HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/1999, 3 - BRIZZOLARA STREET SOUND WALL IMPLEMENTATION council °
j acEnaa nEpont Nub�
CITY O F SAN LUIS 0 8 1 S P 0
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Director of Public Work
Prepared By: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner-Zs
SUBJECT: BRIZZOLARA STREET SOUND WALL IMPLEMENTATION
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should:
1. Support the construction of an articulated "post and panel" sound wall. The wall will be up to
16-feet tall and 2,100 feet long, separated from the Brizzolara Street right-of-way by
approximately 9 feet, and will have landscaping on both sides; and
2. Support Caltrans offer to assume the responsibility for designing and building the sound wall
and convey to them the City's preferred design solution(Item 1 above); and
3. Recommend to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)that up to $75,000 of
the City's 1998 STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program) allocation (totaling
$500,000) be reserved for possible enhancements to the Caltrans standard wall design, as
determined necessary by the City; and
4. Instruct the Director of Public Works to inform SLOCOG that the City intends to reprogram the
remaining $425,000 of its 1998 STIP allocation, with recommendations for an alternate project
forwarded to SLOCOG in January, 2000 as a STIP amendment request. Support the
reprogramming strategy identified in this report.
REPORT IN BRIEF
In July, 1999 the City Council directed staff to work with Caltrans to pursue the design and
installation of a "tiered" and landscaped sound wall along Brizzolara Street adjacent to State Route
101. Since then, Caltrans, SLOCOG, and City staff have twice met and have identified an
alternative design concept for the wall that meets both Caltrans and City staff objectives. Also,
during the same time frame, a new source of money to pay for the wall has been made available by
the State,and Caltrans has now agreed to be the project sponsor and design and build the wall.
The purpose of this City Council agenda item is to consider and support the alternative sound wall
design developed between the agency staffs, to support Caltrans assumption of the project
sponsorship role,to reserve some STIP funding to cover the cost of design enhancements if they are
needed, and to agree on a strategy for reprogramming the use of City's STEP allocation previously
budgeted for the sound wall.
3-1
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Sound Wall Implementation
Page 2
DISCUSSION
1. Background
On July 20, 1999, the City Council considered the recommendations of its Consultant for
constructing a sound wall along Brizzolara Street and State Route 101. Various options for locating
the wall were discussed. After an extensive discussion, the Council unanimously supported the
Consultant's recommended design—a tiered wall with gabions and landscaping—and directed staff
to work with Caltrans to achieve that agency's approval of the tiered wall design. Since July, a
variety of factors have changed.
A. Wall Location and Design: City and SLOCOG staff have met with Caltrans on two occasions
to discuss design alternatives. The objective of this effort was to identify a sound wall that:
• Could utilize less intrusive construction techniques than required by a retaining wall (i.e. as
afforded by a "post and panel" type of wall that does not require continuous underground
footings).
• Could be placed at a location where significant landscaping could be maintained or planted on
both sides.
• Could be located where potential future changes to State Route 101 would not require its
alteration or removal; and
• Could be approved by Caltrans without requiring that agency's granting of design exceptions or
support for a non-standard design.
After the first meeting, Caltrans responded to City staff's concerns with an August 13, 1999 letter
that established their agency's design and location parameters for the wall (see Exhibit A). After
receiving this letter City and SLOCOG staff met again with Caltrans to review design options that
could meet these parameters and enable significant landscape screening on both sides of the wall.
The consensus reached at this staff meeting is reflected in this report's CAO recommendation and
is shown in cross section on Exhibit G. A discussion of how this option was arrived at is presented
later in this report.
Finally, SLOCOG received a letter from Caltrans officials indicating that Caltrans will be the lead
agency for the project and will design and construct the sound wall (see Exhibit D dated October
14, 1999). Caltrans asks that the City send them a letter requesting that they design and construct
the sound wall.
B. Project Funding and Maintenance: Initially, the Brizzolara Street Sound Wall project had a
$1,000,000 budget. The sources of these dollars were $500,000 of Regional STIP funding and
$500,000 of the City's 1998 STIP allocation. At that time, the SLOCOG Board agreed that the
sound wall was a"regional"project and therefore it was appropriate to contribute "regional" STIP
fiords toward its construction. The SLOCOG Board further agreed that the regional funds would be
3-2
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Sound Wall Implementation
Page 3
spent first and that any additional costs would be covered by the City's STIP allocation. However,
since this initial budget was established a number of things have changed:
• In September,the State decided to fund sound wall projects that were included on a May 2,
1989 sound wall listing. Funding will be provided as part of the 2000 STIP process (State
Transportation Improvement Program). The Brizzolara Street Sound wall is listed as the
second project on the prioritized 1989 listing with$625,000 earmarked for its construction.
• In October, 1999, the SLOCOG Board,over City objections,voted to reprogram the $500,000
of Regional STIP funds that had been earmarked for the Brizzolara Street Sound Wall. The
Board felt that this was an appropriate action since alternative funding was being made
available for the project by the State.
• The October 14'b letter from Caltrans indicates that they will determine the cost of the
alternativewall design to be used and escalate it to January 2000 cost levels. Caltrans estimates
that the cost for the recommended sound wall design is $700,000 in January 2000 dollars.
Since Caltrans previous cost estimate was $625,000, there is a potential $75,000 shortfall.
Caltrans has indicated that the shortfall may be available from lower priority projects on the
1989 sound wall list—however this funding is not guaranteed. SLOCOG has asked Caltrans to
clarify how it intends to fund any shortfall. Caltrans has indicated that they will ask the
California Transportation Commission(CTC)to program the entire amount($700,000)and that .
these types of projects are typically funded on a first come first served basis.
• Caltrans also indicates in its October 14' letter(Exhibit D) that"If the City of San Luis Obispo
chooses to add optional design details over and above the standard Caltrans requirements,
the City will pay the increased cost and a cooperative agreement would be prepared." Staffs
discussion with Caltrans indicates that optional design details might include landscape and
frontage enhancements to the Brizzolara Street side of the wall to improve the visual quality of
the street corridor and provide supplemental landscape screening as needed.
Since the need for these"optional details"will depend on what Caltrans includes as part of their
"standard requirements" it is difficult to estimate how much funding the City might want to
reserve at this time. Staff recommends that $75,000 of its $500,000 1998 STIP allocation be
reserved for this purposes. If unneeded for the sound wall project, the City can request
reprogramming of these funds for other STIP eligible activities in the future.
Caltrans may also undertake a program to upgrade and replace landscaping along central coast
segments of SR 101. As part of this program, it may be possible to have Caltrans provide
enhanced landscaping for the Brizzolara Street Sound Wall project. City staff will work with
Caltrans to investigate this option further with the goal of securing as much state funding as
possible.
C. Considering Alternatives and Negotiating a Design Solution. After the City Council
provided direction to its staff in July, SLOCOG staff scheduled a meeting with Caltrans and City
staff to discuss design alternatives and project funding. At this first meeting it became clear that
3-3
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Sound Wall Implementation
Page 4
Caltrans was willing to consider alternative wall locations (e.g. mid-bank locations with
landscaping on both sides) that Caltrans had not previously supported. Also, at the meeting, it
became evident that it would be challenging to gain Caltrans approval of the tiered sound wall that
was recommended by the Consultant and Council. Both the location of the wall and its design did
not satisfy Caltrans needs. Some of the limiting factors that precluded its construction included a
desire on Caltrans part to locate the wall outside of any area that may be needed for future road
purposes. Meeting this criterion will preclude the construction of walls at the edge of the existing
paved shoulder or close to it—regardless of their design.
After receiving Caltrans August 1P letter, staff sent a response requesting clarification of various
design issues (see August 30"' letter attached as Exhibit B). City staff scheduled a second meeting
with Caltrans and SLOCOG staff at which time Caltrans provided its response to staff's letter
(attached as Exhibit Q.
At the meeting, staff and Caltrans officials talked about locating a sound wall at various mid-bank
locations — somewhere between the edge of the travel way of State Route 101 (ETW as Caltrans
refers to it) and the Brizzolara Street right-of-way. Depending on the distance of the wall from the
ETW, landscaping can be allowed on both sides of the wall to varying degrees. However, Caltrans
believes that to meet their safety requirements, the slope of the bank uphill from the sound wall
would have to be regraded and flattened,thereby necessitating the removal of all existing vegetation
and irrigation systems and the construction of a retaining wall. This type of wall is more
expensive to build and the construction of its continuous underground footings would likely
obliterate all existing landscaping along the bank.
Staff's next question to Caltrans: how far away from the ETW does a wall need to be before it
doesn't have to be a retaining wall? Caltrans responded that 30 foot is the desired setback from
the ETW. While the bank area varies in width along this section of highway,meeting this 30 foot
setback would enable a wall to be set back approximately 9 feet from the Brizzolara Street right-of-
way line. At this location a less expensive "post and panel" design, that can be articulated to go
around major existing vegetation, can be utilized; and this type of wall does not require a
continuous underground footing. The precise height of the wall will depend on the elevation of the
"natural grade" on which the bottom panels are set. Caltrans standards limit the height of the wall
to 16 feet, although the actual height will depend on the precise topography at the setback line
location. Also,Caltrans will need to map out the location of existing major landscape features such
as mature trees and the wall's precise alignment may vary somewhat to avoid their removal, if
possible.
Staff believes that within a nine-foot setback area from Brizzolara Street, significant landscaping
can be planted to screen the wall. Also, landscaping can be provided on both surfaces of the wall
to minimize graffiti problems and soften its appearance. The immediate visual impacts of this
design solution on motorists using SR 101 should be minimal since, with carefiil construction,
much of the existing landscape screen along the highway should be retained. The visual impact for
Brizzolara Street residents may be significant in the short term, but should be to a large part
mitigated over time by providing significant landscape screening.
3-4
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Sound Wall Implementation
Page 5
Caltrans currently maintains all of the landscaping along the bank adjoining SR 101. With the
construction of the sound wall at the proposed location (or any mid-bank location), the landscaped
area will be divided in two with a"highway"side and a"city"side. Caltrans proposes that the City
maintain the landscaping on the "city" side of wall. This area would visually appear to be part of
the Brizzolara Street right-of-way. City staff anticipates that the existing chain link fence along
Brizzolara Street would be removed since the sound wall would provide a more effective barrier
along the highway. The City Council is not being asked to accept maintenance responsibilities at
this time—but it will likely be a future request from Caltrans and the significance of the request will
depend on what is done within the setback area.
D. Reprogramming the City's 1998 STIP Allocation. Based on the ever evolving funding
picture described in Section B above, the City may now request that SLOCOG approve the
reprogramming of its 1998 STIP allocation for other STIP-eligible projects. The amount of
funding that may be reprogrammed will depend on the Council's resolution of CAO
recommendation#2 presented in this Agenda Report.
In 1998, the City received SLOCOG approval for programming $1.175 million for the
reconstruction of South Higuera Street from Madonna Road to the South City limits. Recently the
City submitted STIP applications for the reconstruction of Santa Barbara and Osos Streets
($300,000) and for the preparation of a "Project Report" for the Prado Road interchange
($475,000). The SLOCOG Board will consider these two new applications at its December 8,
1999 meeting. For various reasons, SLOCOG staff has not recommended their approval.
To date, all of the City's STIP grants and applications have related to street projects — which
reflects the historic use of STIP funding. Also the intent of the 1998 supplemental STIP allocation
to the region was to focus on street reconstruction needs. However, State guidelines enable the
use of STIP funding for a variety of projects. A summary copy of the guidelines are attached for
Council use(Exhibit H).
In an October 26'letter(Exhibit E),Ron DeCarli,Executive Director of SLOCOG, indicates that it
would be convenient to reprogram the City's STIP dollars at the SLOCOG Board's December 8,
1999 meeting. However, Mr. DeCarli indicates that if the City needs additional time to consider
alternative STIP-eligible projects,that the funds could be reprogrammed in February or April,2000
as a STEP amendment. Time necessitates that the City pursue the latter course of action (a STIP
amendment)described above by Mr.DeCarli.
To resolve this fiscal and planning issue,staff proposes the following process:
1. Staff will prepare a technical memorandum that identifies candidate STIP-eligible projects.
Staff will distribute this listing to the Council at its December 7'meeting.
2. Council Members should review the listing prepared by staff identify other STIP-eligible
projects, and return the listing to the City Administrator by December 15, 1999.
3. The Staff will schedule a agenda item in January 2000 and present the list of identified projects
along with a brief evaluation of each. .The objective of the study session will be to select the
City Council's high priority project for submittal to SLOCOG for use of reprogrammed STIP
dollars. Remember, for the project selected, the City needs to demonstrate that there�v be
J
Council Agenda Report: Briaolara Sound Wall Implementation
Page 6
sufficient funding—STIP dollars or supplementary funds from other sources— to complete the
project.
4. With Council consensus on a project, the Public Works staff will prepare the necessary
information and submit it to SLOCOG in January 2000 for consideration by the Board. At that
time,the SLOCOG Board would be considering an amendment to the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program(RTIP)to include the new project.
There are a variety of methods for resolving this reprogramming issue and staff will be prepared to
discuss them with the Council at its December 7t°meeting.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The decision made by the Council related to this agenda item will have no impact on the City's
General Fund balance. All funds involved in designing and constructing the sound wall are State
funds and no "local funding match" is required. Having Caltrans assume the responsibility for
designing and building the sound wall will substantially reduce City administrative effort and staff .
costs.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may:
1. Support a different design strategy for the sound wall than recommended With Caltrans taking
over implementation responsibilities, the success of any alternative strategy recommended by
the City is unknown since Caltrans will be in full control of the process and outcome.
2. Recommend that no STIP funding be reserved for project enhancements and decide to
reprogram all STIP funds. The City could argue that all project enhancements should be
Caltrans responsibility. However, the success of this strategy is unlikely and if no STIP funding
is reserved and future funding is needed, it would have to come from local sources. Also, after
the project is designed, if the City decides that Caltrans `standard requirements"are sufficient
to address community needs, then it can request that the funds be reprogrammed for some other
S=-eligible use.
3. Tell Caltrans that the City should retain project sponsorship. There would be little benefit in
pursuing this alternative since Caltrans has full control of the project's design even if the City
retained its project sponsorship role. Also, City staff is buried with the current CLP workload.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: August 13'Letter from Caltrans identify design parameters for the sound wall.
Exhibit B: August 30'h Response Letter to Caltrans
Exhibit C: Caltrans Response to City's August 30''Letter
Exhibit D: October 146 letter from Caltrans assuming project implementation responsibilities.
Exhibit E: October 26"letter from Ron DeCarli, SLOCOG
Exhibit F: October 26h letter from Ron DeCarli, SLOCOG,to Jay Walter,CalTrans
Exhibit G: Cross Section of Recommended Wall Design 3�6
Exhibit H: Summary of STIP Funding Guidelines
AUG-13-99 FRI 2:00 PM LAFr" VE ARCHITECTURE FAX N0. 80" X42 4746 P. 2
Exhibit A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
50 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
TELEPHONE(805)549-3111
TDD(805)549-3259
http:/Avww.dotca.gov/dist05
August 13, 1999
Terry Sanville
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)781-7178
Dear Mr. Sanvilie:
This letter is being provided to clarify some of the Caltrans policies and District concerns which will affect our
review of the proposed soundwall between Briaolara Street and Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo. Hopefully
this information will be of some value as you proceed in the planning and development of this challenging project.
As a point of reference, Route 101 within the proposed project area currently has 8-foot wide paved outside
shoulders. This means there is a distance of eight feet from the white stripe(called edge-of-traveled-way,or
ETW)to the edge of the pavement
Planting is allowed on the traffic side of noise barriers only 9 the barrier is more than 15 feet from the ETW,and
as long as the plants will not reach 4 Inches trunk-diameter at breast height at maturity.
It is our observation that most of the existing shrubs In this area are located along the upper portion of the
highway embankment,between 15 and 25 feet from the ETW. Also,the majority of the existing irrigation system
components in this area are located along the highway shoulder within a few feet of the edge of the pavement. It
appears that any wall which is built on the upper half of the embankment will necessitate the removal of some
portion of planting as well as the existing irrigation system. The majority of the mature trees are located along
the lower portion of the slope. A wall built near the right-of-way fence would have little affect on the-eAsting
planting and irrigation system.
The closest distance from the soundwall to the ETW that the District will allow is 15 feet At this distance from
the highway,no planting would be allowed on the traffic side of the wall,and a majority of the existing irrigation
system would be impacted. Climbing vines could be planted on the Brinolara side of the wall and allowed to
climb over the top, but it is our opinion that the growth rate of the vines would be slowed by the shady conditions
predominant on the back side of the wall,and unmitigated visual impacts may last a number of years.
If a soundwall were built more than 15 feet from the ETW,vines and smaller shrubs would be allowed on the
highway side of the wall. At a distance of 20 feet or more from the ETW,larger shrubs could be planted. Even
3-7
AUG-13-99 FRI 2:01 PM 1.ANP"PE ARCHITECTURE FAX N0. • 80' '2 4746 P. 3
Terry Sanville
August 13, 1999
Page 2
with less-impacting construction methods,it is expected that the installation of a wall at these mid-slope
locations would result in the removal of most of the existing shrubs,and a portion of the existing irrigation.
At any mid-slope soundwall location,fill material would need to be brought in,and an area in front of the wall
graded to reduce the angle at which a car might come in contact with the wall. This would require a retaining
structure.
The District would not support the placement of guardrail at the top of the slope in order to increase planting
opportunities in front of the soundwall. Guardrail itself is considered a°fixed object", and policy prevents us from
placing it near traffic unless to shield an existing stationary object that can't otherwise be eliminated.
Our current policy states that noise barriers should be located just inside the state right-0f-way line, and should
be constructed at the ultimate location for the highway facility. Planning studies and safety analysis indicate that
the potential exists for additional lanes, and/or ramp realignment along this section of Route 101 between Marsh
Street and Broad Street during the projected life span of a noise barrier.
With the construction of any soundwall,the maintenance of the Brizzolara side of the wall would be a concern.
Generally, a new irrigation system would need to be Installed to water the vegetation on the Brizzolara side of the
wall. It would be our desire that a maintenance agreement be entered into which the City of San Luis Obispo
assumes maintenance along the Brizzolara Street side of the wall.
Because of the potential for future highway improvements,the minimal impact to the existing landscape and
irrigation,the relative ease of maintenance, and the probable level of public acceptance,our preferred location
for the soundwall is adjacent to Brizzolara Street. If the wall were set back a few feet from the right-of-way line,
this location would allow room for creative planting opportunities on the Brizzolara side of the wall, and would
also accommodate any future widening of Brizzolara Street.
Sixteen feet is the maximum height allowed for the construction of a soundwall on state right-of-way. We
understand that a wall of that height along Briv_olara Street may adversely impact the adjacent residents.
However with the addition of clinging vines and possibly planters with shrubs and/or trees,much of that impar
could be mitigated. It may also be expected that-since the residents along Brizzolara Street would be the
beneficiaries of the sound attenuation,they may be less sensitive to the wall's visual impacts.
With a sixteen foot high wall along Brizzolara Street,studies show that full sound attenuation would not be
provided for the second floor of the adjacent residences. However by constructing the wall at that location,the
funds saved by not having to replace impacted existing landscaping and irrigation may offset the cost of
retrofitting the second floor of the adjacent residences.
In addition,our preliminary analysis indicates that placing the soundwall near Brizzolara Street would have little
or no impact on the aesthetic character of the community of San Luis Obispo as experienced from the Highway
101 corridor.
3-8
AUG-1:3-99 FRI 2:03 PM LAA'—VE ARCHITECTURE FAX NO, 8P' X42_4746. P. 4
Terry Sanville
August 13, 19W
Page 3
Please call if you would like to discuss any of the points mentioned above,or if we may'-help interpret any polices
or design standards. We look forward to working with you as INS.project moves forward.,
Sincerely,
1-7
J Yi .WALTER
to Director
3-9
Exhibit B
►��►�����n��ia������!!I�llll@►����������� ILII
city of sAn luis oilsly
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 30, 1.999
Mr.Jay D. Walter,District Director
California Department of Transportation,District 5
50 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-5415
Dear Mr. Walter.
Thank you for your agency's August 13' letter that presented Caltrans' policies and concerns
regarding the Brizzolara Sound Wall Project. After carefully reviewing the letter, we believe
that progress is being made in establishing a design strategy for this project. However, some
additional clarification and discussion is warranted before this project can be considered again by
our City Council.
The following table identifies our understanding of Caltrans'policies and presents questions related
to them.
# Caltrans'Position/Policy City Questions
1 At a distance of 20 feet from the ETW to If we can plant 4-inch trunk diameter at breast height
a sound wall `larger shrubs" could be vegetation at a point more than 15 feet from the ETW,
planted. what is the definition of `larger shrubs" allowed at a 20
feet setback?
2 Mid-slope walls would result in the At what setback from the edge of the existing paved
removal of most of the irrigation system. shoulder does the irrigation system stop? Or is there a
point where the existing system could be easily modified
to accommodate mid-bank wall?
3 It appears that the majority of mature These statements seem to be contradictory. Wouldn't a
trees are located along the lower portion wall built near Brizzolara Street and the ROW line
of the slope. A wall built near the right- necessitate the removal of mature trees? (Also,see item
of-way fence would have little effect on 6 below.)
existing planting and irrigation system.
4 At any mid-slope sound wall location, What is the desired slope of the bank on the highway side
fill material would need to be brought in of the wall? Since Caltrans supports a wall near
and an area in front of the wall graded to Brizzolara Street without requiring the slope to be graded,
reduce the slope angle which a car might at what setback from the edge of the shoulder is a non-
come in contact with the wall. This will retaining wall acceptable?
require a retaining structure.
OThe City cf San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activi �
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
S The sound wall should be built at the Does Caltrans have a recommended setback needed to
ultimate location of the freeway. meet this criterion? For example, if a standard 12-foot
travel lane were added to the outside of the freeway along
with a 10-foot paved shoulder, would the maximum
setback needed to meet this criterion be 22 feet from the
current ETW (assuming no reduction of the SR 101
median)?
Would Caltrans support the installation of an articulated
"post and panel" (non-retaining) wall at setbacks that
exceed 22 feet?
6 If the wall were set back a few feet from How much is a"few feet?"
the right-of-way line, this [Caltrans
preferred location]would allow room for
creative planting opportunities on the
Brizzolara side of the wall.
7 By constructing a wall at that [along The City was planning to use STIP funds to construct the
Brizzolara Street] location, the funds sound wall. Is Caltrans saying that STIP funds can be
saved by not having to replace impacted used to retrofit the adjacent residences?
existing landscaping and irrigation may
offset the cost of retrofitting the second
floor of the adjacent residences?
Based on your agency's criteria,we believe that there is a mutually-acceptable sound wall project
that incorporates significant landscaping on both sides of the wall while-avoiding the construction
of an excessively-tall retaining structure. However, more work is necessary to tie down specific
parameters for the wall's construction;and more information,such as the mapping of the project
area's vegetation,may be needed
I will be contacting your staff to set up a meeting to discuss the questions posed above and work
toward a design solution that we can take back to our City Council for support_ I will also be
inviting staff from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments since it is our understanding that
the funding picture for sound walls throughout the state has recently changed and that alternatives
may be available to Caltrans to go forward with this project.
Thank you for your staffs assistance with this matter.
Respectfully,
Terry Sanville
Principal Transportation Planner
c Bob Carr,Caltrans
Wayne Mills,Caltrans
Richard Crumholtz,Caltrans
Ronald DeCarli,SLOCOG
3-11
Exhibit C
Response to sound wall questions raised by the City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Department (Terry Sanville) in their letter of August 30, 1999. See
attached letter.
# QUESTION RESPONSE
I if we can plant 4-inch trunk diameter at 4-inch DBH is the largest size of new vegetation
breast height (ABH) vegetation at a that can be planted within 30 feet of the ETW per
point more than 15 feet from the ETW, current design standards. There are several
what is the definition of "larger varieties of shrubs which reach heights of 10 feet or
shrubs" allowed at a 20 feet setback? more yet don't exceed 4-inches DBH. (Udscape Arch)
2 At what setback from the edge of the The irrigation mainline and most of the components
existing paved shoulder does the are within 10 feet of the edge of pavement (EP).
irrigation stop? Or is there a point Note that the EP is 8 feet beyond the ETW.
where the existing system could be However, all of the lateral lines are perpendicular to
easily modified to accommodate a mid- the mainline and extend as far as 20 feet from the
bank wall? EP. If a wall were built beyond 10 feet from the EP
and no regrading was required near the shoulder,
modifications may be limited to replacement of
lateral lines and sprinklers. Note also that the
inclusion of any new planting associated with a wall
would require some degree of reconfiguration to the
currents stem. (iadscape Arch)
3 These statements seem to be A field review of the site suggested that maybe 2-3
contradictory. Wouldn't a wall built mature trees would require removal if a sound wall
near Brizzolara Street and the ROW were built within 5 feet of the ROW line. (See#6.)
line necessitate the removal of mature (tmdscape Arch)
trees? (Also see item six below.)
4 What is the desired slope of the bank The desired slope to a fixed object within 30 feet
on the highway side of the wall? Since of the ETW is 20:1.
Caltrans supports a wall near Slopes greater than 10:1 would require a design
Brizzolara Street without requiring the exception. Note that the existing slope is greater
slope to be graded, at what setback than 4:1 because of the benches at the top and
from the edge of the shoulder is a non- bottom of the slope. (Approximately Moot drop in
retaining wall acceptable? about 24 feet). gramc safety)
t 3-12
5 Does Caltrans have.a recommended The route concept for this location is 6 lanes.
setback needed to meet this criterion Widening is probably out 10-20 years. If this
(locating the sound wall to widening is considered with this project, the
accommodate the ultimate widening of minimum setback would be 27 feet (12 foot lane
the freeway?) For example, if a plus 15 foot setback).
standard 12-foot travel lane were added
to the outside of the freeway along with See response to#4 regarding slopes and retaining
a lot paved shoulder, would the walls. Note that the existing slope is greater than
maximum set back needed to meet this 4:1 because of the benches at the top and bottom of
criterion be 22 feet from the current the slope. (Approximately 7-foot drop in about 24
ETW (assuming no reduction of the SR feet). It does not appear possible to get a 20:1 or
101 median)? Would Caltrans support even a 10:1 slope to a wall located 20-30 feet from
the installation of an articulated "post the ETW without a retaining wall. No retaining
and panel' (non-retaining) wall at wall would be required beyond 30 feet from the
setbacks that exceed 22 feet? ETW. Brame safety)
6 How much is a few feet? (Regarding Let us say 3-5 feet would be an adequate setback to
the setback from the ROW line to allow allow for planting of vines. (Lndscape.arch)
for "creative planting".)
7 The City was planning to use STIP No, projects in State right of way still have to abide
funds to construct the sound wall. Is by current Caltrans policy that does not allow for
Caltrans saying that STIP funds can be insulation of private residences.(Env.Eng.Tans Plug.)
used to retrofit the adjacent residences?
HAWP\Noise)resp2s1o.doc
2 3-13
Exhibit D
vemar
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
50 Higuera Street
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 934015415
TELEPHONE(805)5493111
TDD(805)5493259 p�
October 14, 1999 D E C E v
SLO-101-PM 28.4/28.8 OU 21 IM
HB 311 Noise
05-31420K CITY OF SAN LUIS 0$ISPO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Ron DeCarli, Executive Director
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. DeCarli:
This letter is in response to questions raised by Councilman David Romero at a SLOCOG Board
meeting held Wednesday, October 6th. The questions were related to the proposed soundwall along
Route 101 between Marsh Street northbound on-ramp and Broad Street northbound off-ramp to protect
residences along Brizzolara Street in San Luis Obispo. Caltrans and City of San Luis Obispo staff
were in attendance at the board meeting.
• Who will construct the barrier?
Caltrans will be the lead agency for the project and will design and construct it. It has been
proposed that the City would maintain the landscaping on the City-side of the barrier—this can be
determined at a later date. It is recommended that SLOCOG and the City of San Luis Obispo both
prepare a letter to Caltrans requesting that we design and construct the project
• Why didn't Caltrans update the 1991 estimate of$625,000?
The$625,000 is actually an August 1997 estimate. The soundwall cost estimates are shown in the
table below:
ALTERNATE HEIGHT LENGTH LOCATION COST EST. DATE
1 10feet 1,800feet 10'fromETW $830 1991
2 16 feet 1,800 feet At R/W line $985 1991
1989&1 10 feet 1,800 feet 10'-15'from $615 1997
updated ETV
1989 list 10 feet 1,800 feet 10'-1 S'from $345 1989
ETV
OCT. 99 16 feet + 2,100 feet Within 9'of $700 Jan. 20sr
preferred* R/W line
* An articulated post and pile barrier was the preferred method of construction at a meeting with
SLOCOG, Caltrans and City of San Luis Obispo staff on October 5, 1999.
3-14
Ronald DeCarli
October 14, 1999
Page 2
• Were the costs escalated to keep up with inflation and how much will Caltrans pay for construction
of the barrier?
The May 3, 1989 Retrofit Soundwall List that was created by legislation has not been updated for
annual inflation rates. The 2000 STIP Fund Estimate includes $210 million over 5 years for the
projects on the May 3, 1989 priority list. At this point,we should determine the cost for the
alternate to be used for programming purposes and escalate it to January 2000. SLOCOG should
list the project in their 2000 RTIP and state that it would be funded from the May 3, 1989
soundwall funding. If the City of San Luis Obispo chooses to add optional design details over and
above the standard Caltrans requirements, the City will pay the increased cost and a cooperative
agreement would be prepared.
• Who should we contact for further questions?
A Project Manager has not been assigned to this project. In the meantime,you may contact Wayne
Mills,the District 5 Soundwall Coordinator at(805) 549-3193. For project programming
questions,please contact Nancy S. Wickersham, at 549-3146.
0111.1.^' VV-;iAd by
t i . V-1 i TER
JAY D. WALTER
District Director
NSW:nsw
cc: Terry Sanville-SLO City Public Works
Shaun Ng-CT HQ Prog.
LDD,WWM,JW, MGG, GKL,NSW,KMD, SJC,RLK,RCS
J. M. Leonardo D-6
Data Center
3-15
San , LuisQbi�Voe f move nm is
Council o
Ar oyoGrande
Regional Transportation 'Planning Agency A�u
Grover Beach
Metropolitan Planning Organization Morro B.
Paso Rohl
Census Data Affiliate Pismo Beoc.
Service Authorit for Freeways and Ex San Luis Obispo
Ronald L.IhCarli-Executive Direcwr Y Y Expressways Y.S 'San Luis Obispo Courcy
1 7xhibit
October 26, 1999 P/ 0
Mike McCluskey.
Public Works L
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obsipo, CA 93401 .
Re: Reprogramming.State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)currently reserved
funds for the Brizzolara Street Soundwall project.
Dear:Mr:.McCluskey: .
The,purpose-of this.letteris to notify the City of the opportunity to reprogram all,ora portion of the Citys .
$500,000 in 1998 STIP amendment funds reserved for the Brizzolara Street Soundwall'to other project(s)in the
City;
As you may know, Caltrans..has earmarked $626,000 for the.projectand will be the lead agency to design and
construct the.wall. At a meeting,on October,51 between.Caltrans,City and SLOCO.G staff, there was.a general
consensus the Preferred.alternative is an articulated post and pile barrier approximately.9.'from.Brizzolara Street.
Caltrans preliminary cost estimated for this wall.is.$700,000. .•Caltrans has indicated:the-$74,0.00;shortfall may
be available.from lower:priority projects on.the Retrofit Soundwall List-however it is not guaranteed. :Another
unknown.is the cost.of any design.details or enhanced landscaping the City may wish to pursue that is above
and,beyond 164:$700,000 figure. ..
For our programmingpurposes, it would be convenient to reprogram these funds in December§incea new
Regionall.Trarisportation Improvement Program(RTIP)wlli be,approved.. of Howeverj the Citjrs.share he cost
of the Br�olaraSoundwall,is still undear,.orifthe City.would like additional time to identify.other STIP eligible .
projects,:.a.STIP amendment could be processed in February,or-April 2000:-.Subsequent approval by:the
Califomia.Transportation Commission.wouldrequire-,another:several months.
1n summary,.if.the City is eager to move quickly to reprogram.some portion of the$500,000 earmarked for the
soundwall, if:could be aocomplit;led at our-Decemberie SLOCOG meeting: Please contact us if you wish.to .
pursue this expedited schedule. We would_need a completed`PROJECT;SCOPING&'.SUBMLTTAC FORM"by
November.151.h. Please contact meor Rodgers of:my staff.at(805)781-5712 if you have:any.questions
Si
Rona d.De-Ca
Exe6utive Director
c: Nancy Wickersham, Caltrans.-Systems Planning
ATTACHMENT
3-16
1150 Osos Street,Ste.202,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ♦Tel. (805)781-4219 Fax. (805)781-5703
F-mail. slocoo(O-Ionet.ore *Intemet. httn://www.sionet.ore/—ir)sloco2
Exhibit F
San Luis Obispo Council oftiovernments
Artnyn Grande
Regional Transportation Planning Agency dero
Gmv�K peach��er Beach
Metropolitan Planning Organization Mom R:q
Paso Robles
Census Data Affiliate Pismo orad,
San Luis Obispo
Ronald L.uecarh.r_,eem w Direen,i. Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways san Luis Obispo cnnmy
October 26, 1999
Jay Walter, Director
District 5 - Department of Transportation
50 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5415
Re: Brizzolara Street Soundwall
Dear Mr. Walter.
Thank you for your letter dated October-140'. Your letter clarified that Caltrans will be the lead
agency to design and construct the proposed soundwall along Brizzolara Street. We support
Caltrans acting as the lead agency for this project and encourage you to include the City of San
Luis Obispo as a partner in this project. .The City has conducted an extensive amount of work
to select a preferred design, which is scheduled to go back to the City Council in early
December. We request that Caltrans allow the City to select the preferred alternative and
Caltrans apply the Retrofit Soundwall List funds toward that project.
As you are aware, the Retrofit Soundwall List identified $626,000 for the project and the City
has $500,000 available in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)funds for use on
the project if needed. Your letter indicated the preferred alternative costs have been escalated
to $700,000 for January 2000 and SLOCOG should program this amount in our upcoming
RTIP. This indicates Caltrans will secure the additional $74,000 cost through the Retrofit
Soundwall List funds. Please respond to us in writing at your earliest convenience if this is not
the case.
The answer to this question is critical since the City must select another project to program all,
or a portion of the $500,000 in STIP funds. We recognize that optional design details or
enhanced landscaping may need to be funded from this source.
Please contact me or Peter Rodgers of my staff at (805) 781-5712.
Si
Rona d De Cadic
Executive Director
c: Nancy Wickersham, Caltrans Systems Planning
Wayne Mills, Caltrans Soundwall Coordinator
Mike McClusky, SLO Public Works
3-17
1 150 Osos Sired, Ste. 202. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • Tel. (805) 781-4219 Fax. (805)781-5703
Exhibit G
11.7 m
(±39')
9 m ±2.7 m
(30'from ETW) ` I,- (±9')
2.43m ::�,�.. !fir ;✓ � ;� .
(g') FACE OF S061ND�W LL .''I'•: i`;...
EDGE OF
TRAVEL WAY ,,
.41
••.: "6'- % i� Lir ':4\ 1191 /�",moi
STATE ROUTE
'3.'.: - -,1=r/^.-: /'� moi'�,. :•,�`� �f •/ �_
~ +I
1 01
04
OD to
EDGE OF -,._..: ... -...
PAVED SHOULDER
EXISTING SHRUBS
&TREES
SURFACE LANDSCAPING
ON BOTH SIDES
city of BRIZZOLARA STREET
A San LUIS OBISPO SOUND WALL LOCK19N
DECEMBER 1999
Exhibit H STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2.
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMNIISSION
STIP GUIDELINES
RES016UTION G 99 24
(Amended by the California Transportation Commission September 29-30, 1999)
RESOLUTION G-99-
Amending
-99=Amending Resolution G-99-24
3-19
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STIP GUIDELINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
Section 1. Purpose and Authority.............................................................................. l
Section 2. Biennial Fund Estimate............................................................................ 1
Section3. STIP Adoption......................................................................................... 1
Section 4. Amendments to STIP Guidelines.............................................................2
Section 5. Federal T1Ps And Federal STIP ...............................................................2
U. STIP Contents
Section6. General.....................................................................................................2
Section 7. County And Interregional Shares.............................................................2
Section8. Joint Funding.............................................................................................2
Section 9. Prior year projects............................................ .....3
...................................
Section10. 1996 STIP Projects.............:......................................................................3
Section 11. Transportation Management System Improvements................................3
Section 12. Capacity Increasing Highway Operational Improvements.......................4
Section 13. Non-Capacity Increasing Highway Operational Improvements...............4
M. STIP Requirements For All Projects
Section 14. Project Study Reports(PSRs) ..................................................................5
Section 15. Full And Partial Funding..........................................................................5
Section 16. Completion Of Environmental Process....................................................6
Section 17. Caltrans/Regional Consultations..............................................................6
Section18. Minor Projects..........................................................................................7
Section 19. Criteria For Measuring Performance And Cost-Effectiveness.................7
IV. Regional Improvement Program
Section20. Submittal OfRTIPs..................................................................................8
Section 21. Project Planning And Programming........................................................9
Section 22. TEA restrictions On County Shares.........................................................9
Section23. Advances And Reserves...........................................................................9
Section 24. RSTP/CMAQ Reserve........................................................................... 10
Section 25. RIP Project Eligibility............................................................................ 10
11
Section 26. Federalizing Transit Projects......................................
............................
Section 27. Increased STIP Funding Participation.................................................... 12
Section 28. Pooling Of County Shares...................................................................... 12
Section 29. Consistency With CMP.......................................................................... 13
I 3-20
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
V. Interregional Improvement Program
Section30. General................................................................................................... 13
Section 31. Submittal Of Caltrans ITIP .................................................................... 13
Section 32. Regional recommendations For Interregional Program..............•••"".... 15
Section 33. Regional Transportation Plan.............................................................
Section 34. Interregional program Objectives........................................................... 15.
Section 35. TEA restrictions On Interregional Share................................................ 18
Section 36. .Projects And Reserves.....:.......................................................................
18 . .
VL Display Of Project Descriptions And Costs
Section 37. Project Descriptions............................................................................... 18
Section 38. State-only Funding................................................................................
18
Section 39. Project Fact Sheets................................................................................. 19
Section 40. STIP Database........................................................................................ 19
Section 41. Cost Estimates For Project Components................................................ 19
Section 42. Authority And Responsibility............................................................
... 19
Section 43. Basis For Cost Sharing.......................................................................
.... 19
Section 44. Program Year For Cost Components.....................................................20
Section 45. . Escalation Adjustments..........................................................................20
...................
Section 46. Prior Costs For 1996 STIP Projects ....................................21
VII. Share Balances And Adjustments 21
Section 47. Long-term Balances............................................................................. 21
Section 48. Local Grant Projects...............................................................................21
Section 49. Construction...........................................................................................22
Section 50. Right-of-Way """"'
Section 51. Project Development..........................................................................
Section 52. Corridor Projects......................................................
..............................22
Section 53. Federal Demonstration Projects.....:.......................................................22
VIII. Commission Action And Adoption 23
Section 54. . Incorporation or Rejection Of RTIP..................................................
Section 55. Commission Action On Advances And Reserves........................•••••.••••23
Section 56. Commission Action On Interregional Program.....................................24
Section 57. STIP Respreading Of Projects..................................,.............................24
DL STIP Management 24
Section 58. Allocation Of Funds.................... ......................................................25
Section 59. Timely Use Of Funds........................................:...................................
Section 60. Delivery Deadline Extensions................................................................27
Section 61. STIP Amendments.....................................
............................................27
Section 62. Project Delivery.................................................................
....................28
2 3-21
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2.
X. STIP Development Schedule And Procedures
Section 63. 1998 STIP Development Schedule.............. . . ........................25
Section 64. 1998 STP Hearings.......................................... ........................29
Section 65. Commission staff recommendations......... ..... ..........................29
.Section 66. Transmittal Of RTIPs................................. .........................30
M. Appendix
ProjectFact Sheet.............. es-�.....o......................W.. .......................................31
3 3-22
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item.41
I. INTRODUCTION:
1. Pumose and Authority. These guidelines describe the policy, standards, criteria and procedures for
the development, adoption and management of the STIP. They were developed and adopted in
cooperation with Caltrans, regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation
commissions and local agencies in accordance with Government Code Section 14530.1. The
guidelines were developed and adopted with the following basic objectives:
• Develop and manage the STIP as a resource management document.
• Facilitate transportation decision making by those who are closest to the transportation
problems. -
• Recognize that although Caltrans is owner-operator of the State highway system, the
regional agencies have the lead responsibility for resolving urban congestion problems,
including those on state highways.
• Provide incentives for regional accountability for the timely use of funds.
• Facilitate the California Transportation Commission, and Caltrans role as guardian of State
capital dollars, with responsibility for determining how best to manage those dollars in a
wise and cost-effective manner.
• Facilitate cooperative programming and funding ventures between regions and between
Caltrans and regions.
The Commission intends to carry •out these objectives through its guidelines, stressing
accountability, flexibility, and simplicity.
2. Biennial Fund Estimate. By July 15 of each.odd numbered year Caltrans shall submit to the
Commission a proposed fund estimate for the following four year STIP period. The Commission
shall adopt the fund estimate by August 15 of that same year. The assumptions on which the fund
estimate is based shall be determined by the Commission in consultation with Caltrans, regional
agencies and county transportation commissions..
3. STIP Adoption. Not later than April 1 of each even numbered year the Commission shall adopt a
four year STIP and submit it to the legislature and to the Governor. The STIP shall be a statement
of the Commission's intent for allocation and expenditure of funds for the following four years as
well as a resources management document to assist in the planning and utilization of transportation
resources in a cost-effective manner. The STIP shall be developed consistent with the fund
estimate and the total amount programmed in each fiscal year of the STIP shall not exceed the
amount specified in the fund estimate. The adopted STIP shall remain in effect until a new STIP is
adopted for the next two year STIP cycle.
4. Amendments To STIP Guidelines. The Commission may amend the adopted STIP guidelines after
first giving notice of the proposed amendment and.conducting at least one public hearing. The
guidelines may not be amended or modified during the period between thirty days following the
adoption of the fund estimate and the adoption of the STIP.
I 3-23
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
5. Federal TIPS and Federal STIP. These guidelines apply only to the transportation programming
requirements specified in state statutes. They do not apply to transportation programming,
requirements specified in federal statutes. Generally, all projects receiving federal transportation
fiords must be programmed in a federal TIP (for projects in urbanized regions) and also in a federal
STIP. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are responsible for developing and adopting federal
TIPS and Caltrans is responsible for preparing the federal STIP. The requirements for federal TIPS
and the federal STIP are specified in federal statutes (Title 23 USC) and federal regulations (23
CFR part 450).
IL STIP Contents:
6. General. The STIP is a biennial document adopted no later than April 1 of each even numbered
year. Each STIP will cover a four year period and add two new years of programming capacity.
Each new STIP will include projects carried forward from the previous STIP plus new projects and
reserves from among those proposed by regional agencies in their regional transportation
improvement programs (RTIPs) and by Caltrans in its interregional transportation improvement
program MU). State highway project costs in the STIP will include all Caltrans project support
costs and all project listings will specify costs for, each of the following four components:
(1)completion of all permits and environmental studies; (2) preparation of plans, specifications,
and estimates; (3)right-of-way acquisition; and (4) construction and construction management and
engineering, including surveys and inspection. (See sections 41 and 44 of these guidelines for
guidance on the display of project components and their costs.)
The 1998 STIP is a transition STIP, covering the.6-year period from FY 1998-99 through
FY 2003-04. The 2000 STIP will cover the 4-year period from FY 2000-01 through FY 2003-04.
Later biennial STIPs will cover 4-year periods, each adding two new years of pro gamming.
7. County and Interrer?ional Shares. The STIP consists of two broad programs, the regional program
funded from 75% of new STIP funding and the interregional program fimded from 25% of new
STIP ftmding. The:75% regional program is further subdivided by formula into county shares.
County shares are available solely for projects nominated by regions in their RTIPs. The Caltrans .
=will nominate only projects for the interregional program. Under restricted circumstances, an
RTIP may also recommend a project for finding from the interregional share (see section 32 of
these guidelines).
The 1998 STIP period constitutes a single county share period ending FY 2003-04; later county
share periods will be 4-year periods,beginning with the period ending FY 2007-08. Both surpluses
and deficits of county shares and interregional shares will carry forward from one period to the
next The Commission will program each new project, including Caltrans support costs, either
from a county share or from"the interregional share. (See sections 47-52 of these guidelines for'
the method of counting cost changes after initial programming.)
8. Joint Funding from Resional and Interreaonal Shares. If Caltrans and a regional agency agree,
they may recommend that a new project or a project cost increase be jointly funded from count'
and interregional shares. In that case, the region will nominate the county share in the RTIP a
Caltrans will nominate the interregional share in the NIP.
2 3-24
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
9. Prior Year Projects. The STIP shall include projects from the prior STIP that are expected to be
advertised prior to July 1 of the year of adoption, but for which the Commission has not yet
allocated funds.
10. 1996 STIP Projects. All 1996 STIP project costs will be funded off the top prior to the division of
new fimds between the regional and interregional programs. This grandfathered funding will
include Caltrans support costs, and the project cost display for 1996 STIP projects will conform to
the same standards used for new STIP projects. Any cost changes to 1996 STIP projects will be
drawn from or credited to county and interregional shares the same as if they were cost changes to
new STIP projects. Except where there is a proposal for jointly funding a cost increase from
county and interregional shares, cost changes that Caltrans requests for projects originally
programmed under the former intercity rail, -interregional road system, or retrofit soundwall
programs or for NAFTA projects programmed in the 1996 STIP will be drawn from or credited to
the new interregional share. All other cost changes will be drawn from or credited to the
appropriate regional share.
11. Transportation Management Sygem Imyrovements. .The Commission supports implementation
and application of transportation management systems (TMS) improvements to address highway
congestion and to manage transportation systems. Under current statutes Caltrans is owner
operator of the state highway system and is responsible for overall management of the state
highway system. The regional transportation agencies are responsible for planning and
programming transportation strategies, facilities and improvements which address regional
transportation issues and system wide congestion. The Commission encourages the regions and
Caltrans to work cooperatively together to plan, program, implement, operate and manage
transportation facilities as an integrated system with the objective of maximizing available
transportation resources and overall transportation systems performance.
Considering this objective and the respective responsibilities of Caltrans and the regional agencies,
it is the Commission's policy that TMS improvements for state highways may be programmed in
the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) by Caltrans in consultation with
regional agencies if such improvements are part of a region's adopted.strategy for addressing
system wide congestion. The regions are encouraged to program TMS improvements in their RTIP
for STIP programming if timely programming through the SHOPP isn't possible because of
funding limitations in the SHOPP. TMS improvements include the following types of projects:
• Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) including necessary computer software and
hardware.
• TMC interconnect projects which allow a TMC to substitute for another TMC during an
emergency.
• TMC field elements such as, but not limited to, traffic sensors, message signs, cameras and
ramp meters which upgrade the existing facilities and are necessary to facilitate the operation
of the TMC.
3 3-25
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
The application of TMS improvements should be coordinated with other operational improvement
such as freeway ramp/local street access modifications and auxiliary lanes in order to maximize th
TMS benefits. Prior to programming a new highway facility for construction, reconstruction or
rehabilitation in the STIP or in the SHOPP, regions and Caltrans should fully consider
transportation systems management plans and needs and include -any necessary TMC field
elements to support operation of existing or planned TMCs.
12. Capacity Increasing Highway Operational Improvements. State highway operational .
improvements which expand the design capacity of the system such as those listed below are not
eligible for the SHOPP. To the extent such projects address regional issues, the regional agency is
responsible for nominating them for.STIP programming through the RTIP process. To the extent
such projects address interregional issues, Caltrans is responsible for nominating them for STIP
programming through the rrlP process.
1. High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lanes and HOV interchanges.
2.- Interchange design modifications and upgrades to accommodate traffic volumes that are
significantly larger than the existing facility was designed for.
3. Truck or slow vehicle lanes on freeways of six or more mixed flow lanes.
13. Non-Capacity Increasing kBi ghway Operational Improvements. State highway operational
improvements which do not expand the design capacity of the system and which are intended to
address spot congestion and are not directly related to TMCs or TMC field elements are eligible
for the SHOPP. Regions may nominate these types of projects for STIP programming through
the RTIP process if timely implementation through the SHOPP is not possible. Examples of
such projects include:
1. Auxiliary lanes for merging or weaving between adjacent interchanges.
2. Intersection modifications including traffic signals.
3. Slow vehicle lanes on conventional highways and four lane freeways.
4. Curve and vertical alignment corrections.
5. Two-way left turn lanes.
6. Channelizatiom
7. Turnouts.
8. Chain control and truck brake inspection sites.
9. Shoulder widening.
4 3-26
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
III STIP Requirements for All Proiects:
14. Proiect Study Reports. A new project may not be included in either an RTIP or the = without a
complete project study report (PSR) or, for a project that is not on a State highway, a PSR
equivalent. This requirement applies to the programming of project development components as
well as to right-of-way and construction. This requirement does not apply to the programming of
project planning, programming, and monitoring or to the STIP match of RSTP/CMAQ funds. A
PSR is a report that meets the standards of the Commission's PSR guidelines. For Transportation
Enhancement Activities (TEA) projects, an application prepared in accordance with the
Commission's TEA program guidelines is a PSR equivalent. For a transit project, the
Commission's Uniform Transit Application is a PSR equivalent. A project study report equivalent
will, at a minimum, be adequate to define and justify the project scope, cost and schedule to the
satisfaction .of the regional agency. Though a PSR or equivalent may focus on the project
components proposed for programming, it must provide at least a preliminary estimate of costs for
all components. The PSR, or PSR equivalent, need not be submitted with the RTIP or TI'IP.
However, the Commission or its staff may request copies of a project's report to document the
project's cost or deliverability.
15. Full and Partial Fundins. Project components may be programmed sequentially. That is, a project
may be programmed for project development without being programmed for right-of-way or
construction. A project may be programmed for right-of-way without being programmed for
construction. However,the Commission will program a project component only if it finds that the
component itself is fully funded, either from STIP funds or from other committed funds.
Before proposing to program a project's components sequentially, Caltrans or the regional agency
should demonstrate the means by which it intends to fund the construction of a useable segment,
consistent with the regional transportation plan or the Caltrans interregional transportation strategic
plan.
All regional agencies with rail transit projects shall submit full funding plans describing each
overall project and/or useable project segment Each plan shall list Federal, State, and local
funding categories by fiscal year over the time-frame that funding is sought, including funding for
initial operating costs. Moreover, should the project schedule exceed the funding horizon, then the
amount needed beyond what is currently requested shall be indicated. This information may be
incorporated in the project fact sheets (see section 39 of these guidelines).
The Commission will regard non-STIP funds as committed when the agency with discretionary
authority over the funds has made its commitment to.the project by ordinance or resolution. For
Federal formula funds, including RSTP, CMAQ, and Federal formula transit funds, the
commitment may be by Federal TIP adoption. For Federal discretionary funds, the commitment
may be by Federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval.
5 3-27
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
16. Completion of environmental Process. The Commission may program funding for project right-or
way or construction only if it finds that the sponsoring agency will complete the environmem
process and can proceed with right-of-way acquisition or construction within the four-year period
of the STIP. In compliance with Section 21150 of the Public Resources Code, the Commission
may not allocate fundsto local agencies for design, right-of-way, or construction prior to
documentation of environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act.
17. Calumis/Redonal Consultations. Caltrans and regional agencies shall consult with each other in_
the development of the rM and the RTIPs. As a part of this consultation, Caltrans will advise
regional agencies, as for in advance as is practicable, of projects that may be or are likely to be
included in the rM, including the potential for joint funding from county and interregional shares,
and will seek the advice of the regional agencies regarding these projects. The consultation should
allow regional agencies to consider and to advise Caltrans regarding the potential impact of the
rM on the programming of projects in the RTIP. The Commission encourages Caltrans to assist
the regional agencies that are responsible for preparing a Federal TIP by identifying.projects that
may be included in the rM,recognizing that Federal regulations generally require that a project in
a county with an urbanized area be included in the Federal TIP in order to qualify for Federal
funding.
As part of this consultation, each regional agency should seek and consider the advice of Caltrans
regarding potential regional program funding for State highway and intercity rail projects and
should advise Caltrans, as far in advance as is practicable, of staff recommendations or other
indications of projects that may be or are likely to be included in the RTIP. The consultat
should allow Caltrans to consider and advise the regional agency regarding the potential impact
the RTIP on the programming of projects in the PTIP. Where the regional agency prepares a
Federal TIP, the consultation should provide for the timely inclusion of State highway projects in
the Federal TIP.
The RTIPs and-the rI1P should also be developed consistent with the objectives and guidance
contained in the California Transportation Planning Directions Statement prepared in response to
the following language contained in the 1999-2000 Budget Act:
-In order to promote greater consistency and coordination between regional and
interregional transportation planning and programming, the Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency, in cooperation with the California Transportation Commission, shall
develop a California Transportation Planning Directions Statement that will provide
strategic objectives and guidance for the development of regional transportation plans,
regional transportation improvement programs and the Interregional Transportation
Improvement Program for the development of the State Transportation Improvement
Program for the year 2000:'
Nothing in this section is meant to require that Caltrans or a regional agency make final
commitments regarding the inclusion of particular projects in the IIIP or RTIP in advance of the
December 15 deadline for submission-
6 3-28
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2.
18. Minorproiects. There is no minimum size for a STIP project. The minor reserve in the Caltrans
State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) is for SHOPP projects only. The
Commission will not allocate funds from the SHOPP minor program for capacity-increasing
projects, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, soundwalls, and enhancements and mitigation
for STIP projects.
19. Criteria For Measuring Performance And Cost-Effectiveness. In order to maximize the state's
investments in transportation infrastructure, it is the Commission's policy that each RTIP and the
ITIP will be evaluated, as they are developed, for performance and cost-effectiveness at the system
or project level as appropriate. For large projects for which major investment studies are
undertaken,"a project level evaluation is preferable. The evaluation should be done by each region
and by Caltrans before the RTIPs and the TTIP are submitted to the Commission for incorporation
into the STIP. Beginning with the 2002 STIP cycle, each RTIP and the NIP submitted to the
Commission will be accompanied by a report on its performance and cost-effectiveness. Ideally,
as performance measurement concepts and techniques mature, regional agencies and Caltrans will,
as part of the transportation planning and programming process, monitor transportation systems
and projects for performance and refine performance forecasts for use in evaluation of future
RTIPs and TTIPs.
The Commission will consider the evaluations submitted by regions when making decisions on
RTIPs as descnbed in Section 54 of these guidelines. The Commission will consider evaluation
submitted by Caltrans when malting decisions on the TTIP as described in Section 56 of these
guidelines.
The evaluation report should clearly demonstrate how effective the RTIP br the TTIP is in
addressing or achieving the goals, objectives and standards which are established as part of the
respective regional transportation plan (RTP) or Caltrans' Interregional Transportation Strategic
Plan (ITSP). The purpose of the evaluation report is to assess the performance and cost
effectiveness of each RTIP and the TIP based on its own merits, not to attempt a comparative
assessment.between individual RTIPs or RTIPs and the TTIP. RTIP evaluations should also
address how the RTIP relates to the TTSP at key points of interregional system connectivity.
Caltrans' evaluation of the TTIP should address TTIP consistency with the RTPs. Each region is
responsible for establishing the transportation goals, objectives and standards to be used in its
evaluation of RTIP performance. . However, the Commission urges each region to consider
including improvements to mobility, accessibility,reliability,sustainability and safety as part of the
fimdamental goals of any long-range transportation plan.
Regions and Caltrans are responsible for determining the techniques and methodology to be used
in evaluating the performance and cost-effectiveness of RTIPs and the rM. The Commission
recognizes that many measures of performance and benefit are difficult to evaluate and may be
more subjective rather than measurable in quantifiable units. In order to facilitate statewide
consistency, regions and Caltrans, should also consider using (when appropriate) values of
performance and benefits and evaluation methodologies which are commonly accepted and which
represent accepted or standard practice. The Commission encourages regions to consider using
(when appropriate) values of time, safety, vehicle operation costs and discount rates which are
developed by Caltrans for benefit cost analysis of transportation projects.
3-29
S'L'IP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
The Commission does expect that evaluations of performance and cost-effectiveness will be for a
20-year period or on a life cycle basis. Reports to the Commission on evaluations of performance
and cost effectiveness should be presented in a format which is disaggregated to the level of the
benefits and measures used.
In establishing the following criteria the Commission recognizes that it may be difficult to develop
and utilize criteria that is relevant in both urban and non-urban regions and that different criteria
may apply depending on the complexity of the region and its RTP. and RTIP. To this end, each
region should select and utilize criteria most applicable to its own jurisdiction.
Regions and Caltrans should consider the following or other local/regional criteria for measuring
performance of RTIPs and the=: .
1. Change in vehicle occupant, freight and goods travel time or delay.
2. Change in accidents and fatalities.
3. Change in vehicle and system operating costs.
4. Change in access to jobs,markets and commerce.
5. Change in frequency and reliability of rail/transit service.
6. Change in air pollution emissions.
7. Change in passenger,freight and goods miles carried
Regions and Caltrans should consider the following or other locaUregional criteria for
measuring cost-effectiveness of RTIPs and the TI'IP:
1. Decrease in vehicle occupant travel, freight and goods time per thousand dollar invested.
2. Decrease in accidents and fatalities per thousand dollar invested.
3. Decrease in vehicle.and system operating cost per thousand dollar invested
4. Improved access to jobs,markets and commerce per thousand dollar invested.
5. Increased frequency reliability of rail/transit service per thousand dollar invested.
6. Decrease in air pollution emissions per thousand dollar invested
7. Increase in annual passenger,freight and goods miles carried per thousand dollar invested.
IV. Regional Improvement Program:
20. Submittal of RTIPs. After consulting-with Caltrans, each regional agency §hall adopt and submit
its RTIP to the Commission and to Caltrans no later than December 15 of each odd-numbered year.
The RTIP will include and separately identify:
(a) programming proposals from the county shares) for the four-year STIP period. These
proposals may include new projects, changes to prior STIP projects,and program reserves.
(b) Any request to advance a future county share for a larger project (permitted only in regions
under 1 million population).
(c) Any project recommendations for the interregional share.
8 3-30
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
21. Proieci Planning and Programming. The RTIP may propose to program up to 2 percent of the
county share for project planning, programming and monitoring by the transportation planning
agency or, within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) area, by a county
transportation commission. If a regional agency receives Federal metropolitan planning funds,
however, the RTIP may program no more than %2%of the county share for that agency. If the RTIP
proposes programming funds for both SCAG and a county transportation commission, the total
will not exceed 2 percent of the county share.
Funds programmed for this purpose should be spread across the years of the STIP. When allocated
by the Commission,the finds will be available to cover costs of.
• Regional transportation planning, including the development and preparation of the
regional transportation plan.
• Project planning, including.-the development of project study reports or major investment
studies, conducted by regional agencies or by local agencies in cooperation with regional
agencies.
• Program development,including the preparation of RTIPs and studies supporting them.
• Monitoring the implementation of STIP projects, including project delivery, timely use of
fiords, and compliance with State law and the Commission's guidelines.
Caltrans expenses for these purposes are included in the Department's annual budget and will not
be finded through the STIP.
22. TEA Restriction on County Shares. With the exception of TEA projects grandfathered from the
1996 STIP, the. Commission does not intend to program TEA projects into the STIP. In
accordance with Commission action in September and October 1998, TEA projects will be funded
either through the Caltrans local assistance program, the-State Highway Operations & Protection
Program (SHOPP) or the state Environmental Enhancement.& Mitigation (EEM) program as
appropriate. Funding for TEA projects not included in the STIP will not be counted as part of the
county share.
23. Advances and Reserves of County Shares. A region with a population of less than 1 million may,
in its RTIP,ask the Commission to advance an amount beyond its county share for a larger project
The requested advance may not exceed 200 percent of the county share identified in the Fund
Estimate. The RTIP will separately identify the project or project components it proposes to
program with the advance, following the same display format used for other RTIP proj ects.
Any region may, in its RTIP, ask to leave all or part of its county share unprogrammed, thus
reserving that amount to build up a larger share for a higher cost project or otherwise to program
projects in the county at a later time. Upon Commission adoption of these guidelines, all short-
term reserves programmed in the 1998 STIP will be recognized and managed as unprogrammed
shares. The Commission may use funds freed up by these reserves to advance county shares in
other counties. The Commission, with the consent of Caltrans, may also consider advancing
county shares by reserving a portion of the interregional share until the next county share period.
9 3-31
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
24. RSTP/CMAO Match Reserve. A region may, in its RTIP,propose a reserve from its county shad
for each year of the STIP to match Regional Surface Transportation Program and Congestiot.
Mitigation and Air Quality program(RSTP/CMAQ) funds, as authorized by Streets and Highways
Code Section 188.5(e). The Commission may allocate (or may authorize Caltrans to allocate)
funds from this reserve, at the request of the region, to eligible RSTP and CMAQ projects without
further Commission action to amend the STIP to identify the individual projects. STIP funds
programmed and allocated to match RSTP and CMAQ funds are available for any purpose
permissible under the Federal STP and CMAQ programs and under Article XIX of the California-
Constitution. Because a region's RSTP/CMAQ reserve precludes the programming of the funds
elsewhere, the Commission will apply the timely use of funds rule (see section 59 of these
guidelines)to the RST?/CMAQ reserve as if it were a programmed project.
25. Regional Improvement Program Proiect Elid-ility. Except for project planning, programming,
and monitoring, all STIP projects will be capital projects (including project development costs)
needed to improve transportation in the region. These projects generally may include, but are not
limited to, improving State highways, local roads, public transit (including buses), intercity rail,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, grade separations, transportation system management,
transportation demand management, soundwalls, intermodal facilities, and safety. Non-capital
costs for transportation system management or transportation demand management may be
included where the regional agency finds the project to be a cost-effective substitute for capital
expenditures. Other non-capital projects(e.g.road and transit maintenance) are not eligible.
In addition to meeting general program standards, all STIP projects must meet eligibili
requirements specific to the STIP's funding sources. Unless the fund estimate specifies otherwise,
the Commission expects all projects in the STIP to be funded from the State Highway Account
(SHA),which includes both State revenues and Federal revenues.
Except for project planning, programming and monitoring, regional program STIP nominations
will be consistent with the following statutory sequence of priorities for programming from the
State Highway Account:
• Safety improvements on transportation facilities other than State highways where physical
changes, other than adding new capacity, would. reduce fatalities and the number and
severity of injuries. (Safety projects on State highways are programmed in the SHOPP.)
• Transportation capital improvements that expand capacity or reduce congestion, or do both.
These improvements may include the reconstruction of local roads and transit facilities and
non-capital'expenditures for transportation systems management and transportation demand
management projects that are a cost-effective substitute for capital expenditures.
• Environmental enhancement and mitigation, including TEA projects and soundwall
projects.
Article XIX of the California Constitution permits the use of State revenues in the SHA only for
State highways, local roads, and guideway fixed facilities. This means, for example, that rail
rolling stock and buses may be funded only from the Federal revenues in the SHA. For se
projects, the non-Federal match (generally a minimum of 11%s%) will have to be provided fron.
non-STIP source.
10 3-32
Attachment B
ELIGIBLE SHA&STP PROJECTS
A. Use of SHA Funds - Projects to be funded with State Highway Account (SHA) must be
consistent with Article XIX of the State Constitution, for purposes related to public streets and
highways and public mass transit guideways, as follows:
1) The research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation of public
streets and highways(and their related public facilities for nonmotorized traffic), including the
mitigation of their environmental effects,the payment for property taken or damaged for such
purposes, and the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes.
2) The research, planning, construction, and improvement of exclusive public mass transit
guideways (and their related fixed facilities), including the mitigation of their environmental
effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, the administrative
costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes, and for the maintenance of the
structures and the immediate right-of-way for the public mass transit guideways, but
excluding the maintenance and operating costs for mass transit power systems and mass
transit passenger facilities, vehicles, equipment and services.
A "mass transit guideway" is interpreted to be: a channel, slot or track in which a common
carrier vehicle is fitted or linked so that its line of motion is controlled. No other type of mass
transit would qualify for the expenditure of gas tax monies. Based on this restriction,
jurisdictions in the San Luis Obispo region would not be able to use the SHA funds for public
transit improvements (including the purchase of buses, etc). Bikelanes would still be able
to be funded, since they are related public facilities for nonmotorized traffic.
B. Use of STP Funds - Projects that may be carried out with Surface Transportation Program
(STP) funds may be any of the following from Section 133, of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA):
1) Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, and operational
improvements for highways, (including interstate highways) and bridges (including bridges
on public roads of all functional classifications), including any such construction or
reconstruction necessary to accommodate other transportation modes, and including the
seismic retrofit and painting of and application of calcium magnesium acetate on bridges and
approaches thereto and other elevated structures, and mitigation of damage to wildlife,
habitat, and ecosystems caused by a transportation project funded under this title.
2) Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under the Federal Transit Act (FTA)
and publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals and facilities.
3) Carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities and programs, and bicycle
transportation and pedestrian walkways in accordance with Section 217.
4) Highway and transit safety improvements and programs, hazard eliminations, projects to
mitigate hazards caused by wildlife, and railway-highway grade crossings.
5) Highway and transit research and development and technology transfer programs.
6) Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and
programs.
5 3-33
3-34
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
It is the continuing intent of the Commission that rehabilitation projects, excluding maintenance,
on the local streets and roads system remain eligible for funding in the STIP.
For the 1998 STIP, the added increment of STIP programming capacity resulting from the
amendment of the 1998 STIP Fund Estimate shall also be available to fund repair of storm damage
on local streets and roads resulting from storms occurring in the winter of 1997/1998. Repair of
storm damage in declared disaster areas should be considered for STIP funding only to the extent
that such damage can't be funded with Federal Emergency Relief (ER) funds or Federal
Emergency Management Administration(FEMA)funds.
Proposed projects on local highways functionally classified as local or as rural minor collector(non
federal-aid eligible) are also eligible for STIP funding. However,programming of projects on non
federal-aid eligible routes shall be limited to availability of state only funding as determined by the
Commission.
Each region, in consultation with its cities and counties, shall prepare and submit to the
Commission by January 8, 1999 an inventory of remaining storm damage projects to be fimded.
The inventory of storm damage repair projects remaining to be funded should include the type,
location, estimated cost and program year for each project as well as the lead agency for the
project. The inventory shall serve as the basis for preparation and submittal of regional proposals
to amend storm damage repair Projects into the 1998 STIP. At the written request of a region,the
Executive Director of the Commission may extend the January 8, 1999 submittal date for that
region.
The Commission's intention in allowing eligibility for programming repair of storm damage on
local systems as part of the 1998 fund estimate and STIP amendment was to quickly fund
immediate needs for storm damage repair by supplementing, rather than replacing, existing levels
of finding for such projects. With this in mind, STIP amendments for storm damage repair
projects will be accepted for notice until December 1, 1999. These projects should be scheduled
and programmed so that Commission allocations for capital finding occur no later than
June,2000'.
26. Federalizing Transit Projects. In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations, federal highway
funds programmed for transit projects must be transferred from the Federal Highway .
Administration to the Federal Transit Administration(FTA) for administration when the project or
project component is ready to be implemented. In order to facilitate the transfer and timely use of
funds, the Commission encourages the implementing agency or fund-applicant to submit grant
applications to FTA requesting a grant number and tentative approval of project eligibility prior to
requesting Commission allocation of fiords.
3-35
11
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
There are four types of transit grants available from FTA which are described in Title 53 USC
sections 5307, 5310, 5311 and 5336. For projects in urbanized areas of greater than 200,OOC
population, the local agency submits the grant application directly to FTA. For projects in
urbanized areas of less than 200,000 population, the local agency submits the grant application
through Caltrans to FTA. For projects in areas outside of urbanized areas, Caltrans acts as the
grant applicant for the local agency and reimburses the local agency which is implementing the
project. Grants for projects in urbanized areas must be.submitted by agencies which have been
certified by FTA. Grants for projects in urbanized areas are processed by FTA on a quarterly basis.
Grants for projects not in urbanized areas are processed by FTA on an annual basis.
Transit related projects such as parking structures and multi-modal stations should also be
transferred to FTA for administration. However,on an exception basis,FHWA will administer the
funds and a grant application and fiord transfer will not be necessary. Proposed exceptions should
be discussed and agreed to with Caltrans and FHWA prior to programming the project in the STIP
and documented in the PSR equivalent and project fact sheet.
27. Increased STIP Funding Particivation. An RTIP may propose, from the county share,to increase a
project's STIP finding to replace local funding already.committed, provided that the local finding
has not been and will not be expended or encumbered under contract prior to the Commission's
allocation of STIP fiords. The proposal will include the revised basis for cost sharing, as specified
in section 43 of these guidelines.
In those instances when any regional agency seeks additional STEP funding for a previousl
programmed project and the projected funding increase exceeds any increase.in the estimated cos
of that project, the board of such regional agency, by resolution of a majority of board members,
shall declare in writing that the increase in the STIP funding is not for the purpose of"back-filling"
other non-STIP fimds previously committed to the capital project which have already been, or in
the future will be,redirected to non-capital activities and purposes.
28. Pooling of Countv Shares. Two or more regional agencies may agree to consolidate their county
shares for two consecutive county share periods into a single county share for both periods. A
adopts a
pooling agreement will become effective for a county share period if each regional agency p
resolution incorporating the agreement and submits it to the Commission with its RTIP.. Similarly,
SACOG may pool the shares of any counties in its region by adopting a resolution and submitting
it with its RTIP.
As an alternative to pooling, two regional agencies may agree to accomplish the same purpose by
agreeing to a loan of a specified dollar amount from one region's county share to the other during a
STIP period, with the loaned amount to be returned in the following county share period. A
regional agency, in its RTIP, may also propose to contribute all or a portion of its current county
share for the programming of a project located in another county.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) may pool its county shares for a STIP period
by adopting a resolution and submitting it with its RTIP,provided that the amount of any coup`
share advanced or reserved is not more than 15 percent of the county share identified in the Fu
Estimate.
12 3-36
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2.
29. Consistency With CMP. Congestion Management Programs (CMPs) prepared by counties not
electing to be exempted from CMP requirements pursuant to Section 65088.3 of the Government
Code shall be incorporated into the appropriate RTIP prior to its adoption and submittal to the
Commission. Projects included in the adopted RTIP shall be consistent with the capital
improvement program of the CMP. Projects not in the approved CMP shall not be included in the
RTIP unless.listed separately.
V Interregional Improvement Proeram:
30. General. The interregional improvement program consists of STIP projects funded from the
interregional'program share, which is 25% of new STIP funding. Caltrans will nominate a
program of projects for the interregional share in its interregional transportation improvement
program MU). The interregional program has two parts:
(a) The fust, funded from up to 10% of new STIP funding, is nominated solely by Caltrans in
the TTIP. It is subject to the north/south 400/o/60% split and otherwise may include projects
anywhere in the State. The projects may include State highway, intercity passenger rail,
mass transit guideway, or grade separation projects. Non-capital costs for transportation
system management or transportation demand management may be included where
Caltrans finds the project to be a cost-effective substitute for capital expenditures.
The second part, fimded from at least 15% of new STIP funding, is not subject'to the
(b) north/south split. It is limited to intercity rail projects (including interregional commuter
rail and grade separation.projects) and to improvements outside urbanized areas on
interregional road system routes (which are specified in statute). At least 15% of the 15%
(or at least 2.25% of new STIP,funding) must be programmed for intercity rail projects,
including interregional commuter rail and grade separation projects.
Under restricted circumstances, an RTIP may also recommend a project for finding from the
second part,described in paragraph(b). See section.32 of these guidelines.
31. Submittal'of Caltrans rM. After consulting with regional agencies and other local transportation
authorities, Caltrans shall submit its = to the Commission no later than December 15 of each
odd numbered year. At the same time, Caltrans will transmit a copy of the HU to each regional
agency. The TTIP will include programming proposals from the interregional share for the four-
year STIP period. These proposals may include new projects, program reserves, changes to prior
STIP interregional program projects, and the interregional share of proposals for jointly funding
new projects or cost increases from county and interregional shares.
13 3-37
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
The ITIP should include, for each proposed project, information (including assumptions ant,
calculations) to support an objective analysis of interregional program priorities. That information.
which should be based on the project study report, should include:
• an estimate of total project costs, including mitigation costs and support costs;
• an estimate of the time of completion of project construction;
• an estimate of annual project benefits (at project opening) due to vehicle time savings and
vehicle operating costs;
• for road projects, an estimate of annual project benefits (at project opening) due to
reductions in fatalities and injuries;
• for rail projects, an estimate of the project's impact on ridership and the need for operating
subsidies; and
• a description of how the project would implement the interregional strategic plan, including
a description of its impact on California's economic growth and the interregional
distribution of goods.
32. Reidonal Recommendations for the Interregional Program. A regional agency may, in its RTIP,
recommend improvements outside urbanized areas on interregional road system routes for funding
from the interregional share. Interregional road system routes are defined in statute at Streets and
Highways Code Sections 164.10 to 164.20, inclusive. By statute, the Commission may program a
regional recommendation for the interregional program only if the Commission "makes a finding,
based on an objective analysis, that the recommended project is more cost-effective than a projec*
submitted by [Caltrans].". The Commission cautions regions, especially those with priority neo
in both urbanized and nonurbanized areas, that nonmbanized area projects of highest regional
priority should be proposed in the RTIP from the county share. The interregional program is not a
nonurbanized area program, and the Commission does not intend to use the interregional program
to meet most State highway needs in nonurbanized areas. The Commission anticipates
programming regional recommendations for funding from the interregional program only when a
recommended project constitutes a cost-effective means of implementing the interregional
transportation strategic plan(see section 34 of these guidelines).
Any regional recommendation for the interregional program shall be made in the RTIP and shall be
separate and distinct from the RTIP proposal for programming from the county share(s). Each
project nominated in this way must constitute a useable segment of highway. The nomination must
be to fund the project fully through the interregional program. The nomination may not be part of
a proposal -for joint finding between the regional and interregional programs. Joint funding
proposals may be made only in concert with Caltrans, with the region proposing the county share
in its RTIP and Caltrans proposing the interregional share in the TTIP.
14 3-38
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item•4.2
An RTIP proposal for interregional funding should be accompanied by information (including
assumptions and calculations) to support the objective analysis that the Commission must make
before it can program the project. That information, which should be based on the project study
report,should include:
• an estimate of total project costs, including mitigation costs and support costs;
• an estimate of the time of completion of project construction;.
• an estimate of annual project benefits (at project opening) due to vehicle time savings and
vehicle operating costs;
• an estimate of annual project benefits (at project opening) due to reductions in fatalities and
injuries; and
• a description of how the project would-implement the interregional strategic plan, including
a description of its impact on California's economic growth and the interregional
distribution of goods.
33. Regional TraMortation Plan. Projects included in the interregional program shall be consistent
with the relevant adopted regional transportation plan(s).
34. Interreaonal Program Objectives. The Commission envisions an interregional improvement
program that works toward achievement of the following six objectives:
• Completing a trunk system of higher standard State highways (usually expressways and
freeways).
Connecting all urbanized areas, major metropolitan,centers, and gateways to the freeway
and expressway system to ensure a complete statewide system for the highest volume and
most critical trip movements.
• Ensuring a dependable level of service for movement into and through major gateways of
statewidesignificance and ensuring connectivity to key intermodal transfer facilities,
seaports, aircargo terminals, and freight distribution facilities.
• Connecting urbanizing centers and high growth areas to the trunk system to ensure future
connectivity,mobilit(, and access for the State's expanding population.
• Linking rural and smaller urban centers to the trunk system.
• Implementing an intercity passenger rail program (including interregional commuter rail)
that complies with Federal and State laws, improves service reliability, decreases running
times, and reduces the per-passenger operating subsidy.
15
3-39
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
The Caltrans UIP should be based on a Strategic Plan for implementing the interregional prograir
The Strategic Plan should address development of both the interregional road system and intercit.
rail in California, and it should define a strategy that extends beyond the STIP. The ITIP should
describe how proposed projects relate to the Strategic Plan and how the Strategic Plan would
implement the Commission's objectives. The Commission will evaluate the ITIP and any regional
recommendations for the interregional program in the light of these objectives and the Strategic
Plan.
The interregional improvement program will include both State highway and rail projects
(potentially including mass transit guideway and grade separation projects).
For State highways, the interregional.program should emphasize the development of a basic trunk
system (a subset of the larger interregional road system described in statute, with extensions in
urbanized areas)that provides:
• access to and through or around California's urbanized areas (over 50,000 population) and
the following area that serve as major economic centers for multicounty areas: Eureka,
Susanville, and Bishop; and
• access to California's major interstate and international gateways, including interstate and
international border crossings,international airports, and seaports.
The Strategic Plan should identify this basic trunk system, with a primary focus on access between
these areas and gateways,not on distribution within regions or on access to all counties. The fbms
should be on interregional commerce rather than on interregional commuting. While tl
interregional program may include projects on other interregional routes, the Commission expectz
the development of the basic trunk system to be the focus of near term investment.
The Commission expects the identification and selection of State highway projects for the
interregional program to be based on consideration of cost in relationship to the following benefits,
with higher priority given to projects with greater net benefit for the investment made:
• traffic safety,including the potential for reducing fatalities and injuries;
• reduced travel time and vehicle operating costs for interregional travel;
• economic benefits to California of expanding interregional commerce through faster and
more reliable access between markets; and
• economic benefits to California of expanding interstate- and international trade and
commerce through faster and more reliable access to California's international airports and
seaports.
Commerce includes the movement of people and goods for any economic purpose. It may include
extractive industries (such as mining, agriculture, or timber) or recreation.
16 3-40
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
A large part of California's interregional road system is adequately developed for the near future,
and the SHOPP provides for the protection and preservation of the existing system. The
Commission therefore expects that the interregional program will be focused on underdeveloped
gaps and corridors in the basic trunk system. There is no expectation that STIP interregional
improvements will be evenly spread across the State, and the spreading of.funding among regions
is not a Commission objective for the interregional program. The Commission does encourage
Caltrans and smaller regions (generally with populations less than 250,000) to consider and seek
formation of partnerships to jointly fund projects on the interregional road system for the mutual
benefit of the region and the state.
For rail,the interregional program should emphasize:
• the preservation and improvement of the existing system of State-sponsored intercity
passenger rail routes, including compliance with safety and accessibility standards and
protection of the State's investment in equipment;
• the reduction of the system's dependence on State operating subsidies;
• the improvement of other passenger rail access between major urban centers, airports and
intercity rail routes; and
• the use of rail grade separations to improve service reliability for both intercity passenger
rail and interregional goods movement.
The Commission expects the identification and selection of rail capital projects for the
interregional program(including interregional commuter rail and grade separations)to be based on
consideration of cost in relationship to the following benefits, with higher priority given to projects
with greater net benefit for the investment made:
• reduced intercity rail running times and operating costs (which may increase demand and
reduce-the need for operating subsidies);
• improved intercity rail schedule frequency and reliability(which may increase demand and
reduce the need for operating subsidies); and
• economic benefits to California of promoting trade and commerce by creating faster and
more reliable highway or rail access to markets, including access to California's
mtemational airports and seaports;
For either hishways or rail.Caltrans and the Commission may evaluate a project as part of a series
of related projects in the same location or corridor. The evaluation may consider the costs and
benefits of the projects as a group. All projects in the group should be part of the Strategic Plan for
near term funding,whether or not proposed for the STIP.
.Where a potential interregional program project may provide substantial local benefits, it is
appropriate that costs be divided between the regional and interregional programs. In this case, the
evaluation of the project for the interregional program should be based on the interregional
program cost share in relationship to the benefits described in this section.
17 3-41
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item.4.2
35. TEA restriction on interregional share.
With the exception of TEA projects grandfathered into the 1998 STIP from the 1996 STIP, the
Commission does not intend to program TEA projects into the STIP. In accordance with
Commission action in September and October 1998, TEA projects will be funded either through
the Caltrans local assistance program, the State Highway Operations & Protection Program
(SHOPP) or the state Environmental Enhancement & Mitigation (EEM) program as appropriate.
Funding for TEA projects not included in the STIP will not be counted as part of the interregional _
share.
36. Proiects and Reserves. The MP should include a complete proposal for the programming of the-
STIP interregional share which complies with the various statutory restrictions, including: the two
parts described in section 30 of these guidelines (the 10% and 15% parts), the north/south split of
the first part, and the 2.25% intercity rail minimum of the second part. Any portion of the
interregional share that is not proposed for a specific project may be proposed as a.reserve for
future programming. This may include reserves of any kind, including a proposal to reserve a
portion of the interregional share for the next share period in order to free up funding for county
share advances.
VI Display of proiect descriptions and costs:
37. Proiect Description The STIP will include the following information for each project, which
should be included in the RTIP or TTIP proposing the project:
(a) The name of the agency responsible for project implementation.
(b) The project title, which should include a brief nontechnical description of the project
location and limits (community name, street name, etc.), and.a phrase describing the type
and scope of the project.
(c) A unique project identification number provided by Caltrans.
(d) For projects on the State highway system, the route number and post-mile (or post-
kilometer)limits.
(e) Any appropriate funding restriction or designation, including projects requiring Federal
- fimzls through the State Highway Account.
(f) The source and amounts of local or other non-STIP funds,,if any, committed to the project.
38. State-only Funding. The Commission will assume that all projects will be qualified for Federal
transportation funding unless the RTIP or TTIP designates otherwise. Whenever a region
designates a project to be programmed for State-only(non-Federal) finding,the RTIP will explain
the reason for this designation. The Commission will not program a State highway project for
State-only finding without consulting with Caltrans. Projects programmed without state-only -
designation and later proposed for state-only finding allocations will be subject to Caltrans
recommendation for exception to federal finding prior to Commission approval as described in
section 58 of these guidelines.
l8 3-42
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
39. Proiect Fact Sheets. For each project proposed for new STIP funding, the RTIP or ITIP will
include a project fact sheet that includes the information displayed in the Appendix to these
guidelines. All regional agencies proposing funding for rail transit projects, will include full
funding plans with the RTIP, as described in section 15 of these guidelines. For transit projects to
be funded in part from a Federal Mansit Administration (FTA) grant as described in section 26 of
these guidelines, the project fact sheet should identify the type of grant, the name of the agency
receiving the grant, and the proposed timing of the grant application.
40. STIP database. Caltrans is responsible for developing, upgrading and maintaining an electronic
database record of the adopted STIP and Commission actions which amend the STIP. Caltrans
will publish the STIP record within 75 days of the STIP adoption and make copies available to the
Commission and.to the regional agencies. To facilitate development, analysis and management of
the STIP, Caltrans will provide the Commission and the regional agencies appropriate access to the
STIP database as soon as possible. After a regional agency's,access to the database is established,
a regional agency will develop its RTIP submittals to the Commission utilizing the STIP database.
41. Cost Estimates for Proiect Components. For each project proposed for programming, the RTIP or
IM shall list costs separately for each of the 4 project components: (1)environmental studies and
permits; (2) preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates, (3) right-of-way, and (4)
construction. For the right-of-way and construction components on Caltrans projects, the RTIP or
rM shall list separate costs for Caltrans support and for capital outlay. For Caltrans projects,that
brings the total to 6 project cost components.
For each project component, the amount programmed shall be escalated to the year proposed for
programming,based on the current cost estimate updated as of November 1, of the year the RTIP
or= is submitted. The standard escalation rate for the STIP shall be that specified in the fiord
estimate for the STIP. Caltrans or a region may elect to use alternative escalation factors for right-
of-way or other costs as.it deems appropriate. STIP costs and non-STIP costs will be displayed
separately. Where a project or project component will be funded from multiple county shares or
jointly from the interregional share and a county share,the amounts programmed from the different
shares will be displayed separately. Amounts programmed for any component shall be rounded to
the nearest $1000. For jointly funded projects, the county share or rM share contribution
programmed for a component shalleach be rounded to the nearest$1000.
42. Authority and Responsibility. For projects on the State highway system, only cost estimates
approved by the Caltrans Director or by a person authorized by the Director to approve cost
estimates for programming will be used. For other projects, only cost estimates approved by the
Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the responsible local implementing agency
will be used.
43. Basis for Cost Sharing. Where a project or project component is to be funded from both STIP and
non-STIP sources, the STIP listing will indicate whether the programming commitment is fora
particular dollar amount, a particular percentage of total project cost, or a particular element or
item of work. Where a project or project component is to be jointly funded from the interregional
share and a county share or funded from multiple county shares, the STIP listing will indicate the
basis to be used for apportioning cost increases or decreases between the shares.
19 3-43
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
44. Program Year for Cost Components. The cost of each project cost component will be listed in the
STIP no earlier than in the State fiscal year in which the particular project component can be
delivered,as described below.
(a) Project development.
1. Local agency project development C-costs for environmental studies and permits
will be programmed in the fiscal year during which environmental studies will begin. The _
fiscal year during which the draft environmental document is scheduled for circulation
will be identified in the STZP. Costs for the preparation of plans, specifications, and
estimates will be programmed in the fiscal year during which this work will begin.Local .
agency project development costs for each component may be listed in more than one
fiscal year, where appropriate.
Z Caltrans project development costs for environmental studies and permits will
be programmed in the fiscal year during which the environmental studies begin. The
focal year during which the draft environmental document is scheduled for circulation
will be identified in the STIP. FAFF 1541- Pr
year-, regardless ef the length ef pe eve-F ;-A-Nieh- tffie Bests SA411 be iaeufFed. Fer- lesal
year-, w1we . Caltrans will report, outside the STIP, on year by year
expenditures for project development components.
(b) Ri t-of-way. Right-of-way costs,including Caltrans support costs,will be programmed in
the fiscal year or years during which right-of-way acquisition (including utility relocation)
contracts-may be executed. These costs may be listed for a single project in more than one
fiscal year,where appropriate.
(c) Construction Construction costs, including Caltrans construction support costs, will be
programmed in the fiscal year during which construction contracts will be advertised. All
construction costs that are included in or related to.a single construction contract should be
listed in one fiscal year, regardless of the length of time over which construction costs will
be paid. Projects requiring separate construction contracts should be listed separately for
the STIP, even if they are grouped for the purpose of share balance tabulations and
adjustments, as descn-W in section 52 of these guidelines.
45. Escalation adiustments. All projects will count against share balances on the basis of their fully
escalated (inflated) costs. All project RTIP and MP nominations should therefore be at costs
escalated to the year in which project delivery is proposed (see sections 41 and 44 of these-
guidelines). Commission staff may make further escalation adjustments, in consultation with
Caltrans and regions, in maldng its staff recommendations and in developing the STIP (see section
57 of these guidelines). Ordinarily, the Commission will apply escalation adjustments only to
Caltrans construction costs,not to right-of-way,project development, or local grant projects.
20 3®44
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
46. Prior Costs for 1996 STIP Projects. For every Caltrans project that will be carried forward to the
1998 STlp, Caltrans will identify the amount of its expenditures for right-of-way (including
support) and for project development through the 1997-98 fiscal year. These amounts,when added
to the amounts remaining and programmed for the 1998 STIP period, will form the project
component base cost for the purpose of share balance tabulations and adjustments, as described in
sections 47-52 of these guidelines.
VII Share Balances and Adiustments:
47. Lona-term balances. The Commission, with assistance from Caltrans and regional agencies, will
maintain a long-term balance of county shares and the interregional share, as specified in Streets
and Highways Code Section 188.10. The Commission will make its calculation of the cumulative
share balances, as of the end of the preceding fiscal year, available for review by Caltrans and
regional agencies by August 15,each year.
48. Local Grant Projects. For the purpose of share balances, the costs counted for local grant projects
(all project work not implemented by Caltrans) will be the amounts actually allocated by the
Commission. No adjustment will be made after the allocation vote for any amount not expended
by the local agency. In order to provide a degree of flexibility to local agencies in administering
projects, allocated fiords may be shifted between project components to accommodate cost changes
within the following limits:
• Funds may be shifted between the two project development components up to the amount
of allocation for each component.
• Funds may be shifted between project development, right of way and construction limited
to within .20 percent of the amount programmed for each component or the amount
allocated for each component if the amount allocated is less than the amount programmed.
Shifting of allocated fiords between components will not impact county share balances. County
share balances will be based on actual amounts allocated for each component. Where a
programmed amount has not been voted,the programmed amount will be counted.
49. Construction. . For the purpose of share balances, the costs counted for Caltrans construction
projects are the engineer's final estimate presented to the Commission for allocation vote,
including the construction support amount identified by Caltrans at the time of the vote. No
adjustment will be made after the allocation vote for the award amount or for changes in
expenditures except where the Commission votes a supplemental allocation during or following
construction. No adjustment will be made for supplemental allocations made by Caltrans under the
authority delegated by Commission Resolution G-12, except that when a Commission
supplemental vote is larger than it otherwise would have been because of a prior G-12 rescission
(negative G-12)made by Caltrans, the effect of the negative G-12 will be excluded when counting
the Commission's supplemental vote for the purpose of share balances. Where a project has not
been voted,the programmed amount will be counted.
21
3-45
STEP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
50. Right-of_Way. For the purpose of share balances, the costs counted.for-right-ofway on Caltrans
projects, including right-of-way support costs, are the amounts programmed for right-of-way in the
STIP. No. adjustment is made for actual right-of-way purchase costs or support expenditures.
However, if the final right-of way estimate, including support costs, is greater than 120 percent of
the STIP amount, the costs counted will be adjusted to that final estimate. To encourage accurate
estimates and mime the manipulation of share balances, the Commission will consider STIP
amendments for projectright-of-way costs only in conjunction with the statewide review of right-
of-way costs in the annual right-of-way plan.
51. Prcject.Development. For the purpose of share balances, the costs counted for Caltrans project
development are the amounts programmed for both environmental. studies and permits and
preparing plans, specifications, and estimates. No adjustment will be made for cost differences
that are within 20 percent of the amount programmed for project development. To encourage
accurate estimates and m;n;mi�e the manipulation of share balances, the Commission will consider
STIP amendments for project development only when the change in total project development
costs is 20 percent or more or when changes in project development costs are the result of STIP
amendments to change the scope of the project.
52. Corridor Projects. For the purpose of share balance tabulations and adjustments, groups of projects
along a route or in a corridor area may be treated as a single project. A grouping of projects for
this purpose should constitute a single major route segment or improvement. That means that,
within each of the.four defined project components (six components for projects implemented by -
Calirans), costs may be freely shifted among the individual projects in the group. This does no<
permit shifting costs between project development,right-of-way, and construction.
53. Federal Demonstration Projects. Federal funds designated for federal high priority(demonstration)
projects that.are not subject to federal obligationl authority or are accompanied by their own
obligation!authority(such as those specified in the Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 and the 1998 Transportation Equity Act lcfor T-the 21st Century) are not included in
the Fund Estimate or programmed in the STIP. Such fimds do not count against the county shares.
Funding for demonstration projects is generally handled through the Caltrans Local Assistance
Program. If the sponsor or implementor of the demonstration project seeks RTIP or rM finding
to match the demonstration funds or to complete finding for the project, the project becomes a
STIP project and the demonstration finds are treated as non-STIP funds.
.If demonstration funds are available forprojects prograunmed in the 1998 STIP, the demonstration
funds may be used in one of three ways. If the STIP project is not fully fimded, the demonstration
finds may be used to help fully fund the project- 'If the pmject is fully funded, the demonstration
fiords may be used to increase the scope of the project or they may be used to supplant the state or
local funds already committed to the STIP project. If committed fiords are supplanted by
demonstration funds the beneficiary of the tradeoff will be as follows: For projects funded with
county share or local finds, the county share and or local fimd will be credited with the benefit.
For projects funded with interregional share funds, the interregional share will be credited with the
benefit For projects that are jointly fimded, the interregional share, the county share and or the
local fund will each be credited with the benefit in proportion to their respective fundh
commitments in the 1998 STIP project.
22 3-46
S'L'IP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
The Commission advises sponsors and implementers of demonstration projects that demonstration
funds are limited in availability for each specified project to annual obligational authority and to
annual allocation percentages specified in federal statutes. This means that the full amount of
federal demonstration funds specified in federal statute may not be available for the project at the
time of planned implementation. These limitations shall be taken into account when determining
the amounts of demonstration fimds available for the options described in the previous two
paragraphs.
VIII Commission Action and Adoption:
54. Incoraoration or Rejection of RTIP. The Commission will include all RTIP projects nominated
from the current county share in the STIP unless the Commission finds that (a) the RTIP is not
consistent with these guidelines (b) there are insufficient funds to implement the RTIP, (c) there
are conflicts with other RTIPs or with the TTIP,.(d) a project is not in an approved CM? or is not
included in a separate listing in the approved RTIP as provided by Government Code 65082, or(e)
that the RTIP is not a cost-effective expenditure of State funds. In making its finding the
Commission will consider the cost-effectiveness evaluation of the RTIP submitted by the region as
required in section 19 of these guidelines. The Commission may also make its own evaluation
based on the criteria in section 19 of these guidelines. If the Commission makes one of those
findings, it may reject the RTIP in its entirety. For the 6-county SCAG area, the Commission will
incorporate or reject each.county's RTIP separately. For MTC and SACOG, the Commission will
incorporate or reject the multicounty RTIP in its entirety. For any counties that choose to pool
countyshares,.the Commission will incorporate or reject the counties' RTIPs together.
If the Commission proposes to reject an RTIP, it will provide notice to. the regional agency not
later than 60 days after the date it receives the RTIP. The Commission's Executive Director may
provide the notice by letter,the notice does not require formal Commission action. The notice will
specify the factual basis for the proposed rejection. The Commission will act on the proposed
rejection of an RTIP no laxer than the adoption of the STIP. No later than 60 days after the
Commission rejects an RTIP,it will hold a public hearing on the RTIP in the affected region unless
the regional agency proposes to waive the hearing and submit a new RTIP. Whenever the
Commission rejects an RTIP, the regional agency may submit a new RTIP. Unless the new RTI?
is rejected in the same manner, it will be incorporated into the STIP as.a STIP amendment. This
amendment will not require a separate 30-day public notice if the new RTIP is limited to projects
considered in the STIP hearings or in a public hearing on the proposed RTIP rejection.
55. Commission Action on Advances and Reserves. If the Commission approves a region's request to
advance an amount beyond its county share to program a larger project, the advance will be
deducted from the county share for the following county share period. If the Commission does not
approve the advance and does not program the project or project components that the RTIP
proposed to program with the advance, the Commission will reserve any portion of the county
share that is thereby left unprogrammed until the next county share period. This action will not
require a rejection of the entire RTIP.
23 3-47
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item.4.2
An RTIP request to reserve part or all of a county share until the next county share period will free
up current period funding that the Commission may use to advance county shares in other counties.
The Commission, with the consent of Caltrans, may also consider advancing county shares by
reserving a portion'of the interregional share until the next county share period.
56. Commission Action on Interregional Pro . The Commission will program the interregional
share of the STIP from.projects nominated by Caltrans in its ITIP or alternative recommendations
made by regions in their RTIPs. By statute, the Commission may program a regional
recommendation for the interregional program only if the Commission "makes a finding, based on
an objective analysis, that the recommended project is more cost-effective than a project submitted
by [Caltrans]." The Commission may decline to program any project it finds inconsistent with
these guidelines or not a cost-effective expenditure of State funds. In mating its finding the
Commission will consider the cost-effectiveness evaluation of the rM submitted by Caltrans as
required in section 19 of these guidelines. The Commission may also make its own evaluation
based on the criteria in section 19 of these guidelines. After a review of the nominated projects,
the Commission may elect to leave a portion of the interregional share unprogrammed and reserved
for later interregional programming or, with the.consent of Caltrans, may reserve a portion of the
interregional share for the next share period in order to free up funding for county share advances.
57. STIP Respreading of Projects. The Commission may pmt projects, project components and
project reserves in fiscal years later than the fiscal years proposed in the RTIP or ITIP if the
Commission finds it necessary to do so to insure the total amount programmed in each fiscal year
of the STIP does'not exceed the amount specified in the fund estimate as required by Sectic
14529(e) of the Government code. In that case, the Commission will compare all project,
nominated for the year(s) from which projects will be postponed, giving consideration to the
leveling of regional shares across the STIP period and, in consultation with Caltrans, to the need to
balance Caltrans' workload by district and fiscal year.
IX. STIP Management:
58. Allocation of Funds. The Commission will consider allocation of funds for a project or project
component when it receives an allocation request and recommendation from Caltrans. All
allocations will be made in units of$1,000, and all allocation requests should therefore be rounded
to the nearest $1000. The request will include a-determination of the availability of funding and a
recommendation on the source of funding. The recommendation on the source of funding shall
include the amounts by fund account i.e. State Highway Account or Public Transportation Account
as well as the fund type within the account including type of federal funds. Caltrans'
recommendation to the Commission for state only funding of a project will be made in accordance
with Caltrans current policy for exceptions to federal funding. The final determination of fund
type available for a project will be made in the Commission's allocation of fiords to the project.-
The Commission will approve the allocation only if the funds are available and are necessary to
implement the project as programmed in the STIP. Allocations for right of way acquisition or
construction will be made only after documentation of the required environmental clearance for the
project.
24 3-48
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
In compliance with Section 21150 of the Public Resources Code, the Commission may not allocate
funds to local agencies for design, right-of-way, or construction prior to documentation of
environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act. All funds allocated are
subject to the timely use of funds provision as described in Section 59 of these guidelines.
The Commission will consider making an allocation which exceeds the amount programmed in the
STIP if a region or the interregional program has an adequate unprogrammed share balance or if
the Commission finds it can approve an advance to the county share or to the interregional share.
Unallocated amounts are available for allocation until the end of the fiscal year in which they are
programmed in the STIP. Funds not allocated are subject to the timely use of funds provision
described in Section 59 of these guidelines.
If a project or project component is ready for implementation earlier than the fiscal year that it is
programmed in the STIP, the implementing agency may request an allocation in advance of the
programmed year. The Commission will consider making advanced allocations based.on making a
finding that the allocation will not delay availability of funding for other projects programmed in
earlier years than the project to be advanced and with the approval of the responsible regional
agency if county share fimds are to be advanced.
When a local agency or transit agency is ready to implement a project or project component, the
agency will submit a request to Caltrans. Caltrans will review the request, prepare appropriate
agreements with the agency and recommend the request to the Commission for action. The typical
time required, after receipt of the application, to complete Caltrans review, and recommendation
and Commission'allocation is 60 days. The specific details and instructions for the allocation,
transfer and liquidation of funds allocated to local agencies and transit agencies are included in the
Procedures jgfor Administering Local Grant Projects Jfn T4he STIP prepared by Caltrans in
consultation with the Commission,regional agencies,local agencies and transit agencies.
59. Timely Use of Funds. Funds that are programmed for all components of local grant projects or for
Caltrans construction costs are available for allocation only until the end of the fiscal year
identified in the STIP. Whenever programmed ftmds.are not allocated within this deadline, the
project programming will be deleted from the STIP. The Commission will not make the funds
immediately available to the county share or interregional share for reprogramming. The
Commission will, however, adjust the share balance to restore the funds in the next county share
period.
Funds allocated for local project development or right of way costs must be expended by the end of
the second fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. For local grant
projects, the local agency must invoice Caltrans for these costs no later than 180 days
after fiscal year in which the final expenditure occurred.
25 3-49
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
Funds allocated for construction or for purchase of equipment must be encumbered by the award c
a contract within twelve months of the date of the allocation of funds. After the award of th
contract,the local agency or Caltrans has up to 36 months to complete(accept) the contract. At the
time of fund allocation the Commission may extend the deadline for completion of work and the
liquidation of funds if necessary to accommodate the proposed expenditure plan for the project.
For local grant projects, the local agency has 180 days after contract acceptance to make the final
payment to the contractor or vendor, prepare the final Report of Expenditure and submit the final
invoice to Caltrans for reimbursement.
Federal highway transportation funds programmed and allocated for transit projects are considered
obligated and are deducted from the state's federal obligation authority balances as soon as they are
transferred to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as described in section 26 of these
guidelines. Federal finds for such projects will be considered encumbered and expended upon
completion of the fund transfer to FTA. State fiords allocated to match the federal funds for such
projects will be subject to the timely use of funds provisions described in this section. Upon
completion of such projects, after notification by FTA of final project costs, the FHWA will adjust
obligation records accordingly. Any federal funds which were transferred to FTA but not
expended will be rescinded as state highway account revenue with no adjustment to county shares.
Any state match funds which were allocated but not expended will also be rescinded with no
adjustment to county shares.
The Commission may extend the deadlines for allocation of funds, for award of a contract, for
transfers to FTA, for expenditures for project development or right of way, or for contra
completion no more than one time and only if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinat,
circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has.occurred that justifies the extension.
The extension will not exceed the period of delay directly. attributed to the extraordinary
circumstance and will in no event be for more than 20 months.
Whenever allocated finds are not encumbered by the award of a contract or transferred to FTA, or
expended within the deadlines specified above, all unencumbered or unexpended funds from the
allocation will be rescinded. The Commission will not adjust the county or interregional share for
any unencumbered balance of the allocation.
Caltrans will provide monthly reports to the Commission on projects which have not been awarded
or transferred to FTA within six months of the date of the Commission's allocation
The Commission will apply these timely use of funds provisions to projects carried forward from
the 1996 STIP as well as to new STIP projects. These provisions will not apply to Caltrans support
costs, which the Commission does not allocate, or to Caltrans right-of-way costs, which the
Commission allocates annually on a lump sum basis rather than by project.
26 3-50
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
The Commission will not amend the STIP to delete or change the program year of the funding for
any project component programmed in the current fiscal year or earlier except (2) to reprogram
funds from a construction project to later mitigation work required for that project, including
landscaping or soundwalls, or (2) to reprogram funds from one project to another within the
same group or corridor, as described in Section 52 of these guidelines. In either of these two
cases, the Commission will consider the amendment only if it is proposed concurrently with an
allocation of most of the funds programmed for the project in the current focal year.
Where a project or project component will not be ready for allocation as programmed in the
current fiscal year, the agency responsible for the project should request an extension of the
allocation deadline rather than a STIP amendment
60. Delivery Deadline Extensions. The Commission may extend a delivery deadline, as described in
section 59, upon the request of the regional agency or the agency responsible for project delivery.
No deadline may be extended more than once. However, there are separate deadlines for
allocation, for award of a contract, for expenditures for project development or right-of-way, and
for project completion, and each project component has its own deadlines. The Commission may
consider the extension of each of these deadlines separately.
The Commission may grant a deadline extension only if it finds that an unforeseen and
extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies
the extension. The extension will not exceed the period of delay directly attributable to the
extraordinary circumstance and will in no event be for more than 20 months.
All requests for project delivery deadline extensions should be submitted directly to the appropriate
Caltrans district at least 60 days prior to the specific deadline for which the particular extension is
requested (e.g., 60 days prior to June 30 to request the extension of allocation deadlines). The
extension request should describe the specific circumstance that justifies the extension and identify
the delay directly attributable to that circumstance. Caltrans will review extension requests and
forward them to the Commission for action. Unlike proposed STIP amendments, extension
requests do not require a 30-day notice period.
61. STIP Amendments. The Commission may amend the STIP at the request of the entity, either
Caltrans or the regional agency, that originally nominated the STIP project(s) to be changed or
deleted by the amendment. The Commission will amend the STIP only after providing at least 30
days public notice. Projects proposed by amendment will be subject to the same standards and
criteria that apply to RTIP and rM proposals. Each amendment will designate from which county
share(s) or interregional share the project is being funded, and the Commission will adjust share
balances accordingly. An amendment may not create or increase a county share surplus unless the
Commission finds that it can approve an advance of the county share (see sections 23 and 55 of
these guidelines).
27 3-51
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
All regional requests for STIP amendments shall be submitted directly to the appropriate Caltran
district. Caltrans will review proposed amendments and forward them to the Commission fo;
public notice and action. The Commission encourages Caltrans, in cooperation with regions and
Commission staff, to develop and implement a set of procedures to standardize and streamline the
amendment process and to enhance the accountability of regions for amendments of projects which
are not administered by Caltrans.
An amendment may change the scope, cost or program year of any STIP project, except that the -
Commission will not amend the STIP:
• to change Caltrans right-of-way costs, except in conjunction with the annual right-of-way plan;
• to delete or change the program year of the funding for any project component after the
beginning of the fiscal year for which it is programmed;
• to change Caltrans project development costs, except when the change in total project
development costs is 20 percent or more unless the cost change is the result of a STIP
amendment to change the scope of the project; or
• to change the programming of any funds after they have been allocated.
62. Proiect Delivery. It is a Commission policy that all transportation funds allocated through the State
be programmed and expended in a timely manner in order to avoid accumulation of excessive fund
balances and to avoid lapse of federal funds. It is the Commission's goal that transportation
projects programmed against funds allocated through the State be delivered no later than scheduler'
in the appropriate. transportation programming document. For purposes of this goal, delive,
means allocation or obligation of funds for the programmed project or project component. For
projects delivered by Caltrans, the Commission's delivery goal each fiscal year QY) is 90% of the
projects programmed in each FY and 100% of the funds programmed in each FY. For projects
delivered by agencies other than Caltrans the Commission's delivery goal each FY is 90% of the
projects programmed in each FY and 95%of the funds programmed in each FY.
Caltrans and each responsible regional agency or county transportation commission will provide
the Com*mm ion with status reports on project delivery in accordance with the following schedule:
• Caltrans: Quarterly reports in October, January, April and July of each FY for projects to be
delivered by Caltrans.
• Regions/CTCs: Semiannual reports in January and July of each FY for projects to be delivered
by agencies other than Caltrans.
The Commission staff in consultation with Caltrans, regional agencies and county transportation
commissions will develop a format and content requirement for the delivery reports.
28 3-52
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
X. STIP Development Schedule and Procedures:
63. STIP Development Schedule. The following schedule lists the major milestones for the
development and adoption of the STIP:
Caltrans presents Draft Fund Estimate to By July 15 of odd numbered years.
the CTC,
CTC adopts Fund Estimate. By August 15 of odd numbered years.
Regions submit RTIPs. By December 15 of odd numbered years.
Caltrans submits IM. By December 15 of odd numbered years.
CTC STIP hearing,North. Jan.—Feb.even numbered years.
CTC STIP hearing, South Jan.—Feb.even numbered years.
CTC publishes staff recommendations. At least 20 days prior to adoption of STIP.
CTC adopts STIP. By April l of even numbered years.
64. STIP Hearings. Prior to the adoption of the STIP the Commission will hold two STIP hearings for
Caltrans and regional agencies, one in northern California and one in southern California. By
statute, the hearings are "to reconcile any objections by any county or regional agency to the
department's program or the department's objections to any regional program." The Commission
will expect any objections to the Caltrans program or to a regional program to be expressed in
terms of the undesirable impact that the program would have on the implementation of the
respective agency's long range transportation plan(s).
65. Commission Staff Recommendations. Prior to adoption of the STIP, the Commission staff shall
prepare recommendations to the Commission for the adoption of the STIP. The staff
recommendations will be made available to the Commission, Caltrans and the regional agencies at
least twenty days prior to the adoption of the STIP.
29 3-53
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2
66. Transmittal of RTIPs. By statute, regional agencies are required to adopt and submit their RTIPs
both to the Commission and to Caltrans no later than December 15 of odd numbered years. The
Commission requests that each region send two copies of its RTIP, addressed to:
Robert I. Remen, Executive Director
California Transportation Commission
Mail Station 52
1120 N Street
Sacramento,CA 95814
Caltrans requests that each region send at least one copy to the appropriate Caltrans District
Director and five copies addressed to:
Jim Nicholas,Progratn Manager
Transportation Programming
Attention: Office of STIP
Depattrnent of Transportation
Mail Station 82
P.O.Box 942874
Sacramento,CA 94274-0001
30 3-54
STIP Guidelines
Agenda Item 4.2.
XI.. APPENDIX
STIP PROJECT FACT SHEET
A. Project Fact Sheet ................................ ...........,...........:.... pages A- and-A-2
B. Project Fact-Sheet(Funding) ................:........................... pages B-1 and B-2
(Note:a template of facrsheets may be found at ham-//www dot.ca¢ov/ho/transnro stio.htin)
f
31 3-55
STIP
STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Fact Sheet(Page A-t)
All Dollars in Thousands and Escalated
Project Information Date:
County Caltrans STIP No.
EA' Region ID.' Rural(R) Route/ PM/KP PM/KP
District urbanized(u) Corridor• Back' Ahead'
PM: PM:
KP: KP:
Senate: Con ressional:
Legislative Districts: Assembly'.
Pro ect S onsor.
Im lementn Agencf.
P 'ed Title: •
•NOTE:STrP W."EA C� . to MPC l A. ROuelCmtiOer ab PM P eOOJAn!Je rplE ter Sia! syn.YO tri Rae
Location and Project Limits pnctude Attached Maps)
Description and Teope of Work
Transportation Problem to be Addressed by Project and Description of Project Benefits- rie
Total Project Component Costs (Dollars in Thana,as and Esmumd)
Existing Other. Existing STIP New New New Other Additional Need" Total
Component Funding (current RIP and 1113 RIP Funding IIP Funding Funding (Funding Needs not Project
(NonSTIP Share) STIP PrOgrilmmmg) (New added RIP) (New added IIP) (Non-STIP Share) ye(Committed) Cost
FY S Amount FY S Amount $Amount S Amount FY $Amount $Amount $Amount
PA&ED
PS&E
RNV ENG'
CON ENG'
RNV
CON
TOTAL
•NOTE:raw Erre N mit EW e a ace er -re CTC STIP GuNN4rt Ef.eeNetm Wmmabn Faral ra b a arra N lennu
ExpectedSo s of Additional FundingNecessaryto Complete Pro -as Identified Under$Additional Need'
FSpecial Funding Conditions or Terms ,Including State-Only fundin 'desi nation and explanation)-(brieP
Project Schedule
FY Milestone FY Fiscal Year Milestone Fiscal Year
Quarter (yYW Quarter' lry/yy)'
Project Study Report(PSR)Complete Start RNV Acdvities/Acquisition
Start Environmental StudiesRMI Certificadon
Circulate Draft Environmental Document Advertise Construction(Ready to List)
Final Environmental Document Complete Start Construction(Award)
Begin Design Engineering Project Completion(Open for Use)
Final Plans,S cs&Estimates
-NOTE: 'Fr Guarrar•u Fecal rser +. Fea raer mea a lermal.
Project Manager(Person responsible for deliveringproject within ithin cost scopeand schedule
Name: Agency. Phone:
Epp: Mail Address: Fax
vw arae 295eye9
NOTE: The CTC STIP Guidennes should have been read and understood prior to preparation of the STIP Fact Sheet.with particular atterr �pd� ns 37-62.
A Copy of the CTC STIP guidelinemvw
s and a template of tris fact sheet are available at hitc,iA dot ca aNgxt mnsOroolsliO.htm
STIP
STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Fact Sheet(Page A-2)
-
- - --- -----.Date: -
Pro ect Information -- -—
EA• Region ID'- Im fementin Agency.
- "Coon - :CT District STIP No.' -
-
•NOTE 571P No.wO E�.asO�?1 C�ngeo.'ita7p^Was�n/�Tp� _._ __...
Project Location Ma"s'=Location Ma of Pro ect in state/Region,and.Area s ecific Ma ---- - -------—---
i
X57
11.
• I\ l7!•1!-llll•11 •1 • 1• '11-1 417
rare
s4•LO4Vll=fll�� 11 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Iy 1�. 1 1 /:
•11••1•1 �rLL•1� 111 •• 1 1 1 1 1 1�
..u••1-u tTGT1 .1.1 n 1 P. 1.(1 1 /1. ��
✓ �ff� 11 P / !1y 1 U 1 1� � g�1�
•
We:u..I nt11TTs • �1 p•, • 1 U 1 P I[n. itf�:T�
11•.•IC 11 ��tT� • 11 1 • 1 n �1�u •• /_ i�7€I�
SEPT.T-*.L!TfiMKDY7i ./,1nM 191TE-IFM OffeWlsycM09175!M OWTM
I.1
• ,
IJcRI�•'�- MEN
----
NEMESES��
Cd7:� MENNIEN IIMMMMMIM�
••a:•.-� «TS M 1. . l• . p . ._ �� • -
•.
u.�.•u tai•}� �i�1,. .. . ry p � U_ �� � • -
I�cR97.'------
•G e7L mml IMMEMMIN��
MMMINE �
TING MENDA
DATE i`bul ®®d...
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jan Howell Marx
• RE: Council Generated Agenda Items
DATE: December 7, 1999
At present, an agenda item proposed by a City Council member may be placed on the agenda
only if a majority of the City Council so agrees. If only two, rather than.three votes were
sufficient to place an item on the agenda,this would more freely allow items of public interest to
be placed on the agenda. Therefore, I request that this policy be placed on the agenda for a
future meeting within the next three months.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Howell Marx
cr. 0 Cr"
_Y 0 FF!L.:1
Q06[ ^;OOS!G 0 POLICE CHF
❑i.;ZMT TEAM 0 REC DIR
0 UTIL DIR
❑PERS DIR
RECEIVED
DEC — 7 1999
SLO CITY CLERK
RECEIVED
DEC 7 - 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL
r'
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITU
c o u n c i l m e m o iza n b u m
O'COUNCIL O CDD DIR
Date: December 6, 1999 9'CAO ❑FIN DIR
LYICCAO ❑FIRE CHIEF
f]' ORNEY ❑FW DIR
TO: City Council CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑DMGMT TEAM ❑REC DIR
wJ 6 ❑ ""
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Off PERS DI
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Prepared By: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager`-'n 4
SUBJECT: AMENDED RESOLUTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GRANT
PROGRAM APPLICATION
The attached amended Resolution is presented to the Council as staff learned late last week that
it was permissible to apply for grant support for environmental projects as well as recreational
ones from the Avila Beach Public Restoration/Mitigation Grants Program, which is
administered jointly by the California Department of Fish and Game, the Central Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District. Since the City has previously applied successfully for grant support for the Ayers
property acquisition from a similar program, Staff believed it was reasonable to submit another
grant for that same project under the present solicitation. The amended Resolution authorizes
staff to do so, in addition to the already-contemplated submittal relative to the Bob Jones City-
to-the-Sea Trail. Given the size of the funds available, staff anticipates submittal of a grant
request for$100,000, which, if successful,would be used in support of acquisition of the Ayers
property on Ontario Road.
RECEIVED
DEC - 7 1999
SLO CITY CLERK
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF GRANT APPLICATIONS
TO THE AVILA BEACH PUBLIC RESTORATION/MITIGATION PROJECTS GRANT
PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECTS KNOWN AS
THE BOB JONES CITY-TO-THE-SEA GREENWAY AND
THE AYERS PROPERTY ACQUISITION
WHEREAS, several agencies of the State of California have completed settlement_
negotiations with Unocal regarding past discharges of contaminants in the Avila Beach area; and
WHEREAS, part of the settlement will include funds for recreational and environmental
projects with a nexus to the losses of recreational opportunity and habitat damage caused by the
discharges at Avila Beach; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Fish and Game, Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District have developed
specific criteria to evaluate potential projects; and
WHEREAS, said agencies have solicited proposals from government agencies and
nonprofit organizations for consideration in disbursing monies derived from the settlement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby:
1. Authorizes the submittal of a grant proposal to the above-mentioned agencies for grant
support for the project known as the Bob Jones City-to-the-Sea Greenway, as said project lies
within the city limits of the City of San Luis Obispo.
IIFuherauiousbiaof anp2nroposal to the above-mentioned agencies for grant
isupport for the project known as the.Ayers property acquisition
3. Appoints the City Administrative Officer as agent of the City to conduct all negotiations,
execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, submittals, agreements,
amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion.of the
aforementioned proposal.
Approved and adopted this 7'day of December, 1999.
On motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution.No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was adopted.this day of _ _ , 1999:
Allen K. Settle,IVMyor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lee Price, City Clerk or ns _ Ci Attomey
ZMuNdI_L Ot D'DIR a V V C l V V V l f V J ! l J 1`,, p�t�p ' . P. i
'CAO ❑FIN DIR WETING AGENDA
1�2rg6CAO El FIRE CHIEF
('ATTORNEY ❑PW DIR ► _ .E /$®HEM
i
❑CLERK/ORIG. ❑POLICE CHF'
❑P/.' Z TEAld O_ REC DIR
GT l 2 ❑UTIL DIR IF
r� scr�nd _ PERS DIR RECEIVED
W•MGII OLn _ DevelopmentDepartment 805-7814173 DEC - 6 1999
kite. Page l of 2
SLO CITY CLERK
Dec. 4, 1999 � � \VIOLJED s 6- U
To: Whitneyc GtL/ Js1ZNOL.0
Y *,;,
date Planner
From . Ken Schwar 'Ttt/�xt�S
Copies: Council,Menold.Jonas, john Dunn
Re:
Dec.. .1 Agenda Item#1, Sidewalk Widening and:.
putdoor Cafes
Whitney, m reading your staff report.I have a couple of questions as well as some
suggestions for text/ordinance changes. I want to get-these to you first thing Monday,
hence the FAX. Agenda page numbers are listed for reference.
1-2_ Bicycle parking is listed as a permitted use, why? Bicycles are vehicles,why use
vahiable nede�vs for bicycle parking?
1-2 Is the City Council the only `city'group which.can;initiate a:sidewalk widening
proposal?
1-2 Must city initiated s/w widening project be paid for from General Funds? My
recollection is that street funds can be used for any
R.O.W. kind of project w/in the street
1-3 Under the section, Should private property owners pay. . ...
Paragraphs 5 and 6 use terms that lack;definition. What.is"excessive"and what is
"exorbitant?" If paid for over several yea;cs,these charges
"�I„ could be`4nmor"and
1-7 I find it interesting that no conmteats were received from either the Downtown
Association or the C of C . . . how much time were th
documents? ey given to review the
1-9- Attachment 1'(Resolution) Section 1 -A. Once a the C' o
the proposer; does this mean that o fie. 8 _. �' until is listed as
aly City Council may propose a widening or cn
does it mean.that the City Council must give final approval to any city initiated W C
proposal? p
i V
W
1-10 Semon 2 Desiaa ,Criteria (I have retyped the criteria deleting and adding words
so that sentence(s)read as I would hike to have them read) a p
31d ballet: Design and construction must address access to underground basements
and the structural.support of new sidewalk overlayment
— --... •.�.......• arcs V.ac ♦VVVJ ! VJ ! ( VJ. P• 1
Page 2 •
e bullet: A minimum 6 foot clear pathway must be maintained in accordance
with accessibility standards. Such clear parthway shall link with pathways
on each side of the property. (The purpose of this suggestion is to allow
the parthway to `weave'i e.: it need not be as straight as an arrow.)
90'bullet: The full length and width of the sidewalk(from PL to PL and from PL to
curb)shall be finished in the Mission style per City specifications. Special
designs made up of Mission sidewalk materials; e.g.:salt finished adobe
colored concrete and 12"x 12 JJ terra cotta tile, may be submitted for
approval by the hearing officer. (The purpose here is to allow some
design variation for each property while keeping the material components
consistent throughout the downtown.)
11a bullet: Delete this criteria. I see this as unnecessary overkill which one day in
the future we could be sorry for. Look at State Street in Santa Barbara as
the best nearby town with wonderfidly wide pedestrian sidewalks and no
automobile parking. This should be our ultimate target.
1-11 Section 5: I favor eliminating bicycle parking as a permitted use in widened
sidewalks.
1-13 Ordinance Relating to Sidewalk Cafes. 5.50.040 Eligible sites. Do I presume
correctly that existing restaurants will have adequate restroom facilities to take
care of added sidewalk patrons?
5.50.45 Required operational standards. Paragraph D re; "contiguous"path of
travel- refer to 8u'bullet language above. Could we not word this to allow that
the path of travel need not be perfectly straight?
1-16 Resohntion Does the$0.50 per square foot . . . include or exclude the area of the
required 6 foot clear pathway? Language needs to be clarified.
Whitney, I hope that you will have some time prior to Tuesdgy evening to review my
critique and develop some responses;otherwise, good job on a coinplicated subject!!
•
I TING AGENDA �
DATE1a�i`b Eft
MEMO
• December 4, 1999 BVOUNCIL
Q'CAO ❑CDD DIR
O FIN DIR
To: Council Colle CRllcao 0 FIRE CHIEF
GATMFINEY Q*DIR
From: Ken Schwartz ' OPCLERKlORIO O POLICE CHF
Copies: Mike Mc arbara Lynch, John Dunn RTFt't 0 REC DIR
❑UTIL DIR
L r r PERS DIR Q
Re: Utility Undergroundmg, Item 2, Dec. 6t° agenda h 149
I have no problems with rearranging undergrounding districts priorities in order to take
care of the Santa Rosa Marsh to Pacific opportunity created by the reconstruction of the
Santa Rosa Street bridge.
I do have a problem with the priorities of District 15 and 16- I think they should be
reversed. That is, Monterey Street from Santa Rosa to 101 should precede Ifiguera from
High to Marsh. I believe the current priorities were established when it appeared that the
widening of Higuera was eminent as a part of inprovmg the 101 - Marsh Street bridge.
When the routing of State highway 227 was changed and the responsibility of rebuilding
the 101 -Marsh Street bridge fell to the city, I question whether we have the capital to
rebuild that bridge in the near term Implementation of the mid-Higuera planning study is
still some years away.
In the meanwhile,Monterey Street which serves as a major visitor entrance to SLO is still
graced with a spider-web of overhead utility wires. I think its time that we move this city
entrance to a higher priority. I recommend that we make District 16 District 15 and
District 15 District 16 when we review priorities Tuesday evening.
RECEIVED
DEC a - i0ol
SLO CITY COUNCIL
MEET11%.. AGENDA
DATE la - 9 UEM-9 C1
city clerk memorandum
Date: December 6, 1999 FeACAO
CIL O CDD DIR
O FIN DIR
0 FIRE CHIEFTo: Mayor& Council Memb RNEY E3 PIN DIR
KIORIa O POLICE CHF�TEM! 0 REG DIR
From: Lee Price, City Cler 72 O UTIL DIR O PERS DIR
Subject: Revision to the minutes of November 16, 1999
The following changes to the minutes of November 16`h have been recommended by Vice Mayor
Dave Romero. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Council Liaison Reports
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
Should read: "It is recommended that, though full consolidation is unlikely, SLORTA
should integrate operations of all transit systems to the maximum extent possible."
• Downtown Association
Should read: "He reported that the board is working to find a solution to the congregation
of a more rowdy element on Garden Street."
` City Council Meeting _ Page 5
Tuesday, November 16, 1999-7:00 p.m.
Coin Collection Services(Specification No. 90043); Parking Security Guard Services
® (Specification No. 90044). 2) Authorize Public Works to solicit proposals. 3)
Authorize the City Administrative Officer to award contracts where costs for the
best proposals are within the amount budgeted. 4) Approve extensions of the
existing contracts until February 29, 2000; motion carried 5:0.
C15. CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES.
ACTION: Moved by Romero/Schwartz to 1)approve the "Notice Inviting Bids to
Furnish Landscape Maintenance Services, Specification No. 90040." 2) Authorize
Public Works to advertise for bids. 3) Authorize the City Administrative Officer to
award contracts where low bids are within the amount budgeted. 4) Approve
extension of the existing contracts until February 29, 2000; motion carried 5:0.
APPOINTMENT
Al. APPOINTMENT OF STAFF FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO YOUTH SPORTS
ASSOCIATION.
Council Member Schwartz voiced opposition because he feels the appointment would not
be a wise use of administrative resources, especially for a new group such as this. He
suggested that the appointment, if made, should sunset in one year. Council Members
Ewan and Marx argued in support of the recommendation noting the importance of having
staff input on the development of the sports fields and related activities. City Administrator
Dunn advised that it will take a full two years to plan the facilities and proposed that if a
sunset is imposed that it be no less than two years. Vice Mayor Romero objected to
establishing a sunset period.
ACTION: Moved by Romero/Ewan to appoint Ken Hampian, Assistant City
Administrative Officer, to serve as an ex-officio (non-voting) member of the San Luis
Obispo Youth Sports Association and appoint Paul LeSage, Parks and Recreation
Director,to serve as the City's alternate; motion carried 4:1 (Schwartz)
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (SLORTA)
Vice Mayor Romero reported that, h c so datio isu i SLORTA received
the "Regional Transit Integration and Consolidation Study." It recommended that SLORTA
should integrate operations of all transit systems to the_.maximtim.eXfeh , & _g The
Board directed SLORTA staff to work with the transit operators, transit system personnel
and City staff toward achieving this goal.
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG)
Vice Mayor Romero reported that the SLOCOG Board is going forward with a contract for a
consultant to research transportation needs and the possibility of imposing a'/z cent sales
tax.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION(EOC)
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, November 16, 1999-7:00 p.m.
Council Member Marx reported that the Governor's decision to veto appropriations of
$50,000,000 for the CalWORKS Program(subsidized child care) is expected to have local
• consequences. Without adequate resources for child care expenses, low-income wage
earners may chose to return to the welfare system. Senator Jack O'Connell and
Assemblyman Abel Maldonado are working on this issue, she added.
DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION
Council Member Schwartz attended the recent board meeting of the Downtown Association.
He reported that the board is working to find a solution to the sestieRglogg
o.
roved _k[eFghl on Garden Street during Framer's Market. They also discussed the
construction of new restrooms behind the Goodwill Industries building on Marsh Street as
well as downtown parking issues.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor Settle reported that Item#4 has been withdrawn.
1. APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION(ARC 11-99)
TO APPROVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT THE EASTERLY END OF
PISMO AND BUCHON STREETS ADJACENT TO THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY; 1330 AND 1363 PISMO STREET. (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 7,
1999)
Associate Planner Shoals provided background and summarized the revised site plan.
Mayor Settle opened the public hearing.
Tim Ronda, architect representing the applicant, spoke in support of the applicant's revised
site plan and responded to questions from Council. Vice Mayor Romero suggested that two
more parking places be included. The applicant indicated that it could be done if that is
Council direction, but noted that he would prefer not to.
Peter Sterios 1340 Pismo Street, spoke representing the Pismo/Johnson Ave Neighborhood
Association. He reported that the Association had presented an alternative plan for
consideration that addresses concerns of the neighborhood. He contended that proposed
parking is inadequate,there are too many units,the orientation of one building is inconsistent
with the neighborhood,and new building window orientation is still an issue. He urged the
Council to approve the project with the modifications suggested by the neighbors and,
further,to maintain a street setback of 20 feet.
Evelyn Talmadge, 1408 Johnson Ave,commented that she believes there to be insufficient
parking proposed.
George Moylan, Executive Director of the SLO Housing Authority,clarified that this project
will provide affordable housing for 55 years and meets every City requirement. He added that
his architect has addressed all the concerns expressed by the Council at the previous
meeting and clarified that there is less need for parking in an affordable housing project than
what is required of a market rate development. Council Member Schwartz asked the applicant
if he was willing to reduce the units by one. George Movlan replied he was not Vice Mayor
Romero observed that the handicapped parking space seems too far from the handicapped
unit. George Moylan replied that the distance is similar to other projects of this type.
R
THING AGENDA G�
-GATE
• memo>zan0um
C�OUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
December 3, 1999 9C'AO ❑AN r.,
LrACAO ❑F _ C:::
CrATTORNEY
TO: Council Colleagues O1CLERKIORIG ❑POUG: CXF
❑MGMT,LTEAM ❑REC DIR
(f /LIV�Pi
FROM: Dave Romero c � ❑PERS DIR
SUBJECT: Agenda Item C-4 Laguna Lake Dredging Project
Council Meeting—December 7, 1999
When the Council considered this item several months ago I voted against the final action,
partially because I felt that staff had overstated the problems in depositing dredged fill material
on park property in accordance with Council long-term direction (1991). Although I recognize
there are some environmental problems in placing fill on park property, I believe we can find a
way to work them out so as to enable us to conduct a$1 million project as opposed to other
alternatives ranging up to $12 million. If there is a will and a long timeframe, I believe it would
be quite simple to mitigate environmental problems on the Laguna Lake property.
The Council directed staff to consider a series of small dredging projects as outlined in Alternate
A in the current staff report at an estimated $3.5 million. The Morganti property gives us a
• convenient location where spoils might be deposited, and that option should be explored. In
addition, I believe we should reconsider the option of disposing of dredged material on Laguna
Lake Park over a long time. Either of these options would change the emphasis of the proposed
engineering study.
My primary objection to the staff report is the inclusion of Project B, which anticipates a dried
up lakebed, and hauling of excavated.material during one summer. This project is estimated to
cost $5 million. I question whether the lakebed will ever dry a sufficient amount that standard
earth-moving equipment could be used. During the drought in the late 1980s the surface looked
dry, however, wheeled equipment quickly broke through the surface and bogged down. I would
guess we are more likely to be doing a project dealing with wet material and that the cost would
be considerably more than the $5 million estimate.
Secondary questions: Is it likely that we will have$5 million (or more) at one time to do the
kind of material removal project envisioned under Alternate B? If we did have such an amount
of money, would the removal of this material from Laguna Lake be a top priority for such a large
city expenditure? If the lake doesn't dry for many years, will the permits, plans and other
approvals still be valid?
I believe this entire agenda item is premature. However, if the Council decides to proceed, I
strongly recommend that we eliminate all reference to Project B.
DR:ss RECEIVED
DEC - 3 1999
SLO UTY CLERK