TRANSCRIPT OF ITEM 4.10
PRESENTATION ON ROUTE SEGMENTS
SPECIFIED IN STATUTE FOR POSSIBLE RELINQUISHMENT,
FROM THE DECEMBER 5, 2000 MEETING OF THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: We do have a helicopter standing by for a tour that they are going to give us later and we're running out of daylight hours fast, so as we go through the next item, I'm going to ask all the participants to consider that and make their comments as brief as possible, as we move into Item 4.10, the Route Segments Specified in Statute for Possible Relinquishment @ Karla Sutliff.

KARLA SUTLIFF (CALTRANS): Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Karla Sutliff of the Department of Transportation, the Design Program. And, I'm here today to present information regarding Route Segments Specified in Statute for Relinquishment.

Street and Highways Code Section 73 and 75 give the Commission the responsibility to authorize what highways should be in and out of the State Highway System unless directed by legislative act. This item provides a general background on relinquishments and lists recent legislative enactments related to relinquishments.

Just real briefly, a relinquishment approves the transfer of ownership from the State to the city or county. Relinquishments occur when a state highway has been superseded by relocation or by legislative enactment. The Commission provides the certified resolution authorizing the relinquishment. The relinquishment transfer occurs subsequently when recorded with the office of the recorders.

The Department typically relinquishes facilities after the construction phase of a project; most often when a highway has been superseded by a relocation. In these cases the Department is required to bring the road to a state of good repair. The Commission's role is to resolve issues over the state of good repair. To date the Department has resolved all issues and has not escalated the relinquishment to the Commission. Typically 40 to 45 uncontested relinquishments are brought forward to the Commission each year.

Relinquishments can also occur by legislative enactment. These types of relinquishments are not subject to the statutory requirement @ state of good repair. The number of legislatively enacted relinquishments varies each year. In the 1999-2000 session, nine bills were introduced which included portions of the following eleven state highways for relinquishment: We had Route 19 in the City of Downey, Route 160 in Sacramento County, Route 39 in the City of Covina, Route 54 in the City of El Cajon, Route 144 in the City of Santa Barbara, Route 101 in the City of San Francisco, Route 110 in the City of Pasadena, Route 209 in the City of SanDiego, Route 217 in Santa Barbara County, Route 227 in the City of Arroyo Grande, Route880 in the City of Oakland.

Several of these relinquishments will be before the Commission tomorrow. It is the Department's intent to progress with the remaining nine routes prior to July of 2001. Any questions?

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Commissioner McKenna.

COMMISSIONER DIANNE MCKENNA: Are they coming tomorrow for a vote?

KARLA SUTLIFF (CALTRANS): Yes, the two relinquishments tomorrow are coming forward for a vote.

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Commissioner Wolf.

COMMISSIONER ROBERT WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I think a number of us have been sort of involved with the concerns of the University of California, and I think the Department is well aware of it. Is there any downside to just postponing an action on that long enough for them @ be some closure between the University, the locals and the State on how they're going to handle the transition after the turnover, because their concerns, as I understand them, are pretty valid. And, I would feel far more comfortable as an individual knowing that somebody was going to go to the table and resolve them before we relinquish that one particular piece. And, I would ask my colleagues if that was acceptable and if there is no major problem, put off the vote on that until that's taken place, and I'm sure it could be resolved in less than two months.

COMMISSIONER DIANNE MCKENNA: I think that's a great ______.

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Well, I don't think that'd be a problem. We've got a couple of speaker requests that maybe can enlighten us a little bit.

COMMISSIONER ROBERT WOLF: I was hoping I could cut about 90 percent of their time off. [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]

KARLA SUTLIFF (CALTRANS): We were not bringing Route 217, which I believe is the route in question, to the Commission to this meeting.

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Karla, we have the Chancellor of the University of California at Santa Barbara who has requested to speak, Henry T. Yang. And, I think it would be appropriate for us to hear from the Chancellor since he's come to the meeting.

CHANCELLOR HENRY T. YANG (UNIV. OF CALIF. SANTA BARBARA): Honorable Chair and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity for me to speak regarding the County of Santa Barbara's plan for the State Route 217. My name is Henry Yang and I'm a civil engineer and also the Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Barbara Campus.

Before I begin, I would like to draw your attention to three letters supporting my comments that I have handed to you today, including letters from Dr. Richard Atkinson, the President of the entire University of California system; Dr. Richard Watts, Chair of Academic Senate at UCSB who is here with me today; and Dr. Barton Myers, a Professor of Architecture and Urban Design from UCLA.

State Route 217 was built by Caltrans over 35 years ago for the sole purpose of providing safe and efficient access to the University of California campus in Santa Barbara. State Route 217 is only two miles long with interchanges É [END OF SIDE OF TAPE @ SOME LOSS OF TEXT] Éhighway with two additional intersections to serve new developments in the community adjacent to the campus. Under the County's plan for this highway, the County will request the Commission to relinquish State Route 217. As Chancellor, I supported enhancement of Goleta community, but must guard the safety and the welfare of our students.

Historical documents show that State Route 217 was built as a freeway, specifically to ensure the safety of travelers, many of whom are students under the age of 25. Data show that freeways have far lower injury and fatality rates than arterial highways. Any changes to State Route 217 should not and, indeed as Mr. Richard Hart from HNTB would tell you, need not compromise the safety of travelers.

State Route 217 connects our campus, which is the largest employer in the region, to the principle thoroughfare of our region U.S. Route 101. The daytime population of our campus is comparable to that of Santa Barbara's business district. Many California citizens participate daily in numerous, educational, cultural, and recreational events and activities on campus. Our integration with the region has also started 45 technological companies, which have contributed to the economic engine of California. We are supportive of plans to enhance our adjacent communities.

Although the University and the County started working effectively this year toward a mutually acceptable design for changes to State Route 217, the County unilaterally decided to proceed with its EIR process before we could complete our joint work. We are very concerned that the County's process will not address the concerns or interests of the University of California and, by extension, the interests of the State. Because the County is understandably and primarily responsive to local interests, we seek assurances that the State's interests will be protected as design solutions are developed and implemented.

Very recently the County has proposed to re-establish this joint work with the University. Based on our past work, we assure them there are terrific solutions that could meet everyone's needs and we are eager to participate and help in the process that results in mutually acceptable solutions. However, our prior experience indicates that the County may not balance its interests with those of the State.

I therefore humbly request that the California Transportation Commission only consider relinquishing State Route 217 after the University and the County agree on the final design. We believe that a clear position of the California Transportation Commission will expedite and facilitate our discussions in accord with the interests with of the State. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Thank you, Chancellor. And, without calling on the other speaker, I'm going to refer back to Commissioner Wolf. I think that he's got an excellent result for our part of this.

COMMISSIONER ROBERT WOLF: I respectfully say @ I mean, the overarching responsibility is to preserve corridors, preserve access to State properties, to do these sorts of things, and unless there's some meeting of the minds on common ground, I think it's at jeopardy, given some of the projects that have been programmed and are proceeding forward. So, I would stand by, Mr.Chairman with your indulgence, to defer this long enough to see if there can be some closure, with an overarching responsibility to preserve access.

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Commissioner Kozberg, you want to comment first?

COMMISSIONER ROGER KOZBERG: Well I was just going to kind of build on what Commissioner Wolf said, and stop me if I'm wrong @ kind of put it in a form of a motion. That we not consider relinquishment of this freeway unless and until we have agreement between the County and the University as to a solution that is acceptable to both, and trust that in good faith they will work hard to come up with something that works for everybody.

COMMISSIONER ROBERT WOLF: If that's a motion, I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Any other questions; anything else on the question? All in favor?

COMMISSIONERS JEREMIAH HALLISEY, ROGER KOZBERG, ALLEN LAWRENCE, JOHN LAWSON, R. KIRK LINDSEY, DIANNE MCKENNA, ESTEBAN TORRES, ROBERT WOLF AND CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Aye. [Nine]

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Opposed? [None] Ayes have it and that will be the order.

COMMISSIONER ROBERT WOLF: You've got to have faith, Jim. You've got to have faith.

CHANCELLOR HENRY T. YANG (UNIV. OF CALIF. SANTA BARBARA): Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JAMES KELLOGG: Okay, I am now going to recess the meeting until 8:30 tomorrow morning.

[END] 1200410/MLF