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