East Span, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Safety Review Task Force.
Summary
Existing law identifies the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as a "toll bridge" and provides that the bridge and the approaches to it are a primary state highway. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to permanently maintain and operate the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as a primary state highway in such a manner that the physical condition and operating efficiency thereof are of the highest character. Existing law establishes the Bay Area Toll Authority and assigns to it responsibility for the administration of all toll revenues from state-owned toll bridges. Existing law provides that the power or duty of the authority to fix the rates of toll for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge or the power and duty of the department to collect the tolls so fixed by the authority for the use of the bridge are not affected by any law providing that state highways are to be free highways. This bill would establish the East Span, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Safety Review Task Force in state government and require the Legislative Analyst to provide administrative support for the task force as necessary for the completion of its duties. The task force would consist of 7 members designated by the Legislative Analyst. The members of the task force would be deemed officers of the state, serve a term of one year, and receive compensation, as specified, and reimbursement for reasonable expenses. The bill would appropriate $149,000 from the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund to the Legislative Analyst for purposes of paying for the compensation and expense reimbursement of the task force members. The bill would require the Bay Area Toll Authority to reimburse the State Highway Account for all funds expended for purposes of the task force. The task force would be required to assess the anticipated seismic structural performance of the East Span, as defined, of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge by conducting a series of specified reviews. The task force would be required to submit a final written report to the Legislature and the Governor that includes the results of its assessment, as specified. This bill would provide that the task force is subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. This bill would provide that the records of the task force are subject to disclosure in accordance with the California Public Records Act. This bill would make these provisions, except for the provisions regarding the defense and indemnity of task force members described below, inoperative on July 1, 2014, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2015. This bill would require the Department of Transportation to defend and indemnify a member of the task force pursuant to specified provisions of the Government Claims Act in the event that the member invokes the protections provided in those provisions. The bill would require the Bay Area Toll Authority to reimburse the department for costs and judgments incurred pursuant to this requirement. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Jan 2013
Committee Review
Aug 2013
Senate Passage
Aug 2013
Assembly Passage
Aug 2013
Vetoed
Oct 2013
Introduced Jan 14, 2013
Vetoed Oct 11, 2013
Floor votes · Senate Aug 26, 2013 · Assembly Aug 19, 2013
How they voted
34–0
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 35
Aug 26, 2013
D
Democratic25
96% Yea
R
Republican10
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
36
Key actions
13
Committee
17
Amendments
2
Feb 27, 2014
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Oct 11, 2013
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Oct 11, 2013
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Aug 26, 2013
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 1974.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 26, 2013
Upper · Passed
Urgency clause adopted.
upper
Aug 22, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: That the Assembly amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 1957.)
upper
Aug 20, 2013
Committee
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on T. & H. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 1921.) Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.
upper
Aug 20, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.
upper
Aug 19, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (61-0-2)
assembly
Aug 19, 2013
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 14, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 14).
lower
Aug 8, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jul 3, 2013
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jul 2, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (July 1).
lower
Jun 25, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.
lower
Jun 24, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Jun 20, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and TRANS.
lower
Jun 17, 2013
Committee
From committee: Be re-referred to Coms. on TRANS. and JUD. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 17). Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.
lower
Jun 14, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
lower
Jun 11, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.
lower
May 9, 2013
Committee
Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and A. & A.R.
lower
Apr 15, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 534.) (April 15).
upper
Apr 2, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 391.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jan 24, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on T. & H.
upper
1 primary · 2 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Mark DeSaulnier
DDemocratic
Co
Richard Gordon
DDemocratic
Co
TA
Tom Ammiano
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 110
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 110. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline