BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1670
Page 1
CORRECTED - 06/02/2010 Technical change (Member name)
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1670 (Beall)
As Amended April 5, 2010
Majority vote
TRANSPORTATION 14-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Jeffries, | | |
| |Bill Berryhill, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Blumenfield, Buchanan, | |Calderon, Coto, |
| |Eng, Furutani, Galgiani, | |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, |
| |Hayashi, Conway, Niello, | |Harkey, |
| |Norby, Portantino, | |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, |
| |Solorio | |Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson, |
| | | |Torrico |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Allows the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
to relinquish two specific segments of the state highway system.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes CTC to relinquish to the City of San Jose (City) an
11-mile portion of State Route (SR) 82 and a 2.25-mile portion
of SR 130, upon terms and conditions CTC finds to be in the
best interest of the state, if the department and the city
enter into an agreement providing for the relinquishments.
2)Provides that the relinquishments will become effective
immediately following the county recordation of the
relinquishment resolutions containing CTC's approval of the
specified terms and conditions.
3)Specifies that, following the effective date of
relinquishment, the relinquished segments will no longer be
state highways and may not be considered for future adoption
as state highways.
4)Requires the City to ensure continuity of traffic flow,
AB 1670
Page 2
maintain traffic signal progression, and maintain signs along
the segments in their jurisdiction directing motorists to the
continuation of the respective state routes.
EXISTING LAW :
5)Statutorily identifies state highway system routes.
6)Defines "state highway" as any roadway that is acquired, laid
out, constructed, improved, or maintained as a state highway
pursuant to constitutional or legislative authorization.
7)Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the
prescribed routes of the state highway system 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.
8)Provides for the expansion or deletion of the state highway
system through a process whereby CTC makes a finding that it
is in the best interest of the state to include or delete a
specified portion of roadway to the system.
9)Provides for the relinquishment of a portion of state highway
to a city or county under an agreement between the local
jurisdiction and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
when an act of the Legislature has deleted the portion of
highway from the state highway system.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to Appropriations Committee:
1)Potentially moderate one-time costs (perhaps in the hundreds
of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the outcome
of negotiations between Caltrans and the City and on CTC
approval;
2)Long-term maintenance and repair savings to Caltrans if the
CTC exercises its authority to relinquish these highway
segments.
COMMENTS : Each session, numerous bills authorizing CTC to
relinquish segments of the state highway segments to local
jurisdictions are passed by the Legislature and signed by the
Governor. Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by
AB 1670
Page 3
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. The final step is for
the Legislature to delete these segments from current law.
State highway relinquishments provide recipient agencies with
greater control over a local transportation segment and relieve
Caltrans of any further responsibility to improve, maintain, or
repair it.
SR 82 and SR 130, commonly referred to as the Alameda and
Monterey Highway (SR 82) and Alum Rock Avenue (SR 130), serve
primarily as urban arterials within the City of San Jose. The
City is seeking control of these highway segments so that it
may pursue economic development and community enhancements
without the constraints of Caltrans' requirements.
According to the author's office, the City and Caltrans have
engaged in discussions regarding the proposed relinquishments
and Caltrans has indicated its support.
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0004681