BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1345|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1345
Author: Berryhill (R), et al.
Amended: 6/20/16
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-2, 4/19/16
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, McGuire,
Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NOES: Allen, Leyva
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR: 25-7, 5/23/16
AYES: Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella,
Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hernandez, Hertzberg,
Hill, Huff, McGuire, Mendoza, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen,
Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Stone, Vidak
NOES: Allen, Hancock, Jackson, Leno, Leyva, Liu, Pavley
NO VOTE RECORDED: De León, Hueso, Lara, Mitchell, Monning,
Runner, Wieckowski, Wolk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/11/16 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Vehicles: off-highway vehicle recreation: County
of Inyo
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill extends the sunset on Inyo Countys authority
to designate road segments greater than three miles in length
for combined use by cars and off-highway motor vehicles.
SB 1345
Page 2
Assembly Amendments clarify the limit on adjacent combined-use
segments so that contiguous segments are allowable under
specific circumstances.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Prohibits, generally, an off-highway motor vehicle (OHV) from
being driven upon any public highway or street, except to
cross a highway under certain circumstances, or when a highway
is closed due to snow.
2)Allows a local authority, the federal government, or the
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to permit "combined
use" by OHVs and motor vehicles on road segments under its
jurisdiction of up to three miles in length for the purpose of
connecting OHV trails or connecting OHV trails with services,
provided that:
a) The California Highway Patrol (CHP) reviews the proposed
segment and does not find that the designation would create
a potential traffic safety hazard.
b) The entity with jurisdiction over the road segment
erects signs approved by the California Department of
Transportation indicating that combined use is permitted.
1)Requires drivers of OHVs that are operated on combined-use
road segments to comply with all provisions of the California
Vehicle Code, including possessing a valid driver's license,
obeying speed laws, possessing evidence of insurance, and
wearing a helmet while on a motorcycle.
2)Prohibits the operation of OHVs on roads after dark.
3)Authorizes Inyo County to permit combined use on road segments
within its jurisdiction of up to 10 miles in length. This
SB 1345
Page 3
authority is granted on a pilot basis with a sunset date of
January 1, 2017. In designing the program, the County must:
a) Develop procedures for selecting and removing
combined-use designations from road segments
b) Establish uniform signage for combined-use road segments
to control OHV traffic and advise pedestrians and regular
traffic that OHVs may be present
c) Require OHVs to comply with the same state and federal
safety laws that apply to OHV drivers on traditional
combined-use road segments under three miles in length
d) Prohibit OHVs from exceeding 35 miles per hour on
combined-use segments
e) Provide an opportunity for public comment at a hearing
to evaluate the pilot project
f) Agree to defend and indemnify the state against claims
for any safety-related losses or injuries arising from
combined use
g) Not approve a road segment for combined use if the CHP
finds that doing so would create a potential traffic safety
hazard
1)Requires Inyo County, by January 1, 2016, to submit a report
to the Legislature that:
a) Describes the road segments designated for combined use
under the program
b) Evaluates the effect of the pilot program on safety,
traffic flow, off-highway vehicle usage on existing trails,
incursions into areas not designated for off-highway
vehicle usage, and non-motorized recreation
c) Describes the public comments received in the public
hearing
SB 1345
Page 4
This bill:
1) Extends Inyo County's authority to implement the pilot
program until January 1, 2020
2) Requires Inyo County to submit an additional report to the
Legislature, subject to the same requirements of the
original report, by January 1, 2019
3) Specifies that each combined-use segment that connects a
service to a park or trail cannot exceed 10 miles
4) Limits contiguous combined-use segments by capping the
number of shared start points and shared end points in a
chain of combined-use segments
Comments
1) Purpose. According to the author, this bill supports Inyo
County in better regulating, managing, and analyzing its OHV
trail system by extending the existing combined-use pilot
program. The author states that Inyo County has unique
circumstances that warrant the pilot project, as less than
2% of its 10,000 square miles is privately owned and many of
its nearly 18,000 residents use OHVs as a common mode of
transportation. In addition, the author notes that tourism
is the largest contributor to the county's economy, and
expects that this project will help visitors use OHVs
responsibly. The author explains that the bill will affect
roughly graded gravel roads in an unincorporated area of the
county, and notes that these roads also play an important
role in staging OHVs. By allowing staging to occur in
parking lots closer to town, the author argues that this
bill could spare narrow forest trails from being disturbed
by trucks and trailers unloading OHVs. The author also
notes that the report on the Inyo County pilot program
indicated that additional time and designated routes are
needed to fully evaluate this change in public policy, and
that preliminary evaluation did not suggest any detrimental
results (e.g., deaths, injuries, public safety complaints,
etc.) of the pilot program to date.
SB 1345
Page 5
2) What's covered. OHVs encompass a variety of vehicle
types, including motorcycles, snowmobiles, sand buggies,
dune buggies, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), Jeeps, and
recreational utility vehicles (also known as utility terrain
vehicles or side-by-sides) that are intended to be operated
or used exclusively off the highways. They are therefore
not subject to the same registration and safety equipment
requirements as vehicles that are routinely used on public
streets.
3) No new trails. This bill concerns the operation of OHVs
on roads used by regular traffic. It does not establish any
new trails or OHV recreation areas.
4) Legislative history. In 2010, the Governor vetoed a bill
(AB 2338, Conway) that would have allowed Inyo County to
permit combined use on road segments longer than three
miles, citing concerns about state liability in the event of
an accident. The following year, the Legislature passed and
the Governor signed AB 628 (Conway, Chapter 532, Statutes of
2011), which allowed Inyo County to designate road segments
up to 10 miles in length for combined use on a pilot basis,
and subject to several conditions. The bill addressed the
liability issue by (a) prohibiting Inyo County from
designating a road for combined use if the CHP finds that
the designation would create a potential safety hazard, and
(b) requiring the County to indemnify the state against
claims in the event of an accident on a combined-use
segment.
5) Implementation delays. The pilot program was initially
controversial in Inyo County, and the Board of Supervisors
did not approve any routes until January 2015. At that
point, it authorized seven combined-use segments totaling 44
miles in length. Shortly thereafter, the Center for
Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility sued the County, arguing that the
environmental impact report for the project was inadequate.
The suit was settled in May 2015. Four of the seven
approved routes have still not been opened due to ambiguity
regarding the County's authority to maintain roads when the
underlying land is owned by another party. The County is
SB 1345
Page 6
currently working with the U.S. Forest Service to resolve
this issue, and the remaining three routes were opened
between July 14 and August 5, 2015.
6) Safety concerns. While many states allow OHVs to be
operated on public roads under some circumstances, opponents
of this bill argue that these vehicles cannot safely share
the road with regular traffic because they are not equipped
with the safety features required in traditional cars (e.g.,
airbags). As such, OHVs may leave occupants extremely
vulnerable in on-road accidents. Additionally, the U.S.
Consumer Products Safety Commission, ATV manufacturers, and
ATV safety organizations agree that ATVs in particular are
not designed to operate on paved roads and can only be
operated safely in an off-road setting. This is due in part
to specific features of vehicle design that make some
maneuvers, such as turning, difficult on pavement. These
concerns do not apply equally to all OHVs: Some are
inherently more stable and protective of occupants than
others, and may even have been designed for on-road use.
However, this bill does not make any distinctions between
types of OHVs that are allowed on combined-use roads.
7) Regulated use versus increasing use. Supporters of this
bill argue that making it easier for OHV users to legally
access trails and services makes it less likely that these
individuals will access trails and services illegally, in
ways that are more likely to damage the environment or
threaten public safety. Opponents point out that increasing
the convenience of OHV recreation may attract additional OHV
users to the existing trail system, resulting in greater
damage to the environment and potential for injury.
8) What do the data show? With respect to safety, OHV use of
existing trails, OHV incursions into areas not designated
for their use, and impact of OHVs on non-motorized
recreation, neither Inyo County staff nor the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), which manages the affected OHV trails, has
observed any changes since the combined-use segments were
opened. However, Inyo County submitted its report on the
pilot program on December 15, 2015, less than six months
after the opening of the three combined-use routes currently
SB 1345
Page 7
authorized under the program. Supporters of this
legislation argue that extending the sunset is necessary to
obtain a more complete picture of the effect of longer
combined-use segments on traffic safety, the behavior of OHV
drivers, and the experiences of other recreationalists.
9) Gauging change. The December 2015 report on the Inyo
County pilot program notes that the BLM, which manages the
OHV trails at the end of all three currently open
combined-use roads, is tracking use of these areas with
grant funds that did not become available until this year.
Because there is no data on OHV use of these areas prior to
the implementation of the pilot program, it will not be
possible to determine whether OHV use increased once the
program was initiated. This example illustrates the
difficulty of drawing meaningful conclusions about how this
type of policy affects OHV user behavior, since the OHV
trails that are linked via combined-use roads are likely not
to be the subject of robust monitoring, and in many cases
are not under the jurisdiction of the state.
10) Contiguous segments. Existing law defines a combined-use
segment as a stretch of road connecting an OHV park or trail
to an OHV service (e.g., motels, campgrounds) and limits
each segment to 10 miles in length. It does not explicitly
limit contiguous 10-mile segments, however, and Inyo County
has approved several adjacent segments under existing law.
Supporters of this bill argue that contiguous segments are
within the scope of existing law, since a single OHV
trailhead may be within 10 miles of services that are
located in two different locations. Opponents of the bill
argue that such "daisy-chaining" of segments is not
consistent with the intent of existing law because it
results in stretches of combined-use road greater than 10
miles in length. Amendments taken in the Assembly
Transportation Committee allow two combined-use road
segments to share a common starting point or ending point as
long as the resulting network does not include more than
three distinct locations of shared starting or ending
points. These amendments are intended to impose some limits
on adjacent combined-use segments while still supporting the
public purpose of connecting OHV trails and parks with
SB 1345
Page 8
services. They also preserve the legality of the existing
network of approved segments.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill
will result in minor absorbable costs in 2018-19 for the CHP,
Caltrans, and DPR to assist the County with its evaluation of
the pilot project.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/11/16)
Inyo County Board of Supervisors
Lassen County
Rural County Representatives of California
Sierra County Board of Supervisors
2 individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/11/16)
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation
Sierra Club California
9 individuals
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth
Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,
Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper,
Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine,
Linder, Lopez, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
SB 1345
Page 9
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Roger Hernández, Low
Prepared by:Sarah Carvill / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
8/12/16 13:24:02
**** END ****