BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 652
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
652 (Cooley)
As Amended August 31, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |77-0 |(June 2, 2015) |SENATE: | 37-0 |(September 2, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) to relinquish a portion of State Route (SR) 16 to
Sacramento County and the City of Rancho Cordova.
The Senate amendments clarify specific segments of SR 16 that
would be relinquished to the County of Sacramento.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill:
1)Declared 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.
AB 652
Page 2
2)Authorized 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)Required 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)Required that the relinquished portion of SR 16 be ineligible
for future adoption as a state highway.
5)Required the County of Sacramento to install and maintain
signs in its jurisdiction directing motorists to the
continuation of SR 16.
6)Required that the County of Sacramento maintain the designated
truck route for the relinquished portion of SR 16.
7)Required the County of Sacramento to ensure the continuity of
traffic flow on the relinquished segment.
8)Required 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 Senate Appropriations
Committee, 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
AB 652
Page 3
costs would be offset in future years due to avoided maintenance
costs on the relinquished segments.
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 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.
AB 652
Page 4
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 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 a full discussion
of this bill.
AB 652
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:
Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN:
0001836