BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 652|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 652
Author: Cooley (D), et al.
Amended: 8/31/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/23/15
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva,
McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 6/2/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: State Highway Route 16: relinquishment
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) to relinquish segments of State Route (SR) 16
in the City of Rancho Cordova as well as in the unincorporated
portion of Sacramento County.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Identifies the California state highway system through a
description of segments of the state's regional and
AB 652
Page 2
interregional roads that are owned and operated by the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Technically, a state
highway is any roadway that Caltrans is legislatively
authorized to acquire, lay out, construct, improve, or
maintain. Existing law specifies that it is the intent of the
Legislature for the routes of the state highway system to
connect the communities and regions of the state and that they
serve the state's economy by connecting centers of commerce,
industry, agriculture, mineral wealth, and recreation.
2)Provides a two-step process for the state to expand or delete
a section of the state highway system that begins with the
Legislature amending existing law and then CTC making findings
that it is in the best interest of the state to include or
delete a specified portion of roadway from the system. This
is known as the state highway relinquishment process.
This bill:
1)Authorizes CTC to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova the
westbound lanes of SR 16 between Sunrise Boulevard and Grant
Line Road, upon terms and conditions approved by CTC.
2)Authorizes CTC to relinquish to Sacramento County the portion
of SR 16 within the unincorporated area of the county that is
between the easterly city limit of Sacramento and 0.2 miles
east of Grant Line Road, except for the westbound lanes
relinquished to Rancho Cordova, upon terms and conditions
approved by CTC.
3)Provides that these relinquishments will become effective the
date following the county recordation of the relinquishment
resolution.
4)Specifies that following the effective date of these
relinquishments, the relinquished segments will no longer be
state highways and may not be considered for future adoption
as a state highway.
5)Requires the City of Rancho Cordova and Sacramento County to
apply for approval of a business route designation in
accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design
Manual.
AB 652
Page 3
6)Requires Sacramento County to:
a) Ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any
traffic signal progression, and to provide signage
directing motorists to the continuation of SR 16.
b) Maintain the federal Surface Transportation Assistance
Act truck route designation for SR 16.
c) Administer the operation and maintenance of the roadway
consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.
d) Ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will
be performed to substantiate decisions affecting traffic on
the roadway.
Comments
Purpose. According to the author, planned local development
will transform SR 16 into a route of both interregional and
local significance. Sacramento County has major new development
planned along the corridor, consistent with the region's
blueprint planning scenario, of over 55,000 new residential
units and 19 million square feet of commercial and business
space. The author contends that the state has long been
interested in relinquishing this portion of SR 16 to local
jurisdictions. This bill accomplishes that aim.
Relinquishments. Each session, the Legislature passes and the
Governor signs numerous bills authorizing CTC to relinquish
segments of the state highway system to local jurisdictions.
Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by a
negotiation of terms and conditions between the local
jurisdiction and Caltrans. Once an agreement has been
established, CTC typically approves the relinquishment and
verifies its approval via a resolution.
Of interest, the administration proposed budget trailer bill
language this year intending to streamline the state's
relinquishment process. According to the Governor's budget
summary, a number of routes are still part of the state highway
system that no longer serve an interregional purpose, and
instead serve primarily regional or local purposes. The
proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the
state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide
AB 652
Page 4
system that primarily serve regional or local purposes. This
could be a win-win proposal, with both locals and the state
benefiting. On one hand, shifting ownership of these segments,
many of which run through a downtown area, will increase local
flexibility to add stoplights and make better use of valuable
real estate to support transit-oriented development. Meanwhile,
additional relinquishments reduce the state's long-term costs
for ongoing maintenance and repair of the state system. There
is merit in a proposal streamlining the relinquishment process;
however, it seems that such a proposal should be considered
through the policy bill process and not as an add-on to the
state's annual budget.
Luckily, Senator Allen has authored SB 254, which proposes a
similar streamlining process and is progressing as a regular
policy bill. SB 254 is pending in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
SR 16 history. In 2014, the Legislature passed and the governor
signed AB 1957 (Dickinson, Chapter 95), which authorized the CTC
to relinquish segments of SR 16 in the City of Sacramento as
well as in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County.
This bill expands that relinquishment further east,
incorporating the southern boundary of Rancho Cordova.
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 Commission (ACTC) has opposed the relinquishment.
ACTC, along with the Rural County Representatives of California
(RCRC), argues 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.
The bill's author has taken some amendments intended to assuage
ACTC and RCRC's opposition. Understandably, ACTC and RCRC are
concerned for the impact that encroaching urban development will
have on Amador County residents and visitors who use SR 16. But
as "unfair" as ACTC views Sacramento County's planned
AB 652
Page 5
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 seems reasonable that the
development be served by a planned, thoughtful transportation
network rather than a hodgepodge relic of a previously rural
highway.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill may
incur unknown one-time costs ranging from minor up to $5-8
million to Caltrans prior to the relinquishment of the
designated segments of SR 16 (State Highway Account). These
costs would be offset in future years due to avoided maintenance
costs on the relinquished segments.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/28/15)
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Sacramento
County of Sacramento
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Stonebridge Properties
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/28/15)
Amador County Transportation Commission
Calaveras Council of Governments
Rural County Representatives of California
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 6/2/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
AB 652
Page 6
Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau,
Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Chávez, Grove
Prepared by:Eric Thronson / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
8/31/15 16:04:58
**** END ****