(1) Existing law makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, has 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood, as specified, is addicted to the use of any drug, is under the influence of any drug, or is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle. Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug and concurrently do an act forbidden by law, or neglect a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of driving a vehicle under the circumstances above as well as for engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the driving violation was punished, and prohibits the reinstatement of the driving privilege until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program, as specified. Existing law requires the department to advise the person that they may apply for a restricted driver's license if the person meets certain requirements, including, among others, satisfactorily providing proof of enrollment in a certain DUI program and the installment of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) . Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements. For specified violations, existing law requires the department to issue a restricted driver's license if the person has met certain requirements, including proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, proof of financial responsibility, and the payment of all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees, among other fees, required by the department. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would reorganize and recast the penalties and sanctions for the alcohol- and drug-related driving offenses described above. The bill would recast violations for driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or having 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in blood (collectively "alcohol-related driving violations") from violations for driving under the influence of any drug or driving while a person is addicted to the use of any drug (collectively "drug-related driving violations") . For convictions of alcohol-related driving violations, the bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and would allow the suspension to be indefinite. The bill would prohibit the reinstatement of that privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements, including, among others, the person applying for and maintaining a restricted driver's license for certain periods of time depending on the statute under which the driving violation is punished, which includes installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, providing proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a DUI program, as specified, paying all applicable reinstatement and reissue fees required by the department, and providing proof of financial responsibility. For convictions of drug-related driving violations described above, this bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the violation was punished. The bill would also prohibit the reinstatement of the privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements described above, but the bill would not require the person to install a certified IID or apply for and maintain a restricted driver's license for a specified period of time. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a person, whose privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended for alcohol-related driving violations, to apply for a restricted license if certain requirements are met, including, among others, installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, as specified, providing proof of financial responsibility for 3 years, providing satisfactorily proof of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, as specified, and paying a fee that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of these requirements. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to drive if the person fails to comply with the DUI program requirements. The bill would also authorize a person, whose driving privilege was suspended for a conviction of a drug-related driving violation, to apply for a restricted driver's license if similar certain requirements are met, except the person would not be required to install a certified IID but would be required to complete a minimum number of months of a suspension period, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to monitor the installation and maintenance of an IID that is installed pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the installer of the IID to notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or the person fails 3 or more times to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the department to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and any restricted driver's license if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with an IID, has the IID removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. The bill would require the department, and manufacturers, installers, and repairers of IIDs, to post information regarding filing complaints against manufacturers, installers, and repairers, as specified. (2) Existing law requires an order of suspension of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for any of specified reasons, including the person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood. Existing law requires the notice to be served on the person by a peace officer under specified conditions where test results show that the person has specified percentages of alcohol in the person's blood or where a person under 21 years of age refuses to take, or fails to complete, a specified test for alcohol in the blood. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would include a person driving a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire was a passenger in the vehicle and the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood as a reason to immediately suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. The bill would authorize a person, whose driving privilege has been suspended pursuant to the provision above but not suspended or revoked based on the person's refusal to submit to, or failure to complete, a chemical test or tests, to apply for a restricted driver's license if certain requirements are met, including completing 30 days of the suspension period, providing proof of enrollment in a DUI program, installing a functioning, certified IID on any vehicle that they operate, being 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense, giving proof of financial responsibility, and paying all reissue and restriction fees. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to operate if the person has failed to comply with the DUI program requirements, or if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the IID, removes the IID prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. (3) Existing law requires the department to suspend or revoke a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle based on a peace officer's sworn statement or report, as specified. Existing law requires the department to review the record to determine whether the suspension or revocation is supported by the record, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to review these determinations and consider the sworn report and any other information and evidence, as specified. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the department determines in the review of a determination certain facts are proven, including, among other facts, that the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of an alcohol- or drug-related driving provision, the bill would require the department to sustain the order of suspension or revocation. If the department determines that any of these certain facts are not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the bill would require the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation, as specified. (4) Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements as provided above. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a court to disallow the issuance of the restricted driver's license if the court determines that the person would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if the person were authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would make conforming changes to include the provisions above, as applicable, in statutes that generally pertain to the suspension, revocation, or restriction of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county (local government) to administratively approve an application to install an electric vehicle charging station (EV station) through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Existing law requires those EV stations to meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by specified entities. This bill would require this administrative approval to extend to EV stations with a canopy, as defined, or onsite energy storage systems sized to support charging. This bill would also require any electric vehicle supply equipment installed at the EV station to meet all applicable safety and performance standards. Existing law requires every local government to adopt, pursuant to specified deadlines, an ordinance that creates an expedited, streamlined permitting process for EV stations. Existing law requires the local government to adopt a checklist of all requirements with which the EV stations must comply with for expedited review. This bill would require the ordinance to also address expedited streamlining for any supporting infrastructure necessary for or accessory to the operation of EV stations, as described, and would clarify that the checklist may be amended. The bill would require the ordinance and checklist to be amended to implement the bill's provisions no later than December 31, 2027. This bill would further provide that if the local government has not adopted or amended such a checklist, an application to install an EV station must contain specified information about the proposed project to the building official of the local government, including, but not limited to, the specific location of the EV station. The bill would require the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to develop and publicly post a standardized form that applicants may use and submit to the local government for purposes of satisfying this requirement. The bill would also require GO-Biz to develop and publicly post an optional template that applicants may use to document their application's compliance with specified provisions relating to the submittal of their EV station application. This bill would require a local government to provide, no later than 30 days after an application has been deemed approved, a written notice to the applicant of the date the application was deemed approved and identify all permits and authorizations that have been granted. The bill would authorize an applicant to proceed with project construction following that notice, as described. This bill would prohibit its provisions from being construed to limit a local agency's ability to, among other things, require plans or supporting documentation that are necessary to verify an electric vehicle charging station, including supporting infrastructure, meets all health and safety requirements of local, state, and federal law, as provided. This bill would make conforming changes and revise various definitions in these provisions, including by redefining an EV station for purposes of these provisions to mean a physical site where one or more devices with one or more charging ports and connectors for charging electric vehicles are available for use. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.
(1) Existing law grants the legislative body of a city certain powers with respect to city streets and highways, including the power to construct and maintain those streets and highways. Existing law grants the board of supervisors of a county general supervision, management, and control of county highways and authorizes the board of supervisors to lay out, construct, improve, and maintain county highways. This bill would prohibit a city or county from holding a community input meeting to reconsider, delay, or prevent implementation of a proposed pedestrian or bicycle safety project after that project has passed 90% design, as specified. After or upon the award of a contract for, or when county or city staff, as applicable, are directed to begin, the construction of a pedestrian or bicycle safety project, the bill would prohibit the city or county from terminating the project unless the city or county makes at least one specified finding at a public meeting. If a city or county establishes a process for residents of the city or county to submit a petition to request the installation of a traffic-calming measure, the bill would prohibit the city or county from requiring the petition to contain the signatures of more than a majority of the total number of persons whose residences are located, in whole or in part, within 1,000 feet of the proposed traffic-calming measure, as specified. To the extent that the bill increases the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law, the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960, authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to establish a pedestrian mall, as defined, and prohibit vehicular traffic on the mall, upon adoption of an ordinance establishing the mall. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA, until January 1, 2040, exempts from its requirements certain transportation-related projects, including, among others, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as specified. CEQA requires, except as provided, those exempted projects to be carried out by a local agency and meet certain requirements, including certain labor requirements. This bill would exempt from the requirements of CEQA the establishment or expansion of a pedestrian mall and would require those projects to comply with the above-described requirements applicable to those exempted CEQA projects. (3) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (4) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law establishes the Department of Transportation and requires it to improve and maintain the state highways, as provided. This bill would require the department to provide written notice of certain construction or maintenance projects within the right-of-way of a state highway in a county with a population of 60,000 people or fewer to a person who resides in, or a business that is located within, 5 miles of the project limits, as specified. The bill would also require the department to place the notice on its internet website.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including automobile liability insurance. Existing law prohibits classifying a private passenger motor vehicle as a commercial vehicle, for-hire vehicle, permissive use vehicle, or livery solely because its owner allows it to be shared, if specified criteria are met. In the event of a loss or injury that occurs during any time period when the vehicle is under the operation and control of a person other than the vehicle owner, existing law requires the personal vehicle sharing program to assume all liability of the owner and is considered the owner of the vehicle for all purposes. Existing law requires a personal vehicle sharing program to provide insurance coverages for the vehicle and operator at a minimum of $45,000 for bodily injury or death for one person, $90,000 for bodily injury or death for all persons, and $15,000 for property damage, and, on and after January 1, 2031, to provide liability coverage at least 3 times the minimum insurance requirements for private passenger vehicles. This bill would, instead of requiring a personal vehicle sharing program to assume all liability of the owner, require the program to assume liability of the owner for bodily injury or property damage to injured third parties resulting from personal vehicle sharing in amounts stated in the personal vehicle sharing program agreement, and not less than $250,000 for bodily injury or death for one person, $500,000 for bodily injury or death for all persons, and $100,000 for property damage. The bill would make these provisions inapplicable if the vehicle owner acts in concert with a shared vehicle driver who fails to return the shared vehicle pursuant to the terms of the personal vehicle sharing program agreement.
This measure would designate a specified portion of State Route 99 in the County of San Joaquin as the San Joaquin County Deputy Sheriff Dighton Little Memorial Highway. The measure would request that the Department of Transportation determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources sufficient to cover the cost, to erect those signs.
This measure would designate a specified portion of State Highway Route 152 in the County of Santa Clara as the Rusty Areias Highway. The measure would request that the Department of Transportation determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources sufficient to cover the cost, to erect those signs.
This bill would designate a specified portion of State Route 20 in the County of Sutter as the Gordon Lee Bordsen Memorial Highway. The measure would request that the Department of Transportation determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources sufficient to cover the cost, to erect those signs.
Existing law establishes the Active Transportation Program in the Department of Transportation for the purpose of encouraging increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Existing law requires the California Transportation Commission to develop guidelines and project selection criteria for the program, including guidelines with regard to project eligibility that include, among other project types, safe routes to transit projects that will encourage transit by improving biking and walking routes to mass transportation facilities and schoolbus stops. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2028, instead require the guidelines with regard to project eligibility to include projects for safe routes to transit projects that encourage access to transit facilities and schoolbus stops by biking and walking, as specified, and projects that will expand access to transit in underserved or rural areas. Existing law authorizes the guidelines to include incentives to maximize the potential for attracting funds other than program funds for eligible projects. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2028, (1) instead require the guidelines to include incentives intended to maximize the potential for attracting funds other than program funds for eligible projects in order to scale funding for larger or network-level active transportation improvements, (2) require the guidelines to include a progressive range of penalties for an applicant that failed to use previously received program funds in a timely manner, as specified, and (3) require the guidelines to include a requirement for an applicant to consult with the executive officer of a transit agency operating in a project corridor if the project will be adjacent to an existing bus, shuttle, or paratransit route, as specified.
Existing law sets forth various provisions applicable to all public transit and transit districts and includes specific requirements applicable to public entities that operate commuter rail or rail transit systems. This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2027, a regional rail operator, as defined, operating within an intercity rail corridor to ensure that its fare systems are fully integrated with the fare systems of the intercity rail operator, and any other regional rail operator, operating in the intercity rail corridor. By imposing additional duties on regional rail operators, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation, subject to approval of the Secretary of Transportation, to enter into an interagency transfer agreement under which a joint powers board assumes responsibility for administering the state-funded intercity rail service in a particular corridor. Existing law provides for the allocation of state funds by the secretary to a joint powers board under an interagency transfer agreement based on an annual business plan for the intercity rail corridor and subsequent appropriation of state funds. Existing law requires the joint powers board to submit the annual business plan to the secretary for review and recommendation by April 1 of each year. This bill would require an interagency transfer agreement to require a joint powers board to ensure that service planning is provided for special events, as defined. The bill would require, commencing with the 2027–28 fiscal year, the business plan to include a special events service plan that establishes, among other things, an intercity rail operating schedule for special events and fare system integration between the intercity rail operator and regional rail operators. To the extent that the bill would add to the duties of a joint powers board, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
