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 ****