Bill Text

Bill Information

Add To My Favorites | print page

SB-1318 Transportation.(2009-2010)

SHARE THIS:share this bill in Facebookshare this bill in Twitter
SB1318:v94#DOCUMENT

Senate Bill No. 1318
CHAPTER 491

An act to amend Section 14556.40 of, and to repeal Section 14529.15 of, the Government Code, to amend Sections 21669.6, 24908, 29034.7, 29035.5, 99221, 99313.1, 99633, and 132820 of, and to repeal Section 132352.6 of, the Public Utilities Code, to amend Sections 149.5, 301, 302, 319, 339, 358, 371, 372, 374, 379, 383, 384, 411, 444, 451, 460, 464, 470, 560, 30914, and 30914.5 of, to add Section 575 to, and to repeal Section 301.5 of, the Streets and Highways Code, and to amend Sections 2800, 5201, 14611, 21754, 21755, 22452, 22511.55, 24400, 26100, 26101, 26505, 29004, 34518, and 40802 of, and to add Section 667 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation.

[ Approved by Governor  September 29, 2010. Filed with Secretary of State  September 29, 2010. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 1318, Committee on Transportation and Housing. Transportation.
(1) Existing law establishes the State Highway System and designates state highway routes from Route 1 to Route 905, unless otherwise specified by name, and authorizes the California Transportation Commission to relinquish all or a portion of designated state highway routes to specified local agencies if certain conditions are met. Portions of state highways that have been relinquished are not state highways and become ineligible for future adoption as a part of the State Highway System.
This bill would acknowledge the relinquishment of, and designate or make technical changes to, specific portions of Routes 1, 2, 19, 39, 71, 72, 74, 79, 83, 84, 111, 144, 151, 160, 164, 170, 260, and 275.
Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern the portion of State Highway Route 58 that is located within the city limits of the City of Bakersfield under certain conditions.
This bill would authorize the relinquishment to the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern those portions of State Highway Route 58 located within their respective jurisdictions under certain conditions.
(2) Existing law prohibits a driver from operating a commercial motor vehicle for a period of 90 days, 180 days, one year, or 3 years if the person is convicted of a specified violation of an out-of-service order issued by an authorized employee of the Department of the California Highway Patrol or by a uniformed peace officer.
This bill would revise these provisions to include only out-of-service orders issued by an authorized employee of the Department of the California Highway Patrol or by an authorized enforcement officer, as defined.
(3) Existing law authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish requirements for equipment and devices to be used on any vehicle and defines the types of vehicles for this purpose. Existing law requires that license plates be securely fastened at all times to the vehicle for which they are issued so as to prevent the plates from swinging, be mounted in a position so as to be clearly visible, and be maintained in a condition so as to be clearly legible. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.
This bill would also require that license plates be mounted in a position so that the characters are upright and display from left to right.
(4) Existing law authorizes a disabled person or disabled veteran to apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles for the issuance of a distinguishing placard that may be used in lieu of the special license plate or plates issued for parking in a disabled person’s parking space, when the placard is suspended from the rearview mirror or, if there is no rearview mirror, when it is displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle.
This bill would also permit a distinguishing placard to be inserted into a clip designated for a distinguishing placard and installed by the manufacturer on the driver’s side of the front window.
(5) Existing law defines various terms for the purposes of the Vehicle Code.
This bill would define “utility trailer” for these purposes and would make other technical and conforming changes.
(6) Existing law creates the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District and provides for the district to be governed by an elected board of directors. Existing law authorizes the board, by ordinance, to provide that each director shall be paid not more than $1,000 per calendar month in lieu of per-meeting compensation if the director attends all scheduled and noticed board meetings for that month.
This bill would authorize the board to provide that compensation if the director attends all scheduled and noticed regular board meetings for that month.
(7) Existing law establishes the Imperial County Transportation Commission and authorizes that commission to use up to 3% of the revenues in the local transportation fund for carrying out its responsibilities.
This bill would instead authorize the commission to use up to 3% of those revenues for carrying out its planning and programming responsibilities.
(8) The Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency are referenced in various provisions of existing law relating to transportation projects.
This bill would, instead, in those provisions of law, reference the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
(9) Under existing law, with certain exceptions, a violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.
Because this bill would change the definition of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(10) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(11) This bill would also incorporate additional changes in Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code proposed by AB 1855, or AB 1944, or both, to be operative only if AB 1855, or AB 1944, or both, and this bill are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2011, and this bill is chaptered last.
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

 Section 14529.15 of the Government Code is repealed.

SEC. 2.

 Section 14556.40 of the Government Code is amended to read:

14556.40.
 (a) The following projects are eligible for grants from the fund for the purposes and amounts specified:
(1) BART to San Jose; extend BART from Fremont to Downtown San Jose in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. Seven hundred twenty-five million dollars ($725,000,000). The lead applicant is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(2) Fremont-South Bay Commuter Rail; acquire rail line and start commuter rail service between Fremont and San Jose in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. Thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000). The lead applicant is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(3) Route 101; widen freeway from four to eight lanes south of San Jose, Bernal Road to Burnett Avenue in Santa Clara County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(4) Route 680; add northbound HOV lane over Sunol Grade, Milpitas to Route 84 in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
(5) Route 101; add northbound lane to freeway through San Jose, Route 87 to Trimble Road in Santa Clara County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(6) Route 262; major investment study for cross connector freeway, Route 680 to Route 880 near Warm Springs in Santa Clara County. One million dollars ($1,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(7) Caltrain; expand service to Gilroy; improve parking, stations, and platforms along UPRR line in Santa Clara County. Fifty-five million dollars ($55,000,000). The lead applicant is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(8) Route 880; reconstruct Coleman Avenue Interchange near San Jose Airport in Santa Clara County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(9) Capitol Corridor; improve intercity rail line between Oakland and San Jose, and at Jack London Square and Emeryville stations in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority.
(10) Regional Express Bus; acquire low-emission buses for new express service on HOV lanes regionwide. In nine counties. Forty million dollars ($40,000,000). The lead applicant is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
(11) San Francisco Bay Southern Crossing; complete feasibility and financial studies for new San Francisco Bay crossing (new bridge, HOV/transit bridge, terminal connection, or second BART tube) in Alameda and San Francisco or San Mateo Counties. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
(12) Bay Area Transit Connectivity; complete studies of, and fund related improvements for, the I-580 Livermore Corridor; the Hercules Rail Station and related improvements, West Contra Costa County and Route 4 Corridors in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000). Of the amount specified, seven million dollars ($7,000,000) shall be made available for the Route 4 Corridor study and improvements, seven million dollars ($7,000,000) shall be made available for the I-580 Corridor study and improvements, and three million dollars ($3,000,000) shall be made available for the Hercules Rail Station study and improvements. The lead applicant for the Hercules Rail Station and related improvements in west Contra Costa County is the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority. The lead applicants, for the I-580 Livermore Study and improvements are the Alameda County Transportation Commission and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The lead applicants for the Route 4 Corridor study and improvements are the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
(13) Caltrain Peninsula Corridor; acquire rolling stock, add passing tracks, and construct pedestrian access structure at stations between San Francisco and San Jose in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. One hundred twenty-seven million dollars ($127,000,000). The lead applicant is the Peninsula Joint Powers Board.
(14) Caltrain; extension to Salinas in Monterey County. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The lead applicant is the Transportation Agency for Monterey County.
(15) Route 24; Caldecott Tunnel; add fourth bore tunnel with additional lanes in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
(16) Route 4; construct one or more phases of improvements to widen freeway to eight lanes from Railroad through Loveridge Road, including two HOV lanes, and to six or more lanes from east of Loveridge Road through Hillcrest. Thirty-nine million dollars ($39,000,000). The lead applicant is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
(17) Route 101; add reversible HOV lane through San Rafael, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to North San Pedro Road in Marin County. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Marin Congestion Management Agency.
(18) Route 101; widen eight miles of freeway to six lanes, Novato to Petaluma (Novato Narrows) in Marin and Sonoma Counties. Twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Sonoma County Transportation Authority.
(19) Bay Area Water Transit Authority; establish a regional water transit system beginning with Treasure Island in the City and County of San Francisco. Two million dollars ($2,000,000). The lead applicant is the Bay Area Water Transit Authority.
(20) San Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail; extend Third Street line to Chinatown (tunnel) in the City and County of San Francisco. One hundred forty million dollars ($140,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
(21) San Francisco Muni Ocean Avenue Light Rail; reconstruct Ocean Avenue light rail line to Route 1 near California State University, San Francisco, in the City and County of San Francisco. Seven million dollars ($7,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
(22) Route 101; environmental study for reconstruction of Doyle Drive, from Lombard Street/Richardson Avenue to Route 1 Interchange in the City and County of San Francisco. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Francisco County Transportation Authority.
(23) Caltrain Peninsula Corridor; complete grade separations at Poplar Avenue (San Mateo), 25th Avenue or vicinity (San Mateo), and Linden Avenue (South San Francisco) in San Mateo County. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
(24) Vallejo Baylink Ferry; acquire low-emission ferryboats to expand Baylink Vallejo-San Francisco service in Solano County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the City of Vallejo.
(25) I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange in Fairfield in Solano County; 12 interchange complex in seven stages (Stage 1). Thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Solano Transportation Authority.
(26) ACE Commuter Rail; add siding on UPRR line in Livermore Valley in Alameda County. One million dollars ($1,000,000). The lead applicant is the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
(27) Vasco Road Safety and Transit Enhancement Project in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Eleven million dollars ($11,000,000). The lead applicant is Alameda County Transportation Commission.
(28) Parking Structure at Transit Village at Richmond BART Station in Contra Costa County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the City of Richmond.
(29) AC Transit; buy two fuel cell buses and fueling facility for demonstration project in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Eight million dollars ($8,000,000). The lead applicant is the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District.
(30) Implementation of commuter rail passenger service from Cloverdale south to San Rafael and Larkspur in Marin and Sonoma Counties. Thirty-seven million dollars ($37,000,000). The lead applicant is the Sonoma-Marin Area Transit Authority.
(31) Route 580; construct eastbound and westbound HOV lanes from Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road in Alameda County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
(32) North Coast Railroad; repair and upgrade track to meet Class II (freight) standards in Napa, Sonoma, Marin, Mendocino, and Humboldt Counties. Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000). The lead applicant is the North Coast Rail Authority. Except for the amounts specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) and subdivision (b) of Section 14456.50, no part of the specified amount may be made available to the authority until it has made a full accounting to the commission demonstrating that the expenditure of funds provided to the authority in the Budget Act of 2000 (Chapter 52 of the Statutes of 2000) was consistent with the limitations placed on those funds in that Budget Act.
(33) Bus Transit; acquire low-emission buses for Los Angeles County MTA bus transit service. One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000). The lead applicant is the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(34) Blue Line to Los Angeles; new rail line Pasadena to Los Angeles in Los Angeles County. Forty million dollars ($40,000,000). The lead applicant is the Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority.
(35) Pacific Surfliner; triple track intercity rail line within Los Angeles County and add run-through tracks through Los Angeles Union Station in Los Angeles County. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(36) Los Angeles Eastside Transit Extension; build new light rail line in East Los Angeles, from Union Station to Atlantic via 1st Street to Lorena in Los Angeles County. Two hundred thirty-six million dollars ($236,000,000). The lead applicant is the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(37) Los Angeles Mid-City Transit Improvements; build Bus Rapid Transit system or Light Rail Transit in Mid-City/Westside/Exposition Corridors in Los Angeles County. Two hundred fifty-six million dollars ($256,000,000). The lead applicant is the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(38) Los Angeles-San Fernando Valley Transit Extension; (A) build an East-West Bus Rapid Transit system in the Burbank-Chandler corridor, from North Hollywood to Warner Center. One hundred forty-five million dollars ($145,000,000). (B) Build a North-South corridor bus transit project that interfaces with the foregoing East-West Burbank-Chandler Corridor project and with the Ventura Boulevard Rapid Bus project. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000). The lead applicant for both extension projects is the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(39) Route 405; add northbound HOV lane over Sepulveda Pass, Route 10 to Route 101 in Los Angeles County. Ninety million dollars ($90,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(40) Route 10; add HOV lanes on San Bernardino Freeway over Kellogg Hill, near Pomona, Route 605 to Route 57 in Los Angeles County. Ninety million dollars ($90,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(41) Route 5; add HOV lanes on Golden State Freeway through San Fernando Valley, Route 170 (Hollywood Freeway) to Route 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway) in Los Angeles County. Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(42) Route 5; widen Santa Ana Freeway to 10 lanes (two HOV + two mixed flow), Orange County line to Route 710, with related major arterial improvements, in Los Angeles County. One hundred twenty-five million dollars ($125,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(43) Route 5; improve Carmenita Road Interchange in Norwalk in Los Angeles County. Seventy-one million dollars ($71,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(44) Route 47 (Terminal Island Freeway); construct interchange at Ocean Boulevard Overpass in the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County. Eighteen million four hundred thousand dollars ($18,400,000). The lead applicant is the Port of Long Beach.
(45) Route 710; complete Gateway Corridor study, Los Angeles/Long Beach ports to Route 5 in Los Angeles County. Two million dollars ($2,000,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(46) Route 1; reconstruct intersection at Route 107 in Torrance in Los Angeles County. Two million dollars ($2,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(47) Route 101; California Street off-ramp in Ventura County. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the City of San Buenaventura.
(48) Route 101; corridor analysis and PSR to improve corridor from Route 170 (North Hollywood Freeway) to Route 23 in Thousand Oaks (Ventura County) in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Three million dollars ($3,000,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(49) Hollywood Intermodal Transportation Center; intermodal facility at Highland Avenue and Hawthorn Avenue in the City of Los Angeles. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the City of Los Angeles.
(50) Route 71; complete three miles of six-lane freeway through Pomona, from Route 10 to Route 60 in Los Angeles County. Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(51) Route 101/405; add auxiliary lane and widen ramp through freeway interchange in Sherman Oaks in Los Angeles County. Twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(52) Route 405; add HOV and auxiliary lanes for one mile in West Los Angeles, from Waterford Avenue to Route 10 in Los Angeles County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(53) Automated Signal Corridors (ATSAC); improve 479 automated signals in Victory/Ventura Corridor, and add 76 new automated signals in Sepulveda Boulevard and Route 118 Corridors in Los Angeles County. Sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000). The lead applicant is the City of Los Angeles.
(54) Alameda Corridor East; build grade separations on Burlington Northern-Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad lines, downtown Los Angeles to Los Angeles County line in Los Angeles County. One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments.
(55) Alameda Corridor East; build grade separations on Burlington Northern-Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad lines, with rail-to-rail separation at Colton through San Bernardino County. Ninety-five million dollars ($95,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Bernardino Associated Governments.
(56) Metrolink; track and signal improvements on Metrolink; San Bernardino line in San Bernardino County. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). The lead applicant is the Southern California Regional Rail Authority.
(57) Route 215; add HOV lanes through downtown San Bernardino, Route 10 to Route 30 in San Bernardino County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission.
(58) Route 10; widen freeway to eight lanes through Redlands, Route 30 to Ford Street in San Bernardino County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission.
(59) Route 10; Live Oak Canyon Interchange, including, but not limited to, the 14th Street Bridge over Wilson Creek, in the City of Yucaipa in San Bernardino County. Eleven million dollars ($11,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission.
(60) Route 15; southbound truck climbing lane at two locations in San Bernardino County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission.
(61) Route 10; reconstruct Apache Trail Interchange east of Banning in Riverside County. Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
(62) Route 91; add HOV lanes through downtown Riverside, Mary Street to Route 60/215 junction in Riverside County. Forty million dollars ($40,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
(63) Route 60; add seven miles of HOV lanes west of Riverside, Route 15 to Valley Way in Riverside County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
(64) Route 91; improve the Green River Interchange and add auxiliary lane and connector ramp east of the Green River Interchange to northbound Route 71 in Riverside County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
(70) Route 22; add HOV lanes on Garden Grove Freeway, Route I-405 to Route 55 in Orange County. Two hundred six million five hundred thousand dollars ($206,500,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Orange County Transportation Authority.
(73) Alameda Corridor East; (Orangethorpe Corridor) build grade separations on Burlington Northern-Santa Fe line, Los Angeles County line through Santa Ana Canyon in Orange County. Twenty-eight million dollars ($28,000,000). The lead applicant is the Orange County Transportation Authority.
(74) Pacific Surfliner; double track intercity rail line within San Diego County, add maintenance yard in San Diego County. Forty-seven million dollars ($47,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or North County Transit District.
(75) San Diego Transit Buses; acquire about 85 low-emission buses for San Diego transit service in San Diego County. Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
(76) Coaster Commuter Rail; acquire one new train set to expand commuter rail in San Diego County. Fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000). The lead applicant is North County Transit District.
(77) Route 94; complete environmental studies to add capacity to Route 94 corridor, downtown San Diego to Route 125 in Lemon Grove in San Diego County. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or San Diego Association of Governments.
(78) East Village access; improve access to light rail from new in-town East Village development in San Diego County. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
(79) North County Light Rail; build new 20-mile light rail line from Oceanside to Escondido in San Diego County. Eighty million dollars ($80,000,000). The lead applicant is North County Transit District.
(80) Mid-Coast Light Rail; extend Old Town light rail line six miles to Balboa Avenue in San Diego County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
(81) San Diego Ferry; acquire low-emission high-speed ferryboat for new off-coast service between San Diego and Oceanside in San Diego County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the Port of San Diego.
(82) Routes 5/805; reconstruct and widen freeway interchange, Genesee Avenue to Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Diego Association of Governments.
(83) Route 15; add high-tech managed lane on I-15 freeway north of San Diego (Stage 1) from Route 163 to Route 78 in San Diego County. Seventy million dollars ($70,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Diego Association of Governments.
(84) Route 52; build four miles of new six-lane freeway to Santee, Mission Gorge to Route 67 in San Diego County. Forty-five million dollars ($45,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Diego Association of Governments.
(85) Route 56; construct approximately five miles of new freeway alignment between I-5 and I-15 from Carmel Valley to Rancho Penasquitos in the City of San Diego in San Diego County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Diego Association of Governments.
(86) Route 905; build new six-lane freeway on Otay Mesa, Route 805 to Mexico Port of Entry in San Diego County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Diego Association of Governments.
(87) Routes 94/125; build two new freeway connector ramps at Route 94/125 in Lemon Grove in San Diego County. Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Diego Association of Governments.
(88) Route 5; realign freeway at Virginia Avenue, approaching San Ysidro Port of Entry to Mexico in San Diego County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Diego Association of Governments.
(89) Route 99; improve Shaw Avenue Interchange in northern Fresno in Fresno County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Council of Fresno County Governments.
(90) Route 99; widen freeway to six lanes, Kingsburg to Selma in Fresno County. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Council of Fresno County Governments.
(91) Route 180; build new expressway east of Clovis, Clovis Avenue to Temperance Avenue in Fresno County. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Council of Fresno County Governments.
(92) San Joaquin Corridor; improve track and signals along San Joaquin intercity rail line near Hanford in Kings County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(93) Route 180; complete environmental studies to extend Route 180 westward from Mendota to I-5 in Fresno County. Seven million dollars ($7,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Council of Fresno County Governments.
(94) Route 43; widen to four-lane expressway from Kings County line to Route 99 in Selma in Fresno County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Council of Fresno County Governments.
(95) Route 41; add auxiliary lane/operational improvements and improve ramps at Friant Road Interchange in Fresno in Fresno County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Council of Fresno County Governments.
(96) Friant Road; widen to four lanes from Copper Avenue to Road 206 in Fresno County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the County of Fresno.
(97) Operational improvements on Shaw Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, Willow Avenue, and Barstow Avenue near California State University at Fresno in Fresno County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the California State University at Fresno. Of the amount authorized under this paragraph, the sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) shall be transferred to the California State University at Fresno for the purposes of funding preliminary plans, working drawings, or both of those, and related program management costs for the Fresno Events Center.
(98) Peach Avenue; widen to four-lane arterial and add pedestrian overcrossings for three schools in Fresno County. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the City of Fresno.
(99) San Joaquin Corridor; improve track and signals along San Joaquin intercity rail line in seven counties. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(100) San Joaquin Valley Emergency Clean Air Attainment Program; incentives for the reduction of emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines operating within the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(101) Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District bus fleet; acquisition of low-emission buses. Three million dollars ($3,000,000). The lead applicant is the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District.
(102) Route 101 access; State Street smart corridor Advanced Traffic Corridor System (ATSC) technology in Santa Barbara County. One million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000). The lead applicant is the City of Santa Barbara.
(103) Route 99; improve interchange at Seventh Standard Road, north of Bakersfield in Kern County. Eight million dollars ($8,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or Kern Council of Governments.
(104) Route 99; build seven miles of new six-lane freeway south of Merced, Buchanan Hollow Road to Healey Road in Merced County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Merced County Association of Governments.
(105) Route 99; build two miles of new six-lane freeway, Madera County line to Buchanan Hollow Road in Merced County. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Merced County Association of Governments.
(106) Campus Parkway; build new arterial in Merced County from Route 99 to Bellevue Road. Twenty-three million dollars ($23,000,000). The lead applicant is the County of Merced.
(107) Route 205; widen freeway to six lanes, Tracy to I-5 in San Joaquin County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Joaquin Council of Governments.
(108) Route 5; add northbound lane to freeway through Mossdale “Y”, Route 205 to Route 120 in San Joaquin County. Seven million dollars ($7,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the San Joaquin Council of Governments.
(109) Route 132; build four miles of new four-lane expressway in Modesto from Dakota Avenue to Route 99 and improve Route 99 Interchange in Stanislaus County. Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Stanislaus Council of Governments.
(110) Route 132; build 3.5 miles of new four-lane expressway from Route 33 to the San Joaquin county line in Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties. Two million dollars ($2,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Stanislaus Council of Governments.
(111) Route 198; build 10 miles of new four-lane expressway from Route 99 to Hanford in Kings and Tulare Counties. Fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Kings County Association of Governments.
(112) Jersey Avenue; widen from 17th Street to 18th Street in Kings County. One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000). The lead applicant is Kings County.
(113) Route 46; widen to four lanes for 33 miles from Route 5 to San Luis Obispo County line in Kern County. Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Kern Council of Governments.
(114) Route 65; add four passing lanes, intersection improvement, and conduct environmental studies for ultimate widening to four lanes from Route 99 in Bakersfield to Tulare County line in Kern County. Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Kern Council of Governments.
(115) South Line Light Rail; extend South Line three miles towards Elk Grove, from Meadowview Road to Calvine Road in Sacramento County. Seventy million dollars ($70,000,000). The lead applicant is the Sacramento Regional Transit District.
(116) Route 80 Light Rail Corridor; double-track Route 80 light rail line for express service in Sacramento County. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The lead applicant is the Sacramento Regional Transit District.
(117) Folsom Light Rail; extend light rail tracks from 7th Street and K Street to the Amtrak Depot in downtown Sacramento, and extend Folsom light rail from Mather Field Station to downtown Folsom. Add a new vehicle storage and maintenance facility in the area between the Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue Stations in Sacramento County. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The lead applicant is the Sacramento Regional Transit District.
(118) Sacramento Emergency Clean Air/Transportation Plan (SECAT); incentive for the reduction of emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines operating within the Sacramento region. Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). The lead applicant is the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
(119) Convert Sacramento Regional Transit bus fleet to low emission and provide Yolo bus service by the Yolo County Transportation District; acquire approximately 50 replacement low-emission buses for service in Sacramento and Yolo Counties. Nineteen million dollars ($19,000,000). The lead applicants are the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and the Yolo County Transportation District.
(121) Metropolitan Bakersfield System Study; to reduce congestion in the City of Bakersfield. Three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000). The lead applicant is the Kern Council of Governments.
(122) Route 65; widening project from 7th Standard Road to Route 190 in Porterville. Three million five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000). The lead applicant is the County of Tulare.
(123) Oceanside Transit Center; parking structure. One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000). The lead applicant is the City of Oceanside.
(126) Route 50/Watt Avenue Interchange; widening of overcrossing and modifications to interchange. Seven million dollars ($7,000,000). The lead applicant is the County of Sacramento.
(127) Route 85/Route 87; interchange completion; addition of two direct connectors for southbound Route 85 to northbound Route 87 and southbound Route 87 to northbound Route 85. Three million five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000). The lead applicant is the City of San Jose.
(128) Airport Road; reconstruction and intersection improvement project. Three million dollars ($3,000,000). The lead applicant is the County of Shasta.
(129) Route 62; traffic and pedestrian safety and utility undergrounding project in right-of-way of Route 62. Three million two hundred thousand dollars ($3,200,000). The lead applicant is the Town of Yucca Valley.
(133) Feasibility studies for grade separation projects for Union Pacific Railroad at Elk Grove Boulevard and Bond Road. One hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). The lead applicant is the City of Elk Grove.
(134) Route 50/Sunrise Boulevard; interchange modifications. Three million dollars ($3,000,000). The lead applicant is the County of Sacramento.
(135) Route 99/Sheldon Road; interchange project; reconstruction and expansion. Three million dollars ($3,000,000). The lead applicant is the County of Sacramento.
(138) Cross Valley Rail; upgrade track from Visalia to Huron. Four million dollars ($4,000,000). The lead applicant is the Cross Valley Rail Corridor Joint Powers Authority.
(139) Balboa Park BART Station; Phase I expansion. Six million dollars ($6,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
(140) City of Goshen; overpass for Route 99. One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(141) Union City; pedestrian bridge over Union Pacific rail lines. Two million dollars ($2,000,000). The lead applicant is the City of Union City.
(142) West Hollywood; repair, maintenance, and mitigation of Santa Monica Boulevard. Two million dollars ($2,000,000). The lead applicant is the City of West Hollywood.
(144) Seismic retrofit of the national landmark Golden Gate Bridge. Five million dollars ($5,000,000). The lead applicant is the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District.
(145) Construction of a new siding in Sun Valley between Sheldon Street and Sunland Boulevard. Six million five hundred thousand dollars ($6,500,000). The lead applicant is the Southern California Regional Rail Authority.
(146) Construction of Palm Drive Interchange. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the Coachella Valley Association of Governments.
(148) Route 98; widening of eight miles between Route 111 and Route 7 from two lanes to four lanes. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(149) Purchase of low-emission buses for express service on Route 17. Three million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($3,750,000). The lead applicant is the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District.
(150) Renovation or rehabilitation of Santa Cruz Metro Center. One million dollars ($1,000,000). The lead applicant is the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District.
(151) Purchase of five alternative fuel buses for the Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System. One million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000). The lead applicant is the Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System.
(152) Pasadena Blue Line transit-oriented mixed-use development. One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000). The lead applicant is the City of South Pasadena.
(153) Pasadena Blue Line utility relocation. Five hundred fifty thousand dollars ($550,000). The lead applicant is the City of South Pasadena.
(154) Route 134/I-5 Interchange study. One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(156) Seismic retrofit and core segment improvements for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The lead applicant is the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
(157) Route 12; Congestion relief improvements from Route 29 to I-80 through Jamison Canyon. Seven million dollars ($7,000,000). The lead applicant is the department.
(158) Remodel the intersection of Olympic Boulevard, Mateo Street, and Porter Street and install a new traffic signal. Two million dollars ($2,000,000). The lead applicant is the City of Los Angeles.
(159) Route 101; redesign and construction of Steele Lane Interchange. Six million dollars ($6,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the Sonoma County Transportation Authority.
(b) As used in this section, “route” is a state highway route as identified in Article 3 (commencing with Section 300) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code.

SEC. 3.

 Section 21669.6 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

21669.6.
 Hearings under this article required by the provisions of Sections 21666, 21668, 21668.2, and 21669, or regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, shall be conducted pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

SEC. 4.

 Section 24908 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

24908.
 (a) The board may, by ordinance or resolution, provide that each director shall be paid a sum that shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each calendar month that he or she serves as a director. The board may, by ordinance or resolution, provide for an adjustment to the monthly compensation based upon the percentage increase in the California Consumer Price Index, as calculated by the Department of Finance, for each calendar year following the operative date of the last adjustment. The adjustment shall not become effective until the next regular election of the directors following the adoption of the ordinance or resolution.
(b) The ordinance or resolution to authorize a monthly stipend pursuant to subdivision (a), in lieu of per-meeting compensation, shall include a requirement that a director may receive a monthly stipend for a given month only if he or she attends all scheduled and noticed regular board meetings for that month. For those directors meeting this attendance requirement, the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be deducted from the stipend for failure to attend each meeting of a committee on which he or she serves that month. In any month that a director fails to meet these attendance requirements, that director may be compensated at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100) per board or committee meeting attended, not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for that month.
(c) For the purpose of this section, a director who misses a scheduled and noticed meeting of the board or committee while attending to official district business pursuant to authorization shall be deemed to have attended the meeting.
(d) The ordinance or resolution may provide for not more than two excused absences during a calendar year without disqualifying the director for a monthly stipend.
(e) In addition to the compensation otherwise provided in this section, each director may be allowed necessary traveling and personal expenses incurred solely as a result of the performance of his or her duties, in amounts as may be authorized by the board. Reimbursement for these expenses is subject to Sections 53232.2 and 53232.3 of the Government Code.

SEC. 5.

 Section 29034.7 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

29034.7.
 (a) Not later than December 31, 1991, the district shall proceed to commence construction of an extension of its facilities to Dublin if an agreement is then existing between the district and the Alameda County Transportation Commission to provide funding for that extension in accordance with the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan adopted pursuant to Section 131055.
(b) Not later than December 31, 1991, the district shall proceed to commence construction of an extension of its facilities to Warm Springs, subject to each of the following conditions:
(1) The Dublin extension is fully funded and ready for implementation.
(2) Appropriate federal and environmental approvals are obtained in a timely manner.
(3) Adequate funding is available from the sources described in subdivision (c).
(c) In order to meet the objective of completing construction of the Dublin and Warm Springs extensions of the district’s facilities, as contemplated by the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan, the board of directors of the district shall take the following actions:
(1) Set aside, for expenditure on those projects, not less than fifty-eight million dollars ($58,000,000) from the district’s reserve funds.
(2) Commit for expenditure on those projects, an additional amount of not less than one hundred twenty-six million dollars ($126,000,000) if, pursuant to an agreement between the district and the San Mateo County Transit District, the district is to receive two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) as a capital contribution from the San Mateo County Transit District.
(3) Seek additional funding as may be available from an increase in San Francisco Bay area bridge tolls pursuant to Chapter 406 of the Statutes of 1988, together with funding from state and other sources, to provide not less than six hundred two million dollars ($602,000,000) to fund the Dublin and Warm Springs extensions as provided for in the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan.
(d) It is the intent of the Legislature, if funding, as provided for in the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan and pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (c), does not become available to the district for the full extension of service and facilities described in subdivisions (a) and (b), that the district nevertheless undertake to provide the described extensions to the extent that available funding permits.

SEC. 6.

 Section 29035.5 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

29035.5.
 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 3434, in December 2001, established the following Regional Transit Expansion Program for the San Francisco Bay area:
(a) BART to Warm Springs, sponsored by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
(b) BART from Warm Springs to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara, sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(c) San Francisco Muni Third Street Light-Rail Transit Project: Phase 2-New Central Subway, sponsored by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and San Francisco Muni.
(d) BART/Oakland Airport Connector, sponsored by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
(e) Caltrain Downtown Extension/Rebuilt Transbay Terminal, sponsored by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority.
(f) Caltrain Rapid Rail/Electrification, sponsored by the Joint Powers Board (Caltrain).
(g) Caltrain Express/Phase 1, sponsored by the Joint Powers Board (Caltrain).
(h) Downtown to East Valley Light-Rail and Bus Rapid Transit: Phases 1 and 2, sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(i) Capitol Corridor: Phase 1 Expansion, sponsored by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority.
(j) AC Transit Oakland/San Leandro Bus Rapid Transit: Phase 1 (Enhanced Bus), sponsored by AC Transit.
(k) Regional Express Bus: Phase 1, sponsored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
(l) Dumbarton Rail, sponsored by the Joint Powers Board (Caltrain).
(m) BART/East Contra Costa Rail Extension, sponsored by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and BART.
(n) BART/Tri-Valley Rail Extension, sponsored by the Alameda County Transportation Commission and BART.
(o) Altamont Commuter Express (ACE): Service Expansion, sponsored by the Altamont Commuter Express.
(p) Caltrain Express: Phase 2, sponsored by the Joint Powers Board (Caltrain).
(q) Capitol Corridor: Phase 2 Enhancements, sponsored by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority.
(r) Sonoma-Marin Rail, sponsored by Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit.
(s) AC Transit Enhanced Bus: Hesperian/Foothill/MacArthur Corridors, sponsored by AC Transit.

SEC. 7.

 Section 99221 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

99221.
 It is the intent of the Legislature to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional public transportation coordination. The Legislature recognizes that in the Southern California Rapid Transit District a unique factual situation exists where several municipal bus systems are providing essential local transportation services within the operating territory of the district, which was created by the Legislature to provide areawide coordinated public transportation services. Within the Southern California Rapid Transit District, as with all transportation service improvements in the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority shall be the governmental entity responsible to establish a unified or officially coordinated public transportation system as part of the comprehensively planned development of the urban area. Both the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the included municipalities that operate bus systems within the jurisdiction of the district are permitted to file claims pursuant to this chapter upon the local transportation fund of the County of Los Angeles; provided, however, any approved claim shall not be allowed for the purpose of the establishment by the included municipal operator after January 1, 1980, of new transportation services that do not meet the criteria established by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the development of new services. It is the intent of the Legislature that the Southern California Rapid Transit District should not be inhibited in its effort to improve transit services within the region by the expansion outside the reserved service areas of the several municipal bus systems of the involved municipalities. The policy of the Legislature is that new services to meet public transportation needs outside of the municipalities presently operating bus systems which do not compete with, or divert patronage from, an existing operating bus system of an included municipal applicant under Section 99280, shall be provided and controlled by the Southern California Rapid Transit District, in complete cooperation and coordination with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in its role as the responsible public agency for providing public transportation systems and facilities within the region.

SEC. 8.

 Section 99313.1 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

99313.1.
 (a) A transportation planning agency, a county transportation commission, or the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board may transfer any funds that it receives pursuant to Section 99313 to another transportation planning agency, county transportation commission, or the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board. Any funds transferred pursuant to this section shall be used only for the purposes authorized by this chapter and are subject to all statutes and rules and regulations applicable to funds allocated pursuant to Section 99313.
(b) If one transfer has been completed between a transportation planning agency, a county transportation commission, or the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, pursuant to this section, no other transfer may be made between the same parties.
(c) In the event of a transfer of funds to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority pursuant to this section, the amount of that transfer, if any, which exceeds the amount of funds transferred at that time by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to the transferring transportation planning agency, county transportation commission, or the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, may not be used for the purpose of funding an exclusive public mass transit guideway system project. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority shall report to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing and the Assembly Committee on Transportation on the expenditure of any funds received by it pursuant to a transfer made pursuant to this section.

SEC. 9.

 Section 99633 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

99633.
 Sixty-one million dollars ($61,000,000) shall be allocated to the Alameda County Transportation Commission for expenditure on rail projects of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District and other rail projects within Alameda County, as determined by the authority. Projects funded pursuant to this section shall be consistent with the new rail starts and extensions plan of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

SEC. 10.

 Section 132352.6 of the Public Utilities Code is repealed.

SEC. 11.

 Section 132820 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

132820.
 The commission may do any of the following:
(a) Use up to 3 percent of the revenues in the local transportation fund for the purpose of carrying out its planning and programming responsibilities.
(b) Sue and be sued.
(c) Enter into contracts with qualified vendors to further the purposes of the commission.
(d) Do any and all things necessary to carry out the purposes of this division.

SEC. 12.

 Section 149.5 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

149.5.
 (a) (1) Notwithstanding Sections 149 and 30800 of this code, and Section 21655.5 of the Vehicle Code, the Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority (SSCLJPA), consisting of the Alameda County Transportation Commission and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, may conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy vehicle program on the Sunol Grade segment of State Highway Route 680 (Interstate 680) in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties and the Alameda County Transportation Commission may conduct, administer, and operate a program on a corridor within Alameda County for a maximum of two transportation corridors in Alameda County pursuant to this section in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and consistent with Section 21655.6 of the Vehicle Code.
(2) The program, under the circumstances described in subdivision (b), may direct and authorize the entry and use of the high-occupancy vehicle lanes in the corridors identified in paragraph (1) by single-occupant vehicles for a fee. The fee structure for each corridor shall be established from time to time by the administering agency. A high-occupancy vehicle lane may only be operated as a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane during the hours that the lane is otherwise restricted to use by high-occupancy vehicles.
(3) The administering agency for each corridor shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the Bay Area Toll Authority to operate and manage the electronic toll collection system.
(b) Implementation of the program shall ensure that Level of Service C, as measured by the most recent issue of the Highway Capacity Manual, as adopted by the Transportation Research Board, is maintained at all times in the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, except that subject to a written agreement between the department and the administering agency that is based on operating conditions of the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, Level of Service D shall be permitted on the high-occupancy vehicle lanes. If Level of Service D is permitted, the department and the administering agency shall evaluate the impacts of these levels of service on the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and indicate any effects on the mixed-flow lanes. Continuance of Level of Service D operating conditions shall be subject to the written agreement between the department and the administering agency. Unrestricted access to the lanes by high-occupancy vehicles shall be available at all times. At least annually, the department shall audit the level of service during peak traffic hours and report the results of that audit at meetings of the administering agency.
(c) Single-occupant vehicles that are certified or authorized by the administering agency for entry into, and use of, the high-occupancy vehicle lanes identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) are exempt from Section 21655.5 of the Vehicle Code, and the driver shall not be in violation of the Vehicle Code because of that entry and use.
(d) The administering agency shall carry out the program in cooperation with the department pursuant to a cooperative agreement that addresses all matters related to design, construction, maintenance, and operation of state highway system facilities in connection with the value pricing high-occupancy vehicle program. With the assistance of the department, the administering agency shall establish appropriate traffic flow guidelines for the purpose of ensuring optimal use of the high-occupancy toll lanes by high-occupancy vehicles without adversely affecting other traffic on the state highway system.
(e) (1) Agreements between the administering agency, the department, and the Department of the California Highway Patrol shall identify the respective obligations and liabilities of those entities and assign them responsibilities relating to the program. The agreements entered into pursuant to this section shall be consistent with agreements between the department and the United States Department of Transportation relating to programs of this nature. The agreements shall include clear and concise procedures for enforcement by the Department of the California Highway Patrol of laws prohibiting the unauthorized use of the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, which may include the use of video enforcement. The agreements shall provide for reimbursement of state agencies, from revenues generated by the program, or other funding sources that are not otherwise available to state agencies for transportation-related projects, for costs incurred in connection with the implementation or operation of the program.
(2) The revenue generated from the program shall be available to the administering agency for the direct expenses related to the operation (including collection and enforcement), maintenance, construction, and administration of the program. Administrative expenses shall not exceed 3 percent of the revenues.
(3) All net revenue generated by the program that remains after payment of direct expenses pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be allocated pursuant to an expenditure plan adopted biennially by the administering agency for transportation purposes within the program area. The expenditure plan may include funding for the following:
(A) The construction of high-occupancy vehicle facilities, including the design, preconstruction, construction, and other related costs of the northbound Interstate 680 Sunol Smart Carpool Lane project.
(B) Transit capital and operations that directly serve the authorized corridors.
(f) (1) The administering agency may issue bonds, refunding bonds, or bond anticipation notes, at any time to finance construction and construction-related expenditures of programs adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) and construction and construction-related expenditures that are included in the expenditure plan adopted pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (e), payable solely from the revenues generated from the respective programs.
(2) The maximum bonded indebtedness that may be outstanding at any one time shall be an amount equal to the sum of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds, but not to exceed the estimated revenues generated from the respective programs.
(3) Bonds shall be issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing board of the administering agency. The resolution shall state all of the following:
(A) The purposes for which the proposed debt is to be incurred.
(B) The estimated cost of accomplishing those purposes.
(C) The amount of the principal of the indebtedness.
(D) The maximum term the bonds proposed to be issued shall run before maturity.
(E) The maximum rate of interest to be paid, which shall not exceed the maximum allowable by law.
(F) The denomination or denominations of the bonds, which shall not be less than five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(G) The form of the bonds, including, without limitation, registered bonds and coupon bonds, to the extent permitted by federal law, the registration, conversion, and exchange privileges, if any pertaining thereto, and the time when all of, or any part of, the principal becomes due and payable.
(H) Any other matters authorized by law.
(4) The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not exceeding the maximum allowable by law, payable at intervals determined by the administering agency.
(5) The full amount of bonds may be divided into two or more series and different dates of payment fixed for the bonds of each series. A bond shall not be required to mature on its anniversary date.
(6) Any bond issued pursuant to this subdivision shall contain on its face a statement to the following effect:
“Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of California is pledged to the payment of principal of, or the interest on, this bond.”
(g) Not later than three years after the administering agency first collects revenues from the program authorized by this section, the administering agency shall submit a report to the Legislature on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning the demonstration program authorized by this section. The report shall include an analysis of the effect of the HOT lanes on the adjacent mixed-flow lanes and any comments submitted by the department and the Department of the California Highway Patrol regarding operation of the lane.

SEC. 13.

 Section 301 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

301.
 Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 near El Rio except for the portion of Route 1 relinquished:
(1) Within the city limits of the City of Dana Point between the western edge of the San Juan Creek Bridge and Eastline Road at the city limits of the City of Laguna Beach.
(2) Within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach between Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive.
(b) Route 101 at Emma Wood State Beach, 1.3 miles north of Route 33, to Route 101, 2.8 miles south of the Ventura-Santa Barbara county line at Mobil Pier Undercrossing.
(c) Route 101 near Las Cruces to Route 101 in Pismo Beach via the vicinity of Lompoc, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and Guadalupe.
(d) Route 101 in San Luis Obispo to Route 280 south of San Francisco along the coast via Cambria, San Simeon, and Santa Cruz.
(e) Route 280 near the south boundary of the City and County of San Francisco to Route 101 near the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
(f) Route 101 near the southerly end of Marin Peninsula to Route 101 near Leggett via the coast route through Jenner and Westport.
(g) The relinquished former portions of Route 1 within the City of Dana Point and the City of Newport Beach are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For those relinquished former portions of Route 1, the City of Dana Point and the City of Newport Beach shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1. The City of Newport Beach shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portions of Route 1 within its jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, any traffic signal progression.
(h) The commission may relinquish to the City of Oxnard the portion of Route 1 that is located within the city limits of that city and is between Pleasant Valley Road and Route 101, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the commission and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.
(1) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately after the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution that contains the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, that portion of Route 1 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway and may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.
(3) For portions of Route 1 relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Oxnard shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1.

SEC. 14.

 Section 301.5 of the Streets and Highways Code is repealed.

SEC. 15.

 Section 302 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

302.
 (a) Route 2 is from:
(1) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits of Santa Monica at Centinela Avenue to Route 405 in Los Angeles.
(2) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits of West Hollywood into the City of Los Angeles at La Brea Avenue to Route 101 in Los Angeles.
(3) Route 101 in Los Angeles to Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge via Glendale.
(4) Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge to Route 138 via Wrightwood.
(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 2 within the Cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. Those cities shall maintain signs within their respective jurisdictions directing motorists to the continuation of Route 2.
(c) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may relinquish to the City of Los Angeles the conventional highway portion of Route 2 that is located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, including, but not limited to, a condition that the City of Los Angeles maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 2.
(2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the recording by the county recorder of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur:
(A) The portion of Route 2 relinquished under this subdivision shall cease to be a state highway.
(B) The portion of Route 2 relinquished under this subdivision may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.
(4) For the portions of Route 2 that are relinquished, the City of Los Angeles shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 2.

SEC. 16.

 Section 319 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

319.
 (a) Route 19 is from Del Amo Boulevard near Long Beach to Gardendale Street/Foster Road in the Cities of Bellflower and Downey.
(b) If the commission determines it is in the state’s best interests to do so, it may do the following, pursuant to a cooperative agreement between the city and the department:
(1) Relinquish to the City of Bellflower the portion of Route 19 between the city’s southerly city limit near Rose Avenue and Gardendale Street/Foster Road.
(2) Relinquish to the City of Downey the portion of Route 19 between the city’s southerly city limit at Century Boulevard and Gardendale Street.
(c) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective when the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution containing the commissioner’s approval of the relinquishment’s terms and conditions.
(d) Any portion of Route 19 relinquished pursuant to this section shall cease to be a state highway on the effective date of the relinquishment.
(e) The relinquished former portions of Route 19 within the Cities of Downey, Long Beach, and Pico Rivera are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 19, the Cities of Downey, Long Beach, and Pico Rivera shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 19.

SEC. 17.

 Section 339 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

339.
 Route 39 is from:
(a) Route 1 near Huntington Beach to Route 72 in La Habra via Beach Boulevard.
(b) Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard in La Habra via Whittier Boulevard.
(c) Whittier Boulevard in La Habra to Route 2 via Harbor Boulevard to the vicinity of Fullerton Road, then to Azusa Avenue, Azusa Avenue to San Gabriel Canyon Road, San Gabriel Avenue southbound between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Canyon Road, and San Gabriel Canyon Road, other than the portion of the segment described by this subdivision that is within the city limits of Azusa, Covina, and West Covina.
The relinquished former portions of Route 39 within the city limits of Azusa, Covina, and West Covina are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 39, the Cities of Azusa, Covina, and West Covina shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 39.

SEC. 18.

 Section 358 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

358.
 (a) Route 58 is from:
(1) Route 101 near Santa Margarita to Route 33.
(2) Route 33 to Route 43.
(3) Route 43 to Route 99.
(4) Route 99 to Route 15 near Barstow via Bakersfield and Mojave.
(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern the portion of Route 58 that is located within the jurisdiction of that city or county if the city or county agrees to accept it. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder’s recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 58 shall cease to be a state highway.
(3) The portion of Route 58 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(4) For the portion of Route 58 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern shall install and maintain within the jurisdiction of the city or county signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 58.

SEC. 19.

 Section 371 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

371.
 Route 71 is from Route 57 to Route 91 via Pomona and Chino Hills.

SEC. 20.

 Section 372 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

372.
 Route 72 is from Route 39 to Route 605 in Whittier, except as follows:
(a) Route 72 shall cease to be a state highway when Route 90 freeway is completed from Route 5 to Route 39.
(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 72 within the City of Montebello, the City of Pico Rivera, and the County of Los Angeles are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 72, the Cities of Montebello and Pico Rivera and the County of Los Angeles shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 72.

SEC. 21.

 Section 374 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

374.
 (a) Route 74 is from:
(1) Route 5 near San Juan Capistrano to Route 15 near Lake Elsinore.
(2) Route 15 near Lake Elsinore to Route 215 near Perris.
(3) Route 215 near Perris to the southern city limit of Palm Desert.
(4) Highway 111 in Palm Desert to Route 10 near Thousand Palms.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 74 within the City of Palm Desert is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 74, the City of Palm Desert shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74.
(c) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Lake Elsinore the portion of Route 74 located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state.
(2) Any relinquishment agreement shall require that the City of Lake Elsinore administer the operation and maintenance of the highway in a manner consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.
(3) Any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Lake Elsinore to ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate any decisions affecting the highway.
(4) Any relinquishment agreement shall also require the City of Lake Elsinore to provide for public notice and the consideration of public input on the proximate effects of any proposed decision on traffic flow, residences, or businesses, other than a decision on routine maintenance.
(5) Notwithstanding any of its other terms, any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Lake Elsinore to indemnify and hold the department harmless from any liability for any claims made or damages suffered by any person, including a public entity, as a result of any decision made or action taken by the City of Lake Elsinore, its officers, employees, contractors, or agents, with respect to the design, maintenance, construction, or operation of that portion of Route 74 that is to be relinquished to the city.
(6) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately after the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution that contains the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(7) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur:
(A) The portion of Route 74 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway.
(B) The portion of Route 74 relinquished may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.
(8) The City of Lake Elsinore shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 74, including any traffic signal progression.
(9) For relinquished portions of Route 74, the City of Lake Elsinore shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74.
(d) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Perris the portion of Route 74 located within the city limits of that city between Seventh Street and Redlands Avenue, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state.
(2) Any relinquishment agreement shall require that the City of Perris administer the operation and maintenance of the highway in a manner consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.
(3) Any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Perris to ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate any decisions affecting the highway.
(4) Any relinquishment agreement shall also require the City of Perris to provide for public notice and the consideration of public input on the proximate effects of any proposed decision on traffic flow, residences, or businesses, other than a decision on routine maintenance.
(5) Notwithstanding any of its other terms, any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Perris to indemnify and hold the department harmless from any liability for any claims made or damages suffered by any person, including a public entity, as a result of any decision made or action taken by the City of Perris, its officers, employees, contractors, or agents, with respect to the design, maintenance, construction, or operation of that portion of Route 74 that is to be relinquished to the city.
(6) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately after the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution that contains the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(7) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur:
(A) The portion of Route 74 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway.
(B) The portion of Route 74 relinquished may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.
(8) The City of Perris shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 74, including any traffic signal progression.
(9) For relinquished portions of Route 74, the City of Perris shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74.

SEC. 22.

 Section 379 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

379.
 (a) Route 79 is from:
(1) Route 8 near Descanso to Route 78 near Julian.
(2) Route 78 near Santa Ysabel to the Temecula city limits east of Butterfield Stage Road.
(3) Temecula city limits south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Route 74 near Hemet.
(4) Route 74 near Hemet to the San Jacinto city limit near Menlo Avenue.
(5) The San Jacinto city limit near Sanderson Avenue to Route 10 near Beaumont.
(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 79 within the City of Temecula and the City of San Jacinto are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 79, the City of Temecula and the City of San Jacinto shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 79. The City of Temecula shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished former portions of Route 79 within its jurisdiction, including any traffic signal progression.
(c)  (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may relinquish to the City of Hemet the portion of Route 79 that is located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.
(2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the county recorder’s recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 79 shall cease to be a state highway.
(4) The portion of Route 79 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(5) For the portion of Route 79 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Hemet shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 79.

SEC. 23.

 Section 383 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

383.
 (a) Route 83 is from Route 71 to Route 10 near Upland.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 83 within the City of Upland is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 83, the City of Upland shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 83.

SEC. 24.

 Section 384 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

384.
 (a) Route 84 is from:
(1) Route 1 near San Gregorio to Route 101 at Woodside Road in Redwood City.
(2) Route 101 at Marsh Road in Menlo Park to Route 880.
(3) Route 880 to Route 238.
(4) Route 238 to Route 680 near Scotts Corners via the vicinity of Sunol.
(5) Route 680 near Scotts Corners to Route 580 in Livermore.
(6) Route 580 in Livermore to Route 4 near Brentwood.
(7) Route 12 at Rio Vista to the southerly city limit of the City of West Sacramento.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 84 within the City of West Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 84, the City of West Sacramento shall maintain signs within its jurisdictions directing motorists to the continuation of Route 84.

SEC. 25.

 Section 411 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

411.
 (a) Route 111 is from:
(1) The international border south of Calexico to Route 78 near Brawley, passing east of Heber.
(2) Route 78 near Brawley to Route 86 via the north shore of the Salton Sea.
(3) The western city limits of Cathedral City to Route 10 near Whitewater.
(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 111 within the Cities of Cathedral City, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. The Cities of Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, and Palm Desert, as applicable, shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 111.

SEC. 26.

 Section 444 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

444.
 (a) Route 144 is from Alameda Padre Serra in Santa Barbara to Route 192 via Sycamore Canyon Road.
(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish Route 144 to the City of Santa Barbara, if the city has agreed to accept it. The relinquishment shall be effective on the day immediately following the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until the date the relinquishment authorized under subdivision (b) becomes effective, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted on or before that date, deletes or extends that date.
(d) The relinquished former portion of Route 144 in the City of Santa Barbara between Route 101 and Alameda Padre Serra is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For that relinquished former portion of Route 144, the City of Santa Barbara shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 144.

SEC. 27.

 Section 451 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

451.
 Route 151 is from Shasta Dam to Route 5 near the City of Shasta Lake.

SEC. 28.

 Section 460 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

460.
 (a) Route 160 is from:
(1) Route 4 near Antioch to the southern city limits of Sacramento.
(2) The American River in the City of Sacramento to Route 51.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 160 within the City of Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 160, the City of Sacramento shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 160.

SEC. 29.

 Section 464 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

464.
 (a) Route 164 is Rosemead Boulevard from:
(1) Gallatin Road near Pico Rivera to the southern city limit of Temple City in the vicinity of Grand Avenue.
(2) Route 210 to Foothill Boulevard in the City of Pasadena.
(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 164 within the County of Los Angeles and the City of Temple City are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 164, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Temple City shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 164.

SEC. 30.

 Section 470 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

470.
 (a) Route 170 is from:
(1) Los Angeles International Airport to Route 90.
(2) Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 170 within the City of Los Angeles between Route 2 and Route 101 is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For that relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 170.

SEC. 31.

 Section 560 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

560.
 (a) Route 260 is from Atlantic Avenue in Alameda to Route 880 in Oakland near Seventh and Harrison Streets.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 260 within the City of Alameda between Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For this relinquished former portion of Route 260, the City of Alameda shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 260.

SEC. 32.

 Section 575 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:

575.
 Route 275 is the Tower Bridge from the west side of the Sacramento River near the City of West Sacramento to the east side of the Sacramento River near the City of Sacramento.

SEC. 33.

 Section 30914 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

30914.
 (a) In addition to any other authorized expenditures of toll bridge revenues, the following major projects may be funded from toll revenues of all bridges:
(1) Dumbarton Bridge: Improvement of the western approaches from Route 101 if affected local governments are involved in the planning.
(2) San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and approaches: Widening of the bridge to six lanes, construction of rail transit capital improvements on the bridge structure, and improvements to the Route 92/Route 880 interchange.
(3) Construction of West Grand connector or an alternate project designed to provide comparable benefit by reducing vehicular traffic congestion on the eastern approaches to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Affected local governments shall be involved in the planning.
(4) Not less than 90 percent of the revenues determined by the authority as derived from the toll increase approved in 1988 for class I vehicles on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge authorized by Section 30917 shall be used exclusively for rail transit capital improvements designed to reduce vehicular traffic congestion on that bridge. This amount shall be calculated as 21 percent of the revenue generated each year by the collection of the base toll at the level established by the 1988 increase on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
(b) Notwithstanding any funding request for the transbay bus terminal pursuant to Section 31015, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall allocate toll bridge revenues in an annual amount not to exceed three million dollars ($3,000,000), plus a 3.5-percent annual increase, to the department or to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority after the department transfers the title of the Transbay Terminal Building to that entity, for operation and maintenance expenditures. This allocation shall be payable from funds transferred by the Bay Area Toll Authority. This transfer of funds is subordinate to any obligations of the authority, now or hereafter existing, having a statutory or first priority lien against the toll bridge revenues. The first annual 3.5-percent increase shall be made on July 1, 2004. The transfer is further subject to annual certification by the department or the Transbay Joint Powers Authority that the total Transbay Terminal Building operating revenue is insufficient to pay the cost of operation and maintenance without the requested funding.
(c) If the voters approve a toll increase in 2004 pursuant to Section 30921, the authority shall, consistent with the provisions of subdivisions (d) and (f), fund the projects described in this subdivision and in subdivision (d) that shall collectively be known as the Regional Traffic Relief Plan by bonding or transfers to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. These projects have been determined to reduce congestion or to make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors, from toll revenues of all bridges:
(1) BART/MUNI Connection at Embarcadero and Civic Center Stations. Provide direct access from the BART platform to the MUNI platform at the above stations and equip new fare gates that are TransLink ready. Three million dollars ($3,000,000). The project sponsor is BART.
(2) MUNI Metro Third Street Light Rail Line. Provide funding for the surface and light rail transit and maintenance facility to support MUNI Metro Third Street Light Rail service connecting to Caltrain stations and the E-Line waterfront line. Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). The project sponsor is MUNI.
(3) MUNI Waterfront Historic Streetcar Expansion. Provide funding to rehabilitate historic streetcars and construct trackage and terminal facilities to support service from the Caltrain Terminal, the Transbay Terminal, and the Ferry Building, and connecting the Fisherman’s Wharf and northern waterfront. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The project sponsor is MUNI.
(4) East to West Bay Commuter Rail Service over the Dumbarton Rail Bridge. Provide funding for the necessary track and station improvements and rolling stock to interconnect the BART and Capitol Corridor at Union City with Caltrain service over the Dumbarton Rail Bridge, and interconnect and provide track improvements for the ACE line with the same Caltrain service at Centerville. Provide a new station at Sun Microsystems in Menlo Park. One hundred thirty-five million dollars ($135,000,000). The project is jointly sponsored by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, Capitol Corridor, and the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
(5) Vallejo Station. Construct intermodal transportation hub for bus and ferry service, including parking structure, at site of Vallejo’s current ferry terminal. Twenty-eight million dollars ($28,000,000). The project sponsor is the City of Vallejo.
(6) Solano County Express Bus Intermodal Facilities. Provide competitive grant fund source, to be administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Eligible projects are Curtola Park and Ride, Benicia Intermodal Facility, Fairfield Transportation Center, and Vacaville Intermodal Station. Priority to be given to projects that are fully funded, ready for construction, and serving transit service that operates primarily on existing or fully funded high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The project sponsor is the Solano Transportation Authority.
(7) Solano County Corridor Improvements near Interstate 80/Interstate 680 Interchange. Provide funding for improved mobility in corridor based on recommendations of joint study conducted by the Department of Transportation and the Solano Transportation Authority. Cost-effective transit infrastructure investment or service identified in the study shall be considered a high priority. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000). The project sponsor is the Solano Transportation Authority.
(8) Interstate 80: Eastbound High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Extension from Route 4 to Carquinez Bridge. Construct HOV-lane extension. Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). The project sponsor is the Department of Transportation.
(9) Richmond Parkway Transit Center. Construct parking structure and associated improvements to expand bus capacity. Sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000). The project sponsor is the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, in coordination with West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee, Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, City of Richmond, and the Department of Transportation.
(10) Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) Extension to Larkspur or San Quentin. Extend rail line from San Rafael to a ferry terminal at Larkspur or San Quentin. Thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000). Up to five million dollars ($5,000,000) may be used to study, in collaboration with the Water Transit Authority, the potential use of San Quentin property as an intermodal water transit terminal. The project sponsor is SMART.
(11) Greenbrae Interchange/Larkspur Ferry Access Improvements. Provide enhanced regional and local access around the Greenbrae Interchange to reduce traffic congestion and provide multimodal access to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and Larkspur Ferry Terminal by constructing a new full service diamond interchange at Wornum Drive south of the Greenbrae Interchange, extending a multiuse pathway from the new interchange at Wornum Drive to East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and the Cal Park Hill rail right-of-way, adding a new lane to East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and rehabilitating the Cal Park Hill Rail Tunnel and right-of-way approaches for bicycle and pedestrian access to connect the San Rafael Transit Center with the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. Sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000). The project sponsor is the Marin County Congestion Management Agency.
(12) Direct High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane connector from Interstate 680 to the Pleasant Hill or Walnut Creek BART stations or in close proximity to either station or as an extension of the southbound Interstate 680 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane through the Interstate 680/State Highway Route 4 interchange from North Main in Walnut Creek to Livorna Road. The County Connection shall utilize up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) of the funds described in this paragraph to develop options and recommendations for providing express bus service on the Interstate 680 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane south of the Benicia Bridge in order to connect to BART. Upon completion of the plan, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority shall adopt a preferred alternative provided by the County Connection plan for future funding. Following adoption of the preferred alternative, the remaining funds may be expended either to fund the preferred alternative or to extend the high-occupancy vehicle lane as described in this paragraph. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). The project is sponsored by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
(13) Rail Extension to East Contra Costa/E-BART. Extend BART from Pittsburg/Bay Point Station to Byron in East Contra Costa County. Ninety-six million dollars ($96,000,000). Project funds may only be used if the project is in compliance with adopted BART policies with respect to appropriate land use zoning in vicinity of proposed stations. The project is jointly sponsored by BART and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
(14) Capitol Corridor Improvements in Interstate 80/Interstate 680 Corridor. Fund track and station improvements, including the Suisun Third Main Track and new Fairfield Station. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The project sponsor is the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority and the Solano Transportation Authority.
(15) Central Contra Costa Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Crossover. Add new track before Pleasant Hill BART Station to permit BART trains to cross to return track towards San Francisco. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). The project sponsor is BART.
(16) Benicia-Martinez Bridge: New Span. Provide partial funding for completion of new five-lane span between Benicia and Martinez to significantly increase capacity in the I-680 corridor. Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). The project sponsor is the Bay Area Toll Authority.
(17) Regional Express Bus North. Competitive grant program for bus service in Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, Carquinez, Benicia-Martinez, and Antioch Bridge corridors. Provide funding for park and ride lots, infrastructure improvements, and rolling stock. Eligible recipients include the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, Vallejo Transit, Napa VINE, Fairfield-Suisun Transit, Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, and Central Contra Costa Transit Authority. The Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District shall receive a minimum of one million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000). Napa VINE shall receive a minimum of two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000). Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
(18) TransLink. Integrate the bay area’s regional smart card technology, TransLink, with operator fare collection equipment and expand system to new transit services. Twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000). The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
(19) Real-Time Transit Information. Provide a competitive grant program for transit operators for assistance with implementation of high-technology systems to provide real-time transit information to riders at transit stops or via telephone, wireless, or Internet communication. Priority shall be given to projects identified in the commission’s connectivity plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 30914.5. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The funds shall be administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
(20) Safe Routes to Transit: Plan and construct bicycle and pedestrian access improvements in close proximity to transit facilities. Priority shall be given to those projects that best provide access to regional transit services. Twenty-two million five hundred thousand dollars ($22,500,000). City Car Share shall receive two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) to expand its program within approximately one-quarter mile of transbay regional transit terminals or stations. The City Car Share project is sponsored by City Car Share and the Safe Routes to Transit project is jointly sponsored by the East Bay Bicycle Coalition and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition. These sponsors must identify a public agency cosponsor for purposes of specific project fund allocations.
(21) BART Tube Seismic Strengthening. Add seismic capacity to existing BART tube connecting the East Bay with San Francisco. One hundred forty-three million dollars ($143,000,000). The project sponsor is BART.
(22) Transbay Terminal/Downtown Caltrain Extension. A new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission Streets in San Francisco providing added capacity for transbay, regional, local, and intercity bus services, the extension of Caltrain rail services into the terminal, and accommodation of a future high-speed passenger rail line to the terminal and eventual rail connection to the East Bay. Eligible expenses include project planning, design and engineering, construction of a new terminal and its associated ramps and tunnels, demolition of existing structures, design and development of a temporary terminal, property and right-of-way acquisitions required for the project, and associated project-related administrative expenses. A bus- and train-ready terminal facility, including purchase and acquisition of necessary rights-of-way for the terminal, ramps, and rail extension, is the first priority for toll funds for the Transbay Terminal/Downtown Caltrain Extension Project. The temporary terminal operation shall not exceed five years. One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000). The project sponsor is the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.
(23) Oakland Airport Connector. New transit connection to link BART, Capitol Corridor, and AC Transit with Oakland Airport. The Port of Oakland shall provide a full funding plan for the connector. Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). The project sponsors are the Port of Oakland and BART.
(24) AC Transit Enhanced Bus-Phase 1 on Telegraph Avenue, International Boulevard, and East 14th Street (Berkeley-Oakland-San Leandro). Develop enhanced bus service on these corridors, including bus bulbs, signal prioritization, new buses, and other improvements. Priority of investment shall improve the AC connection to BART on these corridors. Sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000). The project sponsor is AC Transit.
(25) Transbay Commute Ferry Service. Purchase two vessels for transbay ferry services. Second vessel funds to be released upon demonstration of appropriate terminal locations, new transit-oriented development, adequate parking, and sufficient landside feeder connections to support ridership projections. Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000). The project sponsor is the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. If the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority demonstrates to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that it has secured alternative funding for the two vessel purchases described in this paragraph, the funds may be used for terminal improvements or for consolidation of existing ferry operations.
(26) Commute Ferry Service for Berkeley/Albany. Purchase two vessels for ferry services between the Berkeley/Albany Terminal and San Francisco. Parking access and landside feeder connections must be sufficient to support ridership projections. Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000). The project sponsor is the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. If the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority demonstrates to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that it has secured alternative funding for the two vessel purchases described in this paragraph, the funds may be used for terminal improvements. If the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority does not have an entitled terminal site within the Berkeley/Albany catchment area by 2010 that meets its requirements, the funds described in this paragraph and the operating funds described in paragraph (7) of subdivision (d) shall be transferred to another site in the East Bay. The City of Richmond shall be given first priority to receive this transfer of funds if it has met the planning milestones identified in its special study developed pursuant to paragraph (28).
(27) Commute Ferry Service for South San Francisco. Purchase two vessels for ferry services to the Peninsula. Parking access and landside feeder connections must be sufficient to support ridership projections. Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000). The project sponsor is the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. If the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority demonstrates to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that it has secured alternative funding for the two vessel purchases described in this paragraph, the funds may be used for terminal improvements.
(28) Water Transit Facility Improvements, Spare Vessels, and Environmental Review Costs. Provide two backup vessels for water transit services, expand berthing capacity at the Port of San Francisco, and expand environmental studies and design for eligible locations. Forty-eight million dollars ($48,000,000). The project sponsor is the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) of the funds described in this paragraph shall be made available for the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority to study accelerating development and other milestones that would potentially increase ridership at the City of Richmond ferry terminal.
(29) Regional Express Bus Service for San Mateo, Dumbarton, and Bay Bridge Corridors. Expand park and ride lots, improve HOV access, construct ramp improvements, and purchase rolling stock. Twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000). The project sponsors are AC Transit and the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
(30) I-880 North Safety Improvements. Reconfigure various ramps on I-880 and provide appropriate mitigations between 29th Avenue and 16th Avenue. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). The project sponsors are the Alameda County Transportation Commission, City of Oakland, and Department of Transportation.
(31) BART Warm Springs Extension. Extension of the existing BART system from Fremont to Warm Springs in southern Alameda County. Ninety-five million dollars ($95,000,000). Up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be used for grade separation work in the City of Fremont necessary to extend BART. The project would facilitate a future rail service extension to the Silicon Valley. The project sponsor is BART.
(32) I-580 (Tri Valley) Rapid Transit Corridor Improvements. Provide rail or High-Occupancy Vehicle lane direct connector to Dublin BART and other improvements on I-580 in Alameda County for use by express buses. Sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000). The project sponsor is the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
(33) Regional Rail Master Plan. Provide planning funds for integrated regional rail study pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 30914.5. Six million five hundred thousand dollars ($6,500,000). The project sponsors are Caltrain and BART.
(34) Integrated Fare Structure Program. Provide planning funds for the development of zonal monthly transit passes pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 30914.5. One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000). The project sponsor is the Translink Consortium.
(35) Transit Commuter Benefits Promotion. Marketing program to promote tax-saving opportunities for employers and employees as specified in Section 132(f)(3) or 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Goal is to increase the participation rate of employers offering employees a tax-free benefit to commute to work by transit. The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Five million dollars ($5,000,000).
(36) Caldecott Tunnel Improvements. Provide funds to plan and construct a fourth bore at the Caldecott Tunnel between Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The fourth bore will be a two-lane bore with a shoulder or shoulders north of the current three bores. The County Connection shall study all feasible alternatives to increase transit capacity in the westbound corridor of State Highway Route 24 between State Highway Route 680 and the Caldecott Tunnel, including the study of the use of an express lane, high-occupancy vehicle lane, and an auxiliary lane. The cost of the study shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) and shall be completed not later than January 15, 2006. Fifty million five hundred thousand dollars ($50,500,000). The project sponsor is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
(d) Not more than 38 percent of the revenues generated from the toll increase shall be made available annually for the purpose of providing operating assistance for transit services as set forth in the authority’s annual budget resolution. The funds shall be made available to the provider of the transit services subject to the performance measures described in Section 30914.5. If the funds cannot be obligated for operating assistance consistent with the performance measures, these funds shall be obligated for other operations consistent with this chapter.
Except for operating programs that do not have planned funding increases and subject to the 38-percent limit on total operating cost funding in any single year, following the first year of scheduled operations, an escalation factor, not to exceed 1.5 percent per year, shall be added to the operating cost funding through the 2015–16 fiscal year, to partially offset increased operating costs. The escalation factors shall be contained in the operating agreements described in Section 30914.5. Subject to the limitations of this paragraph, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission may annually fund the following operating programs as another component of the Regional Traffic Relief Plan:
(1) Golden Gate Express Bus Service over the Richmond Bridge (Route 40). Two million one hundred thousand dollars ($2,100,000).
(2) Napa VINE Service terminating at the Vallejo Intermodal Terminal. Three hundred ninety thousand dollars ($390,000).
(3) Regional Express Bus North Pool serving the Carquinez and Benicia Bridge Corridors. Three million four hundred thousand dollars ($3,400,000).
(4) Regional Express Bus South Pool serving the Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge, and Dumbarton Bridge Corridors. Six million five hundred thousand dollars ($6,500,000).
(5) Dumbarton Rail. Five million five hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000).
(6) San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority, Alameda/Oakland/Harbor Bay, Berkeley/Albany, South San Francisco, Vallejo, or other transbay ferry service. A portion of the operating funds may be dedicated to landside transit operations. Fifteen million three hundred thousand dollars ($15,300,000). Funds historically made available to the City of Vallejo or the City of Alameda shall continue to be allocated to those cities until the date specified in the adopted transition plan developed by the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 66540.32 of the Government Code. The authority may use up to six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) to support development of the transition plan and for transition-related costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable administrative costs incurred by the authority and transferring agencies on or after July 1, 2008, in accordance with subdivision (e) of Section 66540.11 of the Government Code, upon a determination by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that these costs are reasonable and substantially the result of the transition. After adoption of the transition plan and after formal agreement by the Cities of Alameda and Vallejo to transition their ferry services to the authority in accordance with the transition plan, the authority may use additional funds, above the limits previously referenced in this paragraph, for transition and transition-related activities, incurred before or after the actual transfer of services, as specified in the transition plan and approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The authority may utilize funds from this section for operation of the services transferred from the City of Vallejo or the City of Alameda if approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
(7) Owl Bus Service on BART Corridor. One million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000).
(8) MUNI Metro Third Street Light Rail Line. Two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) without escalation.
(9) AC Transit Enhanced Bus Service on Telegraph Avenue, International Boulevard, and East 14th Street in Berkeley-Oakland-San Leandro. Three million dollars ($3,000,000) without escalation.
(10) TransLink, three-year operating program. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) without escalation.
(11) San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority, regional planning and operations. Three million dollars ($3,000,000) without escalation.
(e) For all projects authorized under subdivision (c), the project sponsor shall submit an initial project report to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission before July 1, 2004. This report shall include all information required to describe the project in detail, including the status of any environmental documents relevant to the project, additional funds required to fully fund the project, the amount, if any, of funds expended to date, and a summary of any impediments to the completion of the project. This report, or an updated report, shall include a detailed financial plan and shall notify the commission if the project sponsor will request toll revenue within the subsequent 12 months. The project sponsor shall update this report as needed or requested by the commission. No funds shall be allocated by the commission for any project authorized by subdivision (c) until the project sponsor submits the initial project report, and the report is reviewed and approved by the commission.
If multiple project sponsors are listed for projects listed in subdivision (c), the commission shall identify a lead sponsor in coordination with all identified sponsors, for purposes of allocating funds. For any projects authorized under subdivision (c), the commission shall have the option of requiring a memorandum of understanding between itself and the project sponsor or sponsors that shall include any specific requirements that must be met prior to the allocation of funds provided under subdivision (c).
(f) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall annually assess the status of programs and projects and shall allocate a portion of funding made available under Section 30921 or 30958 for public information and advertising to support the services and projects identified in subdivisions (c) and (d). If a program or project identified in subdivision (c) has cost savings after completion, taking into account construction costs and an estimate of future settlement claims, or cannot be completed or cannot continue due to delivery or financing obstacles making the completion or continuation of the program or project unrealistic, the commission shall consult with the program or project sponsor. After consulting with the sponsor, the commission shall hold a public hearing concerning the program or project. After the hearing, the commission may vote to modify the program or the project’s scope, decrease its level of funding, or reassign some or all of the funds to another project within the same bridge corridor. If a program or project identified in subdivision (c) is to be implemented with other funds not derived from tolls, the commission shall follow the same consultation and hearing process described above and may vote thereafter to reassign the funds to another project consistent with the intent of this chapter. If an operating program or project as identified in subdivision (d) cannot achieve its performance objectives described in subdivision (a) of Section 30914.5 or cannot continue due to delivery or financing obstacles making the completion or continuation of the program or project unrealistic, the commission shall consult with the program or the project sponsor. After consulting with the sponsor, the commission shall hold a public hearing concerning the program or project. After the hearing, the commission may vote to modify the program or the project’s scope, decrease its level of funding, or to reassign some or all of the funds to another or an additional regional transit program or project within the same corridor. If a program or project does not meet the required performance measures, the commission shall give the sponsor a time certain to achieve the performance measures before reassigning its funding.
(g) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to Section 30921, the authority shall within 24 months of the election date include the projects in a long-range plan that are consistent with the commission’s findings required by this section and Section 30914.5. The authority shall update its long-range plan as required to maintain its viability as a strategic plan for funding projects authorized by this section. The authority shall, by January 1, 2007, submit its updated long-range plan to the transportation policy committee of each house of the Legislature for review.
(h) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to Section 30921, and if additional funds from this toll increase are available following the funding obligations of subdivisions (c) and (d), the authority may set aside a reserve to fund future rolling stock replacement to enhance the sustainability of the services enumerated in subdivision (d). The authority shall, by January 1, 2020, submit a 20-year toll bridge expenditure plan to the Legislature for adoption. This expenditure plan shall have, as its highest priority, replacement of transit vehicles purchased pursuant to subdivision (c).

SEC. 34.

 Section 30914.5 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:

30914.5.
 (a) Prior to the allocation of revenue for transit operating assistance under subdivision (d) of Section 30914, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall adopt performance measures related to fare-box recovery, ridership, and other performance measures as needed. The performance measures shall be developed in consultation with the affected transit operators and the commission’s advisory council.
(b) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall execute an operating agreement with the sponsors of the projects described in subdivision (d) of Section 30914. This agreement shall include, at a minimum, a fully funded operating plan that conforms to and is consistent with the adopted performance measures. The agreement shall also include a schedule of projected fare revenues or other operating revenues to indicate that the service is viable in the near term and is expected to meet the adopted performance measures in future years. For any individual project sponsor, this operating agreement may include additional requirements, as determined by the commission, to be met prior to the allocation of transit assistance under subdivision (d) of Section 30914.
(c) Prior to the annual allocation of transit operating assistance funds by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 30914, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall conduct, or shall require the sponsoring agency to conduct, an independent audit that contains audited financial information, including an opinion on the status and cost of the project and its compliance with the approved performance measures. Notwithstanding this requirement, each operator shall be given a one-year trial period to operate new service. In the first year of new service, the sponsor shall develop a reporting and accounting structure for the performance measures. Commencing with the third operating year, sponsors shall be subject to the approved performance measures.
(d) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall adopt a regional transit connectivity plan by May 1, 2006. The connectivity plan shall be incorporated into the commission’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan pursuant to Section 66516.5 of the Government Code. The connectivity plan shall require operators to comply with the plan utilizing commission authority pursuant to Section 66516.5 of the Government Code. The commission shall consult with the Partnership Transit Coordination Council in developing a plan that identifies and evaluates opportunities for improving transit connectivity and shall include, but not be limited to, the following components:
(1) A network of key transit hubs connecting regional rapid transit services to one another, and to feeder transit services. “Regional rapid transit” means long-haul transit service that crosses county lines, and operates mostly in dedicated rights-of-way, including freeway high-occupancy vehicle lanes, crossing a bridge, or on the bay. The identified transit hubs shall operate either as a timed transfer network or as pulsed hub connections, providing regularly scheduled connections between two or more transit lines.
(2) Physical infrastructure and right-of-way improvements necessary to improve system reliability and connections at transit hubs. Physical infrastructure improvements may include, but are not limited to, improved rail-to-rail transfer facilities, including cross-platform transfers, and intermodal transit improvements that facilitate rail-to-bus, rail-to-ferry, ferry-to-ferry, ferry-to-bus, and bus-to-bus transfers. Capital improvements identified in the plan shall be eligible for funding in the commission’s regional transportation plan.
(3) Regional standards and procedures to ensure maximum coordination of schedule connections to minimize transfer times between transit lines at key transit hubs, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Policies and procedures for improved fare collection.
(B) Enhanced trip-planning services, including Internet-based programs, telephone information systems, and printed schedules.
(C) Enhanced schedule coordination through the implementation of real-time transit-vehicle location systems that facilitate communication between systems and result in improved timed transfers between routes.
(D) Performance measures and data collection to monitor the performance of the connectivity plan.
The connectivity plan shall focus on, but not be limited to, feeder transit lines connecting to regional rapid transit services, and the connection of regional rapid transit services to one another. The connectivity plan shall be adopted following a Metropolitan Transportation Commission public hearing at least 60 days prior to adoption. The commission shall adopt performance measures and collect appropriate data to monitor the performance of the connectivity plan. The plan shall be evaluated every three years by the commission as part of the update to its regional transportation plan. No agency shall be eligible to receive funds under this section unless the agency is a participant operator in the commission’s regional transit connectivity plan.
The provisions of this subdivision shall only be effective if the voters approve the toll increase as set forth in Section 30921, and the expenditures incurred by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission up to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) that are related to the requirements of this subdivision, including any study, shall be reimbursed from toll revenues identified in paragraph (33) of subdivision (c) of Section 30914.
(e) The TransLink Consortium, per the TransLink Interagency Participation Agreement, shall, by July 1, 2008, develop a plan for an integrated fare program covering all regional rapid transit trips funded in full or in part by this section. “Regional rapid transit” means long-haul transit services that cross county lines, and operate mostly in dedicated rights-of-way, including freeway high-occupancy vehicle lanes, crossing a bridge, or on the bay. Interregional rail services, originating or terminating from outside the Bay Area, shall not be considered regional rapid transit. The purpose of the integrated fare program is to encourage greater use of the region’s transit network by making it easier and less costly for transit riders whose regular commute involves multizonal travel and may involve the transfer between two or more transit agencies, including regional-to-regional and regional-to-local transfers. The integrated fare program shall include a zonal fare system for the sole purpose of creating a monthly zonal pass (monthly pass), allowing for unlimited or discounted fares for transit riders making a minimum number of monthly transit trips between two or more zones. The number of minimum trips shall be established by the plan. The integrated fare program shall not apply to fare structures that are not purchased on a monthly basis. For the purposes of these zonal fares, geographic zones shall be created in the Bay Area. To the extent practical, zone boundaries for overlapping systems shall be in the same places and shall correspond to the boundaries of the local transit service areas. A regional rapid transit zone may cover more than one local service area, or may subdivide an existing local service area. The monthly pass shall be created in at least the following two forms:
(1) For the use of interzonal regional rapid transit trips without local transit discounts.
(2) For the use of interzonal regional rapid transit trips with local transit discounts. The plan may recommend the elimination of existing transit pass arrangements to simplify the marketing of the monthly pass. The integrated fare program shall establish a monitoring program to evaluate the impact of the integrated fare program on the operating finances of the participating agencies. The integrated fare program shall be adjusted as necessary to ensure that the program does not jeopardize the viability of local or regional rapid transit routes impacted by the program, and to the extent feasible, provide an equitable revenue-sharing arrangement among the participating agencies. This subdivision shall only be effective if the voters approve the toll increase as set forth in Section 30921, and any expenditures related to the implementation of this subdivision incurred by the TransLink Consortium shall be reimbursed by toll revenues designated in paragraph (34) of subdivision (c) of Section 30914.
(f) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) shall, by September 29, 2007, adopt a Bay Area Regional Rail Plan (plan) for the development of passenger rail services in the San Francisco Bay Area over the short, medium, and long term. Up to six million dollars ($6,000,000) of the funds described in paragraph (33) of subdivision (c) of Section 30914 may be expended by MTC, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) for the plan. A project management team comprised of staff from MTC, Caltrain, the High-Speed Rail Authority, and BART shall provide day-to-day project management of the technical development of the plan. The plan shall formulate strategies to integrate passenger rail systems, improve interfaces with connecting services, expand the regional rapid transit network, and coordinate investments with transit-supportive land use. The plan shall be directed by a steering committee consisting of appointees from the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), BART, Caltrain, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, the Altamont Commuter Express, the High-Speed Rail Authority, MTC, the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART), the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the Solano Transportation Authority, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the Port of Oakland, the Alameda County Transportation Commission, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the Transportation Authority of Marin, the Napa County Transportation Planning Agency, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the San Mateo City-County Association of Governments, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and the owners of standard gauge rail. Under direction from the steering committee and with input from Bay Area transit agencies, MTC shall act as the fiscal agent for the study and oversee consultant contracts on behalf of the project management team. The plan proposals shall be evaluated using performance criteria, including, but not limited to, transit-supportive land use and access, ridership, cost-effectiveness, regional network connectivity, and capital and operating financial stability. Additional performance criteria shall be developed as necessary. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(1) Identification of issues in connectivity, access, capacity, operations, and cost-effectiveness.
(2) Identification of opportunities to enhance rail connectivity and to maximize passenger convenience when transferring between systems, including the study of the feasibility and construction of an intermodal transfer hub at Niles (Shinn Street) Junction.
(3) Recommendation of improvements to the interface with shuttles, buses, other rail systems, and other feeder modes.
(4) Identification of potential impacts on capacity constraints and operations on existing passenger and freight carriers.
(5) Identification of bottlenecks where added capacity could cost-effectively increase performance.
(6) Recommendation of potential efficiency improvements through economies of scale, such as through joint vehicle procurement and maintenance facilities.
(7) Recommendation of strategies to acquire right-of-way and station property to preserve future service options.
(8) Identification of potential capital and operating funding sources for proposed actions.
(9) Identification of locations where the presence of passenger rail could stimulate redevelopment and thereby direct growth to the urban core.
(10) Recommendation of technology-appropriate service expansion in specific corridors. Technologies to be considered include conventional rail transit modes, bus rapid transit, and emerging rail technologies. Identify phasing strategies for the implementation of rail services where appropriate.
(11) Examination of how recommendations would integrate with proposed high-speed rail to the Central Valley and southern California. The intent of this element of the study is to help reduce the number of alternatives that the High-Speed Rail Authority would need to evaluate as part of any follow-on environmental assessment of future high-speed rail system access to the Bay Area. Selection of a preferred alignment for the Bay Area shall remain the responsibility of the High-Speed Rail Authority pursuant to Section 185032 of the Public Utilities Code.
(12) Recommendation of a governance strategy to implement and operate future regional rail services.
This subdivision shall only be effective if the voters approve the toll increase as set forth in Section 30921. Any expenditures incurred by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission or the project sponsors identified in paragraph (33) of subdivision (c) of Section 30914 related to the requirements of this subdivision, including any study and administration, shall be appropriate charges against toll revenue to be reimbursed from toll revenues.

SEC. 35.

 Section 667 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

667.
 (a) A “utility trailer” is a trailer or semitrailer used solely for the transportation of the user’s personal property, not in commerce, which does not exceed a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a “utility trailer” includes a trailer or semitrailer designed and used for the transportation of livestock, not in commerce, which does not exceed a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds.

SEC. 36.

 Section 2800 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

2800.
 (a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.
(b) Except as authorized pursuant to Section 24004, it is unlawful to fail or refuse to comply with a lawful out-of-service order issued by an authorized employee of the Department of the California Highway Patrol or by an authorized enforcement officer as described in subdivision (d).
(c) It is unlawful to fail or refuse to comply with a lawful out-of-service order issued by the United States Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
(d) “Out-of-Service order” means a declaration by an authorized enforcement officer of a federal, state, Canadian, Mexican, or local jurisdiction that a driver, a commercial motor vehicle, or a motor carrier operation is out-of-service pursuant to Section 386.72, 392.5, 392.9a, 395.13, or 396.9 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, state law, or the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria.

SEC. 37.

 Section 5201 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

5201.
 License plates shall at all times be securely fastened to the vehicle for which they are issued so as to prevent the plates from swinging, shall be mounted in a position so as to be clearly visible, and so that the characters are upright and display from left to right, and shall be maintained in a condition so as to be clearly legible. The rear license plate shall be mounted not less than 12 inches nor more than 60 inches from the ground, and the front license plate shall be mounted not more than 60 inches from the ground, except as follows:
(a) The rear license plate on a tow truck or repossessor’s tow vehicle may be mounted on the left-hand side of the mast assembly at the rear of the cab of the vehicle, not less than 12 inches nor more than 90 inches from the ground.
(b) The rear license plate on a tank vehicle hauling hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code, or asphalt material may be mounted not less than 12 inches nor more than 90 inches from the ground.
(c) The rear license plate on a truck tractor may be mounted at the rear of the cab of the vehicle, but not less than 12 inches nor more than 90 inches from the ground.
(d) The rear license plate of a vehicle designed by the manufacturer for the collection and transportation of garbage, rubbish, or refuse that is used regularly for the collection and transportation of that material by a person or governmental entity employed to collect, transport, and dispose of garbage, rubbish, or refuse may be mounted not less than 12 inches nor more than 90 inches from the ground.
(e) The rear license plate on a two-axle livestock trailer may be mounted 12 inches or more, but not more than 90 inches, from the ground.
(f) A covering shall not be used on license plates except as follows:
(1) The installation of a cover over a lawfully parked vehicle to protect it from the weather and the elements does not constitute a violation of this subdivision. A peace officer or other regularly salaried employee of a public agency designated to enforce laws, including local ordinances, relating to the parking of vehicles may temporarily remove so much of the cover as is necessary to inspect any license plate, tab, or indicia of registration on a vehicle.
(2) The installation of a license plate security cover is not a violation of this subdivision if the device does not obstruct or impair the recognition of the license plate information, including, but not limited to, the issuing state, license plate number, and registration tabs, and the cover is limited to the area directly over the top of the registration tabs. No portion of a license plate security cover shall rest over the license plate number.
(g) A casing, shield, frame, border, product, or other device that obstructs or impairs the reading or recognition of a license plate by an electronic device operated by state or local law enforcement, an electronic device operated in connection with a toll road, high-occupancy toll lane, toll bridge, or other toll facility, or a remote emission sensing device, as specified in Sections 44081 and 44081.6 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not be installed on, or affixed to, a vehicle.
(h) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that an accommodation be made to persons with disabilities and to those persons who regularly transport persons with disabilities, to allow the removal and relocation of wheelchair lifts and wheelchair carriers without the necessity of removing and reattaching the vehicle’s rear license plate. Therefore, it is not a violation of this section if the reading or recognition of a rear license plate is obstructed or impaired by a wheelchair lift or wheelchair carrier and all of the following requirements are met:
(A) The owner of the vehicle has been issued a special identification license plate pursuant to Section 5007, or the person using the wheelchair that is carried on the vehicle has been issued a distinguishing placard under Section 22511.55.
(B) (i) The operator of the vehicle displays a decal, designed and issued by the department, that contains the license plate number assigned to the vehicle transporting the wheelchair.
(ii) The decal is displayed on the rear window of the vehicle, in a location determined by the department, in consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, so as to be clearly visible to law enforcement.
(2) Notwithstanding any other law, if a decal is displayed pursuant to this subdivision, the requirements of this code that require the illumination of the license plate and the license plate number do not apply.
(3) The department shall adopt regulations governing the procedures for accepting and approving applications for decals, and issuing decals, authorized by this subdivision.
(4) This subdivision does not apply to a front license plate.

SEC. 38.

 Section 14611 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

14611.
 (a) A person shall not knowingly direct the operation of a vehicle transporting a highway route controlled quantity of Class 7 radioactive materials, as defined in Section 173.403 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by a person who does not possess a training certificate pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12524 and a valid driver’s license of the appropriate class.
(b) A person convicted under this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

SEC. 39.

 Section 21754 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

21754.
 The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn.
(b) Upon a highway within a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.
(c) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width and clearly marked for two or more lines of moving traffic in the direction of travel.
(d) Upon a one-way street.
(e) Upon a highway divided into two roadways where traffic is restricted to one direction upon each of such roadways.
The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a slow moving vehicle from the duty to drive as closely as practicable to the right hand edge of the roadway.

SEC. 40.

 Section 21755 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

21755.
 (a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting that movement in safety. In no event shall that movement be made by driving off the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a bicycle in a bicycle lane or on a shoulder.

SEC. 41.

 Section 22452 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

22452.
 (a) Subdivisions (b) and (d) apply to the operation of the following vehicles:
(1) A bus or farm labor vehicle carrying passengers.
(2) A motortruck transporting employees in addition to those riding in the cab.
(3) A schoolbus and a school pupil activity bus transporting school pupils, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (4) of subdivision (d).
(4) A commercial motor vehicle transporting any quantity of a Division 2.3 chlorine, as classified by Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(5) A commercial motor vehicle that is required to be marked or placarded in accordance with the regulations of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations with one of the following federal classifications:
(A) Division 1.1.
(B) Division 1.2, or Division 1.3.
(C) Division 2.3 Poison gas.
(D) Division 4.3.
(E) Class 7.
(F) Class 3 Flammable.
(G) Division 5.1.
(H) Division 2.2.
(I) Division 2.3 Chlorine.
(J) Division 6.1 Poison.
(K) Division 2.2 Oxygen.
(L) Division 2.1.
(M) Class 3 Combustible liquid.
(N) Division 4.1.
(O) Division 5.1.
(P) Division 5.2.
(Q) Class 8.
(R) Class Division 1.4.
(S) A cargo tank motor vehicle, whether loaded or empty, used for the transportation of a hazardous material, as defined in Parts 107 to 180, inclusive, of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(6) A cargo tank motor vehicle transporting a commodity that at the time of loading has a temperature above its flashpoint, as determined under Section 173.120 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(7) A cargo tank motor vehicle, whether loaded or empty, transporting a commodity under exemption in accordance with Subpart B of Part 107 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Before traversing a railroad grade crossing, the driver of a vehicle described in subdivision (a) shall stop that vehicle not less than 15 nor more than 50 feet from the nearest rail of the track and while so stopped shall listen, and look in both directions along the track, for an approaching train and for signals indicating the approach of a train, and shall not proceed until he or she can do so safely. Upon proceeding, the gears shall not be shifted manually while crossing the tracks.
(c) The driver of a commercial motor vehicle, other than those listed in subdivision (a), upon approaching a railroad grade crossing, shall be driven at a rate of speed that allows the commercial vehicle to stop before reaching the nearest rail of that crossing, and shall not be driven upon, or over, the crossing until due caution is taken to ascertain that the course is clear.
(d) A stop need not be made at a crossing in the following circumstances:
(1) Of railroad tracks running along and upon the roadway within a business or residence district.
(2) Where a traffic officer or an official traffic control signal directs traffic to proceed.
(3) Where an exempt sign was authorized by the Public Utilities Commission prior to January 1, 1978.
(4) Where an official railroad crossing stop exempt sign in compliance with Section 21400 has been placed by the Department of Transportation or a local authority pursuant to Section 22452.5. This paragraph does not apply with respect to a schoolbus or to a school pupil activity bus transporting school pupils.

SEC. 42.

 Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

22511.55.
 (a) (1) A disabled person or disabled veteran may apply to the department for the issuance of a distinguishing placard. The placard may be used in lieu of the special license plate or plates issued under Section 5007 for parking purposes described in Section 22511.5 when (A) suspended from the rearview mirror, (B) if there is no rearview mirror, when displayed on the dashboard of a vehicle, or (C) inserted in a clip designated for a distinguishing placard and installed by the manufacturer on the driver’s side of the front window. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage the use of these distinguishing placards because they provide law enforcement officers with a more readily recognizable symbol for distinguishing vehicles qualified for the parking privilege. The placard shall be the size, shape, and color determined by the department and shall bear the International Symbol of Access adopted pursuant to Section 3 of Public Law 100-641, commonly known as the “wheelchair symbol.” The department shall incorporate instructions for the lawful use of a placard, and a summary of the penalties for the unlawful use of a placard, into the identification card issued to the placard owner.
(2) (A) The department may establish procedures for the issuance and renewal of the placards. The placards shall have a fixed expiration date of June 30 every two years. A portion of the placard shall be printed in a contrasting color that shall be changed every two years. The size and color of this contrasting portion of the placard shall be large and distinctive enough to be readily identifiable by a law enforcement officer in a passing vehicle.
(B) As used in this section, “year” means the period between the inclusive dates of July 1 through June 30.
(C) Prior to the end of each year, the department shall, for the most current three years available, compare its record of disability placards issued against the records of the Office of Vital Records of the State Department of Public Health, or its successor, and withhold any renewal notices that otherwise would have been sent, for a placardholder identified as deceased.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), a person shall not be eligible for more than one placard at a time.
(4) Organizations and agencies involved in the transportation of disabled persons or disabled veterans may apply for a placard for each vehicle used for the purpose of transporting disabled persons or disabled veterans.
(b) (1) Prior to issuing an original distinguishing placard to a disabled person or disabled veteran, the department shall require the submission of a certificate, in accordance with paragraph (2), signed by the physician and surgeon, or to the extent that it does not cause a reduction in the receipt of federal aid highway funds, by a nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, or physician assistant, substantiating the disability, unless the applicant’s disability is readily observable and uncontested. The disability of a person who has lost, or has lost use of, one or more lower extremities or one hand, for a disabled veteran, or both hands, for a disabled person, or who has significant limitation in the use of lower extremities, may also be certified by a licensed chiropractor. The blindness of an applicant shall be certified by a licensed physician and surgeon who specializes in diseases of the eye or a licensed optometrist. The physician and surgeon, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistant, chiropractor, or optometrist certifying the qualifying disability shall provide a full description of the illness or disability on the form submitted to the department.
(2) The physician and surgeon, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistant, chiropractor, or optometrist who signs a certificate submitted under this subdivision shall retain information sufficient to substantiate that certificate and, upon request of the department, shall make that information available for inspection by the Medical Board of California or the appropriate regulatory board.
(3) The department shall maintain in its records all information on an applicant’s certification of permanent disability and shall make that information available to eligible law enforcement or parking control agencies upon a request pursuant to Section 22511.58.
(c) A person who is issued a distinguishing placard pursuant to subdivision (a) may apply to the department for a substitute placard without recertification of eligibility, if that placard is lost or stolen.
(d) The distinguishing placard shall be returned to the department not later than 60 days after the death of the disabled person or disabled veteran to whom the placard was issued.
(e) The department shall print on any distinguishing placard issued on or after January 1, 2005, the maximum penalty that may be imposed for a violation of Section 4461. For purposes of this subdivision, the “maximum penalty” is the amount derived from adding all of the following:
(1) The maximum fine that may be imposed under Section 4461.
(2) The penalty required to be imposed under Section 70372 of the Government Code.
(3) The penalty required to be levied under Section 76000 of the Government Code.
(4) The penalty required to be levied under Section 1464 of the Penal Code.
(5) The surcharge required to be levied under Section 1465.7 of the Penal Code.
(6) The penalty authorized to be imposed under Section 4461.3.

SEC. 42.1.

 Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

22511.55.
 (a) (1) A disabled person or disabled veteran may apply to the department for the issuance of a distinguishing placard. The placard may be used in lieu of the special license plate or plates issued under Section 5007 for parking purposes described in Section 22511.5 when (A) suspended from the rearview mirror, (B) if there is no rearview mirror, when displayed on the dashboard of a vehicle, or (C) inserted in a clip designated for a distinguishing placard and installed by the manufacturer on the driver’s side of the front window. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage the use of distinguishing placards because they provide law enforcement officers with a more readily recognizable symbol for distinguishing vehicles qualified for the parking privilege. The placard shall be the size, shape, and color determined by the department and shall bear the International Symbol of Access adopted pursuant to Section 3 of Public Law 100-641, commonly known as the “wheelchair symbol.” The department shall incorporate instructions for the lawful use of a placard, and a summary of the penalties for the unlawful use of a placard, into the identification card issued to the placard owner.
(2) (A) The department may establish procedures for the issuance and renewal of the placards. The procedures shall include, but are not limited to, advising an applicant in writing on the application for a placard of the procedure to apply for a special license plate or plates, as described in Section 5007, and the fee exemptions established pursuant to Section 9105 and in subdivision (a) of Section 10783 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The placards shall have a fixed expiration date of June 30 every two years. A portion of the placard shall be printed in a contrasting color that shall be changed every two years. The size and color of this contrasting portion of the placard shall be large and distinctive enough to be readily identifiable by a law enforcement officer in a passing vehicle.
(B) As used in this section, “year” means the period between the inclusive dates of July 1 through June 30.
(C) Prior to the end of each year, the department shall, for the most current three years available, compare its record of disability placards issued against the records of the Office of Vital Records of the State Department of Public Health, or its successor, and withhold any renewal notices that otherwise would have been sent for a placardholder identified as deceased.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), a person shall not be eligible for more than one placard at a time.
(4) Organizations and agencies involved in the transportation of disabled persons or disabled veterans may apply for a placard for each vehicle used for the purpose of transporting disabled persons or disabled veterans.
(b) (1) Prior to issuing an original distinguishing placard to a disabled person or disabled veteran, the department shall require the submission of a certificate, in accordance with paragraph (2), signed by the physician and surgeon, or to the extent that it does not cause a reduction in the receipt of federal aid highway funds, by a nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, or physician assistant, substantiating the disability, unless the applicant’s disability is readily observable and uncontested. The disability of a person who has lost, or has lost use of, one or more lower extremities or one hand, for a disabled veteran, or both hands, for a disabled person, or who has significant limitation in the use of lower extremities, may also be certified by a licensed chiropractor. The blindness of an applicant shall be certified by a licensed physician and surgeon who specializes in diseases of the eye or a licensed optometrist. The physician and surgeon, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistant, chiropractor, or optometrist certifying the qualifying disability shall provide a full description of the illness or disability on the form submitted to the department.
(2) The physician and surgeon, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistant, chiropractor, or optometrist who signs a certificate submitted under this subdivision shall retain information sufficient to substantiate that certificate and, upon request of the department, shall make that information available for inspection by the Medical Board of California or the appropriate regulatory board.
(3) The department shall maintain in its records all information on an applicant’s certification of permanent disability and shall make that information available to eligible law enforcement or parking control agencies upon a request pursuant to Section 22511.58.
(c) A person who is issued a distinguishing placard pursuant to subdivision (a) may apply to the department for a substitute placard without recertification of eligibility, if that placard is lost or stolen.
(d) The distinguishing placard shall be returned to the department not later than 60 days after the death of the disabled person or disabled veteran to whom the placard was issued.
(e) The department shall print on any distinguishing placard issued on or after January 1, 2005, the maximum penalty that may be imposed for a violation of Section 4461. For purposes of this subdivision, the “maximum penalty” is the amount derived from adding all of the following:
(1) The maximum fine that may be imposed under Section 4461.
(2) The penalty required to be imposed under Section 70372 of the Government Code.
(3) The penalty required to be levied under Section 76000 of the Government Code.
(4) The penalty required to be levied under Section 1464 of the Penal Code.
(5) The surcharge required to be levied under Section 1465.7 of the Penal Code.
(6) The penalty authorized to be imposed under Section 4461.3.

SEC. 42.2.

 Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

22511.55.
 (a) (1) A disabled person or disabled veteran may apply to the department for the issuance of a distinguishing placard. The placard may be used in lieu of the special license plate or plates issued under Section 5007 for parking purposes described in Section 22511.5 when (A) suspended from the rearview mirror, (B) if there is no rearview mirror, when displayed on the dashboard of a vehicle, or (C) inserted in a clip designated for a distinguishing placard and installed by the manufacturer on the driver’s side of the front window. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage the use of these distinguishing placards because they provide law enforcement officers with a more readily recognizable symbol for distinguishing vehicles qualified for the parking privilege. The placard shall be the size, shape, and color determined by the department and shall bear the International Symbol of Access adopted pursuant to Section 3 of Public Law 100-641, commonly known as the “wheelchair symbol.” The department shall incorporate instructions for the lawful use of a placard, and a summary of the penalties for the unlawful use of a placard, into the identification card issued to the placard owner.
(2) (A) The department may establish procedures for the issuance and renewal of the placards. The placards shall have a fixed expiration date of June 30 every two years. A portion of the placard shall be printed in a contrasting color that shall be changed every two years. The size and color of this contrasting portion of the placard shall be large and distinctive enough to be readily identifiable by a law enforcement officer in a passing vehicle.
(B) As used in this section, “year” means the period between the inclusive dates of July 1 through June 30.
(C) Prior to the end of each year, the department shall, for the most current three years available, compare its record of disability placards issued against the records of the Office of Vital Records of the State Department of Public Health, or its successor, and withhold any renewal notices that otherwise would have been sent, for a placardholder identified as deceased.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), a person shall not be eligible for more than one placard at a time.
(4) Organizations and agencies involved in the transportation of disabled persons or disabled veterans may apply for a placard for each vehicle used for the purpose of transporting disabled persons or disabled veterans.
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4), prior to issuing an original distinguishing placard to a disabled person or disabled veteran, the department shall require the submission of a certificate, in accordance with paragraph (2), signed by the physician and surgeon, or to the extent that it does not cause a reduction in the receipt of federal aid highway funds, by a nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, or physician assistant, substantiating the disability, unless the applicant’s disability is readily observable and uncontested. The disability of a person who has lost, or has lost use of, one or more lower extremities or one hand, for a disabled veteran, or both hands, for a disabled person, or who has significant limitation in the use of lower extremities, may also be certified by a licensed chiropractor. The blindness of an applicant shall be certified by a licensed physician and surgeon who specializes in diseases of the eye or a licensed optometrist. The physician and surgeon, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistant, chiropractor, or optometrist certifying the qualifying disability shall provide a full description of the illness or disability on the form submitted to the department.
(2) The physician and surgeon, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistant, chiropractor, or optometrist who signs a certificate submitted under this subdivision shall retain information sufficient to substantiate that certificate and, upon request of the department, shall make that information available for inspection by the Medical Board of California or the appropriate regulatory board.
(3) The department shall maintain in its records all information on an applicant’s certification of permanent disability and shall make that information available to eligible law enforcement or parking control agencies upon a request pursuant to Section 22511.58.
(4) For a disabled veteran, the department shall accept, in lieu of the certificate described in paragraph (1), a certificate from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that certifies that the applicant is a disabled veteran as described in Section 295.7.
(c) A person who is issued a distinguishing placard pursuant to subdivision (a) may apply to the department for a substitute placard without recertification of eligibility, if that placard is lost or stolen.
(d) The distinguishing placard shall be returned to the department not later than 60 days after the death of the disabled person or disabled veteran to whom the placard was issued.
(e) The department shall print on any distinguishing placard issued on or after January 1, 2005, the maximum penalty that may be imposed for a violation of Section 4461. For purposes of this subdivision, the “maximum penalty” is the amount derived from adding all of the following:
(1) The maximum fine that may be imposed under Section 4461.
(2) The penalty required to be imposed under Section 70372 of the Government Code.
(3) The penalty required to be levied under Section 76000 of the Government Code.
(4) The penalty required to be levied under Section 1464 of the Penal Code.
(5) The surcharge required to be levied under Section 1465.7 of the Penal Code.
(6) The penalty authorized to be imposed under Section 4461.3.

SEC. 42.3.

 Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

22511.55.
 (a) (1) A disabled person or disabled veteran may apply to the department for the issuance of a distinguishing placard. The placard may be used in lieu of the special license plate or plates issued under Section 5007 for parking purposes described in Section 22511.5 when (A) suspended from the rearview mirror, (B) if there is no rearview mirror, when displayed on the dashboard of a vehicle, or (C) inserted in a clip designated for a distinguishing placard and installed by the manufacturer on the driver’s side of the front window. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage the use of distinguishing placards because they provide law enforcement officers with a more readily recognizable symbol for distinguishing vehicles qualified for the parking privilege. The placard shall be the size, shape, and color determined by the department and shall bear the International Symbol of Access adopted pursuant to Section 3 of Public Law 100-641, commonly known as the “wheelchair symbol.” The department shall incorporate instructions for the lawful use of a placard, and a summary of the penalties for the unlawful use of a placard, into the identification card issued to the placard owner.
(2) (A) The department may establish procedures for the issuance and renewal of the placards. The procedures shall include, but are not limited to, advising an applicant in writing on the application for a placard of the procedure to apply for a special license plate or plates, as described in Section 5007, and the fee exemptions established pursuant to Section 9105 and in subdivision (a) of Section 10783 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The placards shall have a fixed expiration date of June 30 every two years. A portion of the placard shall be printed in a contrasting color that shall be changed every two years. The size and color of this contrasting portion of the placard shall be large and distinctive enough to be readily identifiable by a law enforcement officer in a passing vehicle.
(B) As used in this section, “year” means the period between the inclusive dates of July 1 through June 30.
(C) Prior to the end of each year, the department shall, for the most current three years available, compare its record of disability placards issued against the records of the Office of Vital Records of the State Department of Public Health, or its successor, and withhold any renewal notices that otherwise would have been sent for a placardholder identified as deceased.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), a person shall not be eligible for more than one placard at a time.
(4) Organizations and agencies involved in the transportation of disabled persons or disabled veterans may apply for a placard for each vehicle used for the purpose of transporting disabled persons or disabled veterans.
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4), prior to issuing an original distinguishing placard to a disabled person or disabled veteran, the department shall require the submission of a certificate, in accordance with paragraph (2), signed by the physician and surgeon, or to the extent that it does not cause a reduction in the receipt of federal aid highway funds, by a nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, or physician assistant, substantiating the disability, unless the applicant’s disability is readily observable and uncontested. The disability of a person who has lost, or has lost use of, one or more lower extremities or one hand, for a disabled veteran, or both hands, for a disabled person, or who has significant limitation in the use of lower extremities, may also be certified by a licensed chiropractor. The blindness of an applicant shall be certified by a licensed physician and surgeon who specializes in diseases of the eye or a licensed optometrist. The physician and surgeon, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistant, chiropractor, or optometrist certifying the qualifying disability shall provide a full description of the illness or disability on the form submitted to the department.
(2) The physician and surgeon, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistant, chiropractor, or optometrist who signs a certificate submitted under this subdivision shall retain information sufficient to substantiate that certificate and, upon request of the department, shall make that information available for inspection by the Medical Board of California or the appropriate regulatory board.
(3) The department shall maintain in its records all information on an applicant’s certification of permanent disability and shall make that information available to eligible law enforcement or parking control agencies upon a request pursuant to Section 22511.58.
(4) For a disabled veteran, the department shall accept, in lieu of the certificate described in paragraph (1), a certificate from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that certifies that the applicant is a disabled veteran as described in Section 295.7.
(c) A person who is issued a distinguishing placard pursuant to subdivision (a) may apply to the department for a substitute placard without recertification of eligibility, if that placard is lost or stolen.
(d) The distinguishing placard shall be returned to the department not later than 60 days after the death of the disabled person or disabled veteran to whom the placard was issued.
(e) The department shall print on any distinguishing placard issued on or after January 1, 2005, the maximum penalty that may be imposed for a violation of Section 4461. For purposes of this subdivision, the “maximum penalty” is the amount derived from adding all of the following:
(1) The maximum fine that may be imposed under Section 4461.
(2) The penalty required to be imposed under Section 70372 of the Government Code.
(3) The penalty required to be levied under Section 76000 of the Government Code.
(4) The penalty required to be levied under Section 1464 of the Penal Code.
(5) The surcharge required to be levied under Section 1465.7 of the Penal Code.
(6) The penalty authorized to be imposed under Section 4461.3.

SEC. 43.

 Section 24400 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

24400.
 (a) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall
be equipped with at least two headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1, 1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.
(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).
(c) As used in subdivision (b), “inclement weather” is a weather condition that is either of the following:
(1) A condition that prevents a driver of a motor vehicle from clearly discerning a person or another motor vehicle on the highway from a distance of 1,000 feet.
(2) A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture.

SEC. 44.

 Section 26100 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

26100.
 (a) A person shall not sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device that does not meet the provisions of Section 26104.
(b) A person shall not use upon a vehicle, and a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway that is equipped with, any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device that is not in compliance with Section 26104.
(c) This section does not apply to a taillamp or stop lamp in use on or prior to December 1, 1935.

SEC. 45.

 Section 26101 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

26101.
 (a) A person shall not sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle any device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device meets the provisions of Section 26104.
(b) A person shall not use upon a vehicle, and a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway that has installed a device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of a lighting, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device complies with Section 26104.
(c) This section does not apply to a taillamp or stop lamp in use on or prior to December 1, 1935, or to lamps installed on authorized emergency vehicles.

SEC. 46.

 Section 26505 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

26505.
 A motor vehicle equipped with airbrakes or equipped to operate airbrakes on towed vehicles shall be equipped with a pressure gauge of reliable and satisfactory construction and maintained in an efficient working condition, accurate within 10 percent of the actual air reservoir pressure, and visible and legible to a person when seated in the driving position.

SEC. 47.

 Section 29004 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

29004.
 (a) (1) Except as required under paragraph (2), a towed vehicle shall be coupled to the towing vehicle by means of a safety chain, cable, or equivalent device in addition to the regular drawbar, tongue, or other connection.
(2) A vehicle towed by a tow truck shall be coupled to the tow truck by means of at least two safety chains in addition to the primary restraining system. The safety chains shall be securely affixed to the truck frame, bed, or towing equipment, independent of the towing sling, wheel lift, or under-reach towing equipment.
(3) A vehicle transported on a slide back carrier or conventional trailer shall be secured by at least four tiedown chains, straps, or an equivalent device, independent of the winch or loading cable. This subdivision does not apply to vehicle bodies that are being transported in compliance with Sections 393.100 to 393.136, inclusive, of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) All safety connections and attachments shall be of sufficient strength to control the towed vehicle in the event of failure of the regular hitch, coupling device, drawbar, tongue, or other connection. All safety connections and attachments also shall have a positive means of ensuring that the safety connection or attachment does not become dislodged while in transit.
(c) No more slack may be left in a safety chain, cable, or equivalent device than is necessary to permit proper turning. When a drawbar is used as the towing connection, the safety chain, cable, or equivalent device shall be connected to the towed and towing vehicle and to the drawbar so as to prevent the drawbar from dropping to the ground if the drawbar fails.
(d) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a semitrailer having a connecting device composed of a fifth wheel and kingpin assembly, and do not apply to a towed motor vehicle when steered by a person who holds a license for the type of vehicle being towed.
(e) For purposes of this section, a “tow truck” includes both of the following:
(1) A repossessor’s tow vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 615.
(2) An automobile dismantler’s tow vehicle, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 615.
(f) A vehicle towed by a repossessor’s tow vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 615, is exempt from the multisafety chain requirement of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) so long as the vehicle is not towed more than one mile on a public highway and is secured by one safety chain.

SEC. 48.

 Section 34518 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

34518.
 (a) A foreign motor carrier or foreign private motor carrier required to have a certificate of registration issued by the United States Secretary of the Department of Transportation pursuant to Part 368 (commencing with Section 368.1), or required to be registered pursuant to Part 365 (commencing with Section 365.101), of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall not do any of the following:
(1) Operate in this state without the required certificate in the vehicle.
(2) Operate beyond the limitations or restrictions specified in the certificate as issued.
(3) Refuse to show the certificate upon request of a peace officer.
(4) Provide point-to-point transportation services, including express delivery services, within the United States for goods other than international cargo.
(b) A motor carrier required to be registered with the United States Secretary of the Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 13902 of Title 49 of the United States Code, Part 365 (commencing with Section 365.101), Part 390 (commencing with Section 390.1), or Section 392.9a of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall not do any of the following:
(1) Operate in this state without the required registration.
(2) Operate beyond the limitations or restrictions specified in its registration.
(3) Operate in this state without the required operating authority.
(c) A violation of subdivision (a) or (b) is an infraction punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(d) A member of the Department of the California Highway Patrol may impound a vehicle operated in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) and its cargo, until the citation and all charges related to the impoundment are cleared. The impoundment charges are the responsibility of the vehicle’s owner.
(e) (1) A motor carrier granted permanent operating authority pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not operate a vehicle on a highway, unless the vehicle is inspected by a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance-certified inspector every three months and displays a current safety inspection decal attesting to the successful completion of those inspections for at least three years after receiving permanent operating authority.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a motor carrier granted authority to operate solely in a commercial zone on the United States-Mexico International Border.
(f) As used in this section “limitations” or “restrictions” include definitions of “commercial zones,” “municipality,” “contiguous municipalities,” “unincorporated area,” and “terminal areas,” in Part 372 (commencing with Section 372.101) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

SEC. 49.

 Section 40802 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

40802.
 (a) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.
(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as “local” on the “California Road System Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the “California Road System Maps,” it may be defined as a “local street or road” if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
(2) For purposes of this section, “school zone” means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. “School zone” also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign.
(c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.
(2) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(B) (i) A particular section of a highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the following time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven years.
(II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 10 years.
(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

SEC. 50.

 No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

SEC. 51.

 (a) Section 42.1 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code proposed by both this bill and AB 1855. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2011, (2) each bill amends Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code, and (3) AB 1944 is not enacted or as enacted does not amend that section, and (4) this bill is enacted after AB 1855, in which case Sections 42, 42.2 and 42.3 of this bill shall not become operative.
(b) Section 42.2 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code proposed by both this bill and AB 1944. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2011, (2) each bill amends Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code, (3) AB 1855 is not enacted or as enacted does not amend that section, and (4) this bill is enacted after AB 1944 in which case Sections 42, 42.1 and 42.3 of this bill shall not become operative.
(c) Section 42.3 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code proposed by this bill, AB 1855, and AB 1944. It shall only become operative if (1) all three bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2011, (2) all three bills amend Section 22511.55 of the Vehicle Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after AB 1855 and AB 1944, in which case Sections 42, 42.1, and 42.2 of this bill shall not become operative.