BILL ANALYSIS AB 1670 Page 1 CORRECTED - 06/02/2010 Technical change (Member name) ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1670 (Beall) As Amended April 5, 2010 Majority vote TRANSPORTATION 14-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, | | |Jeffries, | | | | |Bill Berryhill, | |Bradford, Charles | | |Blumenfield, Buchanan, | |Calderon, Coto, | | |Eng, Furutani, Galgiani, | |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, | | |Hayashi, Conway, Niello, | |Harkey, | | |Norby, Portantino, | |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, | | |Solorio | |Skinner, | | | | |Solorio, Torlakson, | | | | |Torrico | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Allows the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish two specific segments of the state highway system. Specifically, this bill : 1)Authorizes CTC to relinquish to the City of San Jose (City) an 11-mile portion of State Route (SR) 82 and a 2.25-mile portion of SR 130, upon terms and conditions CTC finds to be in the best interest of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for the relinquishments. 2)Provides that the relinquishments will become effective immediately following the county recordation of the relinquishment resolutions containing CTC's approval of the specified terms and conditions. 3)Specifies that, following the effective date of relinquishment, the relinquished segments will no longer be state highways and may not be considered for future adoption as state highways. 4)Requires the City to ensure continuity of traffic flow, AB 1670 Page 2 maintain traffic signal progression, and maintain signs along the segments in their jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of the respective state routes. EXISTING LAW : 5)Statutorily identifies state highway system routes. 6)Defines "state highway" as any roadway that is acquired, laid out, constructed, improved, or maintained as a state highway pursuant to constitutional or legislative authorization. 7)Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the prescribed routes of the state highway system connect the communities and regions of the state and that they serve the state's economy by connecting centers of commerce, industry, agriculture, mineral wealth, and recreation. 8)Provides for the expansion or deletion of the state highway system through a process whereby CTC makes a finding that it is in the best interest of the state to include or delete a specified portion of roadway to the system. 9)Provides for the relinquishment of a portion of state highway to a city or county under an agreement between the local jurisdiction and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) when an act of the Legislature has deleted the portion of highway from the state highway system. FISCAL EFFECT: According to Appropriations Committee: 1)Potentially moderate one-time costs (perhaps in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the outcome of negotiations between Caltrans and the City and on CTC approval; 2)Long-term maintenance and repair savings to Caltrans if the CTC exercises its authority to relinquish these highway segments. COMMENTS : Each session, numerous bills authorizing CTC to relinquish segments of the state highway segments to local jurisdictions are passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by AB 1670 Page 3 a negotiation of terms and conditions between the local jurisdiction and Caltrans. Once an agreement has been established, CTC typically approves the relinquishment and verifies its approval via a resolution. The final step is for the Legislature to delete these segments from current law. State highway relinquishments provide recipient agencies with greater control over a local transportation segment and relieve Caltrans of any further responsibility to improve, maintain, or repair it. SR 82 and SR 130, commonly referred to as the Alameda and Monterey Highway (SR 82) and Alum Rock Avenue (SR 130), serve primarily as urban arterials within the City of San Jose. The City is seeking control of these highway segments so that it may pursue economic development and community enhancements without the constraints of Caltrans' requirements. According to the author's office, the City and Caltrans have engaged in discussions regarding the proposed relinquishments and Caltrans has indicated its support. Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0004681