Transportation: omnibus bill

The law lets Alameda County revise how Route 238 property-sale proceeds are spent, expands safety rules in Sacramento and Stockton port waters, and makes automated traffic-enforcement citation counts public. It also applies federal highway hazardous-material standards broadly under state law.

What the law does ​

• Allows the Alameda County Transportation Commission to seek approval to revise the Route 238 local transportation project list after approval by Hayward, San Leandro, and Alameda County.
• Requires newly added Route 238 projects to be in the applicable regional transportation plan and requires explanations for removed or reprioritized projects.
• Explicitly includes the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton in San Francisco Bay pilotage grounds and applies pilot indemnity or trip-insurance rules to transit in those waters.
• Requires covered motor carriers, drivers, vehicles, and shippers to follow federal highway hazardous-material transportation rules unless specifically exempted by department regulation, excluding federal agencies.
• Makes automated traffic-enforcement violation-count data publicly disclosable and directs appeals of automated-traffic and parking decisions to superior court.

Who it affects ​

• Alameda County transportation planners and the Cities of Hayward and San Leandro.
• Vessel owners, operators, charterers, and state-licensed pilots using San Francisco Bay, Sacramento, or Stockton port waters.
• Highway hazardous-material carriers, drivers, vehicles, and shippers.
• Cities and counties operating automated traffic-enforcement systems, along with cited vehicle owners.

Breakdown ​

Route 238 Project Updates ​

The bill allows the Alameda County Transportation Commission to seek approval to amend the local transportation improvement program for the former State Route 238 project. The amendment may change the list of projects that can receive money from sales of excess Route 238 property, but it must first be approved by Hayward, San Leandro, and Alameda County.

Key takeaways

• The Alameda County Transportation Commission may submit an amendment to the local alternative transportation improvement program to the California Transportation Commission.
• The amendment may revise the projects included in the program.
• Before submitting the amendment, the Alameda County Transportation Commission must obtain approval from the Hayward and San Leandro city councils and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
• Approval of a revised project list allows the dedicated Route 238 excess-property sale funds to be spent on the revised projects.
• Because the funds are continuously appropriated, expanding the allowable projects constitutes an appropriation.

Pilotage Rules for Sacramento and Stockton Ports ​

This part clarifies that the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton are included in the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun for vessel-pilotage law. It also makes clear that pilot insurance and vessel-hiring insurance or indemnity requirements apply when any part of a vessel’s trip occurs in waters of either port. Because the clarification may broaden where unlicensed piloting is a crime, it may create additional local enforcement duties.

Key takeaways

• The bill expressly includes the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton in the defined bay waters covered by the pilotage rules.
• Licensed-pilot requirements may therefore apply to vessel travel involving waters of the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton.
• Pilot insurance requirements apply when any part of a vessel transit occurs in waters of either port.
• Vessels and their owners, operators, or bareboat charterers must meet the applicable insurance or indemnity requirements for trips that include waters of either port.
• The expanded definition may increase the scope of the crime for piloting without the required license and create a state-mandated local program.

Highway Hazardous Materials Rules ​

The bill requires motor carriers, drivers, vehicles, and shippers transporting hazardous materials by highway to follow specified federal hazardous-materials regulations. Federal government agencies are excluded. It also makes clear that parties outside the federal rules must still comply unless the Department of Motor Vehicles grants a specific exemption, and violations can be prosecuted as infractions.

Key takeaways

• The bill extends specified federal hazardous-materials transportation rules to highway motor carriers, drivers, vehicles, and shippers.
• Federal government agencies are not required to comply under this provision.
• Entities not otherwise covered by the federal regulations must still follow them unless department regulations specifically exempt them.
• Failing to comply can be charged as an infraction, creating a state-mandated local program.

Traffic Camera Records and Appeals ​

This part requires disclosure of data showing how many violations are issued by automated traffic enforcement systems. It also updates the appeal process so challenges to final administrative decisions are filed in superior court, without referring to specific court divisions. The bill clarifies that conducting the appeal hearing may be assigned as a subordinate judicial duty.

Key takeaways

• Data on the number of violations issued by automated traffic enforcement systems must be disclosed.
• The bill removes language that treated violation-count data as exempt from disclosure.
• A person challenging a final administrative decision may appeal to the superior court.
• The bill removes references to the small claims and traffic divisions of superior court.
• Conducting the hearing on appeal may be performed as a subordinate judicial duty.

No State Reimbursement Required ​

This part of AB 2788 says local agencies and school districts will not be reimbursed for costs imposed by the act. The bill identifies a specified reason that exempts these costs from the state reimbursement requirement.

Key takeaways

• AB 2788 states that no state reimbursement is required for costs created by the act.
• The provision applies to local agencies and school districts that might otherwise seek reimbursement for state-mandated costs.
• The bill relies on a specified reason to conclude that reimbursement is not required.