HomeMy WebLinkAboutS01-City Administrator
"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Fred Wilson
Subject: RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR
AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO IN OPPOSITION
TO PROPOSITION 51 - DISTRIBUTION
OF EXISTING MOTOR VEmCLE SALES
AND USE TAX.
Dept: City Administrator's Office
Date: October 30, 200'(j:' '. I "f L
.cv l~'-" ~,,'~
MICC Meeting Date: November 4, 2002
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution,
Contact person: Teri Baker
Phone: 384-5122
Supporting data attached: staff report & resolution Ward: N/A
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(A,..r.t n~~("rirtinn)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. -.JJ
II Jy IOd-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
Subiect:
Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino in opposition to
Proposition 51- Distribution of Existing Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax.
Backl!round
Proposition 51 would redirect 30% ofthe State's sales tax revenue from the lease and sale of
new and used motor vehicles to specific transportation-related purposes. These revenues would
be transferred to a new Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund. This new
fund would support 17 new categories of required spending including: Mass transit and highway
improvements, replacement of certain existing school buses, local street and road repairs, public
facilities for transit riders, senior and disabled transportation services, mitigation of
environmental effects of transportation improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Within the 17 categories there are also 45 specific projects allocated.
Opponents of Proposition 51 say:
. The passage of this proposition earmarks nearly $1 billion in revenue for a long list of
specified programs that could not be changed by the Legislature.
. Creates 45 specific programs with little accountability, many of which benefit contributors to
Proposition 51.
. Constitutionally obligates up the state budget with 17 new categories of required spending
despite the current state budget crisis.
. In the midst of a multi-billion state budget problem, Prop. 51 reallocates $1 billion of
"existing funds" to fund a long list of Prop. 51 projects and programs every year-forever.
San Bernardino Associated Governments completed an extensive analysis on Proposition 51 in
which it is concluded that this measure is not based on any systematic assessment of real
transportation needs or priorities. The analysis also notes the inclusion of these projects in the
initiative completely disregards regional efforts to prioritize projects. Included in the Proposition
is $17.5 million in funding for high priority projects. One of the projects is an annual allocation
to the City of San Bernardino of$7.5 million for four years for grade separations connecting the
existing BNSF intermodal facility on the Westside of San Bernardino to the San Bernardino
International Airport. As noted in SANBAG's analysis:
"The request for the grade separation projects came for the private development
community, not the City of San Bernardino. The four projects are not considered
Alameda Corridor East projects and they are not included in SANBA G 's adopted
Alameda Corridor East Grade Separation priority list. SANBA G was not consulted in
the selection of the priority projects, as the agency has no legal way to contribute fUnding
to the campaign effort to pass the initiative. The inclusion of these projects in the
initiative completely disregards SANBAG's efforts to prioritize projec'. ... uu J. u u
vehicular delay at rail/street at-grade crossing in San Bernardino Co J I f!ttJff.J2
disturbing is that the grade separation projects range from $15 millio
j(; If a fJrYWrj f4JM
/1 Ill/) ()-'
$30 million. Using a conservative estimate of $15 million per grade separation and a
PUC mandated 10% contribution, or $1.5 million, from the operating railroad, each
grade separation would still be $6 million under-jitnded. "
In addition to SANBAG, the League of California Cities and a number of other organizations are
also opposing this measure (See opposition list Attachment A).
Financial Imnact:
This measure would dedicate specified State General Fund revenues to state and local
transportation-related purposes of an estimated $420 million in 2002-03, $910 million in 2003-
04, and increasing amounts annually thereafter depending on the increase in the sale and leasing
of motor vehicles. This would result in a corresponding reduction in funds available for State
General Fund supported programs and would obligate the state budget with 17 new categories of
required spending despite the current state budget crisis. .
The City of San Bernardino would be indirectly impacted by Proposition 51 because of the loss
in state funding for other programs. The State may be forced to withdraw other types of local
government funding to fund those programs (i.e. Vehicle License Fee funding).
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution.
ATTACHMENT A
Organizations in Opposition to Proposition 51
Taxpayer Organizations
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
National Tax Limitation Committee
Califomia Tax Reform Association
California Taxpayers' Association
San Diego Taxpayers Association
Taxpayers Against Pork Projects
Transportation Agencies and Other Govemmental Organizations
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
California Association of Councils of Govemments
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MT A)
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
San Bernardino Associated Governments
Southern California Association of Governments
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
San Joaquin Council of Governments
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Amador County Transportation Commission
Mendocino Council of Governments
Kern Council of Governments
Madera County Transportation Commission
Napa County Transportation Planning Agency
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Stanislaus Council of Governments
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
El Dorado County Transportation Commission
Butte County Association of Governments
Calaveras Council of Government
Lake County/City Area Planning Council
County of Marin, Administrator's Office
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
City of Berkeley
City of West Sacramento
City ofDinuba
Other Organizations
Organizations in Opposition to Prop 51
Page 1 of2
Children's Advocacy Institute
Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth
California Association for the Education of Young Children
California Federation of Teachers
California Healthcare Association
Senior Action Network
Congress of California Seniors
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
League of Women Voters California
Greenbelt Alliance
California Farm Bureau Federation
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
People's Advocate
Service Employees International Union Local 535
DHS Transportation Forum
Americans for Democratic Action
Friends of Southern California's Highways
Friends Committee on Legislation
California National Organization for Women
California Church IMP ACT
The Darmy Foundation
Fair Transit
Rescue Muni
The Sacramento Head Start Alumni Association
Political Parties and Elected Officials
California Republican Party
California Green Party
California Republican Assembly
State Senate President Pro Tern John Burton
State Senator Steve Peace
State Senator Joe Dunn
State Senator Tom Torlakson
State Senator Don Perata
State Senator Bruce McPherson
State Senator Tom McClintock
State Senator Gloria Romero
State Senator Ray Haynes
State Senator Nell Soto
State Assemblymember Joe Nation
State Assemblymember Paul Koretz
State Assemblymember John Campbell
City of Brea, Mayor Pro Tern Bev Perry
Organizations in Opposition to Prop 51
Page 2 of2
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 51 - DISTRIBUTION TO
EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND USE TAX.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the expected budget deficit for the State of California totals $50 billion to
$80 billion over the next four years; and
WHEREAS, this measure would dedicate specified State General Fund revenues to
state and local transportation-related purposes in an amount estimated at $420 million in 2002-
03, $910 million in 2003-04, and increasing amounts annually thereafter depending on the
increase in the sale and leasing of motor vehicles; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 51 provides funding for 45 specific projects, none of which
were developed through a collaborative local/regional/state planning process; and
WHEREAS, many of the projects would benefit powerful development interests and
other special interests that contributed to the Proposition 51 campaign; and
WHEREAS, this measure vital public service programs currently supported by the
State General Fund.
THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino opposes the passage of Proposition 51, and encourages California voters to not
approve the Proposition on November 5, 2002.
III
III
III
III
III
III
" ,) I
'0 \,..)
(( I cj./j2
/ /L/e;, $U:t)
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 51 - DISTRIBUTION
OF EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND USE TAX.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
and Conunon Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held
on the
day of
, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members:
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA
LIEN
MCGINNIS
DERRY
SUAREZ
ANDERSON
MCCAMMACK
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
2002.
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
Form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
By:
. California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 1 of17
.
Vote America * Secretary of State Home * Elections Home * Feedback * Find Your Polling Place
CALIFORNIA
GENERAL ELECTION DATE
* OFFICIAL VOTER *
INFORMATION GUIDE
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
PROPOS IrIONS lit (m DIDATES .. POLITI( AL PARTIES .. \lOTER INFORl'-lATION .. H Or-IE
.
CAUFORNlA
SECRETARY
OF STATE
PROP
51
Transportation. Distribution of Existing Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax.
Initiative Statute.
PROP 46
PROP 47
TEXT OF PROPOSEO LAW
PROP 48
ThiS Initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of
Article II of the California Constitution.
PROP 49
PROP SO
This initiative measure amends, repeals, and adds sections to various codes; therefore, existing
provisions proposed to be deleted are printed In 9trihect:lt t7 t3e and new provisions proposed to be
added are printed in italic type to Indicate that they are new.
::I PROP 51
Official Title and Summary
PROPOSED LAW
Analysis
Arguments and Rebuttals
SECTION 1. The People of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) Traffic congestion threatens to strangle economic growth In many parts of California. It
threatens our safety, reduces productivity, Impairs family life, restricts the movement of people,
goods, and services, and Is a source of endless frustration to motorists and other travelers.
(b) There are more than 1,000 unsafe school buses that do not meet federal safety standards
operating in California today. There are an additional 6,500 school buses that are so old that they
expose our children to toxic air pollution. By providing funds to school districts for school bus
replacement, the districts will be able to take more children to and from school, reducing the trips
parents need to make. This will provide cleaner air and reduce traffic congestion.
(c) Reducing highway bottlenecks will reduce traffic congestion.
(d) Public transportation can reduce traffic congestion by giving people an alternative to
driving.
(e) The existing state share of the sales tax paid on the sale and lease of motor vehicles is an
appropriate source of revenue to pay for transportation- related Improvements because the
purchasers and lessees of motor vehicles will directly benefit from all the programs financed by
this act.
(f) Assuring the wider availability of public transportation for those who cannot drive due to
age, disability, or economic circumstance is good public polley, and will promote economic
development and individual selfsufflclency.
(g) Transportation-related accidents are a significant cause of death, Injury, and property
damage. Children walking and taking bicycles to school must have safe walkways, paths, and
bikeways. By making roads safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, economic loss will be
reduced, and the health and safety of Californians will be improved.
(h) By promotIng the continued and expanded use of railroads for the more efficient
movement of passengers and freight, traffic congestion and air pollution will be reduced.
(I) Air pollution generated by transportation is a serious health threat to most people In
California. Technologies exist and are being developed that can reduce this air pollution, and they
urgently need financial support for their implementation. Water pollution generated from roadway
runoff and transportation related development must also be controlled, to reduce contamination of
drinking water supplies and coastal waters.
0) The Impact of transportation on the natural environment can be severe, and it Is
appropriate to use public revenues that are related to transportation to reduce or eliminate these
Impacts through an environmental enhancement program similar to the Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation Program.
(k) Providing security for passengers using public transportation is a necessary part of our
transportation infrastructure, encouragIng ridership, protecting public safety, and expanding
transportation options.
(I) It Is the intent of the people in adopting this measure that It not result in reduced funding
for public education. The voters recognize that the General Fund revenues that are counted for the
purpose of determining the minimum guaranteed funding for schools and community COllege
districts under Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution cannot be decreased by
statute.
(m) This measure may be known and cited as the Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School
Bus Act.
SEe. 2. Section 7105 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:
... Text of Proposed Law
.ROP 52
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions2.asp?id=323&sID=4
10130/2002
. . California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 2 of 17
.
7105. (a) All of the fof/owing shall occur on a quarterly basis:
(1) The State Board of Equalization, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the
Department of Motor Vehicles, shall estimate the amount that is transferred to the General Fund
under subdivision (b) of Section 7102 that is attributable to revenue collected for the sale and
lease of new and used motor vehicles. For purposes of this section, "sale and lease" does not
include rental of motor vehicles.
(2) The State Board of Equalization shall inform the Controller, in writing, of the amount
estimated under paragraph (1).
(3) Upon receipt of the notice required under paragraph (2), the Controller shall transfer thirty
percent (30%) of the amount estimated under paragraph (1) from the General Fund to the Traffic
Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "fund"), which is
hereby established in the State Treasury.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, the following percentages and
specified amounts of the money in the fund shall be continuously appropriated to the Controller
without regard to fiscal years, and shall be transferred by the Controller to the following accounts,
which are hereby established in the fund:
(1) Sixteen percent (16%) to the Congestion Bottleneck Account, for transfer by the
Controller to the California Transportation Commission, to be expended as follows:
(A)(i) To the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund for the projects listed in Section 14556.40 of the
Government Code. Any money transferred under this paragraph and not expended during the
fiscal year during which it was transferred shall revert to the Congestion Bottleneck Account and
shall be available for reallocation in accordance with subparagraph (B).
(ii) The California Transportation Commission may adjust the total amount to be allocated to
each project listed in Section 14556.40 of the Government Code pursuant to the authority
conferred in subdivision (f) of Section 14556.20 of the Government Code. Money shall be
transferred quarterly to the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund from the Congestion Bottleneck Account
in such amounts as are needed in the aggregate for reimbursing each applicant the cost of the
current phase of the project, in accordance with the schedule of allocations for each project
approved by the California Transportation Commission pursuant to Section 14556.20 Of the
Government Code. Applicants, including the Department of Transportation, for grants from the
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund shall demonstrate in the application that they have made the
maximum effort to seek local, private, and federal funds to assist in the completion of these
projects. If only a study or a specific part or phase of a project is authorized for a project listed in
subdivision (a) of Section 14556.40 of the Government Code, only the study or the specific part or
phase shall be financed, and no other part or phase of the project shall be financed from this
account. Grants shall be made pursuant to this paragraph only for studies for projects listed in
paragraphs (6), (12), (15), (22), (25), (114), (121), and (154) of subdivision (a) of 5ection
14556.40 of the Government Code.
(Hi) Prior to making the allocations pursuant to clause (i), the commission shall allocate two
million dollars ($2,000,000) per year from the account for a competitive local assistance program
for the preparation of alternative planning scenarios pursuant to Section 65080.3 of the
Government Code. Only regional transportation planning agencies may apply for grants, and
grants shall be awarded on the basis of compliance with Section 65080.3 of the Government Code.
.
.
(B){I) Any money reverted to the Congestion Bottleneck Account under subparagraph (A)
shall be reallocated by the commission for expenditure on state, regional, or local highway and
street projects that improve the flow of traffic within an existing publicly owned roadway by
adding high-occupancy vehicle or highoccupancy toll lanes where none is present, or
accomplishing other, similar traffic flow Improvement projects, such as truck climbing lanes, within
existing roadways.
(ii) All money expended pursuant to this subparagraph (B) shall be expended within the city
limits of cities, or within urbanized parts of counties that have population densities of not less than
1,000 persons per square mile.
(Iii) Sixty percent (60%) of the money reallocated pursuant to this subparagraph (B) shall be
expended in County Group 2 and forty percent (40%) shall be expended in County Group 1.
(C) Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (8), money in the
Congestion Bottleneck Account shall first be allocated to the following projects:
(I) To the local transportation improvement agency with zoning and land use authority over
the following designated area, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per year during the 2003-04 to
2011-12, inclusive, fiscal years for highway, roadway, and street infrastructure improvements
that improve motorist and pedestrian safety and reduce traffic congestion and traffic congestion
bottlenecks in the area generally bounded by Campus Drive, State Route 55 (the Costa Mesa
Freeway), Hatvard Avenue, and Barranca Parkway. Design and construction shall be carried out by
the jurisdiction within which each project is located.
(Ii) To the City and County of San Francisco Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority, ten
million dollars ($10,000,000) per year during the 2003-04 to 2006-07, inclusive, fiscal years for
the construction of improvements in the Music Concourse area of Golden Gate Park, within which
the California Academy of Sciences and the M. H. de Young Memorial Museum are situated, in
accordance with the provisions of Proposition J, approved by the voters of the City and County of
San Francisco on June 2, 1998. Improvements to the Concourse shall enhance the natural, scenic,
and recreational values of the Park and, in coordination with other Concourse-area improvement
projects, this money may be used for transportation, bus parking, area parking management, and
environmental Improvements that will reduce the impact of automobiles in Golden Gate Park while
assuring safe, reliable, and convenient access for visitors to the park. This money may not be used
for design or construction of the underground parking facility.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions2.asp?id=323&sID=4
10/30/2002
. Califpmia Official Voter Information Guide
Page 3 of 17
.
(iii) To the City of Irvine, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per year during the 2003-04 to
2007-08, inclusive, fiscal years for the development, construction (including construction of
parking structures), and acquisition and operation of remote airport terminals, and the acquisition
of vehicles for the system, connecUng the City of Irvine to Los Angeles International Airport, Santa
Ana John Wayne International Airport, Long Beach Airport, Ontario International Airport, and other
airports In Southern California.
(iv) To the Department of Transportation, twelve million five hundred thousand dollars
($12,500,000) per year during the 2003-04 to 2009-10, inclusive, fiscal years for improvements
needed to extend the Highway 110 Transitway from its existing northerly terminus to Los Angeles
Union Station via a northern extension to Interstate 10, easterly to Alameda Street, and northerly
along Alameda Street to an interface with the existing EI Monte Busway terminus at Los Angeles
Union Station.
(v) To the Department of Transportation, five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the 2003-04
fiscal year for the construction of a new interchange to replace an existing interchange with
seismic deficiencies on Interstate 5 at Laval Road.
(vi) To the City of Laguna Woods, two million dollars ($2,000,000) for the 2003-04 fiscal
year to improve the flow of traffic along EI Toro Road. This money may be used to acquire rights-
of-way, make modifications to streets and roads, move median strips, improve lighting, install and
modify traffic signals, and for other improvements to make the route safe and convenient. This
money may also be used for the development of an alternative vehicle route along EI Toro Road,
suitable for bicycles, golf carts, electric scooters, pedestrians, and other forms of non-motorized
vehicle transportation.
(vii) To the Department of Transportation, thirteen million seven hundred thousand dollars
($13,700,000) during the 2004-05 to 2013-14, inclusive, fiscal years, for design, right-of-way
acquisition, and construction of connections between State Route 56 and Interstate 5, including
related improvements on Interstate 5, with first priority for expenditures given to ramps for
westbound State Route 56 connecting with Interstate 5 north and Interstate 5 south connecting
with eastbound State Route 56. The project will facilitate the improvement of traffic through the I-
S/I-80S merge.
(viii) To the Department of Transportation, two million dollars ($2,000,000) per year during
the 2004-05 to 2006-07, inclusive, fiscal years for design and environmental review of High
Occupancy Vehicle lanes and truck lanes on Interstate 5 between State Route 14 and State Route
126.
(ix) To the City of Santa Clarita, four million five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000) per
year during the 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2008-09 fiscal years for right-of-way acquisition and
construction costs for the I-5/SR-126 (Magic Mountain Parkway) interchange and associated
relocation and widening of The Old Road and State Route 126 from 1-5 to McBean Parkway.
(x) To the Department of Transportation, two million five hundred thousand dollars
($2,500,000) per year durIng the 2003-04 to 2005-06, Inclusive, fiscal years for right-of-way
acquisition and construction costs for the I5/SR-126 (Magic Mountain Parkway) interchange and
associated widening of SR-126 and Improvement of the Commerce Center Drive interchange with
State Route 126. Design and construction shall be carried out by the jurisdiction within which each
project is located.
(xi) To the County of Los Angeles, three million dollars ($3,000,000) per year during the
2003-04 and 2004-05 fiscal years for right-of-way acquisition and construction costs for
Interstate 5/Hasley Canyon Road interchange.
(xii) To the Department of Transportation, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per year during
the 2003-04 to 2010-11, inclusive, fiscal years for Implementation of congestion relief projects
along U.S. 101 between State Route 23 and State Route 170 recommended pursuant to the
corridor analysis authorized by paragraph (48) of subdivision (a) of Section 14556.40 of the
Government Code.
(xiii) To the Department of Transportation, five million dollars ($5,000,000) per year during
the 2003-04 to 2004-05, inclusive, fiscal years for implementation of an Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) program, specifically including advanced traffic signal control systems, transit
signal Intervention systems, shuttle system linkage to existing light rail transit stations and
educational and employment centers, in the area bounded by Interstate 710, Interstate 405,
Interstate 605, and State Route 91. The implementation of this ITS program shall be in
partnership with California State University Long Beach and its transportation technology section,
and the Transportation Program at Long Beach City College campus.
(xiv) To the City of La Canada-Flintridge, five million dollars ($5,000,000) per year during the
2003-04 to 2004-05, Inclusive, fiscal years for local funding of state highway soundwalls,
pursuant to Section 215.6 of the Streets and Highways Code, located on the eastbound and
westbound sides of Interstate 210 In La Canada-F/intridge and listed on the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Retrofit Soundwall Program "Post May 1989 List."
(2)(A) Sixteen percent (16%) to the Transit Service Expansion and Enhancements Account,
for allocation by the Controller for bus, light rail, and commuter rail operations, transit equipment
and facility improvement, maintenance, and rehabilitation, and transit passenger security, as
follows: Fifty percent (50%) in the manner as provided for allocation of State Transit Assistance
funds pursuant to Sections 99314 and 99314.3 of the Public Utilities Code, except that money
shall be allocated directly to transit operators by the Controller, and fifty percent (50%) to
transportation planning agencies for al/ocat/on to transit operators In the same manner as
provided for allocation of State Transit Assistance funds pursuant to Section 99313 of the Public
Utilities Code, except that this money shal/ be alloeated by the transportation planning agency
only to transit operators and not for other purposes.
(B)(I) To be eligible to receive an al/oeation pursuant to this paragraph (2), the public agency
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov Ipropositions2 .asp ?id=3 23 &sID=4
10/30/2002
. Calif<;>rnia Official Voter Information Guide
Page 4 of 17
.
receiving money pursuant to this paragraph shall annually expend from its general fund for public
transportation operations an amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its
general fund during the 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 fiscal years, as reported to the
Controller pursuant to Section 99243 of the Public Utilities Code, and as increased by the
Consumer Price Index. For purposes of this subparagraph, in calculating a public agency's annual
general fund expenditures and its average general fund expenditures for the 1996-97, 1997-98,
and 1998-99 flscal years, any unrestricted money that the public agency may expend at its
discretion shall be considered expenditures from the general fund.
(ii) For any public agency created on or after July 1, 1996, the Controller shall calculate an
annual average of expenditure for the part of the period from July 1, 1996, to December 31, 2000,
inclusive, that the public agency was in existence. For any public agency created after 2000, the
Controller may select an appropriate period of analysis.
(Iii) For purposes of clause (ii), the Controller may request fiscal data from publiC agencies in
addition to data provided pursuant to Section 99243 of the Public Utilities Code, for the 1996-97,
1997-98, 1998-99, or any other fiscal years. Each public agency shall furnish the data to the
Controller not later than 120 days after receiving the request. The Controller may withhold
payment to public agencies that do not comply with the request for information or provide
incomplete data.
(Iv) The Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with clause (i1) when deemed
necessary. Any public agency that has not complied with clause (Ii) shall reimburse the state for
the money it received during that fiscal year. Any money withheld or returned as a result of a
failure to comply with clause (ii) shall be reallocated to the other eligible public agencies whose
expenditures are. in compliance.
(v) If a public agency fails to comply with the requirements of clause (Ii) in a particular fiscal
year, the public agency may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total
amount that is not less than the.total amount required to be expended for those fiscal years for
purposes of complying with clause (II).
(C)(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B), one-half of one
percent (.5%) of the account shall be allocated each fiscal year as a first priority by the Controller
to the State Coastal Conservancy, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose principal
purposes is to support and improve the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, for expenditure
(including by contract with public and private transportation agencies and companies) to provide
improved transportation services to transitMdependent neighborhoods, community groups, and
schools to the programs of the Crissy Field Center, and for transportation services between the
Center and other locations in the National Recreation Area. The grant may be also used for
acquisition and maintenance of vehicles needed to provide these services, for information and
education about the services, and for management and administration of the programs authorized
by this clause (i).
(Ii) Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B), one-half of one percent
(.5%) of the account shall be allocated each fiscal year as a first priority by the Controller to the
State Coastal Conservancy, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose principal purposes
is to improve the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, for expenditure on projects for operation
and maintenance of, and improvements and enhancements to, public access, transit services,
congestion relief, and bicycle and pedestrian safety. The grant may also be used for improvements
and enhancements of shoreline and other natural areas that have been impacted by highways
within the National Recreation Area, project administration, and management of the program
authorized by this clause (Ii).
(Iii) Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B), one million dollars
($1,000,000) per year shall be allocated each fiscal year as a first priority by the Controller to the
Department of Parks and Recreation, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose principal
purposes Is to support the California State Railroad Museum for general operating support of the
Railroad Technology Museum at the Historic Southern Pacific Shops at Sacramento.
(Iv) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (A) and (B), one-half of one percent
(.5%) of the account shall be allocated as a first priority by the Controller to the State Coastal
Conservancy, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose principal purposes is to Improve
and sustain historic Fort Mason in San Francisco, for expenditure on projects for operation and
maintenance of, and improvements and enhancements to, the vintage ElF-Line rail transit service
In San Francisco. These funds may also be used for project administration and management of the
program authorized by this subparagraph.
(3)(A)(1) Seventeen percent (17%) to the Transit Capital Account, for projects to construct or
improve light and commuter rail lines, build fueling stations for public transportation systems,
purchase rolling stock and buses, construct other transit facilities, Including, but not limited to,
facllltles needed to store and maintain equipment, and to purchase rights-of-way for public
transportation projects, and for the other purposes of this paragraph (3).
(Ii) Money in the Transit Capital Account shall be allocated by the California Transportation
Commission directly to regional transportation planning agencies in accordance with the
computations of county shares required by Section 188.8 of the Streets and Highways Code for
expenditure as part of an existing program or programs developed pursuant to the laws governing
the State Transportation Improvement Program, or as part of a new program or programs
developed by a regional transportation planning agency. Sixty percent (60%) of the remaining
money in the Transit Capital Account shall be expended in County Group 2 and forty percent
(40%) shall be expended in County Group 1. This calculation shall be made after expenditures
from the account for projects listed in subparagraph (D).
(B) Money allocated under this paragraph may not be used to construct administrative
headquarters or other facilities that do not directly serve rail and bus transit users.
.
.
http://voterguide. ss.ca.gov/propositions2.asp?id=3 23&sID=4
10/30/2002
~~-~c-
. California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 5 of 17
.
(C) The regional transportation planning agencies shall allocate the money based on dollars
per new rider and other cost-effectiveness criteria, to be adopted by the commission as guidelines
or regulations, that prioritize projects that reduce vehide miles traveled or slow the rate of growth
in vehicle miles traveled. Regulations or guidelines adopted under this subparagraph shall not be
subject to review or approval of the Office of Administrative Law or subject to any other
requirement of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 otTitle 2 of
the Government Code.
(D) Notwithstanding the limitations In subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (e), money In the
Transit Capital Account shall first be allocated to the following projects:
OJ To the Sacramento Regional Transit District, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per year
during the 2003-04 to 2012-13, Inclusive, fiscal years for the extension of light rail service from
downtown Sacramento to Sacramento International Airport.
(Ii) To the Tahoe Transportation District, six million dollars ($6,000,000) per year during the
2003-04 to 2005-06, Inclusive, fiscal years for the design and purchase of alternatively fueled
boats, fueling stations, infrastructure, and dock improvements, for the Initiation and
implementation of waterborne transportation service on Lake Tahoe. The district shall coordinate
Its efforts with the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization. All land-based facilities for this
project shall be located In California. The district shall undertake this project only if the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency determines that the project reduces traffic congestion and reliance on
the private automobile, taking Into account reduction In vehicle miles traveled, and air and water
pollution In the Lake Tahoe Basin, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of the Tahoe Regional
Planning Compact and the Regional Plan for Lake Tahoe. Up to five percent (5%) of the total
amount may be used to plan the project. The district may seek matching state and federal grants
for the service. Up to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) of the total amount may be used
for development of a parking management plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin, including parking for the
waterborne transportation passengers. The district may use up to eight million dollars
($8,000,000) of the total amount for the establishment of a dedicated, permanent operating
reserve. Annually the Interest from this reserve shall be used to pay for part of the operation of
the service. The district may contract for the operation of the waterborne transportation service.
(Iii) To the State Coastal Conservancy, one million dollars ($1,000,000) per year during the
2003-04 to 2005-06 inclusive, fiscal years, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose
principal purposes is to improve and sustain historic Fort Mason in San Francisco, for
improvements to the vintage ElF Une rail transit service in San Francisco. Such improvements
may include, but are not limited to, planning and Implementation of an extension of the line to the
San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park and Fort Mason Center, Vintage vehicle rehabilitation
and restoration, passenger stop enhancements, and Improvements to related facilities. This
money may also be used by the nonprofit organization for project administration and management
of the program authorized by this subparagraph.
(Iv) To the Department of Parks and Recreation, seven million dollars ($7,000,000) for the
2003-04 fiscal year, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose principal purposes is to
support the California State Railroad Museum and its Railroad Technology Museum, to construct
the Railroad Technology Museum at the Historic Southern Pacific Shops at Sacramento.
(v) To the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, seven million five
hundred thousand dollars ($7,500,000) per year during the 2003-04 to 2012-13, Inclusive, fiscal
years to construct a tunnel under Exposition Boulevard to accommodate light rail, buses, and
other motor vehicles at least from State Route 110 to west of Vermont Avenue. This project will
enhance pedestrian safety for students and visitors to museums, classrooms, and activity centers
in Exposition Park and adjacent University Park, as well as contribute to transit and transportation
efficiency in this historic district.
(vi) To the Port of Oakland, five million dollars ($5,000,000) per year during the 2003-04 to
2012-13, Inclusive, fiscal years for public transportation projects and related environmental
projects, Including acquisition and development of public transportation facilities, waterfront park
and trai/lmprovements, bicycle and pedestrian pathways and related restoration projects at Lake
Merritt, and related infrastructure, along or connecting to the Oakland waterfront, extending from
the Howard Terminal in the Jack London District area, to and including San Leandro Bay and the
Lake Merritt Channel, provided that such projects are consistent with the Estuary Policy Plan (a
portion of the Oakland General Plan), as may be amended; and for public transportation and
environmental projects related to developments along Hegenberger Road between the Coliseum
Bay Area Rapid Transit station and the Oakland International Airport, including projects specifically
related to the BART to Airport Connector.
(vii) To the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland, one million five hundred thousand
dollars ($1,500,000) per year during the 2003-04 to 2012-13, inclusive, fiscal years to encourage
transit-oriented development near downtown mass transit facilities, thereby reducing unnecessary
commuting with motor vehicles. Two-thirds of this money shall be spent for the acquisition,
construction, and equipping of the California State chartered Oakland School for the Arts so as to
serve the above-described transit-oriented development.
The remainder of the money shall be spent for the planning and construction of
transportation-related Improvements in the vicinity of the Oakland City Hall consistent with the
17th Street and San Pablo Parking Study and the Central Business District Study for transportation
infrastructure. Permissible projects include: bus parking, commuter van pooling parking, bicycle
parking, improved BART access, area parking management, parking structures, and environmental
mitigations.
(4)(A) Two percent (2%) to the Senior and Disabled Transportation Account, for allocation by
the Controller as grants to transportation planning entitles in accordance with the designations
made in Section 29532 of the Government Code and Section 99214 of the Public Utilities Code to
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov /propositions2.asp?id=323&sID=4
10130/2002
. . California Official Voter Information Guide
.
.
,
GrodG
5c."(.CwhO\--'
Vru~~c +
.
Page 6 of 17
be used to provide transportation to seniors and people with disabilities otherwise unable to drive
or take regularly scheduled public transportation. Twenty percent (20%) of the grants annually
awarded pursuant to the program authorized by this paragraph shall be awarded to cities,
counties, cities and counties, and other public agencies on a matching fund or service basis. If
sufficient matching contributions are not available to use twenty percent (20%) of the grants, the
remaining money shall be used for grants to public agencies that cannot provide matching
contributions.
(8)(i) To be eligible for a grant pursuant to thIs paragraph (4), a public agency applying for a
grant pursuant to this paragraph shall annually expend for senior and disabled transportation
purposes an amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund
during the 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 fiscal years, as reported to the Controller pursuant to
Section 99243 of the Public Utilities Code, and as increased by the Consumer Price Index. For
purposes of this subparagraph, in calculating a public agency's annual general fund expenditures
and its average general fund expenditures for the 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 fiscal years,
any unrestricted money that the public agency may expend at its discretion shall be considered
expenditures from the general fund.
(ii) For any public agency created on or after July 1, 1996, the Controller shall calculate an
annual average of expenditure for the part of the period from July 1, 1996, to December 31, 2000,
inclusive, that the public agency was In existence. For any public agency created after 2000, the
Controller may select an appropriate period of analysis.
(iil) For purposes of clause ii, the Controller may request fiscal data from public agencies in
addition to data provided pursuant to Section 99243 of the Public Utilities Code, for the 1996-97,
1997-98, 1998-99, or any other fiscal years. Each public agency shall furnish the data to the
Controller not later than 120 days after receiving the request. The Controller may withhold
payment to public agencies that do not comply with the request for information or provide
incomplete data.
(iv) The Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with clause iI when deemed
necessary. Any public agency that has not complied with clause iI shall reimburse the state for the
money It received during that fiscal year. Any money withheld or returned as a result of a failure
to comply with clause iI shall be reallocated to the other eligible public agencies whose
expenditures are in compliance.
(v) If a publiC agency fai/s to comply with the requirements of clause Ii in a particular fiscal
year, the pUblic agency may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total
amount that Is not less than the total amount required to be expended for those fiscal years for
purposes of complying with clause iI.
(S)(A)(i) Four percent (4%) to the Rail Grade Separations Account, for allocation by the
California Transportation Commission pursuant to a priority list developed by the Public Utilities
Commission in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph, to be used for projects to
separate rai/lines from streets, roads, and highways.
(iI) Except for the projects in subparagraph (D), money in the account shall be transferred for
expenditure by the California Transportation Commission only in a fiscal year in which at least $15
million ($15,000,000) is also allocated to rail grade separation projects pursuant to Section 190 of
the Streets and Highways Code. In a fiscal year In which at least $15 million ($15,000,000) is not
also allocated to rail grade separation projects pursuant to Section 190 of the Streets and
Highways Code, the money that would otherwise be transferred to the account in that fiscal year
shall be transferred instead to the Transit Capital Account established by paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b).
(B) First priority for use of the money allocated from the account shall be for grade
separation projects across existing heavy rai/lines, based on the amount of traffic congestion that
would be relieved by the grade separation. High priority shall be given to projects on rai/lines that
serve ports, since these projects reduce the need for truck traffic by making rai/lines safer.
(C) Money allocated from the account shall be used to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians
In grade separation projects, and projects that accommodate only bicycles and pedestrians are
eligible to receive funding pursuant to this paragraph.
(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (e), money in the
account shall first be allocated to the following projects:
(i) To the Southern California Regional Rai/ Authority, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per
year during the 2003-04 to 2006-07, inclusive, fiscal years for grade separations at Sand Canyon
Road and Harvard Avenue. Design and construction shall be carried out by the jurisdictions within
which each project is located.
(iI) To the City of San Bernardino, seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($7,500,000)
.... per year during the 2003-04 to 2006-07, inclusive, fiscal years for the following grade separation
-':) improvements associated with the Norton Air Force Base Intermodal Goods Movement Facility:
/ Tippecanoe Avenue south of Central Avenue; Waterman Avenue south of Central Avenue; Mill
'- Street west of Waterman Avenue; and E Street south of Rialto Avenue.
(6)(A) Ten percent (10%) to the Transportation Impacts Mitigation Trust Fund, to be
-allocated by the Resources Agency in accordance with Section 164.57 of the Streets and Highways
Code.
(i) At least one million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be expended in each fiscal year by the
Resources Agency on facilities that assist wi/dlife in safely crossing transportation corridors, in
order to increase motorist safety, reduce traffic congestion, and promote connectivity among
wi/dlife populations. Sixty percent (60%) of the money for wildlife crossings authorized by this
subparagraph shall be expended in County Group 2 and forty percent (40%) shall be expended in
County Group 1.
(iI) At least one million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be expended in or near urban or urbanizing
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions2.asp ?id=3 23&sID=4
10/30/2002
. CaIifumia Official Voter Information Guide
Page 7 of! 7
.
areas in the region comprised of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties, each
fiscal year by the Department of Food and Agriculture in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section
164.57 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(S) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) and the restrictions of Section 164.57 of the Streets
and Highways Code, the foJ/owing amounts shall first be allocated from the trust fund:
(i) To the City of Irvine, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per year during the 2003-04 to
2014-15, inclusive, fiscal years for the creation of a wildlife corridor and related trail systems
connecting the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park and Crystal Cove State Park to the Orange County
Central Park and Nature Preserve; and for infrastructure, landscaping, forestation, and
recreational improvements for the Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve, to mitigate
the effects of Interstates 5 and 405 and other roads that interfere with wildlife migration in this
area; and for bIcycle and pedestrian crossings of streets and nood control Improvements relating
to transportation facilities, and other improvements along the Jeffrey Open Space Spine.
(i1) To the County of Riverside, six million dollars ($6,000,000) per year for the Western
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Program. First priorIty for the
expenditure of this money shall be for land acquisition. The purpose of these expenditures is to
acquire wildlife habitat to mitigate the effect of transportation and transportation-related
development in Riverside County. During the 2003-04 to 2012-13, inclusive, fiscal years, not
more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) may be expended for operations and maintenance of
the lands acquired by the program. Commencing with the 2014-15 fiscal year, and during each
subsequent fiscal year, up to five million dollars ($5,000,000) may be expended for operations
and maintenance of the lands acquired by the program.
(Iii) To the San Joaquin River Conservancy, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per
year, to be expended by the conservancy and at the direction of the conservancy for the
acquisition of land, development of facilities, and the operation and maintenance thereof. Of this
amount, the conservancy shall grant not less than twenty-five percent (25%) each year to
nonprofit organizations in Fresno and Madera Counties one of whose principal purposes is
conservation of and education about the San Joaquin River for projects that meet the
requirements of this subparagraph. These expenditures are necessary because of the impacts of
state highways and freeways such as State Routes 99 and 41, and other transportation corridors
on the environment on and near the San Joaquin River.
(Iv) To the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, eight million dollars ($8,000,000) each
fiscal year, to be expended by the conservancy, and at the direction of the conservancy, by any
joint powers agency of which the conselVancy is a member, on projects that meet the
requirements of this subparagraph and Section 164.57 of the Streets and Highways Code,
including the operation and maintenance of the land acquired and facilities constructed pursuant
to this subparagraph. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, one million dollars ($1,000,000)
of the amount specified in this subparagraph shall annually be used for the acquisition and
improvement of natural parks within the heavily urbanized area of Los Angeles County. These
expenditures are necessary because of the impacts of state highways and freeways such as
Interstate 10, U.S. 101, State Routes 134 and I, and many other state and local roads that have
negatively impacted the environmental quality of the Santa Monica Mountains, and other lands
that are to be preserved by the conservancy and its public agency partners.
(v)(I) To the County of Sacramento, one million dollars ($1,000,000) per year for the
acquisition of land, development, and operation and maintenance of the American River parkway,
including trails, to promote greater use of the parkway. The parkway's Jedediah Smith Memorial
Trail (off-street) is a recreation resource of regional, state, and national significance, and is a
major east-west, 23-mile long transportation corridor for commuter bicyclists. Use of the parkway
by bicyclists and other recreational users is an important part of Sacramento County's strategy to
reduce public exposure to air pollution and toxic air contaminants by supporting bicycling,
including the provision of bicycle circulation infrastructure for commuter and recreational travel.
Improved levels of maintenance and enhanced pUblic safety seIVices in the parkway will promote
increased use of the parkway by people traveling to and from work, school, and other destinations
served by U.S. 50, Interstate 80, and other local arterials.
(II) To be eligible to receive an allocation pursuant to this subparagraph, the County of
Sacramento shall annually expend from its general fund for the American River Parkway, an
amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund during the
1999-2000,2000-01, and 2001-02 fiscal years as reported to the Controller, and as increased by
the Consumer Price Index. In calculating the county's annual general fund expenditures for the
1999-2000,2000-01, and 2001-02 fiscal years, any unrestricted money that the county may
expend at its discretion shall be considered expenditures from the general fund. The Controller
may request fiscal data from the county for the fiscal years identified. The county shall furnish the
data to the Controller not later than 120 days after receiving the request. The Controller may
withhold payment to the county if It does not comply with the request for information or provides
incomplete data. The Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance when deemed
necessary. If the county does not comply, the county shall reimburse the state for the money it
received during that fiscal year.
(vi) The following projects will mitigate the impact of transportation projects on wildlife
corridors in Riverside County:
(1) To the County of Riverside, three miilion dollars ($3,000,000) per year for the San
Timoteo Park project, including San Timoteo Creek and Canyon and adjacent land in the canyons
and hills between Lorna Linda and Beaumont. First priority for the expenditure of this money shall
be for land acquisition. In a year in which no land can be acquired, the allocations shall be used to
operate and maintain the lands acquired for the San Timoteo Park project.
(II) To the City of Riverside, one million dollars ($1,000,000) per year for the La Sierra/Norco
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov /propositions2 .asp?id=3 23 &sID=4
10/30/2002
'California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 8 of17
.
Hills project between the cities of Riverside and NoreD, including acquisition of land for habitat and
a wildlife corridor connection to the Santa Ana River, and adjacent Santa Ana River Trail
improvements. First priority for the expenditure of this money shall be for land acquisition, and
second priority shall be for Santa Ana River Trail improvements. In years when no land can be
acquired, and no trail improvements are needed, the money shall be used to operate and maintain
the La Sierra/Norco Hills habitat area and the Santa Ana River Trail in the City of Riverside.
(vii) To the State Coastal ConselVancy, two million dollars ($2,000,000) per year during the
2003-04 to 2004-05 inclusive, fiscal years, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose
principal purposes is to improve the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, for transportation
improvements and related enhancements at or near oceanfront and bay shoreline sites in the
National Recreation Area. Such Improvements may include, but are not limited to, bicycle and
pedestrian projects, transportation safety projects, park entrance projects, transit access projects,
parking improvements that reduce the Impact of motor vehicles on the visitor experience, visitor
facilities, and beach and shoreline restoration of natural areas that have been impacted by
roadways.
(viii) To the City of Laguna Woods, two million dollars ($2,000,000) for the 2003-04 fiscai
year, for the acquisition of land within the city or within the sphere of Influence of the city near or
adjacent to the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, and for the development of trails connecting to the
park. The purpose of these funds is to reduce the impact of nearby transportation facilities on
wildlife corridors.
(Ix) To the State Coastal Conservancy, three million five hundred thousand dollars
($3,500,000) for the 2003-04 fiscal year, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose
principal purposes is the restoration of the San Diego River, for acquisition of land and the
restoration of habitat along the river. The purpose of these funds is to mitigate the impact of
transportation facilities such as State Route 67, Interstate 5, and other roads on the San Diego
River.
(x) To the Department of Parks and Recreation, five mJ/Jion dollars ($5,000,000) per year
during the 2003-04 to 2013-14 fiscal years, inclusive, for the acquisition of coastal wetlands
resources located in Los Angeles County within the coastal zone, as defined in Section 30103 of
the Public Resources Code, and within the Ballona Creek watershed to offset the effects of
transportation improvements and road construction within the coastal zone in Los Angeles County.
.
(xi) To the City of Sacramento, two million dollars ($2,000,000) per year during the 2003-04
to 2004-05, inclusive, fiscal years, for the Downtown to the Riverfront Reconnection, to be
developed on air rights over Interstate 5. The decking project, aimed at mitigating the impact of
Interstate 5, will create open space and support the revitalization of the waterfront.
(xii) To the State Coastal Conservancy, one million dollars ($1,000,000) for the 2003-04
fiscal year, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose principal purposes is the
restoration and enhancement of bicycle paths, pedestrian trails, and related signage and lighting,
and the acquisition and upgrade of pedestrian and bicycle access points to and along La Ballona
Creek in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.
(xi/i) To the State Coastal Conservancy, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for the
2003-04 fiscal year, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose principal purposes is the
creation of an educational program in coastal Southern California to instruct schoolage children
and the general public about non-point source pollution from automobiles, trucks, and other motor
vehicles that enters the watersheds and storm drains leading to the ocean. The grant shall be
used to acquire one or more Mobil Ocean and Traveling Discovery Center vehicles. Vehicles
acquired with this money shall certify to the lowest achievable emission levels for criteria
pollutants.
(xiv) To the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, two million dollars ($2,000,000) each
fiscal year, to be expended directly by the conservancy or through grants from the conservancy to
public agency partners, joint powers agencies, or nonprofit conservation organizations for the
acquisition of land and the operation and maintenance thereof. The acquisitions shall assist in the
local implementation of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan, and help Implement the Conservancy's mission to protect
mountainous and natural community conservation lands in and surrounding the Coachella Valley.
These expenditures are necessary because of the Impacts of state and federal highways such as
Interstate 10, and related interchange projects, State Routes 62, 74,86, and 111 and many other
state and local roads that have negatively impacted the environmental quality of the Coachella
Valley.
(xv) To the State Coastal Conservancy, one million dollars ($1,000,000) for the 2003-04
fiscal year, for a grant to a nonprofit organization one of whose principal purposes is the
preservation of the San Dieguito River, for the acquisition of land and the restoration of habitat
along the San Dieguito River, and for the development of trails. These expenditures are to
mitigate the effect of transportation and transportation-related development in and near the San
Dieguito River Valley.
(xvi) To the Wildlife Conservation Board, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for the 2003-04
fiscal year, for the acquisition of "natural lands" In the watershed of the Sacramento River with
outstanding spring run and other salmon and steelhead populations, water rights important to the
salmon and steelhead populations, important archaeological resources, and diverse wildlife
populations. For the purposes of this subparagraph, acquisition shall be fee simple purchases and
permanent conselVation easements. For purposes of this subparagraph the "natural lands" shall
be lands that include at least five miles of frontage on a major tributary of the Sacramento River
and include 5,000 contiguous acres or more, and that are also large enough to substantially
protect the watershed of a major tributary of the Sacramento River that meet the requirements of
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca. gOY /propositions2.asp ?id=3 23&sID=4
10/30/2002
. California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 9 of 17
.
this subparagraph. This acquisition is to compensate for the damage done to salmon populations
and archaeological resources in the Sacramento Valley by such transportation facilities as
Interstate 5, State Routes 99 and 70, and other major roads and highways.
(xvii)(I) To the County of Sacramento, one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000)
per year for expenditure in the area along the State Route 16, Scott Road, Deer Creek, and
Cosumnes River corridors, and particularly the area north of State Route 16 lying west of the
Amador and EI Dorado County line, south of White Rock Road, and east of the westerly boundary
of the East County Open Space study area as defined In 2001 by the Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors and including the Sloughhouse area generallYi and the area south of Highway 16 lying
west of the Amador County line and north of Meiss Road, to be more specifically delineated by the
Board of Supervisors. The money shall be expended within Sacramento County for the primary
purpose of mitigating the impacts of transportation activities elsewhere in the county and the
region, such as air, noise, and water pollution, by maintaining as much land as possible within the
study area and associated corridors In a predominantly rural, scenic, and open space character
through the use of cost-effective, incentlve~driven cooperative programs with area landowners
(with highest priority given to farmers and ranchers), and assisting with appropriate protection
and improvement of the area's roads and corridors to provide for their safe use and enjoyment by
local and nonlocal users, consistent with continuing their rural and scenic character. The money
allocated by this subparagraph shall be expended pursuant to a program developed and approved
by the Board of Supervisors.
(II) At least seventy five percent (75%) of the money allocated pursuant to subclause (1) shall
be expended In any la-year period for the purpose of funding long-term contractual open space
stewardship, management, and enhancement agreements with willing landowners to actively
maintain and improve one or more mutually determined and preferably conjunctive open space
values of the property, including, but not limited to, farming, ranching, wildlife habitat and related
biological values, oaks and oak woodlands, riparian corridors, watersheds, historic and cultural
resources, viewsheds, and where mutually deemed appropriate, public access and recreation.
Stewardship agreements shall cover a minimum of 320 acres and shall not include land owned in
fee by a governmental agency or a tax-exempt nonprofit organization qualified under Section 501
(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code. A proposed stewardship agreement program
may be developed by the Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District for consideration for
approval by the Board of Supervisors. Compensation for landowners pursuant to stewardship
agreements shall be established by mutual consent, including, but not limited to, consideration of
the length and terms of the agreement, the public interest value of the resources or activities
covered, and the labor, services, and investment expected of the landowner. Where relevant and
appropriate, costs shall generally be less than or competitive with costs typically incurred by public
agencies using public employees to perform similar functions.
(III) Up to twenty five percent (25%) of the money allocated pursuant to subclause (1) over
any la-year period may be used for safety improvements on Scott Road, Including improvements
to minimize the need to close Scott Road because of flooding, that are consistent with its rural and
scenic character, for assisting in the maintenance, rehabilitation and reuse of the historic bridges
over the Cosumnes River, and for preserving, restoring, and interpreting historic and cultural
resources, particularly in the State Route 16 and Cosumnes River corridors and the Sloughhouse
area.
(7) Two percent (2%) to the Transportation Water Quality Account, to be allocated by the
State Water Resources Control Board for expenditure pursuant to Section 164.58 of the Streets
and Highways Code.
(8)(A) Three percent (3%) to the Air Quality Account for allocation by the State Air Resources
Board to the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program established under
Chapter 9 (commencing with 5ectlon 44275) of Part 5 ofOivision 26 of the Health and Safety
Code, and any other additional transfers as provided in subparagraph (B). Each air district (as
defined in Section 39025 of the Health and Safety Code) shall be eligible for grants of not less
than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per year. Any district with a population less than
150,000 shall not be required to provide matching funds.
(B) If the State Air Resources Board determines that money is no longer needed for the Carl
Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, seventy-five percent (75%) of the
money that would otherwise be deposited in the Air Quality Account shall be transferred to the
Bicycle Efficiency Account and twenty-five percent (25%) shall be transferred to the Pedestrian
Account, to be used for the purposes of those accounts.
(9) Two percent (2%) to the Bicycle Efficiency Account, to be allocated by the Department of
Transportation for bicycle projects pursuant to Section 894.5 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(10) One percent (1%) to the Pedestrian Account, to be allocated by the Department of
Transportation for projects to facilitate pedestrian utilization and pedestrian safety projects
pursuant to Section 894.5 of the Streets and Highways Code and to accommodate paratransit
needs at school bus stops.
(11)(A) Four percent (4%) to the Intercity and Commuter Rail Capital and Operations
Account, to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission to the Department of
Transportation and to public agencies operating commuter rail selVlces, to be used for the
operation of intercity and commuter rail service, to acquire rolling stock, to rehabilitate rail
selVice, to construct new rail lines and stations, consolidate existing rail lines, and to improve
existing lines to benefit passenger rail service.
(8) Forty percent (40%) of the money allocated by subparagraph (A) shall be allocated to
commuter rail, to provide Improved service that generally parallels congested segments of freeway
corridorS. Sixty percent (60%) of the money allocated by subparagraph (A) shall be allocated to
intercity rail, with highest priority given to service that generally parallels congested freeway
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov /propositions2.asp ?id=3 23&sID=4
10/30/2002
. California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 10 of 17
.
corridors. The calculation required by this paragraph shall be made after the expenditures required
by subparagraph (C) have been made.
(C)(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraph (B), first priority for the expenditure
of the money allocated pursuant to this paragraph (11) shall be an aUocat/on of fifteen million
dollars ($15,000,000) per year during the 2003-04 to 2010-11, inc/uslve, fiscal years to the
Department of Transportation, for the fol/owing project to reduce traffic congestion on the
Interstate 10 and other highway corridors, and to Improve highway and rail passenger safety. The
project shall include capital outlay for intercity passenger rail service from Los Angeles via
Fullerton and Colton, to Palm Springs and Indio, including the following components: two trainsets
each consisting of at least five cars and one locomotive; track and signal improvements to
facilitate passenger rail trains serving Palm Springs through Indlo; one passenger rail station at
Ramon Road in the mid-Valley section of the Coachella Valley; one passenger rail station near
Jackson Street in the east Valley section of the Coachella Valley in India; and improvements to the
rail passenger station currently located in Palm Springs. Passenger rail stations shall include
platforms, passenger stations, any necessary parking and tunnels, and other station amenities.
First priority for expenditure shall be the development of passenger rail stations for this service.
The city or Indian reservation within which each station is located may elect to manage the design
and construction of these stations, subject to the design and financial approval of the Department
of Transportation.
(iI) The Department of Transportation shall contract with a national rail passenger service
provider to operate this intercity service and shall seek support for the operation of this service
from all federal funding sources, including, but not limited to, the United States Department of
Transportation.
(12)(A) Two percent (2%) to the Rural Transportation Account, to be allocated by the
Controller directly to transit operators In counties with a population of less than 250,000 as
follows: Fifty percent (50%) In the manner as provided for allocation of State Transit Assistance
funds pursuant to Sections 99314 and 99314.3 of the Public Utilities Code, except that money
shall be allocated directly to transit operators by the Controller, and fifty percent (50%) to
transportation planning agencies for allocation to transit operators In the same manner as
provided for allocation of State Transit Assistance funds pursuant to Section 99313 of the Public
Utilities Code, except that this money shall be allocated by the transportation planning agency
only to transit operators and not for other purposes, to be used to improve the mobility of people
living In rural areas who cannot drive motor vehicles.
(B) First priority for expenditur, e of the money in the account shall be to serve persons with
disabilities and other health problems, seniors, students, and persons with low incomes who do
not drive motor vehicles.
(13) Three percent (3%) to the Transit Oriented Development Account, to be allocated by the
Secretary of the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency on the basis of population to
regional transportation planning agencies for capital outlay projects to develop public use facilities
associated with rail and bus transit st, a, , , t, ions, in accordance with the competitive grant
program established under Section 13984 of the Government Code. Sixty percent (60%) of the
grants shall be made in County Group 2 and forty percent (40%) shall be made in County Group
1.
(14) One percent (1%) to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Law Enforcement Account, to be
allocated by the Controller as follows:
(A) Two-thirds to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for grants to state and local law
enforcement agencies to Increase enforcement of speed limit and other traffic safety laws along
heavily used pedestrian and bicycle routes. The highest priority for grants shall be for routes
financed under the Safe Routes to School Program established under Section 2333.5 of the Streets
and Highways Code. The Office of Criminal Justice Planning may adopt guidelines or regulations to
implement this paragraph. The guidelines or regulations are not subject to the review and
approval of the Office of Administrative Law or subject to any other requirement of Chapter 3.5
(commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Sixty
percent (60%) of the grants shall be made in County Group 2 and forty percent (40%) shall be
made in County Group 1.
(B) One-third to the State Department of Education for grants to school districts to educate
students and parents about how children can safely travel to school on foot and by bicycle along
heavily used pedestrian and bicycle routes, In compliance with state and local traffic safety laws,
ordinances, and programs. The highest priority for grants shall be for schools along routes
financed under the Safe Routes to School Program established under Section 2333.5 of the Streets
and Highways Code. The State Department of Education may adopt guidelines or regulations to
implement this paragraph. The guidelines or regulations are not subject to the review and
approval of the Office of Administrative Law or subject to any other requirement of Chapter 3.5
(commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Sixty
percent (60%) of the grants shall be made in County Group 2 and forty percent (40%) shall be
made in County Group 1. School districts receiving money pursuant to this subparagraph shall
consult with bicycling and law enforcement organizations about the implementation of these
programs.
(15)(A) Eight percent (8%) to the Safe and Clean School Bus Account, for allocation by the
State Department of Education for grants to any public school district, county office of education,
state-operated school, or Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of purchasing or leasing new
sChool buses, as defined in Section 39830 of the Education Code, In the following order of priority:
First priority shall be to replace currently certified California school buses manufactured prior to
April 1, 1977, that do not meet current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Second priority
shall be to replace currently certified California school buses manufactured prior to January 1,
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca. gov/propositions2.asp ?id= 3 23&sID=4
10/30/2002
, ' California Official Voter Information Guide
Page II ofl7
.
1987, that do not meet current pollution contro/standards. Third priority shall be to replace
currently certified California school buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1987, and to
increase fleet size. The State Department of Education shall develop and use a life cycle cost
formula to determine the life cycle and cost of any new school buses leased or purchased under
this program. Grants shall be made on a competitive basis, and the criteria for awarding grants
shall be determined In consultation with the State Air Resources Board.
(8) Grants shall be made only for the purchase or lease of new buses that certify to the lowest
achievable emissions levels for criteria pollutants. Public school districts, county offices of
education, state-operated schools, or joint powers authorities with an average daily attendance of
fewer than 500 students or located In a region certified by the California Energy Commission to be
without fuels necessary to meet this requirement, may request relief from this requirement.
Grants may include funding for refueling infrastructure.
(C) Public school districts, county offices of education, state-operated schools, or joint powers
authorities shall pay ten percent (10%) of the cost of each new or leased bus up to the amount of
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), but matching funds may be obtained from other agenCies or
applicable programs. Grant recipients shall present documented proof to the State Department of
Education that buses built prior to 1977 and replaced under this program shall be destroyed and
that school buses manufactured prior to January 1, 1987, and replaced under this program shall
be removed from school bus service, and shall not be re-reglstered within the State of California.
Any regulations adopted to implement this paragraph shall not be subject to the review or
approval of the Office of Administrative Law and shall not be subject to any other requirement of
Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
Code.
(16) Five percent (5%) to the Traffic Safety Improvement Account, for allocation by the
California Transportation Commission to the Department of Transportation and the regional
transportation planning agencies, for grants for projects that Improve highway safety, to be
allocated strictly on the basis of the potential of the project to reduce motorist, bicyclist, and
pedestrian fatalities and injuries. First priority shall be given to projects that Improve safety on the
street and highway segments that have the highest rate of injuries and fatalities. The commission
shall give priority to projects that are cost-effective. The Office of Traffic Safety shall advise the
commission on the development of this program. The commission may adopt regulations or
guidelines to implement this paragraph. Any regulations or guidelines adopted to implement this
paragraph shall not be subject to the review or approval of the Office of Administrative Law and
shall not be subject to any other requirement of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of
Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(17) Four percent (4%) to the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and Modernization
Account, to be allocated by the Controller pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
99571) of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code,
(c) Money allocated as a grant or expended by a state agency under this section may be used
as matching contributions to meet the requirements of any local, state, or federal transportation
program.
(d)(l) If the recipient of money under this section falls to comply with the terms of the grant
the agency making the grant may initiate an action to rescind the grant, and recover the money
granted to the recipient, together with interest as computed on deficiency assessments.
(2) Any money recovered under this subdivision shall be deposited in the account from which
it was awarded and shall be available for appropriation for the purposes of the account from which
it was awarded, and for no other purpose.
(3) The Initiation of an action pursuant to this subdivision does not preclude the imposition of
any fine, forfeiture, or other penalty, or the undertaking of an administrative enforcement action
pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation.
(e) The Controller may transfer money from the fund for purposes expreSSly authorized In this
section, and for the limited purposes set forth In Section 13985 of the Government Code and for
investment in the Pooled Money Investment Account, and for no other purposes. Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, money deposited in the Pooled Money Investment Account shall be
avaiJable for immediate allocation or teallocatlon as provided in this section and may not be loaned
to, or borrowed by, any other speCial fund or the General Fund. All interest earned from
investment in the Pooled Money Investment Account shall be deposited in the fund and shalJ be
used solely for the purposes of the fund and shall be allocated in accordance with this section.
(f) In the event of damage to transportation facilities in California due to an earthquake
occurring subsequent to the effective date of this measure, the Governor may utilize money from
the fund to match federal funds to repair damage to those facilities from that earthquake for up to
12 months after the date of the earthquake. No funds allocated pursuant to this subdivision shall
be used to supplant federal funds otherwise available In the absence of state financial relief.
(g) No money in the fund may be used for debt service for general obligation bonds issued for
transportation purposes pursuant to Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 2701) of Division 3 of
the Streets and Highways Code, or bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section
99690) of Part 11.5 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code, or for any existing or future general
obligation bonds that the state authorizes or issues.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as provided by this section and Section
13985 of the Government Code, money deposited into the fund shall not be transferred to or
revert to the General Fund, but shalJ remain in the fund until allocated or reallocated as provided
in this section. .
(i) Money In the fund shall not be used to replace money that was previously planned,
programmed, or approved by a local or regional transportation entity or a city, county, or city and
county for public transportation purposes.
.
.
http://voterguide.ss,ca. gOY /propositions2 ,asp ?id=3 23&sID=4
10/30/2002
;
California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 120f17
.
(j) Expenditures made pursuant to this section may Include the costs directly related to the
mitigation of a project financed pursuant to this section. No expenditure shall be made of any
money made available pursuant to this section for any mitigation costs required by federal or state
law or a local ordinance for any project that was not financed pursuant to this section.
(k) Emissions reductions resulting from the part of a project financed under this section may
not be used under any local, state, or federal emissions averag Ing or trading program to offset or
reduce any emissions reduction obligation that is in effect at the time the project is financed.
Emissions reductions resulting from the part of a project financed under this section may not be
banked under any local, state, or federal emissions banking program.
(/) All money allocated by this section shall be disbursed quickly and efficiently. All forms for
applications for grants of money from state agencies shall be clear, simple, understandable, and
as short as possible. All applications for grants shall be processed quickly and approved or
rejected within 180 days of submission, and within 90 days on projects of less than five million
dollars ($5,000,000). Unsuccessful applicants shall be given guidance as to how to change their
applications to gain approval. This guidance may also be provided in a way that allows applicants
to change pending applications before they are subjected to approval or rejection.
(m) Not later than December 31 of each year, each state and local agency receiving money
from the fund shall publish a list of all projects approved under this section during the preceding
fiscal year. The report shall Include for each project a description of the project, the cost of the
project, the amount of annual reductions in air emissions or water pollution estimated to result
from the project, if any, and the effect of the project on traffic congestion, if any. The report shall
be transmitted to the Governor and the Legislature, and shall be available to the public, including
through the Internet.
(n) Any project that receives money from the fund shall by appropriate signage at the project
site and through publicity inform the public about the use of money from the fund. The signage
shall indicate that the source of the money was a voter-approved initiative, passed in 2002. The
Secretary of the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency shall develop regulations to
implement this section. Those regulations shall not be subject to the review or approval of the
Office of Administrative Law and shall not be subject to any other requirement of Chapter 3.5
(commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(0) In implementing this section, each agency allocating money from the fund, and each
agency receiving money from the fund shall give preference to contracting with the California
Conservation Corps or community conservation corps, as defined in and certified pursuant to
Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code, in undertaking work financed pursuant to this
section to the extent that the corps have the capability of carrying out the programs to be
implemented by the agencies.
(p) Every project undertaken pursuant to this section shall comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources
Code).
(q) Construction projects or works of improvement for facilities that are paid for in part or in
whole using money from the fund shall be considered public works projects subject to Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code and shall be regulated
by the Department of Industrial Relations in the same manner in which it carries out this
responsibility under the Labor Code.
(r) Section 99683 of the Public Utilities Code applies to all rail and bus capital outlay projects
undertaken pursuant to this section.
(s) Expenditures from the fund shall be subject to an annual audit by an independent seven
member commission composed of five members appointed by the Governor, and one each
appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules. The commission
shall elect its own chair. The members shall serve without pay, but may receive per diem as
determined by the Department of Finance. The costs of the commission, including the costs of the
audit, shall be paid with money in the fund by the Controller before allocation to the accounts in
the fund, as specified in this section.
(t) The audit required under subdivision(s) shall include review of the administration of the
program and expenses incurred, including, but not limited to, the initial start-up costs of the
program. The independent commission created under subdivision(s) shall contract with a private
auditing firm to conduct the audit. On completion of the audit, the commission shall immediately
report the results to the Governor, and the Legislature, and shall make the results available to the
public, including through the Internet. Each state and local agency that administers any part of
the program authorized under this section shall report to the Governor, the Legislature, and the
public its response to the results and recommendations of the audit within 90 days of completion
of the audit. If the audit recommends a reduction in the cost of adminIstering the program, the
agency shall reduce its administrative costs or provide a written explanation to the Governor and
the Legislature explaining why the administrative expenses cannot be reduced.
(u) Pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, funds in the Traffic
Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund in the State Treasury, established under this
section, shall be added to General Fund revenues otherwise considered in making the calculations
required under Section 8 of Article XVI.
(v) Except as expressly authorIzed under this section, money may not be transferred between
or among the accounts established under subdivision (b) or between or among the funds named in
this section.
(w) Money made available by this section may not be used for projects that result in a
decrease in the existing level of pedestrian and bicycle access or safety features along and across
a street, road, railway, highway, or bridge.
(x) Money made available by this section may be used to supplement other money in order to
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions2.asp?id=323&sID=4
10/30/2002
California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 13 of17
.
complete a capital outlay project, or to operate a transportation system.
(y) The California Transportation Commission may adopt guidelines or regulations to
implement any of the requirements and provisions that apply to the commission pursuant to this
section. Any regulations adopted to implement this subdivision shall not be subject to the review
or approval of the Office of Administrative Law and shall not be subject to any other requirement
of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
Government Code.
(z) If a project or program is eligible for funding from more than one account under this
section, it may receive funding from more than one account for a single project or program.
(aa)(l) Unless otherwise specified in this section, notwithstanding Sections 13340, 16304,
and 16304.1 of the Government Code, all money in the fund, the trust fund, and accounts created
by this section allocated to any state agency by this section is continuously appropriated to that
agency without regard to fiscal years, and all money in the fund, the trust fund, and accounts
created by this section allocated to any state or local agencies shall remain available to those
agencies from year to year until expended.
(2) Notwithstanding Sections 13340, 16304, and 16304.1 of the Government Code, all money
transferred by the Controller to the accounts established by this section and the Transportation
Impacts Mitigation Trust Fund is continuously appropriated without regard to fiscal years for the
purposes of the accounts and the trust fund, and shall remain available for expenditure from the
accounts and the trust fund to the agencies and nonprofit organizations eligible to receive money
from the accounts and the trust fund from year to year until expended.
(bb) If a statute passed by the Legislature transfers any money from an account to any other
account, fund, or other depository, directly or ,indirectly, within 90 days of the effective date of the
statute the Controller shall transfer an amount equivalent to the amount of the transfer from the
General Fund to the account. There is hereby appropriated from the General Fund an amount
necessary to make any transfer required by this subdivision.
(cc) It is the Intent of the voters that money provided by the State of California to cities,
counties, and special districts not be reduced by the Legislature as a result of the Initiative
measure that added this section to the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(dd) No agency shall expend more than two percent (2%) of the money available to it
pursuant to this section on the administration of that money.
(ee) For purposes of this section, County Group 1 and County Group 2 are those county
groups as defined in Section 187 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(ff) In allocating money pursuant to this section that is distributed solely utilizing Section 187
of the Streets and Highways Code, state and regional agencies, including the Controller, granting
the money shall further distribute the money so that each county having a population greater than
250,000 receives an amount that is within ten percent (10%) what it would receive if the money
were distributed on a per capita basis.
(gg) Any statute that alters the flow of revenue governed by Section 7102 or this section in a
manner different than the provisions of the initiative measure that added this section to the
Revenue and Taxation Code shall be void and without force or effect. Any bill or statute that
interferes with the intended operation of the provisions of the initiative measure that added this
section to the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the flow of money or in any other way
shall be void and without force or effect.
(hh) Money appropriated, expended, or transferred pursuant to this section shall not be
deemed to be a transfer of funds for the purposes of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2780)
of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code.
(il) For purposes of this section, commuter rail services include, but are not limited to, the Bay
Area Rapid Transit, the Capitol Corridor, CafTrain, Altamont Commuter Express, Coaster, and
Metrollnk systems.
(jj) In the expenditure of capital outlay or operating funds received pursuant to this section,
the Southern California Regional Rail Authority shall give first priority to additional selVlce and
facilities along Metrollnk rail lines that parallel congested freeways, such as State Routes 91, 118,
60, and 14, U.S. 101, and Interstates 215, 10 and 5, as well to facilities that support such service.
.
.
SEe. 3. Section 13984 is added to the Government Code, to read:
13984. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
(1) "Rail or bus transit" means any of the following: light rail (including trolley buses),
commuter rail, heavy rail, or intercity rail; or exclusive bus transit ways or bus transit lines with
selVlce no less than every 15 minutes during peak traffic congestion periods.
(2) "Public use facilities" means all of the following:
(A) Street, sidewalk, and pedestrian crosswalk improvements within onethird mile of a rail or
bus transit line.
(B) Rail or bus transit station amenities, including, but not limited to, artwork, benches,
pedestrian and bicycle overpasses and tunnels, accommodations in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101~336), elevators, escalators, and bicycle parking and
motor vehicle parking structures that enable increased rail or bus transit station use and offer
preferential parking to rail or bus transit users.
(C) Child care centers, libraries, community rooms, restrooms, and other public facilities and
public spaces that serve or are accessible to rail or bus transit users.
(D) Acquisition of land to implement projects qualifying for grants under this section.
(E) Multi-modal facilities, including, but not limited to, infrastructure to accommodate
connections to bus lines, other rail or bus transit lines, jitneys, taxis, tour buses, pedestrian
facilities, and access routes used by bicyclists.
http://voterguide. ss.ca.gov /propositions2 .asp ?id=3 23 &sID=4
10/30/2002
. C"Ii(ornia Official Voter Information Guide
Page 14 of17
.
(F) Facilities to accommodate publicly owned low emission motor vehicles at rail or bus transit
stations, including, but not limited to, recharging stations, secure parking, and storage facilities.
(G) Traffic light synchronization controllers and signal priority for public transit near rail or bus
transit stations.
(H) The cost of relocation assistance required to Implement any of the projects listed in this
subdivision, up to ten percent (10%) of the total cost of the project.
(1) Remediation of contaminated lands to implement any of the projects listed in this
subdivision, if there is, at least in part, no party responsible for remediation or the state is itself a
responsible party.
(3) "Project" means a mixed-use housing and business development that is within one-third
mile of a rail stop or bus transit stop that includes at least two of the following elements:
(A) Housing.
(8) Retail.
(e) Office space.
(b) The purpose of this section is to pay for public use facilities in order to improve the
financial feasibility of private development projects located at rail or bus transit stations serving
housing and employment centers, and thereby to Increase rail or bus transit use.
(c)(l) The secretary shall develop a program for implementation by regional transportation
planning agencies to develop public use facilities associated with transit stations as part of
proposed projects that will increase rail or bus transit ridership in a cost-effective manner.
(2) A project shall be given preference under this section if it meets any of the following
criteria: (A) The project has received a density bonus from a local land use agency.
(B) The project includes a parking facility that is shared by rail or bus transit users and users
of the proposed project. Higher priority shall be given to proposals that include paid parking.
(C) The project has reduced parking requirements due to the increased use of rail or bus
transit resulting from close association with a rail or bus transit station. The parking requirements
shall be at least thirty percent (30%) below the zoning in force for the six months prior to
submittal of the grant application.
(3) Each application for a grant from a local public agency (including but not limited to cities,
counties, cities and counties, transportation agencies, redevelopment agencies, and housing
authorities) shall be accompanied by all of the following:
(A) A development plan for the rail or bus transit station and adjacent project, including, but
not limited to, a description of the involvement of private developers willing to implement the
development plan.
(B) A letter from the owner of the rail or bus transit station indicating a willingness to
cooperate in implementation of the proposed project.
(C) Station area zoning and densities allowed at the rail or bus transit station and the
immediately surrounding area. Zoning and densities shall be at a level that will promote cost-
effective development.
(d) Each public agency receiving a grant for a project that includes housing pursuant to this
section shall assure that not less than twenty percent (20%) of the money is for projects that
dedicate at least twenty-five percent (25%) of their units for housing for persons and families of
low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. Highest
priority shall be given to grant applications that include a commitment for matching contributions
for local agency programs that provide incentives to construct this and other types of housing.
(e) At least fifty percent (50%) of the money available pursuant to this section shall be
expended for housing projects that meet the other requirements of this section.
(f) The secretary shall adopt regulations to implement this section, including a definition of
"peak traffic congestion period. "Those regulations shall not be subject to review or approval of
the Office of Administrative Law or subject to any other requirement of Chapter 3.5 (commencing
with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4. Section 13985 is added to the Government Code, to read:
13985. (a) The money in the Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund, which
is created in the State Treasury by Section 7105 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall be
transferred to the General Fund by the Controller if the aggregate amount of General Fund
revenues for the current fiscal year, as projected by the Governor in a report to the Legislature In
May of the current fiscal year, is less than the aggregate amount of General Fund revenues for the
previous fiscal year, as specified in the bUdget submitted by the Governor pursuant to Section 12
of Article IV of the California Constitution in the current fiscal year. In the event that a transfer of
money to the General Fund pursuant to this subdivision Is necessary, the Department of Finance
shall determine the amount to be transferred to the General Fund, and shall notify the Controller
in writing as to the amount, the timing of the transfer, and the applicable time period affected by
the transfer.
(b) The Controller shall reduce the total amount of money transferred to the Traffic
Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund by the Controller in any fiscal year if the
aggregate amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year, as projected by the
Governor in a report to the Legislature in May of the current fiscal year is not projected to increase
compared to the previous fiscal year in an amount equal to the amount of money to be transferred
to the fund in accordance with this section. Reductions in money transferred to the fund due to
operation of this subdivision shall be allocated In proportion to the percentage of money in the
fund allocated to each account in subdivision (b) of Section 71.05 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code and the Transportation Impacts Mitigation Trust Fund. In the event that a reduction of the
money to be transferred to the Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund from the
General Fund by the Controller is necessary pursuant to this subdivision, the Department of
Finance shall determine the amount of the reduction and shall notify the Controller in writing as to
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov /propositions2.asp ?id=3 23&sID=4
10/30/2002
. California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 15 of17
.
the amount, the timing of the transfer, and the applicable time period affected by the transfer.
(e) Money In the Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund in the State
Treasury may be allocated only in accordance with Section 7105 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, this section, Sections 164.57,164.58, and 894.5 of the Streets and Highways Code, and
Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 99571) of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code.
(d) In a fiscal year in which a particular project a/located money by paragraph (1), (3), (5),
(6), or (11) of subdivision (b) of Section 7105 of the Revenue and Taxation Code fora limited
number of years does not receive all or part of Its allocation due to the operation of this section,
each project that did not receive its full allocation in that fiscal year shall receive a replacement
allocation in subsequent fiscal years for each fiscal year it did not receive an allocation. The
replacement allocation shall be made at the end of the period specified in Section 7105 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code that allocations are made to the particular project. The replacement
allocations shall be in the same amount that would have otherwise been allocated. Replacement
allocations shall be made in as many sequential fiscal years as are needed to compensate for the
allocations that were not made during the fiscal years in which the allocation otherwise would
have been made. The intent of this subdivision is to be sure that each project specified in
paragraphs (1), (3), (5), (6), or (11) of subdivision (b) of 5ection 7105 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code receives all the funds it would have received if subdivision (a) and (b) of this
section had not been in operation.
SEC. 5. 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 twentyfive million dollars ($725,000,000). The lead applicant is
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(2) nefl.!.u.t Satitl. Ba, 6:al..l'l'ltlt~1 Reil, aC.:jl:lile 16illit'le 8t'1EJ Jt8lt ~LlI..I..tltu lail !H!l.ic~
bet..~et'l r~ff18f1t entt Sal. Je.!le if! SBI.W C::lel8 BI.lt Alaf!.eela Gal:lt'ltic3. BART to San Jose; extend
BART from Fremont to Downtown 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, Mllpltas 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 Congestion Management Agency.
(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) CafTrain; 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 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 1-580 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 1-580 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 1-580 Livermore
Study and improvements are the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority 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) CalTraln Peninsula Corridor; acquire rOiling 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
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions2.asp?id=323&sID=4
10/30/2002
. California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 16 of 17
.
lead applicant Is the Peninsula Joint Powers Board.
(14) CalTraini 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 high-occupancy vehicle 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 101i 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 Munl Third Street Ught 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 Ught 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
St./Rlchardson Avenue to Route 1 Interchange In 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 +rt (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 Bayllnk 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/Iw680/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
mUllon dollars ($1,000,000). The lead applicant Is the Alameda County Congestion Management
Authority.
(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 Congestion
Management Authority.
(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.
&nbs, p; (29) AC Transit; buy two fuel cell buses and fueling facility for demonstration
project, , In Alamed, a 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 Congestion Management Authority.
(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 lowwemlsslon 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 rallllne Pasadena to Los Angeles In Los Angeles County.
Forty million dollars ($40,000,000). The lead applicant Is the Pasadena Metro Blue Une
Construction Authority.
(35) Pacific Surfllner; 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 Eastslde Transit Extension; build new light ralll/ne in East Los Angeles, from
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions2.asp?id=323&sID=4
10/30/2002
. California Official Voter Information Guide
Page 17 of 17
.
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 Mld-City/Westside/Exposltlon 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 milllon dollars ($90,000,000). The lead applicant is the department or the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
, i (40) Route 10; add HOV lanes on San Bernardino Freeway over Kellogg Hili, 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 Carmenlta 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.
.
.
http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions2.asp?id=323&sID=4
10/30/2002