Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2003, BUS 2 - DISCUSSION REGARDING RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS 1 & 227 council °°°°� October 7,2003 j ac En as Repots CITY OF SAN LUIS 0B'ISP0 FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director Prepared By: Jay D. Walter, City Engineer SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS 1 & 227 CAO RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff to pursue relinquishment options for State Highways I and 227 and begin discussions with local State elected officials to introduce necessary legislation in the next session. DISCUSSION Background One hundred years ago or so, San Luis Obispo was a very small town and two state highways (227 and 1) connected our town to many others. There was no development along these highways, therefore, the highways were designed and maintained for high-speed regional traffic. Over time, the City expanded along these two highways and eventually the State's need to maintain high speed traffic began to conflict with urban desires for slower speeds and pedestrian amenities. Staff believes these conflicts have presently grown to the point where it makes sense for the City to control portions of Highways 1 and 227 as urban streets, leaving design and maintenance issues to the State on roadways out of the urban core. Differing Missions The mission of Caltrans is simply not the same as an urban city. Whereas our City's mission is to provide arterial streets with a full compliment of amenities — landscaped medians, sidewalks, landscaped parkways, bike lanes, street lighting, synchronized signals and moderate speed travel lanes for cars, trucks and buses, the mission of Caltrans is focused on moving traffic quickly and safely on State highways. The differing missions lead to differing opinions on issues ranging from how best to proceed with City projects to how private development should be permitted inside the City's limits. These differences have often resulted in substantial delays to projects (resulting in increased costs) and at times have so delayed private sector projects that tenants were lost. Because Caltrans is not set up to govern urban development, Caltrans' headquarters in Sacramento must approve what the City considers normal urban design. Caltrans is good at engineering State highways and the City is good at urban design. Staff feels it is time to let both agencies pursue their respective areas of expertise. a- � Y Council Agenda Report—RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS 1 &227 Page 2 Justification for Relinquishment On numerous occasions City staff has held discussions about the relinquishment of State Highway 227 (Broad Street, South Street) within the city limits. The primary justification for relinquishment comes from the City's frustration in dealing.with Caltrans on a wide variety of issues affecting both city projects and private development projects. The City cannot make final decisions because Caltrans has the ultimate jurisdiction over the road right of way. A good example of this is the developer at the comer of Broad and Orcutt who had to wait three years for Caltrans to make final conditions of approval causing him to lose tenants. Another example has to do with recent discussions the City had with Caltrans about implementing a new signal-timing plan for Santa Rosa Street, which is also State Highway 1. The City's desired to implement a timing plan that would be more responsive to local traffic needs. The City asked Caltrans to implement the plan, but they declined. The City also offered to take over the signal timing along Santa Rosa Street but Caltrans again declined. The result is a less than optimum timing plan that results in frustration for motorists and City staff. If Broad, South and Santa Rosa Streets were removed from the State Highway system, it would allow the City to implement its own set of standards for the modification and use of those roadways without requiring Caltrans review and approval. These standards would include lane widths, parking, bicycle lanes, sidewalk space, curbs, median landscaping, signalization and signal timing. The City would also no longer be required to apply for encroachment permits for construction, maintenance or development along those streets. It is the intent of the State Highway system to provide a network of highways to allow travel along heavily traveled rural and urban corridors that connect the communities and regions of the State. These highways should serve the State's economy by connecting centers of commerce, industry, agriculture, and recreation. In the case of Highway 227, the City has grown far enough south that it no longer serves just to connect, but it serves as one of the City's major Arterial streets. Caltrans jurisdiction is a point of friction as it intrudes on the City's desire to plan and develop the corridor according to the Council's direction. Special meetings and reviews must take place with Caltrans personnel to discuss the City's plans, and approvals must be received from Sacramento and Fresno for design and planning issues. Once these streets have been removed from the State Highway system, the City would be responsible for all maintenance costs including pavement, traffic signals, and associated facilities. We currently have maintenance responsibilities for roadway, drainage, landscaping, debris and signals on Hwy 227 and roadway, drainage, debris and landscaping on Hwy 1. We are able to bill the State for reimbursement for expenses up to $31, 500 per year. Once relinquished, the City would, as with all other city streets, be named as a potential defendant for any damages related to accidents or other causes along the portion of highway relinquished to the City. a -� l � Council Agenda Report—RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS 1 & 227 Page_3 City staff believes that the relinquishment of these routes would have a positive impact on the City by bringing decision-making back to the City and reducing frustration for City staff as well as local developers and contractors. Relinquishment Process The State provides two methods for relinquishment of State Highways, which are summarized below: 1. The State shall relinquish any portion of any State Highway within the City that has been deleted from the State Highway system by legislative enactment. If only a portion of the route is deleted, the City would be required to maintain proper signage directing traffic to the remaining portion of the highway. 2. It may likewise relinquish any portion or all of any State Highway that has been superseded by relocation. The first option applies to us. The City would request relinquishment of Route 1 and/or 227 by resolution. The desire to relinquish would be carried out subject to the terms and conditions negotiated with Caltrans identified in a.Cooperative Agreement, and adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The Streets and Highways Code would be amended by the State Legislature to provide the authority to proceed with the relinquishment. This would be accomplished by having a specific bill proposed by one of our legislators or by including the necessary language in another transportation related bill. The exact procedures that the State has established to enable relinquishment are summarized below: L To begin the process of relinquishment, the City Council passes a resolution stating its intent to have the State Highway designation deleted. Staff would work with SLOCOG and Caltrans on developing the appropriate language for the resolution. Once the resolution to revise the State and Highways Code is prepared, it would be submitted to the City's State legislators for them to direct through the Legislative process. 2. Prepare the amended text for the Streets and Highways Code in order to authorize the relinquishment and submit to the State Legislature for action. (Estimated to take any where from 4 to 6 months, depending on timing and coordination with State Legislature.) 3. Prepare and process a Cooperative Agreement between Caltrans and the City. 4. Caltrans would prepare a Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) or a Project Report (PR) defining the scope, cost, and schedule of work necessary to complete the relinquishment. This report will include all work necessary to bring the State Highway up to a mutually acceptable condition of repair. Caltrans would pay for the cost of this work. It is estimated this work could take from 6 to 8 months depending on repair work a �3 � I Council Agenda Report—RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS 1 & 227 Page 4 _ necessary. This work cannot begin until legislative action has approved the relinquishment. 5. State law requires that relinquishment of roads or highways must be made by a resolution executed by the California Transportation Commission. Once the above process is completed, but prior to construction repairs of the highway, Caltrans will prepare the relinquishment resolution and process it through the Chief of the Engineering Service Center four months prior to the anticipated completion date of all construction projects related to the previously designated State Highway. As a condition of relinquishment, the State would be required to place the highway in a"state of good repair" and be responsible for the costs of bringing the roadway up to an acceptable condition. Coincidentally, a State project to bring the road to a "state of good repair" has been planned by Caltrans, but because of the State's budget difficulties it is not likely to occur in the near future. If the above steps to pursue relinquishment are started, the time needed to have all necessary reports completed and legislation drafted may position the City to be ready to accept relinquishment as soon as the roadway construction project is complete. CONCURRENCES Caltrans Deputy District Director for Planning Richard Krumholz was contacted to discuss the relinquishment. He had no objection to discussing relinquishment of Route 227. In fact, Caltrans has planned for either a complete or partial relinquishment. He was more skeptical about Route 1, given its major importance as the primary route to Hearst Castle and the North Coast areas of the County. He also mentioned complicated planning issues surrounding the interchange at Route 101 and the future expansion of Cal Poly, which would generate a need for more capacity on this route. He felt that more focused discussions on cooperation between the agencies would be fruitful rather than relinquishment. (Staff would agree that focused discussions are always helpful and should they prove fruitful, the Council would not have to proceed with relinquishment. The actions suggested in this agenda report only give future Councils options for action toward relinquishment.) Assuming that Council concurs with the CAO Recommendation and that research, data and negotiations are successful; a Circulation Element amendment would eventually be necessary to clean up language relating to either or both State Highways. Because each highway would continue to have directional signing, the motoring public would see no difference — the sole difference would be in who owns, controls and maintains the roadway and thus the Circulation Element would need to be amended to clarify this relationship. Processing the Circulation Element would require Planning Commission review and City Council approval. FISCAL IMPACT Costs to pursue the relinquishment process would be limited to staff time a spread over the course of the process, estimated at approximately a year. � 4 Council Agenda Report—RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS 1 &227 Page 5 Via its agreement with Cal Trans in 1993, the City must perform certain work on the Hwy 227 right-of-way and can be reimbursed for that work up to $31,500. However, as a gauge of actual expenses, last fiscal year the City billed for reimbursement $19,775.03. This covered the cost of street sweeping, pothole repair and signal electricity. Using that number as a guide, and comparing lengths of Hwy 227 to Hwy 1, the estimated cost that we would have billed for services on Hwy 1 (if a similar agreement were in place) would be $5,627.99. Thus on a rough basis average yearly costs to maintain both right-of-ways would be $25,402.03. The actual revenue lost due to relinquishment would be $19,775.03. The two road segments if both relinquished would add 4.5 miles to the City's inventory of 198 miles or about a 2% increase. In theory this would increase the demand for pavement management yearly funding in order to plan for eventual major resurfacing, sealing etc. to maintain the road adequately. But the pavement management funding was recently cut due to budget considerations and thus the addition of these roadways would not cost the City more funds but most probably bump other streets for priority pavement maintenance work. Again, however, assuming the "state of good repair" minor maintenance would not be needed for eight years and major maintenance for 20 years. Cal Trans would not relinquish either the Hwy 227 or the Hwy 1 interchange with Hwy 101. Just as with LOVR and other interchanges, their jurisdiction rightfully includes both the freeway and its interchanges that move people off the freeway and onto the local street system. Thus both would continue to be considered State route to State route interchanges when applying for State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) funding. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are presented for the Council's consideration: 1) Continue to work with Caltrans to resolve the differences that come up on a case-by- case basis. 2) Direct staff to return to a subsequent Council Meeting with additional information as requested by the City Council. 3) Take no further action. 4) Provide additional direction to staff. ATTACHMENT Location Map I:\ Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Engineering and Maintenance Services(Walter)\hwy I and 227 relinquishment.doc MOMENT 1 i i' i' r i' �- \ \ i i' ._.._.._. �J I i I ' 1 - i A � a O a D m