BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 652
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 652
(Cooley) - As Introduced February 24, 2015
SUBJECT: State Highway Route 16: relinquishment: County of
Sacramento
SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) to relinquish a portion of State Route (SR) 16 between
east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Grant Line
Road to the County of Sacramento. Specifically, this bill:
1)Declares the intent of the Legislature that the County of
Sacramento notify and consult with the Amador County
Transportation Commission (ACTC), the Counties of Amador,
Calaveras, and Alpine, the Cities of Plymouth, Amador City,
Sutter Creek, and Jackson and other relevant parties about the
proposed relinquishment of SR 16 to the County of Sacramento.
2)Authorizes the CTC to relinquish the portion of SR 16 that is
located within the unincorporated area of that county, east of
the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Grant Line Road,
if the County agrees to accept it.
3)Requires that the relinquishment become effective on the date
following the county recorder's recordation of the
AB 652
Page 2
relinquishment, at which time it will cease to become a state
highway.
4)Requires that the relinquished portion of SR 16 be ineligible
for future adoption as a state highway.
5)Requires the County of Sacramento to install and maintain
signs in its jurisdiction directing motorists to the
continuation of SR 16.
6)Requires that the County of Sacramento maintain the designated
truck route for the relinquished portion of SR 16.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Defines SR 16 as an eligible interregional route.
2)Defines a "state highway" as any roadway that is acquired,
laid out, constructed, improved, or maintained as a state
highway pursuant to constitutional or legislative
authorization.
3)Statutorily identifies state highway system routes.
4)Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the
prescribed routes of the state highway system connect
communities and regions of the state and that they serve the
state's economy by connecting centers of commerce, industry,
AB 652
Page 3
agriculture, mineral wealth, and recreation.
5) Authorizes the relinquishment of a segment of SR 16 between
the Sacramento city limit and west of Watt Avenue.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: A relinquishment is the act and process of legally
transferring the property rights, title, liability, and
maintenance responsibility of a state highway (or portion of a
state highway), or park-and-ride lot to another entity. The
removal of a highway or associated facility, either in whole or
in part, from the State Highway System requires that the
Legislature authorize the CTC to take action, at which time the
CTC votes to approve or deny the relinquishment request.
Relinquishments are typically initiated when a local
jurisdiction approaches the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) asking to take over a state highway or
portion, thereof. The initial step in the relinquishment
process is for Caltrans to evaluate whether or not the
relinquishment is appropriate. To determine whether the
relinquishment is appropriate, Caltrans produces a
Relinquishment Assessment Report (RAR). Specifically, the RAR
is an internal decision document that provides Caltrans
information upon which to base its decision whether or not to
relinquish the state route or route segment.
AB 652
Page 4
The RAR guidelines typically contain certain elements including:
the reason the local jurisdiction is requesting the
relinquishment, the planned corridor concepts, and
recommendations for the route's development. In fleshing out
these elements, the RAR will identify important information
including the primary origins and destinations for travel on the
route segment with respect to interregional and regional trips,
issues that could negatively impact interregional or regional
travel and connectivity, if the relinquishment is expected to
cause diversion of interregional and regional trips onto other
state routes or local arterials, compatibility issues for
adjoining jurisdictions that would be created, actions that may
be needed to advise interregional travelers on connecting
routes, and adjacent local agency positions on the
relinquishment.
Sacramento County contends that projected growth along the SR 16
corridor will make it necessary to conduct roadway improvements.
The author indicates that given the fact that Caltrans has no
plans in the foreseeable future to make corridor improvements
(beyond routine maintenance), that relinquishment of the route
to local control would expedite completion of roadway
improvements and allow those improvements to proceed in concert
with local land use development.
SR 16 is a statutorily-defined interregional route and,
therefore, has potentially greater significance to the state
highway system than lesser routes for which relinquishments tend
to proceed without controversy. In fact, it is precisely
AB 652
Page 5
because SR 16 is an interregional route that the ACTC opposes
the relinquishment. ACTC, along with the Rural County
Representatives of California (RCRC) argue that SR 16 is a vital
interregional connecting highway. They contend that it is
important to safeguard the route's "flow times" and they are
concerned that Sacramento County's planned development of the
area, including the planned improvements to SR 16, will
adversely affect drivers traveling to and from Amador County.
In its study and evaluation of the proposed relinquishment,
Caltrans acknowledged that it has no plans to improve this
segment of SR 16 in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the
department concluded that, given that the developments alongside
the route will inevitably increase, it is appropriate to
relinquish the route segment so that the Sacramento County can
proactively improve the roadway in advance of the planned
developments. If the route is not relinquished, Caltrans
surmises that it will be difficult and costly to retroactively
complete improvements needed to serve the development.
These arguments, however, do not assuage the opposition's
concerns and they are seeking amendments to the bill that would
impose conditions on the relinquishment and restrictions on
Sacramento County's planned improvements. Specifically, ACTC's
proposed amendments would condition the relinquishment and
require Sacramento County to, among other things, administer the
operation and maintenance of the highway in a way that is
consistent with professional traffic engineering standards that
are applicable to interregional routes , ensure traffic studies
are performed to substantiate decisions that may affect
interregional travel, and fund improvements to certain roadways
(not located in Sacramento County) to ensure connectivity to
nearby SR 50.
Committee concerns: Understandably, ACTC and RCRC are concerned
for the impact that encroaching urban development will have on
Amador County residents and visitors who use
AB 652
Page 6
SR 16. But as "unfair" as ACTC views Sacramento County's
planned development, which made the relinquishment request
necessary, the idea that a neighboring county could impose the
magnitude of conditions that ACTC is proposing on Sacramento
County is unreasonable. Furthermore, development in Sacramento
County is going to happen regardless of the relinquishment, and
Amador residents will be impacted. It makes more sense that the
development be served by a planned, thoughtful transportation
network rather than a hodgepodge relic of a previously rural
highway.
Related legislation: The administration is proposing a budget
trailer bill to, among other things, establish an administrative
process to relinquish state highways.
Previous legislation: AB 1957 (Dickinson), Chapter 335, Statues
of 2014, authorized the CTC to relinquish segments of SR 16 in
the City of Sacramento as well as in the unincorporated portion
of Sacramento County. Earlier versions of AB 1957 included the
segment of SR 16 (west of Watt Avenue to Grant Line Road) that
is addressed in this bill however the segment, which is the
subject of this bill, was deleted from AB 1957 to address
concerns raised by ACTA.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
City of Sacramento
AB 652
Page 7
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Stonebridge Properties, Inc.
Opposition
Amador County Transportation Commission
Rural County Representatives of California
Analysis Prepared by:Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093