BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 628
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 628 (Conway) - As Amended: April 25, 2011
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:8-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes Inyo County, with the approval of the Board
of Supervisors, to establish an off-highway vehicle (OHV) pilot
project to designate combined-use highways on unincorporated
roads in Inyo County under which the combined-use roads may
exceed three miles in length. The bill also requires the
county, by January 1, 2016, and in consultation with the
California Highway Patrol (CHP), the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR), to submit an evaluation of the pilot program
to the Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor, absorbable costs in 2014-15 and 2015-16 to Caltrans,
CHP and DPR to evaluate the pilot project.
2)Unknown, potentially significant legal liabilities to the
state associated with potential injuries.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author intends this bill to encourage OHV use
in Inyo County, thereby boosting the local OHV-tourism
economy. The author describes this bill as incorporating
concerns CHP had about a similar bill the author introduced in
2010.
2)Background . Current law generally prohibits a vehicle
registered as an OHV from being operated on public streets and
highways, except to cross the highway or under the condition
AB 628
Page 2
that a local authority, a federal government agency, or the
Department of Parks and Recreations, designates a segment
under their jurisdiction for combined use of OHVs and regular
traffic. Such a highway segment cannot be longer than three
miles. It is also unlawful to operate an OHV on a designated
combined-use highway during darkness, without a stop light and
rubber tires, and without a driver's license appropriate for
the class of vehicle being operated.
3)Related Legislation. In 2010, this author introduced AB 2338,
which would have authorized OHVs to operate on county roads in
unincorporated areas of Inyo County, under certain conditions.
The bill was passed the Assembly 76-0 and the Senate 34-0 but
was vetoed by the governor, who cited concern that the bill
could expose the state to legal liability. CHP continues to
express concerns with this bill about state liability.
4)Support. This bill is supported by the Inyo County Board of
Supervisors, the Regional Council of Rural Counties and a
number of local interests supportive of or who benefit from
OHV use in Inyo County.
5)Opposition. The bill is opposed by the Western San Bernardino
County Landowners' Association, the Sierra Club and others
concerned about the effect of OHV use on the people and
wildlife of Inyo County.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081