BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 615
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: ashburn
VERSION: 2/27/09
Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: no
Hearing date: May 12, 2009
SUBJECT:
Off-highway vehicles
DESCRIPTION:
This bill authorizes a local jurisdiction to close its streets
to regular vehicular traffic and instead allow off-highway motor
vehicles to use those streets.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law prohibits an off-highway motor vehicle (OHV) from
being driven upon any public highway or street, except to cross
a highway or when a highway is closed due to snow. Existing law
also, however, allows a local authority to permit both OHVs and
motor vehicles on road segments of up to 3 miles in length under
its jurisdiction, if:
A segment connects OHV trails, connects an OHV
recreational use area and necessary services, or connects an
OHV recreational use area to lodging facilities;
The local authority finds that the road segment is
designed and constructed to safely permit the use of regular
vehicular traffic and the driving of OHVs;
The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
declares that allowing combined use on a given road segment
would not create a potential traffic safety hazard;
The local authority adopts a resolution or ordinance
authorizing the combined use and prescribing rules and
regulations governing that combined use; and
SB 615 (ASHBURN) Page 2
The local authority erects signs on and along the road
indicating combined use.
Drivers of OHVs that are operated on the road pursuant to a
local authority's combined use authorization must comply with
all provisions of the California Vehicle Code, including
possessing a valid driver's license, obeying speed laws,
possessing evidence of insurance, and wearing a helmet while on
a motorcycle. In no case, however, may an OHV be operated on a
road after dark.
This bill :
1)Authorizes a local authority by ordinance or resolution to
allow "the use of public streets by off-road vehicles under
its jurisdiction" when the following conditions are met:
i) The local authority finds and determines there is
substantial and continual off-road vehicle activity in the
portion of the street recommended for off-road vehicle use
based on the recommendation of the local police department
in a city or a joint recommendation of the sheriff and CHP
in an unincorporated area.
ii) The local authority has not designated a street as
a through street or an arterial street.
iii) OHV traffic on the street supports substantial
recreational activity and imposes significant burden on
local public safety services.
iv) The closure will not substantially or adversely
affect traffic flow, safety on the adjacent streets or in
the surrounding neighborhoods, the operation of emergency
vehicles, the performance of municipal or public utility
services, or the delivery of freight by commercial
vehicles.
2)Allows closure of a street for a period of not more than 18
months, but the closure period may be extended for up to five
more 18-month periods (i.e., up to nine years ), provided that
the local authority enacts another resolution or ordinance for
each extension.
SB 615 (ASHBURN) Page 3
3)Requires that a local authority mail notice of its hearing to
adopt the ordinance or resolution to all residents and
property owners along the affected streets.
4)Permits the local authority to issue permits to OHVs and
charge a fee to cover its associated costs.
5)Limits its application to cities with an area of at least 200
square miles.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . California City, the sponsor of this bill, is a
community of approximately 14,000 in the Southern California
high desert region. The city encompasses over 200 square miles
of area, much of it undeveloped. The northeast portion of the
city (often referred to as the "second city") has many miles
of unimproved city streets and roads.
According to city officials, for over a decade OHV riders have
come in large numbers to the city to operate their vehicles in
the high desert. Their numbers have increased over the years
leading to as many as 60,000-plus visitors coming into the
city on a given weekend to ride in the "second city" area.
The city reports that it has never had the resources to
prevent this influx and that the influx causes a great
financial burden because of the cost of police and fire
protection, sanitation, and repairs to roads.
While existing law prohibits the use of city streets by OHVs,
California City has found it difficult to enforce the law with
its limited resources. In order to facilitate these OHV
visitors, the city proposed this legislation to shut down the
"second city" roads to public traffic and allow them to be
used by OHVs. Additionally, the bill allows the city to impose
a fee upon these visitors. (The city reports that it has
instituted a small fee already, but it is not clear under what
authority.)
2.A revenue issue ? Conversations with officials in California
City indicate that the city's problem is a lack of revenue to
offset the costs for police, fire, and emergency medical
services that the incursion of so many OHVs into California
City causes. It is unclear whether the city has charged OHV
operators for costs associated with the emergency services
they use. It is legal, however, for a city to charge the
SB 615 (ASHBURN) Page 4
responsible party for the cost associated with a fire
department response to an emergency. The city, however,
indicates a need for funds not just for emergencies, but to
support additional police patrols plus additional duty time
for fire and ambulance services when large numbers of OHV
operators are present. A more appropriate approach for this
bill might be to identify a revenue stream that California
City could generate to compensate it for the costs of services
it provides to the multitude of OHV operators that visit the
city.
3.Temporary ? The bill refers to the closures of streets that it
authorizes as "temporary." The bill provides, however, that
the closure to regular vehicular traffic could last as long as
nine years.
4.What about the rest of the Vehicle Code ? Existing law
authorizing the combined use of road segments by regular
vehicular traffic and OHVs requires that OHVs on those road
segments comply with all provisions of the California Vehicle
Code. This bill does not make a similar requirement, but
should to ensure that when OHVs access streets they are
operated safely by complying with the rules of the road.
5.A toll by another name . AB 680 (Baker), Chapter 107, Statutes
of 1989 prohibits local agencies from imposing tolls or other
fees for use of its streets and roads beginning on June 1,
1989, in part to recognize that the taxpayers had already paid
for those roads. This bill authorizes a local agency to close
its roads to regular vehicular traffic, open them to OHVs
instead, and then charge the OHVs a permit fee to use those
roads. This seems like a toll road for OHVs, violating the
idea behind AB 680: that roads shouldn't be paid for twice,
once by the taxpayers and once by those charged the tolls.
6.Arguments in opposition . Opponents to this bill represent
communities, organizations, and businesses throughout the
Southern California desert region who note that illegal,
uncontrolled, and unmanaged OHV activity has resulted in the
destruction of their private property, public lands, natural
resources, American and Native American cultural heritage
sites, waterways, and wilderness areas. They assert that they
have endured trespassing on protected lands as well as damage
to roads, flood control infrastructure, ranches, farmland, and
commercial and residential property. They oppose this bill
because it would legalize the use of OHVs on public streets
SB 615 (ASHBURN) Page 5
furthering the incursion of OHVs into their communities.
7.Other amendments . This bill includes numerous drafting errors,
which make its meaning and intent unclear. Among these are:
On page 2, lines 1 - 3, it is unclear whether the bill
applies to streets under the local authority's jurisdiction
or to OHVs under the local authority's jurisdiction. The
bill should be amended to delete "under its jurisdiction"
where it appears on page 2, line 3, and instead insert that
phrase after "streets" on page 2, line 3.
On page 2, lines 5 - 6, the bill requires the local
authority to find that there is "substantial and continual
off-road vehicle activity in the portion of the street." It
is unclear whether this means that the local entity is to
find that OHVs are illegally using the street or if the OHV
activity is occurring nearby. The bill should be amended to
strike "in" from this phrase and replace it with a word
that clarifies the intent of the author.
The bill repeatedly refers to "off-road vehicles" but
this term is not defined and not used in the Vehicle Code.
The term used is "off-highway motor vehicle." The bill
should be amended to use off-highway motor vehicle in all
instances.
It is unclear under the bill how a person living along an
affected street that is closed to regular vehicular traffic
would access his or her own property with his or her own
motor vehicle.
The bill uses the terms "local authority" and "local
agency" interchangeably. The bill should be amended to be
consistent.
It is unclear if the author intends for the bill to apply
to both cities and counties, because the bill as written
applies to all counties and cities with an area of at least
200 square miles, but the proponents speak of it as
applying to only three jurisdictions in the state.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
May 6, 2009)
SB 615 (ASHBURN) Page 6
SUPPORT: California City (sponsor)
Wimpy's Diner
7 Individuals
OPPOSED: California Native Plant Society
Californians for Western Wilderness
Center for Biological Diversity
Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley
Community ORV Watch
Defenders of Wildlife
Desert Protective Council
Friends of Juniper Flats
Mendiburu Neighborhood Crime Watch Group
Monte Vista Estates Home Owners Association
Morongo Basin Conservation Society
ORV Watch Kern County
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Red Mountain Property Owners Alliance
Tamarack Lagoon Coalition
Western San Bernardino county Landowners'
Association
3 Individuals