AB 2788: Transportation: omnibus bill.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

(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 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.

Sponsors

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. September 14, 2026Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 223, Statutes of 2026.
2. September 14, 2026Approved by the Governor.
3. September 3, 2026Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
4. August 26, 2026Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6654.).
5. August 26, 2026In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
6. August 26, 2026Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.).
7. August 5, 2026Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
8. August 4, 2026From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 3).
9. July 1, 2026From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
10. June 24, 2026From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
11. June 17, 2026From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on TRANS.
12. June 3, 2026Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and JUD.