BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1670|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1670
Author: Beall (D), et al
Amended: 7/15/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 8-0, 6/29/10
AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, DeSaulnier, Harman, Kehoe, Pavley,
Simitian, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ashburn
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 11-0, 8/12/10
AYES: Kehoe, Ashburn, Alquist, Corbett, Emmerson, Leno,
Price, Walters, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 6/1/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State Highway: relinquishment
SOURCE : City of San Jose
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the California
Transportation Commission to relinquish segments of State
Route (SR) 82 and SR 130 in the City of San Jose.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law
1. Identifies the California state highway system through a
description of segments of the state's regional and
CONTINUED
AB 1670
Page
2
interregional roads that are owned and operated by the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
2. Defines a "state highway" as any roadway that is
acquired, laid out, constructed, improved, or maintained
as a state highway according to legislative
authorization.
3. Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature for
the routes of the state highway system to 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.
4. Provides that any expansion or deletion of the state
highway system occurs through a statutory process
requiring the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
to make findings that it is in the best interest of the
state to include or delete a specified portion of
roadway from the system.
This bill:
1. Authorizes the CTC to relinquish to the City of San Jose
a ten mile segment of SR 82, locally know as the
Monterey Highway, from Blossom Hill Road to I-880, and a
2.5 mile segment of SR 130, locally known as Alum Rock
Boulevard, from the city limits to SR 101, both of which
are located in the city, upon terms and conditions the
CTC finds to be in the best interest of the state.
2. Requires the City of San Jose to provide signage
directing motorist to the continuation of SR 82 and SR
130.
3. Provides that the relinquishments will become effective
immediately following the county recordation of the
relinquishment resolutions containing the CTC's approval
of the specified terms and conditions.
4. Specifies that following the effective date of
relinquishment, the relinquished segment will no longer
be a state highway and may not be considered for future
adoption as a state highway.
AB 1670
Page
3
5. Requires the City of San Jose ensure the continuity of
traffic flow on the relinquished portions, including any
traffic signal progression.
Background
High-speed rail an option for part of SR 82 . Of the ten
miles of SR 82, being proposed for relinquishment to San
Jose, two miles may be used by the High-Speed Rail
Authority (HSRA) as a possible alignment into the Diridon
Station near downtown San Jose. The city public works
department staff indicates that there is adequate
right-of-way to accommodate the proposed improvements to
the roadway and the high-speed trains. The HSRA is in the
process of preparing an environmental document for the
corridor from Merced to San Jose. Several alternatives are
identified in documents on the HSRA's website for this
particular corridor. It appears that the segment of SR 82
from near Bernal Road in south San Jose to the vicinity of
Capitol Expressway is being considered as an alignment for
the high-speed train service. Since neither the state nor
federal environmental documents have been adopted by the
HSRA, it is unclear exactly how the alignment of SR 82 will
be harmonized with the high-speed rail alignment through
that segment of the SR 82 corridor.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Caltrans improvements unknown one-time costs
(minor to millions) Special*
Prior to relinquishment (see staff
comments)
Caltrans maintenance unknown long-term savings
following Special*
and repair relinquishment
AB 1670
Page
4
CTC administration minor costs to administer
agreements Special*
* State Highway Account
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/10)
City of San Jose (source)
Alum Rock Village Business Association
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Builders Exchange of Santa Clara County
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
Downtown College Prep
Independent Construction Estimators
Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network
Piazza Family LP
Pierluigi Oliverio, Councilmember, City of San Jose
Rose Garden Neighborhood Preservation Association
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Shasta/Hanchett Park Neighborhood Association
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
The Alameda Business Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the City of San Jose,
this bill allows San Jose to have greater control over the
design and use of the streets currently designated as state
highways. San Jose's goals include "improving the
pedestrian environment, implementing multi-modal
objectives, and modifying local circulations patterns by
reducing the amount of right-of-way previously developed to
auto-centric standards." Among the multimodal objectives
that the city intends to implement in the corridor are bus
rapid transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
AB 1670
Page
5
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Tran, Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Tom Berryhill, Audra Strickland, Vacancy
JJA:dok 8/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****