OUR ROADWAYS, AND I
BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC CONTRACT
IS BROKEN ON OUR ROADWAYS. HAS
ANYONE DRIVEN ON THE HIGHWAYS
RECENTLY? THE MADNESS. IT'S
MADNESS THE WAY PEOPLE ARE
DRIVING RIGHT NOW ON OUR
ROADWAYS. THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT
PASS A BILL TOMORROW TO CUT THE
AMOUNT OF CANCER IN HALF, BUT
THE LEGISLATURE CAN ACT ON THIS
ISSUE AREA. THAT'S WHAT THE
EUROPEAN UNION DOES. HAS DONE,
REQUIRING THIS ON ALL THEIR
VEHICLES IN THEIR 27 MEMBER
COUNTRIES, WITH A TOTAL
POPULATION OF 440 MILLION
PEOPLE. AND THAT'S WITH
COUNTRIES THAT HAVE A CAR
CULTURE LIKE ITALY AND GERMANY.
SPEED ASSISTANCE TECHNOLOGY IS
JUST LIKE SEATBELT WARNING
SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY THAT LIKE
AIRBAGS AND REAR BACKUP CAMERAS,
WAS ALSO OPPOSED BY THE AUTO
INDUSTRY, BUT HAS SAVED
COUNTLESS LIVES. LASTLY, I'LL
LEAVE YOU WITH SOME NUMBERS IN
JUST 2021, IN PICO RIVERA, 221
PEOPLE WERE INJURED OR KILLED ON
THE STREETS IN THE CITY OF NAPA,
327 PEOPLE WERE INJURED OR
KILLED ON THE STREETS AND IN THE
CITY OF FULLERTON, 988 PEOPLE
WERE INJURED OR KILLED ON THE
STREETS. I ASK YOU TO TAKE
ACTION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ARE THERE OTHER SUPPORT
WITNESSES IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD
AND EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT? IF
SO, PLEASE COME ON UP WITH NAME,
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. ANY
DWELLER WITH CAL BIKE IN SUPPORT
. GRACE NELSON ON BEHALF OF
STREETS FOR EVERYONE, I SUPPORT
OUR VISION ZERO NETWORK AND
SUPPORT LARA SPUR AND SUPPORT
SUPPORTS MICROPHONE JODY
MEDEIROS WALK SAN FRANCISCO ONE
OF THE BILL SPONSORS IN SUPPORT.
ROBIN PAM KIDSAFE, SAN FRANCISCO
IN SUPPORT. ZACH GROSS TRANSFORM
AND SUPPORT. DAN ALLISON IN
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
OTHER SUPPORT. WITNESSES WILL
MOVE TO OPPOSITION. NOW I
BELIEVE WE HAVE KURT AUGUSTINE,
ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION AND CHRIS SHIMODA
COMING FORWARD. WELCOME,
GENTLEMEN. YOU CAN PROCEED AS
SOON AS YOU GET SITUATED A
COUPLE MINUTES EACH, PLEASE. GOD
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS KURT AUGUSTINE. I'M THE
SENIOR DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS FOR THE ALLIANCE FOR
AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO THIS. WE
ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL,
BECAUSE NOT BECAUSE SAFETY IS
NOT THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY. BUT DOES A
PREMATURE SOLUTION, THIS IS NOT
OUR SOLE POSITION, BUT IT IS THE
POSITION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TO
WHICH THE BOARD HAS MADE ITS
RECOMMENDATIONS. WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT TO THE PRIOR SPEAKER,
NHTSA ON NOVEMBER, EXCUSE ME, ON
APRIL 3RD, ISSUED A LETTER
SAYING THAT THEY ARE RESEARCHING
THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC. THEY HAVE
ONGOING RESEARCH RIGHT NOW TO DO
SO, AND THEY BELIEVE THAT
ULTIMATELY THE TECHNOLOGY WILL
BE IN PLACE. BUT TO DO AS AS
THEIR ROLE AS THE REGULATOR FOR
TRAFFIC SAFETY BELIEVE IT IS
PREMATURE TO DO SO. MANY OF THE
REASONS THAT THEY CITE ARE
BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY IS
DEVELOPING, BUT IT'S ALSO
BECAUSE THAT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE,
UNFORTUNATELY, HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES, IS NOT UP TO PAR
AS TO WHAT IT IS IN THE EUROPEAN
UNION. THE EUROPEAN UNION SIGNED
AND THEIR MEMBER COUNTRIES
SIGNED THE VIENNA CONVENTION.
THAT MAKES ALL THEIR SIGNAGE THE
SAME, MAKES ALL THIS PROGRAM
AVAILABLE. WE HAVE MANUFACTURERS
WHO SELL THE SAME EXACT CAR IN
THE UNITED STATES AND IN EUROPE,
AND BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF
PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE AND
REGULAR INFRASTRUCTURE HERE IN
THE UNITED STATES, THEY HAVE TO
TURN THESE FEATURES OFF BECAUSE
THEY DON'T WORK OR CUSTOMERS ARE
SO ANNOYED WITH THE FALSE
WARNINGS THAT THEY FIND IT
EXCUSE ME. VERY TROUBLING. SO
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT
IS PREMATURE. AND FINALLY, THE
RULES ARE FOR THE EUROPEAN
CONTINENT. GERMANY DOES NOT HAVE
A SEPARATE SET OF RULES. FRANCE
DOES NOT HAVE A SEPARATE SET OF
RULES. IT IS FOR THE ENTIRE
CONTINENT. SO FOR CALIFORNIA TO
HAVE ONE SET OF RULES AND HAVING
ALL THE OTHER VEHICLES COMING
INTO OUR STATE, IT'S AN
UNWORKABLE SOLUTION. IT'S
PREMATURE. LET'S LET NITS TO DO
THEIR WORK. AND WE AND WE ARE
WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
TO SET REAL RULES FOR SAFETY FOR
OUR ROADS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS, GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR CORTESE AND MEMBERS, CHRIS
SHIMODA WITH THE CALIFORNIA
TRUCKING ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO SB 961,
SO AS THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
NOTES, PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL
MOTOR TRAFFIC AND VEHICLE SAFETY
ACT OF 1966 AND SUCCESSOR
FEDERAL LEGISLATION, OAN,
NHTSA, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN
REFERENCED, IS CHARGED BY
CONGRESS WITH WRITING AND
ENFORCING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARDS. THE ACT
EXPRESSLY PREEMPTS STATES FROM
ADOPTING THEIR OWN STANDARDS,
AND NHTSA HAS TAKEN THE VIEW IN
AN OPINION LETTER CITED IN OUR
OPPOSITION LETTER THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THE AGENCY TO OCCUPY
THE FIELD OF MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY, EVEN WHERE NHTSA HAS YET
TO PROMULGATE A STANDARD FOR
TRUCKING. IN THE CASE OF BOTH
UNDERRIDE GUARDS AND SPEED
NOTIFICATION OR LIMITERS, NHTSA
CURRENTLY HAS OPEN RULEMAKINGS
CGRTS FEDERAL PARTNERS AT THE
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS
ARE ON RECORD SUPPORTING THE
FEDERAL RULE ON SPEED LIMITERS,
AND OUR PARTICIPANTS IN NHTSA
UNDERRIDE ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
WHICH IS CURRENTLY MEETING AND
WAS MANDATED BY THE BIPARTISAN
INFRASTRUCTURE ACT TO PROVIDE
ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
ON SAFETY REGULATIONS TO REDUCE
UNDERRIDE CRASHES AND FATALITIES
RELATED TO UNDERRIDE CRASHES.
THIS WORK WILL INFORM UNDERRIDE
SOLUTIONS FOR DOZENS OF USE
CASES WITH UNIQUE EQUIPMENT AS
DIVERSE AS PORT CHASSIS, FUEL
TANKERS, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT,
AG EQUIPMENT, REFUSE HAULERS, AS
WELL AS MANY MORE. DOZENS OF
OTHERS. AS WITH ALL FEDERAL
RULES, NHTSA WILL BASE ITS
RULEMAKING ON EXTENSIVE
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH DATA AND
ANALYSIS RATHER THAN CREATING A
COMPETING PROCESS WITH NHTSA,
WHICH IS $1 BILLION AGENCY WITH
OVER HALF A CENTURY OF
EXPERIENCE ESTABLISHING MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS. WE
ENCOURAGE THE AUTHOR AND
SPONSORS TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
NHTSA'S ONGOING RESEARCH AND
RULEMAKING. FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY. ARE THERE OTHERS
HERE WHO WISH TO EXPRESS AN
OPPOSED POSITION? WE SEE FOLKS
COMING FORWARD. YES. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS BRIAN WHITE, ON BEHALF
OF THE PACIFIC MERCHANT SHIPPING
ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE AN OPPOSED,
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION TO
EXEMPT INTERMODAL CHASSIS FROM
THE SIDE GUARDS. THANK YOU.
STEVE WALLACH, ON BEHALF OF THE
INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL
CONTAINER LEASERS IN OPPOSITION.
THANKS KAREN SCHMELZER WITH
MOTORCYCLE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED.
CHRISTIAN ROBINSON WOULD SEMA
THE SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET
ASSOCIATION, OPPOSED. DILLONLIAM
ON BEHALF OF SHASTA COUNTY,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. DEAN
TALLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. CHEN STAND UP WITH THE
CALIFORNIA NEW CAR DEALERS IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MELANIE
AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED
GENERAL CONTRACTORS IN
OPPOSITION, DAVID GONZALEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE TRUCK AND ENGINE
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. BRADY VAN ENGLAND,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, IN
OPPOSITION. VOEPEL REPRESENTING
FORD IN OPPOSITION. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS. DOMINIC DEMAR HERE ON
BEHALF OF BMW IN OPPOSITION. ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY AT THIS
TIME, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE, QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTS. SENATOR ARCHULETA,
SENATOR, I'D LIKE TO TELL YOU,
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LAY OFF
THIS BILL. I'M IT SHOULD BE A
TWO PART BILL, ONE PERTAINING TO
THE GOVERNOR, AND BEING ABLE TO
SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN BECAUSE
THE SAFETY AND SPEED AND SO ON,
AND I'M ALL FOR THAT. BUT BUT
THE BILL ALSO INCLUDES THE FACT
THAT WE HAVE THE TRUCKING
INDUSTRY THAT IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, AND YOU HAVE IT HERE
IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, THE
TRUCKING INDUSTRY THAT'S GOT TO
MOVE GOODS. AND FROM THE PORTS
AND THESE TRUCKS THAT YOU
PICTURED, THESE 18 WHEELERS, THE
TRUCK ITSELF, THEY STACK THEM UP
AND THEY THEY MOVE THEM ON RAIL
AND, AND WITH THE GUARD THINGS
ON THE SIDE, THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO BE ABLE TO STACK THEM. SO
IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A PROBLEM
WHEN THEY'RE MANDATED TO DO
THAT. SO I RECOMMEND THAT YOU
SEPARATE THE BILL AND WE LOOK AT
THAT SEPARATELY. AND THEN I
COULD PROBABLY GO ON THE BILL.
SO WITH THIS I CAN'T. SO I'M
GOING TO HAVE TO STAY OFF ON
THAT. YEAH I APPRECIATE IT. IF I
COULD INTERPRET THAT AS A
QUESTION AND RESPOND, WELL,
WHICHEVER. OKAY. NO, I JUST I
APPRECIATE THAT WE DID THE
TRUCKING INDUSTRY CAME IN. IT
WAS ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF OR
TWO WEEKS AGO, TO MEET WITH ME
VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS FROM THE
INDUSTRY, AND DID RAISE THE
ISSUE ABOUT STACKING IN PORTS.
WE'VE ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTED A
PHOTO THAT SHOWS THEM BEING
STACKED WITH THESE, UNDER GUARDS
, AND, BUT WE COMMITTED TO THE
TRUCKING INDUSTRY TO THAT WE
LISTEN, I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO
PASS AN ASPECT OF A BILL THAT
CAN'T BE IMPLEMENTED. I WOULD I
DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AS A
LAWMAKER. AND SO WE ARE ACTIVELY
LOOKING INTO THEIR CONCERNS AND
HAVE COMMITTED TO CONTINUE TO
ENGAGE WITH THEM ON IT. BUT I
APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK. THANK
YOU. SENATOR NEIL WOULD BE NEXT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO IT
SEEMS LIKE EVERY TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE MEETING WE HAVE, WE
ENTERTAIN, PROPOSALS TO TRY TO
CONTROL THE CRAZY DRIVING THAT'S
GOING OUT ON OUR STREETS RIGHT
NOW. AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS
JUST ABOUT EVERY TIME, BECAUSE
IT'S NOT JUST SPEEDING. IT'S
RECKLESS DRIVING. RAPID LANE
CHANGING. TAILGATING SEEMS
ALMOST HABITUAL WITH SOME, SEEMS
ALMOST A, A DELIBERATE
LAWLESSNESS. AND I, I, I'VE
BEGUN TO CONCLUDE THAT BECAUSE,
WHEN I'M DRIVING IN, IN THE
MORNING WHEN TRAFFIC IS HEAVY
AND THE HOV LANE IS MOVING
QUICKLY, I'M LOOKING IN MY REAR
VIEW MIRROR TO THE PASSENGER
SEAT OF THE VEHICLE THAT'S GOING
BY ME AND MY, UNSCIENTIFIC
ESTIMATION IS THAT ROUGHLY HALF
OF THE VEHICLES DO NOT HAVE A
PASSENGER IN THE PASSENGER SEAT.
THAT IS A DELIBERATE VIOLATION.
I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF HOV LANES,
BUT IT'S THE LAW. AND I OBSERVE
IT. AND THAT IS A HABITUAL
VIOLATION, A LOT OF UPSCALE CARS
HAVE THE HEADS UP DISPLAY ON THE
WINDSHIELD, AND IT DOES SHOW THE
SPEED LIMIT IN THE AREA DRIVING.
SOMETIMES IT CAN BE INACCURATE,
BUT ON THE FREEWAYS IT'S
ACCURATE AND A LOT OF THE CARS
THAT I SEE SPEEDING BY ME AT,
80, 90 MILES AN HOUR, CHEN
ORPHALI ARE MORE EXPENSIVE
VEHICLES, AND I SUSPECT A LOT OF
THEM ALREADY HAVE THAT HEADS UP
DISPLAY, AND THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY'RE DELIBERATELY BREAKING
THE LAW. I'M OVER TIME, PROBABLY
MORE CARS WILL HAVE THAT AS THEY
DO IN EUROPE, BUT I'M
UNCONVINCED THAT IT'S GOING TO
MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND EVERY
TIME WE ENTERTAIN THESE
PROPOSALS TO TRY TO CONTROL THE
CRAZY DRIVING THAT'S GOING ON.
AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT
JUST SPEEDING, I'VE YET TO SEE A
PROPOSAL THAT WE INCREASE
ENFORCEMENT AND, WE ARE HUNDREDS
OF POSITIONS SHY, OF OUR HIGHWAY
PATROL FORCE. AND THE GOVERNOR
HAS EVEN DIVERTED A BUNCH OF
THEM TO RETAIL THEFT
ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS NOT THEIR
MISSION. AND I'M WAITING FOR
SOMEBODY TO COME AND SAY WE NEED
MORE COPS ON THE ROAD. WE NEED
TO STOP PEOPLE MORE FOR THIS
DRIVING BEHAVIOR. AND I THINK
EVENTUALLY I REALIZE THAT'S
COSTLY. WE HAVE A BUDGET
PROBLEM, BUT I'M CONVINCED THAT
EVENTUALLY THAT'S THE ONLY
SOLUTION THAT'S GOING TO WORK.
NEXT UP IS SENATOR NEWMAN.
THANK. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
SENATOR WIENER, YOU KNOW, YOU
AND I SPOKE, I THINK, LAST WEEK,
AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
INTELLIGENT SPEED ASSISTANCE
SYSTEM. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT YOU'VE TAKEN AN AMENDMENT
TO GO FROM ACTIVE TO PASSIVE.
BUT MY QUESTION IS THAT PASSIVE
SYSTEM, WOULD IT BE PERSISTENT
OR WOULD IT BE MOMENTARY WHERE,
YOU KNOW, WHEN I EXCEEDED SOME
LIMIT, WOULD I GET A BEEP OR
WOULD I GET A PERSISTENT ALARM,
THE BILL LANGUAGE IS NOT HYPER
PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT
THAT HAS TO BE. AND SO THERE
WOULD BE FLEXIBILITY THERE, AND
SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SORT OF
MICROMANAGE WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS EXISTING
TECHNOLOGY THAT'S IN CARS NOW.
AND THERE IS A SPECTRUM. RIGHT.
IT COULD IT COULD BE LIKE EVERY
TIME YOU EXCEED THE LIMIT, IT
REMINDS YOU IT COULD BE ON A
MORE PERSISTENT BASIS. BUT WE'RE
NOT OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE IN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL. IT SEEMS
LIKE FROM THE DRIVER'S
EXPERIENCE, THERE'S A HUGE
DIFFERENCE THERE, RIGHT?
ESPECIALLY ON THE HIGHWAY, MR.
AUGUSTINE, COULD YOU SPEAK TO
THIS, YES, THERE ARE IN SENATOR
WIENER IS CORRECT. A LOT OF
THESE FEATURES ARE IN CARS, AND
OUR AUTOMAKERS ARE PROUD TO HAVE
DEVELOPED AND PUT THEM IN THERE.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM AND
AGAIN, WITH THE UNIFORM SIGNAGE
AND BETTER, OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL
ISSUES, THESE CHALLENGES THAT
EXIST ABOUT WITH THE WARNINGS,
THEY'RE OFTEN WRONG HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES. THEY WILL
CONTINUE TO REMIND YOU THE
VEHICLES ARE DESIGNED, YOU CAN
SHUT IT OFF, BUT IT'S BEEN OUR
COMPANY'S EXPERIENCE. THAT AND
IN FACT, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE
IN THIS ROOM WHO HAVE
ANECDOTALLY TOLD ME THEY HAVE
THESE FEATURES ON THEIR CAR AND
THEY TURN THEM OFF BECAUSE THEY
DON'T WORK WELL HERE. AND SO
THAT'S IT'S AGAIN, IT'S A
CHALLENGE, FOR OUR COUNTRY TO
PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THIS. AND
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST ONE
STATE IS ABLE TO SOLVE ON ITS
OWN. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND
SENATOR, IF I YEAH, I JUST WANT
TO SORT OF RESPOND TO THAT. SO
AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING,
NEW YORK CITY IS EQUIPPING ITS
ENTIRE MASSIVE MUNICIPAL FLEET
WITH ACTIVE GOVERNORS. SO WHAT
WE TOOK OUT OF OUR BILL, ACTIVE
GOVERNORS, THEY ALREADY SEVERAL
THOUSAND VEHICLES HAVE ALREADY
BEEN EQUIPPED. AND ACCORDING TO
NEW YORK CITY, THE ACCURACY RATE
IN TERMS OF THE SPEED IS, I
BELIEVE, OVER 99, IF I RECALL
CORRECTLY. IT'S VERY HIGH, AND,
AND SO I DON'T I DON'T AGREE
WITH THE ARGUMENT. THIS IS
SOMEHOW SOME SORT OF UNTESTED.
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO DO IT WELL
IN THE US. AND I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT. I WOULD
LIKE TO ADD AS WELL THAT AS OF,
I BELIEVE, THE 1940S OR 1950S IN
THE UNITED STATES, WE HAVE
SOMETHING CALLED THE MANUAL ON
UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
THAT REGULATES THAT. EVERY
SINGLE SIGNAGE IN THE ENTIRE
UNITED STATES ON CITY ROADS HAVE
TO BE CONFORMED TO THESE SAME
EXACT STANDARDS. AND THAT'S WHAT
THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, EVERY
SINGLE STATE, INCLUDING ALASKA
AND HAWAII, HAVE TO MEET THOSE
STANDARDS AND SO ON THAT NOTE,
I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT
THE OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS AS
WELL. AND ADDITIONALLY, MOST OF
THESE SPEED GOVERNOR SYSTEMS ON
THE ON THE INTELLIGENCE SIDE
THAT THEY ALSO USE GEO
GEOLOCATION. THÀNH. IT'S A GPS
BASED SYSTEM. SO ADDITIONALLY ON
THE SIGNAGE, I JUST WANT TO ADD
THAT IT'S DUPLICATIVE. LASTLY
I'LL SAY THAT ON OUR IN OUR
BILL, IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS
THAT IF THERE IS ANY TYPE OF
MOMENTARILY CONFUSION THAT THE
SYSTEM HAS, THAT IT REVERTS TO
THE HIGHEST SPEED LIMIT IN IN IN
CALIFORNIA, ESSENTIALLY, SO THAT
THERE IS NO MOMENT OF KIND OF
GETTING A, YOU KNOW, A
PERSISTENT WARNING THAT YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE DRIVING 20MPH
WHILE YOU'RE ON A 45 MILE PER
HOUR ROAD. I APPRECIATE I GUESS,
THE THING I'M KIND OF WRESTLING
WITH IS HOW DRIVERS WILL
ACTUALLY RESPOND TO WHAT THEY
WILL RECEIVE IS REALLY INVASIVE
TECHNOLOGY, RIGHT? SO TO SENATOR
WIENER'S EXAMPLE, IF I, IF I
DRIVE FOR A COMPANY, I HAVE TO
ALLOW THAT THE COMPANY HAS SOME,
YOU KNOW, OVERSIGHT OVER MY
BEHAVIOR AS A CONDITION OF MY
EMPLOYMENT. BUT IF IT'S MY CAR,
YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS UNLIKELY TO
ME THAT A LOT OF CALIFORNIANS
ARE GOING TO BUY A CAR WHERE THE
WHERE THE SPEED ALARM IS
PERSISTENT, WHERE YOU CAN'T TURN
IT OFF, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY
WILL EITHER FIGURE OUT A WAY TO
DISABLE THAT OR FIND A THIRD
PARTY TO DISABLE THAT, OR THEY
WON'T BUY THAT CAR. SO IT RAISES
THE QUESTION, IS THAT THE BEST
SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM? WELL,
THERE HAVE BEEN STUDIES, AND I
DON'T HAVE THEM AT MY FINGERTIPS
AT THE MOMENT THAT THESE SYSTEMS
ACTUALLY DO CAUSE PEOPLE TO
DRIVE SLOWER. I KNOW, AND I SAW
IN THE NOTES THAT THAT, YOU
KNOW, THE STUDY IN EUROPE SAW NO
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
MOMENTARY, YOU KNOW, BEEP.
YOU'VE EXCEEDED THE SPEED LIMIT
VERSUS A PERSISTENT BEEP. BUT I
GUARANTEE YOU THAT PERSISTENT
BEEP IS NOT THE CAR THAT PEOPLE
WANT TO BUY. RIGHT? SO THE BASE
OF MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW,
WOULD YOU ALLOW FOR THE LEAST
COMMON DENOMINATOR THERE, WHICH
IS THE NON-PERSISTENT BEEP AS
PART OF YOUR PART OF YOUR
AMENDED VERSION? YEAH. AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION
WITH YOU, SENATOR. I KNOW WE
STARTED IT, LIKE RIGHT NOW THE
BILL IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE. WE'RE
TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME
FLEXIBILITY, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. I DON'T
KNOW IF THE NTSB HAS ANY
THOUGHTS ON THAT PARTICULAR
ISSUE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO, IF
YOU DON'T WANT TO. YEAH. WE HAVE
NOT BEEN PRESCRIPTIVE EITHER IN
TERMS OF THE TYPES OF WARNINGS,
GENERALLY SPEAKING, WARNINGS ARE
MOST EFFECTIVE WHEN THEY'RE
MULTIMODAL. SO IF YOU HAVE A
VISUAL AND AN AUDIO WARNING
VERSUS JUST ONE OR THE OTHER,
BUT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT
SPECIFIC TO THAT, I APPRECIATE
IT. THANKS SENATOR PORTANTINO.
YEAH THANK YOU, MR. WIENER, AND
MR. CHAIR, I'VE MANY PEOPLE KNOW
THAT I'M AN AVID BIKE RIDER AND
SHARE THE CONCERNS OF STREET
SAFETY AND ROAD SAFETY AND, THE
SPIRIT BEHIND THE BILL. AND, I
DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS,
BECAUSE MY HOPE, OBVIOUSLY, IS
IF THE BILL PASSES, IT'S
IMPLEMENTABLE. IT'S DOABLE. IT'S
NOT JUST A CONCEPT. AND SO A
COUPLE QUESTIONS, BY THE WAY, IN
IN MY OWN HOUSEHOLD, THE
INTERMITTENT COMPLAINTS OF MY
FAMILY IN DRIVING WITH ME IS
MORE, POWERFUL THAN PERSISTENT.
SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, BUT, THE
ANALYSIS AND THE BILL REFERENCES
A REPORT FROM CALTRANS BACK. IS
THAT ON THE, EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE WARNING SYSTEM OR ON THE,
SIDE GUARDS. WHAT'S THE REPORTS
THAT ARE COMING BACK? THE STUDY,
THE PILOT, IS IT ON BOTH. SO HOW
ARE WE GOING TO MEASURE THE
EFFECTIVENESS, THAT'S QUESTION
NUMBER ONE. IT SAYS CALTRANS IS
GOING TO REPORT BACK. YEAH OKAY,
THAT THE BILL ALSO, REQUIRES A
PILOT PROGRAM FOR STATE VEHICLES
, AND THAT'S THE REPORT BACK.
AND THE PILOT IS ON THE WARNING
SYSTEM OR ON THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE SIDE GUARDS, THE STATE
FLEET PILOT PROGRAM IS ACTIVE
SPEED, GOVERNOR. SO JUST ON THE
STATE FLEET, THAT'S THE REPORT.
AND WE PUT THAT IN. IT'S NOT A
MANDATE FOR THE ENTIRE FLEET.
IT'S A PILOT PROGRAM. WE PUT
THAT IN BECAUSE IN OUR WORK WITH
THE COMMITTEE, WE TOOK OUT
ACTIVE AND PUT IN PASSIVE. AND
SO WE DECIDED, LET'S HAVE A
PILOT PROGRAM OF STATE VEHICLES,
SO WE CAN, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S
ON THE ACTIVE SYSTEM. YES. FOR
THE, FOR THE STATE VEHICLE FLEET
PILOT PROGRAM, IS THERE GOING TO
BE ANY ANALYSIS OF THE PASSIVE
SYSTEM OR ON THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE SIDE GUARDS? IT'S NOT IN
THERE NOW, BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH THAT. SO JUST
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU MAY WANT TO
LOOK. YEAH. WE'RE HAPPY TO
CONSIDER THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY
ISSUE WITH THAT, DATA IS ALWAYS
A GOOD THING. DATA IS ALWAYS
GOOD. AND THEN ON THE FEDERAL
ISSUE. BUT ARE YOU AT ALL
CONCERNED WITH FEDERAL
PREEMPTION AND HOW HOW HOW WILL
THIS MESH DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WEIGHS IN
WITH SPECIFICITY? WELL, OKAY, A
COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL,
IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE
TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT
THIS NATIONALLY AND PREEMPT
EVERYTHING AT A STATE LEVEL, I
WOULD I WOULD APPLAUD THAT
BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN NOT JUST
40 MILLION CALIFORNIANS, BUT 330
MILLION. I THINK AMERICANS WOULD
BE PROTECTED. SO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE THE POWER
TO PREEMPT, A SAFETY STANDARD
LIKE THIS. THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT DONE THAT.
AND IN FACT, WHEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT RECENTLY, I DON'T
KNOW HOW RECENTLY, BUT, ENACTED,
TRUCK REAR GUARD REQUIREMENTS
FOR VEHICLES, THE NHTSA
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WERE
THAT MOST STATES, I THINK A
MAJORITY OF STATES ALREADY HAD
STATE LEVEL TRUCK REAR GUARD
REQUIREMENTS AND THAT IT WAS
PREEMPTING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
SO IT IS NOT IT IS NOT NEW FOR A
STATE TO GET AHEAD OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, TO CATCH UP AND
PREEMPT. IN FACT, I DID SOME
RESEARCH ACTUALLY, LAST NIGHT
ABOUT THIS. I'VE BEEN LOOKING
INTO THE HISTORY OF SEATBELT
REQUIREMENTS, I BELIEVE
WISCONSIN WAS THE FIRST STATE TO
REQUIRE SEATBELTS IN NEW CARS.
IN 1961, WISCONSIN ENACTED THAT.
I BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MANDATED SEATBELTS IN THE FRONT
SEATS OF CARS IN 1968. SO AGAIN,
WISCONSIN GOT AHEAD OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND I'M
ASSUMING THERE WAS A PREEMPTION
IN 1968. RIGHT. AND THEN MY
FINAL QUESTION IS ALONG THE
LINES OF WHAT MR. ARCHULETA
RAISED ON THE STACKING ISSUE AND
THE DRAYAGE TRANSPORTATION.
AGAIN, IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE
INFEASIBLE TO DO FROM AN FROM A
PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE
OPEN TO EXEMPTING OUT THOSE
PARTICULAR. YEAH. SO WE ARE I
MADE A I MADE A COMMITMENT TO
THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY WHEN WE
MET WITH THEM A WEEK AND A HALF,
TWO WEEKS AGO THAT WE WOULD LOOK
CLOSELY AT THE CONCERNS THAT
THEY WERE RAISING AROUND
FEASIBILITY. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO
BE THE AUTHOR OF A LAW THAT HAS
AN INFEASIBLE PROVISION IN IT. I
WOULD NEVER WANT TO DO THAT, AND
SO WE HAVE I HAVE COMMITTED AND
I KEEP MY COMMITMENT AND
REITERATED TODAY TO WORK WITH
THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING
HERE. WE'VE SHOWED THAT PHOTO
WHERE THEY ARE STACKED, BUT AND,
AND OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE ONE
WHERE, WHERE THEY. RIGHT. AND SO
LIKE IF IT, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S
INFEASIBLE, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY,
ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT
GOING TO TRY TO FORCE SOMEONE TO
DO SOMETHING THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE
TO DO. AND THAT BRINGS ME TO MY
FINAL QUESTION IS, SO WHAT WILL
BE THE ARBITRATOR OF THAT FINAL
DECISION WHO WILL DECIDE WHETHER
IT'S FEASIBLE OR INFEASIBLE? HOW
IF AT THE END OF THE DAY ONE
SAYS YES, ONE SAYS NO, WHO MAKES
THE FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER
IT'S ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTABLE? THE
LEGISLATURE. SO LEGISLATURE AND
I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT, AS THE
AUTHOR OF THE BILL, HOW WOULD
YOU HOW WOULD YOU RESOLVE AN
IMPASSE IN THAT PARTICULAR I
THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT,
LIKE, WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND
WHAT THAT IMPASSE IS. MY HOPE IS
THAT THERE'S NOT AN IMPASSE
BECAUSE HOPEFULLY WE'RE ALL
WE'RE ALL RATIONAL ACTORS AND SO
WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION WITH
THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY. AND THE
INDUSTRY HAS MY COMMITMENT ON
THAT. AND I JUST WANT THAT, THAT
PARTICULAR PIECE TO BE HONESTLY
BROKERED. AND WE WILL WE WILL
KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP ON IT. ALL
RIGHT. AND YOU AS WELL, SENATOR.
NEXT IS SENATOR SEYARTO,
FOLLOWED BY SENATOR BLAKESPEAR.
ALL RIGHT. FIRST, I WANTED TO
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
PROTECTION GUARDS ON THE ON THE
TRUCKS AND THE LONG HAUL, A LOT
OF TIMES ON THOSE TRAILERS, THEY
HAVE A BIG TAIL SWING. AND IF
YOU'RE GOING OVER HILLS OR DOWN
THROUGH DIPS, THOSE CAN ACTUALLY
CATCH AND BASICALLY HIGH SIDE.
WHAT YOU CALL A, A VEHICLE. AND
THEY WE'VE HAD A WE HAD A FIRE
ENGINE GET STUCK ON A HILL LIKE
THIS, BECAUSE IT, IT COULDN'T
MAKE MAKE THE DIP AND SO IT WAS
STUCK THERE UNTIL WE COULD GET A
CRANE LARGE ENOUGH TO TRY AND
PULL IT OUT, SO HOW DO YOU
ADDRESS HAS THAT BEEN ADDRESSED
IN THE STUDIES THAT ARE TALKING
ABOUT THESE THINGS? BECAUSE
THERE IS UNEVEN TERRAIN THAT A
LOT OF VEHICLES HAVE TO GO
THROUGH, ESPECIALLY TRUCKS, WHEN
THEY'RE DELIVERING INTO
NEIGHBORHOODS OR AREAS WHERE
THERE'S UNEVEN TERRAIN, LIKE,
SAY, BALDWIN HILLS. YEAH. I'LL
ASK MR. VUKOVICH TO TALK ABOUT
THAT. SO I, I DON'T HAVE A
RESEARCH TO CITE, BUT I JUST
YOU'RE MENTIONING TAIL SWINGS.
AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT
THESE DEVICES ARE PLACED BETWEEN
THE TWO WHEEL AXLES. AND SO THAT
TAIL SWING ISSUE ISN'T GOING TO
NECESSARILY BE AFFECTED BY THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE. IT ALSO
MENTIONED THAT THESE WHEELS
DON'T, YOU KNOW, SORRY, THESE
DEVICES DON'T GO BELOW THE
LENGTH OF THE WHEELS. AND SO IT
IS KIND OF THE EXPECTED, YOU
KNOW, HORIZONTAL AXES THAT THE
TRUCKS TRUCK IS EXPECTED TO BE
DRIVING. AND I SAY THIS AS
SOMEONE WHO USED TO BE DRIVING
AT LEAST BOX TRUCKS, NOT NOT BIG
RIGS. I KNOW THAT'S, FROM THE
TRUCKING INDUSTRY. WHAT'S YOUR
TAKE ON WHAT I WAS TALKING
ABOUT? SO, SENATOR, THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT WE REFERRED TO IN
THE TESTIMONY. THERE IS AN,
FEDERALLY MANDATED ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON UNDERRIDE GUARDS.
IT CONSISTS OF CRASH EXPERTS,
SAFETY ADVOCATES, AS WELL AS THE
INDUSTRY AND THE MANUFACTURERS
TO GO THROUGH, EVERY FACET OF
UNDERRIDE, EVERY DIFFERENT TYPE
OF EQUIPMENT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
THE PROPER SOLUTION IS FOR EACH
OF THESE VARIOUS EQUIPMENT
TYPES. AND I, STATED SOME OF
THEM IN THE COMMENTS, BUT THERE
ARE LITERALLY DOZENS OF
DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRAILERS THAT
NEED TO BE DEALT WITH IN AN
EVENTUAL RULE. AND NIZZA IS
CURRENTLY DELIBERATING ON THOSE.
OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, NOW ON TO THE SPEED. THE
THING THAT LETS YOU KNOW THAT
YOU'RE GOING TOO FAST, AND I
MIGHT HAVE MISSED PART OF THIS,
AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I WAS
TRYING TO WATCH MOSTLY ON THE
SCREEN WHILE I WAS DOING WHAT I
WAS DOING. SO, SO YOU'RE GOING
DOWN. LET'S JUST CHOOSE A
FREEWAY. THE 50, EVERYBODY'S
DOING 75. IF THEY'RE NOT DOING
80. AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT, DOES
IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE ON YOUR
VEHICLE, IS THIS GOING TO BE
CONSTANTLY BEEPING AT YOU AS
YOU'RE GOING DOWN THE FREEWAY,
OR IS THERE A WAY TO DISABLE IT?
OR YOU HAVE TO TURN YOUR MUSIC
WAY UP? YOU CAN ALWAYS TURN YOUR
MUSIC WAY UP. BUT, WE DID,
DISCUSS THIS, THAT THE LANGUAGE
OF THE BILL IS NOT, HYPER
PRESCRIPTIVE. AND SO THERE COULD
BE A RANGE OF, OF, OF APPROACHES
TO IT. SO THE, THE, IT'S NOT, WE
INTENTIONALLY WERE NOT HYPER
PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT, ABOUT WHAT
THE EXACT FREQUENCY WOULD BE.
RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT SEEMS LIKE A
HUGE DISTRACTION, ESPECIALLY AS
YOU'RE GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE
AREAS OF THE, OF THE FREEWAY.
AND PEOPLE ARE IN PRETTY CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER. AND
WHEN YOU'RE THE THING STARTS
BEEPING AT YOU AND PEOPLE START
HONKING OUT THERE FOR VARIOUS
REASONS. AND, AND THOSE ARE
DISTRACTIONS FROM A PERSON, THAT
CAN CAUSE THEM TO NOT BE PAYING
ATTENTION. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN
THEY'RE GOING AT THOSE SPEEDS,
THEY REALLY NEED TO BE PAYING
ATTENTION. IT WOULD BE SAFEST IF
THEY WERE NOT DRIVING 90 MILES
AN HOUR, FOR EXAMPLE. RIGHT? I
JUST WANT TO WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT SAFETY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
SORT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE.
AND I ALSO WANT TO AND SENATOR
NILO RAISED THIS EARLIER. I WAS
HERE, YEAH. AND A DIFFERENT
ISSUE. ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ABOUT
JUST PEOPLE ARE DOING THEIR
THING AND VIOLATING THE LAW IN A
LOT OF WAYS. I DO WANT TO SAY,
THOUGH, THAT ESPECIALLY WITH
NEWER CARS, IT'S REALLY EASY,
EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T REALIZE IT
TO BE GOING A LOT FASTER THAN
YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING. THE NEW
CAR, IT'S JUST SO SMOOTH AND
IT'S QUIETER. AND SO THERE ARE
TIMES WHEN PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN
INTENDING TO DRIVE AT AN
EXCESSIVE SPEED, A NEW CAR, AND
THEY JUST ARE. AND THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO. YEAH, EXACTLY. NEW
CARS. AND I THINK I THINK THERE
ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD
APPRECIATE BEING ALERTED, LIKE
YOU'RE YOU'RE GOING TOO FAST. SO
I DON'T THINK EVERYONE WHO'S
SPEEDING IS DOING IT
INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE THEY, YOU
KNOW, WANT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.
SOME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, DON'T
EVEN REALIZE IT. AND WARNING
THEM WILL CAUSE THEM TO SLOW
DOWN. ALL RIGHT. AND IF THEY DO
THE DRASTIC SLOWDOWN, THOUGH, TO
RESPOND AND STOP THE BEEPING,
THE REST OF THE FREEWAY IS STILL
GOING 75, 80 MILES AN HOUR. NOW
WHAT? IT DOESN'T HAVE YOU'RE A
TRAFFIC HAZARD AND TRAFFIC
IMPEDIMENT. WELL I MEAN, PEOPLE
SLOW DOWN ALL THE TIME. THERE
ARE TIMES WHEN PEOPLE REALIZE,
OH MY GOD, I'M GOING 85 MILES AN
HOUR. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
AND THEN THEY SLOW DOWN. IT
DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT. THEY
DON'T NEED TO SLAM ON THEIR
BRAKES. YOU CAN SLOW DOWN. JUST
TAKE YOUR FOOT OFF THE PEDAL.
THAT'S WHAT I TELL PEOPLE. YEAH.
YOU JUST DON'T MOVE SLOWLY, YOU
KNOW? SO I DON'T I DON'T SEE
THAT AS A SLOWING DOWN AND
SPEEDING UP AS A NORMAL THING TO
HAPPEN. IF YOU'RE DOING 55, IN
THE SPEED LIMIT IS POSTED AT 60
OR 65 AND YOU GO TO 65 AND
EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING 80.
YEAH, YOU'RE A HAZARD, BUT AND
THAT'S SO YOU EITHER HAVE TO
SPEED UP OR GET WAY OVER IN THE
SLOW LANE, AND YOU'RE STILL A
HAZARD ON SOME OF THE FREEWAYS I
DRIVE. SO I CAN I CAN SEE IT. SO
THAT'S MY CONCERN IS, IS I THINK
EVERYBODY KNOWS WHEN THEY'RE
SPEEDING, THERE ARE ENOUGH
TELLTALE SIGNS. AND I DON'T
THINK THAT THIS IS NECESSARILY
GOING TO DO ANYTHING BUT
DISTRACT PEOPLE AND, AND COULD
POTENTIALLY CAUSE ACCIDENTS. AND
IF THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES GOING,
NOT, YOU KNOW, GOING NOT WITH
THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, THEY BECOME
A HAZARD THEMSELVES. I ALSO JUST
DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS
IS NOT JUST ABOUT FREEWAYS. THIS
IS ALSO ABOUT CITY SURFACE
STREETS WHERE IF SOMEONE IS
DRIVING EVEN 10 OR 15 MILES AN
HOUR OVER THE SPEED LIMIT, WHICH
WE TOLERATE MORE ON FREEWAYS BUT
HAPPENS ON CITY STREETS. KIDS
CAN BE PLAYING OUT IN THE
STREETS. SENIORS ARE CROSSING
THE STREET, AND THAT IS
INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. AND IT'S
GOOD TO WARN PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE
DOING THIS. YEAH. AND THEN YOU
HAVE THE THING GOING BEEP, BEEP,
BEEP WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO
NAVIGATE ALL THIS AND KEEP AN
EYE ON EVERYTHING. SLOW DOWN.
YEAH. AND BUT YOU CAN STILL
YEAH, YOU STILL GET DISTRACTED.
SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH I
APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS HERE. I
HAD ONE MORE COMMENT. OH LET ME
GO TO SENATOR BLAKESPEAR AND
THEN I'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
SENATOR RICHARD, IT'S BRIEF.
THANK YOU, I HAVE HAD SOME
OUTREACH ABOUT THE GUARDRAIL
PROVISIONS WHEN IT COMES TO
WASTE HAULER TRUCKS, AND I KNOW
THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT
THINGS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED,
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE
ANYTHING SPECIFIC ON THAT, THAT
PARTICULAR TYPE OF TRUCK. I
DON'T THINK WE'VE GOTTEN
SPECIFIC OUTREACH. I'M LOOKING
AT MY STAFF. I DON'T THINK WE'VE
GOTTEN SPECIFIC OUTREACH FROM
THE WASTE HAULERS. WE'RE HAPPY
TO TALK TO THEM. OKAY. THANK
YOU. YEAH. SENATOR YOU KNOW, WE
HEARD ABOUT THE BEEPING NOISE
AND THE WARNING AND SO ON, BUT
IF I MAY, TO MY COLLEAGUES, IN
THE EXPERTS, A GOVERNOR ACTUALLY
STOPS, IF YOU CAN PUSH ON THE
ACCELERATOR ALL YOU WANT AND
IT'S NOT GOING TO RESPOND
BECAUSE IT'S SET TO A CERTAIN
SPEED, THE QUESTION IS, WHERE IS
THE TECHNOLOGY ON MY CAR? WHEN
I'M IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT,
THERE'S A LITTLE SIGN AND SCHOOL
ZONE, AND IT POINTS THAT OUT.
AND I GO INTO A BUSINESS ZONE
AND THERE'S A LITTLE SIGN ON MY
DASHBOARD ZONING. BUT AS VÌ
ACCELERATE TO GET ON THE
FREEWAY, I HAVE THE POWER TO
ACCELERATE IT. BUT IF THERE'S A
GOVERNOR ON THERE, IT'S GOING TO
STOP THE ACCELERATION. WOULD
YOU, WITH YOUR WITNESS THERE,
GIVE ME SOME DEFINITION OF THAT.
A GOVERNOR TRULY IS SOMETHING
THAT A MECHANISM THAT PREVENTS
THE IT'S AN ACTIVE FOOT PEDAL,
THE ACCELERATOR GO DOWN AND. YES
YES, THAT IS WHAT A SPEED
GOVERNOR, AN ACTIVE DOES.
GOVERNOR AN ACTIVE GOVERNOR.
YEAH. I WHICH IS NOT IN THIS
BILL. I'M JUST GOING TO I WAS
GOING TO NOTE SO THERE ARE I'LL
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THEN I WILL
ADD JUST WHAT SENATOR WINTERS
SAID. SO, YES, A GOVERNOR WOULD
CONTROL THIS, THE SPEED. AND IT
SETS A MAXIMUM THING. AND THERE
ARE THOSE DEVICES ON VEHICLES
NOW, ESPECIALLY ON COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES. THEY DON'T WANT THEIR
EMPLOYEES DRIVING OVER CERTAIN
SPEED LIMITS. AND TO SENATOR
WIENER'S POINT, THAT WAS THE
ESSENCE OF THE ORIGINAL VERSION
OF THE BILL THAT THAT IS TO, YOU
KNOW, TO BE FAIR, THAT IS NOT
WHAT IS IN THE BILL CURRENTLY.
YEAH. SO IT'S JUST THE WARNING.
THE WARNING. YES. YEAH. OKAY AND
THEN THE OTHER THING, I THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
UP BECAUSE WE HAD AN INCIDENT IN
MY CITY WITH THIS HUGE CEMENT
TUBE THAT IS GOING TO BE USED.
AND THE TRUCK, THE BOTTOM OF THE
TRAILER GOES LIKE THIS. AND UP
AND IT HIT THE RAILROAD
EMBANKMENT AND STOPPED TRAFFIC.
WE HAD THE HIGHWAY PATROL THERE,
THE SHERIFFS THERE, FIRE
DEPARTMENT THERE BECAUSE IT GOT
STUCK AND THE TRAIN WAS COMING,
AND LITERALLY IT WAS FINALLY
MOVED WITHIN MINUTES WHEN THE
TRAIN DIDN'T SHOW, SOMEBODY
DIDN'T TELL THE TRAIN AND IT
WENT BY. SO I DID WITNESS THAT,
SO THERE'S A LOT OF OBSTACLES
STILL THERE. AND I TALKED
ORIGINALLY ABOUT THE STACKING,
WHICH IS HAS TO DO WITH
ECONOMICS AND MOVING CARGO. BUT
THEN THERE'S THE OTHERS. SO
THERE'S STILL ISSUES IN THE
BILL. AND THAT'S AGAIN, I WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT, I'M GOING TO
LAY OFF. YEAH. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU PEERS. TO
CONCLUDE COMMITTEE COMMENT,
OTHER THAN THE CHAIR AND I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR,
AGAIN, WORKING WITH US. AND I
KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT AT THE
OUTSET OF YOUR PRESENTATION, TO
GET YOUR OWN AUTHOR AMENDMENTS
DONE, THERE WASN'T A LACK OF
INTEREST OR CONCERN, BY THE
COMMITTEE STAFF OR THE CHAIR,
REGARDING THE SIDE RAIL ISSUE, I
JUST FOR WHATEVER THAT'S WORTH.
BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
PUT ON THE RECORD. I THINK WE
HAD OUR HANDS FULL DEALING WITH,
THE PAST OF INTELLIGENCE SPEED
SYSTEM AND TRYING TO HELP WORK
OUT APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE THERE.
AND IT WAS PRESUMED THAT AS YOU
MOVE ALONG WITH THIS, THAT
YOU'LL YOU'LL SORT OUT THESE
ISSUES REGARDING THE SIDE RAILS.
BUT WE WERE MADE AWARE OF, OF
CONCERNS, AND I KNOW THAT WE HAD
SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT AND
AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT
ON THE RECORD. I APPRECIATE YOUR
INDICATING THAT YOU'LL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH FOLKS ON THAT. AS
THE AUTHOR. AND WITH THAT,
YOU'RE WELCOME TO CLOSE. THANK
YOU. MR. CHAIR. COLLEAGUES, I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION. I THINK WE CAN ALL
AGREE WE WANT OUR ROADS TO BE
SAFER, WE, YOU KNOW, WE SHIFTED
FROM ACTIVE TO PASSIVE. WE HEARD
FEEDBACK FROM COLLEAGUES THAT
PEOPLE WERE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH
AN ACTIVE PHYSICAL BARRIER TO
GOING ABOVE A CERTAIN SPEED. AND
SOME OF THE SORT OF SCENARIOS
SOMETIMES EDGE CASES, BUT
NEVERTHELESS SCENARIOS WHERE
PEOPLE MIGHT NEED TO GO AT A
HIGHER SPEED. WE LISTENED, WE
HEARD, WORKED WITH THE COMMITTEE
AND CHANGE IT TO A PASSIVE TO
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE
AND REMINDED SO THAT THEY SLOW
DOWN. AND I WILL REITERATE ON
THE TRUCKING PIECE THAT I AM
DEEPLY COMMITTED TO CONTINUING
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE INDUSTRY,
AND THAT I AM NOT GOING TO BE
PUSHING TO PASS SOMETHING THAT
IS INFEASIBLE AND WE'LL CONTINUE
THAT WORK. LIKE I SAID, WE I HAD
MY FIRST MEETING WITH THEM ABOUT
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO. WE'LL
CONTINUE THAT ENGAGEMENT. YOU
HAVE MY COMMITMENT. THEY HAVE MY
COMMITMENT. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, WE WILL COME BACK,
DID WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS
ITEM? SEN PORTANTINO MOVES THE
BILL, AND I'LL HAVE THE
COMMITTEE ASSISTANT FORMALIZE
THE MOTION AND CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
FIVE. SB 961. THE MOTION IS Dð.
PASS AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS CORTEZ. AYE CORTEZ.
AYE. NILO. NØ. NILO. NØ. ALAN
ARCHULETA, BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE.
SPEER AYE. DALLY. DODD. GONZALEZ
LAIRD. LIMÓN NEWMAN. WHEN. WHEN.
NO PORTANTINO. PORTANTINO. AYE.
CIERTO. CIERTO NO. UMBERG 3 TO 3
ON CALL. ALL RIGHT. THE VOTE
CURRENTLY IS 3 TO 3. AND LEAVE
THE BILL ON CALL. WE ARE GOING
TO RECESS BEFORE TAKING UP FILE
ITEM SIX, HOPEFULLY, FOR A SHORT
TIME, AND WE'LL BE BACK AS SOON
AS THAT RECESS IS OVER. TO PICK
UP IN THE FILE ORDER WITH FILE
ITEM SIX. THANK YOU. CHAIR
RECESSES
.
ALL RIGHT. SENATE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE IS RECONVENED AFTER
THE SHORT RECESS THAT WE HAD. WE
ARE GOING TO PASS ON ITEM SIX,
PENDING, SOME PAPERWORK THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THAT ITEM.
SO WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM SEVEN. SB
983. SENATOR WAHAB, PLEASE JOIN
US UP HERE AND, WE'LL SET THE
PODIUM AND YOU MAY PROCEED WHEN
READY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THIS IS A LIGHTWEIGHT, BILL, SO,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, CALIFORNIA
LACKS THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED
TO MAKE ZERO EMISSION
ALTERNATIVE FUELS. A REALISTIC
OPTION FOR CONSUMERS BY 2050. IN
FACT, OUR CLIMATE GOALS ARE
ACTUALLY EVEN FAR MORE
AGGRESSIVE AT 2030. AND SOME
WILL EVEN ARGUE AT 2027. SB 983
WILL CREATE THE ALTERNATIVE
FUELS INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE.
THIS TASK FORCE EXAMINES HOW WE
CAN PRESERVE THE COMPETITIVE
NATURE OF GAS STATION PRICING
AND JUST CONVENIENCE, AND HOW WE
CAN INTEGRATE ALTERNATIVE
FUELING INTO EXISTING GAS
STATION INFRASTRUCTURE. CURRENT
INVESTMENTS INTO ALTERNATIVE
FUELING INFRASTRUCTURE ARE ONLY
HALF OF WHAT IS NEEDED BY
TRANSITION TO TRANSITION BY 2050
OR EARLIER. THIS TASK FORCE WILL
DETERMINE THE MOST COST
EFFECTIVE PATH FORWARD FOR ZERO
EMISSION FUEL ALTERNATIVES. BOTH
ELECTRIC AS WELL AS HYDROGEN.
WHILE USING OUR EXISTING
GASOLINE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MEET
GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S MANDATE TO
TRANSITION VEHICLES TO ZERO
EMISSION SOURCES BY 2035, SB 983
IS A CRUCIAL STEP. I DO WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS WE
ALWAYS ARGUE ABOUT. YOU KNOW, WE
NEED TO TRANSITION. WE NEED A
CLEANER, GREENER ENVIRONMENT
AND, YOU KNOW, EFFORTS AROUND
THAT. YET NO REALISTIC OPTION
HAS BEEN PRESENTED, AND I WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE REASON WHY
THIS IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LARGELY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND
RENTERS LIKE MYSELF, DON'T HAVE
A PLACE TO CHARGE THEIR VEHICLE.
THEY DON'T. SO IF YOU LIVE IN A
MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX, UNLESS THAT
PROPERTY OWNER INSTALLS A EV
HYDROGEN STATION, YOU ARE GOING
TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE AS TO HOW
QUICKLY CAN YOU CHARGE YOUR CAR?
CAN YOU WORK ON IT, AND MUCH
MORE, ESPECIALLY AS COMPANIES
LIKE FORD ARE CREATING ALL
ELECTRIC FORD F-150 PICKUP
TRUCKS AND MUCH MORE, AND WE
NEED TO DO BETTER. AND I THINK
THAT THIS IS A VIABLE OPTION TO
CREATE A TASK FORCE TO REALLY
UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN MAKE EV
AND HYDROGEN AT OUR LOCAL
CURRENT SETUP AND
INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THAT IS THE
BILL I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO
INTRODUCE MY WITNESS, KEITH
DUNN, WITH THE STATE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
AS WELL AS MY OTHER WITNESS. BUT
YOU KNOW, WITH YOUR PERMISSION,
CHAIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. SENATOR,
MR. DUNN, I GUESS YOU'LL PROCEED
FIRST. YOU'LL HAVE A COUPLE
MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE
OTHER WITNESS. THANK YOU, KEITH
DUNN, STATE BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL.
LIKE, SENATOR WAHAB SAID,
TRANSITIONING TO A CARBON,
RESILIENT ECONOMY IS GOING TO
TAKE A LOT OF TIME. THIS BILL
WILL ESTABLISH THE STUDIES THAT
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR
WORKERS ARE NOT ONLY BUILDING
THE CHARGING STATIONS OF THE
FUTURE, BUT ALSO THAT THEY COVER
OUR ENTIRE STATE AS WE'VE SEEN,
THERE'S NOT EQUITY RIGHT NOW.
AND SOME OF THE RURAL AND, EVEN
IN URBAN AREAS WITH CHARGING
OPPORTUNITIES, OUR WORKERS
PRINCIPALLY THAT GO TO
CONSTRUCTION SITES AND FOR THEM
TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRIVE
ELECTRIC CARS, THEY'RE GOING TO
NEED THE CHARGING STATIONS TO
GET THERE AND TO GET HOME. THEY
DON'T EXIST TODAY. IN SOME AREAS
OF OUR STATE. WE THINK THAT THIS
IS A EQUITABLE APPROACH TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE HAVE THE TYPE OF
INFORMATION THAT PROVIDES THE
EVENTUAL BUILDING OF THOSE THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE IN A MANNER THAT
ADDRESSES THE GAS STATION OWNERS
AND OTHERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE
TRANSITIONING TO DIFFERENT
FUELS. WE ALSO THINK THAT, YOU
KNOW, HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO
COVER THE ENTIRE STATE AND THE
WAY THAT THE BILL IS LAID OUT, I
THINK IS A VERY EQUITABLE
APPROACH TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE RURAL REPRESENTATIVES,
URBAN REPRESENTATIVES,
INDEPENDENT GAS STATION OWNERS
AND OTHERS THAT REALLY ARE GOING
TO BE IMPACTED AS WE TRANSITION
TO THIS CLIMATE RESILIENT
ECONOMY, TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT
DISCUSSION, TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT'S COVERED STATEWIDE, TO
MAKE SURE THAT OUR WORKERS HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO GET
TO WORK IF THEY'RE DRIVING A
F-150 LIGHTNING ELECTRIC TRUCK,
BUT ALSO TO CHARGE IT IF THEY
NEED TO WHILE THEY'RE THERE. SO
WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT
APPROACH. WE THINK THAT WE'VE
DONE A GOOD JOB. IN WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR AND OTHERS TO COVER
THE STATEWIDE. AND WE JUST ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. OKAY. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS, TERESA COOK,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN COALITION. VERY PLEASED
TO BE HERE IN SUPPORT, AS MANY
OF YOU, YOU KNOW, FUEL CELL
ELECTRIC VEHICLES OFFER A REALLY
UNIQUE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR FOLKS THAT
LIVE IN MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS,
FOR OUR SUPER COMMUTERS AND FOR
OUR DRIVERS THAT NEED TO DRIVE
IN LARGER CLASSES OF VEHICLES.
SO ALSO, I WOULD SAY THE FORD
FUEL CELL ELECTRIC TRUCK IS
ALSO, YOU KNOW, ON ITS WAY TO
MARKET. EQUALLY IMPORTANT FOR
OUR TRANSITION TO ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES, THE, NETWORK OF 8000
EXISTING FUEL AND GAS STATIONS
TODAY IS WHERE HYDROGEN
INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO GO.
SO I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH, ON
BEHALF OF THE HYDROGEN
COMMUNITY, HOW VERY IMPORTANT
THIS BILL IS IN TERMS OF GETTING
AHEAD ON FIGURING OUT WHAT WE
CAN DO TO SMOOTH THE TRANSITION
THÀNH BETWEEN THE FOSSIL FUEL
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE
TODAY. BUT THE RATHER MINOR
RETROFIT REQUIRED TO TURN THAT
INTO HYDROGEN FUELING
INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR THESE ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES. AND SO FOR
THESE REASONS, WE ARE
EXCEPTIONALLY PLEASED TO BE HERE
IN SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. OTHERS WISHING TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. DAIMON
CONKLIN WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, AS WELL AS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. BRADY VAN ENGLUND, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE HERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. JACK
YANEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FUELS AND CONVENIENCE
ALLIANCE AND SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGISTERED
OPPOSITION LISTED. IS THERE
ANYONE IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHO
WISHES TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION? IF
SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS
TIME, I'M SEEING NONE. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
YES, SENATOR ARCHULETA. OKAY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. AS CALIFORNIA
IS GOING INTO HYDROGEN. IT'S
GOING INTO ALTERNATIVE FUELS.
AND I THINK THE GAS STATIONS
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE
INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY THERE.
SO IT'S A WIN WIN FOR CALIFORNIA
TO LOOK AHEAD. SO I'M HOPING
THAT AS WE MOVE IN THAT
DIRECTION, THÀNH THAT WE REALIZE
THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE,
THAT WE NEED AND THIS IS PART OF
IT. AND I'LL MOVE THE BILL WHEN
APPROPRIATE. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE
THE OFFER OF A MOTION. IS
ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO BE
RECOGNIZED SEEING NONE. SENATOR,
YOU CAN CLOSE. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL HAVE THE ASSISTANT STATE
SENATOR ARCHULETA'S MOTION AND
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SB 983.
THE MOTION IS Dð. PASS AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS CORTESE
Ã CORTESE. AYE. NILO ALLEN.
ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA. AYE.
BLAKE. SPEER BLAKE. SPEER I
DALLY. DODD. DODD I GONZALEZ.
LAIRD. LIMÓN NEWMAN. WHEN.
PORTANTINO PORTANTINO I SATO.
UMBERG FIVE ZERO. ALL RIGHT.
IT'S AT FIVE ZERO, AND WE'LL
LEAVE IT ON CALL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT IS SENATOR DROZ'S BILL. IS
SHE PRESENT? DO NOT SEE SENATOR.
SHE'S ENGLISH. SHE'S IN YIDDISH,
I THINK SO. OH GOT IT. THERE'S
JUST NOT. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL
TAKE ITEM TEN OUT OF ORDER, OUT
OF DEFERENCE TO THE OTHER
AUTHORS, WE'LL PASS ON ITEM NINE
FOR THE MOMENT, ITEM TEN IS SB
936. SENATOR SATO. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, HONORABLE CHAIR. AND
I'M HERE TO PRESENT SB 936. AND
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH MY
STAFF TO BRING THIS BILL TO THE
COMMITTEE. AND I ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. SO CAR
CRASHES ARE CONSISTENTLY A TOP
CAUSE OF UNINTENTIONAL INJURY OR
DEATH. AND FOR CALIFORNIANS,
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LOSE THEIR
LIVES OR SUFFER LIFE CHANGING
INJURIES ANNUALLY IN AUTOMOBILE
COLLISIONS. AS CALIFORNIA
TRAFFIC FATALITIES SURGED, 22%
FROM 2019 TO 2022. WHILE SEVERE
AND FATAL TRAFFIC CRASHES HAVE
RESULTED IN $166 BILLION IN
ECONOMIC AND QUALITY OF LIFE
COSTS FOR CALIFORNIANS IN 2022
ALONE. A 2022 STUDY FROM THE
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION FOUND DISPARITIES
DISPARITIES IN THE RISK OF
TRAVEL FOR LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AS WELL.
RECENTLY, A DEVASTATING CRASH
INVOLVING A DRUNK DRIVER
SPEEDING AT 104 MILES AN HOUR IN
A 45 MILE AN HOUR ZONE, CLAIMED
THE LIVES OF FOUR PEPPERDINE
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS ON PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY ON A STRETCH THAT
IS KNOWN AS DEAD MAN'S CURVE.
OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, THERE
HAVE BEEN 4000 COLLISIONS ON
DEAD MAN'S CURVE. SERIOUS ROAD
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN
NEGLECTED ON PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, ALONG WITH OTHER UNSAFE
STRETCHES OF ROAD THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. CALTRANS AND REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES RECEIVE
FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS TO
BUILD, MAINTAIN, AND DEVELOP
HIGHWAYS AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
MY BILL REQUIRES THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESEARCH AND
COORDINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION TO DEVELOP AND
PUBLISH A REPORT DETAILING THE
NEEDED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS OF
THE 15 HIGHWAYS IN CALIFORNIA
WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF
COLLISIONS WITH THIS REPORT, THE
LEGISLATURE CAN EXAMINE MEANS OF
ADDRESSING THESE LOCATIONS AND
HOW BEST TO EXPEDITE SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS. SB 936 IS A STEP
FORWARD TO A PROACTIVE PLAN TO
ADDRESS OUR MOST DANGEROUS
HIGHWAYS, AND WILL GIVE THE
LEGISLATURE THE INFORMATION
NEEDED TO SAVE LIVES. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. AND I DID NOT BRING ANY
WITNESSES, AS IS YOUR TRADITION,
AS IS MY TRADITION. ALL RIGHT,
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ROOM WHO
WISHES TO EXPRESS SUPPORT?
PLEASE COME FORWARD. MARK
VUKOVICH, ON BEHALF OF STREETS
FOR ALL. WE ORIGINALLY HAD AN
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION
TO THE BILL AND SENATE EC AFTER
THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN THAT
COMMITTEE WERE REALLY SUPPORTIVE
OF THE BILL. SO I APPRECIATE
THAT, SENATOR. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT SEEING NO ONE ELSE COME
FORWARD? WE DO NOT HAVE A
REGISTERED OPPOSITION WITNESS.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM WHO WISHES TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION? IF SO, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. SEEING NONE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
BILL. SENATOR ARCHULETA IS
OFFERED A MOTION. WAS THAT
SENATOR NEIL? ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU FOR THE CORRECTION, ANYONE
ELSE WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED ON
THIS BILL? IT'S FILE ITEM TEN.
SB 936 WILL GO TO THE AUTHOR FOR
HIS OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE. ALL
RIGHT, WELL, I JUST RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE AND WANT YOU
TO TAKE NOTE OF THE BREVITY OF
THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND TO THE COMMITTEE
ASSISTANT, WE'LL ASK HER TO
RESTATE THE MOTION AND CALL THE
ROLL, PLEASE. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER TEN. SB 936. THE MOTION
IS DO PASS AS AMENDED AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS CORTEZ
ORTEZ AYE. NILO. NILO. AYE.
ALLEN ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA. AYE.
BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE. SPEER. AYE.
DALLY DODD. DODD. AYE. GONZALEZ.
LAIRD LIMON. NEWMAN. WHEN
PORTANTINO. PORTANTINO. AYE
SATO. SATO. AYE. UMBERG. 7 TO 0.
ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS SEVEN
ZERO ON CALL. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM
13. A FILE ITEM 13, SB 1418.
SENATOR ARCHULETA. THAT'S YOUR
BILL. IF YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO AT THIS
TIME.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK
YOU, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M I AM
SUBMITTING BILL 14 TÍNH 18
REGARDING HYDROGEN AND FUELING
STATIONS, AS CHAIR OF THE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON HYDROGEN AND
ENERGY, IT HAS COME TO MY
ATTENTION THAT PIVOTAL COMPONENT
OF OUR TRANSPORTATION AND
TRANSITION TOWARDS CLEANER, MORE
SUSTAINABLE MODE OF
TRANSPORTATION. HYDROGEN FUELING
STATIONS ARE AT TIMES NOT BEING
BUILT OR UNNECESSARILY DELAYED
DUE TO OVERLY BURDENSOME
PERMITTING PROCESS. THE
PERMITTING PROCESS IS NEW TO A
LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES, SO IT
WILL TAKE A LITTLE TIME FOR THEM
TO UNDERSTAND THAT CALIFORNIA IS
GOING IN THAT DIRECTION, AND ALL
THE SUPPORT WE CAN GET FROM THE
STATE TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO GO
FORWARD IS ESSENTIAL. SENATE
BILL 1418 ADDRESSES THE
IMPORTANT ISSUE, AS HYDROGEN HAS
SHOWN GREAT POTENTIAL TOWARDS
DECARBONIZING OUR HEAVY DUTY
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR. THE
SENATE BILL 1418 TRANSCENDS
SIMPLE LOCAL ORDINANCES OR
MUNICIPAL CONCERNS, AND RATHER
ADDRESSES THE STATEWIDE
IMPERATIVE. THIS BILL RECOGNIZES
THE NEED FOR CONSISTENT STATE
STANDARDS ACROSS ALL
JURISDICTIONS TO FACILITATE THE
PROMPT AND COST EFFECTIVE
DEPLOYMENT OF THESE CRUCIAL ZERO
EMISSION FUELING STATIONS.
SENATE. SENATE BILL 1418
UNDERSCORES OUR LEGISLATIVE
COMMITMENT TO FOSTERING ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE
WHILE MITIGATING BARRIERS TO THE
INSTALLATION OF HYDROGEN FUELING
STATIONS BY MUNICIPALITIES. AS
SENATE BILL 1418 BRINGS PARITY
TO THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE
PERMITTING PROCESS BY
STREAMLINING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR HYDROGEN
FUELING STATIONS IN THE SAME WAY
THAT WE DO FOR CHARGING
STATIONS, SPECIFICALLY, SENATE
BILL 1418 MANDATES THAT CITIES
AND COUNTIES MUST ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AND CHECKLIST THAT
CREATES AN EXPEDITED,
STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS
FOR HYDROGEN FUELING STATIONS.
THIS DIRECTIVE IS DESIGNED TO
EXPEDITE PROCEDURES AND ENSURE
THAT CITIZENS HAVE ACCESS TO
CLEAN ENERGY OPTIONS WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE
HURDLES. WHILE SENATE BILL 1418
STREAMLINES THE PERMITTING
PROCESS, HEALTH AND SAFETY
REMAINS A TOP PRIORITY. MY
PREVIOUS BILL, SENATE BILL 1291,
WHICH PASSED AND WAS SIGNED BY
THE GOVERNOR, ENSURED HYDROGEN
FUELING STATION PERMITS ADHERE
TO STRINGENT HEALTH, SAFETY AND
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. SENATE
BILL 1418 KEEPS THE CORE
COMPONENTS IN PLACE.
FURTHERMORE, TO ADDRESS FISCAL
AND PROCEDURAL CONCERNS, SENATE
BILL 1418 PHASES IN ITS
REQUIREMENTS SO THAT MOST CITIES
AND COUNTIES IN THE STATE WILL
NOT HAVE TO DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE
UNTIL SEPTEMBER OF 2026, WELL
AFTER GO-BIZ RELEASES ITS MODEL,
ORDINANCE AND CHECKLIST FOR
HYDROGEN FUELING STATIONS,
PERMITTING. IN CONCLUSION,
CALIFORNIA HAS MORE FUELING OR
MORE FUEL CELL ELECTRIC
VEHICLES, AND THE HYDROGEN
STATIONS NECESSARY TO FUEL THEM
THAN ANY OTHER STATE IN THE
NATION. AND WITH CALIFORNIA'S
RECENT SUCCESS IN SECURING
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
CLEAN, RENEWABLE HYDROGEN
INITIATIVES THROUGH THE ALLIANCE
OF RENEWABLE CLEAN HYDROGEN
ENERGY SYSTEMS, ALSO KNOWN AS
ARCHES. THE TIMELY PASSAGE OF
SENATE BILL 1418 IS ESSENTIAL TO
TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THESE
FEDERAL DOLLARS TO EXPEDITE THE
DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AND
MOVEMENT OF THE HYDROGEN
INFRASTRUCTURE INTO THE FUTURE.
IN TURN, FACILITATE, FACILITATE
MEETING OUR STATE'S TRANSITION
TO A CLEANER TRANSPORTATION
FUTURE. SENATE BILL 1418
REPRESENTS A PIVOTAL STEP
TOWARDS REALIZING OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
OBLIGATIONS AND ADVANCING OUR
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
OBJECTIVES. FOR THESE REASONS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE VOTE
AND HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT IS
TERESA COOK, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN COALITION,
WHO CAN ALSO SIT AND ASSIST IN
ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS. MISS
COOK, YOU'RE WELCOME TO BEGIN.
THANK YOU. SENATOR, I WOULD JUST
POINT OUT TO SENATOR ARCHULETA'S
POINT, CALIFORNIA ALSO HAS THE
VERY WORST RATIO OF FUEL CELL
DRIVERS TO FUELING STATIONS
AVAILABLE TODAY. SO THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THIS COMMITTEE ON TO IMPROVE
THROUGH THIS BILL. TERESA COOK,
PLEASED TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN
COALITION. AND THE CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN BUSINESS COUNCIL. WE
APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
LEGISLATION EASING THE BUILD OUT
OF HYDROGEN FUELING
INFRASTRUCTURE. AS MY FRIEND AND
COLLEAGUE DAMON WITH THE LEAGUE
WILL POINT OUT, PERMITTING IS
NOT THE ONLY CHALLENGE FACING
HYDROGEN. BUT AS ARB'S 2023 AB
EIGHT REPORT NOTES, PERMITTING
DOES PLAY A ROLE IN THE STATION
DELAYS THAT WE SEE TODAY. OUR
STATION DEVELOPERS ARE
PARTICULARLY EXCITED FOR THE
CHECKLIST REQUIRED BY THIS BILL.
EARLY AWARENESS AND TRANSPARENCY
INTO EACH PERMITTING AGENCY'S
DEMANDS FOR HYDROGEN FUELING
STATIONS WILL NOT ONLY SHORTEN
BUILD TIMES, BUT ALSO REDUCE
OVERALL COSTS. AS MANY OF YOU
KNOW, CALIFORNIA'S HYDROGEN HUB
IS TRANSPORTING FOCUSED THE
PROBLEM. THE PROGRAM COULD NOT
BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE $12
BILLION FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR
DEPLOYING 8000 TRUCKS AND 5000
ZERO EMISSION FUEL CELL ELECTRIC
BUSSES. BILLS LIKE 1418 GO A
LONG WAY TO SUPPORT OUR
COLLECTIVE EFFORTS, AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE ENCOURAGE YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE. ARE THERE
OTHERS IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHO
WISH TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL? PLEASE COME FORWARD. SB
1418. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
JACKIE ONIS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FUELS AND CONVENIENCE
ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT. ELISE
MCGHEE WITH TOM'S TRUCK CENTER
IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. WE SHOW NO REGISTERED
OPPOSITION. IS THERE ANYONE IN
THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHO WISHES TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION? YOU ARE
REGISTERED OPPOSITION. ALL
RIGHT, WELL, COME ON UP. YOU'LL
HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES. I
APOLOGIZE. I KNOW, HEAR ME.
WONDERFUL DAMON CONKLIN WITH THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WITH
RESPECT AND REGRET, WE HAVE TO,
BE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
CALIFORNIA CITIES, WE SUPPORT
THE STATE'S TRANSPORTATION AND
CLIMATE GOALS, AND CITIES ACROSS
THE STATE. WE ARE, IN MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, PREFER, HYDROGEN,
TECHNOLOGY OVER ELECTRICITY,
ELECTRIFICATION, ESPECIALLY FOR
MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY. THIS IS
CLASS TWO B AND UP SIZE VEHICLES
FOR, OUR PUBLIC FLEETS AS WELL
AS OUR TRANSIT. SEEKING TO
EXTEND THE STREAMLINED PROCESS
FOR EV CHARGING, IN TO
REFUELING, IN THE HYDROGEN
SPACE, THAT CAME ABOUT FROM
1291. CITIES ARE SQUARELY AND
NARROWLY, LIMITED IN THEIR SCOPE
OF REVIEW TO ONLY HEALTH AND
SAFETY. AND SINCE 1291 HAS
PASSED, HAVE WE SEEN A BIG
TSUNAMI OF PERMITS ACROSS CITY
DESKS? NO, WE HAVE NOT,
CURRENTLY WE HAVE 18 PERMITS,
UNDER REVIEW ACROSS THE STATE, I
WOULD SAY, IN FACT, LAST MONTH
THERE WERE MORE PERMITS
WITHDRAWN THAN THERE WERE
PERMITS SUBMITTED FOR HYDROGEN.
AND WHY IS THAT? HYDROGEN IS
EXCEEDINGLY EXPENSIVE TO
PRODUCE, STORE, TRANSPORT AND
DISPENSE. IT REQUIRES COMPLEX
STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND
ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL CODE.
COMPLIANCY WE ARE, NOT OPPOSED
TO, THE PERMITTING AND MOVING
ALONG OF HYDROGEN, AND WE WANT
TO SEE HYDROGEN HUBS BUILT UP
ACROSS THE STATE. BUT A ONE SIZE
FITS ALL APPROACH FOR A LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, REGARDLESS OF
THEIR SIZE, THEIR CAPABILITY AND
THEIR RESOURCES. WHAT MIGHT MAY
WORK FOR A LARGER CITY OR A CITY
THAT HAS A TRANSPORTATION HUB
VERSUS A CITY THAT IS IN A
REMOTE AREA THAT WILL NEVER SEE
THIS PERMIT ACROSS THEIR DESK?
AND YET IS GOING TO BE HELD TO
THE SAME STANDARDS WE THINK IS,
UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE, SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE'RE LOOKING FOR
AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD JUST
SQUARELY KIND OF PUT THESE BILLS
MAYBE FIVE MILES FROM A FREEWAY
AND HIGHWAY, SO THAT WE'RE
MAKING SURE THAT IT'S APPLIED TO
THOSE VERY CITIES THAT MOST
LIKELY ARE GOING TO BE SEEING
THOSE PERMITS. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE,
UNLESS AMENDED. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, IF THERE
ARE OTHERS HERE WHO WISH TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION, YOU MAY COME
FORWARD NOW. ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE, WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION.
YES, SENATOR NHIÀU, EXCUSE ME
FOR, REASONS STATED BY THE
LEAGUE AND LOCAL CONTROL
PURPOSES, I WOULD, TAKEN IN
ISOLATION, OPPOSE THIS, BUT,
SINCE THE SITUATION WITH
ELECTRIC CHARGERS, RECEIVES AN
EXEMPTION, I, I AM A SUPPORTER
OF HYDROGEN BEING PART OF THE
MIX, AND I WOULD SEE THAT AS,
UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FACILITY. SO
I'M JUST GOING TO LAY OFF.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO BE
RECOGNIZED? SENATOR DODD? YEAH.
THE, THE CONCERNS, YOU KNOW,
RELATIVE TO THE CITIES
NOTWITHSTANDING, I JUST THINK
THIS IS IT'S AN IMPORTANT
POLICY. I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED AS
A COAUTHOR AT SOME POINT IN TIME
WHEN THAT IS, OPPORTUNITY AVAILS
ITSELF. I HAVE SEEN IN MY
DISTRICT WHERE, THE MUNICIPALITY
JUST HAD NO UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND TOOK JUST
ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF TIME AND
MONEY BY THE DEVELOPER. AND, YOU
KNOW, AT SOME POINT IN TIME,
THERE ARE CONSULTANTS AT THESE
CITIES AND OR COUNTIES. I'M NOT
JUST LAYING IT ALL ON, ON, ON
CITIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO
OUT AND HIRE THE, YOU KNOW, THE
EXPERTISE THAT THEY NEED TO FEEL
COMFORTABLE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES, YOU
KNOW, WHETHER IT'S HYDROGEN OR,
OR OR ANYTHING ELSE. THANK YOU.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING BILL. AND,
SENATOR SATO, THANK YOU. I'M
STRUGGLING WITH THIS BILL,
MOSTLY BECAUSE WHENEVER WE TALK
ABOUT STREAMLINING A PROCESS AT
THE, AT THE CITIES, YOU COULD
PUT IT IN LINE WITH THE OTHER 15
WHATEVERS THAT NEED TO BE
STREAMLINED AND, AND, AND SO,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT
, AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT'S
LIKE, WHICH PART OF THE PROCESS,
CAN THEY STREAMLINE MORE,
BECAUSE THE STUDIES, THE SEQUA
STUFF, ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE
WHAT CAUSES THE, THE DELAYS,
BECAUSE IT'S HOWEVER LONG IT
TAKES SOMEBODY TO PUT SOMETHING
OUT AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY
CONTRACT THOSE STUDIES OUT,
HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES TO GET
THOSE STUDIES BACK IN, THOSE ARE
KIND OF MOSTLY WHERE THE DELAYS
ARE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
CITIES THAT ARE NOT, PERMITTING
THESE JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T
WANT THEM, THAT'S A WHOLE
DIFFERENT ANIMAL. AND THAT'S I
DON'T KNOW IF STREAMLINING IS
GOING TO FIX THAT, BUT I JUST
I'M NOT SEEING HOW SUPERSEDING
OR PUSHING THIS TO THE FRONT OF
THE LINE OF STREAMLINING, WITH
IS, IS BENEFICIAL TO THE OTHER
PEOPLE THAT ALSO HAVE STREAMLINE
AND PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN
ENACTED BY OUR LEGISLATURE, HOW
DO YOU KNOW HOW THIS HOW WE CAN
CHOOSE ONE OR OVER THE OTHER, I
TOO, AM IN FAVOR OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY, AS BEING PART OF OUR
UMBRELLA SOLUTION IN, FOR, OUR,
OUR FUTURE FUEL REQUIREMENTS,
BUT BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE
STREAMLINING PROCESS THAT IS
OUTLINED HERE IS GOING TO MAKE,
IS GOING TO HAVE THE DESIRED
EFFECT UNLESS THEY ALSO ADDRESS
THE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE
CAUSING THE DELAYS IN THE FIRST
PLACE. THANKS. MAY I RESPOND?
YES. OKAY. WELL, I'D LIKE TO GET
YOU OFF THE FENCE BECAUSE YOU
DIDN'T GIVE ME A HARD NO. YOU
SAID YOU'RE KIND OF ON THE
FENCE. WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND
GET YOU OFF AND LET ME. WOULD IT
HELP IF I TOLD YOU WHERE I WAS
ON THAT? NO, NO, LET ME, LET ME
JUST DON'T SPOIL THE SURPRISE.
LET ME LET ME JUST SHARE THIS
WITH YOU, AS YOU JUST SAID
YOURSELF, THAT AS HYDROGEN IS
BECOMING PART OF CALIFORNIA'S
FUTURE, A BILL WE JUST HEARD
WITH WAHAB WAS USING SOME OF THE
GAS STATIONS OUT THERE THAT WILL
OPEN THEIR DOORS UP TO HYDROGEN,
THE INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WHAT
BROUGHT THIS ABOUT OUT IS THE
HYDROGEN STATIONS THAT WE DO
HAVE, THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT
FINALLY MADE THE AGREEMENTS.
WHAT THEY DID IS THEY DIDN'T
TALK ABOUT PARITY WITH ELECTRIC.
THEY JUST MADE IT SO DIFFICULT
FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL TO YOU GOT A
RANCHER HERE WHEN ANYTHING'S
VERY DIFFICULT TO CONDUCT YOUR
BUSINESS. WELL, THEY MADE IT SO
DIFFICULT THAT THEY MADE THEM
PUT IN SIDEWALKS, TREES, FIRE
HYDRANTS, ALL KINDS OF THINGS.
HE SPENT $300,000 BEFORE HE EVEN
GOT ANYTHING STARTED. AND THEN
THE FILE SAT FOR TWO YEARS. SO
AND HERE WE GOT $1.5 BILLION
COMING FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. SO CALIFORNIA CAN
START MOVING ITS HYDROGEN AND
TRYING TO DO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED
TO DO, TAKE CARE OF OUR
ENVIRONMENT. SO HERE WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY AND WE'RE TAKING
BABY STEPS. AND AS WE TAKE THESE
STEPS FORWARD, YES, WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO TELL MUNICIPALITIES,
IF YOU GET SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO
PUT ONE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD,
YOUR CITY HALL OR WHEREVER, IT'S
GOING TO BE, WELL, GRANTED. BUT
IF YOU DON'T GET ANYBODY WHO
WANTS IT, WELL, THEN IT DOESN'T
APPLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO
GO ACROSS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT. THIS IS
GOING TO TAKE A FEW YEARS TO GET
THIS THING DONE. BUT AS IT GOES
THROUGH THE SYSTEM, WE DON'T
WANT ANYONE IN THE INDUSTRY TO
FEEL THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS
BEING PUNITIVE AND PUTTING THAT
FILE DOWN BELOW. AND THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THE
FACT THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT, THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR,
THERE IS MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING TO BE
INVESTED IN CALIFORNIA. SO AS WE
MOVE ALONG, THERE WILL BE OTHER
BILLS THAT WILL PERTAIN TO
TRANSPORTATION INTO
MANUFACTURING, INTO COST SAVINGS
AND SO ON. SO WE'RE AT THE
THRESHOLD OF OPENING UP THIS NEW
ENVIRONMENT, AND THAT WILL
INCLUDE HYDROGEN AND SO MANY
OTHER THINGS FOR THE FUTURE. AND
THIS IS JUST THAT ONE FIRST
STEP. IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT
MY CONSULTANT WOULD LIKE TO ADD
TO THAT. THANK YOU, SENATOR. I
WOULD JUST SAY DURING THE
PERMITTING PROCESS THERE IS
PROBABLY MORE BACK AND FORTH AND
CHANGES AND SURPRISES THROUGHOUT
THE SORT OF ITERATIVE PROCESS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THESE PERMITS
QUALIFY FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SATISFACTION, THEN I THINK THE
HYDROGEN INDUSTRY MIGHT PREFER.
AND SO TO HAVE AS MUCH KIND OF
UPFRONT NOTIFICATION AS POSSIBLE
ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO TO BE THE
BEST NEIGHBORS POSSIBLE, I THINK
GOES A LONG WAY FOR, YOU KNOW,
FOR US TO DO OUR PART IN THIS.
THANK YOU FOR THOSE ANSWERS. AND
I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THAT
IS WITH A LOT OF INDUSTRIES.
THANK YOU. AND I ALSO THINK, IF
I MAY, MR. CHAIR, THAT AS
CALIFORNIA KEEPS GOING FORWARD,
WE'RE GOING TO FIND MORE AND
MORE PEOPLE GO-BIZ IS REALLY
INVOLVED WITH THIS NOW,
CALIFORNIA WOULD NOT HAVE SORT
IT OUT TO GET THAT $1.5 BILLION
IF WE DIDN'T THINK WE NEEDED IT
HERE IN OUR STATE, AND WE
WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN COMPETITIVE
TO WIN THAT AMOUNT. AND NOW THAT
WE HAVE IT, WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO
ACTUALLY, AS I MENTIONED, TO
CREATE A FLOW TO THE CONSUMER
FOR AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE
MANUFACTURING, THE
TRANSPORTATION MUNICIPALITIES
HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER. SO IT'S
GOING TO BE A LONG PROCESS. AND
THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING. AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU FOR
THE CLOSE SENATOR. AND SENATOR
NEWMAN. OKAY. GO AHEAD. WE'RE
GOING TO REOPEN AND, WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO ALLOW SENATOR
ARCHULETA ANOTHER CLOSE, YOU
KNOW, BUT GO AHEAD ANYWAY, I
SORRY ABOUT THAT. I, I'M
ACTUALLY A PRINCIPAL COAUTHOR ON
THIS BILL, AND I AM A FREQUENTLY
CHALLENGED DRIVER OF A HYDROGEN
FUEL CELL VEHICLE, BUT I BUT I
ACTUALLY DO THINK MR. CONKLIN'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS
INTERESTING. SO IF MR. COOK, IF
YOU COULD REPLY, I MEAN, IT DOES
MAKE SENSE, ESPECIALLY AS YOU
LOOK FORWARD TOWARD HIGHER
INTENSITY USES MEDIUM DUTY HEAVY
DUTY TRUCKS TO SPOT HYDROGEN
REFUELING STATIONS WITHIN FIVE
MILES OF A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
DOES THAT DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE A
REASONABLE AMENDMENT. I THINK IT
WOULD. I WOULD WANT TO KNOW HOW
MUCH OF OUR CURRENT FUELING
INFRASTRUCTURE IS LOCATED WITHIN
A SIMILAR KIND OF FOOTPRINT.
RIGHT. LIKE, I THINK DAMON AND I
WERE CHATTING EARLIER, FAR FLUNG
STATIONS. ONE'S NOT IN MAYBE
MAJOR TRAVEL DESTINATIONS OR A
TOP PRIORITY. IT'S NOT REALLY A
GOOD MOVEMENT CORRIDOR PER SE,
BUT AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT
OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT MAY BE
IN OUTSIDE OF THAT FIVE MILE
AREA THAT STILL SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED. SO I WOULD JUST OUT
OF CURIOSITY, WANT TO LEARN A
LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT THAT LOOKS
LIKE. WHAT IS THAT DENSITY
WITHIN FIVE MILES OFF OF A
HIGHWAY VERSUS EVERYTHING ELSE
OUTSIDE OF IT? BECAUSE IT MAY
VERY WELL MAKE GREAT SENSE OR IT
MAY BE KIND OF EVENLY
DISTRIBUTED, IN WHICH CASE WE
MIGHT NOT HAVE A GREAT SOLUTION.
RIGHT? THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER
PARAMETERS THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL.
RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, SO I YOU
KNOW, I WOULD URGE THE AUTHOR, I
MEAN, I'M A PRINCIPAL KHÓ, I
THINK IT'S A GOOD BILL, BUT I'D
URGE THE AUTHOR TO WORK WITH THE
LEAGUE WITH TO SEE IF THERE'S
KIND OF A MATRIX THAT MIGHT BE
APPLIED TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
YES I CAN SEE DOING THAT. AND
AGAIN, YOU MENTIONED FIVE MILES
OFF. THE IDEA IS IF THE BILL
TAKES HOLD, THEN WE HAVE
STATIONS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE
HIGHWAYS AND FREEWAYS, WHICH IS
A GOOD THING, TAKING THEM OFF
FIVE MILES. THEN YOU'RE GOING
INTO A MUNICIPALITY TÊ THEN IT
COMES UP TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO JUMP IN.
SO HOWEVER WE DO IT, WE'VE GOT
TO BE PART OF THE FUTURE AND
HYDROGEN IS THERE. SO ONCE
AGAIN, MR. CHAIR, I URGE AN AYE
VOTE. I'LL MOVE TO NO. ALL
RIGHT, WE HAVE, A MOTION BY
SENATOR NEWMAN, AND I REFRAIN
FROM MY COMMENTS, AND I'M GOING
TO CONTINUE TO REFRAIN, BUT I
WOULD ASSOCIATE, MY THOUGHTS
WITH SENATOR DODD'S EARLIER
COMMENTS, WHICH I FIND TO BE
VERY TRUE. THANK YOU, SENATOR,
AND WE HAVE A MOTION IF YOU'D
LIKE TO RESTATE THE MOTION
COMMITTEE ASSISTANT AND CALL THE
ROLL. HE DID. HE CLOSED TWICE.
YEAH THANK YOU THOUGH. THANK YOU
. MAYBE THREE TIMES. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER 13 SB 1418. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATOR CORTEZ.
CORTEZ. AYE. NILO ALLEN.
ARCHULETA. AYE. ARCHULETA. AYE.
BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE SPEER. AYE.
DOLLY. DOLLY. AYE. DODD AYE.
DODD. AYE. GONZALEZ. LAIRD
LIMON. NEWMAN. NEWMAN AYE.
NGUYEN. PORTANTINO. PORTANTINO.
AYE SATO. UMBERG. OKAY, SO THAT
BILL IS AT SEVEN AYES. ZERO
NOES. AND WE'LL KEEP IT ON CALL.
SENATOR THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION.
ALL JOKING ASIDE, SENATOR
DURAZZO, AND WE APPRECIATE THE
WITNESSES. THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE. SENATOR BARRASSO IS. FILE
ITEM 7088, FILE ITEM EIGHT. IF
YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG, SB 1488.
SENATOR OSO, WELCOME. THANK YOU.
BEGIN PRESENTING WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, FIRST, I ACCEPT THE
FOLLOWING COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
DELETE THE CONTENTS OF SB 1488
TWO. REVISE BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE, SECTION 5272E1
TO REPLACE ONE YEAR WITH 120
DAYS AND THREE. ADD A NEW
SECTION TO THE BNP CODE AND THE
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ACT, WHICH
STATES WHEN THE DEPARTMENT IS
FORMALLY RENEGOTIATING AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ON
CALIFORNIA'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER
THE HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT,
THE DEPARTMENT SHALL, AMONG ITS
PRIORITIES, SUPPORT FOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS AT ARENAS
AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 5272, AS
AMENDED, SB 1488, WILL REDUCE
THE LENGTH OF TIME FOR A
MARKETING CONTRACT FROM ONE YEAR
TO 120 DAYS, WHICH MORE
ACCURATELY REFLECTS OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES. THIS
BILL PROVIDES STADIUMS AND
ARENAS REVENUE STREAMS THAT DO
NOT RELY ON PUBLIC FUNDING. THE
ARENA EXEMPTION WAS FIRST
ESTABLISHED BY THE LEGISLATURE
TO HELP FUND THE CONSTRUCTION
AND THE OPERATIONS OF THE STATE
STATES, STADIUMS AND ARENAS,
WHICH ARE AN IMPORTANT BOTH
ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL REGIONAL
CENTERS. STADIUMS CREATE
THOUSANDS OF PERMANENT LOCAL
GOOD CONSTRUCTION JOBS AND
GENERATE MILLIONS, HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS IN STATE AND LOCAL
TAXES, ESPECIALLY THROUGH THE
PERMANENT SERVICE JOBS. THESE
MESSAGES MESSAGE BOARDS ALSO
PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN HELPING TO
DIRECT TRAFFIC AROUND STADIUMS
AND PROVIDING PUBLIC SAFETY
ALERTS. ARENA OPERATORS ARE NOT
GRANTED AN UNREGULATED
PRIVILEGE. THEY MUST COMPLY WITH
STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, AND THIS
BILL DOES NOT PROVIDE A
FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE FOR SPORTS
ARENA BILLBOARDS. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THERE
ARE OVER 8500 OUTDOOR BILLBOARDS
IN THE STATE, AND OF THOSE,
NEARLY 500 ARE DIGITAL SIGNS. I
REMAIN COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
THE OPPOSITION, BRINGING
TOGETHER ALL PARTIES AS THIS
BILL MOVES FORWARD IN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. TODAY, I
HAVE ANGIE MINETTI TO PROVIDE
BRIEF REMARKS IN SUPPORT OF SB
1488. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. ANGIE
MINETTI HERE REPRESENTING THE
LOS ANGELES DODGERS IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
PROVIDES US A WAY TO DIVERSIFY
OUR REVENUE STREAMS AND ALSO
PROVIDES LESS RELIANCE ON PUBLIC
SUBSIDIES. WHILE THE BILL NO
LONGER PROVIDES AN OUTDOOR AN
EXEMPTION FOR ARENAS FROM THE
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ACT, WE
STILL BELIEVE WE STILL SUPPORT
IT BECAUSE IT GIVES CLEAR
DIRECTIVE TO THAT OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING IS PRIORITIZED
DURING THE FEDERAL STATE
AGREEMENT DISCUSSIONS. WE THANK
THE AUTHOR, THE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
US AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR. I VOTE. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM WHO WISHES TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL?
MISS. FILE ITEM EIGHT, SEEING
NONE, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO
PRIMARY OPPOSITION, WHICH I
BELIEVE IS STEVE CRUZ. YOU MAY
COME UP IF YOU'RE HERE. IF WE
HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON,
THAT'S FINE. ALL RIGHT. JUST
PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELVES AND
PROCEED. YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF
MINUTES EACH. GREAT. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, STEVE
CRUZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE
HAD AN OPPOSED POSITION ON THE
BILL, BUT WANTED TO BE HERE IN
COMMITTEE TODAY TO EXPRESS OUR
APPRECIATION FOR THE SENATOR AND
AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT
SHE OUTLINED TODAY, AND SO
WANTED TO THANK HER FOR THAT AND
THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK. SO
WE DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL
NEUTRAL POSITION. TODAY, BUT,
YOU KNOW, FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROGRESS. AND
I'LL JUST QUICKLY SAY THAT, YOU
KNOW, OUR FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS,
WHICH ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE
ANALYSIS, IS THAT THE APPROVAL
OF THESE EXEMPTION BILLS THAT
PUT US OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND
THE CORRESPONDING THREAT OF
FEDERAL HIGHWAY DOLLARS, THAT'S
BEEN OUR PRIMARY CONCERN. AND
THEN, ADDITIONALLY, IS THE
CONCERN ABOUT THE UNLEVEL
PLAYING FIELD THAT IT CREATES
WITH OUR MEMBERS IN TERMS OF HOW
THEY CITE THEIR BOARDS, NOW,
HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THE
MUCH IMPROVED WITH THE
DIRECTIVE, BUT WE WANT TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT DIRECTIVE
MEANS, AND HOW SHOULD THERE BE
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS AROUND IT?
DOES IT ISOLATE ONE POLICY IN
THIS CASE, THE EXEMPTION TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF OTHER, MAYBE
POLICIES THAT EITHER THE
INDUSTRY OR THE STATE WANTS TO
ADVANCE IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS?
SO AGAIN, NOT OFFICIALLY
NEUTRAL, BUT MUCH IMPROVED. AND
SO THANK YOU, SENATOR, AND LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AS
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A
COUPLE MINUTES IF YOU CHOOSE.
YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
CORBY PALMER FROM LAMAR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, ALSO A MEMBER OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION. I AGREE
WITH AND ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT
STEVE BROUGHT UP AS TO THE
CONCERN OF RISKING FEDERAL
HIGHWAY FUNDS WITH THESE ONE OFF
EXEMPTION BILLS. BUT I ALSO WANT
TO EMPHASIZE HOW SIMILAR
POLICIES THAT THE ASSOCIATION
HAS OPPOSED IN THE PAST CREATE
INHERENT UNFAIRNESS AND FOR
OPERATORS WHO ARE BOUND TO
COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING ACT, SUCH AS
OURSELVES, WHICH REGULATES HOW
LARGE SIGNS CAN BE, HOW FAR
APART THEY CAN BE, ETC. THAT
SAID, ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE THANKFUL
TO THE AUTHOR, WILLING TO WORK
WITH THIS AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE,
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM WHO WISHES TO COME UP AND
EXPRESS AN OPPOSITION POSITION?
OAN SEEN NOBODY MOVING FORWARD,
WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.
MEMBERS. YES, SENATOR ARCHULETA
AND THEN SENATOR NGUYEN. OKAY.
BEING A DODGER FAN, LET ME PUT
THAT OUT THERE. BUT KNOWING
DODGER STADIUM, GIVE ME AN IDEA
OF THE FOOTPRINT AND WHERE THESE
SIGNS WOULD BE IN THE FUTURE,
WHERE WOULD EXACTLY WOULD THEY
BE? WOULD ANYBODY KNOW THAT? HI,
SENATOR. THAT HASN'T BEEN
DETERMINED YET, OBVIOUSLY, SINCE
THE BILL DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR AN
OUTDOOR ARENA EXEMPTION, THAT WE
HAVEN'T HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS,
BUT CERTAINLY, THOSE PROPOSALS
WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO A LOCAL
LÀ CITY COUNCIL. AND, YOU KNOW,
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL TO BE
DETERMINED, SIGNAGE PLACEMENT,
IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE
DODGERS COULD CONTINUE TO
PURSUE, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED
AT THIS TIME. OKAY. GOOD. YEAH.
THANK YOU FOR THE APPROPRIATE.
ALL RIGHT. OTHERS WISHING TO BE
RECOGNIZED, SENATOR NGUYEN,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN, FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT
OR THE OUTDOOR. WE HEAR THIS ALL
THE TIME. OKAY. THERE'S I MEAN,
EVERY TIME THERE'S A BILL THAT
COMES OUT THAT HAS TO DO WITH
BILLBOARDS, ESPECIALLY ON THE
FREEWAY. THAT'S THE SAME ANSWER
YOU GIVE. I MEAN, WHAT CAN WE DO
TO MOVE FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN
ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, ALLOW AND
NOT JUST ALLOW AN EXEMPTION FOR
ONE INDUSTRY? WHAT CAN WE DO
FOR. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THIS.
THANKS FOR THE QUESTION, SENATOR
, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE BILLS THAT
HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE
LEGISLATURE. I MEAN, THERE WERE
A FEW LAST YEAR, I WAS I WASN'T
AUTHOR, I WAS ONE OF THE
COAUTHOR OF THAT. BILL LAST
YEAR. YEAH. YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE
BEEN A FEW, BUT I YOUR I
UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. AND SO I
KNOW THAT PART OF THE
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS TO HAVE A
DISCUSSION AROUND ABOUT THE
POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA. SO I
THINK THERE IS AN OPENING TO
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, WHICH
IS, I THINK, WHY OUR REMARKS
WERE AROUND. YOU KNOW, I THINK
LET'S HAVE A ROBUST CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHAT THAT DIRECTIVE WOULD
LOOK LIKE. SO BUT I THINK YOU'RE
RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S THAT HAS
BEEN THE POLICY. OURS HAS BEEN
FAIRLY CONSISTENT WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THAT IT WOULD
THREATEN FEDERAL HIGHWAY DOLLARS
. AND SO, OUR POSITION HAS BEEN
CONSISTENT THERE. AND IT'S BEEN
CONSISTENT ON LIKE WHETHER THERE
ARE EXEMPTIONS TO THE RULES.
WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE US THAT
HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING
RULES? AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE
BEEN, I THINK, PRETTY CONSISTENT
OVER THE YEARS. BUT WE ARE
WILLING TO HAVE LIKE
CONVERSATIONS AND OUR, OUR
ASSOCIATION IS IN FACT GOING TO
BE INVOLVED IN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WITH FHWA. SO I
HOPE THAT ANSWERS I, I HOPE SO
BECAUSE WE'VE HAD EXEMPTION
BILLS THAT HAS EXPANDED TEN
YEARS, FIVE YEARS, AND WE HEAR
THE SAME COMMENTS, SAME CONCERNS
TEN, 15 YEARS AGO WHEN WE'RE
STILL HERE. LET'S FIND A
SOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN ALL WORK
THIS TOGETHER SO THAT WE'RE NOT
HAVING TO DO ONE SINGLE BILL FOR
AN INDUSTRY EVERY TIME. I JUST,
YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT IF THERE'S
ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO UP HERE
TO MOVE THAT PROCESS SO THAT IT
WORKS FOR YOU GUYS AND IT WORKS
FOR EVERYBODY ELSE IN
CALIFORNIA, THAT'S FAIR. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO
SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO
WISHES TO BE RECOGNIZED. I'LL
MAKE SURE I LOOK TO MY RIGHT
THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE, SENATOR RUSSELL, YOU HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS, BUT I
WANT TO REMIND US THAT THIS
EXEMPTION IS NOT PART OF THIS.
THIS BILL THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR FOLKS TO WALK AWAY
WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, AND WE
HOPE THAT, AS, SENATOR, GOOD
SENATOR JUST SAID THAT IN
NEGOTIATING, RENEGOTIATING AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, THAT
WILL GIVE IT THE PRIORITY THAT
IT DESERVES SO THAT WE COULD
COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT
MAKES SENSE FOR EVERYONE. SO
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO, WE
HAVE A MOTION. I'M SORRY. THE
MOTION WAS BY SENATOR ARCHULETA,
AND WE'LL HAVE THE COMMITTEE
ASSISTANT, FORMALIZE THAT AND
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB 1488.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED, AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR CORTESE Ã ORTEZ I NILO
ALLEN ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA I
BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE. SPEER I
DALLY DODD. DODD I GONZALEZ.
LAIRD LIMÓN. NEWMAN. NEWMAN I
NGUYEN. PORTANTINO PORTANTINO I
SATO. UMBERG. SIX ZERO ON CALL.
ALL RIGHT. THE VOTE. 6 TO 0 ON
CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE NOW TO
ITEM 14. THAT WOULD BE SB 1216.
AND THAT WOULD BE SENATOR BLAKE
SPEER
.
YOU MAY PRESENT WHENEVER READY.
SENATOR OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES. I'M
PLEASED TO AUTHOR SB 1216, WHICH
WILL IMPROVE SAFETY FOR CYCLISTS
ON OUR ROADWAYS BY LIMITING THE
OVERUSE OF SHARROWS AND CLASS
THREE BIKEWAYS. YOU'RE BEING
DISTRIBUTED A PICTURE OF A
SHARROW SO YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT
IT IS. SHARROWS, AS SOME MAY
KNOW, ARE A PAINTED SYMBOL ON A
ROADWAY TO INDICATE THAT
BICYCLISTS AND DRIVERS ARE
SHARING A LANE. THESE TYPES OF
BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE USED ALL
THROUGHOUT THE STATE TO CONNECT
CONNECT BIKE NETWORKS. BUILDING
OUT OUR BIKE NETWORK IS VERY
IMPORTANT AS THE STATE
PRIORITIZE USES ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION AS A CORE
COMPONENT OF MOBILITY. HOWEVER,
OUR ROADWAYS ARE FILLED WITH
BIGGER AND HEAVIER VEHICLES,
MORE DISTRACTIONS THAN EVER, AND
ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS,
ESPECIALLY WHEN MIXING BICYCLES
AND CARS. ACCORDING TO THE
CALIFORNIA DMV, EACH YEAR IN
CALIFORNIA, OVER 100 BICYCLISTS
ARE KILLED AND OVER 10,000 ARE
INJURED IN COLLISIONS. JUST LAST
YEAR IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, A
15 YEAR OLD BOY NAMED BRODY
CHAMPLAIN KINGMAN WAS KILLED
BECAUSE HE WAS SHARING A ROADWAY
ON HIS E-BIKE, AND THERE WAS AN
ACCIDENT WITH A VAN. AND WITH
THE EVER INCREASING PREVALENCE
OF E-BIKES AND ADOPTION OF
CYCLING AS A MODE OF
TRANSPORTATION AND RECREATION,
WE HAVE TO DO BETTER BY OUR
RESIDENTS AND PRIORITIZE THE
SAFEST BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE
POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY WITH
LIMITED FUNDING. OUR STATE
ENCOURAGES ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
AND HAS INVESTED HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO IMPLEMENT
SAFE BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH
THE ATP OR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM. BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT
THERE ARE SAFER, ALTERNATIVE TO
SHARROWS, AND OUR STATE FUNDING
SOURCES SHOULD PRIORITIZE THOSE
WITHOUT PHYSICAL SEPARATION FROM
LARGE. SOMETIMES DISTRACTED, AND
FAST MOVING VEHICLES. AN
INHERENT DANGER EXISTS FOR
CYCLISTS OF ALL AGES AND
ABILITIES. ALSO, A SIMPLE
OBSERVATION IS THAT SHARING THE
ROADWAY WITH CARS PREVENTS MANY
FROM SEEING CYCLING AS A
REASONABLE OR VIABLE OPTION FOR
GETTING AROUND, AND THIS FURTHER
FORCES US INTO SEEING CARS AS
THE ONLY WAY TO GET AROUND. WE
HAVE TO DO BETTER BY ENSURING
OUR STATE PRIORITIZE THE SAFEST
BIKE FACILITIES POSSIBLE, AND
THIS BILL DOES TWO THINGS TO
MAKE CYCLING SAFER. FIRST, IT
PROHIBITS SHARROWS AND CLASS
THREE BIKEWAYS ON HIGHWAYS WITH
A POSTED SPEED LIMIT OVER 30MPH.
THIS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH DESIGN
GUIDELINES PUBLISHED BY CALTRANS
EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT CLASS
THREE BIKEWAYS SHOULD ONLY BE
USED IN VERY LOW SPEED AND LOW
VOLUME LOCATIONS, AND AS A LAST
RESORT WHEN NO OTHER VIABLE
ALTERNATIVES EXIST. I RECOGNIZE
THAT MANY SPORTS CYCLISTS WHO
RIDE ALONG SCENIC HIGHWAYS WITH
HIGHER VEHICLE SPEEDS FEEL SAFER
WHEN DRIVERS ARE AWARE OF THEIR
PRESENCE, AND THEREFORE THIS
BILL STILL ALLOWS SIGNS THAT SAY
BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE,
WHICH IS THE STATE LAW SO LONG
AS THE SIGNS ARE NOT CONSIDERED
A CLASS THREE BIKEWAY. FOR THE
PURPOSES OF EVALUATING BICYCLE
OR COMPLETE STREETS. TARGETS AND
GOALS. THE SECOND THING THIS
BILL DOES IS IT PROHIBITS ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FROM BEING
USED TO CREATE SHARROWS, OR
CLASS THREE BIKEWAYS. WHEN THE
DESIGN SPEED IS GREATER THAN
25MPH. ATP FUNDS SHOULD BE USED
TO ENCOURAGE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION AND FINDING WAYS
TO REDUCE INJURIES AND
FATALITIES. THESE FUNDS
SHOULDN'T BE USED FOR PROJECTS
THAT DON'T ACTUALLY MAKE BIKING
SAFER, LIKE SIMPLY ADDING
SHARROWS OR SHARROW MARKERS
WITHOUT INCLUDING ANY OTHER
FEATURES TO SLOW TRAFFIC OR TO
CREATE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT. THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE NEED OUR
ROADWAYS TO BE SAFER FOR
CYCLISTS, AND FOR THE STATE TO
PRIORITIZE THE SAFEST TYPES OF
BIKE WAYS POSSIBLE. WITH ME
TODAY, I HAVE MARK VUKOVICH
VUKOVICH ON BEHALF OF STREETS
FOR ALL IT IS. AND I ALSO HAVE.
OH YES, AND HE IS RIGHT HERE. SO
THANK YOU FOR COMING. ALL RIGHT.
SO SENATOR CORTEZ HERE TO STEP
OUT. SO MR. VUKOVICH, PLEASE
PROCEED. YOU GUYS CAN CALL ME
WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE. IT'S FINE.
IT IS VUKOVICH. VUKOVICH? SORRY.
VUKOVICH VUKOVICH VUKOVICH. ALL
GET IT? SB 1216. IT'S PRETTY
SIMPLE, YOU KNOW, SHARROWS HAD
AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY IN THE
EVOLUTION OF SAFE STREET BICYCLE
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, BUT IT'S
BEEN OVER 20 YEARS NOW SINCE
WILLIE BROWN PRESIDED OVER THE
FIRST ZERO OUTSIDE OF SAN
FRANCISCO CITY HALL. AND THE
BEST PRACTICES FOR BICYCLE
INFRASTRUCTURE HAVE EVOLVED FOR
ITS TIME. WHILE RESEARCH HAVE
SHOWN THAT SHARROWS MAY OFFER
SOME IMPROVEMENT FOR EXPERIENCED
CYCLISTS, THERE'S LITTLE
EVIDENCE THAT THEY ENCOURAGE
MORE PEOPLE TO ADOPT CYCLING,
PARTICULARLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN,
AND NON RECREATIONAL RIDERS. DUE
TO THE LACK OF MEANINGFUL
FEATURES TO SLOW TRAFFIC OR
ELIMINATE POTENTIAL COLLISIONS,
CYCLISTS ARE SAFE, SAFEST WHEN
PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM
VEHICLES. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN
THAT SHARROWS HAVE A SMALL
EFFECT ON REDUCING DOORING, BUT
DO NOT HAVE A LARGE EFFECT ON
PREVENTING CAR BIKE COLLISIONS
AND IN FACT, A 2016 STUDY BY
CIVIL ENGINEERS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER SHOWED THAT
STREETS WITH SHARROWS PERFORMED
WORSE THAN STREETS WITH ON
STREET MARKINGS AT READING
COLLISIONS, KIND OF THE GIST OF
THE MATTER IS, IS THAT FHWA,
NACTO, AND EVEN CALTRANS
THEMSELVES DON'T ALLOW OR DON'T
ENCOURAGE SHARROWS ON STREETS
ABOVE 25MPH. OUR BILL SAYS 30 TO
ALLOW FOR MORE LOCAL FLEXIBILITY
AND REALLY, THE QUESTION BEFORE
YOU IS NOT WHERE CYCLISTS ARE
AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RIDE.
CYCLISTS ARE, ACCORDING TO THE
VEHICLE CODE, ALLOWED TO RIDE
ANYWHERE ON ANY, ANY SINGLE
ROADWAY. THE QUESTION IS WHERE
THE STATE SHOULD BE TELLING
CYCLISTS TO RIDE. AND THAT'S THE
QUESTION BEFORE YOU THAT I'D
LIKE TO SAY. I CLOSE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.
VUKOVICH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER
INDIVIDUALS HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF THIS MEASURE? PLEASE COME
FORWARD. JEANNIE WALLER, ON
BEHALF OF CAL BIKE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE, I
UNDERSTAND WE DO HAVE A PRIMARY
WITNESS IN OPPOSITION. CHRIS
LEE, ON BEHALF OF THE NEVADA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. MR.
LEE. YOU CAN COME TO THE TABLE
DEPENDING ON. NO. YOU'RE GOOD.
I'LL BE BRIEF. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MEMBERS. CHRIS LEE HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE NEVADA COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, HAVE
AN OPPOSED POSITION. APPRECIATE
THE AMENDMENTS. WE THINK THEY
IMPROVE THE BILL A LOT, BUT
STILL HAVE TWO MINOR POINTS OF
CONTENTION THAT WE'D HOPE TO
WORK OUT, FIRST, I THINK WE HAVE
A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATION OF THE
PROHIBITION. WE DO THINK THAT
THE BILL WOULD PROHIBIT THE
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
CLASS THREE BIKEWAYS OTHER THAN
SHARROWS, AND IN A COUNTY LIKE
NEVADA COUNTY, WHERE YOU HAVE
LIMITED RIGHT OF WAYS, YOU HAVE
A LOT OF LOW VOLUME RURAL
STREETS THAT ARE LIKELY NEVER
GOING TO BE WIDENED. WE DO THINK
THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD HAVE IN OUR TOOL CHEST TO
SHOW THAT CYCLISTS CAN BE
PRESENT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON
THE FACILITIES, AND WE THINK
IT'S AN OPTION THAT SHOULDN'T BE
PRECLUDED BY STATE LAW. SECOND
POINT ON THE GRANT FUNDING.
THESE ARE NOT THE TYPE OF
FACILITIES WE TYPICALLY WOULD
PURSUE GRANT FUNDING FOR, BUT WE
DO THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED, EXCEPT
FOR PERHAPS THE NARROW EXAMPLE
ON A HIGH SPEED FACILITY AS PART
OF A BROADER GRANT APPLICATION.
SO HOPE TO RESOLVE THOSE TWO
REMAINING ISSUES. AGAIN, I THINK
THE AMENDMENTS MOVE THE BILL IN
A BETTER DIRECTION, BUT
CURRENTLY HAVE AN OPPOSED
POSITION. THANK YOU. OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE
TO EXPRESS AN OPPOSITION
POSITION. DAIMON CONKLIN WITH ON
ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, WE HAVE
CONCERNS JUST ECHOING THE
EARLIER STATEMENTS THAT WERE
JUST MADE BY, CHRIS LEE, SO
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE, AND WE FEEL
THAT WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. WE'VE GOT SOME GOOD
COLLABORATIVE CONVERSATIONS
THERE THAT I THINK WILL BE ABLE
TO LIVE WITH, BUT I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR, HAVING
OPEN DOOR POLICY AND WORKING
WITH US. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE, LET'S
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS OR
CONCERNS FOR THE AUTHOR? SEEING
NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE
MEASURE, SENATOR BLAKESTER, IF
YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE. OKAY. THANK
YOU. I GUESS IN SUMMARY, I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT WE WANT TO HAVE
OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
USED TOWARD PROJECTS THAT
ACTUALLY LEAD TO MODE SHIFT SO
PEOPLE DECIDING TO RIDE A BIKE
WHEN THEY WERE MAYBE TAKING A
CAR BEFORE. AND SO THOSE
PROJECTS NEED TO BE SAFE. THEY
NEED TO BE SEPARATED. AND I HAVE
SEEN MANY EXAMPLES OF SHARROWS
PAINTED IN ROADS THAT ARE, THAT
ARE NOT ACTUALLY CREATING THE
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION THAT WE
WANT AND THE NETWORK THAT WE
NEED. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE, VOTE. ALL RIGHT. WE
CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS
TIME. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
SENATOR ARCHULETA, MOVES, AND WE
WILL HAVE THE COMMITTEE
ASSISTANT FORMALIZE THAT. CALL
THE ROLL, PLEASE. THIS IS FILE
ITEM NUMBER 14, SB 1216. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AND BE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS CORTEZ.
Ã. ORTEZ. Â. AYE. NILO ALLEN.
ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA. AYE.
BLAKE. SPEER. AYE BLAKE. SPEER I
DALLI. DALLI. NÓ. DODD DODD I.
GONZALEZ. LAIRD LIMÓN NEWMAN.
NEWMAN I NGUYEN. PORTANTINO.
PORTANTINO I. SATO SATO. NØ.
UMBERG. ALL RIGHT. THE VOTE ON
THAT BILL IS 6 TO 2, SO WE'LL
KEEP IT ON CALL. TO. SENATOR
NEILO IS OVER IN JUDICIARY, SO
WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 16. SENATOR
NEWMAN, SB 1372, CAN WE FLIP
FLOP THE ORDER? WE COULD WE CAN
GO TO 17 AND THEN BACK TO 16,
FILE ITEM 17 WOULD BE SB 1387
AGAIN. SENATOR NEWMAN
.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, THANK FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB 1387,
WHICH WOULD UPDATE THE HYBRID
AND ZERO EMISSION TRUCK AND BUS
VOUCHER INCENTIVE PROJECT, OR
HVP, TO INCLUDE MEDIUM DUTY
PICKUP TRUCKS AND INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS WHO DEPEND UPON
THESE VEHICLES FOR THEIR
LIVELIHOODS. AS YOU'RE ALL BY
NOW MORE THAN WELL AWARE,
CALIFORNIA HAS FULLY COMMITTED
TO THE AMBITIOUS AND AGGRESSIVE
GOAL OF MOVING BEYOND GASOLINE
POWERED VEHICLES. DESPITE THIS,
THERE ARE STILL NO MEDIUM DUTY
ZERO EMISSION PICKUP TRUCKS
AVAILABLE IN CALIFORNIA ON THE
MARKET TODAY, AND ALL OF THE
STATE'S ZERO EMISSION INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS. OF THOSE, NONE
CURRENTLY PROVIDE GRANTS TOWARD
THE PURCHASE OF A MEDIUM DUTY
WORK TRUCK FOR FARMERS, LABORERS
, LANDSCAPERS, INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS, ALL OF WHOM TEND TO
USE MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS SUCH AS
THE FORD F-250 AND THE DODGE RAM
2500. THE STATE'S ACCELERATED
ZERO EMISSION TRANSITION IS NOT
JUST ANOTHER ROUTINE BUSINESS
EXPENSE THEY CAN ADAPT TO, BUT
THERE IS STILL A MASSIVE COST
ASSOCIATED WITH THESE VEHICLES,
AND THAT COST COULD REPRESENT
THE LINE BETWEEN PURCHASING THEM
AND DEPLOYING THEM IN THEIR
BUSINESSES OR NOT. SB 1387 WOULD
UPDATE THE STATE'S LEADING
MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY ZEV
INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO EXTEND
GRANTS FOR THE FIRST TIME TO
BOTH FLEET AND INDIVIDUAL OWNED,
CLASSED TO BE IN CLASS THREE
MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS, OF
WHICH THERE ARE AN ESTIMATED 4
MILLION IN CALIFORNIA ALONE WITH
ME TO TESTIFY IS DAMON CONKLIN,
ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND LISA
MCGEE. ARE YOU NOT? YOU KNOW
YOU'RE NOT. LISA MCGEE IS MY
LONE WITNESS HERE. AND WITH
RESPECT TO ALL OF OUR TIME, ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE'S LEADING
DEALERSHIP, TOM'S TRUCK CENTER,
I AM RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR
YOUR VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. YOU
MAY. YES. WELCOME. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS LISA MCGEE, AND I'M THE
ZEV PROGRAMS AND AFFAIRS
MANAGER. I'M WITH TOM'S TRUCK
CENTER. WE'RE A HIGHLY ACTIVE H
FIVE DEALERSHIP, LAST YEAR ALONE
, WE SUPPORTED OVER 280 8H5
VOUCHERS, 100 OVER 150 OF THOSE
WERE HYDROGEN, SENATOR BILLS.
SENATOR NEWMAN'S BILL IS
INSTRUMENTAL TO FLEETS THAT
OPERATE AS INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS, SUCH AS
LANDSCAPERS. E-COMMERCE DELIVERY
DRIVERS, SUBCONTRACT
ELECTRICIANS AND PLUMBERS
LABORERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN
E-MOBILITY TRUCKS, ALL WHICH ARE
NOT ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN
H. REGARDLESS OF THE TRUCK SIZE.
YET THESE FLEETS OPERATE AND USE
THESE TRUCKS FOR COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS PURPOSES. OVER 50% OF
THE TIME. HOWEVER, THE H
IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL STATES IT
NEEDS TO MODIFY AND REMOVE THE
FOLLOWING IF USED EXCLUSIVELY
FOR COMMERCIAL AND NOT PERSONAL
USE. THIS IS FLAWED AND EXCLUDES
THE FLEET CONTRACTORS FROM
PARTICIPATING IN BEING ELIGIBLE
FOR H VOUCHERS, WHICH IS INTENT
IS MAKING COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
ZEV COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
AFFORDABLE. PLEASE INCLUDE
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FLEETS TO
BE PART OF OUR CLIMATE POLICY
SOLUTION. I CAN SHARE AN
EXPERIENCE THAT I'M DEALING WITH
THIS WEEK WITH A CONTRACTOR THAT
HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR OVER 20
YEARS, PAYS HIS TAXES, HAS A
CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE,
AND SUBMITTED AN H FIT VOUCHER
FOR A FORD TRANSIT EV CARGO VAN.
H TRIP REJECTED HIS CONTRACTOR
LICENSE AS A VALID BUSINESS. HE
WENT AND GOT A DBA BUSINESS
LICENSE AND WE ARE PENDING A
RESPONSE. SB 1387 IS NECESSARY
MAKINGS OF PROCEDURES POSSIBLE
FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS WHO
CAN'T AFFORD THESE INVESTMENTS.
H IMMEDIATELY REDUCES THE
UPFRONT INVESTMENT, WHICH THE
UPFRONT INVESTMENT IS CRITICAL.
THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT AND
OR THE KVP PROGRAM DO NOT. THESE
FLEETS SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE,
INCLUDED. I URGE YOU TO PLEASE
SUPPORT SB 1387. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, OTHER SUPPORT
WITNESSES. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
DAMON CONKLIN WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AS WELL AS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES. WE ARE
IN BIG, STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. CLASS TWO B, THIS IS YOUR
F 250 VEHICLES. THIS REPRESENTS
A PLURALITY OF PUBLIC FLEETS. WE
REALLY APPRECIATE THE INCENTIVE
AND THE ABILITY TO OFFSET SOME
OF THOSE HARD UPFRONT COSTS.
TRANSITIONING THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. YEAH. ALL RIGHT THEN THE
REST OF THIS IS ME TOO. SO
THERESA COOK, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN COALITION,
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN BUSINESS
COUNCIL, HAPPY TO BE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, JASON, ON BEHALF OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS, ALSO IN
SUPPORT KURT AUGUSTINE WITH THE
ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
, SHANE LOUGHIN ON BEHALF OF
FIRST STUDENT AND NATIONAL
EXPRESS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE NO REGISTERED
OPPOSITION. IS THERE ANYONE WHO
WISHES TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION? IF
SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM NOW. ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NO ONE, WE'RE GOING TO
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS. JUST A
MINUTE BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A
MOTION, I HAVE TO GET BACK TO
THE SENATOR. I'M SORRY, SENATOR
ARCHULETA. SENATOR NEWMAN, ON
THE AMENDS, WE NEED TO GET A
STATEMENT FROM YOU AS TO WHERE
YOU'RE AT ON. OH. I'M SORRY.
YEAH, WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO
TAKE THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY
THE COMMITTEE. WE THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK ON
THEM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU FOR A
CLOSE, I'M NOW I'LL COME BACK
TO. I MUST MOVE SENATOR DOLE.
MOVES. MOVES THE BILL AS
AMENDED. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT,
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL
THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 17, SB 1387. THE MOTION
IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED, AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS CORTEZ.
CORTEZ. AYE. NILO ALLEN.
ARCHULETA ARCHULETA. AYE. BLAKE.
SPEER. BLAKE. SPEER. AYE. DOLLY
DALLY I DODD. DODD I GONZALEZ.
LAYERED. LEMON. LEMON. I NEWMAN
A NEWMAN I WHEN I PORTANTINO
PORTANTINO I SATO SATO I UMBERG.
TEN ZERO ONE KHÓ. TEN ZERO ALL
RIGHT. THAT THAT BILLS AT TEN
ZERO. WE'LL KEEP IT ON CALL.
SENATOR NEWMAN, ARE YOU PREPARED
TO TAKE. I AM SO THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU TO MY WITNESS.
APPRECIATE IT. SO THIS WOULD BE
FILE ITEM 16, SB 1372. AND MY
WITNESSES HERE. IT'S NOW MY
RIGHT. SORRY. SO I'M TOLD THE
OPPOSITION IS NOT READY, BUT I'M
NOT SURE THAT'S MY BIGGEST
CONCERN. I DON'T THINK THAT'S
YOUR PROBLEM AT THE MOMENT.
APPARENTLY THEY'RE STUCK IN LINE
AT THE AIRPORT. YOU'LL YOU'LL
SEE WHAT I'M REFERRING TO AT
SOME POINT, OKAY, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB 1372,
WHICH WOULD ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS
AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR
USERS OF CALIFORNIA'S COMMERCIAL
AIRPORTS BY REQUIRING THIRD
PARTY EXPEDITED SCREENING
SERVICES, SUCH AS CLEAR, TO
ADJUST THEIR CURRENT OPERATING
MODEL AND OFFER A DEDICATED
SCREENING LANE IN ORDER TO
OPERATE AT CALIFORNIA AIRPORTS,
IN LIGHT OF MY PLACE IN THE
AGENDA, AND KEEP IN MIND THAT
I'VE SPOKEN TO MOST OF YOU ABOUT
THE MERITS OF THIS BILL, I'M
GOING TO SPARE YOU WHAT WOULD
HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN A DOCTORAL
LEVEL DISSERTATION ON THE
ORIGINS, OPERATIONS, AND
IMPERFECTIONS OF THE CLEAR
SERVICE. BUT SOME BACKGROUND AND
CONTEXT IS NEEDED. SO BEAR WITH
ME FOR JUST A MOMENT. IN THE
AFTERMATH OF THE 911 ATTACKS AND
THE IMPACT IT HAD ON AIR TRAVEL,
CONGRESS PASSED THE AVIATION
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT OF
2001. THIS LEGISLATION LED TO
THE CREATION OF SOMETHING CALLED
THE REGISTERED TRAVELER, OR RT
PROGRAM. CONGRESS GOAL AT THAT
TIME WAS TO BOTH ENHANCE AIRPORT
SECURITY AND IMPROVE THE
TRAVELER EXPERIENCE. IN 2006,
UNDER THE FEDERAL REGISTRY
NOTICE, MULTIPLE RT PROVIDERS
BEGAN OPERATIONS, BUT IN THE
WAKE OF THE GREAT RECESSION,
VIRTUALLY ALL OF THOSE RT
PROVIDERS BECOME BECAME UNVIABLE
AS BUSINESSES, AND BY 2008 HAD
CEASED OPERATIONS. IN 2010, A
FORMER FUND MANAGER NAMED KAREN
SEIDMAN BECKER AND AN ASSET
MANAGER NAMED KEN KOENIG
PURCHASED THE ASSETS OF ONE OF
THOSE FAILED VENTURES, A
BANKRUPT COMPANY CALLED CLEAR.
THEY RELAUNCHED THE COMPANY IN
2012, AND AN ESPECIALLY
OPPORTUNE TIME AS THE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION WAS FINALLY
SEEING SOME SUCCESS IN
STREAMLINING THE SCREENING
PROCESS, INCLUDING THE LAUNCH OF
A NEW SERVICE THAT WE NOW KNOW
AS TSA PRECHECK. IN 2019, MR.
KOENIG SUBMITTED TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE
COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
SECURITY UNDER THE HEADING OF
IMPROVING SECURITY AT AMERICA'S
AIRPORTS STAKEHOLDER
PERSPECTIVES AND IN THAT
TESTIMONY, HE MADE THE ASSERTION
THAT CLEAR, SECURE ENROLLMENT
PLATFORM ESTABLISHES AN
IMPERMEABLE LINK BETWEEN ONE'S
IDENTITY AND BIOMETRICS ACHIEVED
THROUGH DIGITALLY AUTHENTICATING
A TRAVELERS GOVERNMENT ISSUED
IDENTIFICATION, ESTABLISHING
THAT THE PERSON ENROLLING IS THE
PERSON ON SUCH DOCUMENT. THROUGH
THE USE OF CHALLENGE QUESTIONS
DRIVEN BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
DATA AND CAPTURING BIOMETRIC
DATA, INCLUDING FINGERPRINTS,
IRIS IMAGE AND FACE. WHAT THEY
REALLY DO IS THEY CAPTURE THE
INFORMATION THAT'S ASSOCIATED
WITH YOUR FACE AND THE
ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR DRIVER'S
LICENSE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT
THE TSA AGENT AT THE GATE DOES,
BUT CLEARS OSTENSIBLY HIGH TECH
METHODOLOGY AND PROPRIETARY
TECHNOLOGY, ACCORDING TO CLEAR,
HAS ALLOWED CLEAR TO FOSTER WHAT
IT DESCRIBES AS A STRONG PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH TSA, A
PARTNERSHIP WHICH REPRESENTS A
WIN WIN FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS,
DRIVING INNOVATION, ENHANCING
SECURITY AND EFFICIENCY FOR ALL
TRAVELERS AT ZERO COST TO
TAXPAYERS. THERE'S ONLY ONE FLAW
WITH THIS OTHERWISE VERY
COMPELLING NARRATIVE. NONE OF IT
IS ACTUALLY TRUE AS IT RELATES
TO SECURITY. BEYOND CONFIRMING A
TRAVEL IDENTITY CLEARS. KIOSK
SYSTEM IS NOT TIED INTO TSA
SECURE SCREENING DATABASE, AND
SO IT HAS VERY LITTLE BEARING ON
THE SECURITY OF A OF A CLEAR
TRAVELER AS THEY PASS THROUGH
THE LINE. IN 2022, CLEAR'S
VERIFICATION SERVICE ACTUALLY
ALLOWED AN AIRLINE PASSENGER
USING A FALSE IDENTITY TO PASS
THROUGH ITS SYSTEM. THAT
PASSENGER WAS ALSO FOUND BY THE
TSA TO BE CARRYING AMMUNITION.
IN 2023, TWO INCIDENTS OCCURRED
WHERE INDIVIDUALS NOT ENROLLED
IN THE COMPANY'S SECURITY
PROGRAM WERE ACTUALLY ESCORTED
THROUGH A TSA SECURITY
CHECKPOINT WITHOUT HAVING
PRESENTED VALID IDENTIFICATION
AND ONE OF THOSE INCIDENTS
ACTUALLY INVOLVED A PASSENGER
WHO HAD APPARENTLY USED A
BOARDING PASS PICKED OUT OF A
TRASH BIN. WHEN IT COMES TO
IMPROVING AIRPORT EFFICIENCY,
CLEAR DOESN'T DO THAT EITHER.
EVERY CLEAR CUSTOMER WHO HAS
ESCORTED PAST TRAVELERS WAITING
IN EITHER OF THE STANDARD TSA OR
TSA PRECHECK LINES WINDS UP AT
THE EXACT SAME PLACE AS THOSE
WHO DON'T USE CLEAR AT THE
ENTRANCE TO THE CONVEYOR BELT,
WHERE YOUR PERSONAL ITEMS ARE
SCREENED. THROUGHPUT FROM THAT
POINT REMAINS TOTALLY UNCHANGED,
THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCE BEING
THAT THOSE NOT USING CLEAR ARE
UNDERSTANDABLY ANNOYED ABOUT
BEING SHUNTED ASIDE BY THOSE WHO
DO USE CLEAR. AS IT RELATES TO
THE THIRD PROUD CLAIM ABOUT
DRIVING INNOVATION. I SUPPOSE
CLEAR ACTUALLY HAS DONE THAT IN
THE PROUD AMERICAN BUSINESS
TRADITION OF MAKING SOMETHING
OUT OF NOTHING. CLEAR HAS BUILT
A THRIVING BUSINESS AROUND DOING
THINGS QUITE WELL, PROVIDING
PASSENGERS WILLING TO PONY UP AN
ADDITIONAL $189 A YEAR ON
OPPORTUNITY TO CUT IN FRONT OF
THEIR FELLOW TRAVELERS WHO
EITHER WON'T OR CAN'T DO THAT
THEMSELVES, AND BUILDING
PARTNERSHIPS WITH AIRPORTS THAT
LET THOSE AIRPORTS GENERATE THE
ADDITIONAL MARGINAL REVENUE THAT
THIS OPPORTUNITY CREATES. PROOF
OF THIS CLEVER INNOVATION ARE
THE SWARMS OF COMMISSION
INCENTIVIZED, CLEAR PERSONNEL
THAT YOU MEET AS YOU AS YOU JOIN
THE LINE IN THE AIRPORT,
ESPECIALLY WHERE THE LINE IS
LONG, WHO UPSELL YOU ON THE
BENEFITS OF CUTTING THE LINE
WITH CLEAR. AND I'M AMONG THOSE
WHO DON'T THINK THAT'S
ESPECIALLY HONORABLE OR FAIR.
AND WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO DO
ON BEHALF OF ALL THE AIRPORT
TRAVELERS WHO ARE CONTINUALLY
INCONVENIENCED OR ANNOYED BY
THIS SERVICE, IS TO CREATE
SUFFICIENT MOTIVATION ACROSS
CLEAR IN ITS NINE CURRENT
CALIFORNIA AIRPORT PARTNERS TO
SIMPLY REENGINEER THEIR TRAFFIC
FLOWS TO SEPARATE CLEAR
SUBSCRIBERS FROM OTHER NON CLEAR
TRAVELERS, THEREBY SPARING THE
REST OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC
FROM ITS OFFPUTTING AND
IRRITATING IMPACT. SO I HAVE
GRUDGINGLY ACCEPTED THE CHAIR'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. LET ME MAKE
THAT CLEAR. ALTHOUGH I AM
CONCERNED THAT BY SOFTENING THE
PROVISIONS THIS BILL, WE ARE
REDUCING THE LIKELIHOOD OF ITS
ULTIMATE SUCCESS. IN ADDITION TO
HEARING FROM THE OPPOSITION THIS
AFTERNOON, THAT CLEAR IS A
WONDERFUL, USEFUL AND
UNIVERSALLY LOVED SERVICE.
YOU'RE ALSO LIKELY TO HEAR THAT
HAVING TSA RECONFIGURE ITS
SCREENING PROCEDURES TO ALLOW
FOR A DEDICATED LINE FOR CLEAR
IS BEYOND ITS CONTROL. EXCUSE
ME, OR THAT THE CONDUCT OF
AIRPORT SCREENING IS A FEDERAL
FUNCTION OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA'S
JURISDICTION. AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS
IS TRUE. AT LAX. IN FACT, DELTA
AIRLINES HAS RECENTLY LAUNCHED
ITS OWN BRANDED PREMIUM SECURITY
LINE CALLED DELTA ONE, WHICH
COMPLETELY BYPASSES THE PUBLIC
TSA LINES AND WHICH IS STAFFED
BY A COMBINATION OF DELTA AND
TSA EMPLOYEES. EQUALLY
IMPORTANTLY, THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS A VERY CLEAR
PREROGATIVE TO EXERCISE
OVERSIGHT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF
AIRPORTS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION
TO INCLUDE ENSURING THAT EVERY
TRAVELER, NOT JUST THE WEALTHY
OR THE PRIVILEGED, CAN BE
ASSURED OF EQUAL TREATMENT AND
THE BEST TRAVEL EXPERIENCE
POSSIBLE. SO LET ME MAKE THAT
CLEAR. THANK YOU, VERY CLEAR, NO
PUN INTENDED, THAT THE GOAL OF
SB 1372 IS NOT TO PUT CLEAR OUT
OF BUSINESS. IT IS NOT TO BANISH
CLEAR FROM CALIFORNIA. IT'S
SIMPLY TO GUIDE THEM TOWARD
REALIGNING THEIR BUSINESS
PRACTICES WITH THOSE VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD IDEALS. WITH ME
TO TESTIFY TODAY IS CHRISTY
RIVERA, ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS, AND GILBERT GUILLUM
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE MAKING A BIG
ENTRANCE TO OUR WITNESS AREA.
HERE. I AM RESPECTFULLY ASKING
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU. SENATOR WE'LL WELCOME
YOUR WITNESSES AND THEY MAY
TESTIFY IN WHICHEVER ORDER THEY
PREFER. YES. THAT'S FINE. YOU'LL
HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES EACH. I'LL
GO FIRST. HELLO, MY NAME IS
GILBERT GÒM. I'M THE LOCAL
SECRETARY FOR AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1230. I
REPRESENT 1200 TSA SCREENING
OFFICERS AT ALL AIRPORTS IN
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FROM MAJOR
AIRPORTS SUCH AS SACRAMENTO
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, OAKLAND
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN SAN
JOSE, MINETA INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT. I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SENATE BILL 1372, CURRENTLY AS
IT STANDS, CLEARS A MAJOR
HEADACHE FOR OUR TSOS. THE
SERVICE ADDS NO VALUE TO
SECURITY OR EFFICIENCY FOR THE
TRAVELING PUBLIC. IN FACT, AFTER
TALKING TO SEVERAL OF OUR
WORKERS, THEY BROUGHT UP SOME OF
THE COMMON PROBLEMS THAT COME UP
WHILE INTERACTING WITH CLEAR
MANY SCREENERS. SCREENERS HAVE
REPORTED TO US OF MANY INSTANCES
WHERE CLEAR EMPLOYEES BROUGHT
PASSENGERS TO TRAVEL. DOCUMENT
CHECK, AND DROPPING THEM OFF AT
THE FRONT OF THE SECURITY QUEUE
WITHOUT ACTUALLY COMMITTING TO
COMMUNICATING TO TSA THAT THE
PASSENGER WAS VERIFIED THROUGH
THEIR SERVICE. THIS CREATES
CONFUSION DURING THE SCREENING
PROCESS AND POSES A SECURITY
RISK AS WELL. RISK AS AS WELL AS
INCONVENIENCE. INCONVENIENCE
PASSENGERS IN THE SECURITY QUEUE
ALONG WITH THIS, THE TRAVEL
DOCUMENT CHECK POSITION
ROUTINELY INVOLVES OFFICERS
NEEDING TO JUGGLE JUGGLE
MULTIPLE PARTIES, COMPETING TO
BE AT THE FRONT OF THE LINE AT
ANY GIVEN TIME. THEY MAY BE
VERIFYING AIRLINE EMPLOYEES,
AIRPORT, AIRPORT EMPLOYEES,
PASSENGERS WITH DISABILITIES,
ALONG WITH REGULAR AND CLEAR
PASS AND CLEAR PASSENGERS. AT
THE SAME TIME, THE ADDITION OF
CLEAR AS A PRIORITY PARTY ADDS
TO THE ALREADY LARGE MENTAL LOAD
THAT OUR SCREENERS UNDERTAKE
DURING THE SCREENING PROCESS.
OUR OFFICERS ALSO REPORT THAT
THEY HAVE SEEN MANY ARGUMENTS
BETWEEN CLEAR CUSTOMERS AND THE
REGULAR PASSENGERS THAT THEY
SKIP, OFTEN LEADING TO VERY
CONTENTIOUS CONFLICTS AS THEY
ENTER THE SECURITY CHECKPOINT.
THESE SCENARIOS CREATE
DISTRACTIONS FOR OUR SCREENERS
AND POSES SECURITY RISK FOR THE
TRAVELING PUBLIC. THE BIOMETRIC
TECHNOLOGY INTENDED TO AUTOMATE
THE PROCESS IN WHICH A TSA
OFFICER VALIDATES A PASSENGER'S
BOARDING PASS AND ID, HAS NEVER
BEEN FOUND BY THE TSA TO IMPROVE
AVIATION SECURITY AND UNLIKE TSA
PRECHECK, CLEAR CUSTOMERS DO NOT
UNDERGO ANY FORM OF BACKGROUND
CHECK OR PRESCREENING. IN FACT,
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY REPORTED THAT IN 2023,
CLEAR WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR TWO
MAJOR BREACHES OF AIRPORT
SECURITY. IN ONE INCIDENT
INCIDENT, CLEAR EMPLOYEES
ESCORTED AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING
AMMO UNDER A FALSE NAME THROUGH
THE SECURITY, AND ANOTHER, AND
IN ANOTHER, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
USED A BOARDING PASS, FOUND IN
THE TRASH. AT ROUGHLY 12 TIMES
THE COST OF TSA PRECHECK CLEARS,
NOTHING MORE THAN THE LUXURY
RESALE UPCHARGE OF SPACE IN THE
AIRPORT SECURITY QUÊ FOR THE
WELL-TO-DO, AND CAN PAY TO SKIP
THE LINE AT THE DIRECT EXPENSE
OF EVERY OTHER TRAVELER. WHILE
CLEAR, MAY SAVE TIME FOR ITS
PAYING CUSTOMERS, NON-CUSTOMERS
SUFFER FROM CLEAR, AGGRESSIVE
SALES TACTICS AND LONGER
SECURITY QUEUES AS THEY GET
PUSHED ASIDE TO MAKE WAY FOR
SOMEONE WITH MEANS SUPPORTING
THIS BILL WOULD BE A WIN FOR
SECURITY AS WELL AS EQUITY AMONG
THE TRAVELING PUBLIC. EXCUSE ME.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS CHRISTY RIVERA. I'M A 33
YEAR UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT
ATTENDANT. AND ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS, CWA, AFL-CIO, WITH
NEARLY 50,000 MEMBERS AND
ROUGHLY 6000 OF THOSE MEMBERS
BASED HERE IN CALIFORNIA. VÀ. WE
SUPPORT SB 1372, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE A THIRD PARTY EXPEDITED
SCREENING SERVICE PROVIDER LIKE
CLEAR TO OPERATE IN A DEDICATED
SCREENING LANE, INDEPENDENT OF
THOSE USED BY NON CLEAR
TRAVELERS AT CALIFORNIA
AIRPORTS. SB 1372 IS NEEDED
BECAUSE BECAUSE OF CONTINUING
REPORTS ABOUT IRREGULARITIES IN
THE VERIFICATION OF PASSENGER
IDENTIFICATION BY CLEAR, WHICH
REMAINS WHICH RAISES CONCERNS.
ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF AVIATION
SECURITY. ONE SUCH EGREGIOUS
EVENT REPORTED INVOLVES A
TRAVELER USING THE FAKE IDENTITY
THAT WAS DISCOVERED WHEN TSA
SCREENERS FOUND AMMUNITION IN
HIS CARRY ON LUGGAGE. IN ANOTHER
INCIDENT, A PASSENGER WAS
ESCORTED THROUGH SECURITY USING
A BOARDING PASS RETRIEVED FROM
THE TRASH CAN. AS I'M SURE
YOU'RE ALL AWARE OF THESE OVER
14 MILLION PEOPLE ARE ENROLLED
IN CLEAR. BUT THE TSA FOUND
APPROXIMATELY 48,000 TRAVELERS
WHO DID NOT COMPLETE A FACIAL
MATCH AS PART OF THEIR
REGISTRATION. CLEAR IS NOT TSA.
TSA PRECHECK IS THE FEDERAL
PROGRAM THAT COLLECTS BIOMETRIC
DATA, FINGERPRINTS, AND PHOTOS,
WHICH VERIFIES IDENTITY
DOCUMENTS AND EXPEDITES
SCREENING FOR LOW RISK
PASSENGERS. THIS CLEAR DOESN'T
ADD ANY ENHANCED LAYER OF
SECURITY TO AIRPORT OPERATIONS
AS TSA PRECHECK, CLEAR MEMBERS
MUST ALSO REGISTER FOR TSA
PRECHECK IF THEY WANT TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF ANY EXPEDITED,
SCREENING. INSTEAD, CLEAR IS
JUST A PAY FOR PLAY WAY TO CUT
THE SCREENING LINE IN SB 1372
WOULD RESTORE EQUAL ACCESS AND
TREATMENT AT AIRPORT SECURITY
CHECKPOINTS BY REQUIRING
COMPANIES LIKE CLEAR TO OPERATE
IN A DEDICATED SECURITY LANE,
SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL
TRAVELERS AND TSA PRECHECK
MEMBERS. THE SEPARATION WOULD
PRESERVE CLEAR'S ABILITY TO
OPERATE IN CALIFORNIA, BUT IN A
WAY THAT STREAMLINE THE SECURITY
PROCESSES AND FOR EVERYBODY
MOVING THROUGH CALIFORNIA'S
AIRPORTS, CLEAR CUSTOMER OR NOT,
FOR THESE REASONS. AS FOR THE
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS, CWA SUPPORTS SB
1387. EXCUSE ME, I THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY. ARE THERE OTHERS
HERE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL? IF SO,
PLEASE COME FORWARD, WE'LL MOVE
NOW TO OPPOSITION, OPPOSITION
WITNESSES. YOU'RE WELCOME TO
COME FORWARD
.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN,
AND MEMBERS. JIM LITES, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
AIRPORTS COUNCIL, REPRESENTING
THE 31 COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS IN
THE STATE, NOTWITHSTANDING
MULTIPLE ENTERTAINING
CONVERSATIONS WITH SENATOR
NEWMAN, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL. AND, THE AIRPORTS IN THE
STATE DO NOT CONTROL THE
CHECKPOINT THAT IS CONTROLLED BY
THE TSA. AND SO THE DESIRE THAT
THERE BE A DEDICATED TSA OFFICER
TO HANDLE THOSE THAT ARE CLEAR
CUSTOMERS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAN
COMPEL. THE TSA TO DO. WE ARE
HAPPY TO WORK WITH SENATOR
NEWMAN TO TALK TO THE TSA ABOUT
THOSE DESIRES. BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO
IS CUT OFF REVENUE FOR THE NINE
AIRPORTS THAT HAVE CLEAR TODAY
AND, IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE JUST HAD A
CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT. IF THE
AIRPORTS THAT DO NOT HAVE CLEAR
TODAY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
BRING CLEAR IN BEFORE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL TAKE
EFFECT, WE CERTAINLY WOULD NOT
WANT TO SEE AIRPORTS TURN INTO
HAVES AND HAVE NOTS. THOSE THAT
GOT IN UNDER THE WIRE TO HAVE
CLEAR AND THOSE THAT ALL OF A
SUDDEN ARE PREVENTED FROM DOING
BUSINESS WITH CLEAR IN THE
FUTURE. SO WE REMAIN OPPOSED TO
THE BILL AND WOULD ASK FOR YOUR
NO VOTE. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS
JESSICA NG, AND I'M THE DIRECTOR
OF STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC
AFFAIRS FOR CLEAR. CLEAR IS A
SECURE IDENTITY COMPANY
OPERATING AS A QUALIFIED
ANTI-TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SINCE
2010, UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION'S
REGISTERED TRAVELER PROGRAM. OUR
OPT IN ONLY TECHNOLOGY USES A
MEMBERS BIOMETRICS TO VERIFY
THEIR IDENTITY AT THE SECURITY
CHECKPOINT IN 56 AIRPORTS
NATIONWIDE AND NINE OF
CALIFORNIA'S BIGGEST AIRPORTS IN
CALIFORNIA, WE EMPLOY ABOUT 600
PEOPLE, SHARE MORE THAN $13
MILLION IN ANNUAL REVENUE WITH
OUR AIRPORT PARTNERS, AND SERVE
APPROXIMATELY 3.5 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS ACROSS THE ENTIRE
CLEAR PLATFORM AND APPROXIMATELY
1 MILLION IN AIRPORTS. THE
REGISTERED TRAVELER PROGRAM WAS
CREATED BY TSA IN 2004 TO
ENCOURAGE PRIVATE SECTOR
INNOVATION IN TECHNOLOGY AND
IDENTITY. SINCE CLEAR'S
FOUNDING, WE HAVE LED THE WAY ON
IDENTITY TECHNOLOGY. WE WERE THE
FIRST TO BRING BIOMETRICS TO THE
CHECKPOINT YEARS BEFORE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE RECENTLY
ROLLED OUT NEXT GEN IDENTITY,
THE FIRST IAL TWO CERTIFIED
SOURCE CORROBORATED IDENTITY
PROGRAM IN AVIATION. WE
UNDERSTAND SENATOR NEWMAN'S
INTENT IS TO SEPARATE CLEAR
MEMBERS FROM OTHER PASSENGERS.
HIS STATED GOAL OF CREATING
DEDICATED, CLEAR LANES COULD
MAKE SENSE AT CERTAIN HIGH
VOLUME CHECKPOINTS, WHERE WE
PROCESS MORE THAN 20% OF
PASSENGERS AND AS AS MY
COLLEAGUE HAS ALREADY SAID IN
ANY CHECKPOINT AIRLINES, THE
AIRPORT PARTNERS LIKE CLEAR AND
TSA MUST ALL BE ALIGNED ON THE
MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO PROCESS
PASSENGERS DECISIONS ABOUT HOW
TO STAFF TSA PODIUMS AND
SCREENING EQUIPMENT RESTS SOLELY
WITH TSA SUBJECT TO THEIR OWN
STAFFING LEVELS AND OPERATIONAL
NEEDS. SO WE AS, ARE ALSO
REVIEWING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS WITH THE POSSIBILITY
OF UPDATING OUR POSITION. BUT
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS
GIVEN THE TESTIMONY GIVEN SO
FAR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE
THERE OTHERS HERE WHO WISH TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL
? EMILY ZAMANI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THÀNH MR.
CHAIR AND SENATORS CLIFF COSTA,
ON BEHALF OF DELTA AIRLINES IN
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
JOSE TORRES WITH TECHNET AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS CATHY VAN OSTERN, UNITED
AIRLINES IN OPPOSITION. I ALSO
PROMISED I WOULD, SAY, ASK FOR A
NO VOTE ON BEHALF OF ALASKA
AIRLINES AS THE LOBBYIST HAD TO
LEAVE. SO THANK YOU. ALYSSA
SALEHI, ON BEHALF OF THE BURBANK
, GLENDALE, PASADENA AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
NOTE THAT WE WOULD BE ONE OF THE
HAVE NOTS NOTED BY THE TESTIMONY
UNDER THIS BILL. GOOD EVENING,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. OBED
FRANCO, ON BEHALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES IN OPPOSITION
. ROBERT SINGLETON WITH THE
CHAMBER OF PROGRESS, ALSO
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NO OTHER OPPOSITION
COMING FORWARD, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
GOING TO START WITH SENATOR
SALATO. HE HAD HIS HAND UP
FIRST. AND SENATOR ALLEN AND I'M
GOING TO GO FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
I'M SORRY, JUST TO KEEP TRACK
HERE, SENATOR NEAL, AFTER THAT.
AND THEN WE'LL COME OVER TO THIS
SIDE. THANK YOU. AS WE HEARD THE
TESTIMONY MADE VERY CLEAR WHAT
THIS IS REALLY ABOUT. REALLY. I
CAN'T GET THAT HERE. WE GET THAT
LINE UP. OKAY. SO THERE'S A
COUPLE OF SCENARIOS THAT WE WERE
WHAT I HEARD IN THIS TESTIMONY
THAT I UNDERSTAND ALL TOO WELL.
AND THAT'S THE CLEAR PERSONS
DIDN'T CATCH SOMEBODY BEFORE
THEY WENT INTO THE TSA LINE
WHERE THEIR BAGS ACTUALLY GET
SCREENED, I HAVE WALKED I HAVE
GOTTEN APPROVED AT THE INITIAL
BOOTH OF TSA PRE SEVERAL TIMES,
FORGETTING THAT I HAD A BOTTLE
OF WATER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
EVEN THOUGH SOMEBODY TOLD ME 5
OR 6 TIMES IN LINE, MAKE SURE
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WATER AND
THEY PUT IT THROUGH. THAT'S NOT
WHAT WE'RE DESCRIBING. WELL IF
SOMEBODY WAS CAUGHT WITH
BULLETS, THEY WOULDN'T BE CAUGHT
AT THE INITIAL SCREENING PART.
THEY'D BE CAUGHT AT THE TSA.
SENATOR, SENATOR, IT'S SOMEBODY
WAS CAUGHT WHOSE IDENTITY WAS
NOT THE IDENTITY THEY PRESENTED.
RIGHT AND THEY WERE NOT Ã. BUT
THERE WAS ALSO THE SCENARIO THAT
SOMEBODY GAVE THAT SOMEBODY HAD
BULLETS AND THEY GOT CAUGHT. AND
THAT'S THAT IS CAUGHT IN THE TSA
PRE LINE. SO JUST LET SENATOR
SATO HAVE THE FLOOR I'LL GIVE IT
BACK TO YOU ON AN INDIVIDUAL
BASIS IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO
SENATOR. SO YOU DON'T THE
SCREENING LINES IN TSA ARE
THEY'RE CONTROLLED BY TSA. I
DON'T THINK PRE GETS TO TELL THE
TSA PEOPLE HOW TO DO THEIR
SCREENING LINES LEADING UP TO
THE PART WHERE THE, THE BAGGAGE
ACTUALLY GETS SCREENED. ALL
THEY'RE DOING AT THE FRONT IS
DOING IDENTITY CHECKS. I DON'T
SEE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
TSA PRE AS FAR AS SINGLING OUT
OR MAKING WINNERS AND LOSERS IN
THE LOADING SECTION, THEN THE
FOLKS GLARING AT THE TSA PRE
LINE WHEN IT'S REALLY SHORT AND
THEY'RE IN THIS BIG LONG LINE
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TSA PRE
YOU PAY MONEY, YOU GET YOUR PRE
SCREENING CREDENTIALS AND THEN
YOU GET TO GO IN THAT SHORT LINE
THAT'S OVER A TSA PRE. SO THAT'S
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THAT.
IT'S JUST SAYING THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO YOU SPEND SOME MORE
MONEY AND THEN YOU GET TO GO
THROUGH THAT LINE. I HAVE NOT
SPENT MORE MONEY TO GO INTO
THAT, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OUT IN
FRONT THAT, SOMEBODY QUIPPED
ABOUT THEM BEING, ON, YOU KNOW,
WHATEVER THEIR PAY THING IS,
THOSE ARE EMPLOYEES. AND I THINK
CLEAR HAS, SEVERAL HUNDRED OF
THEM, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT
ARE WORKING AND THEY'RE NOT
THEY'RE NOT HAVING THEY'RE NOT,
PART OF OUR 5.8% UNEMPLOYMENT,
SO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, AND THE
INCONVENIENCE. YES IT IS
ANNOYING. I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN
I'M. I'M ALMOST UP TO THE FRONT.
AND THEN THEY BRING OVER
SOMEBODY AND THEY PUT THEM. THEY
JUST. AND IT ONLY TAKES A
SECOND. THEY DON'T. IT'S NOT
THAT BIG A DEAL. AND THEN THEY
GO ON TO THEIR THING. THAT'S NOT
A BIG ENOUGH INCONVENIENCE FOR
ME TO TAKE SOMEBODY WHO HAS
DONE, YOU KNOW, A PARTICIPATED
IN FREE ENTERPRISE, WHICH IS
DOING THIS COMPANY. IF THIS
COMPANY DIDN'T HAVE CUSTOMERS,
THEY WOULDN'T EXIST. SO
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CUSTOMER
BASE FOR THEM AND A DEMAND FOR
THEM, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD CEASE
TO EXIST. SO, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL
OF THOSE REASONS, I DON'T I
DON'T SEE THAT THOSE THAT WE
SHOULD BE CUTTING THE CLEAR, THE
CLEAR PEOPLE OUT JUST BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT
CONVENIENT TO US. AND IT ANNOYS
US WHEN THOSE PEOPLE GET TO GO
IN FRONT. PLUS, I HAD ONE OTHER
QUESTION. ARE THE CLEAR PEOPLE?
ARE THEY PART OF A UNION OR ARE
THE CLEAR? I DON'T BELIEVE
CLEAR. IS UNIONIZED. THEY ARE
NOT REPRESENTED. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THAT'S ALL. SENATOR, YOU'RE
WELCOME TO RESPOND I APPRECIATE
THAT. I'D ACTUALLY ASK MY
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE UNION
THAT REPRESENTS TSA EMPLOYEES TO
EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
TSA PRECHECK AND CLEAR TSA
PRECHECK, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
TSA PRECHECK AND CLEAR. I MEAN,
THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE HAVE
THROUGH PRECHECK, THEY GO
THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK AND
THEY GO THROUGH WE HAVE
BIOMETRICS THAT ARE RECORDED AND
THEY GO THROUGH AN INTERVIEW
PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE
NOT A SECURITY THREAT. AND FROM
WHAT I BELIEVE, CLEAR ONLY HAS
ACCESS TO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
DATA THAT THAT USERS SUBMIT
THIS. THAT IS NOT I FEEL THAT IS
NOT THAT IS NOT AS SECURE AS THE
WAY THAT TSA DOES IT. I, I FEEL
THAT TSA PRECHECK PRECHECK
ECLIPSES MANY OF CLEAR'S
FUNCTIONS. SO IN EFFECT, CLEAR
IS IN REALITY, IT'S A CONCIERGE
SERVICE. THEY PROVIDE A SERVICE
THAT SERVICE IS ALLOWING CLEAR
PAYING CUSTOMERS TO BYPASS THE
LINE. I. SENATOR SARAH, YOU AND
I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. I THINK
I THINK WE AS LEGISLATORS HAVE
AN OBLIGATION AS IT RELATES TO
PUBLIC ASSETS TO ENSURE THAT THE
PUBLIC IS TREATED EQUALLY AS
THEY ENCOUNTER THAT, YOU KNOW,
THAT PROCESS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH
THOSE INVESTMENTS. AND I WOULD
ASK MISS RIVERA, I MEAN, ALSO TO
SPEAK TO IT. RIGHT? SO THE
SECURITY PROBLEM IS REAL, AND
THIS ISN'T SIMPLY A QUESTION OF
SOMEBODY NOT BRINGING, YOU KNOW,
NOT NOTICING THEY HIT A BOTTLE
OF WATER. IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S
ACTUALLY MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN
THAT, SO I WOULD JUST SPEAK TO
THIS AS A, AS A 33 YEAR FLIGHT
ATTENDANT, THAT IS POST NINE
OVER 11. THE FARTHER WE GOT AWAY
FROM THE DAYS AND THE TRAGEDY OF
THAT EVENT, THE FURTHER AND
FURTHER WE GET AWAY FROM, REALLY
FOCUSED ON THE SAFETY AND THE
LINKS AND SAFETY THAT THAT IS
NECESSARY FOR A SAFE AVIATION,
PROCESS. ANY ONE OF THOSE LINKS
IN SAFETY, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR
COLLEAGUES AT TSA THAT ARE
BROKEN, PUTS LIVES IN JEOPARDY.
THESE ARE REAL LIVES IN JEOPARDY
. THESE ARE THE LIVES OF OUR
PAIN. PASSENGERS ON BOARD THE
AIRCRAFT, AS WELL AS MY
COLLEAGUES LIKE MYSELF, THAT ARE
THE VERY LAST LINE OF DEFENSE.
WHEN IT COMES TO AVIATION SAFETY
AND SECURITY. RIGHT. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR RESPONSE. WE'RE GOING
TO MOVE TO SENATOR ALLEN NEXT. I
JUST WELL, LET ME LET ME LET ME
JUST RIGHT NOW, LET ME JUST ASK,
IF THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CLAIRE CAN RESPOND TO SOME OF
THESE. PRETTY SERIOUS. SURE.
SAFETY. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
SENATOR, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE ORIGINAL
PURPOSE OF THE REGISTERED
TRAVELER PROGRAM. IT WAS
DESIGNED BY TSA IN ORDER TO
BRING GREATER PRIVATE SECTOR
INNOVATION INTO THE AVIATION
SECURITY CHECKPOINT,
SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO
IDENTITY VERIFICATION. SO IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AT
A TIME, WE WERE ACTUALLY THE
FIRST COMPANY TO BRING
BIOMETRICS TO THE CHECKPOINT
LONG BEFORE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DID. TODAY, WE
ACTUALLY HAVE THE HIGHEST
FIDELITY DIGITAL IDENTITY IN THE
ENTIRE AVIATION ECOSYSTEM, NOT
ONLY THAT IS THE GREATEST LEVEL
OF ASSURANCE THAT YOU ARE YOU.
YOU ARE WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE. AND
IN FACT, THAT REPRESENTS THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE FULFILLED THE
PROMISE AND CONTINUE TO FILL THE
PROMISE OF THE REGISTERED
TRAVELER PROGRAM. WE WERE DOING
BIOMETRICS BEFORE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WAS DOING IT. WE NOW
HAVE A L2 SOURCE CORROBORATED
DIGITAL IDENTITIES. THAT IS THE
LEVEL OF DIGITAL IDENTITY THAT
ENSURES THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
GOING THROUGH THE CHECKPOINT,
WHOM WE'RE WORKING WITH, OUR TSA
PARTNERS FOR PHYSICAL SCREENING,
ARE REALLY WHO THEY SAY THEY
ARE. AND THAT'S AN INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT THE
REGISTERED TRAVELER PROGRAM WAS
DESIGNED TO DO. SURE. BUT I
APPRECIATE ALL THAT VERY MUCH.
BUT, I WAS ASKING TO SEE IF YOU
COULD RESPOND TO SOME OF THESE
SPECIFIC INCIDENTS. SURELY
YOU'VE HEARD OF THEM. AND SURE,
OF COURSE, I'M NOT ABLE TO SPEAK
WITH DUE TO THE SECURITY
REASONS. I CANNOT SPEAK IN GREAT
DETAIL, BUT I THINK THERE'S IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND
THAT AT CLEAR SECURITY IS JOB
NUMBER ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE
THINGS TO NOTE. FIRST OF ALL,
THIS WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.
WE HAVE VERIFIED 167 MILLION
IDENTITIES OVER THE COURSE OF
OUR AVIATION WORK, AND QUITE
FRANKLY, IT WAS THE RESULT OF
HUMAN ERROR. AND WHERE AN
INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT FOLLOWING OUR
VERY STRICT PROTOCOL. AND SO IT
WAS NOT A FAULT OF THE BIOMETRIC
SYSTEM UPON WHICH THE TECHNOLOGY
IS DESIGNED TO REDUCE HUMAN
ERROR. AND SO SINCE THEN WE HAVE
IMPLEMENTED CHANGES. FIRST OF
ALL, WE TOOK SWIFT PERSONNEL
ACTION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE
ALSO UPDATED THE TRAINING FOR
PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND
TECHNOLOGY TO ENSURE THAT THOSE
DON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. TAKE THOSE
STEPS. CAN I JUST ASK MR.
LIGHTS, HOW DOES THIS, HOW IS IT
SO TELL ME A BIT MORE ABOUT
ABOUT ABOUT HOW IT COMES TO BE
THAT CLEAR. SETS UP SHOP AT A
PARTICULAR AIRPORT. SO AND WHAT,
WHAT WHAT'S THE INTERPLAY WITH
TSA AND FAA OR DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY IN THAT
DECISION. SO STARTING WITH THE
SECOND PART OF THAT, THE TSA HAS
THE ARRANGEMENT WITH CLEAR AND
IT IS THE AIRPORT THAT CONTRACTS
WITH CLEAR. SO IF AN AIRPORT
BRINGS CLEAR IN, THEN THE TSA
ACCOMMODATES THEM AT THAT
CHECKPOINT, IT'S REALLY BASED ON
THE SIZE OF YOUR PHYSICAL
CHECKPOINT FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE
SAN DIEGO AIRPORT, CLEAR IS ONLY
IN ONE CHECKPOINT. IT'S THE ONLY
CHECKPOINT WHERE THEY HAVE
ENOUGH SPACE FOR CLEAR, BUT IN
THE NEW TERMINAL THAT THEY ARE
BUILDING AT THE SAN DIEGO
AIRPORT, THEY ARE MAKING THOSE
CHECKPOINTS LARGER AND CLEAR.
WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
IN THOSE ADDITIONAL CHECKPOINTS
ONCE THE NEW TERMINAL IS OPENED
AS A SEPARATE LINE, JUST FOR
CLEAR, THAT IS A TSA DECISION.
SO THAT IS THE TSA DECIDE THEY
SET UP THAT PROCESS WHERE CLEAR
CUSTOMERS ARE BROUGHT TO THE
FRONT, TO THE TSA OFFICER, AND
THE AIRPORT DOES NOT CONTROL
THAT. DO YOU KNOW? DO YOU I
MEAN, CAN YOU DO YOU MAYBE KNOW,
MAYBE MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE CAN
COMMENT ON THIS? AS TO THE
IMPETUS, THE MOTIVATION BEHIND
THIS RELATED BETWEEN TSA AND
CLEAR AND HOW IT GOT STARTED AND
, SURE. SO ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO,
BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL INTENT,
THE TSA CREATED THE REGISTERED
TRAVELER PROGRAM. THAT
REGISTERED TRAVELER PROGRAM WAS
ACTUALLY CREATED PRIOR TO THIS
ITERATION OF CLEAR. WE ARE NOW
THE COMPANY, THE ONLY COMPANY
THAT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THAT
PROGRAM. AND WE PARTNER WITH 56
AIRPORTS AROUND THE COUNTRY.
OKAY. IS THERE ANYWHERE? SO ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW,
I'VE SPOKEN CONSIDERABLY WITH
THE AUTHOR ABOUT THIS IS THERE
IS THERE ANY PLACE IN THE
COUNTRY WHERE CLEAR HAS ITS OWN
STANDALONE LINE THAT'S ONLY FOR
CLEAR, AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT
MODEL, WHICH, YOU KNOW, EITHER
PUTS YOU IN DEPENDING ON IF
YOU'RE PRECHECK OR NOT, YOU
KNOW, TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE
OF PRECHECK OR NOT. I AM NOT
AWARE OF ONE. BUT IF ONE EXISTS,
IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN
AT THE DECISION, OF THE TSA TO
ALLOW FOR THAT. QUITE FRANKLY,
WHAT WE'RE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON IS
HIGHEST LEVEL EFFICIENCY IN
TERMS OF THROUGHPUT AND THERE
ARE CHECKPOINTS IN DIFFERENT
AIRPORTS WHERE WE ARE PROCESSING
MORE THAN 20% OF THAT
CHECKPOINT. AND SO QUITE
FRANKLY, IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO
HAVE DEDICATED LANES. BUT AGAIN,
ANY OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE
REQUIRED TO BE COLLABORATIVE
AMONGST CLEAR AMONGST THE
AIRPORT PARTNER AND ULTIMATELY
WITH TSA. AND SO ANY SUCH
DECISION IF ONE WERE TO EXIST,
WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF MORE THAN
100 LANES. SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO
EVERY SINGLE ONE, BUT I WOULD
SAY THAT IT WOULD ALL BE SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION BY
TSA. OKAY, I APPRECIATE IT. I'M
YEAH, I'M I I'LL MAKE SOME
COMMENTS LATER. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. SENATOR. SENATOR ARCHULETA
FOLLOWED BY SENATOR. I'M SORRY.
SENATOR NEAL WAS FIRST. AND THEN
SENATOR ARCHULETA. OKAY JUST
VERY QUICKLY AND BECAUSE,
SENATOR NEWMAN AND I HAD, HAD
TALKED ABOUT THIS, I GAVE IT A
GREAT DEAL OF CONSIDERATION, AND
I LANDED NO, AND UNFORTUNATELY
FOR YOUR BILL, THE AMENDMENTS
DON'T PERSUADE ME OTHERWISE. SO
I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING
YOUR BILL. LET'S GO AHEAD,
SENATOR. RICHARD. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, A QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE
TO BE REGISTERED? PRECHECK IN
ORDER TO USE CLEAR, OR CAN THE
GENERAL PUBLIC PURCHASE CLEAR
WITHOUT BEING A PRECHECK
CUSTOMER? THE CLEAR DOES WORK
FOR BOTH STANDARD AND PRECHECK
MEMBERS. YOU DO HAVE TO BE AN
ADULT OVER 18 WITH A VALID US
ISSUED DRIVER'S LICENSE OR
PASSPORT, BUT YOU CAN USE IT
WITH STANDARD OR PRECHECK FOR
HUMAN WIENER FOR 961. YEAH, FOR
961. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOM FINALLY
COMING BACK HERE. SENATOR LAYMAN
AND THEN SENATOR BOXER. IT'S
OKAY. WE SAID WE WOULD MOVE THIS
WAY RIGHT TO LEFT, THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY THIS BILL
HAS GENERATED QUITE A BIT OF
CONVERSATION, NOT JUST
LEGISLATIVELY, BUT I THINK THE
PUBLIC AS WELL, AND WHEN THAT
HAPPENS, I THINK WE ACTUALLY,
YOU KNOW, WE CAN LAUGH ABOUT IT,
BUT WE ALSO HEAR A LOT OF INPUT.
I APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY ON
BOTH SIDES, BECAUSE I THINK IT
GOT INTO A NUANCE THAT IS NOT
PART OF THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE IN
THE WAY OF, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST
THE VALUE, BUT MAYBE SOME OF THE
IMPERFECTIONS IN ALL SYSTEMS,
NOT JUST IN ONE SYSTEM, I WILL
BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL TODAY.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE
AMENDMENTS, THEY MOVE IN A
DIRECTION. I'M NOT SURE IT'S A
DIRECTION THAT'S SUPER
COMFORTABLE, PARTICULARLY IN
LIGHT OF, YOU KNOW, OF JUST
TREATING AIRPORTS DIFFERENTLY.
YOU KNOW, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT, THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR FOR
MY COMMUNITY, CALLED AND
EXPRESSED CONCERNS AND IS IT'S
AN AIRPORT THAT DOESN'T HAVE
THIS PROGRAM. SO IF THE PROGRAM
IS GOING TO EXIST IN ONE PLACE,
IN A CERTAIN FASHION, BUT NOT IN
ANOTHER, I THINK IT CREATES SOME
LEVEL OF INEQUITY. BUT IT'S
MOVING. AND I THINK THAT THE
CONVERSATION TODAY, PARTICULARLY
IN LIGHT OF, YOU KNOW, SOME OF
THE IMPERFECTIONS AND
CHALLENGES, AROUND SAFETY, I
THINK, MERIT MY VOTE OF SUPPORT
TO SEE WHAT GETS WORKED OUT. BUT
I DO WANT TO EXPRESS JUST, YOU
KNOW, THAT THESE AMENDMENTS MAKE
THEY MOVE. I JUST DON'T KNOW.
THEY CREATE, THEY GIVE YOU
ANOTHER PROBLEM. SO I WANTED TO
JUST RECOGNIZE THAT. AND I DO
APPRECIATE THAT WHILE THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF, GIGGLING AND
LAUGHING ABOUT THE BILL, THERE'S
REALLY TRUE, POLICY INTENT HERE
THAT GOES BEYOND, SOMEONE
CUTTING IN LINE SENATOR BLAKE
SPEAR. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK
TO SENATOR NGUYEN. YES. THANK
YOU, SO I APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION TODAY AND THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I DIDN'T NEVER FELT
MUCH, IRRITATION WITH WITH,
CLEAR. BUT NOW I THINK I WILL
SAY, MY WORK IS DONE, BUT SO THE
WAY THAT I'M READING THE DATA
AND INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN
PRESENTED TODAY IS THAT THERE
ARE THERE IS THIS IDENTIFICATION
THAT'S TAKING PLACE THAT HAS A
HIGH QUALITY STANDARD FOR THE
MOST PART, AND THAT THERE WERE 1
OR 2 INCIDENTS, INCIDENCES OF
POTENTIAL SAFETY CONCERNS, WHICH
COULD HAVE HAPPENED WITH A TSA
AGENT AS WELL. I THINK THE
COMMITMENT TO QUALITY TO HIRING
PRACTICES, TO STANDARD
PROTOCOLS, TO THAT HIGHEST, AT
THAT HIGHEST LEVEL IS, OF
COURSE, CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
AND I DON'T THINK WE KNOW TODAY
IF WHAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE WITH
CLEAR THAT THAT WOULD BE OR
WOULDN'T BE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT
TSA IS DOING. HOPEFULLY THERE'S
OVERSIGHT THAT'S HAPPENING THAT
THAT IS, SUBSTANTIAL. AND THAT
WOULD ENSURE THAT THESE TYPES OF
THINGS ARE VERY FEW AND FAR
BETWEEN. BUT SO TO ME, THE
SAFETY CONCERNS, AT LEAST FROM
THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TODAY,
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S THE
BIGGEST ISSUE. BUT REALLY THE
BIGGEST ISSUE IS THAT PEOPLE WHO
ARE WEALTHY ENOUGH TO BUY CLEAR
ARE CUTTING TO THE FRONT OF THE
LINE FOR BOTH TSA PRECHECK AND
FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE TSA
PRECHECK. IT'S ALLOWING YOU TO
BUY YOUR WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE
LINE. AND IN MANY WAYS, YOU
KNOW, THE REALITY OF THAT IS,
CONSIDERING WHAT IS THAT? HOW DO
WE SEE OUR TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM? HOW IS IT LIKE GETTING
ON THE AIRPLANE, WHERE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE MORE MONEY ARE ABLE TO
SIT IN FIRST CLASS OR IN
BUSINESS CLASS VERSUS COACH AND
WHAT? AND IN SOME WAYS, I MEAN,
THE QUESTION OF ARE THERE ANY
AIRPORTS? AND I'M SURE SAN
DIEGO, WHICH I REPRESENT AND WAS
ON THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, BUT
I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING
THEIR OWN LINE FOR CLEAR BECAUSE
THERE WOULD BE NO POINT, BECAUSE
WHAT YOU ARE BUYING IS CUTTING
TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE. SO,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CONCIERGE
SERVICE OF SOMEONE HOLDING YOUR
HAND AND WALKING IN FRONT OF THE
OTHER PEOPLE TO SAY, YOU GET TO
GO. YOU GET TO GET YOUR THINGS
SCREENED FASTER. THAT'S BECAUSE
THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
OF COURSE, THE SCREENING LINE AS
WELL. BUT, SO THE QUESTION OF
HOW DO WE HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT
THAT? HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT,
THAT PEOPLE CAN PAY MONEY AND GO
TO THE FRONT? I THINK, I AGREE
WITH SENATOR LIMÓN THAT THESE
AMENDMENTS, I THINK, ARE WORSE
BECAUSE THE IDEA THAT SOME
AIRPORTS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
AIRPORTS ARE MAKING REVENUE ON
THIS. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE
REALLY CLEAR EYED ABOUT THIS,
THAT THIS AIRPORTS ARE ALWAYS
TRYING TO STAY AFLOAT, AND THEY
SELL PARKING AND THEY SELL FOOD
AND CONCESSIONS, AND THEY THE
AIRLINES PAY TO GO INTO THOSE
AIRPORTS. AND THAT'S HOW
AIRPORTS FINANCE THEMSELVES. SO
THIS IS A REVENUE STREAM FOR
THEM. AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO
LIKE IT THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THIS. IF
THERE ARE ONLY NINE OF THEM, I
HEARD 54 AND NINE, BUT MAYBE
THEY'RE THE NINE. IT'S NINE
CURRENTLY IN CALIFORNIA, NINE
CURRENTLY IN NINE AIRPORTS
CURRENTLY IN CALIFORNIA. THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE A RUSH
TOWARD CLEAR BY BEFORE THE END
OF THE YEAR 2020 5TH JANUARY
2025 TO GET AN AGREEMENT IN
PLACE. I WOULD THINK IF THIS
BILL GOES THROUGH IN THIS FORM.
SO I, I'M I'M PLANNING TO AND
WILL SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. BUT
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU
RECONSIDER WHETHER YOUR GOALS
ARE ACHIEVED BY HAVING THIS IN
PLACE, BECAUSE NINE OF THEM IN
CALIFORNIA AND THEN EVERYBODY
ELSE EXCLUDED IS NOT GOING TO
CREATE A BETTER SYSTEM. I THINK
IT DOES OPEN US UP TO A SYSTEM
THAT IS NOT REALLY SERVING US. I
MEAN, I WOULD I WOULD RATHER IT
BE ALL OF THE AIRPORTS IN
CALIFORNIA OR NONE OF THEM, ALL
OF THEM HAVING THE OPTION OR
NONE OF THEM. I GUESS I'D LEAVE
IT AT THAT. SO THANKS VERY MUCH.
AND THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.
SENATOR NGUYEN AND THEN WE'LL GO
TO SENATOR DODD. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN, SENATOR NEWMAN, I
THINK I'VE RECEIVED MORE
NATIONAL COVERAGE ON A BILL THAT
I'VE EVER HAD, ESPECIALLY ON A
ON A NØ POSITION THAT I'VE HAD,
AND SO I JUST WANTED, THOUGH,
JUST TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT,
THAT THERE WAS A NATIONAL NEWS
OUTLET THAT MISSTATED MY
POSITION, AND IT'S GONE ALL OVER
THE COUNTRY, AND YOU KNOW WHY I
EMPATHIZE WITH YOUR REASONING
BEHIND THE BILL, SENATOR, I'VE
ALWAYS BEEN ON RECORD OF BEING
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF FREE MARKET
INNOVATION, AND WITH THAT BEING
SAID, I'M ALSO NOT A COAUTHOR OF
THIS BILL. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW
HOW THAT OUTLET GOT THERE
NATIONALLY THAT I'M A CO AUTHOR,
JOINT AUTHOR. NO EITHER, AND
THAT THIS WAS A BIPARTISAN BILL,
I JUST WANT TO SET THAT RECORD
STRAIGHT, SO I'M ACTUALLY GOING
TO LAY OFF TODAY, AND WATCH AS
IT MOVES CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD, SENATOR DODD, YES, SO I
HAVE A GREAT RESPECT FOR THE
AUTHOR. SENATOR NEWMAN, I KNOW
THAT YOU'RE DOING THIS FOR THE
RIGHT REASONS. IN YOUR HEART,
YOUR MIND, YOUR SOUL. THERE'S
ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND
THAT THAT'S THAT. THAT'S
CORRECT. I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW,
SOUTHWEST HAS A WAY TO BUY UP.
YOU KNOW, IF TO GET IN THE A
LINE AND I KNOW THAT MEMBERS OF
THIS BODY USE THAT BECAUSE I WAS
ON IT THIS WEEKEND, AND FRANKLY
DID IT MYSELF WITH OTHERS. IT'S
JUST A FACT OF LIFE WHEN YOU'RE
TRAVELING WITH PEOPLE, YOU WANT
YOUR, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY TO COME
WITH YOU. WE HAVE COMMUTE LANES
ALL THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THE COMMUTER LANES.
YOU BUY A TESLA, YOU BUY A BRAND
NEW, ELECTRIC CAR. YOU GET IN
THE COMMUTE LANES, YOU GET IN
EXPRESS LANES, YOU CAN GET AN
EXPRESS LANES AND PAY FOR THAT.
I YOU KNOW, WHEN I CAME IN HERE,
I WAS TRYING REALLY HARD TO GIVE
SENATOR NEWMAN THE, SOME SORT OF
VOTE ON THIS. I'LL TELL YOU THIS
THING IS STARTING TO ANNOY ME
BECAUSE TSA. SORRY, SENATOR
DODD, THAT'S NOT UP TO YOU TO BE
SORRY. I'M JUST TELLING YOU, TSA
IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE
DECISIONS. IT'S ANNOYING TO ME
THAT HERE WE ARE TRYING TO GET
IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE MIDDLE
OF THAT RELATIONSHIP WHEN
THEY'VE GOT RELATIONSHIPS ALL
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, 50 DIFFERENT STATES.
AND THEN WE'VE GOT YOUR
WITNESSES THAT TURNED FROM
MAKING IT A NUISANCE AND
EVERYTHING TO ACTUALLY FEAR
MONGERING ON SAFETY ISSUES. SO
I'M GOING FROM A NO, NOT VOTING
TO AN ABSOLUTE NO ON THIS. I'M
JUST REALLY, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY,
I JUST THINK THIS IS GOING THE
WRONG WAY FROM MY VANTAGE POINT.
SENATOR ALLEN, YEAH. I YOU KNOW,
I TALKED SPOKEN EXTENSIVELY WITH
THE AUTHOR ABOUT THIS AND WE'VE
HAD SOME FUN REPARTEE. I RESPECT
THE AUTHOR A GREAT DEAL AND THE
SPONSORS AS WELL, I GUESS I'M,
I'M MY CONCERN IS ALONG THE
LINES OF WHAT JUST EXPRESSED BY
SENATOR DODD. YOU KNOW, THIS
THIS JUST SEEMS TO ME TO BE A
DECISION THAT I'VE BE MADE BY.
YOU'LL BE WAY MORE TACTFUL. THE
I'LL PROBABLY BE A LITTLE MORE
TACTFUL HERE. YOU KNOW, IT JUST
SEEMS THAT THIS THIS OUGHT TO BE
THIS IS A DECISION MADE BY THE
AIRPORTS AND BY TSA AND BY
HOMELAND SECURITY FAA. AND IT
JUST I THIS FEELS LIKE A STRANGE
PLACE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO BE
COMING IN AND PUTTING IN,
PUTTING ITS FINGER ON ON THE ON
THE ON THE, ON THE SCALE, SO
I'M, I'M, I'M IN A LAYOFF TO THE
EYE, BUT I CERTAINLY, HAPPY TO
HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE
AUTHOR ON THIS, BUT, THIS IS A
FOR ME, IT'S ABOUT THE LOCUS OF
DECISION MAKING. AND THIS
DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THE RIGHT
PLACE FOR THIS DECISION TO BE
MADE. THANK YOU. THAT LOOKS LIKE
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE COMPLETED
THEIR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. I
WANT TO SAY THAT, HAVING WORKED
WITH THE AUTHOR ON THIS, ON THIS
BILL AND, ALSO HAVING HAD
EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
HIM, AND OF COURSE, HE HAD
EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
COMMITTEE STAFF AS WELL, THAT IS
I THINK HIS MOTIVATION IS
CORRECT, THAT YOU BASICALLY HAVE
TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, RIGHT NOW
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OF
AIRPORTS THAT ARE OPERATING IN
THE SO-CALLED MODEL THAT EXISTS
IN THE NINE AIRPORTS AND
AIRPORTS THAT AREN'T IN THE
PROGRAM AT ALL, AND I BELIEVE
THIS LEGISLATION, IF WE COULD
GET IT, PASSED, WOULD
SIGNIFICANTLY MOTIVATE,
SIGNIFICANTLY MOTIVATE ALL OF
THE PLAYERS INVOLVED, INCLUDING
THE AIRLINES. AND I DON'T KNOW
HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE WORKED IN A
JURISDICTION LIKE I HAVE. IT
SOUNDS LIKE SOME OF YOU HAVE,
WHERE, YOU KNOW, IN A MUNICIPAL
JURISDICTION LIKE SAN JOSE,
WHERE YOU COME TO REALIZE VERY
QUICKLY THAT IT IS SOUTHWEST
THAT'S CALLING THE SHOTS. IT IS
THE AIRLINES THAT ARE PAYING FOR
EVERYTHING. IT IS THE AIRLINES
THAT ARE SETTING UP THESE
SYSTEMS TO MAKE MONEY. AND THEY
ARE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND WE
CAN RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE ABOUT
HOW EFFECTIVE THE BILL MIGHT BE
IN MOTIVATING THEM. BUT IT SEEMS
TO ME IF WE PUT WHAT IS, IN
EFFECT, A MORATORIUM ON THEIR
ABILITY TO EXPAND UNTIL THEY GET
THIS RIGHT AND START RESPECTING
PEOPLE IN A UNIFORM MANNER UP
AND DOWN THE STATE. YOU KNOW
THAT. WHY WOULD THEY DO ANYTHING
IF WE DON'T IF WE DON'T REGULATE
AT ALL? WATER SEEKS ITS OWN
LEVEL, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S KIND
OF ALL OVER THE PLACE. I THINK
THE MOTIVATIONS OF, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER IT BOTHERS YOU TO SEE
SOMEBODY CUT IN FRONT OR PAY TO
CUT IN FRONT OR NOT ARE LESS
COMPELLING TO ME THAN, THAT I
DON'T THINK, TSA AND THE
AIRPORTS AND THE AIRLINES ARE
GOING TO BE MOTIVATED AT ALL,
YOU KNOW, TO CREATE A BETTER
SYSTEM, A MORE STREAMLINED
SYSTEM, A SYSTEM THAT'S NOT
CO-MINGLING. YOU KNOW, THESE
LINES AND THESE OCCURRENCES,
UNLESS SOMEBODY GIVES THEM THAT
MOTIVATION. I THINK THE BILL
WOULD DO THAT UNDER I THINK IT
WOULD HAVE DONE THAT THE WAY IT
WAS ORIGINALLY PUT IN PRINT. I
THINK IT WOULD HAVE DONE THAT
THE WAY THE SENATOR WAS THINKING
ABOUT DOING IN, AUTHOR
AMENDMENTS. AND I THINK
ULTIMATELY THE WAY THE COMMITTEE
STAFF, SUGGESTED AGAIN, IN THE
FORM OF A MORATORIUM WOULD,
WOULD CERTAINLY DO THAT. AND IT
WAS WOULD BE WORTH A TRY. SO
THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL WITH AN AYE
VOTE, AS, AS I THINK EVERYBODY
IS AWARE IN TERMS OF THE
BRIEFINGS THEY'VE RECEIVED FROM
THIS COMMITTEE, I WOULD
RECOMMEND FOLKS DO THAT, GIVE
THE AUTHOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
KEEP MOVING THIS THROUGH, I AM A
LITTLE DISMAYED, AND I WASN'T
SURE I'D EVER SEE ANYTHING LIKE
THIS IN PUBLIC. AND I'M NOT
GOING TO GET SPECIFIC AS TO WHO
THE PARTICIPANTS WERE, BUT THERE
WERE COMMITMENTS TO REMOVE
OPPOSITION ON THIS BILL. IF
THESE AMENDMENTS WERE TAKEN, THE
SENATOR, THE AUTHOR, STOOD UP
AND SAID HE WAS TAKING THOSE
AMENDMENTS. WE KEEP OUR WORD
HERE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I'VE BEEN EXTREMELY
IMPRESSED WITH WORKING IN THE
LEGISLATURE, THAT WHEN SOMEBODY
SAYS, I'M GOING TO BE AN AYE,
THEY'RE AN AYE. WHEN SOMEONE
SAYS, I'M GOING TO BE A NO,
THERE ARE NO, WHEN SOMEONE SAYS,
I'LL TALK TO YOU AT 3:00 ABOUT
YOUR BILL, THEY DO IT, THAT'S
WHAT HAPPENS UP HERE. I'M NOT
ACCUSTOMED TO PEOPLE, COMING
INTO A COMMITTEE LIKE THIS, A
SIGNIFICANT COMMITTEE, AND
SAYING WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE
OPPOSITION TO THESE AMENDMENTS
ARE TAKEN AND WE'RE GOING TO
SHOW UP, AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY
IT AND NOT DO IT, AND I'M GOING
TO LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT I WANT
I WANT EVERYONE HERE TO KNOW
THAT THAT OCCURRED, AND I DON'T
THINK IT WAS FAIR TO THE AUTHOR,
AND I THINK IT WAS A SETUP TO
THE AUTHOR IN TERMS OF COMING IN
HERE AND ULTIMATELY WIN OR LOSE,
HE COULD HAVE ASKED FOR WHAT HE
REALLY WANTED WAS WAS SOMETHING
THAT WASN'T AMENDED DOWN. SO,
NOT GOOD. AND I HOPE THAT'S A
MESSAGE TO FOLKS THAT YOU DON'T
DO THAT WITH THIS COMMITTEE. I
WOULD HOPE YOU DON'T DO THAT
WITH ANY OF THE COMMITTEES IN
THE LEGISLATURE, BUT DON'T DO
THAT IN THIS COMMITTEE, BECAUSE
THE NEXT TIME MY RECOMMENDATION
WILL BE TO REVERSE THE AMENDS,
TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL
STRUCTURE OF THE BILL, JUST IF
NO OTHER REASON TO MAKE THE
POINT. AND I, I WON'T BE TAKING
THOSE KIND OF OFFERS, SERIOUSLY
ANYMORE FROM PARTICIPANTS WHO DO
THAT AROUND HERE. YOUR WORD IS
YOUR BOND. THAT'S WHAT I
LEARNED, AND IT'S GOT TO STAY
THAT WAY. SO, SENATOR, IF YOU
WANT TO CLOSE, YOU MAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. LET
ME COME BACK TO A QUESTION OF
SENATOR ALLEN, RIGHT. TO PROVIDE
CLARITY, YOU ASKED ABOUT THE
NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP, THE
ORIGINS. WHAT WHAT HAPPENED? AND
MISS NG DESCRIBED SOME OF IT.
WAS THERE WERE 11 COMPANIES,
INCLUDING CLEAR THAT THAT WERE
PART OF THIS REGISTERED TRAVELER
PROGRAM, ALL 11 WENT BANKRUPT
DURING THE GREAT RECESSION. THE
TWO, CO-FOUNDERS OF CLEAR
ACTUALLY BOUGHT ONE OF THOSE
COMPANIES OUT OF BANKRUPT
BANKRUPTCY. PRECISELY BECAUSE IT
WAS A REGISTERED TRAVELER
PROGRAM, WHICH IS SORT OF THAT'S
THE ABOUT THE SAME AS IF YOU BUY
A LIQUOR STORE THAT'S GOING OUT
OF BUSINESS BECAUSE IT HAS A
CURRENT LIQUOR LICENSE. THE
VALUE IS IN THAT LICENSE. THE
VALUE WAS IN THE TÊ
CERTIFICATION, AND THEY BUILT A
BUSINESS AROUND THAT SINCE. BUT
BUT IT SIMPLY LEVERAGING THAT
ASSET TO EXTRACT VALUE FROM THE
TRAVELER EXPERIENCE WITHOUT TO
MY WITNESSES POINT WITHOUT
ACTUALLY MEETING THEIR
REPRESENTATION OF ENHANCING
SECURITY, IMPROVING EFFICIENCY,
OR PROVIDING A QUALITY
EXPERIENCE TO ALL TRAVELERS,
THEY THEY DON'T DO THAT. RIGHT.
AND THAT'S THE BASIS OF THIS
BILL. THE OTHER, YOU KNOW,
BASIS, THIS BILL, WHICH HAS BEEN
REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE IT
CERTAINLY HAS CATALYZED A LOT OF
CONVERSATION, IS A BROADER KIND
OF EQUITY QUESTION, WHICH IS,
YOU KNOW, I WOULD I WANT TO MAKE
REALLY CLEAR, SOMEBODY USED THE
EXAMPLE OF SOUTHWEST, YOU BUY A
TICKET ON SOUTHWEST, YOU CAN
UPGRADE. THAT IS, YOU KNOW, TWO,
TWO CLASSES WITHIN A PRIVATE
TRANSFER STATION, IF YOU GO TO
DISNEY, YOU CAN BUY THE FASTPASS
AGAIN. TWO, YOU KNOW, TWO
DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS WITH,
WITH A PRIVATE ENTITY. THE POINT
HERE IS THAT SOONER OR LATER WE
ALL HAVE TO TRAVEL RIGHT? SOONER
OR LATER, WE ARE ALL SUBJECT TO
THE REGIME THAT HAS BEEN CREATED
SINCE 911. AND MY WITNESSES,
ESPECIALLY ARE SUBJECT TO THAT
REGIME. SO YOU HEARD FROM THEM.
YOU HEARD FROM THE PEOPLE WHO
TAKE CARE OF US IN THE SKY. THEY
DON'T LIKE THIS SERVICE FOR
REALLY LEGITIMATE REASONS. ONE,
IT DOESN'T ENHANCE SECURITY.
TWO, IT HEIGHTENS, THE FRAUGHT
NATURE OF THE INTERACTIONS THAT
HAPPEN AT AIRPORTS RIGHT NOW.
THE FOLKS WHO KEEP US SAFE ON
THE GROUND DON'T LIKE THIS
SERVICE FOR REALLY VALID
REASONS, RIGHT? ONE IT'S NOT
SECURE. TWO, IT HEIGHTENS THE
FRAUGHT NATURE OF ALL THE
INTERACTIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO
HAVE EVERY DAY WITH THE GENERAL
PUBLIC. SO I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR,
THE INTENT HERE WAS NEVER TO PUT
CLEAR OUT OF BUSINESS. RIGHT. IT
WAS SIMPLY TO CREATE ENOUGH
MOMENTUM AROUND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP WITH AIRPORTS THAT
THEY COULD COLLECTIVELY GO TO
THE TSA AND SAY, HEY, THERE'S A
BETTER WAY TO DO THIS BUSINESS
THAT BETTER SERVES THE TRAVELING
PUBLIC. BUT I WOULD ARGUE IT
WOULD BETTER SERVE CLEAR BECAUSE
CLEAR IS ACTUALLY FORGOING A
WHOLE BUNCH OF BUSINESS AMONG
PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO CUT THE
LINE, BUT WHO OTHERWISE MIGHT
ENROLL AT A CONCIERGE SERVICE
BECAUSE IT PROBABLY WOULD BE
VALUABLE TO THEM IF THEY DID
THAT. SO, AND I ALSO WANT TO
MAKE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, AS NOTED,
YOU KNOW, THOSE WEREN'T MY
PREFERRED AMENDMENTS. THEY WERE
PROFITING ME BY THE COMMITTEE. I
AM NOT ONE WHO ROLLS A CHAIR,
ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, TO HIS
POINT WHERE WE HAD COMMITMENTS
AROUND THE NEW SET OF AMENDMENTS
. SO I DO APPRECIATE SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR. SENATOR LIMON, YOU
KNOW, YOUR CONCERNS. THE GOAL,
AGAIN, WAS TO CREATE ENOUGH
ENERGY AROUND THIS TO DO
SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW CAN BE
DONE. SO THE ASSERTION THAT TSA
IS THIS IMMOVABLE OBJECT, NOT
TRUE. AS I NOTED IN MY OPENING
REMARKS, THE DELTA AND THE DELTA
TERMINAL AT LAX, THEY'VE CREATED
A NEW LINE TSA AND DELTA
CO-SHARE IT, YOU KNOW, GOD BLESS
ALL THE DELTA CUSTOMERS ARE
GOING TO USE IT. WE COULD DO THE
SAME THING IF WE HAD THE WILL. I
WAS SIMPLY TRYING TO CREATE THE
BASIS FOR THAT. SO LET ME CLOSE
WITH THIS. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
YOU KNOW, THOSE OF YOU WHO USE
CLEAR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW AS THE
CLEAR ATTENDANT ESCORTS YOU
THROUGH THE LINE IN FRONT OF THE
NEXT PERSON, THE MOM WITH THE
THREE KIDS, YOU KNOW, ASK
YOURSELF, DO YOU LOOK THAT
PERSON THAT'S BEING SHUNTED OUT
OF THE WAY IN THE EYE? IF YOU
DON'T, IT'S BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
THIS SERVICE IS INEQUITABLE.
IT'S WRONG. AND IF YOU DO,
YOU'RE WRONG. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE TODAY. THE TRUE LAST WORD,
WE WILL ASK COMMITTEE ASSISTANT
TO STATE THE MOTION. IS THERE A
MOTION TO MAKE A MOTION? IS
THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE
MOTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR ARCHULETA. SO WE'LL
FORMALIZE THAT MOTION NOW AND
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FALL ITEM
NUMBER 16, SB 1372. THE MOTION
IS Dð PASS AS AMENDED. AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS CORTESE
Ã. CORTESE, Ã. NILO NØ, NILO
NØ, ALLEN. ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA
I BLAKE. SPEER, BLAKE. SPEER, I
DALLY DODD NØ DODD NØ. GONZALEZ.
LAIRD HI. LAIRD I LIMÓN LIMÓN I
NEWMAN. HI. NEWMAN I WEN
PORTANTINO CIERTO CIERTO NÓ
UMBERG. 6 TO 3 ON CALL. ALL
RIGHT. THE VOTE CURRENTLY IS 6
TO 3. AND WE'LL KEEP IT ON CALL.
THANK YOU SENATOR, WE ARE GOING
TO COME BACK TO A BILL WE PASSED
ON. AND I APPRECIATE SENATOR
WIENER'S COOPERATION AND
PATIENCE THROUGH THE RECESS THAT
WE TOOK EARLIER. AND WE'LL COME
BACK TO FILE ITEM SIX. THIS IS
SB 1031. SENATOR WIENER, PLEASE
PROCEED WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
OKAY ONE MOMENT, MR. CHAIR.
RIGHT IT'S A MINUTE. YEAH, I
KNOW, RIGHT. OKAY, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND COLLEAGUES. I'M
HERE WITH MY LEGISLATIVE LIVE,
PARTNER IN THIS ENDEAVOR,
SENATOR WAHAB, TO CO-PRESENT,
SENATE BILL 1031, THE CONNECT
BAY AREA ACT, THE CONNECT BAY
AREA ACT ADDRESSES MAJOR,
EXISTENTIAL FINANCIAL CHALLENGES
FOR BAY AREA PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES WHILE
INVESTING IN VARIOUS
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, INCLUDING,
OUR ROADS, SB 1031 AUTHORIZES
THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION, OR VIA A QUALIFIED
VOTER INITIATIVE, TO PROPOSE A
BAY AREA BALLOT MEASURE FOR
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
FUNDING ON THE 20 2026 BALLOT OR
LATER. TEN SB 1031 ALSO ADVANCES
STRONGER REGIONAL TRANSIT
NETWORK MANAGEMENT REFORMS, IN
ORDER TO MODERNIZE AND INTEGRATE
OUR SYSTEMS IN A STRONGER WAY.
BAY AREA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
HAS FACED FINANCIAL CHALLENGES
FOR MANY YEARS, AND THE PANDEMIC
POURED LIGHTER FLUID, OVER THOSE
CHALLENGES. AND WHILE RIDERSHIP
IN THE BAY AREA IS GRADUALLY
RECOVERING, IT'S NOT DOING SO
QUICKLY ENOUGH TO PREVENT
PARTICULARLY FARE RELIANT
TRANSIT SYSTEMS FROM FACING
MAJOR FISCAL SHORTFALLS AND
HAVING TO MAKE MAJOR, SERVICE
CUTS. AGAIN, THESE PROBLEMS
PREEXISTED THE PANDEMIC. THE
PANDEMIC MADE IT MUCH WORSE
THROUGH HARD WORK IN THE BUDGET.
LAST YEAR, WE WERE SUCCESSFUL AS
A GROUP IN SECURING BRIDGE
FUNDING FOR OUR TRANSIT SYSTEMS
TO PUT OFF THOSE SERVICE CUTS
THAT WOULD BE STARTING RIGHT
NOW, TO DELAY THEM INTO 2026. SO
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR THAT,
THIS MEASURE WILL PROVIDE LONG
TERME SUSTAINABLE FUNDING SO
THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THESE
CONTINUAL EMERGENCIES, SO SB
1031 WILL AUTHORIZE PLACEMENT OF
A REVENUE MEASURE, AND THERE ARE
VARIOUS OPTIONS, INCLUDING SALES
TAX, PARCEL TAX, A BUSINESS TAX
AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A TRANSIT
DEMAND MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO
FUND TRANSIT OPERATIONS, TRANSIT
CAPITAL AND OUR ROAD SYSTEMS.
THE BILL HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT
A MINIMUM OF 70% OF THE REVENUES
GENERATED IN EACH COUNTY MUST BE
INVESTED IN TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND SERVICES
BENEFITING THAT COUNTY, AND
THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS AS
WELL, AND NOW AND BEFORE I TURN
IT OVER TO SENATOR WAHAB TO
SPEAK ABOUT THE CONSOLIDATION
ASPECT OF THE BILL, I DO WANT TO
REALLY THANK, CHAIR CORTEZ AND
ALSO CHAIR GLAZER, BECAUSE THIS
WILL IF WE'RE SUCCESSFUL TODAY,
GO TO THE REVENUE AND TAXATION
COMMITTEE TOMORROW, THE TWO
CHAIRS WERE AND ALSO THEIR STAFF
AND THE PRO TEM STAFF WORKED
INTENSIVELY WITH, WITH MYSELF
AND SENATOR WAHAB ON A NUMBER OF
ISSUES ON THE BILL. AND EVEN
THOUGH THIS IS A NEEDS TO BE A
BAY AREA COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
WITH MANY STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS
BUILDING AND OUTSIDE, WE DID A
LOT OF REALLY, REALLY STRONG
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. AND SO I
DO JUST WANT TO THIS IS BEING
DISTRIBUTED AND, TO EVERYONE, I
THINK A LIST OF AMENDMENTS OR A
TERMS SHEET, I SHOULD SAY,
INCLUDING SOME AMENDMENTS THAT
WE'VE AGREED TO WITH THE CHAIR.
AND SO, MR. CHAIR, WOULD YOU
LIKE ME TO READ THOSE? YEAH,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, SO
FIRST, MTC OR THE VOTERS
AUTHORITY TO PLACE A MEASURE ON
THE BALLOT WILL EXPIRE AFTER
2040. SO 2040 WILL BE THE LATEST
THAT THAT A MEASURE COULD BE
PLACED ON THE BALLOT, ANY TAXES
AUTHORIZED AS PART OF THIS
MEASURE WILL HAVE A DURATION NO
LONGER THAN 30 YEARS, THE GOAL
OF THE OF THE MEASURE WILL BE TO
RAISE $1.5 BILLION ANNUALLY FROM
NEW REVENUES, IF A SALES TAX IS
PART OF THE MIX, THEN THE SALES
TAX WILL NOT WILL BE NO MORE
THAN ONE HALF CENT SALES TAX, WE
WILL RETAIN PLACEHOLDER LANGUAGE
IN THE BILL FOR THE NEW TRANSIT
PASS PROPOSAL THAT'S IN THE
BILL. AND THAT WILL BE RETAINED,
NEXT, THE MTC CAN ONLY BOND
AGAINST REVENUES RAISED BY THE
TAXES AUTHORIZED BY THE BILL AND
THAT ARE RETAINED BY MTC BONDS
CAN ONLY BE USED FOR CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS. MTC AS REGIONAL
NETWORK MANAGER FOR, WILL HAVE
AUTHORITY TO CONDITION ESTÁ
FUNDS ON ITS NETWORK MANAGEMENT
POLICIES THAT ARE APPROVED, BY
THE, COMMISSION OR WHATEVER
ENTITY WITHIN THE COMMISSION
DOES. SO, SUBJECT TO THE
PRESCRIBED GUARDRAILS IN THE
BILL, THE BILL, WILL NOT CHANGE
MTC AUTHORITY ON CONDITIONING
ANY OTHER EXISTING FUNDING
STREAMS. SO IT'S LIMITED TO ESTÁ
FUNDS. AND THEN FINALLY, ON THE
RETURN TO SOURCE ISSUE, WHICH WE
CURRENTLY HAVE SPELLED OUT IN
THE BILL, WE'RE AWARE THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN
THE REGION, AROUND THAT. IT'S
BEEN MOST INTENSE IN THE SOUTH
BAY, BUT IT'S ELSEWHERE AS WELL,
AND I AM FULLY COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AROUND THE REGION,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO
THE SOUTH BAY ON RETURN TO
SOURCE AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE
EXPENDITURE PLAN FRAMEWORK. I
WANT TO STRESS COLLEAGUES, THIS
IS A THIS BILL IS A WORK IN
PROGRESS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING COLLABORATION WITH
THE CHAIR BECAUSE IT WILL NOT
END TODAY. AND WITH CHAIR GLAZER
AS WELL. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. AND I WILL NOW TURN IT
OVER TO MY PARTNER IN THIS
EFFORT, SENATOR WAHAB. TWO
MINUTES. SHE SAID THAT TO ME
THIS NOT TO YOU, YOUR WITNESSES.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO Ã WIENER
AND WAHAB BILL. RIGHT. SO YOU
GUYS KNOW THAT THIS IS A
BEAUTIFUL BILL, SO I JUST WANT
TO SAY GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR ENGAGEMENT ON THIS BILL. I
ALSO JUST WANT TO, AGAIN ECHO
THE WORDS OF MY COLLEAGUE HERE
AND THANK THE CHAIR, CHAIR
CORTEZ, AS WELL AS CHAIR GLAZIER
FOR REALLY SPENDING 730 IN THE
MORNING WITH US ON ON A WEEKLY
BASIS. SO I REALLY JUST WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT AND I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT SECTION THREE OF
SB 1031 IS AN ASSESSMENT AND
REPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE 27 PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCIES
ACROSS THE NINE BAY AREA
COUNTIES. SO MY VISION IS NOT
JUST TO AIM FOR REPAIRS, BUT FOR
A SYSTEM THAT CONNECTS US DEEPER
IN THE BAY AREA AND ONE DAY IN
THE FUTURE, ACROSS NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, SB 13 1031, WE DID
THIS LAST TIME, TOO, IS SETTING
THE STAGE FOR THAT
TRANSFORMATION IN THE TENT OF
THE ASSESSMENT IS TO IMPROVE
SPEED, AFFORDABILITY, SAFETY AND
CLEANLINESS, BUT ALSO PROMOTE
CLIMATE GOALS, INCORPORATE
TECHNOLOGY, IMPROVE
ACCESSIBILITY, IMPROVE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REDUCE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THE
ASSESSMENT ITSELF CONSISTS OF
THREE PARTS. PART ONE IDENTIFY
BY THE AGENCIES THEIR GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE, FINANCE MECHANISMS,
LABOR AGREEMENTS, AND MOUS AS
WELL AS THE FLEET STOCK AND
MORE. PART TWO IS TO ASSESS
CONSOLIDATION, WHICH MAY INCLUDE
COMBINING STAFFS OR Tê OF TWO OR
MORE AGENCIES WHILE RETAINING
SEPARATE GOVERNING BOARDS AND
POTENTIALLY REPLACING MULTIPLE
GOVERNING BOARDS WITH A UNIFIED
GOVERNING BOARD REPRESENTING A
BROADER JURISDICTION, CREATING A
MORE EFFECTIVE UMBRELLA
STRUCTURE UNDER WHICH EXISTING
TRANSIT AGENCIES ARE BROUGHT
TOGETHER BUT STILL OPERATE AS
DISTINCT AGENCIES WITH SEPARATE
GOVERNING BOARDS. INCREASING
COORDINATION ACROSS TWO OR MORE
AGENCIES TO DELIVER ONE OR MORE
COMPONENTS OF A TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE TO THE AGENCIES CAN
INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY TO
PROVIDE TRIPS OR PART THREE AND
PART THREE ASSESS CONSOLIDATION
IMPACTS FOLLOWING THE
ASSESSMENT. ASSESSMENT WHICH IS
TO BE PERFORMED BY A TRANSIT
TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE WITH A
CONSULTING LABOR INSTITUTE, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION
AGENCY WILL DEVELOP A REPORT OF
RECOMMENDATIONS WHILE ENGAGING
IMPACTED STAKEHOLDERS. THIS
INCLUDES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. ANY
FURTHER ACTION IS ENTIRELY UP TO
A FUTURE LEGISLATURE OR THE
AGENCIES THEMSELVES. ALL OF THIS
IS NECESSARY TO INCREASE
RIDERSHIP, SUSTAINABILITY AND
INCREASE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF
BAY AREA PUBLIC TRANSIT AND
INCREASE THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE
IN MANAGEMENT OF OUR TRANSIT
SYSTEMS. THE BAY AREA DESERVES A
WORLD CLASS TRANSIT SYSTEM, AND
WE NEED AN INDEPENDENT
ASSESSMENT OF ALL OF THE
AGENCIES TO HELP US GET THERE.
WITH SB 1031, WE'RE NOT JUST
DREAMING, WE'RE DOING. WE'RE
BUILDING A LEGACY OF TRANSIT
THAT WILL CARRY THE BAY AREA
FORWARD. SO I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU GUYS. I WANT TO THANK OUR
WITNESSES, AND I WILL
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. OKAY. WE'RE NOW MR. CHAIR. I
HAVE TWO WITNESSES TODAY, BEVAN
DUFTY, WHO'S THE PRESIDENT OF
THE BART BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND
REBECCA LONG, THE DIRECTOR OF
LEGISLATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
AT THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. WITNESSES MAY
PROCEED WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING, CHAIR
CORTEZ AND MEMBERS. I'M REBECCA
LONG, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS WITH MTC. I'M
HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY AND
WOULD LIKE TO THANK SENATOR
WIENER AND SENATOR WAHAB FOR
THEIR LEADERSHIP AND AUTHORING
THIS BILL, AND ALSO SHARE MTC'S
APPRECIATION FOR THE ENGAGEMENT
OF THE PRO TEM, THE CHAIR AND
SENATOR GLAZER AS WELL. SB 1031
IS ADMITTEDLY AN AMBITIOUS
UNDERTAKING. IT RECOGNIZES THAT
IN THIS POST-COVID WORLD, WE
CAN'T HAVE THE WORLD CLASS,
RELIABLE, AFFORDABLE AND
EFFICIENT AND CONNECTED
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK THAT THE
BAY AREA WANTS AND DESERVES
WITHOUT TWO NEW THINGS ONE
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DEDICATED
RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT AND
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, AND TWO,
GREATER OVERSIGHT AND
COORDINATION OF THE REGION'S 27
TRANSIT AGENCIES. MTC IS
SPONSORING SB 1031 TO DELIVER ON
THESE GOALS BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
OUR REGION'S FUTURE AS WELL AS
THE STATE'S CLIMATE EQUITY AND
ECONOMIC GOALS, DEPENDS ON IT.
THE BAY AREA CANNOT THRIVE
ECONOMICALLY, SOCIALLY OR
ENVIRONMENTALLY WITHOUT A
RELIABLE AND CONVENIENT PUBLIC
TRANSIT SYSTEM. OVER THREE
QUARTERS OF BAY AREA VOTERS
UNDERSTAND THIS, WITH 78% SAYING
PUBLIC TRANSIT IS IMPORTANT TO
THE BAY AREA. BUT THIS IS NOT
JUST A TRANSIT BILL. ONE ONE
QUARTER OF SB 1031 FUNDS ARE
PROPOSED TO MAKE LOCAL STREETS
SAFER FOR ALL USERS, WITH
ANOTHER 15% DEDICATED TO A
MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM ALIGNED WITH COUNTY
PRIORITIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT
WITH OUR LONG RANGE PLAN AND
CLIMATE GOALS. BOTH OF THESE
PROGRAMS ARE FORMULA BASED, WITH
COUNTIES GUARANTEED TO BENEFIT
IN PROPORTION TO THEIR
CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE TAX. I
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY SO
THAT BAY AREA VOTERS WILL HAVE
THEIR OWN CHANCE IN 2026 TO VOTE
FOR A TRULY CONNECTED BAY AREA.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. I'M
BEVAN DUFTY, 2024, PRESIDENT OF
THE BART BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON
MARCH 28TH, OUR BOARD ADOPTED A
SUPPORT, IF AMENDED, POSITION ON
SB 1031. WE ARE THANKFUL FOR
STATE FUNDING PROVIDED THROUGH
SB 125 AND RECOGNIZE THE
INCREDIBLE WORK OF MTC TO ENGAGE
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE BAY AREA
LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS ON A BILL
THAT ADDRESSES THE REGION'S TOP
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING NEEDS.
BART IS LASER FOCUSED ON
IMPROVING QUALITY OF SERVICE AND
IMPLEMENTING COST SAVINGS, BUT
WE NEED A PERMANENT, SUSTAINABLE
SOURCE OF FUNDING TO CLOSE A
$300 MILLION OPERATING DEFICIT
BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 27, THE
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING MEASURE
IS NOT A GREEN LIGHT TO CONTINUE
THE STATUS QUO. TRANSIT RIDERS
AND NON-RIDERS ALIKE DESERVE
WORLD CLASS PUBLIC TRANSIT, SAFE
STREETS AND MULTIMODAL CAPITAL
PROJECTS AT BART, WE ARE RUNNING
ONLY NEW TRAIN CARS, INVESTING
IN SAFETY AND STATION CLEANING
AND INSTALLING NEW FARE GATES
THROUGHOUT OUR SYSTEM. BY THE
END OF 2025, OUR OUTSTANDING
GENERAL MANAGER, BOB POWERS, IS
ALSO LEADING EFFORTS TO IMPROVE
COORDINATION ACROSS MORE THAN
TWO DOZEN TRANSIT AGENCIES. WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS TAKING
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ON
GUARDRAILS TO MTC ENHANCED
AUTHORITY, AND AN EXPENDITURE
PLAN THAT SEEKS TO CLOSE
OPERATING DEFICITS WHILE
PLEDGING FUNDS TO COMPLETE
IMPORTANT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
WE ALSO APPRECIATE BOTH SENATORS
CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AND THEIR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE BAY AREA.
CANNOT WAIT ANOTHER YEAR FOR
ENABLING LEGISLATION, AND LET ME
JOIN THE SENATORS IN THANKING
THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, COMMITTEE
CHAIR CORTESE AND ALSO CHAIR
GLAZER, BART WHOLEHEARTEDLY
SUPPORTS 1031 MOVING FORWARD
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
TO THE WITNESSES. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE IN THE COMMITTEE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD ON A
ME TOO BASIS? AND INDICATE NAME,
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT? GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
CATHERINE CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING ACTION COALITION AND
SUPPORT. JONATHAN COLE, CLIMATE
ACTION COMMISSION IN SUPPORT AND
SEEKING AMENDMENTS. MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS ANDRÉS RAMIREZ
ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSBAY JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITY, DON'T HAVE A
FORMAL POSITION ON THE BILL BUT
VERY GRATEFUL TO BOTH OF THE
AUTHORS, THEIR INCREDIBLE STAFF,
LEADERSHIP AND YOURSELF FOR
ENGAGING US IN CONVERSATIONS.
HOPE TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD.
THANKS STEVE WALLACH, ON BEHALF
OF THE NAPA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY IN
SUPPORT. ADINA LEVIN, WITH
SEAMLESS BAY AREA IN SUPPORT AND
CONCURRING WITH ALLIES WITH
VOICES FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
. GERALD WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF
IBEW LOCAL 1245, IN SUPPORT.
JODY MEDEIROS, ON BEHALF OF WALK
SAN FRANCISCO. WE SUPPORT. LARA
FOR SPUR. WE SUPPORT AND SEEK
AMENDS AND FEEL VERY CONFIDENT
ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN MOVING FORWARD OVER THE
LAST WEEK. ROBIN PAME, ON BEHALF
OF KIDSAFE SAN FRANCISCO, IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MARC
WATTS, ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW
MOVE TO OPPOSITION. WE DO HAVE
PRIMARY OPPOSITION. JIM LAWSON,
YOU CAN COME ON UP. AND I
BELIEVE WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVE,
FROM SAMTRANS AND CALTRAIN ON
THE OPPOSITION SIDE. IF THAT'S
TRUE, PLEASE COME ON UP. MY
UNDERSTANDING, YOU CAN COME COME
IN IF YOU WANT TO COME INTO THE
WELL, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE
GOING TO ALLOW TWO MINUTES. I'M
SORRY. TWO. TWO MINUTES, MR.
LAWSON. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO
GO, I GUESS HAVE THESE WITNESSES
SPLIT TWO MINUTES. SINCE THAT'S
THE RULE HERE, WE'RE ALSO, FOR
THOSE OF YOU OUT THERE WONDERING
, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, AN
ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR
IN-BETWEENERS BECAUSE WE HAPPEN
TO KNOW FROM ALL THE WORKING
GROUP WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE,
THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS OUT
THERE THAT ARE NEITHER CLEARLY
OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT THAT WOULD
WANT TO BE HEARD IN A HEARING,
BUT WE'LL GET TO THAT AFTER
OPPOSITION, MR. LAWSON. THANK
YOU. CHAIR CORTESE AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JIM
LAWSON. I REPRESENT THE SANTA
CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, THE VTA. I DO WANT TO
EXPRESS MY SINCERE THANKS TO YOU
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP IN TRYING TO
COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ON THIS,
AND I ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK
SENATOR WIENER, WHO I DEEPLY
RESPECT FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN
TRANSIT AND TRANSPORT ACTION AND
ALL OF THE EXTRAORDINARY WORK
HE'S DONE, AS WELL AS SENATOR
WAHAB, IN HER EFFORTS TO SUPPORT
PUBLIC TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. VÀ. WE
RECOGNIZE MTC'S EFFORTS TO
ADDRESS A SERIOUS, SERIOUS ISSUE
FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT IN
CALIFORNIA. MY COLLEAGUES AND
FRIEND, MR. DUFTY HAS LAID OUT
SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT THAT
BART FACES HERE. AND BECAUSE
THIS BILL IS MULTIFACETED AND
INVOLVES SEVERAL DIFFERENT
AREAS, I WANT TO CONCENTRATE ON
THE AREAS IN WHICH THE VTA HAS
TAKEN ITS OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION AND THERE ARE TWO AREAS
THAT WILL FOCUS ON. BUT FIRST,
FIRST OF THOSE IS THE REVENUE
GENERATION PORTION OF THE BILL.
WE ABSOLUTELY WOULD LIKE MORE
REVENUE. LET ME MAKE THAT
PERFECTLY CLEAR IF ANYONE WAS IN
DOUBT, WE ARE NOT OPPOSING THIS.
BUT AS BACKGROUND, VTA RECEIVES
OPERATING AND CAPITAL SUPPORT
FROM FOUR DIFFERENT LOCAL SALES
TAXES. IF YOU ADD CALTRANS
MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE RR, OUR
COUNTY RESIDENTS PAY ONE AND
THREE QUARTER CENTS IN
ADDITIONAL LOCAL SALES TAX TO
SUPPORT PUBLIC TRANSIT. THESE
TAXES, NOT INCLUDING THE MEASURE
RR, GENERATE $890 MILLION PER
YEAR TO SUPPORT TRANSIT AND
CAPITAL PROJECTS. 80% OF OUR
OPERATING BUDGET IS SUPPORTED BY
THESE TAXES. WHILE OUR CAPITAL
PROJECTS ARE FUNDED BY THE
EXISTING SALES TAX MEASURES, THE
OPERATION SUPPORT FROM THEM
NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED. OTHERWISE
THAIS WILL FACE MAJOR SERVICE
REDUCTIONS. THE UNFORTUNATE
RESULT WOULD BE A REDUCTION IN
OUR SERVICE HOURS. THE IMPACT ON
THE TRANSIT DEPENDENT THE
ECONOMY VÆ AND OUR CLIMATE. ANY
REGION WIDE TAX WOULD PROVIDE
ANY COMPETING SALES TAX WOULD
PROVIDE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT.
WHEN WE NEED TO REAUTHORIZE
THOSE SALES TAXES. THERE ARE
VERY FEW WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY
TO PASS SALES TAXES AND THEY
HAVE TO BE CAREFULLY CRAFTED.
OUR OUR LOCAL MEASURES ALSO
SUPPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS ON
CALTRAIN, AND THE AMOUNT OF 1.3
BILLION BAHT. PHASE TWO AT ABOUT
A BILLION AND A HALF AND ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS, THESE TAXES
SUPPORT OPERATIONS TO OUR
FRIENDS AT BART FOR $102
MILLION. WE ALSO SUPPORT ACE AT
$4 MILLION AND CALTRAIN AT $63
MILLION. WE'RE ALSO NUMBER TWO,
DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH MTC'S
ABILITY TO WITHHOLD TDA AND ESTÁ
FUNDS. I UNDERSTAND THE
AMENDMENT WOULD LIMIT, THIS TO
TDA FUNDS. VTA IS WORKING
COOPERATIVELY WITH THE REGIONAL
NETWORK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE TO
IMPROVE SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE
BAY AREA. THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE
IS THAT SANTA CLARA COUNTY DOES
NOT FIT NEATLY INTO THE SAN
FRANCISCO OAKLAND CENTRIC VIEW
OF THE BAY AREA THAT MTC HOLDS.
80% OF THE TRIPS IN SANTA CLARA
COUNTY BEGIN AND END IN THIS
COUNTY. WE HAVE ACHIEVED 100% OF
PRE-COVID LEVELS ON OUR BUS
SERVICES FREQUENT NETWORK BY
DOING WHAT YOU KNOW, FAST,
FREQUENT, RELIABLE SERVICE, WE
THINK THERE CAN BE REASONABLE
DIFFERENCES ON PRIORITIES AND
PROVIDING ONE PARTY THE
UNCHECKED ABILITY TO DISRUPT OUR
SERVICES. NOT ACCEPTABLE ON
REVENUE. OUR CITIZENS CONTRIBUTE
ON A SIGNIFICANT SCALE AS WE
KNOW THE WAY TO SUCCEED WITH
TRANSPORTATION MEASURES IS
THROUGH COLLABORATION AND
COOPERATION. ACHIEVING BUY IN IS
THE RECIPE FOR SUCCESS, AND WE
WOULD APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE PART OF THAT SUCCESS. ON
THE REGIONAL NETWORK MANAGEMENT.
WE WANT TO WORK COOPERATIVELY.
YOU'LL HAVE TO WRAP UP. I'M
WRAPPING UP. I'M SORRY. I
APOLOGIZE FOR GOING OVER. THANKS
AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR WORK AND ALL
YOU'VE DONE TO ASSIST TRANSIT IN
THE BAY AREA, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
AUTHORS ON FURTHER, FURTHER
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG
DAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN,
AND I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING OVER.
IT HAPPENS. NEXT WITNESS IS.
GOOD EVENING. I'M MICHAELA
WRIGHT PETRICK WITH SAMTRANS,
WHICH PROVIDES FIXED ROUTE BUS,
PARATRANSIT AND ON DEMAND
SERVICE IN SAN MATEO COUNTY.
SAMTRANS HASN'T OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED, POSITION ON SB 1031.
THE BILL REQUIRES A
CONSOLIDATION STUDY ON A TIGHT
TIME FRAME WITH NO COST ESTIMATE
OR FUND SOURCE. WE SUPPORT
INSTEAD FOCUSING ON
COORDINATION, WHICH CAN HAVE A
REAL BENEFIT FOR OUR RIDERS.
SECOND, THE BILL GRANTS MTC
BROAD AUTHORITY TO PLACE THE
MEASURE ON THE BALLOT. WE'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING VOTER
SUPPORT FOR OUR LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, WHICH
MAY BE UP FOR RENEWAL IN 2028
AND PROVIDES OVER $100 MILLION
ANNUALLY. AND THIRD, THE BILL
EXPANDS, EXPANDS MTC'S AUTHORITY
TO WITHHOLD EXISTING STA AND LTF
FUNDS UNLESS CERTAIN OBJECTIVES
ARE MET. SAMTRANS RELIES ON
THESE FUNDS FOR OPERATIONS, AND
MTC SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
WITHHOLD THEM. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S FOCUS ON PROVIDING NEW
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING THROUGH THESE
ISSUES. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS JASON BAKER, DIRECTOR
OF GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS FOR CALTRAIN. THE
CALTRAIN BOARD HAS TAKEN AN
OPPOSING UNLESS AMENDED,
POSITION ON SB 1031. WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS WORKING
WITH US SINCE THAT VOTE TO TRY
TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS, BUT WE
FEEL LIKE THERE'S MORE WORK TO
BE DONE, INCLUDING REFOCUSING
THE BILL ON BETTER, ADDRESSING
OPERATING DEFICITS, FOCUSING ON
COORDINATION, NOT CONSOLIDATION,
AND ADDRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT
WITHHOLDING FUNDS THAT AGENCIES
RELY ON FOR OPERATIONS. WE THANK
YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THE
CRITICAL ISSUE OF TRANSIT
FUNDING, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU AS THIS BILL,
BILL EVOLVES. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU TO THOSE
WITNESSES. WE'RE GOING TO ASK IF
ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO COME
FORWARD AND EXPRESS AND OPPOSE
POSITION TO THIS BILL. IF SO,
PLEASE DO SO NOW. ARE YOU READY?
I THINK THAT WAS. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MATT BROUGHT HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE ATU AND THE
TEAMSTERS. I RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED, WITH REGARD TO
THE CONSOLIDATION PIECE IN THE
BILL. THANK YOU. I DON'T WANT
ROBOT BUS. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. JAMES THÀNH,
DIRECTOR WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE COUNCIL OF LABORERS. I
WANT TO THANK BOTH OF THE
AUTHORS FOR THEIR INCREDIBLE
WORK ON THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, WE
STILL ARE AT A OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION, BUT WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH BOTH OF
THE OFFICES GOING FORWARD. THANK
YOU. MANNY LEÓN CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE FOR JOBS. OPPOSE.
UNLESS AMENDED. MR. CHAIR,
MEMBERS ANDREW ANTHONY, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNTY
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF
SAN MATEO COUNTY, THE BOARD HAS
ADOPTED AN OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS. CHRIS
LEE, ON BEHALF OF THE SONOMA
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
REGIONAL CLIMATE PROTECTION
AUTHORITY HAD AN OPPOSING, LESS
AMENDED POSITION ON THE PRIOR
VERSION OF THE BILL. LOOK
FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS AND HOPING TO RESOLVE
THOSE REMAINING ISSUES. FOR THE
TWEENERS THAT OKAY. WE'RE NOT
THERE YET. OKAY, WAIT. THANK
YOU, IS THAT IT FOR OPPOSITION?
HE WAS JUST ASKING IF TWEENERS
ARE OKAY AT THIS POINT. WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE THAT AS A THIRD
GROUP, SO WE'LL GET TO YOU IF
THAT'S WHAT'S REMAINING, WE'LL
STOP HERE, DO WE HAVE, HOLD ON.
LET ME. THIS ISN'T A USUAL THING
THAT WE DO IN THIS COMMITTEE, SO
I'M GOING TO JUST SORT OF LAY
OUT THE GROUND RULES FOR THIS
REAL QUICK, YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU
WANT. OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T HAVE
A ME TOO POSITION SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION. SO, THE IDEA WOULD
BE TO SPEAK IN 30S OR LESS HALF
A MINUTE EACH, INDICATING AS
MUCH AS YOU CAN IN THAT POINT AS
TO WHAT THE DISTINCTION IS IN
YOUR POSITION. THANK YOU, ZACH
GROSS WITH TRANSFORM, ON BEHALF
OF VOICES FOR PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION. SUPPORTIVE AMEND
, WE WANT TO SEE 70% OR 750
MILLION, WHICHEVER IS GREATER
FOR OPERATIONS AND PROTECT THAT
AGAINST BONDING, PRIORITIZING
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE SOURCES AND
PROHIBITING HIGHWAY EXPANSION AS
PART OF THE MEASURE. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
AUTHORS AND SEEING THE TERMS
SHEET. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ANDRES RAMOS,
ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC ADVOCATES,
WERE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE VOICES
FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
COALITION. WE'RE IN A
SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED POSITION FOR
THE SAME REASONS STATED BY THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKER. THANK YOU,
GOOD EVENING AGAIN, STEVE
WALLACH, ON BEHALF OF THE
ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT
DISTRICT, THE AC TRANSIT BOARD
HASN'T ADOPTED A POSITION YET,
BUT THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED SOME
CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE THAT
THEY'VE SHARED WITH THE WORKING
GROUP COMMITTEE. AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH SENATOR
WIENER AND WAHAB ON RESOLVING
THOSE ISSUES. THANKS GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
GRACE KOPLAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
BAY AREA COUNCIL. WE WERE IN AND
OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED, POSITION
, BUT THE AMENDMENTS TAKE THE
BILL IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION. SO
WE ARE NOW REEVALUATING OUR
POSITION. WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR ALL
THE WORK THEY'VE DONE ON THIS
MEASURE? THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING. MY NAME IS SARAH
GREENWALD WITH 350 BAY AREA
SPEAKING AS A 5050 BAY AREA AS A
MEMBER OF VOICES FOR PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION. AND THEREFORE,
WE CONCUR, WE SUPPORT AS AMEND.
JOHN ANDERSON, SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS, IN SUPPORT
OF THE, AMENDMENTS REQUESTED BY
VOICES FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
BRIAN MIRAMONTES WITH AFSCME
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE INBETWEENERS.
WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, WE ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE AUTHORS FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD AND
THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH
US ON GETTING CLOSER TO A PLACE
WHERE AGENCIES GET THE FUNDING
THEY NEED. SERVICES ARE
MAINTAINED OR RESTORED, AND THAT
THE WORKFORCE IS SUPPORTED
DURING THE PROCESS. AND WE ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE REVENUE RAISED
AND GENERALLY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF
THE GOALS OF THE BILL AND JUST
WANT TO ENSURE THAT THOSE FUNDS
ARE ALLOCATED TRANSPARENTLY AND
THAT THEY ARE GOING WHERE THEY
ARE NEEDED MOST. SO IN ADDITION
TO THAT, JUST AIMING TO CONTINUE
REVIEWING THE CONSOLIDATION
LANGUAGE AND OTHER COMPONENTS OF
THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS LOUIS COSTA
WITH SMART TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION. WE DON'T HAVE AN
OFFICIAL POSITION, BUT WE DO
REMAIN CONCERNED WITH THE
CONSOLIDATION LANGUAGE AND WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK GOING
FORWARD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU ALL. I'M IMPRESSED.
YOU DID PRETTY WELL WITH THE 30S
EACH SEN DODD. YES, FIRST OF
ALL, I WANT TO THANK SENATOR
WIENER AND SENATOR WAHAB AND
SENATOR CORTEZ FOR, YOU KNOW,
THESE AMENDMENTS. I THINK THIS
MAKES THIS A MUCH STRONGER BILL.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS TODAY, I
REALLY THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO
HAVE SOME THOUGHTS AND SOME
CONVERSATION ON EMPOWERING
SELF-HELP AND HAVE THE REGION
MORE READILY THINK THIS OUT
THEMSELVES. WE DO HAVE A REAL
HISTORY, AND I KNOW THAT SENATOR
WIENER AND SENATOR CORTEZ KNOW
THIS AT MTC, WE ALL THREE,
SERVED AS COMMISSIONERS AND ON
REGIONAL MEASURE TWO AND
REGIONAL MEASURE THREE, WE WERE
ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT, I MIGHT
ADD, FOR THE GENTLEMAN FROM VTA,
YOU HAD 2% OF THE BRIDGE TOLLS
IN REGIONAL MEASURE THREE AND
GOT 15% OF THE MONEY. SO IT'S
NOT TO BE COMPETITIVE. IT'S JUST
I JUST THINK THE REGION GETS IN
WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND CAN GO
THROUGH A LOT OF THIS STUFF
WITHOUT PUTTING ALL THE MEMBERS
FROM CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, NORTH
NORTH CENTRAL CALIFORNIANS AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. AND I'D
LIKE TO BRING THEM A PACKAGE
BACK HERE. FRANKLY IF THAT'S AT
ALL POSSIBLE. I THINK I DON'T
THINK I KNOW THAT MTC HAS BEEN
WORKING ON THIS SINCE, YOU KNOW,
2022. AND, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE
TO SEE THEM GET TOGETHER AND SEE
WHAT THEY CAN PUT TOGETHER IN
THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, FEW WEEKS
AND GET BACK TO, THE BILL'S
AUTHOR AND TRY TO WORK SOMETHING
OUT AND THE CHAIRMAN, OF COURSE.
THANK YOU, OTHERS, OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE WISHING TO
SPEAK THIS CLEARLY IS A REGIONAL
MATTER. AND, YOU KNOW, OUT OF
DEFERENCE TO THOSE WHO AREN'T
FROM THE BAY AREA REGION, LIKE
SENATOR DODD AND MYSELF AND THE
AUTHORS, I'LL TRY TO BE PRETTY
CONCISE. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT
THIS TOURM SHEET WAS REALLY,
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A CHAIR.
THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE
TO JUST KEEP THE BILL MOVING IN
TERMS OF A RECOMMENDATION, IT'S,
I CAN'T COMPARE PAST MEASURES,
IN TERMS OF PROPORTIONALITY OF
DOLLARS AND SO FORTH. BUT THOSE
OF YOU WHO ARE SORT OF LOOKING
AT THIS AS A BAY AREA ITEM FROM
AFAR, MR. LAWSON ON THE
OPPOSITION SIDE, WHO'S ACTUALLY
REPRESENTS THE AREA SURROUNDING
SENATE DISTRICT 15 AND TO SOME
EXTENT, SENATOR WAHAB'S DISTRICT
AS WELL, HAS REALLY BEEN PRETTY
GENEROUS IN HIS COMMENTS THAT
COUNTY PAYS 30% OF ALL SALES TAX
, IN THE BAY AREA, IN A NINE
COUNTY REGION, 30% IN THIS BILL
CALLS FOR THEM TO SEND, THE
SALES TAX MONEY. IF THERE IS A
HALF CENT SALES TAX TO MTC.
LOCATED IN THEIR BEAUTIFUL
HEADQUARTERS IN SAN FRANCISCO,
WHERE I'VE SPENT PLENTY OF MY
TIME FOR THEM TO DECIDE IN
THEIR, ULTIMATE WISDOM HOW TO
REDISTRIBUTE THAT MONEY, OUT TO
THE NINE COUNTY REGION, IT SAYS
70% RETURN TO SOURCE, BUT IT
SAYS MTC WILL DECIDE WHICH
PROJECTS AND WHICH PROGRAMS WILL
BE SUPPORTED. IT'S NOT GOING TO
FLY, THE OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN FOR
THIS MEASURE IS STARTED ALREADY
IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY. I, I
UNDERSTAND FROM THE OUTREACH
THAT I HAD TO DO TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS THERE, TO THE MAYOR
OF SAN JOSE, WHO'S ABSOLUTELY
REQUIRED AN 80% RETURN TO
SOURCE, AN ACTUAL RETURN TO
SOURCE, NOT MONEY THAT'S
FILTERED THROUGH A REGIONAL
AGENCY, YOU KNOW THAT THOSE
FOLKS ARE, ARE ARE COMING OUT
MORE PUBLICLY TOMORROW WITH
THEIR OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN. AND
TO SENATOR DODD'S POINT, YOU
KNOW, ALL THE YEARS THAT I
WORKED IN THIS REGIONAL
GOVERNMENT SPACE, WHICH ALL IN
ALL, IF YOU INCLUDE THE COG AND
THE MTC WAS 20 STRAIGHT YEARS,
THE WAY THIS WOULD WORK IS THOSE
REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD GO
OUT TO MAYORS CONFERENCES,
THEY'D GO OUT TO BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS. THEY WOULD GO OUT
TO STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND
GENERATE A CONSENSUS SUPPORT
AROUND WHAT WAS GOING TO BE
BROUGHT TO THE LEGISLATURE. THAT
HAPPENED. SOME OF YOU WHO WERE
HERE WOULD REMEMBER THAT
HAPPENING WITH A HOUSING BILL
THAT, THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER DAVID
CHIU BROUGHT FORWARD A COUPLE
YEARS AGO, INTENSIVE OUTREACH
DONE BY THE REGIONAL ENTITY, NOT
BY THE LEGISLATURE, NOT BY
CHAIRS OF COMMITTEES, NOT BY
COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS. BUT THAT
WORK WOULD BE DONE AND BROUGHT
FORWARD. AS SENATOR DODD SAID,
IN A PACKAGE WHERE THERE'S
CONSENSUS, I THINK THE PROBLEM
HERE THAT'S RAPID BECOMING,
BEYOND A, YOU KNOW, A TICKING
BOMB TYPE OF A SITUATION IS THAT
THAT WORK HASN'T HAPPENED. IT
HASN'T HAPPENED REGIONALLY AND
LOCALLY TO THE EXTENT WHERE
THERE'S ANY KIND OF CONSENSUS
AND IN FACT, PEOPLE ARE STARTING
TO GET VERY, VERY SCARED THAT
THEIR ABILITY TO RAISE LOCAL
REVENUES TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN,
OPERATORS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
THAT'S ONE OPERATOR COTERMINOUS
WITH THE COUNTY IN THE MIDDLE OF
SILICON VALLEY, DEPENDENT ON
SALES TAXES. WONDERING HOW IN
THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO, KEEP
OURSELVES AFLOAT IN THE FUTURE,
WITH THE DISPLACEMENT OF THOSE
SALES TAXES BY HALF CENT THAT WE
DON'T EVEN CONTROL, YOU COULD
SEE WHY THAT WOULD BE
PROBLEMATIC IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA,
ANY PLACE. IF YOU TOOK ONE
COUNTY WITH 30% OF THE SALES
TAXES AND SAID, PUT IT IN AN
ENVELOPE, SEND IT IN A CHECK TO
SAN FRANCISCO, AND WE'LL FIGURE
OUT HOW TO REDISTRIBUTE IT FOR
YOU. IT'S A HIT PIECE WAITING TO
HAPPEN. SO SENATOR WIENER KNOWS
THAT SENATOR WAHAB KNOWS THAT
PRO TEM KNOWS THAT WITH ALL
THOSE NAMES WERE MENTIONED
EARLIER, SENATOR GLASER KNOWS
THAT, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THIS AND
SEE IF WE CAN SORT OF BACKTRACK
AND FIGURE OUT, HOW TO DEAL WITH
IT IN MY OPINION, THE SIMPLEST
WAY IS A DIRECT RETURN TO SOURCE
, BASED ON WHERE THAT SALES TAX
IS COMING FROM AS TO WHATEVER
THAT NUMBER IS, 70 OR 80% OF
THIS MEASURE, WE HAVEN'T BEEN
ABLE TO GET THERE TODAY IN THIS
COMMITTEE, BUT IF THAT'S NOT
DONE SOON, SOON, YOU KNOW, I
SUSPECT THAT THE MEASURE ITSELF
WON'T BE THE BILL ITSELF WILL
NOT BE LONG LIVED, AND EVEN IF
IT IS, THERE WILL BE NO
SUCCESSFUL MEASURE LOCALLY
BECAUSE THE BIGGEST COUNTY IN
THE REGION IS, IS ALREADY
OPPOSING IT. THAT SAID, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO
SEE IF OUR OUTSTANDING AUTHORS
HERE CAN PULL THIS OFF. AND I
REMAIN, WILLING AND ABLE TO HELP
ALONG THE WAY, BUT I WANTED TO
MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THERE'S
A VERY, VERY CONDITIONAL. I VOTE
ON MY PART TODAY, AND, PROBABLY
MORE TIME THAN I'VE PUT IN
ALREADY INTO ANY, ANY BILL IN MY
THREE AND A HALF YEARS HERE. AND
WE'RE JUST AT THE BEGINNING
POINT. SO THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHORS, SENATOR, SENATORS, IF
YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE, WE CAN TAKE
UP A VOTE ON THE BILL. FINALLY
YES. THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE A FEW
REMARKS AND TURN IT OVER TO
SENATOR WAHAB, FIRST OF ALL, SO,
MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO, THANK YOU
FOR WORKING SO INTENSIVELY WITH
US, UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF, ENERGY, SHALL WE
SAY, IN THE SOUTH BAY AND ALSO
ALSO IN SAN MATEO COUNTY, WHICH
I REPRESENT, ALMOST 20% OF, AND
I WE NEED I NEED TO BE VERY,
VERY CLEAR IF WE'RE GOING TO GO
TO THE WHATEVER GETS OUT OF THE
LEGISLATURE TO GO TO THE BALLOT
AND TO PASS SOMETHING REGIONALLY
WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT CONSENT
. IT'S NOT 100, BUT CONSENT
CONSENSUS IN A LOT OF BROAD
SUPPORT GEOGRAPHICALLY AND
BUSINESS COMMUNITY, LABOR
ADVOCACY COMMUNITY AND SO FORTH.
IF YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF IF
YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
OPPOSITION THAT MAKES IT VERY
HARD TO PASS SOMETHING. SO I
THINK WE HAVE THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF WORK OVER MANY, MANY YEARS
FOR VARIOUS REGIONAL MEASURES TO
BUILD THAT SUPPORT, WE ARE AT
THE BEGINNING HERE. WHAT MY
OFFICE HAS DONE A LOT OF
OUTREACH ALL OVER, THE REGION.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO SO. I
AGREE, WE NEED MORE AND MORE OF
THAT OUTREACH. SO THAT WE CAN
REALLY BUILD THAT SUPPORT. I
ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY, HAVING
SERVED WITH YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
WITH SENATOR DODD ON THE MTC, ON
SOME LEVEL, THE A REALLY HIGH
RETURN RETURN TO SOURCE LIKE
DIRECT TO COUNTIES IN SOME WAYS
BENEFITS, MUNI BENEFITS, SAN
FRANCISCO BECAUSE WE HAVE LIKE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY. SAN
FRANCISCO HAS A TRANSIT AGENCY
THAT IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE
COUNTY, BUT FOR ME, IT'S ABOUT.
YES ABOUT MY OWN. BUT BUT ALSO,
AS I KNOW IT IS FOR YOU ABOUT
THE REGION WHICH IS SO
INTEGRATED AND NEEDS TO BE MORE
INTEGRATED. THERE'S BEEN A
LITTLE BIT OF A NARRATIVE IN
THIS PROCESS, THAT, FOR EXAMPLE,
BART, WHICH HAS HAD THE MOST
OBVIOUS FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, THAT
THAT IT'S ABOUT JUST ONE LIMITED
AREA WHEN WE KNOW THAT BAR IN
ADDITION TO THE COUNTIES THAT
PAY SALES TAX AND THERE ARE ONLY
THREE THAT DO SAN FRANCISCO,
ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SIX BART
STATIONS IN SAN MATEO COUNTY,
WHICH DOES NOT PAY SALES TAX,
BUT THERE ARE SIX THERE. AND I
KNOW, MR. CHAIR, THAT YOU'RE
COMMITTED, AND I'M COMMITTED TO
MAKING SURE THAT BART GOES ALL
THE WAY DOWN TO SAN JOSE. SO
BART WILL GO FROM SAN JOSE ALL
THE WAY THROUGH THE EAST BAY AND
THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INTO SAN
FRANCISCO AND FAIRLY
SIGNIFICANTLY INTO SAN MATEO
COUNTY. WE KNOW THAT CALTRAIN,
WHICH HAS A PROBLEM STARTING IN
A COUPLE OF YEARS, CONNECTS MY
CITY, TO YOURS. WE KNOW THAT ALL
OF THESE THAT SMART HAS SUCH
HUGE POTENTIAL AS IT EXPANDS TO
REALLY CONNECT THE NORTH BAY.
THESE ARE THESE SYSTEMS ARE ALL
BECOMING MORE AND MORE
INTEGRATED, AND THEY HAVE TO BE
MORE INTEGRATED. AND AS WE ALL
WORK TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THE
NEEDS OF DIFFERENT COUNTIES, WE
NEED TO NEVER FORGET THAT WE'RE
NOT JUST OUR COUNTY, THAT WE ALL
DEPEND ON EACH OTHER AND WE ALL
RISE OR FALL TOGETHER. AND SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE, AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO
MY COLLEAGUE. THANK YOU. I JUST
WANT TO BE VERY FRANK, AND I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE ALL THE
WORK THAT EVERY SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL HAS. REALLY GIVEN TO
THIS EFFORT, YOU KNOW, MY
INTENTION WITH THE ORIGINAL BILL
TO CONSOLIDATE AND REALLY
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS WAS
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, YOU
KNOW, THERE IS 27 AGENCIES IN
NINE BAY AREA COUNTIES, SOME
ALSO DUPLICATING EFFORTS IN THE
SAME AREAS AND STILL TAKING AWAY
MONEY FROM THE POT OF MONEY THAT
IS TRANSPORTATION. BUT NOT
NECESSARILY DELIVERING BETTER
SERVICE OR MORE DEEPER INTO THE
BAY AREA. AND I THINK THAT'S
PROBLEMATIC, AND SO WITH THIS
EFFORT AND ALSO WORKING WITH
SENATOR WIENER, YOU KNOW, I
REPRESENT THE EAST BAY AND THE
SOUTH BAY, AND I SHARE THE SOUTH
BAY WITH YOU, CHAIR CORTESE AND
I OFTEN TELL SENATOR WIENER, YOU
KNOW, THE BAY AREA IS BIGGER
THAN JUST SAN FRANCISCO. SO I DO
HAVE CONCERNS WITH, YOU KNOW,
FUNDING JUST IN ONE PARTICULAR
AREA OR GOAL, AND I THINK THAT
THIS BILL SOLVES A LOT OF THE
CONCERNS WE HAVE. RIGHT. WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT RETURN TO SOURCE.
AND I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR,
LAST YEAR WE CLEARLY SAW
TRANSPORTATION BEING CUT,
FUNDING BEING CUT, AND WE HAD TO
CLAW BACK FOR THE MONEY. THERE
WE ALSO KNOW RIDERSHIP IS STILL
JUGGLING REGARDLESS OF WE WANT
TO TALK ABOUT COVID, PRE-COVID
OR POST COVID ACROSS THE BOARD.
IT'S STILL NOT WHERE WE NEED IT
TO BE. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE ENVIRONMENT AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT VEHICLE MILES
TRAVELED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT REALLY
TRANSPORTATION OCEAN COVERS. AND
THIS BILL IN PARTICULAR
ADDRESSES A LOT OF THOSE
CONCERNS. WE HAVE TALKED TO A
LOT OF OPPOSITION. AND TO BE
COMPLETELY FRANK, THERE ARE
CERTAIN THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT THE
FINGER ON THE SCALE IN REGARDS
TO THE STUDY, AND WE'VE HAD
THOSE OPEN AND HONEST
DISCUSSIONS AS TO EXACTLY WHAT
ARE WE DOING. WE ALSO DON'T WANT
MORE AND MORE AGENCIES TO BE
CREATED AND CREATED, NOT IN A
UNIFORM MANNER, BUT ALSO TAKING
MONEY FROM THE POT OF MONEY THAT
IS THERE. THIS BILL NOT ONLY HAS
A TRUE HONEST, INDEPENDENT
STUDY, IT ALSO PUTS MONEY ON THE
TABLE. MONEY THAT LITERALLY CAN
IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSIT. MAKE
SURE THAT WE ARE MAINTAINING OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT BOTH IN REGARDS TO
JUST OUR HIGHWAYS AND SO FORTH
THAT WE ARE IN NEGOTIATION WITH,
BUT ALSO THE INFRASTRUCTURE
LAYER OF ALL OF THESE AGENCIES
AND WHAT THEY DO. AND WE'RE
PUTTING PEOPLE TO WORK,
AMERICANS TO WORK. THAT IS ONE
OF THE GOALS WE NEED TO INVEST.
AND SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE BECAUSE THIS IS A GOOD
BILL. THIS IS A HARD DISCUSSION,
BUT IT'S VERY SIMPLE TO ANSWER.
WE NEED THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO THANK YOU.
ASK FOR A MOTION. WAS THERE A
MOTION FROM SENATOR DODD? I
THOUGHT SO, WE WILL RESTATE THE
MOTION AND CALL THE ROLL. THIS
IS FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX. SB
1031. THE MOTION IS TO PASS AND
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE AND TAXATION. SENATORS
CORTEZ. AYE. CORTEZ. AYE. NILO.
HILO. NO. ALAN ALLEN. AYE.
ARCHULETA. Ã. ARCHULETA. AYE.
BLAKE. SPEAR BLAKE. SPEAR. AYE.
DOLLY. DOLLY. NÓ. DODD HI. DODD.
AYE. GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD.
AYE. LIMÓN LIMON. AYE. NEWMAN.
NEWMAN. AYE. WHEN WHEN? NO.
PORTANTINO PORTANTINO. AYE.
SATO. UMBERG. AYE UMBERG. AYE.
10 TO 3. 10 TO 0 THREE. I'M
SORRY. 10 TO 3. IS THE VOTE
CURRENTLY? AND I THINK WE'RE
LEAVING OUT ON CALL. RIGHT. YES.
OKAY THANK YOU, SENATOR NILO.
FOR ITEM 15, THIS IS THE SECOND
TO THE LAST BILL, WE'RE GOING TO
HEAR TODAY, IN CASE PEOPLE ARE
WONDERING, SENATOR NILO ON FILE
ITEM 15 IS SB 1260 SECOND TO THE
LAST BILL. AND ONE OF THE BEST.
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
AND, FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT. LET ME WE JUST ASK
PEOPLE TO TAKE THEIR
CONVERSATIONS OUT INTO THE
CORRIDOR, PLEASE, SO, SENATOR
NILO CAN HAVE THE RESPECT AND,
WELL, MAYBE THEY WANT TO HEAR MY
PRESENTATION, DOESN'T APPEAR TO
BE HAPPENING. SENATOR, I HATE TO
DISAPPOINT YOU. OH, WELL, ALL
RIGHT, YOU CAN PROCEED WHENEVER
YOU WANT. I'M JUST TRYING TO. I
I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB 1260,
A BILL THAT REQUIRES THE HIGH
SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OIG, TO
PERFORM AN ANALYSIS OF THE HIGH
SPEED RAIL PROJECT, INCLUDING
THE DETERMINATION OF THE
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
JUSTIFICATION. NOW, AS AS YOU
WILL ALL RECALL, ON MARCH 12TH
OF THIS YEAR, THE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE HELD AN INFORMATIONAL
HEARING ON THE REVIEW OF THE
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL
AUTHORITY DRAFT 2024 BUSINESS
PLAN. WHILE MANY CONCERNS WERE
RAISED DURING THAT HEARING, WHAT
WAS PARTICULARLY NOTABLE TO ME
WERE OBSERVATIONS BY THE HIGH
SPEED RAIL PEER REVIEW GROUP.
FULL PHASE ONE SYSTEM WILL COST
AT LEAST THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS
WAS ORIGINALLY REPRESENTED. IT
WILL TAKE 20 YEARS LONGER. IT
WILL NOT MEET THE TRIP TIMES
SPECIFIED, AND WILL CARRY ONLY
ABOUT 70% OF THE OTHERWISE
PROJECTED PASSENGERS. THIS IS
QUITE SIMPLY NOT MEETING THE
COMMITMENTS OF VOTERS. WHEN
PROPOSITION ONE A WAS PASSED,
THE HIGH SPEED REVIEW REVIEW
PEER GROUP, HIGH SPEED RAIL PEER
GROUP, MADE SEVERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE, ONE OF WHICH WAS
FOR AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW,
SPECIFICALLY, THEY SAID, WE
SUGGEST THAT THE LEGISLATURE
MIGHT WANT TO COMMISSION AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT,
INCLUDING THE ABILITY TO OPERATE
WITHOUT OUT SUBSIDY AS REQUIRED
BY PROPOSITION ONE, A, BEFORE
RECOMMITTING TO THE FULL PHASE
ONE SYSTEM. IT DIDN'T SAY NOT
COMMITTING TO THE PHASE ONE
SYSTEM, BUT BECAUSE OF ALL OF
THE ISSUES, LET'S MAYBE TAKE A
TIMEOUT AND REASSESS THINGS. I
FOUND THIS TO BE A VERY
REASONABLE SUGGESTION, GIVEN THE
MASSIVE COST OF THIS PROJECT TO
THE TAXPAYER AND THE EQUALLY
MASSIVE DEFICIT THE STATE IS
FACING. THEY SUGGESTED A
FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW COULD
BE FOUND IN THE AUTHORITY, THE
FOUND IN THE AUTHORITY TO THE
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
IN SUPPORT OF RECENT GRANT
REQUESTS. THEY ALSO SUGGESTED A
THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE
SUBMISSION BY AN INDEPENDENT
ACADEMIC INSTITUTION AND
OVERSEEN BY AN INDEPENDENT STATE
AGENCY. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY
TO TAKE THIS TYPE OF REVIEW
UNDER CONSIDERATION, ENSURING WE
ARE NOT PUTTING GOOD MONEY AFTER
BAD. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO CONDUCT AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HIGH SPEED
RAIL PROJECT, INCLUDING A REVIEW
AND ASSESSMENT OF A SPECIFIED
BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS SUBMITTED
BY THE HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY
TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION. THE BILL
WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL TO CONDUCT AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE
ABILITY OF THE HIGH SPEED RAIL
PROJECT TO OPERATE. AS I SAID
BEFORE, WITHOUT SUBSIDY BEFORE
THE LEGISLATURE, RECOMMITS TO
THE FULL PHASE ONE SYSTEM AND
FINALLY, THE BILL REQUIRES THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO CONSULT
WITH INDUSTRY EXPERTS FOR THESE
REVIEWS. I DO NOT HAVE ANY
FORMAL WITNESSES HERE TODAY, BUT
I DO HAVE COMMENTS FROM LOU
THOMPSON, FROM THE HIGH SPEED
RAIL PEER GROUP, THAT I WOULD
LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU AS HE
WROTE IN THE REVIEW, AS THE
PROJECT HAS MOVED FORWARD, IT IS
BECOMING CLEAR THAT THE LESSONS
LEARNED OFTEN INSPECT AND
EXPENSE OF AND PAINFUL SHOULD BE
APPLIED TO THE HIGH SPEED RAIL
AUTHORITY PROJECT AND OTHER MEGA
PROJECTS THAT WILL EMERGE. WE
RECOMMEND WE RECOMMENDED THAT AN
APPROPRIATE AGENCY COMMISSION
AND INDEPENDENT STUDY OF THE
EXPERIENCE OF THE PROJECT AND
THE LESSONS THE STATE SHOULD
LEARN FROM THIS AND OTHER RECENT
MEGA PROJECTS THAT MUST BE
APPLIED TO FUTURE MEGA PROJECTS.
THE STATE UNDERTAKES OR
SUPPORTS. AS AN INITIAL STEP IN
DOING SO, THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT
WANT TO REQUEST THAT THE PEER
REVIEW GROUP AND THE LAO WORK
WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND
THE HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY TO
PROVIDE A REPORT TO BE DISCUSSED
AS PART OF THE 2025 PLAN. SO. I
THINK WE'RE AT A SERIOUS POINT
WITH REGARD TO HIGH SPEED RAIL
THAT, WE NEED ANOTHER $100
BILLION, AS IS ESTIMATED TO
COMPLETE PHASE ONE, AND WE HAVE
NO IDEA WHERE IT IS COMING FROM.
AND WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW IF WE
COMPLETE PHASE ONE, IS IT GOING
TO COMPLY WITH PROPOSITION ONE?
A AND IT SEEMS LIKE A DIFFICULT
TASK AT THIS POINT. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. ANY WITNESSES? SENATOR? NO
ALL RIGHT. ANYONE HERE WISHES TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE
SENATOR'S BILL IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM, SEEING NONE, ANYONE WHO IS
OPPOSED, PLEASE COME FORWARD. I
PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF,
PUBLICLY, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE A
COUPLE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. KEITH DUNN HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, THE
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF IRONWORKERS,
AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATION FOR
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED TRAINS, I
WOULD BE PLEASED TO SIT AND
DEBATE THE MERITS OF HIGH SPEED
RAIL. I THINK THERE ARE MANY. I
THINK IT MEETS THE POLICY GOALS
OF THE STATE. THIS IS NOT WHAT
THE BILL IS. THIS BILL IS TO
DIRECT THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS, TO COME
TO SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE
PROJECT. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH
HIGH SPEED RAIL SINCE BEFORE THE
BOND AND HAVE WORKED TO SUPPORT
A CHALLENGING PROJECT THAT IS
GOING TO BE THE FIRST HIGH SPEED
RAIL PROGRAM IN OUR NATION, AND
IT'S ACCURATE THAT THERE'S BEEN
SOME MISSTEPS. THERE ARE LOTS OF
REASONS FOR THAT, BUT THE
PROGRESS THAT WE'VE MADE
RECENTLY IN ACQUIRING BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS FROM FEDERAL FUNDING
SHOWS THAT WE'RE ON THE RIGHT
PATH. WE'RE MOVING TO GET TRAIN
SETS AND MOVING FORWARD WITH
THIS PROGRAM. WITH REGARDS TO
THIS BILL, I SUPPORTED THE
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR. LET ME SAY
AGAIN, INDEPENDENT AUDITOR, THE
REASON THAT WE HAVE AN
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR, AGAIN,
INDEPENDENT IS SO THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION, THE LEGISLATURE,
LOBBYISTS AND OTHERS CAN
INFLUENCE THE DIRECTION THAT HE
TAKES. HE'S THIS THIS AUDITOR
WHO HAS BEEN APPOINTED JUST GOT
APPROVED WITH THE BUDGET, IS
MOVING FORWARD AND MAKING
INDEPENDENT DECISIONS ON THIS
PROJECT. AS AN INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR, I THINK THE WORST THING
THAT WE COULD DO IS START
DIRECTING THE INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS
TO COME TO CONCLUSIONS THAT SOME
OF US MAY HAVE ON THIS PROJECT.
AGAIN, THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
IS IN PLACE. THE INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR IS GOING TO DO WHAT THE
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR HAS BEEN SET
OUT TO DO, WHICH IS
INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THIS
PROJECT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
OVERSIGHT BOARD THAT WAS
MENTIONED AND THE HIGH SPEED
RAIL AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. BUT
HE'S AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
WHO'S BEEN SET FORTH TO TAKE AN
INDEPENDENT PATH TO MAKE THOSE
DECISIONS. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, I WOULD ASK FOR A NO
VOTE ON THIS BILL. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO
WISHES TO EXPRESS AND OPPOSE
POSITION? IF SO, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. I'M SEEING NO ONE STEP
FORWARD IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM.
WE'LL COME BACK. SENATOR BLAKE
SPEAR. YES. THANK YOU, I'M GOING
TO ALIGN MY COMMENTS WITH THE,
OPPOSITION WITNESS HERE. I THINK
WE'VE ONLY RECENTLY HIRED THE
INDEPENDENT AUDIT. THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, AND I WAS PART OF THE
HIRING COMMITTEE THAT WAS
REVIEWING THE APPLICANTS FOR
THAT. AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN LESS
THAN A YEAR THAT THAT PERSON HAS
BEEN IN OFFICE AND TRYING TO DO
THE WORK. SO I THINK WE SHOULD
LET HIM DO IT. SO I'LL I WILL
NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL
TODAY. THANK YOU. OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, SENATOR SATO.
YEAH. WE DID HIRE THAT INSPECTOR
LAST YEAR, AND, AND I HOPE TO
GET SOME GOOD WORK OUT OF HIM,
BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE
MORE WE SHED LIGHT ON THE
PROJECT AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS, WHERE
IT'S AT, WHAT IT'S DOING, AND
HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST, THE
BETTER, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC AT
THIS TIME HAS A PRETTY LARGE
DISTRUST IN THIS PARTICULAR
PROJECT. AND WHILE IT IS THE
FIRST HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT IN
THE NATION. CORRECT. THERE'S
ANOTHER ONE THAT THEY JUST BROKE
GROUND ON YESTERDAY OR. YEAH,
YESTERDAY, AS A MATTER OF FACT,
GOING ABOUT 120 MORE MILES IN
THIS ONE, THAT WILL PROBABLY BE
DONE IN 2028. AND WE NEED TO
KNOW WHY, SO I SUPPORT THESE
EFFORTS OF SHEDDING SOME LIGHT
ON, ON THESE PROJECTS SO THAT WE
KNOW HOW TO DO IT BETTER IN THE
FUTURE, BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID,
THE PUBLIC IS VERY, SKEPTICAL
NOW OF THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS.
AND IF WE'RE GOING TO GAIN THEIR
SUPPORT, WE'RE GOING TO NEED
THEM TO NOT BE SKEPTICAL AND TO
BE BEHIND THEM AND, THE ONLY WAY
WE CAN DO THAT IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION WE
NEED TO PRESENT TO THEM SO THEY
CAN MAKE THEIR JUDGMENT ON
WHETHER WE ARE SPENDING THEIR
TAXPAYER DOLLARS, CORRECTLY OR
NOT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? YES,
SENATOR DALI, THANK YOU. WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY GOOD
FRIEND HERE IN OPPOSITION, I
TAKE A LITTLE DIFFERENT TACT ON,
THE HIGH SPEED TRAIN. I HAVE NOT
BEEN A FAN FROM DAY ONE, AND I
DON'T THINK THAT'S ANY SECRET,
AND NOT FOR THE FACT THAT I
DON'T THINK HIGH SPEED RAIL IS A
GOOD PROJECT OR A BAD PROJECT. I
TAKE THE, LOOK AT, ARE WE REALLY
DOING WHAT WE TOLD THE
CALIFORNIANS WHAT WE WERE GOING
TO DO AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENT?
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
IT'S COSTING PER TON, $100,000
PER TON OF REDUCTION OF CARBON.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE TRAIN
ACTUALLY DOES THE JOB THAT THEY
SAY IT'S GOING TO DO, PROJECTED
ON THE RIDERSHIP THAT SOMEDAY
MAY HAPPEN AT THE COST, FOR 6 TO
$8 A TON, YOU CAN REDUCE CARBON
BY DOING GOOD FORESTRY. AND I
THINK THAT'S A WAY BETTER PLACE
TO SPEND OUR, OUR RESOURCES IN
CALIFORNIA AT THE SAME TIME,
I'VE BEEN ON THE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE, AND ON THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE, WHERE WE'VE HAD
SEVERAL DIFFERENT DIRECTORS. AND
I THINK THE LAST DIRECTOR IS ON
HIS WAY OUT, BUT IT HAS BEEN A
BOONDOGGLE. IT HAS BEEN HAD MANY
DIFFERENT, THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN
VERY FRUSTRATING. AND THE COST
AND, YOU KNOW, WE HEAR EVERY DAY
IN THESE COMMITTEES THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO
JUST, YOU KNOW, HELP US OUT.
WELL WELL, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS $34 TRILLION IN
DEBT TODAY. THAT'S OUR KIDS
FUTURE. EVERY 100 DAYS. IT'S $1
TRILLION IN INTEREST TO PAY THAT
DEBT EVERY 100 DAYS. THAT'S 3
TRILLION A YEAR. SO I'M TELLING
YOU RIGHT NOW, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO
CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD US
UP. THEY'RE GOING TO BE
COMPLETELY BROKE. AND OUR NATION
IS GOING TO BE BROKE. WE HAVE TO
DO SOMETHING ABOUT SPENDING. WE
HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE. AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, I WILL SUPPORT
THIS. THIS BILL. BUT WE NEED TO
REALLY LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE
REDUCTION THE INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT IS NOT REDUCING
INFLATION. IT'S ACTUALLY
PROMOTING IT. AND IT'S OUR KIDS
FUTURE THAT'S ON THE LINE. AND
THAT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE DON'T
REALLY TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THAT.
SO I WANT TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS
I KNOW THAT THIS BILL WILL DIE
TODAY. AND THE HIGH SPEED TRAIN
20 YEARS FROM NOW. REMEMBER MY
WORDS BECAUSE THIS THING IS
HORRIBLE FOR CALIFORNIA. AND
IT'S WAY TOO MUCH MONEY AND IT'S
NOT GOING TO DO WHAT IT SAID IT
WAS GOING TO DO FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT ON TOP OF IT. AND TO
MY FRIENDS ALL ACROSS THE AISLE
WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS, I
KNOW IT'S HARD FOR YOU BECAUSE
MOST OF YOU BELIEVE WHAT I HAVE
SAID, BUT JUST CAN'T VOTE THAT
WAY, DO WHAT'S RIGHT AND KILL
THIS THING AND LET'S MOVE ON TO
HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT. YES.
SENATOR NGUYEN, THANK THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. I, I AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES HERE. LOOK, 2008, IT
WAS ESTIMATED THAT THIS HIGH
SPEED RAIL WAS GOING TO BE ABOUT
$45 BILLION. 2024 THE DRAFT,
$106 BILLION APPROXIMATE TO
POTENTIAL UP TO 127 BILLION.
WHERE? WHEN DOES IT STOP? AND I
THINK THAT'S WHERE IT'S ALWAYS
GOOD TO HAVE MORE REVIEW. LOOK
AT THE FINANCIAL GO TO THE
VOTERS AND LET THEM KNOW. AND SO
THIS BILL IS A IT'S A GOOD BILL.
IT TELLS US IT GETS IT MOVES US
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IT'S
JUST GIVING US THE DATA. AND SO
I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT,
TONIGHT, TODAY IT'S TONIGHT
ACTUALLY TONIGHT. THANK YOU.
TONIGHT SOMETIME BEFORE TOMORROW
? NO, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING
TO COMMENT OR ASK A QUESTION.
COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIR HAVE, NO
RECOMMENDATION ON ON ON THIS
ITEM. SIMPLY, RECOMMEND THAT
EVERYBODY VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE
AS USUAL. AND WITH THAT, WE'LL
ALLOW SENATOR NEAL TO CLOSE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE,
WELL, THANK YOU FOR, FOR THE
COMMENTS. I KNOW THAT THIS IS
CONTROVERSIAL, THE PROJECT
ITSELF IS CONTROVERSIAL, MY
PROPOSAL HERE IS CONTROVERSIAL,
BUT BUT HERE'S THE DEAL. WE'RE,
KIND OF AT A, AN IMPORTANT POINT
ON THE PROJECT. THE MOST RECENT
UPDATE THAT WE HAD, LAST MONTH,
THE LAO AND THE, THE PEER GROUP
WERE BOTH UNUSUALLY CRITICAL AS
COMPARED TO PREVIOUS UPDATES.
AND I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY
THAT EVERY TIME WE ASSESS THE
COST, THEY INCREASE. AND. RIGHT
NOW IT'S GOING TO TAKE I THINK
IT'S $7 BILLION TO COMPLETE JUST
THE CENTRAL VALLEY PORTION. AND
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THAT MONEY
IS COMING FROM. $100 BILLION TO
COMPLETE PHASE ONE. AND WE HAVE
NO IDEA WHERE THAT MONEY IS
COMING FROM. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME
A LEGITIMATE TIME TO CALL A TIME
OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE
WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE'RE
GOING. AND I'D ALSO POINT OUT
THAT WE ARE GOING TO WE'RE
ALREADY ON THE WAY TO AND WE
WILL END UP WITH A PROJECT THAT
IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE VOTERS
APPROVED. AND WITH PROPOSITION
ONE A AND AS, SENATOR NGUYEN
SAID, THE ORIGINAL COST ESTIMATE
WAS $45 BILLION. BUT IF YOU READ
THE TITLE AND SUMMARY OF
PROPOSITION ONE, A, IT SAYS
BASICALLY YOU GET THE WHOLE
SYSTEM FOR THE 9.5 BILLION THAT
WAS APPROVED AT THAT TIME. IF
YOU READ THE TITLE. IN SUMMARY,
UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF PEOPLE
MAKE A DECISIONS ON PROPOSITIONS
JUST READING THE TITLE AND
SUMMARY, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE
ANOTHER BILL TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THAT. BUT I WON'T DIGRESS
TO THAT AT THIS POINT. THE OTHER
THING IS, THIS SYSTEM IS NOT
GOING TO OPERATE WITHOUT
SUBSIDY, AND THAT WAS ADMITTED
TO DURING THE REPORT BY THE HEAD
OF THE HIGH SPEED, HIGH SPEED
RAIL AUTHORITY, BECAUSE AS I
ASKED THE QUESTION AFTER READING
THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION, I
DON'T SEE ANYTHING HERE ABOUT
THE AMORTIZATION OF FIXED COSTS.
AND HE SAID, THAT'S RIGHT. WE
NEVER DO THAT. NOW ANYBODY WHO'S
IN BUSINESS, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE
TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS YOUR
PROFITABILITY BY NOT ACCOUNTING
FOR THE DEPRECIATION OF YOUR
BUILDINGS AND FIXED EQUIPMENT,
YOU'D PROBABLY MAKE A HECK OF A
LOT MORE MONEY, OR YOU COULD
SHOW THAT ON A FINANCIAL
STATEMENT, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE
TRUE. SO WE ALREADY HAVE THE
ASSUMPTION OF THE AUTHORITY THAT
THE AMORTIZATION OF FIXED COSTS
WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THAT
WHICH FARES WILL RECOVER. I
RATHER DOUBT THAT THE VOTERS
BELIEVED THAT WHEN THEY APPROVED
PROPOSITION ONE A AND YOU WON'T
FIND THAT LANGUAGE ANYWHERE IN
THE PROPOSITION. SO EVENTUALLY
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REAL
PROBLEM WITH VOTERS AS TO WHAT'S
GOING TO BE DELIVERED, BECAUSE
IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE LATE. IT
WILL CONTINUE TO BE MORE
EXPENSIVE. AND I THINK WE NEED
TO CALL A TIMEOUT AND FIGURE OUT
WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE'RE
GOING. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR DAWLEY, AND WE'LL ASK
THE COMMITTEE ASSISTANT TO
RESTATE THE MOTION AND CALL THE
ROLL, PLEASE. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 15, SB 1260. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR CORTEZ NÓ CORTEZ, NÓ.
NILO ALLEN. AYE. ALLEN. AYE.
ARCHULETA. NO. THAT WAS NILO.
AYE. OH SORRY. NILO. AYE. ALLEN.
ARCHULETA BLAKE. SPEER. NO.
BLAKE. SPEER. NO. DALLY DALLY I
DODD. DODD. NO. GONZALEZ LAIRD.
LAIRD. NO. LIMÓN LIMÓN. NO.
NEWMAN. NO. NEWMAN. NO. WHEN I
WHEN I PORTANTINO. CIERTO.
CIERTO I UMBERG. TO. NO OKAY.
ARCHULETA. NO. 4 TO 7 ON CALL.
ALL RIGHT. THE CURRENT VOTES FOR
SUPPORT SEVEN OPPOSED ON CALL.
THANK YOU. TAKING CARE OF THE
REFERENCE
.
PHASE WINNING. I'M JUST KIDDING.
CÁC HAS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND COLLEAGUES,
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 915 TO YOU TODAY, SB
915 ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
WEIGH IN ON THE OPERATIONS OF
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE SERVICES, OR
AVS, IN THEIR COMMUNITY,
PARTICULARLY FOR COMMERCIAL
PASSENGER SERVICE. CURRENTLY, AV
OPERATIONS ARE APPROVED OR
DENIED AT THE STATE LEVEL BY THE
DMV OR THE PUC, THOUGH THE WHOLE
PROCEEDINGS TO GATHER PUBLIC
INPUT. THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THE
STATE WILL CONSIDER LOCAL
CONCERNS AS THESE CONCERNS ARE
JUSTIFIABLE. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN HUNDREDS
OF ACCIDENTS IN SAN FRANCISCO,
WHERE THEY WERE DEPLOYED MONTHS
AGO. THE FIRST CITY WHERE THEY
WERE AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE IN
2023, THE SAN FRANCISCO FIRE
DEPARTMENT REPORTED MORE THAN 70
INSTANCES OF DRIVERLESS VEHICLES
INTERFERE WITH EMERGENCY
RESPONSE. IF I READ MY NEWS FEED
EARLIER THIS MORNING PROPERLY,
THERE WAS A ROBOTAXI GOING THE
WRONG WAY ON A ONE WAY STREET IN
SAN FRANCISCO. JUST IN THE LAST
24 HOURS. GOVERNANCE OF LOCAL
STREETS AND ROADS HAS LONG
FALLEN UNDER THE SHARED
JURISDICTION OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. THE OPERATIONS OF
AVS SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CURRENTLY DO
NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
RESPOND TO RISING FREQUENCY OF
INCIDENTS. OPERATIONS CONTINUE
TO BE APPROVED IN MORE AND MORE
CITIES AND COUNTIES WITHOUT THE
OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMUNITIES
THEMSELVES. UNDER SB 915, WHEN A
STATE AGENCY LIKE THE DMV OR THE
PUC APPROVES OPERATIONS FOR AN
AV SERVICE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
CAN PASS ORDINANCES TO REGULATE
THESE VEHICLES WITHIN THEIR
JURISDICTIONS. THAT'S THEY MAY
DO THAT. THESE ORDINANCES WOULD
ALLOW FOR LIMITS ON SERVICE
RATES, HOURS OF OPERATION, AND
THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES OPERATING
AT ANY GIVEN TIME. LOCAL
ORDINANCES MUST INCLUDE A POLICY
FOR AVS TO ENTER INTO THEIR
JURISDICTION. ON REPEAT, THAT
LOCAL ORDINANCES MUST INCLUDE A
POLICY FOR AVS TO ENTER INTO
THEIR JURISDICTION. ADDITIONALLY
IF A STATE AGENCY AUTHORIZES AV
OPERATIONS, AV COMPANIES CAN
STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH
OPERATIONS EVEN IF A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PASS AN
ORDINANCE. IF THERE'S NO
ORDINANCE, THE DEFAULT
GUIDELINES WILL BE WHAT THE
STATE AGENCY APPROVED. SB 915
ALSO ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
CREATE PERMITTING PROCESSES AND
ESTABLISHES PENALTIES FOR AVS
THAT COMMIT MOVING VIOLATIONS
AND OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC. LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS MAY ALSO FORM JPAS
TO COLLABORATIVELY REGULATE
SERVICES ACROSS THEIR
JURISDICTIONS. THIS BILL
REQUIRES ALL AV COMMERCIAL
PASSENGER SERVICE COMPANIES TO
ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
DISABILITY ACCESS LAWS PROVIDE
AN OVERRIDE SYSTEM FOR EMERGENCY
RESPONSE RESPONDERS, SOMETHING
THAT'S FACTUALLY BEEN A PROBLEM,
AND TRAIN EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
ON HOW TO MANUALLY OVERRIDE
THEM. SB 915 HAS RECEIVED BROAD
SUPPORT FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
AND WORKERS WITH US TO TESTIFY.
TODAY WE HAVE MEGAN SUBERS FROM
THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS AND GREGORY KRAMER
WITH DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
. PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MEGAN
SUMMERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS, WE ARE PROUD TO BE
A CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, AS
YOU KNOW, CPF REPRESENTS ABOUT
35,000 RANK AND FILE
FIREFIGHTERS, EMTS, AND SOME 911
DISPATCHERS. THIS BILL WILL
ALLOW A JURISDICTION, IF THEY SO
CHOOSE TO ADOPT A LOCAL
ORDINANCE REGARDING THE
OPERATION OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
ROBOT TAXIS, SIMILAR TO THE WAY
TAXIS WITH HUMAN DRIVERS ARE
REGULATED AS A TESTING GROUND
FOR FULL AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES.
SAN FRANCISCO AND MY MEMBERS AT
LOCAL 798 HAVE EXPERIENCED THE
GROWING PAINS OF A NEW
TECHNOLOGY BEING ROLLED OUT WITH
LITTLE TO NO REGULATION AND NO
MEANS FOR THE CITY TO IMPLEMENT
THEIR OWN OVERSIGHT. THERE HAVE
BEEN NUMEROUS NUMEROUS
INCIDENCES, AS YOU HEARD FROM
THE AUTHOR, IN 2023 ALONE, THE
DEPARTMENT REPORTED OVER 70
VIOLATION ISSUES WITH
INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY
RESPONSE ACTIVITIES JUST IN THE
CITY. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES HAVE
PARKED ON TOP OF FIRE HOSES,
BLOCKED IN ENGINES AND
AMBULANCES, AND EVEN COLLIDED
WITH A FIRE ENGINE WHILE IT WAS
RESPONDING TO AN ACTIVE FIRE
SCENE DURING A FIRE OR AN
EMERGENCY MEDICAL INCIDENT.
EVERY SECOND COUNTS AND IT'S THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR TRAINED
AND PROFESSIONAL MEMBERS TO
DEDICATE THEIR EXPERTISE TO
PRESERVING LIFE AND PROPERTY.
WHAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TIME FOR
IS WRANGLING A MALFUNCTIONING
DRIVERLESS DRIVERLESS CAR,
TRYING TO START OR SHUT OFF AN
ENGINE THEY CAN'T GAIN CONTROL
OF, OR TRY TO LOCATE A18 HUNDRED
NUMBER TO CALL FOR ASSISTANCE.
SB 915 WILL ENSURE THAT
FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY
RESPONDERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE
WILL RECEIVE THE NECESSARY
TRAINING TO TAKE CONTROL OF A
VEHICLE IN THE EVENT OF AN
EMERGENCY, BE INFORMED OF
RELEVANT SOFTWARE UPDATES THAT
HAPPEN PRETTY FREQUENTLY FROM,
AS I UNDERSTAND AND OTHER
MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE
EQUIPPED WITH THE TOOLS THEY
NEED TO DO THEIR JOBS. KEEPING
THE PUBLIC SAFE, IT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT TO US THAT THE
REGULATION OF THESE VEHICLES IS
TREATED WITH THE SAME
SERIOUSNESS AND CARE OF THOSE
OPERATED BY HUMANS. AND JUST I
KNOW I'VE TALKED TO MANY OF YOU,
BUT MAYBE NOT EVERYONE WOULD
LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD
CLEARLY THAT THE CO-SPONSORS ARE
COMMITTED TO FURTHER CLARIFYING
THAT AN ORDINANCE CANNOT BAN
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AND ALSO
COMMITTED TO ADDRESSING THE
CONCERN ABOUT A PATCHWORK OF
ORDINANCES, SO WITH THAT, I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING,
DAIMON CONKLIN WITH THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF SENATE BILL 915,
CALIFORNIA CITIES. AND I WANT TO
MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR, SUPPORT
THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE INDUSTRY.
WE WANT TO SEE THE INDUSTRY
CONTINUE TO GROW, INNOVATE AND
FLOURISH. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT
SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND LACKS
PARITY AND TRANSPARENCY. LOCAL
CITIES NØ MAINTAIN AND POLICE
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS BEST NOT
THE STATE YET WE HAVE A SYSTEM
THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPLOYMENT OF
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN OUR
STREETS. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE
EXTENSIVE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
EXPERIENCE EXPERTISE, OFFERING
MORE FITTING SOLUTIONS THAN THE
DMV'S GENERAL APPROACH. LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES ARE USED TO
REGULATING TRAFFIC AND SCHOOL
ZONES AND AIRPORTS.
MUNICIPALITIES KNOW WHAT'S BEST
WHEN IT COMES FROM WHEN IT COMES
TO MAKING THEIR STREETS SAFE,
BECAUSE THEY ARE RUN BY THE
PEOPLE WHO RESIDE IN THE
COMMUNITY. THAT OVERSEE IT. BUT
RIGHT NOW, LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER THE
HUNDREDS OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
WREAKING HAVOC IN OUR STREETS.
IN FACT, THE STATE IS ALLOWING
AV COMPANIES TO EXPAND, AND
ROBOTAXIS WILL BE ABLE TO
OPERATE ON ANY PUBLIC ROAD
WITHIN ANY GIVEN MUNICIPALITY 24
OVER SEVEN IN ANY WEATHER
CONDITION, AROUND VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS SUCH AS ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS, REGARDLESS OF LOCAL
CONCERNS ABOUT THE CAPS ON THE
VEHICLES THAT ARE DEPLOYED
THROUGHOUT THEIR COMMUNITY OR
EVEN TO PROTECT CONSUMERS BY
ESTABLISHING SOME SORT OF
CEILING RATE ON THE ON THE
SERVICES, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE
INDUSTRY GROWS, THERE ARE
CHALLENGES AND THAT REQUIRES
ADJUSTMENTS. SENATE BILL 915 IS
ONE OF THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. SB 915
WILL PROVIDE LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES A VOICE IN
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE DEPLOYMENT BY
ALLOWING CITIES, IF THEY SO
CHOOSE, TO ADOPT A LOCAL
ORDINANCE THAT TAKES INTO
CONSIDERATION NECESSARY
GUARDRAILS THAT REFLECT THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY. CITIES SHOULD
BE INVOLVED, NOT IGNORED. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR SENATE
BILL 915. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NOW, TAKE, A
STATEMENTS FROM OTHERS IN THE
AUDIENCE IN SUPPORT, NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. THANK
YOU. ELMER LAZARD, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
PROUD CO-SPONSORS AND SUPPORT.
I, MARK WATTS, REPRESENTING THE
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY IN
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MR. VICE CHAIR
MEMBERS MATT BROWN, ON BEHALF OF
THE TEAMSTERS PROUD CO-SPONSORS
OF THIS BILL, THE AMALGAMATED
TRANSIT UNION AND THE CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON
BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING. CARLIN SHELBY, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITIES OF PALO
ALTO AND OAKLAND IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, BRIAN MIRAMONTES WITH
ASK ME CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
BRIAN SNOW, BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND
TRAINMEN IN SUPPORT. CHRIS LEE,
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA IN SUPPORT. MÀ CÁC ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES IN SUPPORT. MR. VICE
CHAIR MEMBERS LOUIS COSTA WITH
SMART TRANSPORTATION DIVISION IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU ALL AND WE PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION ARE RENEE GIBSON
AND SHANNON DILLON. IF THEY
WOULD, COME UP
.
BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY. GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR CORTESE, MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS RENEE
GIBSON, AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS FOR THE
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU FOR
GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO
SB 915, AVA WAS PLEASED TO JOIN
75 ORGANIZATIONS IN A LETTER
OPPOSING THIS BILL, INCLUDING
DISABILITY ORGANIZATIONS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT LEADERS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS. AVA
MEMBERS ARE COMMITTED TO
BRINGING TREMENDOUS SAFETY,
MOBILITY, AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS
OF AVS IN A SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE
MANNER. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE
BILL HAS BEEN AMENDED TO ALLOW,
RATHER THAN REQUIRE, CITIES TO
ENACT THEIR OWN AV ORDINANCES.
WITH MY LIMITED TIME, I WANT TO
BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THIS BILL
WOULD DO IF ENACTED. IT WOULD
STILL ALLOW CITIES TO
EFFECTIVELY BAN AVS, PREVENTING
CALIFORNIANS FROM BEING ABLE TO
REALIZE THE SAFETY AND
ACCESSIBILITY BENEFITS THAT THE
DEPLOYMENT OF AVS PROMISES. IT
IS NOT DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE A
SCENARIO WHERE A CITY COULD
ENACT A POLICY SO RESTRICTIVE
THAT IT WOULD BLOCK AV SERVICES
FROM OPERATING, FOR EXAMPLE, BY
USING MAXIMUM FARES OR VEHICLE
CAPS. THE ABILITY TO TRAVEL
ACROSS CITY LINES IS FUNDAMENTAL
TO TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY.
THIS BILL WOULD HAVE A
DISPROPORTIONATELY NEGATIVE
EFFECT ON THE CALIFORNIANS THAT
ARE MOST EXCITED ABOUT AV
PASSENGER AND DELIVERY SERVICES,
INCLUDING PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES, THOSE IN FOOD AND
TRANSIT, DESERTS, SENIOR
CITIZENS AND SMALL BUSINESSES,
FARMERS AND MANUFACTURERS
NEEDING TO MOVE GOODS THEY WILL
NOT SEE THE TECHNOLOGY'S
BENEFITS UNLESS THEY HAVE ACCESS
TO AVS ACROSS CITY LINES. AVS
ARE POSITIONED TO COMBAT THE
TREND OF UNSAFE DRIVING THAT HAS
PERSISTED FOR YEARS ON US ROADS,
BUT THIS BILL WOULD CREATE A
ROADBLOCK BY CREATING AN
ADDITIONAL BARRIER TO ENTRY THAT
IS UNRELATED TO SAFETY. EXPERT
REGULATORS AT THE DMV AND PUC
HAVE CREATED INTRICATE RULES
THAT GOVERN AV OPERATION AND
CONDUCT RIGOROUS OVERSIGHT OVER
THE INDUSTRY. THESE STATE
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS ARE
DESIGNED TO ADAPT TO THE AV
INDUSTRY AS IT MATURES AND
PROCESSES TO ESTABLISH AND
UPDATE THE RESPECTIVE RULES FOR
AVS PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION. FOR THESE
REASONS, I URGE THE COMMITTEE TO
SUPPORT SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
SOLUTIONS AND I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
YOU'RE FINE. YOU HAVE THE
MICROPHONE. OKAY THANK YOU.
GREAT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.
HELLO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH,
AWESOME. GOOD EVENING. CHAIR
CORTESE AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS SHANNON DILLON. I'M
HERE REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 915, A LARGE
BENEFIT OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR HAVE
LOW VISION IS THE ABILITY TO
TRAVEL TO PLACES WE CAN'T GET TO
VIA PUBLIC TRANSIT OR TO PLACES
WHERE WE GO BY TAKING MULTIPLE
FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION, LIKE
TAKING A BUS TO LIGHT RAIL, TO
BART, ALL TO JUST IN ONE PLACE,
SOMETIMES WITH DELAYS IN BETWEEN
EACH FORM OF TRANSPORTATION. A
TRIP VIA AN AV WOULD BE IN ONE
VEHICLE AND WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY
BENEFIT OUR ABILITY TO TRAVEL.
IF ANY CITY OR COUNTY OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CAN BAN OR
SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICT THE USE
OF AVS, WE LOSE THIS BENEFIT.
BENEFIT AND FOR THIS REASON WE
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANKS FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
AND NOW ARE THERE ANY OTHER
PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, THIS IS A ME
TO TESTIMONY, IDENTIFY YOURSELF,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. TIM
TAYLOR WITH THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS AND ON BEHALF OF THE
COLLISION CHAMBER IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. LIZZIE
KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF TESLA
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ROBERT SINGLETON WITH
CHAMBER OF PROGRESS,
RESPECTFULLY, BUT STRONGLY
OPPOSED. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. JOSE TORRES WITH
TECHNET AND STRONG OPPOSITION.
GOOD EVENING, ADEN ALI SULLIVAN
WITH WAYMO OPPOSED. KURT
AUGUSTINE WITH THE ALLIANCE FOR
AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION, OPPOSED.
NICO MOLINA, ON BEHALF OF KODIAK
ROBOTICS, ALSO GADEK IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. GRACE KOPLIN ON BEHALF OF THE
BAY AREA COUNCIL AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
TIMOTHY BURR ON BEHALF OF AURORA
INNOVATION ON IN OPPOSITION.
THANKS THANK YOU ALL. NOW WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR, SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR.
SENATOR DODD, SENATOR UMBERG
SEYARTO. YES. THANK YOU, I
APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY FROM
THE WITNESSES. AND I APPRECIATE
YOU COMING ALL THIS WAY AND
READING YOUR SCRIPT THE WAY THAT
SHE DID. I THINK THAT WAS
REALLY, IT WAS WONDERFUL TO SEE
THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR COMING TO
TESTIFY. I'M NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY.
AND I, HAVE ESSENTIALLY JUST
PHILOSOPHICALLY BELIEVE THAT
THIS NEEDS TO BE REGULATED AT A
HIGHER LEVEL. I THINK HAVING 400
PLUS DIFFERENT REGULATIONS FOR
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IS IT'S I
SEE IT AS BEING AKIN TO A LOT OF
OTHER THINGS THAT WE WANT TO
HAVE THE LOCUS OF THE REGULATION
BE AT A HIGHER LEVEL, LIKE
BROADBAND. WHICH IS ALSO IN ON
ALL SORTS OF STREETS, DIGGING
INTO STREETS IN ORDER TO PUT THE
BROADBAND IN. BUT WE DON'T ALLOW
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE A LOT
OF REGULATIONS ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENS, IN THAT AREA, BECAUSE
WE SEE IT AS SOMETHING THAT IS A
BENEFIT THAT WE WANT. WE WANT TO
PROMOTE, AND IT'S SIMILAR WITH
5G AND SOME OTHER THINGS. AND I
THINK IT'S TRUE WHAT THE
OPPOSITION SAID THAT ESSENTIALLY
THERE WOULD BE WAYS TO BAN
CITIES COULD FIGURE OUT HOW TO
CLOSE OFF THEIR CITY FROM,
ALLOWING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES TO
GO INTO THEM. AND I, I DON'T
THINK THAT THAT FURTHERS OUR
PURPOSES AND TO THE SAFETY
POINT, I JUST, I THINK THAT
THERE ARE SOME LEGITIMATE VERY
LEGITIMATE SAFETY POINTS ABOUT
FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND, AND AN
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE SITTING ON A
FIRE HOSE AND NO FIREFIGHTER
BEING ABLE TO MOVE IT. BUT I
WOULD LIKE ALL OF THAT TO BE
DEALT WITH IN EVERY COMMUNITY,
NOT JUST THE COMMUNITY THAT HAD
THAT FIRE DEPARTMENT WHERE THAT
HAPPENED, OR HAS THAT PRESCHOOL
OR ALL OF THE DIFFERENT SAFETY
CONCERNS WE HAVE WHICH ARE
LEGITIMATE AND SERIOUS. BUT I
THINK THEY NEED TO BE APPLIED
UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE STATE. SO I
WANTED TO EXPRESS VERBALLY THE
REASONS FOR MY OPPOSITION AND,
AND SAY THANK YOU FOR
CONSIDERING THAT. SENATOR DODD
YEAH, LIKE, A COUPLE OTHER BILLS
TONIGHT. I LISTENED TO THE
TESTIMONY AND MAKING MY DECISION
ON THE FLY HERE, I THINK THIS IS
A VERY DIFFICULT, YOU KNOW,
BILL, I Tð I ASSOCIATE MY
COMMENTS WITH SENATOR BLAKE'S
BEER, ALTHOUGH I TAKE A
DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, TACK, I'M
VERY CONCERNED THAT 400 CITIES
ARE GOING TO BE MAKING THESE
DECISIONS, BUT I'M NOT REALLY
THAT CONCERNED ABOUT IT TODAY OR
FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, BECAUSE
I THINK THE COMPANIES HAVE
FALLEN A LITTLE BIT SHORT IN
WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES TO, YOU
KNOW, YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENED IN
SAN FRANCISCO. YOU KNOW, IT'S
BEEN A COMEDY OF ERRORS IN MANY
RESPECTS. AND AND, BUT BUT I
HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENCE
IN SENATOR CORTEZ AND HIS
ABILITY TO WORK THIS BILL AND TO
WORK WITH THE PROPONENTS AND THE
OPPONENTS. YOU KNOW, OF THIS
BILL AS IT AS THIS BILL
ADVANCES, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
IT TODAY. BUT I'M REALLY LOOKING
FOR A PROGRAM THAT AS TECHNOLOGY
IMPROVES, THAT WE DON'T HAVE 400
CITIES THAT OVER FIVE YEARS HAVE
TOTALLY STIFLED INNOVATION AND
INNOVATIONS THAT WE NEED AND
WANT IN OUR COMMUNITIES. THIS
TECHNOLOGY IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT. YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE
FROM THE WITNESSES, YOU KNOW, IN
OPPOSITION. OAN, I HAVE A LOT
OF AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WHAT THEY
SAID. BUT I WILL SUPPORT THIS
BILL TODAY TO ALLOW THE AUTHOR
TO WORK THIS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
SENATOR UMBERG, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, THANK YOU. SENATOR
CORTEZ. THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT BILL. I WANT TO MAKE
SURE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT
SENATOR DODD MENTIONED, THAT,
YOU'RE COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE
THAT WE DON'T BAN, VEHICLES IN
CITIES. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT
THAT YOU'RE AMENABLE TO MAKING
SURE THAT WE DON'T BAN THEM, BUT
THAT WE REGULATE THEM, WHICH IS
PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. OF COURSE
, REGULATION CAN STRANGLE IT
SUCH THAT A REGULATION MAY
EFFECTIVELY BAN THE VEHICLE. SO
CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT FOR ME,
PLEASE? YEAH. THERE'S NOT EVER
BEEN ANY INTENTION TO BAN I
THINK, WITH THE SPONSORS FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING AND I SAY IT
IN THIS WAY BECAUSE ALL OF YOU
ARE LEGISLATORS. YOU KNOW, HOW
THIS HOW THESE BILLS START, THE
VERY FIRST CONVERSATION WAS,
THIS IS COMING. WE NEED TO
EMBRACE THE TECHNOLOGY, BUT, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS THE ONLY SET OF
MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE STATE THAT
HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO LOCAL
REGULATION WHATSOEVER. WE'VE
BEEN DOING IT THAT WAY SINCE THE
DAYS OF HENRY FORD. A
COMBINATION OF STATE PERMITTING
AND REGISTRATION AND THEN LOCAL,
DROP OFF POINTS, SPEED LIMITS,
AIRPORT REGULATION, SCHOOL SAFE
ROUTES TO SCHOOLS. WE'VE ALL
WORKED ON, SO, SO THE IDEA HAS
BEEN ALL ALONG AND IT'S ASKED
AND PLEADED AND YOU ALSO KNOW
HOW THIS GOES, ESPECIALLY IN THE
EARLY COMMITTEES, YOU GET
OPPOSITION, YOU DON'T GET
COOPERATION. USUALLY UNTIL A
LITTLE BIT LATER. BUT WE'VE
SAID, LOOK, GIVE US OPPOSITION,
YOUR BEST AMENDMENTS TO MAKE
SURE THIS IS SEAMLESS, TO MAKE
SURE THAT, IT'S WE DON'T HAVE
ANY KIND OF PATCHWORK SYSTEM
THAT'S GOING TO OBSTRUCT THESE
VERY BRILLIANT. CHIP DRIVEN
COMPUTERS FROM FIGURING OUT WHAT
THE SPEED LIMIT IS IN A CERTAIN
CITY OR WHATEVER THE REGULATION
IS, WE'RE HOPING TO GET MORE OF
THAT COOPERATION, BUT NO. NO
INTENTION TO BAN. THAT'S
SOMETHING THE SPONSORS ARE VERY
CLEAR ON. I'M VERY CLEAR ON.
WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ON, AND I
KNOW THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT
THE TIMING. YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO
TAKE SOME OF THAT PRESSURE OFF
WITH THE TIMING OF LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS DOING THEIR
ORDINANCES, MEANING IN MERCED
MAY BE TWO MONTHS BEHIND SAN
JOSE OR TWO MONTHS AHEAD, FOR
ALL WE KNOW. MORE IMPORTANTLY,
IN A PLACE LIKE MY COMMUNITY AND
MANY OF YOURS, WHERE THERE'S
REALLY NO NATURAL BOUNDARIES,
YOU COULD HAVE CITIES RIGHT NEXT
TO EACH OTHER THAT ARE NOT
PERFECTLY IN SYNC AND WHEN
THEY'RE ADOPTING THEIR
ORDINANCES. SO ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE, AN AUTHOR'S
AMENDMENT THAT WE PROCEEDED WITH
IN THE LAST COMMITTEE WAS TO SAY
IF AN ORDINANCE, NOT ONLY IS IT
A MAY INSTEAD OF A CHAU AT THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL, BUT IF A
CITY HASN'T YET PROCEEDED, THAT
THE DEFAULT IS THE STATE
PERMITTING PROCESS, AND THAT'S
IN THE BILL NOW THAT THAT YOU
SEE IN PRINT. BUT WE'RE OPEN TO
HOW MUCH MORE WE CAN, YOU KNOW,
DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM. AND I
KNOW IN SOME VERY BRIEF
CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU, SENATOR,
THAT YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS ABOUT
THAT, I, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN
THAN HAPPY TO COMMIT TO
ADDITIONAL WORK IN THAT REGARD.
YOU KNOW, TAKING WHATEVER IS THE
BEST STANDARD IT MAY NEED TO BE,
THE MORE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER
WAY TO PUT IT, THE LEAST
REGULATED STANDARD WHEN YOU HAVE
TWO CITIES, RIGHT. NEXT TO EACH
OTHER TO MAKE SURE THAT, WHEN
SOMEBODY IS BEING PICKED UP, IN
AN ADA SITUATION OR JUST TRYING
TO GET A RIDE TO THE AIRPORT,
THEY'RE NOT DEALING WITH TWO
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONAL,
RESTRICTIONS. SO I'M HAPPY TO DO
THAT THROUGH THE CHAIR. INDEED.
THAT IS MY SECOND POINT, IS THAT
WE NOT HAVE A PATCHWORK OF
REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF
REGULATIONS, AS YOU MENTIONED,
DROP OFF POINTS AND OTHER
REGULATIONS TO ENSURE SORT OF
THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. THAT'S ALL
APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS AS YOU
MAY NOT GO OVER FIVE MILES AN
HOUR, EFFECTIVELY BANS THE AV.
SO AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU
DRAW THE LINE. I DON'T KNOW
WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE. BUT BUT
I'M ASKING YOU, BEFORE THIS
COMES TO THE FLOOR OR CERTAINLY
BEFORE IT GETS TO THE GOVERNOR'S
DESK. SHOULD IT PROCEED THAT FAR
TO HAVE CLEAR DEFINITIONS OR AT
LEAST STANDARDS. SO THAT WE CAN
LOOK AT IT AND BE ASSURED THAT
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BASICALLY
EITHER BAN OR WE'RE GOING TO
CREATE SUCH A DIFFICULT
SITUATION THAT THAT IT'S A DE
FACTO BAN. SO AND I TRUST YOU'LL
DO THAT. THANK YOU SIR. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THEY NEED TO BE
COMMERCIALLY PRACTICAL AS AS WE
WOULD SAY IN THE LAW. AND WE'LL
MAKE SURE TO GET THAT LANGUAGE
INSTALLED, BEFORE YOU SEE IT
AGAIN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR. THANK YOU, SENATOR
CORTESE. SENATOR SEYARTO, THANK
YOU. SO THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF
THOSE TOUGH BILLS, I AM VERY
SENSITIVE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS
WELL AS PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES.
AND SO I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE
OPPOSITION, IN PARTICULAR, THE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
INDUSTRY, WHAT KIND OF OUTREACH
EFFORTS ARE DONE, WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND ALSO PUBLIC
SAFETY? AND IF YOU WANT TO
SEPARATE THE TWO, THAT'S FINE,
IN ORDER TO PREPARE, FOR THE
ENTRY OF THESE VEHICLES INTO
THEIR SYSTEM, AND AS A PRELUDE
TO THAT QUESTION, AS A PUBLIC
SAFETY GUY, EVERY TIME SOMETHING
NEW CAME OUT ON VEHICLES,
WHETHER IT WAS ELECTRIC VEHICLES
, WHETHER IT WAS, AIRBAGS, ALL
THESE THINGS, REQUIRE THEY
REQUIRED US TO GO THROUGH
TRAINING AND THE INDUSTRY ITSELF
WOULD PROVIDE THAT TRAINING. SO
I'M KIND OF CURIOUS WHAT KIND OF
OUTREACH THAT YOU HAVE THAT THE
INDUSTRY HAS MADE TO GO INTO
COMMUNITY, HIS WORK WITH THEM
IDENTIFY THEIR ISSUES AND DO
THAT OUTSIDE OF BEING FORCED TO
VIA A Ã ORDINANCE. I MEAN, A
LAW THAT WE DRAFT. CERTAINLY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR THE
QUESTION. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE
THAT QUESTION, WE BELIEVE THAT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT AND THAT ROBUST
ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IS IN THE DNA OF OUR
INDUSTRY. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
COMPANIES HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE
TO WORK WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
AS THEY DEPLOY AND TEST,
CURRENTLY THIS HAPPENS IN A FEW
DIFFERENT WAYS, LOCAL
NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED UNDER
THE DMV TESTING PERMIT
REGULATIONS, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO
SEND YOU THE CITATION THERE
LATER ON, THEY'RE ALSO REQUIRED
TO, TO GIVE LOCAL LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND THE DMV THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT INTERACTION PLAN
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH HAVE TO
EXPLAIN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT HOW
TO INTERACT WITH THE VEHICLE,
AND THERE'S ALSO OPPORTUNITIES
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT INPUT
THROUGHOUT THE REGULATORY
PROCESS THAT EXISTS IN THE
CURRENT FRAMEWORK DEVELOPED BY
THE DMV AND THE PUC THAT HAS
BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A DECADE
AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE MY
CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT, THERE
IS A REALLY, ROBUST OUT, OUT,
OUTREACH, TO ADDRESS THOSE WELL
BEFORE THE INCORPORATION OF, OF
THE VEHICLES, THERE'S NOTHING
WORSE THAN SEEING SOMETHING YOU
DON'T REALLY RECOGNIZE OR
FAMILIAR WITH, YOU KNOW, THAT
YOU MAY HAVE TO DEAL WITH AS A
PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONAL OR
EVEN AS A CITIZEN. AND SO WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE
THOSE ARE IN PLACE AND THAT
WE'RE WORKING WITH THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, I DON'T KNOW THAT
WE NEED, A LEGISLATION TO MAKE
THAT HAPPEN, HOWEVER, IF WE FIND
LATER ON THAT IT IS NOT BEING
DONE AND WE ARE HAVING PROBLEMS,
THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE
APPROPRIATE TIME, TO, CREATE,
INCREMENTAL LEGISLATION TO
ENSURE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING
THE EXACT PROBLEMS WITHOUT
THROWING THIS BIG BLANKET OVER
THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY AND STIFLING
, WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO BE
ABLE TO ADVANCE BECAUSE I, I
THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE
ARE INPUTS THAT GET DONE ON
THESE VEHICLES, BASED ON THE
EXPERIENCES THAT THEY HAVE. SO
WHENEVER THERE'S A DIFFERENT
SITUATION, THÀNH, THERE'S MORE
INPUTS THAT HAVE TO GO IN
EVENTUALLY THEY WILL HAVE
EXPERIENCED JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
THEY CAN EXPERIENCE AND THEY
WILL REACT ACCORDINGLY. IS THAT
CORRECT, OR AM I SCI FI ING
OURSELVES OUT? NO THANK YOU,
SENATOR, I YOU KNOW, I DON'T
KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION, BUT I CAN I CAN SHARE
WITH YOU THAT THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN, 70 MILLION AUTONOMOUS
MILES DRIVEN IN THE UNITED
STATES UP TO THIS POINT. SO I
THINK YOU'RE CORRECT THAT AVS
CONTINUE TO TEST AND LEARN AND
BECOME SAFER AS THEY GO ALONG.
RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. AND THEN MY
LAST COMMENT IS THAT I, YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE ARE
ENTITLED TO DIFFERENT MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION THAT WORK FOR
THEM. AND, AND I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE USE TECHNOLOGY
AND, AND EMBRACE TECHNOLOGY THAT
GIVES US, NOT ONLY THE
TRANSPORTATION MODES WE'VE HAD
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THAT I'VE
USED IN THE PAST THAT IT WILL
EVER, NEVER, EVER USE AGAIN, MY
HORRIFIC RIDE THROUGH LAS VEGAS,
ONE TIME, I NEVER, NEVER SET
FOOT INTO THAT TYPE OF VEHICLE
AGAIN, BUT IT WASN'T AN
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE. IT WAS MAN,
MAN OPERATED, SO, YOU KNOW, I
JUST FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO ENSURE
THAT WE DON'T THROW ROADBLOCKS
IN THE PROCESS OF ENSURING THAT
WE CONTINUE TO USE OUR NEW
TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE MORE AND
MORE AVENUES FOR PEOPLE OF ALL
WALKS OF LIFE, IN ALL
SITUATIONS, TO BE ABLE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S COMFORTABLE FOR THEM.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ALLEN, I JUST
WANT TO I WANTED TO ASK RENEE,
COULD YOU SORT OF BREAK DOWN A
BIT MORE ABOUT. WE'RE HEARING SO
MANY DIFFERENT, ARGUMENTS ON
BOTH SIDES HERE. OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S A DESIRE ON THE PART OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEIR STREETS ARE, ARE SAFE
AND, AND, THERE'S A FRUSTRATION
WHEN TECHNOLOGIES COME IN, THEY
HAVE SO LITTLE CONTROL OVER,
OBVIOUSLY, A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. I
MEAN, THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN
ORIGINALLY, I GOT TO SAY, WAS
EXTRAORDINARILY BROAD. AND I, I
IT REALLY NEEDED TO BE AMENDED,
THAT ALL BEING SAID, CAN YOU
SORT OF TALK ABOUT, THE WAYS
THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT,
THIS REALLY HARMING, TECHNOLOGY
AS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, I
THINK WE'RE ALL KIND OF
GRAPPLING WITH WITH HOW FAR THIS
IS, THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE
THINGS, I SUPPOSE. THANKS,
SENATOR. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE
THE QUESTION. WHAT I HEAR FROM
OUR, OUR MEMBER COMPANIES IS
THAT REGULATORY CERTAINTY IS
CRUCIAL TO, TO, ALLOW FOR
COMPANIES TO EXPAND THE TYPE OF
RESOURCES THEY NEED TO EXPAND
FOR COMPANIES TO DEPLOY TO
SCALE. AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE THE
POTENTIAL FOR HUNDREDS OF LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO SET UP THEIR
OWN REGULATIONS, THAT CREATES A
PATCHWORK OF REGS AND THAT
CREATES AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF
UNCERTAINTY. AND I THINK THAT IS
REALLY WHAT THE HEART OF OUR
OPPOSITION IS HERE. SURE. I
GUESS NOW I KNOW WHAT WE WHAT WE
WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS THAT, WHAT
WILL BE MOST LIKELY IS THAT
CITIES WILL FORM JPA LIKE
REGIONAL JPA SO THAT YOU CAN
HAVE, A COHERENT VOICE. AND, I
UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT GUARANTEED
UNDER THE BILL. AND MAYBE ONE
THING THAT YOUR RESPONSE IS NOT
GUARANTEED IN THE BILL. YEAH.
OKAY. SO THAT THIS IS THE THIS
IS THE LET ME TURN TO THE AUTHOR
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE
BEEN TOLD WHEN THESE KINDS OF
PATCHWORK CONCERNS ARE RAISED.
IT'S A GOOD ANSWER. BUT IF IT'S
NOT GUARANTEED IN THE BILL, HOW
DO WE HAVE ANY ASSURANCE THAT
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE
PATCHWORK? RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW,
IS THERE HOW DO WE ENCOURAGE
THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, IF
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S
BENEFIT ASSOCIATED WITH GIVING
LOCAL CONTROL OVER SOME OF THIS
DECISION MAKING, AT LEAST THAT'S
THE LOGIC OF YOUR BILL, YOU
KNOW, WE CAN'T HANG OUR HAT ON
THE JPA MODEL IF WE'RE NOT
PUSHING PEOPLE IN THAT
DIRECTION. SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO
BETTER ENCOURAGE THAT TYPE OF
COOPERATIVE WORK AMONGST THE
CITIES SO AS NOT TO LEAD TO
ABSOLUTE CHAOS, WHERE YOU KNOW,
ONE, ONE JURISDICTION IS TOTALLY
DIFFERENT RULES THAN ANOTHER
RIGHT NEXT TO IT. YOU KNOW, YOU
KNOW, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I
MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, THE PREMISE
OF THE BILL IS IT'S INEVITABLE
THAT WE HAVE TO GET LOCAL
GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN THIS
WORK, IT'S JUST THE WAY WE'RE
SET UP TO DEAL WITH MOTOR
VEHICLE REGULATION IN THE STATE,
AND WE HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES AND
DECADES. I THINK JPA'S, YOU
KNOW, MUCH LIKE WE'VE SET UP
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION AND
OTHER ENTITIES THAT HAVE, YOU
KNOW, POOLED CITIES TOGETHER TO
CREATE SEAMLESS REGULATION
AROUND ENERGY AND OTHER THINGS
COULD CAN HAPPEN HERE. THIS BILL
, ALLOWS THAT IT CALLS FOR THE
FORMATION OF JPAS OR ENABLES IT.
IT CALLS FOR IT OR IT ENABLES
IT. IT ENABLES IT. BUT BUT OF
COURSE, JUST RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE ARE DIFFERENT EXAMPLES.
RIGHT. JUST USING THAT AS AN
EXAMPLE. BUT FROM THE BEGINNING
THERE'S REALLY BEEN TWO
DIFFERENT PATCHWORK
CONVERSATIONS HERE. WE'VE HAD
THE INDUSTRY COME TO US AND SAY,
WE DON'T WANT YOU KNOW, THE
PATCHWORK THAT I THINK SENATOR
UMBERG WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHERE
IT MAYBE YOU ARE TOO, WHERE, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S, A CITY THAT
DOESN'T ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AT
ALL, RIGHT NEXT TO ONE THAT DOES
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE. AND SO NOW
YOU'RE LITERALLY NOT PERMITTED
TO OPERATE THERE, WE MADE THE
DEFAULT. THE DMV AND THE CPUC,
IF THAT HAPPENS. SO THERE'S NO,
THERE'S NO INTERRUPTION OF
SERVICE EVER IN THIS BILL THAT I
CAN SEE THE BUT THE OTHER
PATCHWORK IS OKAY. SO YOU'RE NOT
INTERRUPTING SERVICE. BUT HOW
ARE THESE HOW THESE ROBO TAXIS
AND THESE COMPANIES GOING TO
DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT
SPEED LIMITS, DIFFERENT DROP OFF
POINTS THAT AS IF AS IF SOMEHOW
THE DMV HAS CREATED THAT
ALREADY, THAT WE HAVE SOMEHOW WE
HAVE A UNIFORM SYSTEM ALREADY IN
THE STATE. IT'S WE DON'T WE HAVE
THE WORST KIND OF PATCHWORK
SYSTEM. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE AN
AGENCY THAT ISN'T REALLY
EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THE
NUANCES OF 400 CITIES AND
HUNDREDS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
ALL THE OTHER AIRPORTS AND
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S OUT
THERE, BUT WE'VE BEEN FURTHER
SORT OF TOLD THAT THE ROBO TAXIS
, BECAUSE THEY'RE CODED, ARE
DOING A BETTER JOB THAN HUMAN
DRIVERS, THAT THE CAPACITY THEY
HAVE TO UNDERSTAND NAVIGATION IS
BEYOND WHAT HUMAN DRIVERS ARE,
THAT THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE
CHIP. I'M FROM SILICON VALLEY,
AS YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW, I, WE
EMBRACE INNOVATION. WE
UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF THE
COMPUTER CHIP TO UNDERSTAND FAR,
FAR MORE VARIABLES THAN THE
HUMAN MIND COULD DEAL WITH
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR. AND
YET WE'RE BEING TOLD AT THE SAME
TIME THAT THESE VEHICLES,
BECAUSE THIS INDUSTRY WANTS TO
BE UNREGULATED, THAT THESE
VEHICLES ARE NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE SPEED
LIMIT IN ELK GROVE. THAT'S
DIFFERENT THAN IN STOCKTON.
THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN IN SAN
JOSE, THAT'S DIFFERENT IN SANTA
CLARA, WHERE THE DROP OFF POINT
AT THE AIRPORT AT SAN JOSE
INTERNATIONAL, THAT'S DIFFERENT
THAN SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL
BECAUSE IT'S PATCHWORK, BECAUSE
SAN FRANCISCO RUNS THAT AIRPORT
AND THE AIRPORT IN MY DISTRICT
IS RUN BY THE CITY OF SAN JOSE.
MY GOD, HOW ARE HOW ARE TAXIS
AND RIDESHARES DOING IT WITH
HUMAN DRIVERS? AND SUPPOSEDLY
THIS THIS, THIS, THIS WEALTH OF,
OF INTELLECT THAT'S BUILT INTO
THE COMPUTER CHIP AND THE CODING
IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO
THE SAME THING. IT'S IT DOESN'T
MAKE ANY SENSE. YOU KNOW, YOU
CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS AND SAY,
I DON'T MEAN YOU. I'M JUST
SAYING THE OPPOSITION. BUT BUT
WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO KEEP
WORKING WITH THEM AND KEEP WE'VE
AMENDED THIS BILL AND MADE IT,
AS YOU SAID, A BILL THAT THAT
WASN'T GOING TO WORK TO IN THAT
WAY IN TERMS OF EITHER PATCHWORK
CONVERSATION. RIGHT. EITHER
EITHER PATCHWORK DISCUSSION AND
WE'VE GONE A LONG WAY TO
ADDRESSING THAT. BUT HAPPY TO
KEEP TAKING, YOU KNOW, INPUT. I
THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED IT
FROM THE INDUSTRY, THOUGH. I
MEAN, THEY KNOW BEST WHAT
THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO MAKE
THIS ALL WORK. WELL, JUST TO
FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THE COMMENT
ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO PERMIT A CITY TO, TO,
TO NOT ALLOW SERVICE. RIGHT? BUT
WE'VE GOT SCOTT WIENER HERE IN
THE ROOM, RIGHT? I MEAN, ONE OF
SCOTT'S CORE PREMISE IS ON
HOUSING, RIGHT? IS THAT IS THAT,
THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, EVEN IF
THEY'RE NOT BANNING, YOU KNOW,
IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BAN A
CERTAIN TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT OR
THAT THEY'LL DO EVERYTHING THEY
CAN WITHIN THEIR POWER TO MAKE
IT A LOT HARDER TO, AND SO, SO
WHILE AN OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION
OF, OF A PROHIBITION IS WOULD
NOT BE NECESSARILY BE ALLOWED
UNDER UNDER YOUR SCHEME, I, YOU
KNOW, AN ANTAGONISTIC LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COULD REALLY CAUSE
MAJOR DISRUPTION, AS COULD AN
ANTAGONISTIC LEGISLATURE. AND AS
COULD AN ANTAGONISTIC
LEGISLATURE. BUT AT LEAST THAT'S
A STATEWIDE THAT THAT PASSES
BILLS ONCE THAT GETS BILLS
SIGNED ONCE A YEAR. AND THE
THING THAT'S HARDEST TO
UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE OPPOSITION
IS, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE
SERVED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AT
ANY LEVEL, IS WHY THEY WOULDN'T
WANT TO HAVE THE ACCESS POINT.
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BEFORE A
CITY COUNCIL OR A COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON ANY GIVEN
TUESDAY, AND LOBBY AND
COMMUNICATE AND DO THIS AND GET
WHAT THEY NEED INSTEAD OF
INSTEAD OF COMING HERE. NO
OFFENSE. ONCE A YEAR AND ROLLING
THE DICE THAT THEY MAY OR MAY
NOT GET A BILL THAT WORKS FOR
THEM. IF ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT
IS GOING TO STUNT THE GROWTH OF
THIS INNOVATION, AND PROBABLY
ALL I IT'S STATE GOVERNMENT, NOT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IS NIMBLE AND I TRUST
THOSE LOCAL OFFICIALS, SOME OF
THE FOLKS IN THIS ROOM, I'VE
SERVED WITH HIS COUNTY
SUPERVISORS IN THE BAY AREA. I
TRUST THOSE LOCAL OFFICIALS THAT
WHEN THEY HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES
AND THEY WILL THAT WHEN THEY'RE
LOBBIED BY BOTH SIDES AND THEY
WILL, WHETHER IT'S A LOCAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT SAYING, WE WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE A SAFE ZONE SO OUR
KIDS AREN'T IN THE WAY OF A
VEHICLE THAT'S DROPPING SOMEBODY
OFF, THEY WILL HEAR THAT AND
THEY WILL THEY WILL ADJUST TO
THAT AND THEY COULD DO IT AGAIN
ON ANY GIVEN. THEY ADOPT
ORDINANCES IN MY CITY EVERY WEEK
AS AS WE'RE HERE TODAY, THEY'RE
ADOPTING ORDINANCES. WE DON'T DO
THAT HERE. AND I THINK THE
INDUSTRY IS GOING TO FIGURE OUT,
MAYBE NOT BY THE TIME THIS BILL
IS SEEN ITS WAY THROUGH, MAYBE
NOT IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, BUT
THEY WILL FIGURE OUT THAT
THEY'RE MUCH, MUCH BETTER OFF,
DEALING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN
TERMS OF WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE,
OKAY. I MEAN, THERE'S THIS WHOLE
TOWN SEEMS TO BE THERE'S A LOT
OF FOLKS WHOSE PROFESSION IT IS
TO WRITE BILLS TO CIRCUMVENT
HAVING TO GO, TO DEAL WITH ALL
THESE DIFFERENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AND THEY'LL ALL BE
VIÆT OF TOPICS. THEY'LL ALL BE
IN ALL THE MAJOR CITIES IN
CALIFORNIA DOING THE SAME DARN
THING. RIGHT? THERE'S REGISTERED
LOBBYISTS IN SAN JOSE, THERE'S
REGISTERED LOBBYISTS HERE. AND
IT'S THAT'S YEAH, THIS BILL
DOESN'T CHANGE LOBBYING. IT
DOESN'T DECENTRALIZE IT. YOU CAN
UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'D PREFER A
STATEWIDE APPROACH THAN HAVING
TO DEAL WITH HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT CITIES. I
THINK THEY'D PREFER TO BE
UNREGULATED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
HONESTLY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT
AS A BUSINESS PERSON MYSELF, I
DON'T KNOW. I WANT I'M TRYING TO
RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT I
ALSO WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL TO
THE CHAIR AS FAR AS, PERHAPS
PERHAPS WE CAN MOVE ON. I DON'T
WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT, YOU
KNOW, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET
AN UNDERSTANDING OF PHILOSOPHY.
I MEAN, I, I THINK YOU KNOW,
THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY,
I MEAN, CERTAINLY AN AGGRESSIVE
BILL AND I, YOU KNOW, MY
TENDENCY IS TO WANT TO GIVE YOU
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE
WORKING. I'M TRYING TO FEEL OUT
YOUR PHILOSOPHY, AND I'M NOT
SURE I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU
SAID, BUT, BUT BUT, YOU KNOW,
THAT BEING SAID, I'M I'M I'M,
YOU KNOW, I GUESS I WANT TO
TALK. IF THIS BILL PASSES OUT,
I'M WILLING TO GIVE YOU THE
COURTESY OF CONTINUING TO WORK
ON IT. I DO WANT TO GET A BETTER
SENSE OF HOW YOU'RE THINKING
THROUGH THESE KINDS OF ISSUES.
SO LET ME LEAVE IT AT THAT. AND
NOW, SENATOR LEMON AND SENATOR
PORTANTINO, THANK YOU, YOU KNOW,
I'VE KIND OF GRAPPLED WITH WHAT
THE BEST APPROACH WOULD BE ON
THE ONE HAND, I HEAR WHAT SOME
OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING IN
TERMS OF HOW YOU DEAL WITH 400,
YOU KNOW, PLUS CITIES, AND THE
CHALLENGES THAT THAT WOULD BE
AND ALSO JUST THE LOGISTICS, IF
THERE ARE MINOR BUT MEANINGFUL
CHANGES BETWEEN CITY TO CITY
WHEN YOU KNOW SOMEONE DOESN'T
REALLY KNOW, LIKE, I MEAN, HOW
FAST CAN THAT HAPPEN? RIGHT?
THERE'S SOME CITIES THAT ARE
THAT SITE IS ONE CITY AND THIS
OTHER SIDE IS ANOTHER CITY. BUT
AT THE SAME TIME, I'M ALSO JUST
AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, I
REPRESENT URBAN AND RURAL
COMMUNITIES AND TO APPLY AND
ONLY HAVE ONE STATE AGENCY APPLY
RULES FOR ROADS THAT ARE PRETTY
DIFFERENT, ACTUALLY, IS ALSO
REALLY DIFFICULT, AND I, YOU
KNOW, I'VE HEARD THIS BILL, I'VE
HEARD THE DISCUSSION, I'VE READ
IT, BUT I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE
WHAT THE BEST SOLUTION IS. BUT I
DO THINK THAT THIS CONVERSATION
NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND THAT YOUR
BILL STAYING ALIVE IS WHAT'S
GOING TO PROMPT A CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHAT THE FIX IS, BECAUSE I
DO THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM. AND
WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT YOU
KNOW, THE RIGHT SOLUTION IS AND
WHETHER IT SHOULD BE ONE ENTITY,
GOVERNANCE, 58 COUNTIES OR 480
PLUS CITIES, OR JUST ALL THE
SAME RULES FOR THE WHOLE STATE?
I'M NOT SURE, BUT MY VOTE TODAY
IS A REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT
I THINK THAT THIS BILL IS
REQUIRING US TO HAVE A MUCH
NEEDED CONVERSATION ON THIS,
OTHERWISE THE CONVERSATION
REALLY JUST STAYS ON FRONT PAGES
OF NEWSPAPERS AND DOESN'T GET
RESOLVED. AND I DO THINK SOME
RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION IS
NEEDED, AND I APPRECIATE THAT,
WE'RE STILL THINKING THROUGH HOW
TO ALSO, NOT YOU KNOW, HOW TO
ALSO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THE
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION ARE
CHANGING VERY RAPIDLY AND WE'RE
NOT STAYING AWAY FROM THOSE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO INCORPORATE THEM IN TERMS
OF SAFETY. SO I JUST WANTED TO
SHARE THOSE COMMENTS AND I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR PORTANTINO.
THANK YOU, THE SENATOR FROM
SANTA BARBARA SORT OF ALLUDED TO
MY QUESTION IS, WAS IT
CONSIDERED TO DO IT COUNTY BY
COUNTY, THAT WOULD BE 58
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES VERSUS 410?
WAS THAT WAS THAT EVER PUT ON
THE TABLE? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE
THAT WOULD SORT OF ACCOMPLISH
THE BROADER GOAL OF HAVING LOCAL
INPUT, BUT THEN ALSO MAKING IT
UNIFORM THROUGHOUT A COUNTY
WHICH, YOU KNOW, THEIR PUBLIC
WORKS PEOPLE INTERFACE WITH ALL
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND
THERE'S REGIONAL APPROACH. WAS
THAT EVER PUT ON THE TABLE? IT
WASN'T SERIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
SENATOR, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I THINK THE PROBLEM IS IN MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THIS, FRANKLY,
IS LESS ABOUT DISCUSSING IT ON
THIS BILL AND MORE AS A 12 YEAR
COUNTY SUPERVISOR THAT THE
COUNTIES WOULD HAVE TO HAVE
PERMISSION FROM THE CITIES TO GO
IN AND REGULATE, YOU KNOW, ON
THEIR STREETS, IN THEIR
JURISDICTIONS AND IN THEIR
AIRPORT. IT WOULD CERTAINLY
SIMPLIFY, YOU KNOW, TO SOME
DEGREE, THE NUMBER OF ENTITIES
INVOLVED. AND I'M SURE THERE'S
COUNTY SUPERVISORS AND PAST
COUNTY SUPERVISORS LIKE ME THAT
WOULD THAT WOULD SAY IT'S A
WONDERFUL IDEA. WITH THE MAYORS
AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREE
TO SORT OF CEDE THAT
RESPONSIBILITY, RIGHT? THEY
DON'T THEY DON'T HAVE LITERAL,
DIRECT JURISDICTION IN SOME OF
THOSE ENTITIES. I MEAN, IT COULD
BE WRITTEN INTO THE BILL TO GIVE
THEM THE AUTHORITY TO, TO IN
THIS PARTICULAR, IT'S JUST
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT,
BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD IT
WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE IT MORE
PALATABLE. AND I THINK FROM A
REGIONAL PLANNING PERSPECTIVE
AND DEAL WITH A LOT OF THE
CONCERNS THAT JUST AS SENATOR
FROM SANTA BARBARA MENTIONED,
YOU HAVE STREETS THAT ONE SIDE
OF THE STREET IS ONE CITY, AND
THE OTHER SIDE OF YOU KNOW,
THERE'S LOTS OF LOTS OF NUANCES.
LÀ COUNTY HAS 88, YOU KNOW,
SMALL CITIES AND, YOU KNOW, AND
LA CITY, I MEAN, IT'S RIGHT. BUT
IT HAS ONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
THAT THAT SORT OF DOES ALL OF
IT. AND SO, I AND I WANT TO
ALIGN MYSELF WITH THE, THE
COMMENTS OF SENATOR UMBERG TO WE
DON'T WANT TO BAN THIS, WE WANT
TO REGULATE IT AND CONTROL IT.
AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I'M WILLING
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY, BUT I
REALLY WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT
DOING IT ON A COUNTY WIDE VERSUS
CITY WIDE. AND I DO ALSO WANT TO
I WAS C RAISED BY MY BLIND AUNT
GENEVIEVE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I
HADN'T REALLY THOUGHT OF THE
IMPACT ON THE, THE BLIND
COMMUNITY AND HOW IMPORTANT
HAVING THIS TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE
IS. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT BANNING IT AND THAT
WE'RE PROPERLY REGULATING AND
CONTROLLING IT. AND SO I'M
WILLING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY, BUT
REALLY THINK THE DEFINITIONS AND
OTHER THE CONCERNS THAT OTHER
PEOPLE HAVE RAISED ARE, ARE
CERTAINLY MERIT YOUR YOUR
THOUGHTFULNESS, WHICH I KNOW
YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE. YEAH.
THANK YOU SENATOR, IF I MAY. YOU
KNOW THERE ARE CERTAINLY ASPECTS
OF THE BILL ASIDE FROM MY
EARLIER COMMENT, PERHAPS CAP ON
RATES OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT
THAT COULD BE DONE AT THE COUNTY
LEVEL. WE WILL DEFINITELY TAKE A
LOOK AT THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE THE LEAGUE OF
CITIES AS A SPONSOR. WE'LL TALK
TO THEM ABOUT THAT TOO AND SEE
WHERE THEY MAY WANT TO SEE SOME
OF THAT JUST FROM THE COST OF
DOING IT. FOR EXAMPLE. THANK YOU
. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MOTION
OKAY. THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED, I
JUST, VERY BRIEFLY WILL SAY I
CANNOT SUPPORT THE BILL,
CONVERSATION IS FINE, BUT THIS
BILL MOVES IN A SINGULAR
DIRECTION AND, I DON'T SEE HOW
WE AVOID THE PATCHWORK APPROACH
UNLESS IT'S MADE, SO RESTRICTIVE
IN THAT SENSE THAT YOU END UP
ESSENTIALLY BEING WHAT IT IS
CURRENTLY. I ALWAYS SUPPORT
LOCAL CONTROL, BUT IN THIS CASE,
I CAN'T SUPPORT THE BILL. SO,
THE CLERK WILL, OH, YOUR. PLEASE
CLOSE. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST AN
OPPORTUNITY TO THANK PEOPLE, I
REALLY APPRECIATE, ALL THE
COMMENTS AND THE QUESTIONS,
SINCERELY. VÆ, OF COURSE, I
ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW,
THOSE WHO SAID, YOU KNOW, THAT
THEY HAVE SOME CONFIDENCE IN MY
ABILITY TO KEEP WORKING THIS
THROUGH. AND ADDRESSING THOSE
CONCERNS AND ADDRESSING THOSE
INTERESTS AND NOT TAKING A LEAP
OF FAITH THAT THINGS ARE GOING
TO HAPPEN. I APPRECIATE ALL OF
THAT. I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE
TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD TODAY.
IT'S BEEN I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW,
MEASURED AND APPROPRIATE AND OF
COURSE, YOU KNOW, HEARING FROM
THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY IS
IMPORTANT. DISABILITY RIGHTS IS
A SPONSOR OF THE BILL. WE WILL
KEEP WORKING ON, MAKING SURE
WE'RE ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF
THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY.
BESIDES JUST OUR WORK WITH THEM.
AND, OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVEN'T
HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE LAST
AMENDMENTS, WE PUT A WHOLE,
SERIES OF ADA REQUIREMENTS INTO
THE BILL. SO WE'RE LISTENING.
WE'LL KEEP WORKING ON IT. WE
REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM THE
INDUSTRY AS TO HOW TO, MAKE SOME
OF THIS SEAMLESSNESS WORK FOR
THEM. AND I THINK IF THE BILL
KEEPS PROGRESSING, WE HAVE A
BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING
EVERYONE'S ATTENTION AND
BRINGING EVERYONE TO THE TABLE.
WITH THAT, I KNOW IT'S BEEN A
LONG DAY, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE, AND WITH THAT, THE
CLERK WILL READ THE ROLL. THIS
IS FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE, SB
915. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND
WE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS CORTEZ
I CORTEZ I NILO NO NILO NO ALAN
ALLEN I ARCHULETA I ARCHULETA I
BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE. SPEER, NO.
DALLY. DOLLY NO. DODD. DODD I
GONZALEZ, I GONZALO, I LAIRD I
LAIRD I LIMÓN. I LIMÓN I NEWMAN.
NEWMAN I WHEN, NO, WHEN, NO.
PORTANTINO PORTANTINO. NO. I
SATO SERRATO. NO. UMBERG I
UMBERG I.
10 TO 5. IT IS OUT. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. WE WILL LIFT THE CALL
FOR PREVIOUSLY ABSENT MEMBERS
AND, START WITH THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. RIGHT WE'LL TRY TO
MOVE THROUGH THIS QUICKLY. I
KNOW EVERYBODY IS EAGER TO GET
OUT OF HERE. I AM. THIS IS THE
CONSENT CALENDAR WITH CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR VOTING. AYE. SENATORS
ARCHULETA I, ARCHULETA I DALI
DALI I GONZALEZ GONZALEZ I LIMÓN
LIMÓN I NEWMAN NEWMAN I WHEN I
WHEN I UMBERG UMBERG I THAT'S 15
ZERO OUT OKAY. THE BILL'S OUT 15
TO 0. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
ONE SB 898. THE CHAIR VOTING AYE
. VICE CHAIR VOTING NO. SENATORS
ALLEN ALLEN I DODD GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I LIMON I LIMON I
NEWMAN. NEWMAN I WHEN. NO.
PORTANTINO UMBERG UMBERG I. 9 TO
4 OUT. THE BILL IS OUT 9 TO 4.
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 930. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED.
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING NO.
SENATORS ALLEN DALI. NO. DALI
NOLAN, WAS I OKAY? I'LL START
OVER, SENATORS ALLEN. ALLEN, I
DOLLY DALI. NO. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I LIMON I NEWMAN I WHEN
. NO. WHEN. NO. UMBERG. UMBERG I
. 11 FOUR OUT. 11 FOUR BILLS OUT
. YEAH THIS IS FILE NUMBER. FILE
ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB 960. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING NO
. SENATORS ALLEN ALLEN I DALI.
DALI. NO. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I
LAIRD. LAIRD I LIMÓN I LIMON I
UMBERG. UMBERG I. 11 TO 4. OUT
11 TO 4. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SB 961. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING NO.
SENATORS ALLEN, ARCHULETA, DALI.
DALI. NO. DODD. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ I LAIRD, LAIRD I LIMÓN.
LIMON I NEWMAN. NEWMAN I UMBERG.
ALLEN I. EIGHT FOUR OUT EIGHT
FOUR. BILLS. OUT.
JUST A JUST A POINT OF ORDER 961
. SB 961 IS OUT. 8 TO 4. THANK
YOU. SORRY THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX. SB 1031. THE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. SENATORS GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ
AYE. SERRATO. SERRATO. NO. LEVIN
FOR THE BILL IS OUT. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. SB 983.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS NILO
ALLEN. ALLEN I DOLLY DOLLY I
GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD I LIMON.
NEWMAN. NEWMAN I NGUYEN. SATO.
SERRATO I UMBERG UMBERG I. 11
ZERO OUT. 11 ZERO. THE BILL IS
OUT. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT. SB 1488. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATORS NILO ALLEN, ALLEN
I DALI GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I
LAIRD. LAIRD I LIMON. LIMON I
WHEN. SATO UMBERG UMBERG I. 11
ZERO OUT 11 ZERO BILLS OUT. THIS
IS FILE ITEM NUMBER TEN. SB 936
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. SENATORS ALLEN ALAN
I, DALI. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I.
LAIRD. NØ LAIRD NÓ. LIMÓN LIMON
I NEWMAN. NEWMAN I. WHEN I
UMBERG. DALI I DALI I. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND RIGHT. THAT WAS TEN
UMBERG I OKAY. 20 1414 ONE IS
OUT. 14 ONE. THE BILL IS OUT.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 13 SB
1418 CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS
NILO, A FILE ITEM 1513 OH 15 WAS
MINE. I. I VOTE FOR FILE ITEM 13
NOT VOTING OKAY. SENATORS ALLEN
GONZALEZ. LAIRD, LAIRD I LIMON.
WHEN SATO UMBERG UMBERG I. 9090
OUT NINE ZERO. THE BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 14, SB 1216.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS. NILO
NÓ. NILA NÓ ALLEN. ALLEN I
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I LAIRD.
LAIRD I LIMON. LIMON I. WHEN NO.
SATO OR NO. SENATORS. UMBERG
UMBERG I. JUST GET RID OF THAT.
11 FOUR OUT. 11 FOUR BILLS OUT.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 15. SB
1260. CHAIR VOTING NO. VICE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS ALLEN
ALLEN I GONZALEZ. NO GONZALEZ.
NO. PORTANTINO UMBERG. 5 TO 8
OUT. NO. NO 5 TO 8. NOT OUT, NOT
OUT, NOT OUT. 5 TO 8. NOT OUT.
THE BILL FAILED. THIS IS FILE
ITEM NUMBER 16 SB 1372. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. SENATORS ALLEN. DALI,
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I WEN
PORTANTINO UMBERG UMBERG I DALI.
NO. 8 TO 4 OUT. 8 TO 4. THE BILL
IS OUT. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
17. SB 1387. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
SENATOR NILO ALLEN ALLEN. AYE.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I LAIRD.
LAIRD I UMBERG UMBERG I. 14 ZERO
14 ZERO BILLS OUT. ALL RIGHT. WE
ARE ADJOURNED. AND AS EVERYONE
IS ADJOURNING, LET ME THANK
EVERYONE FOR PUTTING UP WITH A
LONG MEETING AND PROBABLY, LESS
THAN MY BEST CHAIRING, BUT WE'LL
GET A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT IN
THE FUTURE. AND THANKS TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFF AND EVERYONE WHO
ATTENDED