BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 652 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 652 (Cooley) As Amended May 28, 2015 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+------+--------------------+---------------------| |Transportation |11-0 |Frazier, Bloom, | | | | |Chu, Daly, Dodd, | | | | |Eduardo Garcia, | | | | |Gomez, Medina, | | | | |Nazarian, | | | | |O'Donnell, Santiago | | | | | | | |----------------+------+--------------------+---------------------| |Appropriations |16-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | | | | |Bonta, Calderon, | | | | |Chang, Daly, | | | | |Eggman, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Gordon, | | | | |Holden, Jones, | | | | |Quirk, Rendon, | | | | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ AB 652 Page 2 SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish a portion of State Route (SR) 16 to Sacramento County. 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 a portion of SR 16 that is generally east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Grant Line Road to Sacramento County. 3)Requires that the relinquishment become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the 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. 7)Requires the County of Sacramento to ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished segment. AB 652 Page 3 8)Requires that the relinquishment agreement between California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Sacramento County include the requirement that Sacramento County operate and maintain the segment consistent with professional traffic engineering standards and that appropriate traffic studies are performed to substantiate decisions affecting traffic flow. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)Potentially moderate one-time costs (State Highway Account [SHA]) depending on the outcome of negotiations between Caltrans and the city and county and a determination by Caltrans that the relinquishment is in the best interest of the state. 2)Moderate long-term maintenance and repair savings to Caltrans, if the CTC exercises its authority to relinquish the highway segment. 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 Caltrans asking to take over a state highway or portion, thereof. The initial step in the relinquishment process AB 652 Page 4 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. 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 because SR 16 is an interregional route that the Amador County Transportation AB 652 Page 5 Commission (ACTC) opposes the relinquishment. ACTC, along with the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) argue that SR 16 is a vital interregional connecting highway and they contend that it is important to safeguard the route's "flow times." ACTC and RCRC 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. Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000708 AB 652 Page 6