Even though I very rarely disagree with Carl, I do have a slightly different opinion (and yes, I've expressed that on here before).
Combining both subsection (b) & (d) of VC section 22101, we can conclude the following:
"When an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to such additional traffic lane shall be given by any official traffic control device, it shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of such official traffic control device".
Now, an "official traffic control device" is defined as follows (from VC 440):
VC 440. An "official traffic control device" is any sign, signal, marking, or device, consistent with Section 21400, placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic, but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, speed humps, speed bumps, or other roadway design features.
So, assuming that the left turn lane in this case is properly marked with a left turn arrow which is painted on the pavement within that lane, and since such a "marking" is considered an "official traffic control device", any movement other than that which is indicated by such marking, is in violation of VC22101(d).
So, in this case, the OP was not cited in violation of the time restriction posted on a sign (since he never actually completed the left turn), nor was he cited for crossing the solid white line (since there is no such law prohibiting such movement).... Instead, he was cited for failing to comply with the direction of the left turn arrow (i.e. marking) which is painted on the pavement.
And, yes, I am fully aware that once someone enters that left turn pocket, this creates a -damned if you do and damned if you don't situation- or, more specifically, a conflict between:
-> An official traffic control device -a regulatory sign- which prohibits a left turn during certain times
-> Another official traffic control device -a lane marking- that requires the same action (the left turn).
... It does not mean that no violation occurred or that the officer somehow screwed up.
One question that may impact my point of view is whether the sign displaying the time restriction is visible to a reasonably attentive driver prior to him/her entering the left turn pocket? I don't know....
Will that have any bearing on how the will end up? I don't know...
Ultimately, the decision is up to the judge.
It would be interesting to hear how bruinPE will call this one!