Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-18; City Council; 3509; FAU Funds State Route Right-of-Way ProtectionCITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. _ *& __ Initial: Dept.Hd. DATE: November 18, 1975 _ c> Atty DEPARTMENT; Public Works _ ' _ _ C. Mgr. Subject: FAU FUNDS - STATE ROUTE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION Statement of the Matter The California Highway Commission has indicated their intent to rescind the designation as a future state freeway or expressway on several County routes unless local agencies agree to assume the responsibility of right- of-way protection. At the request of CalTrans, the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee has recommended that up to one-third, not to exceed two million dollars, of the 1976-77 allocation of FAU funds be available for right- of-way protection. The City Councils are being requested to endorse the action of the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee. Exhibits a. staff memo dated Nov. 5, 1975 b. letter dated Oct. 20, 1975 from County Department of Transportation w/attach. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council endorse the action of the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee. Council action 11-18-75 The Council endorsed the action of the. Thoroughfare Advisory Co-mmi ttee. MEMORANDUM November 5, 1975 TO: City Manager FROM: Public Works Administrator SUBJECT: Right of way protection of State routes - FAU funds At its meeting of October 9, the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee passed a motion recommending that up to one-third, not to exceed $2,000,000 of FAU funds which would be allocated to this region from the 1975 Federal Highway Act, if passed, could be used for the purpose of protecting regionally-significant highways in accordance with current CalTrans practices and procedures. This request was brought before the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee by CalTrans as a result of action of the California Highway Commission indicating its intention to rescind State route designation on those future State highway routes which would not be constructed in the immediate future, and for which local agencies declined to partici- pate in the protection of right of way in the form of acquisition of hardship parcels along designated routes. It should be pointed out here that all routes designated for this program are on the 1995 section of the Freeway and Expressway Element of CPO's Trans- portation Plan. The action requested by CalTrans was supported by the affected local agencies because it was their opinion that, if these routes were decertified at this time, their future certification would be extremely difficult and that, for local surface streets to assume the future traffic burden that would be met by these freeway and expressway routes, would be untenable to the local agencies. To put the action of the Board into some context, it should be noted that the action taken by CalTrans for the last three year priority program, that is, deferring several major projects and allowing local agency projects to receive the bulk of funds, resulted in the District 11 office receiving criticism from Sacramento because it did not receive what was construed to be its fair share of FAU funds. Fair share, in the context of this program, is construed by Sacramento to mean approximately one-third of the funds. The question was asked of CalTrans that, if the local agencies assume the burden traditionally assumed by CalTrans in the protection of right of way, would they still be competing for construction funds in the remaining portion of the grant allocation. The CalTrans representative stated that they would be competing for a one-third share of remaining funds, but that they would abide by the decision of the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee in recommending prioritization of projects. It was, City Manager November 5, 1975 Page Two therefore, tacitly agreed, as may be construed by the form of the motion, that it would be most advantageous to the region to support the CalTrans request, which was in turn supported by the affected local agencies, to allocate up to one-third, not to exceed $2,000,000, of any FAU funds that may be due to the region for the purpose of right of way protection. The actions of the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee with regards to funding construction projects would then insure that the amount of FAU funds allocated to CalTrans construction projects and to right of way protection of State highways would not exceed the approximate one-third share of FAU funds. Ronald A. Beckman RAB/dh OUNTY OF SAN JIEGO R J MASSMAN " DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY Telephone-. UMI 565-5177 County Engineer & Road Commissioner County Surveyor RECEIVEDOctober 20, 1975 OCT2 8 1975 TO: ALL CITY MANAGERS CITY OF CARLSBAD Engineering Department FROM: Chairman, Thoroughfare Advisory Committee SUBJECT : Protection of Regionally Significant State Highway Right-of-Way with FAU Funds On August 20, 1975 the California Highway Commission adopted a series of re- solutions notifying local agencies that the Commission may proceed with the rescission of several State Routes. (See attachments) The Commission stated that unless the local agencies enter into a cooperative agreement with CALTRANS by January 1, 1976 to assume financial responsibility for all hardship and pro- tection acquisition, the Commission may rescind the routes. Reasons given by the Highway Commission for the potential rescission of the State Routes are as follows : 1. Monetary constraints. 2. Routes are not likely to be constructed as State Highways within the forseeable future. 3. Retention of the State Highway adoption would subject the Highway Commission to possible future expense for acquisition of property on a hardship basis. 4. The California Highway Commission continues to have a severe funding shortage for current highway needs . On October 9, 1975 CALTRANS brought this matter before the Thoroughfare Advi- sory Committee in order to discuss possible solutions. One solution discussed by the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee was the possibility of protecting State Highway R/W with regional Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds. This solution would use approximately $2.0 million per year out of the anticipated $9.0 million per year in potential 1975 Highway Act funds. The total yearly allocation is estimated at this time until the 1975 Highway Act is enacted. Another solution discussed would be to let the Highway Commission rescind the State Routes. If the routes are dropped, right-of-way investments will be liquidated by the state and all planning to date would be lost. The potential ALL CITY MANAGERS -2- October 20, 1975 total 1975 Highway Act funds (approximately $9.0 million) would then be avail- able for allocation to local streets and highways, transit, and state highway projects in the San Diego region. It should be noted that at this point in time a 1975 Highway Act does not exist. Therefore, there are no FAU funds presently available for the protection of state highway right-of-way. A basic consideration should be whether to use these potential FAU funds for the protection of state highway right-of-way or use the potential funds for capital facilities projects. In order to maintain the integrity of the regions' plans and planning process the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee recommended using a portion of potential future regional FAU funds to protect future right-of-way needs on regionally significant State Highways. The Committee was in general agreement that the dropping of adopted future State Highway Routes in the San Diego region by the State Highway Commission is undesirable, and that R/W protection is a wise investment. The Committee's recommendation was as follows: Approve in principal the expenditure of funds not to exceed $2.0 million or 33%, whichever is less from the 1976-77 fiscal year regional funding of the potential 1975 Highway Act funds for the purpose of protecting needed future rights-of-way on the following regionally significant State Highways: 1. Route 54 Jamacha Road to 1-8 2. Route 56 1-15 (SA 680) to Route 125 3. Route 75 1-805 to Urban Boundary 4. Route 76 1-5 to Melrose 5. Route 125 SR 54 to SR 94 6. Route 125 1-8 to Urban Boundary 7. Route 125 Urban Boundary to SR 56 It is anticipated that endorsement of the Committee's recommendation will sus- pend the Highway Commission's consideration of rescission of regionally signi- ficant future State Highways. This action would keep the state from liquidat- ing right-of-way investments. Action Requested Your City Council's endorsement of the Thoroughfare Advisory Committee's recom- mendation to approve in principal the use of potential 1975 Highway Act FAU funds for the protection of State Highway right-of-way is requested. The Committee is recommending that your City Council act at this time in order to ensure meeting the January 1, 1976 deadline established by the California Highway Commission. ALL CITY MANAGERS -3- October 20, 1975 A written response to this office before December 1, 1975 would be appreciated in order to incorporate your comments and recommendations for forwarding to the Board of Supervisors and Comprehensive Planning Organization prior to sub- mi ttal to the Highway Commission. Very truly yours, . MASSMAN irman, Thoroughfare Advisory Committee RJM:RDT:mh Attachments (Federal Aid Program Manual 7-2-2) (Highway Commission Resolutions) cc: Director, Community Services Mr. J. Dekema, ATTN: Ed Kubichek CAO Members, Board of Supervisors ^/Members, Thoroughfare Advisory Committee U' S> DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANUAL VOLUME CHAPTER SECTION RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ENVIRONMENT THE ACQUISITION FUNCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PROJECT PROCEDURES Transmittal 60 September 4, 1974Par. 1. Purpose HRW-10 2. Applicability * 3. Authority 4. General Provisions 5. Project Procedures 1. PURPOSE * This directive prescribes Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project provisions and procedures relating to the acquisition of real property for highway and highway related projects. 2. APPLICABILITY a. The -provisions of paragraph 4 of this section are applicable to all States and political subdivisions thereof that acquire real property for any highway or highway related project where Federal funds wilf, participate in any part of the cost of the projeetl b. The provisions of paragraph 5 of this section are applicable to all States and political subdivisions thereof where Federal funds will participate in any part of the right"Of-way costs of the project. 3. AUTHORITY a. 23 U.S.C. 108(a) , 315 b. 42 U.S.C. 4633 c. 23 CFR 1.32 d. 49 CFR 1.48(b) i Regulatory material is italicized . Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual Vol. V, Chap. 2 Transmittal 60, September 4, 1974 Sec. 2 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS a. Real Property Interest to be Acquired (1) On federally assisted highway projects, the acquiring agency shall acquire rights-of-way of such nature and extent as are adequate for the construction* operation* and maintenance, of the project. (2) Where State law permits, rights-of-way for Federal- aid highways shall be acquired in unlimited vertical dimension unless savings in the overall cost of a. project, or other considerations in the public interest, such as plans for community development or multiple use, support the acquisition of rights- , of-way of limited vertical dimension. Where the 1 acquisition is in limited vertical dimension, the rights acquired shall be sufficient to encumber the unacquired realty with provisions which will ensure full use and safety of the highway .facility to be constructed. (3) Subsurface mineral rights may be reserved to the owner thereof where the acquisition of such rights is not reasonably necessary for the construction, protection, support, and preservation of the highway facilittf to be constructed. b. Use and Occupancy of Right-of-Wcy (1) All real property, including airspace, within the right-of-way boundaries of a project shall be exclusively devoted to public highway purposes, and preserved free of all public and private installations, facilities, and encroachments except as authorized by FHWA. . (2) Use of airspace for nonhighway purposes shall be in accordance with the provisions of Volume 7, Chapter 4, Section 3, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual. (3) Joint development and multiple use of highway rights-of-way shall be in accordance with the provisions of Volume 7, Chapter ?, Section 8, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual. Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual Vol. 7, Chap. 2 Transmittal 60, September 4, 1974 Sec. 2 (4) Railroads and utilities may be accommodated in accordance with the provisions of Volume 6, Chapter 6, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual. (5) Bikeways and pedestrian Walkways may be accommodated in accordance with the provisions of Volume 6, Chapter 1, Section 1, Subsection 1, of the Federal- Aid Highway Program Manual. c. Public Information Brochure The State highway department (SHD) shall prepare a brochure adequately describing the "Land acquisition process under State law, and the owner's rights, privileges, and obligations thereunder. The information contained therein chould be clearly presented in nontechnical terns to the extent practicable. Where appropriate, such brochure should be written in a language in addition to English. 5. PROJECT PROCEDURES a. Programming Any phase of right-of-way related work in which Federal funds are to participate shall be programmed in accordance with the provisions of Volume 6, Chapter 3, Section 2, Subsection 2, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual. b. Authorizations.- General (1) The SBD shall request, in writing, FHWA authoriza- tion to proceed with right-of-way acquisition if Federal funds are to participate in the costs related thereto. (2) Acquisition of real property or interests therein for highway or highway related purposes which are determined necessary by project design requirements or other FHWA policy requirements may be authorized by FHWA, including: (a) Peal property or interests therein pursuant to Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3, of the Federal- Aid Highway Program Manual (Noise Standards and Procedures), and Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual Vol. 7, Chap. 2 Transmittal 60, September 4, 1974 Sec. 2 (b) Whole properties or portions thereof to a logical boundary or barrier, thus avoiding severance damage payments and providing a highway 'facility more in conformity with the neighborhood through which it passes. c. Authorizations Concurrent with or subsequent to program approval, FHWA may, in response to a SHD's request: (1) Authorize the SHD to proceed with those right-of- way activities necessary for the completion of the final environmental impact statement or negative declaration and preparation for public hearings, or (2) Authorize the SHD to proc&ed with all preliminary right-of-way activities, including property appraisals, up to but not including negotiations, with the condition that appraisals of partial takings will not be made until the SHD has prepared right-of-way plans meeting the requirements of Volume 6, Chapter 4, Section 2, Subsection 5, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, or (3) Authorize the acquisition of rights-of-way on a project with the stipulation that the following requirements will be met before acquisition will commence: (a) the relocation project assurances and relocation plan have been approved by FHWA pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 7b and 13b of Section 1, Chapter 5, Volume 7, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, and (b) a final environmental negative declaration or environmental impact and related statements have been processed in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) and 49 U.S.C. 1653(f), and hearing transcripts, reports, and certifications required by 23 U.S.C. 128 have been filed. Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual Vol. 7, Chap. 2 Transmittal 60, September 4, 1974 Sec. 2 d. Authorizations - Hardship Acquisition and Protective Buying (1) Prior to completion of processing of the final environmental impact statement or adoption of the negative declaration and if found in the public interest, the FHWA upon proper documentation may authorize the acquisition of a particular parcel or a limited number of particular parcels within the limits of a proposed highway corridor where it is shown that the acquisition is necessary to: (a) alleviate particular hardship, to a property owner, on his request, in contrast to others because of an inability to sell his property; (b) prevent imminent development and increased costs of a parcel which would tend to limit the choice of highway alternatives. (2) Hardship acquisition and protective buying procedures shall not apply to properties subject to the provi- sions of 49 V.S.C. 1653(f) (commonly "known as Sectiun 4(f)) or 16 U.S.C. 4?0(f) (historic properties) until the required Section 4(f) determinations and the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are completed. (3) • Acquisition of property under paragraph 5d shall 'not influence the environmental assessment of a project, including the decision relative to the need to construct the project or the selection of a specific location. ' (4) Ultimate Federal participation in the cost of property acquired under paragraph 5d is dependent upon the incorporation of such property in the final highway right-of-way. Where a parcel is partially incorporated, Federal participation will be in accordance with paragraph 5m of Section 3, Chapter 1, Volume 7, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual which covers excess acquisitions and alternatives for statewide application. Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual Transmittal 60, September 4, 1974 Vol. 7, Chap. 2 Sec. 2 (5) Subject to the requirements of paragraph 5d(2) and (3), the SHD may acquire property with its own funds under paragraph 5d before FSWA program approval and not jeopardize Federal participation in subsequent project costs. The SHD's acquisition activities must comply with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et's&q.), the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 V.S.'C. 4601 et seq.), and Volume 7, Chapter 5, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual. Costs incurred prior to program approval are not eligible for Federal participation. e. Public Hearings i (1) Information shall be presented and an opportunity provided for discussion of the land acquisition process at public hearings, in order to assure that the public is adequately informed. The.information provided at the public hearing should not be limited to that contained in the public information brochure. The brochure, referred to in paragraph 4c, shall be made available for distribution, without cost, at public hearings. (2) SHD right-of-way personnel should provide information for public hearing presentations where right-of-way issues are involved, and be available for discussion at the public hearing. /. Project Field Inspections Right-of-way personnel shall make project field inspec- tions at appropriate times throughout the development of a project £o assure that adequate consideration is given to significant right-of-way elements involved in the location and design of the project, including possible social, economic, and environmental effects. i g. Right-of-Way Project Agreements (1) Project agreements and modifications thereof shall be prepared and executed in accordance with Volume 6, Chapter S, Section 1, Subsection 1, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual Vol. 7, Chap. 2 Transmittal 60, September 4, 1974 Sec. 2 (2) Project agreements may be entered into at any time after Federal funds have been obligated on the project. The estimate of cost of right-of-way required for programming a project may be used for project agreement purposes, provided a more accurate and up-to-date estimate is not available. (3) Project agreements covering acquisition of right- of-way shall, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 108(a), contain a clause providing for the refund of any payments made by the FHWA in the event that actual construc- tion of a road on such rights-of-way is not under- taken by the close of the 10th fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the agreement was executed. The SHD will be considered in compliance with the statutory requirements where, before the expiration of the 10 year period, it has taken all of the following actions: (a) awarded a contract for construction of a reasonable section of the highway covered by the agreement. (b) proceeded with sufficient actual work to give visual evidence thereof at the construction site, and (c) provided evidence of good faith to proceed without delay to complete construction of the highway upon the entire length of right-of-way covered by such project agreement* Resolution No. NIU-75-26 " ll-SD-75 PoW<J bv C.H.C. NOTICE OF INTEMTION TO CONDITIONALLY RETAIN FREEWAY ADOPTION AUG 2 0 1975 WHEREAS, a location for State Highway Route 75, between Route 125 and 0.9 mile east of Route 805, was previously adopted as a freeway on June 29, 1965; and WHEREAS, monetary and other constraints have forced a reevalua- tion of the State Highway Planning Program; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned freeway is not likely to be con- structed as a State highway within the foreseeable future; and WHEREAS, retention of the freeway adoption would subject the Highway Commission to possible future expense for acquisition of property on a hardship basis; and - * WHEREAS, the California Highway Commission continues to have a severe funding shortage for current highway needs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the California Highway Commission will suspend consideration of rescission of the freeway adoption on Route 75 subject to the following: 1. That the local agencies enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans by January 1, 1976 to assume financial res- ponsibility for all hardship and protection acquisition until such time as regular funding of right of way and Construction is possible. ' 2. That if the above condition is not met, the Highway Commission may proceed with rescission of the route adoption. i fcv C*-c- Resolution NIU-75-31* ' • ll-SD-76 NOTICE OF 18TEIITION TO CONDITIONALLY RETAIN'FREEWAY ADOPTION WHEREAS, a location for State Highway Route 76 between adopted as a Frontier Drive and Melrose Avenue extension was previously freeway on January 23, 19o3; and WHEREAS, monetary and other constraints have forced a reevaluation of the State Highway Planning Program; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned freeway is not likely to be constructed as a'f-tate highway within the foreseeable future; and WHEREAS, retention of the freeway adoption would subject the H3r,hw;;y Comrr.irr.ion to possible- future expense for acquisition of property .on a hardship basis; and WHEREAS, the California Highway Commission continues to have a severe fund shortage for current highway needs; NOW,-THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Highway Commission wilj svispsnd. c or1, c id era t ion of rescission of the • freeway'adoption on Rouce ?'6 as described above subject to the following: 1* that the City of Oceancide and San Die^o County enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans by January 1, 1976, to assume financial responsibility for all further hardship ana protection acquisition until such tiae as regular funding of right of way and construction.is possible, 2. that if the above condition is not met, the Highway Commission my proceed with rescission of the route adoption; and BE.IT FURTHER RESOLVED, chat Caltrans, the San Diego Comprehensive Planning Cr^ani^ation, San Die^o County, and the City of Oceansidc- chail cooperate in setting regional priorities to schedule construction on Route-7o as soon as practical to avoid lengthy delay in utilization of acquired properties. "" Resolution No. NIU-75-24 ll-ED-125 0/11.1 * NOTICE OF INTENTION TO pow<| by CKC RESCIND FREEWAY ADOPTION ^Q ^Q jg7r WHEREAS, a location for State Highway Route 3.25 in San Diego • * County between Route 75 and Route 54 was previously adopted as a freeway on June 29, 1965 and December 16, 1964; and WHEREAS, monetary and other constraints have forced a reevaluation of the State Highway Planning Program; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned freeway is not likely to be constructed as a State highway within the foreseeable future; and • WHEREAS', t retention of the freeway adoption would subject the Highway Commission to possible future expense for acquisition of property on a hardship basis; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chief Engineer be authorized and directed to give public notice of the Highway Commission's intention to consider rescinding the i freeway adoption on State Highway Route 125 in San Diego County between Route 75 and Route 54; and also to give notice to local, regional, and affected State agencies of such intention. Such agencies so notified should be reques'ted to furnish within thirty days any additional information that the Highway Commission should have prior to its final consideration. Resolution JJIU-75-28 ~*-SD-125,56 Po«»»<J bv C.H.C. *i NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AUG 2 0 1975 CONDITIONALLY RETAIN FREEWAY ADOPTION WHEREAS, a location for State Highway Route 56 between County Road 680 and Route 125, and Route 125 betxveen Route 56 and Route 8 was previously adopted as a freeway on September 23, 1964, April 28, 1965, and July 21, 1965; and WHEREAS, monetary and other constraints have forced a revaluation of the State Highway Planning Program; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned freeway is not likely to be con- structed as a State highway within the foreseeable future; . and WHEREAS, retention of the freeway adoption would subject the Highway Ccir.minclon to possible continued expense for acquisi- tion of property on a hardship basis; and 'WHEP.EAS, the California Highway Commission continues to have a severe fund shortage for current highway needs; NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED, that the California Highway Com;" is n ion will ; suspend cons idle ration of rescission of the freeway adoption and dir-po^r,] oi" acquired rights of way on Routes 56 and 125 as described above subject to the following:" • ' . 1. that San Diego County, City of Sr.n Diego, City of La Mesa, and tlKj City of El Cnjor. enter into a cooperative agree- ment with Calt-.ir-r.na by Jar.unry 1, 197G, to assume financial responsibility for all. further hardship and protection acquisition until such time as regular funding of right of way and construction i-s possible, 2. thr<t if tho above condition is not mc-t, the Highway Commission ray nroc- = cn wi.th re-scission of the route adoption ai.a di.:-.posa 1. oi acquired rights of way; and BE IT FURTHER RT'SOr.-.TD,- l.h.-it Caltrans, the San Diego Comprehensive Piarnjng Orqanizr.t ion, San Diego County, City of San Diego, City of La Mo^^, anc3 tlic City of El Cajon shall cocpercite in sot tin; r-:-ijionaj. r-rior itie-s to schedule construc- tion on Route 630-So-li 5 as .SOL r .-ts practical to avoid lengthy delay in utilizatici; of acquired properties.