Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.

Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Watt Avenue, under certain conditions.

This bill would revise this authorization to apply to a specified portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, between the general easterly city limits of the City of Sacramento and near Grant Line Road, and would impose additional conditions on the relinquishment. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

This bill would also authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova a specified portion of State Highway Route 16, under certain conditions.

Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.

Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Watt Avenue, under certain conditions.

This bill would revise this authorization to apply to a specified portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, between the general easterly city limits of the City of Sacramento and near Grant Line Road, and would impose additional conditions on the relinquishment. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

This bill would also authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova a specified portion of State Highway Route 16, under certain conditions.

Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.

Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Watt Avenue, under certain conditions.

This bill would revise this authorization to apply to a specified portions portion of State Highway Route 16 between South Watt Avenue that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, between the general easterly city limits of the City of Sacramento and near Grant Line Road, and would impose additional conditions on the relinquishment. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

This bill would also authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova a specified portion of State Highway Route 16, under certain conditions.

Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.

Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Watt Avenue, under certain conditions.

This bill would revise this authorization to apply to specified portions of State Highway Route 16 between South Watt Avenue and Grant Line Road, and would impose additional conditions on the relinquishment. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

This bill would also authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova a specified portion of State Highway Route 16, under certain conditions.

Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.

Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Watt Avenue, under certain conditions.

This bill would extend revise this authorization to the portion apply to specified portions of State Highway Route 16 that is east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of between South Watt Avenue and Grant Line Road Road, and would impose additional conditions on the relinquishment. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.

Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Watt Avenue, under certain conditions.

This bill would extend this authorization to the portion of State Highway Route 16 that is east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Grant Line Road. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 652 (Cooley) - State Highway Route 16: relinquishment.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 27, 2015

Bill Summary:

AB 652 would authorize the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish specified portions of State Highway Route (SR) 16 to the County of Sacramento and the City of Rancho Cordova.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown one-time costs ranging from minor up to $5-8 million to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prior to the relinquishment of the designated segments of SR 16 (State Highway Account). These costs would be offset in future years due to avoided maintenance costs on the relinquished segments.

Author Amendments:

Amendments make technical and clarifying changes to the description of the portion of SR 16 that is proposed for relinquishment.

-- END --

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 652

Author:(Cooley)

As Amended Ver:August 31, 2015

Majority vote

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.

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 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.

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.

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0001836

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 652

Author: Cooley (D), et al.

Amended: 8/31/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/23/15

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza

NOES: Bates

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 6/2/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: State Highway Route 16: relinquishment

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish segments of State Route (SR) 16 in the City of Rancho Cordova as well as in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Identifies the California state highway system through a description of segments of the state’s regional and interregional roads that are owned and operated by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Technically, a state highway is any roadway that Caltrans is legislatively authorized to acquire, lay out, construct, improve, or maintain. Existing law specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature for the routes of the state highway system to 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.

2. Provides a two-step process for the state to expand or delete a section of the state highway system that begins with the Legislature amending existing law and then CTC making findings that it is in the best interest of the state to include or delete a specified portion of roadway from the system. This is known as the state highway relinquishment process.

This bill:

1. Authorizes CTC to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova the westbound lanes of SR 16 between Sunrise Boulevard and Grant Line Road, upon terms and conditions approved by CTC.

2. Authorizes CTC to relinquish to Sacramento County the portion of SR 16 within the unincorporated area of the county that is between the easterly city limit of Sacramento and 0.2 miles east of Grant Line Road, except for the westbound lanes relinquished to Rancho Cordova, upon terms and conditions approved by CTC.

3. Provides that these relinquishments will become effective the date following the county recordation of the relinquishment resolution.

4. Specifies that following the effective date of these relinquishments, the relinquished segments will no longer be state highways and may not be considered for future adoption as a state highway.

5. Requires the City of Rancho Cordova and Sacramento County to apply for approval of a business route designation in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual.

6. Requires Sacramento County to:

1. Ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and to provide signage directing motorists to the continuation of SR 16.

2. Maintain the federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act truck route designation for SR 16.

3. Administer the operation and maintenance of the roadway consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.

4. Ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate decisions affecting traffic on the roadway.

Comments

Purpose. According to the author, planned local development will transform SR 16 into a route of both interregional and local significance. Sacramento County has major new development planned along the corridor, consistent with the region’s blueprint planning scenario, of over 55,000 new residential units and 19 million square feet of commercial and business space. The author contends that the state has long been interested in relinquishing this portion of SR 16 to local jurisdictions. This bill accomplishes that aim.

Relinquishments. Each session, the Legislature passes and the Governor signs numerous bills authorizing CTC to relinquish segments of the state highway system to local jurisdictions. Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by 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.

Of interest, the administration proposed budget trailer bill language this year intending to streamline the state’s relinquishment process. According to the Governor’s budget summary, a number of routes are still part of the state highway system that no longer serve an interregional purpose, and instead serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide system that primarily serve regional or local purposes. This could be a win-win proposal, with both locals and the state benefiting. On one hand, shifting ownership of these segments, many of which run through a downtown area, will increase local flexibility to add stoplights and make better use of valuable real estate to support transit‑oriented development. Meanwhile, additional relinquishments reduce the state’s long‑term costs for ongoing maintenance and repair of the state system. There is merit in a proposal streamlining the relinquishment process; however, it seems that such a proposal should be considered through the policy bill process and not as an add-on to the state’s annual budget.

Luckily, Senator Allen has authored SB 254, which proposes a similar streamlining process and is progressing as a regular policy bill. SB 254 is pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

SR 16 history. In 2014, the Legislature passed and the governor signed AB 1957 (Dickinson, Chapter 95), which authorized the CTC to relinquish segments of SR 16 in the City of Sacramento as well as in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County. This bill expands that relinquishment further east, incorporating the southern boundary of Rancho Cordova.

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) has opposed the relinquishment. ACTC, along with the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), argues that SR 16 is a vital interregional connecting highway. They contend that it is important to safeguard the route’s “flow times” and they 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.

The bill’s author has taken some amendments intended to assuage ACTC and RCRC’s opposition. Understandably, ACTC and RCRC are concerned for the impact that encroaching urban development will have on Amador County residents and visitors who use SR 16. But as “unfair” as ACTC views Sacramento County’s planned development, which made the relinquishment request necessary, the idea that a neighboring county could impose the magnitude of conditions that ACTC is proposing on Sacramento County is unreasonable. Furthermore, development in Sacramento County is going to happen regardless of the relinquishment, and Amador residents will be impacted. It seems reasonable that the development be served by a planned, thoughtful transportation network rather than a hodgepodge relic of a previously rural highway.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill may incur 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 costs would be offset in future years due to avoided maintenance costs on the relinquished segments.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/15)

City of Rancho Cordova

City of Sacramento

County of Sacramento

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

Stonebridge Properties

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/15)

Amador County Transportation Commission

Calaveras Council of Governments

Rural County Representatives of California

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 6/2/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Chávez, Grove

Prepared by: Eric Thronson / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121

8/31/15 16:04:58

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 652 (Cooley) - State Highway Route 16: relinquishment

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 652 would authorize the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish specified portions of State Highway Route (SR) 16 to the County of Sacramento and the City of Rancho Cordova.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown one-time costs ranging from minor up to $5-8 million to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prior to the relinquishment of the designated segments of SR 16 (State Highway Account). These costs would be offset in future years due to avoided maintenance costs on the relinquished segments.

Background:

The Legislature has provided statutory authorization to CTC to relinquish a number of state highway segments to local jurisdictions under specified conditions. Relinquishment provides the recipient agency with greater control over local transportation projects and relieves Caltrans of any further responsibility to improve, maintain, or repair infrastructure related to the relinquished segment of state highway. Generally, relinquishments are subject to terms and conditions of agreements between Caltrans and a local jurisdiction seeking control of a local highway segment. CTC must determine that the agreement for relinquishment, which has typically involved a one-time payment of State Highway Account funds to the local entity, is in the best interests of the state.

Historically, Caltrans has annually set aside $12 million of State Highway Operations and Protection Plan (SHOPP) funding for rehabilitation necessary for highway relinquishments. In recent years, however, Caltrans has not set aside funding to rehabilitate relinquished highways.

Proposed Law:

AB 652 would authorize CTC, upon a determination that the terms and conditions are in the best interests of the state, to relinquish the following segments of SR16, as specified:

• The westbound lanes of SR 16 between Sunrise Boulevard and Grant Line Road to the City of Rancho Cordova.

• The portion of SR 16 within the unincorporated area of the county that is between Watt Avenue and 0.2 miles east of Grant Line Road to Sacramento County, except the westbound lands proposed for relinquishment to Rancho Cordova.

The relinquished segments would cease to be a part of the state highway system, and would be ineligible for future adoption as a state highway. Rancho Cordova and Sacramento County would be responsible for installing signs directing motorists to the continuation of SR 16 and for applying for approval of a business route designation for the relinquished segments, as specified.

In addition, the bill requires Sacramento County to:

• Maintain the Surface Transportation Assistance Act truck route designation.

• Ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression.

• Administer the operation and maintenance of the roadway consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.

• Ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate decisions affecting traffic on the roadway.

Finally, the bill includes legislative intent that Sacramento County notify and consult with the Amador County Transportation Commission, the Counties of Amador, Calaveras, and Alpine, the Cities of Plymouth, Amador City, Sutter Creek, and Jackson, and other relevant parties about any proposed relinquishment of SR 16 to Sacramento County.

Related Legislation:

AB 1957 (Dickinson, Ch. 95/2014) authorized CTC to relinquish to the City of Sacramento the portion of SR 16 within the city limits and to relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of SR 16 within the unincorporated area of the county that is east of the city boundary and west of Watt Avenue.

Staff notes that the Governor proposed budget trailer bill language this year that is intended to broaden and streamline the state process for relinquishing state highway routes that are deemed to no longer serve an interregional purpose, and instead operate primarily as regional or local routes. The Senate Budget Subcommittee #2 rejected the trailer bill proposal at its hearing on April 16, 2015, without prejudice, so that it could be considered instead by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

SB 254 (Allen), currently pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee, is the legislative vehicle for the trailer bill language. That bill would establish procedures for the administrative relinquishment of state highway segments that do not serve an interregional purpose.

Staff Comments:

Relinquishment of this segment of SR 16 would allow Sacramento County to assume direct control of the roughly 8.4 miles of roadway in the unincorporated area between South Watt Avenue and Grant Line Road. The County has planned major new development along the corridor that consists of over 55,000 new residential units and 19 million square feet of commercial space. In conjunction with the new development, the County plans to convert the current two-lane highway into a six-lane arterial throroughfare roadway with enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Transferring control of the roadway to the County allows for the construction of improvements and enhancements without the constraints of Caltrans’ state highway design standards, encroachment permit processes, and other state requirements.

Caltrans usually provides State Highway Account funding to a local entity that is assuming control over state highway segments in order to bring the roadway up to a “state of good repair,” although there is no statutory obligation to do so. The actual amounts vary for each relinquished highway segment and are determined by a negotiation of terms and conditions between Caltrans and the local jurisdiction, but those costs are based upon a cost-benefit analysis covering a ten-year period, which is included in a Project Scope Summary Report prepared for legislative relinquishments.

Caltrans has not identified a specific cost estimate for the relinquishment of this segment, but based on other relinquishments, one-time costs may range from minimal up to $1 million per centerline mile of roadway depending on numerous factors such as roadway condition, projected maintenance costs, and any planned capital projects. The segment of SR 16 specified in the bill is approximately 8.4 miles long, so initial costs could be minimal but may be as high as $5-8 million dollars to the extent historical costs would apply to SR 16. The relinquishment of these segments would relieve Caltrans of any future maintenance and repair costs, resulting in unknown long-term annual savings.

Actual costs and savings would be more certain if legislation to authorize relinquishment followed, rather than preceded, the completion of the cost-benefit analysis and an agreement between Caltrans and Sacramento County. However, Caltrans does not typically conduct the analysis and enter into negotiations until legislative authority for relinquishment has been provided.

Staff notes that SR 16 is defined in statute as an interregional route with potentially greater significance to the state highway system than other segments that are typically proposed for relinquishment. Opponents in the more rural areas east of Sacramento County have raised concerns about the potential impacts that the proposed development and changes to the roadway would have on traffic flow coming into the Sacramento region along SR 16. While the addition of traffic control devices along the corridor proposed for relinquishment and the additional traffic expected as a result of the proposed development will undoubtedly impact traffic flow, the development will occur regardless of the relinquishment. Decisions regarding the impacts that the proposed development will have on traffic flow patterns are a local planning matter for which input may be provided by all interested parties. The bill includes language to ensure decisions related to roadway and traffic configurations are based upon sound data and appropriate standards, and to encourage collaboration with affected jurisdictions. It should be noted that the eastern terminus of the proposed relinquishment is at the outside border of Sacramento County’s future development boundary, which is over 11 miles west of the Sacramento/Amador County line.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 652 Hearing Date: 6/23/2015

SUBJECT: State Highway Route 16: relinquishment.

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish segments of State Route (SR) 16 in the City of Rancho Cordova as well as in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Identifies the California state highway system through a description of segments of the state’s regional and interregional roads that are owned and operated by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Technically, a state highway is any roadway that Caltrans is legislatively authorized to acquire, lay out, construct, improve, or maintain. Existing law specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature for the routes of the state highway system to 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.

2. Provides a two-step process for the state to expand or delete a section of the state highway system that begins with the Legislature amending existing law and then CTC making findings that it is in the best interest of the state to include or delete a specified portion of roadway from the system. This is known as the state highway relinquishment process.

This bill:

1. Authorizes CTC to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova the westbound lanes of SR 16 between Sunrise Boulevard and Grant Line Road, upon terms and conditions approved by CTC.

2. Authorizes CTC to relinquish to Sacramento County the portion of SR 16 within the unincorporated area of the county that is between Watt Avenue and 0.2 miles east of grant Line Road, except for the westbound lanes relinquished to Rancho Cordova, upon terms and conditions approved by CTC.

3. Provides that these relinquishments will become effective the date following the county recordation of the relinquishment resolution.

4. Specifies that following the effective date of these relinquishments, the relinquished segments will no longer be state highways and may not be considered for future adoption as a state highway.

5. Requires the City of Rancho Cordova and Sacramento County to apply for approval of a business route designation in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual.

6. Requires Sacramento County to:

1. Ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and to provide signage directing motorists to the continuation of SR 16.

2. Maintain the federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act truck route designation for SR 16.

3. Administer the operation and maintenance of the roadway consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.

4. Ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate decisions affecting traffic on the roadway.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, planned local development will transform SR 16 into a route of both interregional and local significance. Sacramento County has major new development planned along the corridor, consistent with the region’s blueprint planning scenario, of over 55,000 new residential units and 19 million square feet of commercial and business space. The author contends that the state has long been interested in relinquishing this portion of SR 16 to local jurisdictions. This bill accomplishes that aim.

2. Relinquishments. Each session, the Legislature passes and the governor signs numerous bills authorizing CTC to relinquish segments of the state highway system to local jurisdictions. Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by 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.

Of interest, the administration proposed budget trailer bill language this year intending to streamline the state’s relinquishment process. According to the governor’s budget summary, a number of routes are still part of the state highway system that no longer serve an interregional purpose, and instead serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide system that primarily serve regional or local purposes. This could be a win-win proposal, with both locals and the state benefiting. On one hand, shifting ownership of these segments, many of which run through a downtown area, will increase local flexibility to add stoplights and make better use of valuable real estate to support transit‑oriented development. Meanwhile, additional relinquishments reduce the state’s long‑term costs for ongoing maintenance and repair of the state system. There is merit in a proposal streamlining the relinquishment process; however, it seems that such a proposal should be considered through the policy bill process and not as an add-on to the state’s annual budget.

Luckily, Senator Allen has authored Senate Bill 254, which proposes a similar streamlining process and is progressing as a regular policy bill. SB 254 is pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

3. SR 16 history. In 2014, the Legislature passed and the governor signed AB 1957 (Dickinson, Chapter 95), which authorized the CTC to relinquish segments of SR 16 in the City of Sacramento as well as in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County. This bill expands that relinquishment further east, incorporating the southern boundary of Rancho Cordova.

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) has opposed the relinquishment. ACTC, along with the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), argue that SR 16 is a vital interregional connecting highway. They contend that it is important to safeguard the route’s “flow times” and they 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.

The bill’s author has taken some amendments intended to assuage ACTC and RCRC’s opposition. Understandably, ACTC and RCRC are concerned for the impact that encroaching urban development will have on Amador County residents and visitors who use SR 16. But as “unfair” as ACTC views Sacramento County’s planned development, which made the relinquishment request necessary, the idea that a neighboring county could impose the magnitude of conditions that ACTC is proposing on Sacramento County is unreasonable. Furthermore, development in Sacramento County is going to happen regardless of the relinquishment, and Amador residents will be impacted. It seems reasonable that the development be served by a planned, thoughtful transportation network rather than a hodgepodge relic of a previously rural highway.

Related Legislation:

SB 254 (Allen) — streamlines the state’s highway relinquishment process to not include legislative approval of each relinquished segment. This bill is pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

SB 461 (Hernandez) — authorizes the CTC to relinquish to Los Angeles County a segment of SR 164 south of Temple City. This bill is pending referral in the Assembly Rules Committee.

AB 218 (Melendez) — authorizes the CTC to relinquish to Riverside County a segment of SR 74 between Lake Elsinore and Perris. This bill is also being heard in this committee today.

AB 1957 (Dickinson, Chapter 95, Statutes of 2014) — authorized the CTC to relinquish segments of SR 16 in the City of Sacramento as well as in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County.

Assembly Votes:

Floor: 77-0

Appr: 16-0

Trans: 11-0

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 17, 2015.)

SUPPORT:

City of Rancho Cordova

City of Sacramento

County of Sacramento

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

Stonebridge Properties

OPPOSITION:

Amador County Transportation Commission

Rural County Representatives of California

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 652

Author:(Cooley)

As Amended Ver:May 28, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish a portion of State Route (SR) 16 to Sacramento County. Specifically, this bill:

1. Declares 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.

2. Authorizes 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. Requires 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. Requires that the relinquished portion of SR 16 be ineligible for future adoption as a state highway.

5. Requires the County of Sacramento to install and maintain signs in its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of SR 16.

6. Requires that the County of Sacramento maintain the designated truck route for the relinquished portion of SR 16.

7. Requires the County of Sacramento to ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished segment.

8. Requires 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 Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Potentially moderate one-time costs (State Highway Account [SHA]) depending on the outcome of negotiations between Caltrans and the city and county and a determination by Caltrans that the relinquishment is in the best interest of the state.

2. Moderate long-term maintenance and repair savings to Caltrans, if the CTC exercises its authority to relinquish the highway segment.

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.

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 full discussion of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000708

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 652

Author:(Cooley) – As Introduced Ver:February 24, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill:

1. Expands a highway relinquishment authorized last year, allowing the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish the portion of State Route (SR) 16 east of Watt Avenue and west of Grant Line Road to Sacramento County.

2. Declares legislative intent that the County notify and consult with the Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC), the Counties of Amador, Calaveras, and Alpine, and the Cities of Plymouth, Amador City, Sutter Creek, and Jackson and other relevant parties about the proposed relinquishment.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Potentially moderate one-time costs (State Highway Account [SHA]) depending on the outcome of negotiations between Caltrans and the County and a determination by Caltrans that the relinquishment is in the best interest of the state. (See Comment #1)
   
   

2. Moderate long-term maintenance and repair savings to Caltrans, if the CTC exercises its authority to relinquish the highway segment.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Legislation is required before any segment of state highway can be relinquished to another governmental entity. Relinquishment provides the recipient agency with more control over a local transportation project and relieves Caltrans of further responsibility to improve, maintain, or repair infrastructure related to the relinquished state highway segment.

According to Caltrans, in recent years the initial cost of relinquishments has ranged from $0 to over $1 million per centerline mile. These costs are driven by a number of factors, including roadway condition, projected maintenance costs and any planned capital projects. The actual cost of a particular relinquishment is negotiated directly with the local agency, but must be based on a cost-benefit analysis using a 10-year analysis period. Prior to this analysis, the baseline cost is assumed to be $0. All proposed costs beyond the baseline are subject to review and approval by the Department's Relinquishment Advisory Committee to ensure statewide consistency in application of the established evaluation criteria.

2. Purpose. AB 1957 (Dickinson), Chapter 335, Statutes of 2014, authorized the CTC to relinquish segments of SR 16 in the City of Sacramento as well as in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County. Earlier versions of AB 1957 included the segment of SR 16 (east of Watt Avenue to Grant Line Road) addressed in this bill, however that segment, which is the subject of this bill, was deleted from AB 1957 to address concerns, raised by ACTA, 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.

Caltrans indicates it has no plans to improve this segment of SR 16 in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the department contends that, since 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 expects that it would be difficult and costly to retroactively complete improvements needed to serve the development.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 652

Author:(Cooley) – As Introduced Ver:February 24, 2015

SUBJECT: State Highway Route 16: relinquishment: County of Sacramento

SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish a portion of State Route (SR) 16 between east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Grant Line Road to the County of Sacramento. Specifically, this bill:

1. Declares 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.

2. Authorizes the CTC to relinquish the portion of SR 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of that county, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Grant Line Road, if the County agrees to accept it.

3. Requires 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. Requires that the relinquished portion of SR 16 be ineligible for future adoption as a state highway.

5. Requires the County of Sacramento to install and maintain signs in its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of SR 16.

6. Requires that the County of Sacramento maintain the designated truck route for the relinquished portion of SR 16.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines SR 16 as an eligible interregional route.

2. Defines a "state highway" as any roadway that is acquired, laid out, constructed, improved, or maintained as a state highway pursuant to constitutional or legislative authorization.

3. Statutorily identifies state highway system routes.

4. Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the prescribed routes of the state highway system connect 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.

5. Authorizes the relinquishment of a segment of SR 16 between the Sacramento city limit and west of Watt Avenue.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

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 California Department of Transportation (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.

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 ACTC opposes the relinquishment. ACTC, along with the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) argue that SR 16 is a vital interregional connecting highway. They contend that it is important to safeguard the route's "flow times" and they 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.

These arguments, however, do not assuage the opposition's concerns and they are seeking amendments to the bill that would impose conditions on the relinquishment and restrictions on Sacramento County's planned improvements. Specifically, ACTC's proposed amendments would condition the relinquishment and require Sacramento County to, among other things, administer the operation and maintenance of the highway in a way that is consistent with professional traffic engineering standards that are applicable to interregional routes , ensure traffic studies are performed to substantiate decisions that may affect interregional travel, and fund improvements to certain roadways (not located in Sacramento County) to ensure connectivity to nearby SR 50.

Committee concerns: Understandably, ACTC and RCRC are concerned for the impact that encroaching urban development will have on Amador County residents and visitors who use
SR 16. But as "unfair" as ACTC views Sacramento County's planned development, which made the relinquishment request necessary, the idea that a neighboring county could impose the magnitude of conditions that ACTC is proposing on Sacramento County is unreasonable. Furthermore, development in Sacramento County is going to happen regardless of the relinquishment, and Amador residents will be impacted. It makes more sense that the development be served by a planned, thoughtful transportation network rather than a hodgepodge relic of a previously rural highway.

Related legislation: The administration is proposing a budget trailer bill to, among other things, establish an administrative process to relinquish state highways.

Previous legislation: AB 1957 (Dickinson), Chapter 335, Statues of 2014, authorized the CTC to relinquish segments of SR 16 in the City of Sacramento as well as in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County. Earlier versions of AB 1957 included the segment of SR 16 (west of Watt Avenue to Grant Line Road) that is addressed in this bill however the segment, which is the subject of this bill, was deleted from AB 1957 to address concerns raised by ACTA.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of Sacramento

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

Stonebridge Properties, Inc.

Opposition

Amador County Transportation Commission

Rural County Representatives of California

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093