BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 169|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 169
Author: Emmerson (R)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 10-1, 4/2/13
AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Beall, Cannella, Galgiani, Hueso,
Lara, Liu, Roth, Wyland
NOES: Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : State Scenic Highway System: removal of a segment of
Interstate10
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill removes the segment of Interstate 10
between postmiles 16.54 and 17.66 in the County of Riverside
from eligibility for inclusion in the State Scenic Highway
System.
ANALYSIS : The Legislature instituted the State Scenic Highway
Program in 1963 and, since that time, the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) has maintained it. This program
establishes the state's responsibility for the protection and
enhancement of California's natural scenic beauty. Pursuant to
that goal, the Legislature makes portions of the state highway
system eligible to be a state scenic highway.
CONTINUED
SB 169
Page
2
The 1963 legislation adopted a "Master Plan" that lists highways
that are eligible for scenic designation. The Legislature has
made additional designations since that time. The highways
deemed eligible are chosen based upon five factors: (1)
intrinsic scenic value and experiences that the route would
provide; (2) the diversity of experience, such as the transition
between different landscape regions or climatic areas that
travel on the route would furnish; (3) the degree to which the
route would link specific scenic, historical, and recreational
points or areas of interest; (4) the relationship of these
routes to urban areas, taking into account the opportunities for
weekend and one-day sightseeing trips by large numbers of
people; and (5) the opportunities for bypassing, or leaving
periodically, major trans-state or inter-regional routes.
After the Legislature deems a highway eligible, a local agency
(such as a city or county) must prepare a corridor management
plan that describes the land use and other relevant planning
actions that it will implement to retain scenic quality. If
this plan is adequate, the Caltrans Director determines the
route "scenic," and it is then designated. Upon formal
designation, current law also requires local agencies to take
actions that may be necessary to protect the scenic appearance
of the corridor - the band of land generally adjacent to the
highway right of way - including, but not limited to: (1)
regulation of land use and intensity of development; (2)
detailed land and site planning; (3) control of outdoor
advertising; (4) careful attention to and control of earthmoving
and landscaping; and (5) the design and appearance of structures
and equipment.
While the Caltrans Director has the ability to approve official
scenic highways, it does not have the authority to remove a
designation or remove a segment from eligibility. Legislative
approval is required to remove an eligible route.
Current law includes Interstate 10 from Route 38 near Redlands
to Route 62 near Whitewater as eligible for the State Scenic
Highway System. Interstate 10 is currently deemed eligible for
designation, however, Riverside County never sought formal
designation.
This bill removes the segment of Interstate 10 between postmiles
16.54 and 17.66 in the County of Riverside from eligibility from
CONTINUED
SB 169
Page
3
the State Scenic Highway System.
Comments
The author is seeking to remove a segment of the scenic highway
on Interstate 10 in Riverside County between postmiles 16.54 and
17.66 that does not meet the criteria for the scenic eligibility
designation. In June 2011, pursuant to a request by the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Caltrans reviewed the
1.12 mile segment. Caltrans determined that the segment is no
longer eligible for inclusion in the program due to "visual
intrusions," including railroad tracks, an active gravel pit,
and numerous existing billboards. In addition, the segment has
also been developed with an outlet mall and a casino on the
Morongo Indian Reservation. The county states the segment's
continued eligibility in the program prevents critical economic
development and the creation of a path towards recovery.
Riverside County would like to put in a new billboard in the
1.12 mile segment. The Riverside County General Plan, however,
presently prevents this from occurring. The General Plan
prohibits specific activities on "scenic" and "scenic eligible"
highways, including putting up this new billboard. Riverside
County does not wish to change the local policy because it could
allow and encourage the construction of additional and unwanted
billboards in other areas of the county.
The area surrounding the 1.12 mile segment contains many
billboards. Riverside County states that it has been working
with a local advertising group and is seeking to consolidate the
number of existing billboards in the area and replace others
with digital billboards. The 1.12 miles segment is found on a
stretch of freeway that is the only means of traveling. Due to
these travel limitations, this segment often experiences heavy
traffic.
Riverside County states that the visibility of a new billboard
in this segment due to the frequency of travel would generate
needed revenue for the county. Furthermore, the county would
use money generated from the new billboard to fund alternative
travel routes along this segment of Interstate 10 to use during
emergencies and heavy traffic, as well as digital boards that
provide public service announcements.
CONTINUED
SB 169
Page
4
Segments of freeways that are classified "landscaped freeway"
are subject to the Outdoor Advertising Act, which preclude the
installation of billboards. The segment of highway at issue in
this bill is not classified as landscaped, so there is no
conflict with the Outdoor Advertising Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/12/13)
Riverside County
JA:nl 4/15/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED