AB2788 - Transportation: omnibus bill.

Amended IN Senate August 05, 2026 Amended IN Senate June 17, 2026 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 2788 Introduced by Committee on Transportation (Assembly Members Wilson (Chair), Davies (Vice Chair), Aguiar-Curry, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp-Collins, and Ward) March 16, 2026 An act to amend Section 14528.5 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 1110 and 1198 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, and to amend Sections 21455.9 and 40230 of, and to add Section 34500.8 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation, and making an appropriation therefor. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2788, as amended, Committee on Transportation. Transportation: omnibus bill. (1) Existing law authorizes a city or county in which a planned transportation facility was to be located on State Highway Route 238 in the City of Hayward and the County of Alameda to develop and file with the California Transportation Commission a local alternative transportation improvement program that addresses transportation problems and opportunities in the county, and provides for the use of revenues from the sale of excess properties acquired for the planned state facility in order to fund the local alternative transportation improvement program. Existing law prohibits the commission from approving a local alternative transportation improvement program submitted under these provisions after July 1, 2010. Existing law requires revenues from excess property sales for State Highway Route 238 to be deposited into a separate account in the Special Deposit Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, to be available for expenditure by local agencies for projects designated in the local alternative transportation improvement program. This bill would authorize the Alameda County Transportation Commission to file an amendment to the local alternative transportation improvement program for approval by the commission, and would authorize that amendment to propose to revise the projects listed in the program. Before filing the proposed amendment with the commission, the bill would require the Alameda County Transportation Commission to obtain the approval of the amendment from the city council of each city located in councils of the Cities of Hayward and San Leandro and the board of supervisors of the County of Alameda. By authorizing the commission to approve a revised list of projects, the bill would expand the purposes for which continuously appropriated funds may be expended, thereby making an appropriation. (2) Existing law makes it a crime for a person to pilot a vessel through the Golden Gate and into or out of a harbor in the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun, unless the person has a license as a pilot, as provided. Existing law defines “Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun” as all the waters of the Bay of San Francisco, Bay of San Pablo, and Bay of Suisun, and of the tributaries, ports, and harbors of those bays, including the water areas from the south end of San Francisco Bay and from the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton to the Golden Gate Bridge. Existing law requires a pilot that provides pilotage service in the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun to be insured, as provided, and requires a vessel, owner, operator, or demise or bareboat charterer hiring the pilot to either defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the pilot or provide trip insurance, as provided. This bill would clarify that the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun includes the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton. The bill would also clarify that those insurance provisions apply to any portion of a vessel transit that occurs within the waters of the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton. To the extent the bill would expand the definition of the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun, it would increase the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law specifies standards and requirements for the equipment of motor vehicles. Existing law generally requires motor carriers, drivers, and vehicles to comply with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations related to safety requirements for commercial motor vehicle operations, subject to department regulations. Under existing law, it is an infraction for a person to violate, or fail to comply with, a provision of the Vehicle Code, unless otherwise specified. This bill would additionally require motor carriers, drivers, vehicles, and shippers to comply with specified federal regulations related to the transportation of hazardous materials to the extent that they relate to transportation by highway unless the motor carrier, driver, vehicle, or shipper is an agency of the federal government. The bill would clarify that motor carriers, drivers, vehicles, and shippers not subject to the federal regulations described above are required to comply with those regulations unless specifically exempted from that compliance pursuant to department regulations. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to establish an automated traffic enforcement system program to use those systems to detect a violation of a traffic control signal, if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law makes photographic, video, and administrative records made by a system confidential and specifies that data about the number of violations issued is not an administrative record required to be disclosed. Existing law establishes an administrative hearing process for notices of violations issued under these provisions and authorizes a contestant to seek review of the final decision by filing an appeal to the small claims division of the superior court or the traffic division of the superior court, as specified. Existing law provides that the conduct of the hearing on appeal is a subordinate duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial officer, as specified. This bill would instead specify that data about the number of violations issued is not an administrative record prohibited from disclosure and is subject to disclosure. The bill would delete references to the small claims division or traffic division of a superior court in the above-described provisions and instead authorize a contestant to file an appeal to the superior court. The bill would provide that the conduct of the hearing on appeal may be a subordinate duty. The bill would also make a conforming change. (5) 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. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: YES Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 14528.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 14528.5. (a) (1) To resolve local transportation problems resulting from the infeasibility of planned state transportation facilities on State Highway Route 238 in the City of Hayward and Alameda County, the County of Alameda, the city or county in which the planned facilities were to be located, acting jointly with the transportation planning agency having jurisdiction over the city or county, may develop and file with the commission a local alternative transportation improvement program that addresses transportation problems and opportunities in the county which were to be served by the planned facilities. Priorities for funding in the local alternative program shall go to projects in the local voter-approved transportation sales tax measure. (2) The Alameda County Transportation Commission may develop and file with the commission an amendment to the local alternative transportation improvement program submitted under this section before July 1, 2010, and approved by the commission pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), subject to all of the following requirements: (A) The proposed amendment shall be approved by the city council of each city located in councils of the Cities of Hayward and San Leandro and the board of supervisors of the County of Alameda before it is filed with the commission for approval. (B) If the amendment proposes to remove or reprioritize a project included in the approved project list, the amendment shall describe the reason for the change and whether the initial project need has been, or will be, addressed. (C) If the amendment proposes to add a project to the approved project list, the project shall be included in the applicable regional transportation plan. (b) (1) The commission shall have the final authority regarding the content and approval of the local alternative transportation improvement program. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the commission shall not approve any local alternative transportation improvement program submitted under this section after July 1, 2010. (2) The commission may approve an amendment filed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) to the local alternative transportation improvement program approved pursuant to paragraph (1). (c) All proceeds from the sale of the excess properties, less any reimbursements due to the federal government and all costs incurred in the sale of those excess properties, shall be allocated by the commission to fund the approved local alternative transportation improvement program and shall not be subject to Sections 188 and 188.8 of the Streets and Highways Code. Except as provided in Section 14528.6, the proceeds shall be used only for highway purposes. (d) For purposes of this section, “excess properties” means those properties acquired to construct a new alignment for a freeway or expressway bypass to State Highway Route 238 in the City of Hayward and in the County of Alameda, which project is no longer planned to be constructed. SEC. 2. Section 1110 of the Harbors and Navigation Code is amended to read: 1110. (a) “Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun” means all the waters of the Bay of San Francisco, the Bay of San Pablo, and the Bay of Suisun, and of the tributaries, ports, and harbors of those bays, including the water areas from the south end of San Francisco Bay and from, and including, the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton to the Golden Gate Bridge. (b) “Monterey Bay” means all the waters of that bay and of the tributaries, ports, and harbors of that bay. SEC. 3. Section 1198 of the Harbors and Navigation Code is amended to read: 1198. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), the rates and charges for pilotage services shall not include the cost of primary marine insurance insuring a pilot, an organization of pilots, or their officers or employees, from liability arising from negligence or errors in judgment in connection with the provision of pilotage service by pilots, organizations of pilots, or their officers or employees. (b) A pilot who holds a state license for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun shall arrange to have available, upon advance written notice, trip insurance, with coverage limits of thirty-six million dollars ($36,000,000), naming as insureds the pilot, any organization of pilots to which the pilot belongs, and their officers and employees, and insuring the named insureds against any civil claim, demand, suit, or action by whomsoever asserted, arising out of, or relating to, directly or indirectly, acts or omissions of the insureds in connection with the provision of pilotage service, except willful misconduct. (c) Every vessel, owner, operator, or demise or bareboat charterer hiring a pilot with a state license for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun shall either defend, indemnify, and hold harmless pilots pursuant to paragraph (1), or alternatively, notify pilots of an intent to pay for trip insurance pursuant to paragraph (2). If a vessel or its owner, operator, or demise or bareboat charterer does not provide written notice pursuant to paragraph (2) of an intent to exercise the trip insurance option, then the vessel and its owner, operator, and demise or bareboat charterer will be deemed to have elected the obligation to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless pilots pursuant to paragraph (1). (1) (A) Except for a vessel electing trip insurance pursuant to paragraph (2), a vessel subject to this subdivision, and its owner, operator, demise or bareboat charterer, and agent shall not assert any claim, demand, suit, or action against the pilot, any organization of pilots to which the pilot belongs, and their officers and employees, for damages, including any rights over, arising out of, or connected with, directly or indirectly, any damage, loss, or expense sustained by the vessel, its owners, agents, demise or bareboat charterers, operators, or crew, or by any third parties, even if the damage results, in whole, or in part, from any act, omission, or negligence of the pilot, any organization of pilots to which the pilot belongs, and their officers and employees. (B) A vessel subject to this paragraph and its owner, operator, and demise or bareboat charterer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the pilot, any organization of pilots to which the pilot belongs, and their officers and employees, with respect to liability arising from any claim, suit, or action, by whomsoever asserted, resulting in whole, or in part, from any act, omission, or negligence of the pilot, any organization of pilots to which the pilot belongs, and their officers and employees. The obligation to indemnify under this paragraph shall not apply to the extent that it causes the amount recoverable from a vessel, its owner, operator, or demise or bareboat charterer to exceed the limits of liability that it is entitled to under any bill of lading, charter party, contract of affreightment, or law. (C) The prohibition on claims by vessels, owners, operators, demise or bareboat charterers, and agents imposed by subparagraph (A) and the obligation to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the pilot imposed by subparagraph (B) shall not apply in cases of willful misconduct by a pilot, any organization of pilots to which the pilot belongs, and their officers and employees. (D) A pilot who is the prevailing party shall be awarded attorney’s fees and costs incurred in any action to enforce a right to indemnification provided pursuant to this subdivision. (2) In lieu of paragraph (1), a vessel subject to this subdivision and its owner, operator, demise or bareboat charterer, and agent may elect to notify the pilot, or the organization of pilots to which the pilot belongs, of intent to pay for trip insurance, as described in subdivision (b). If notice of this election is recei [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]