🛣 Updates to the California Highways Web Pages | August – November 2019

As promised, the posting of the November headlines was the lead in to the bigger post: the semi-periodic update to the California Highways web pages.  This took a month to work in: reviewing four months of headlines, loads of posts on AAroads, all the stuff the legislature has done, and the CTC minutes for August, October, and December. I’ve also started adding pictures, where I can, where there are naming resolutions — to put a face with the name. Here’s the summary of the changes. Lots of interesting stuff, if you read through.

It’s been a few months. That means it’s time for another update. But first, some site redesign news … which is still no news. I have written a Javascript routine to handle the redirects once I move the individual route pages to one per page, so that old links don’t break. But other aspects are still pending my learning more about responsive design, and figure out how I want to improve indexing of the original route pages (I want to make it so you can jump directly to a section or subsection). I also still need to figure out exactly how I want the site to look. On the editor front: I’m still using Amaya as the main editor even thought it is no longer updated. I’ve been experimenting with both BlueGriffon and Pinegrow to see which generates the cleanest code and is easiest to use. But each has their quirks in the code that they generate.

I’ve also been hesitant in this update because of the Caltrans rework I mentioned in the last update. Many typical resources and pages are not available and are still pending remediation. My offer still stands to Caltrans: I will be glad to host any unremediated information — or will find someone to do so if the information doesn’t fit in this site — pending remediation and rehosting on the Caltrans website. I am already hosting the Bridge Logs on my my Caltrans Resources page.

Moving on to the updates, starting with headlines, emailed items, and AAroads forum updates: Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the papers (which are posted to the roadgeeking category at the “Observations Along The Road” and to the California Highways Facebook group) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research⁽¹⁾, contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Brian Scott Anderson⁽²⁾, Mike Ballard⁽³⁾, Concrete Bob on AARoads⁽⁴⁾, Mike Boultinghouse⁽⁵⁾, DT Composer on AARoads⁽⁶⁾, Sahand Cyrusian⁽⁷⁾, Tom Fearer⁽⁸⁾, Mark Fuqueron⁽⁹⁾, Jeffe at AARoads⁽¹⁰⁾, Nick Karels⁽¹¹⁾, Cameron Kaiser on AARoads⁽¹²⁾, Plutonic Panda on AARoads⁽¹³⁾, Scott Parker on AARoads⁽¹⁴⁾, Chris Sampang on AARoads⁽¹⁵⁾: Route 1^(1,8), Route 2⁽¹⁾, I-5^(1,14), US 6⁽³⁾, Route 7⁽¹⁾, I-10⁽¹⁾, LRN 10⁽⁸⁾, Route 11⁽¹⁾, Route 12^(1,11), Pre-1963 Route 14^(1,14), I-15⁽¹²⁾, Route 16⁽¹⁾, Route 18^(1,8,14), Route 20⁽¹⁾, Route 21⁽⁸⁾, Route 23⁽¹⁾, Route 24⁽⁸⁾, Route 25⁽¹⁾, Route 29⁽¹⁾, Route 34^(1,8), Route 35⁽¹⁾, Route 37⁽¹⁾, Route 39⁽¹⁾, US 40^(8,14), Route 44⁽¹⁾, Route 46⁽¹⁾, US 40⁽⁸⁾, US 50^(1,8), Route 53⁽¹⁾, Route 58^(1,8), Route 60⁽¹⁾, US 60⁽⁸⁾, Route 61⁽¹⁾, Route 63^(1,8), Route 65^(8,4), US 66⁽⁵⁾, Route 68⁽¹⁾, Route 70⁽¹⁾, US 70⁽⁸⁾, Route 71^(1,14), Route 74^(1,8), Route 75⁽¹⁾, Route 78⁽¹⁾, Route 79^(1,8,14), I-80⁽¹⁾, Route 82⁽¹⁾, Route 83^(1,8,14), Route 84⁽¹⁾, Route 88⁽¹⁾, Route 89⁽¹⁾, Route 91^(1,8,13), US 91^(1,14), Route 92⁽¹⁾, Route 99⁽¹⁾, US 99^(2,3,8), US 101^(1,8,10), Route 102⁽⁸⁾, Route 104⁽¹⁾, Route 107⁽¹⁴⁾, Route 110⁽¹⁾, Route 111^(1,8), Route 113⁽¹⁾, Route 118^(1,8), Route 119⁽¹⁾, Route 120⁽⁸⁾, Route 132^(1,8), Route 138 (High Desert Corridor)⁽¹⁾, Route 140⁽⁸⁾, Route 141⁽¹¹⁾, Route 143^(8,4), Route 144⁽⁸⁾, Route 145⁽¹⁾, LRN 146⁽¹⁾, Route 148⁽⁸⁾, Route 150⁽⁸⁾, Route 154^(8,6), Route 156⁽⁸⁾, Route 160^(1,8,14,15), Route 162^(1,8), Route 163⁽¹⁾, Route 165^(1,8), Route 168⁽⁸⁾, LRN 175⁽¹⁾, Route 177^(1,8), Route 178⁽⁸⁾, LRN 178⁽¹⁾, LRN 181⁽¹⁾, Route 183⁽⁸⁾, Route 189⁽⁸⁾, Route 192^(1,8), Route 193^(8,14), Route 195^(1,8), Route 198⁽⁸⁾, I-210⁽¹⁾, Route 214⁽¹⁾, Route 217⁽⁸⁾, Route 220⁽¹⁾, Route 221^(1,8,14), Route 224⁽⁸⁾, Route 225⁽⁸⁾, Route 227⁽¹⁾, Route 231⁽⁸⁾, Route 232⁽⁸⁾, Route 237⁽¹⁾, Route 239⁽⁸⁾, Route 241^(1,9,13), Route 243^(1,8), Route 244^(8,4), Route 246⁽⁸⁾, Route 257⁽¹⁴⁾, Route 282⁽¹⁾, Route 371^(1,8,14), I-380⁽¹⁾, US 395⁽¹⁾, I-405⁽¹⁾, I-580^(1,8), I-605⁽¹⁾, I-680^(1,8), I-710⁽¹⁾, Route 740⁽⁸⁾, County Sign Route B1^(1,8), County Sign Route G4⁽¹⁾, County Sign Route J4⁽⁸⁾, County Sign Route J14^(1,8), County Sign Route J19^(1,8,14), County Sign Route J132⁽⁸⁾, County Sign Route R1⁽⁸⁾, County Sign Route R3^(1,8), County Sign Route S32⁽¹⁾, CR 66⁽⁷⁾.

Added some more information to the El Camino Real page. Updated information on the numbering of Forest Routes.

Noted the following Caltrans pages are still broken: All the links to the highway exit numbering PDFs from Cal-Nexus.

I have made the decision that, for the naming resolutions, I’ve decided to start putting pictures of the honoree or dedication if I can find them. Our remembrances need to be more than a meaningless name on a highway. Although I believe there are better ways to remember someone than naming a stretch of road after them, if the family is going to go to that effort, I should make the effort to make the backstory on the person available, and to put a face with the name. This will be done piecemeal as I work on pages, but as of the time I have uploaded this, I have completed Route 1 through Route 5.

Reviewed the Pending Legislation page, based on the new California Legislature site. As usual, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. As many people are unfamilair with how the legislature operates (and why there are so many “non-substantive changes” and “gut and amend” bills), I’ve added the legislative calendar to the end of the Pending Legislation page. I’ll slowly be going back and adding pictures as I have the time. I noted the passage or veto of the following bills and resolutions:

• AB 29 (Holden) State Highway Route 710.
  (1) Existing law provides, notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, that the preliminary project alternative referred to as Alternative F-6 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority is no longer deemed to be a feasible alternative for consideration in any state environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project.This bill would revise this provision to instead provide that the preliminary project alternatives referred to as Alternative F-5, F-6, and F-7 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority and any other freeway or tunnel alternatives to close the Interstate 710 North Gap are no longer deemed to be feasible alternatives for consideration in any environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project.

  (2) Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways and associated property. Existing law designates and describes state highway routes, and also describes the state highway routes in the California freeway and expressway system, including all of Route 710 in the County of Los Angeles.

  This bill would, on January 1, 2024, remove from the California freeway and expressway system the portion of Route 710 between Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles and California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena.

  Note: This bill and SB7 addressed the same subject, and SB7 was signed after this. Thus, SB7 takes precedence.
  10/12/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 791, Statutes of 2019.

• SB 7 (Portantino) State Highway Route 710.
  (1) Existing law establishes priorities and procedures that any state agency disposing of surplus residential property is required to follow. Under existing law, specified single-family residences must first be offered to their former owners or present occupants, as specified. Existing law also gives tenants in good standing of nonresidential properties priority to purchase, at fair market value, the property they rent, lease, or otherwise legally occupy.This bill would require a state agency to give priority to a tenant in good standing of a nonresidential property to purchase, at the lesser of fair market value or value in use, as defined, if the tenant is a city or a nonprofit organization, as specified. The bill would prohibit the Department of Transportation from selling a nonresidential property to a tenant described above at a value below the minimum sales price, as defined in the department’s Affordable Sales Program as of July 1, 2019. The bill would require the selling agency, if a nonresidential property is offered at a price that is less than fair market value, to impose appropriate terms, conditions, and restrictions.

  (2) Existing law provides, notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, that the preliminary project alternative referred to as Alternative F-6 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is no longer deemed to be a feasible alternative for consideration in any state environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project.

  This bill would revise this provision to instead provide that the preliminary project alternatives referred to as Alternative F-5, F-6, and F-7 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and any other freeway or tunnel alternatives to close the Interstate 710 North Gap are no longer deemed to be feasible alternatives for consideration in any environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project.

  (3) Existing law prohibits the Department of Transportation, until January 1, 2020, from increasing the rent of tenants who reside in surplus residential property located within the State Route 710 corridor in the County of Los Angeles and who participate in the Affordable Rent Program administered by the department.

  This bill would make this prohibition permanent and would also provide that signatories of active rental agreements for residential property entered into with the department as of July 1, 2019, and continuously residing at the property since that date, may be eligible to participate in the department’s Affordable Rent Program.

  (4) Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways and associated property. Existing law designates and describes state highway routes, and also describes the state highway routes in the California freeway and expressway system, including all of State Highway Route 710 in the County of Los Angeles.

  This bill would, on January 1, 2024, remove from the California freeway and expressway system the portion of Route 710 between Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles and California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena.

  (5) Existing law establishes a process for the California Transportation Commission to adopt a highway on an authorized route, requires the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway portions that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment, and authorizes relinquishment in certain other cases.

  This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Pasadena the specified portions of Route 710 within its city limits, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

  Note: This bill and AB 29 addressed the same subject, but this bill was signed after AB29. This bill takes precedence. Note that this bill only changed the portion of Route 710 included in the Freeway and Expressway system. It did not change the definition of the Route 710 in the route definition portion of the Streets and Highway Code. Route 710 remains as being defined from Route 1 to Route 120.
  10/12/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 835, Statutes of 2019.

• AB 185 (Grayson and Cervantes) California Transportation Commission: transportation and transportation-related policies: joint meetings.
  Existing law creates the California Transportation Commission, with various powers and duties relative to the programming of transportation capital projects and allocation of funds to those projects pursuant to the state transportation improvement program and various other transportation funding programs. Existing law requires the commission and the State Air Resources Board to hold at least 2 joint meetings per calendar year to coordinate their implementation of transportation policies.This bill would instead require the commission, the state board, and a representative from the Department of Housing and Community Development to hold those joint meetings. meetings to coordinate their implementation of policies that jointly affect transportation, housing, and air quality.
  10/07/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 534, Statutes of 2019..
• AB 285 (Friedman) California Transportation Plan.
  Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to prepare the California Transportation Plan for submission to the Governor and the Legislature, to complete the first update to the plan by December 31, 2015, and to update the plan every 5 years thereafter. Existing law requires the plan to consider various subject areas for the movement of people and freight, including environmental protection and quality of life. Existing law also requires the plan to address how the state will achieve maximum feasible emissions reductions in order to attain a statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and to identify the statewide integrated multimodal transportation system needed to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions.This bill would require the department to address in the California Transportation Plan how the state will achieve maximum feasible emissions reductions in order to attain a statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 40% below 1990 levels by the end of 2030 and how the plan is consistent with, and supports attaining, all state ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality standards in all areas of the state as described in California’s state implementation plans required by the federal Clean Air Act. Commencing with the 3rd update to the plan to be completed by December 31, 2025, the bill would require the department to include a forecast of the impacts of advanced and emerging technologies over a 20-year horizon on infrastructure, access, and transportation systems and a review of the progress made implementing past California Transportation Plans. The bill would require the Strategic Growth Council to complete a report by January 31, 2022, that contains certain information with regard to the California Transportation Plan and other specified programs and planning requirements. The bill would add environmental justice to the subject areas that the plan is required to consider for the movement of people and freight.

  Note: The essence of this is to require the California Transportation Plan to consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. This will likely skew the Transportation Plan to lower emission options such as increased mass transit, rail systems (especially electrified rail), and other electrified low-emission options. It may also lower the precedence of route widening options, in deference to other options to move people and freight.
  10/08/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 605, Statutes of 2019.

• × AB 449 (Gallagher) Local alternative transportation improvement program: Feather River crossing. [Vetoed]
  Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of the state highway system and associated property. Existing law generally requires proceeds from the sale of excess state highway property to be made available for other highway purposes. Existing law generally provides for the California Transportation Commission to program available funding for transportation capital improvement projects, other than state highway rehabilitation projects, through the State Transportation Improvement Program process, with available funds subject to various fair share distribution formulas. Existing law, in certain cases, requires the commission to instead reallocate funds from canceled state highway projects to a local alternative transportation improvement program within the same county and exempts those funds from the fair share distribution formulas that would otherwise apply.This bill, with respect to planned state transportation facilities over the Feather River in the City of Yuba City and the Counties of Sutter and Yuba, which facilities are no longer planned to be constructed, would authorize the affected local agencies, acting jointly with the transportation planning agency having jurisdiction, to develop and file with the commission a local alternative transportation improvement program that addresses transportation problems and opportunities in the area that was to be served by the canceled state facilities. The bill would provide that the commission has the final authority regarding the content and approval of the local alternative, and would prohibit the commission from approving the local alternative if it is submitted after July 1, 2022. The bill would require all proceeds from the sale of certain excess properties acquired by the department for the canceled state facilities, less any reimbursements due to the federal government and costs incurred in the sale of those excess properties, to be allocated by the commission to fund the approved local alternative and would exempt those funds from the fair share distribution formulas that would otherwise apply to state transportation funds.
  09/27/19 Vetoed by the Governor. Returned to Senate. Consideration of Governor’s veto pending. Veto Message: These bills [AB 449 and SB 628] would direct revenue from the sale of excess state highway properties to local transportation projects. Existing law establishes a process for programming transportation projects and directs revenues from sales of excess Caltrans property to the General Fund to be used to pay for transportation debt service. These bills create an exception to existing law that would negatively impact the General Fund by millions of dollars. If other jurisdictions are provided similar exceptions, the General Fund would be exposed to additional revenue losses in the future..
• AB 991 (Gallagher) Maintenance of the codes.
  This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in various provisions of law to effectuate the recommendations made by the Legislative Counsel to the Legislature. Sections 263 and 264 impact the highway pages. Section 263 authorizes a value pricing program on US 101 in San Mateo County, and Section 264 changes the definition of Route 84. However, the specific changes made are non-substantial.
  10/03/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 497, Statutes of 2019.
• AB 1456 (Kiley) State highways: Route 193: relinquishment.
  Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for the California Transportation Commission to adopt a highway on an authorized route. Existing law requires the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway portions that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment, and authorizes relinquishment in certain other cases. Existing law acknowledges the relinquishment of a portion of Route 193 in the City of Lincoln, and requires the city to install and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 193 and to other routes, and to ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 193.This bill would repeal those requirements on the city. The bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Lincoln the portion of Route 193 within its city limits, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

  Note: The relinquishment language added by the bill isnt’ new: it was added in 2006, the segment was relinquished, and the language was removed in 2012 resulting in subsection (b). Perhaps they didn’t relinquish enough of the route in the city? The key element appears to be reducing the signage requirements on the city.
  10/08/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 629, Statutes of 2019.

• AB 1810 (Committee on Transportation) Transportation: omnibus bill.
  (4) Existing law authorizes the California Transportation Commission to adopt locations for state highways on routes authorized by law, and authorizes the relinquishment of certain segments of state highways from the state to local agencies if certain conditions are met. Existing law specifies the former portions of Route 72 that have been relinquished and are not state highways.This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Whittier and the County of Los Angeles the portion of Route 72 within their respective jurisdictional limits if the city and the county and the Department of Transportation enter into an agreement providing for the relinquishment, as specified.

  Note: If the relinquishment in (5) occurs, the only remaining portion of Route 72 is the portion in the City of La Habra, from Route 39 to Valley Home Avenue.
  10/08/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 636, Statutes of 2019.

• ACR 17 (Irwin) Sergeant Ronald “Ron” Lee Helus Memorial Highway.
  Designates the 3.424-mile portion of US 101 between Hampshire Road (VEN 1.622) and Lynn Road (VEN 5.046) in the County of Ventura as the Sergeant Ronald “Ron” Lee Helus Memorial Highway.
  07/23/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 120, Statutes of 2019.
• ACR 37 (Eduardo Garcia) Marine Corporal Erik H. Silva Memorial Bridge.
  Designates the Alamo River Bridge (IMP 10.09, Bridge 58 0292, Built 1959) on the Evan Hewes Highway (Route 115) at the entry to the City of Holtville, California, as the Marine Corporal Erik H. Silva Memorial Bridge.
  07/23/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 121, Statutes of 2019.
• × SB 127 (Wiener) Transportation funding: active transportation: complete streets. (VETOED)
  (1) Existing law establishes the Active Transportation Program in the Department of Transportation for the purpose of encouraging increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking, and declares the intent of the Legislature that the program achieve specific goals, including, among other things, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking and the safety and mobility for nonmotorized users.This bill would establish an Active Transportation Asset Branch within the Transportation Asset Management Office of the department and require the Transportation Asset Management Plan program manager to develop and meaningfully integrate performance measures into the asset management plan described in number (2) below and to establish interim goals, objectives, and actions to meet the department’s transportation mode shift goals, as specified.

  (2) Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control over the highways of the state and is responsible for preparing the State Highway Operation and Protection Program for the expenditure of transportation funds for major capital improvements that are necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system.

  Existing law also creates the California Transportation Commission, with specified powers and duties relative to the programming of transportation capital improvement projects and the allocation of state transportation funds for state transportation improvement projects. Existing law requires the department, in consultation with the commission, to prepare an asset management plan to guide selection of projects for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program consistent with any applicable state and federal requirements. Existing law requires the commission, in connection with the asset management plan, to adopt targets and performance measures reflecting state transportation goals and objectives.

  This bill would require the asset management plan to prescribe a process for community input and complete streets implementation to prioritize safety and accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on all State Highway Operation and Protection Program projects, as specified. The bill would require the department to include supplementary asset classes in the asset management plan for complete streets elements. The bill would require that projects starting in 2022 meet specified requirements set forth as part of the State Highway Operation and Protection Program.

  The bill would require the commission, in connection with the asset management plan, to adopt performance measures that include conditions of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, accessibility and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on the state highway system. The bill would require that the plain language performance report developed by the department, in consultation with the commission, include a description of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on each project, including the number, extent, and type of elements.

  The bill would require the department, commencing with the 2022 State Highway Operation and Protection Program, when undertaking a specified capital improvement project on a state highway or a local street crossing a state highway that is funded through the State Highway Operation and Protection Program, to include new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or improve existing facilities, as part of the project, consistent with specified requirements. The For each project development team that the department establishes for a project, the bill would require the department to include specified representatives on the team.

  Note: This was a significant bill, as it would have required complete street elements to be considered in all projects (i.e., pedestrians, bike lanes, etc.). It was vetoed by the governor.
  10/12/19 Vetoed by the Governor. In Senate. Consideration of Governor’s veto pending. Veto Message: I fully support improving facilities to increase walking, biking and accessing public transit. However, this bill creates a prescriptive and costly approach to achieve these objectives. By implementing my Executive Order N-19-19, Caltrans is increasing and accelerating its investments in active transportation where appropriate and feasible. I am committed to holding the department accountable to deliver more alternatives to driving while continuing to maintain our state’s highways and bridges. The new leadership we are putting in place at Caltrans will be key in implementing this vision and approach..

• SB 137 (Dodd) Federal transportation funds: state exchange programs.
  Existing federal law apportions transportation funds to the states under various programs, including the Surface Transportation Program and the Highway Safety Improvement Program, subject to certain conditions on the use of those funds. Existing law provides for the allocation of certain of those funds to local entities. Existing law provides for the exchange of federal and state transportation funds between local entities and the state under certain circumstances.Existing law requires that all moneys in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund derived from federal sources or from appropriations to other state agencies, or deposited in the account by local agencies or by others, to be continuously appropriated to, and available for expenditure by, the Department of Transportation for the purposes for which the money was made available, including, among other purposes, transportation improvements.

  This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to allow the above-described federal transportation funds that are allocated as local assistance to be exchanged for nonfederal State Highway Account funds appropriated to the department on a dollar-for-dollar basis for federal local assistance funds received by a city, county, or city and county, as specified. The bill would require, among other things, the total amount of federal funds exchanged to not exceed $100,000,000 during each federal fiscal year. The bill would also require the department to consult with the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties on implementation.

  Note: This essentially just impacted some funding allocations, basically allowing different colors of money to be used for highway purposes now to be exchanged for later funds.
  10/08/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 639, Statutes of 2019.

• SB 211 (Beall) State highways: leases.
  Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of the state highway system, including associated property. Existing law authorizes the department to lease certain property, including the area above or below a state highway, and certain property held for future highway purposes, to public agencies under specified terms and conditions. Existing law also authorizes the department to lease airspace under a freeway, or real property acquired for highway purposes, located in various cities and counties, that is not excess property, to specified entities for certain purposes, including for purposes of an emergency shelter or feeding program, subject to certain conditions.This bill would authorize the department to offer for lease to a city, county, political subdivision of a city or county, or state agency airspace and real property acquired for highway purposes that meets certain requirements for purposes of a temporary emergency shelter or feeding program. The bill would require the entity that enters into the lease to pay certain costs to the department including $1 per month for the lease and an annual administrative fee of up to $5,000, or no more than the department’s cost of administering the lease, not to exceed $15,000. The bill would authorize the lease to be terminated without penalty if the department determines the airspace or real property is needed for departmental purposes, as specified. The bill would require the lease to contain other specified terms and conditions. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2029.
  09/26/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 343, Statutes of 2019.
• SB 358 (Committee on Transportation) Transportation.
  (1) Existing law creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program and, after certain allocations for the program are made, requires the remaining funds available for the program to be allocated 50% for maintenance of the state highway system or for purposes of the state highway operation and protection program and 50% for apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to a specified formula. Before receiving an apportionment of funds under the program from the Controller in a fiscal year, existing law requires a city or county to submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. In order to receive an allocation or apportionment of these funds, existing law requires the city or county to annually expend a certain minimum amount from its general fund for street, road, and highway purposes. Existing law authorizes the Controller to perform audits to ensure compliance with this expenditure requirement and requires a city or county that has not complied with this expenditure requirement to reimburse the state the funds it received during the fiscal year it was not in compliance.This bill would require, for an eligible city or county that has not met its minimum expenditure requirement, as described above, the Controller to withhold from its apportionment for a fiscal year following an audit an amount up to the amount of funds that the city or county received during the fiscal year that was audited. The bill would require that the amount withheld be reallocated or reapportioned to other cities or counties who meet the minimum expenditure requirement in one annual payment, as specified, and would also require, if the amount to be apportioned is less than the amount to be withheld, that the city or county reimburse the state for the difference between the amount withheld and the apportionment that was received in the fiscal year that was audited. The bill would require, if the city or county is ineligible for an apportionment, the city or county to reimburse the state in an amount equal to the allocation or apportionment it received in the fiscal year that it was audited. The bill would authorize the Controller to adopt rules, regulations, and procedures necessary to carry out the purposes of these provisions.

  (2) Article XIX of the California Constitution restricts the use of excise tax revenues imposed by the state on fuels used in motor vehicles on public highways to highway and certain mass transit purposes and provides for the deposit of these fuel excise tax revenues in the Highway Users Tax Account for apportionments to cities, among other things. Existing law prohibits apportionments from the account to a city pursuant to specified provisions from being made unless the city has set up by ordinance a special gas tax street improvement fund, and requires the apportionment of those moneys to be deposited into that fund.

  This bill would delete the reference to those specified provisions providing for apportionments from the account, thereby prohibiting any and all apportionments from the account to a city from being made unless the city has set up by ordinance a special gas tax street fund, and thereby requiring the apportionment of those moneys to be deposited into that fund.

  (3) Existing law exempted from the insurance requirements people with residences in LA County or San Francisco County on and after January 1, 2020. That was repealed.

  (4) Updated the noise level testing standards for mufflers.

  (5) Updated the regulation of motortrucks.

  Note: The relevant parts of this — sections (1) and (2) — affected the allocation of funds from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program, and Excise Tax revenues.

  10/08/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 643, Statutes of 2019.

• SB 504 (Monning) State highways: Route 1: relinquishment.
  Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for the California Transportation Commission to adopt a highway on an authorized route. Existing law requires the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway portions that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment, and authorizes relinquishment in certain other cases.This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Pismo Beach the portion of Route 1 within its city limits if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment, as specified.
  10/03/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 506, Statutes of 2019.
• × SB 628 (Caballero) Prunedale Bypass: disposition of excess properties: relinquishment: State Route 183. [Vetoed]
  (1) Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of the state highway system and associated property. Existing law generally requires proceeds from the sale of excess state highway property to be made available for other highway purposes. Existing law generally provides for the California Transportation Commission to program available funding for transportation capital projects, other than state highway rehabilitation projects, through the state transportation improvement program process, with available funds subject to various fair share distribution formulas. Existing law, in certain cases, requires the commission to instead reallocate funds from canceled state highway projects to other projects within the same county and exempts those funds from the fair share distribution formulas that would otherwise apply.This bill would require the net proceeds from the sale of any excess properties originally acquired for a replacement alignment for State Highway Route 101 in the County of Monterey, known as the former Prunedale Bypass, to be reserved in the State Highway Account for programming and allocation by the commission, with the concurrence of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, for other state highway projects in that county, as specified. The bill would exempt these funds from the distribution formulas that otherwise apply to transportation capital improvement funds.

  (2) 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 requires the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway segments that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment or have been superseded by relocation, and in certain other cases.

  This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Salinas a segment of State Highway Route 183, under certain conditions.
  09/27/19 Vetoed by the Governor. Returned to Senate. Consideration of Governor’s veto pending. Veto Message: These bills [AB 449 and SB 628] would direct revenue from the sale of excess state highway properties to local transportation projects. Existing law establishes a process for programming transportation projects and directs revenues from sales of excess Caltrans property to the General Fund to be used to pay for transportation debt service. These bills create an exception to existing law that would negatively impact the General Fund by millions of dollars. If other jurisdictions are provided similar exceptions, the General Fund would be exposed to additional revenue losses in the future.

• SB 656 (Hueso) San Diego-Coronado Bridge: physical barriers.
  Existing law provides funding for the development, construction, and maintenance of the state’s bridges and highways and requires that a project study report be prepared for any new project involving the construction of a new bridge, or the replacement of a bridge with a history of documented suicides, that demonstrates that a suicide barrier was a feature that was considered during the project’s planning process.This bill would require the Director of Transportation to select members for an advisory committee to provide input into the selection of a suicide deterrent system for the San Diego-Coronado Bridge (on Route 75) that would include a representative from the Department of the California Highway Patrol, a mental health advocate, a member of a local suicide prevention group, residents of specified cities, and representatives of specified city and county governments. The bill would also provide for the selection to the advisory committee of one representative each by the Assembly Members or State Senators whose districts include the San Diego-Coronado Bridge.
  10/08/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 651, Statutes of 2019.
• SCR 11 (Chang) Jack Tanaka Memorial Highway.
  Designates the portion of Route 60 from Lemon Avenue (LA 22.377) on the west to Golden Springs Drive (LA 26.526) on the east, in the City of Diamond Bar in the County of Los Angeles, as the Jack Tanaka Memorial Highway.
  07/19/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 118, Statutes of 2019.
• SCR 21 (Bates) Costa Mesa Fire Captain Michael Kreza Memorial Highway.
  Designates the portion of Route 55 from 19th Street (ORA 2.021) to MacArthur Boulevard (ORA R6.985) in the County of Orange as the Costa Mesa Fire Captain Michael Kreza Memorial Highway.
  09/03/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 139, Statutes of 2019.
• SCR 32 (Morrell) United States Forest Service Firefighter Brent Michael Witham Memorial Highway.
  Designates the portion of Route 38 between the Mill Creek Bridge #54-0346 (SBD 9.601) and the Mt. Home Creek Bridge #54-1046 (SBD R12.279) near the community of Mentone in the County of San Bernardino as the United States Forest Service Firefighter Brent Michael Witham Memorial Highway.
  08/28/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 138, Statutes of 2019.
• SCR 46 (Galgiani) Officer Pepe Petersen Memorial Highway.
  Designates the portion of Route 99 between Mariposa Road (SJ 16.698) and Arch Road (SJ 14.568) in the County of San Joaquin as the Officer Pepe Petersen Memorial Highway.
  09/20/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 162, Statutes of 2019.
• SCR 56 (McGuire) Annette Brooks Memorial Bridge.
  Designates Bridge Number # 04-0208 over the Jordan Creek on US 101 (HUM 46.19) in the County of Humboldt as the Annette Brooks Memorial Bridge.
  09/20/19 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 163, Statutes of 2019.

I checked the CTC Liaison page (post AB 434 link) for the results of the California Transportation Commission meetings from July 2019 through December 2019. However, that page is also caught up in the AB 434 rework, meaning that none of the agendas and all of the background was unavailable. However, the California Transportation Commission does a better job of having its act together, and the agendas and minutes and backgrounds are available there. As always, note that I tend not to track items that do not impact these pages — i.e., pavement rehabilitation or replacement, landscaping, drainage, culverts, roadside facilities, charging stations, or other things that do not impact the routing or history, unless they are really significant. As such, the following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages; ♠ is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages) :