2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $8,150,000 X 1.1 = $9,000,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment C. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10M - $15M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,300,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment C. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $180,000 = $180,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for this alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A1R
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $16M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $32M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $3,750,000 X 1.1 = $4,130,000
Explanation:
Include a brief (no more than 1 paragraph) discussion of the items that are The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure. See layout provided in Attachment C. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,500,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment C. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $340,000 = $340,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
Include a brief (no more than 1 paragraph) discussion of the items that are TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A1R (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12M - $27M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $5,850,000 X 1.1 = $6,440,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment C. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,500,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment C. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $340,000 = $340,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for the alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A3
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M to $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $37M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $6,350,000 X 1.1 = $6,990,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment D. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,300,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment D. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $180,000 = $180,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for this alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3- mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A3 (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10M - $15M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $16M - $26M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $17M - $32M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $8,050,000 X 1.1 = $8,860,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment D. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10M - $15M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,300,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment D. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $180,000 = $180,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for this alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A4
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M to $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $37M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $4,050,000 X 1.3 = $5,270,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment E. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,600,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment E. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $590,000 = $590,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for this alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3- mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A4 (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10M - $15M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $16M - $26M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $17M - $32M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $5,850,000 X 1.3 = $7,600,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment E. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10M - $15M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,600,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment E. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $590,000 = $590,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for this alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A4R
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $16M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $32M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $2,750,000 X 1.3 = $3,580,000
Explanation:
Include a brief (no more than 1 paragraph) discussion of the items that are The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure. See layout provided in Attachment E. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,500,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment E. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $750,000 = $750,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
Include a brief (no more than 1 paragraph) discussion of the items that are TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A4R (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12M - $27M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $4,350,000 X 1.3 = $5,660,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment E. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,500,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment E. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $750,000 = $750,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for the alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A7
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M to $16M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12M - $22M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $3,750,000 X 1.1 = $4,130,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment F. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,500,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment F. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $300,000 = $180,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for this alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3- mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A7 (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12M - $27M
2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $6,250,000 X 1.1 = $6,880,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment F. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,400,000 _________ _________ Explanation:
The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment F. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $300,000 = $300,000
Explanation:
The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________
Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:
A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for this alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A1 - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
9 274,874
7 115,970
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commercial uses
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) City-owned corporation yard will require relocation; business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A1)
STOP STOP 1520' WEAVE YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 600' AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY CITY CORPORATION YARD PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A1 EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.078 1.769 -------- 1.736 0.437 0.394 ---------- 0.996 0.242 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.038 0.061 0.025 5.870 X 10-4 0.225 1.580 0.714 0.567 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A1 (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 -0- N/A
N/A
-0-
101,679
X
X
X
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) Business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate only covers the identified permanent State and City Right of Way per the conceptual drawings provided, and is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A1)
STOP STOP 1520' WEAVE YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 600' AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY CITY CORPORATION YARD PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A1 EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.078 1.769 -------- 1.736 0.437 0.394 ---------- 0.996 0.242 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.038 0.061 0.025 5.870 X 10-4 0.225 1.580 0.714 0.567 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A1R - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
9 243,902
7 143,197
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
commercial uses
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) City-owned corporation yard will require relocation; business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A1)
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
STOP YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 1520' WEAVE AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A1R EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.170 1.277 -------- 1.460 0.201 ---------- 0.984 0.219 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.028 0.050 0.018 3.476 X 10-4 0.167 2.077 0.502 0.473 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.028 CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A1R (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 73,496
-0- N/A
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) Business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate only covers the identified permanent State and City Right of Way per the conceptual drawings provided, and is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A1R)
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
STOP YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 1520' WEAVE AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A1R EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.170 1.277 -------- 1.460 0.201 ---------- 0.984 0.219 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.028 0.050 0.018 3.476 X 10-4 0.167 2.077 0.502 0.473 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.028 CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A3 - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
9 233,272
7 151,747
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commercial uses
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) City-owned corporation yard will require relocation; business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A3)
STOP YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELDYIELD YIELD
660'
STOP 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A3 AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PLANNED RTA FACILITY FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.083 1.260 -------- 1.204 0.042 0.073 ---------- 0.996 0.297 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.038 0.064 0.027 6.164 X 10-4 0.230 1.601 0.714 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.847 R=600' ; V=45 MPH EXISTING R/W (TYP) CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL STATE R/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A3 (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 72,885
N/A
N/A
-0-
-0-
X
X
X
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) Business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate only covers the identified permanent State and City Right of Way per the conceptual drawings provided, and is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A3)
STOP YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELDYIELD YIELD
660'
STOP 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A3 AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PLANNED RTA FACILITY FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.083 1.260 -------- 1.204 0.042 0.073 ---------- 0.996 0.297 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.038 0.064 0.027 6.164 X 10-4 0.230 1.601 0.714 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.847 R=600' ; V=45 MPH EXISTING R/W (TYP) CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL STATE R/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A4 - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 7
294,998
111,975
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commerical uses
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) City-owned corporation yard will require relocation; business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A4)
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
450'
STOP 2270' WEAVE San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.078 3.278 -------- 1.063 0.200 ---------- 0.996 0.092 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.038 0.061 0.025 5.870 X 10-4 0.225 1.587 0.438 0.234 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 1.936 R=600' ; V=45 MPH CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A4 (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 -0-
-0-
294,998
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) Business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate only covers the identified permanent State and City Right of Way per the conceptual drawings provided, and is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A4)
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
450'
STOP 2270' WEAVE San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.078 3.278 -------- 1.063 0.200 ---------- 0.996 0.092 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.038 0.061 0.025 5.870 X 10-4 0.225 1.587 0.438 0.234 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 1.936 R=600' ; V=45 MPH CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A4R - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 7
305,493
133,760
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commercial uses
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) City-owned corporation yard will require relocation; business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A4R)
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 450' STOP 2270' WEAVE San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4R 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.111 3.377 -------- 1.133 0.392 ---------- 0.991 0.082 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.069 0.070 0.038 7.126 X 10-4 0.245 2.011 0.444 0.262 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 1.975 NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A4R (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 -0-
162,750
N/A
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) Business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate only covers the identified permanent State and City Right of Way per the conceptual drawings provided, and is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A4R)
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 450' STOP 2270' WEAVE San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4R 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.111 3.377 -------- 1.133 0.392 ---------- 0.991 0.082 -- 0.145 2.018 X 10-4 0.082 0.069 0.070 0.038 7.126 X 10-4 0.245 2.011 0.444 0.262 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 1.975 NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A7 - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 7
227,166
129,808
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commercial uses
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) City-owned corporation yard will require relocation; business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A47)
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 1570' WEAVE AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A7 EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL NORTHBOUND L-10 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.186 0.735 -------- 1.427 0.296 ---------- 0.984 0.212 0.178 0.380 0.002 0.087 0.024 0.049 0.018 0.001 0.108 2.121 0.393 0.290 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.018 CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To: Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator) (Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted) with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate: Was Requested Was Not Required Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________ Right of Way Required: Yes No
Number of Total Parcels: 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting: Urban Rural Current Land Use: _________________________________ Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________ Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________ Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________ Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________ Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________ Displaced Persons/Businesses: Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required: Yes No
Railroad Involvement: Yes No
Utility Involvement: Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________ Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A7 (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development, and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 -0-
95,005
N/A
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
g~åì~êó=RI=OMN8
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 2 of 3
(Form #)
Schedule
Right of Way will require a minimum of _ _ months to deliver a Right of Way Certification once final right of way requirements and mapping have been received, necessary environmental clearances have been obtained, and required freeway agreements have been approved. This schedule is based on a Right of Way Certification #1 with an anticipated cert date of ________________.
Areas of Concern
Potential areas of concern are noted below:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This estimate is based on the following assumptions and limiting conditions:
The Scope of the Right of Way analysis includes applicable:
Acquisition Costs (including any Excess Lands, Damages, Mitigation, etc.) Utility Relocation
Railroad Involvement
Relocation Assistance
Clearance/Demolition
Permits
Title and Escrow Fees
Construction Contract Work
Capital Costs are based on eminent domain estimating and appraisal methodologies and current market information.
Support Costs are based on district workload estimating tools and historical data from previous similar projects.
Escalation and Contingency Rates were applied based on the proposed project schedule and previous district experience to account for changes in market conditions and other unanticipated project-related costs.
Check as applicable:
A field review was not requested and therefore was not performed as part of this estimate.
Mapping received did not provide sufficient detail to determine the limits of the right of way requirements and/or to determine damages to the remainder parcels impacted by the project.
Additional right of way requirements may be anticipated but are not defined due to the preliminary nature of the early design requirements.
We have determined that there are no right of way functional involvements in the proposed project at this time as currently designed.
(Provide a description of any other specific assumptions and limiting conditions.) Business occupancy relocation will add lead time and parcel may have possible contamination issues.
Based on estimated land values at the time of this estimate, with a 15% escalation contingency. This Conceptual Cost Estimate only covers the identified permanent State and City Right of Way per the conceptual drawings provided, and is intended for planning purposes only - Right of Way should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved.
X
NR
EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - 4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY (Cont.) Page 3 of 3
(Form #)
Contact
For further information regarding this estimate, please contact the estimator below:
R/W Estimator:
Phone Number:
Attachment(s)
1)
2)
Lillian Jewell - Hamner, Jewell & Associates
(805) 773-1459
Conceptual Mapping (Alternative A7)
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 1570' WEAVE AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A7 EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL NORTHBOUND L-10 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION 067-121-022 APN 053-041-037 053-041-032 053-051-045 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE LEGEND: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTS KEY 053-041-036 053-041-072 053-041-071 POTENTIAL STATE R/W ESTIMATE WITH RETAINING WALLS ACRE POTENTIAL CITY R/W ESTIMATE ACRE POTENTIAL CITY SLOPE EASEMENT ESTIMATE ACRE ACRE 1.186 0.735 -------- 1.427 0.296 ---------- 0.984 0.212 0.178 0.380 0.002 0.087 0.024 0.049 0.018 0.001 0.108 2.121 0.393 0.290 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.018 CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
1 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REPORT
1. Project Information
District
05 County
San Luis Obispo
Route
101
PM
26.5/27.3
EA
1H640K
Project Title:
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange
Project Manager:
Paul Valadao
Phone #
(805) 549-3016
Project Engineer:
Claudio Espino
Phone #
(805) 549-3079
Environmental Branch Chief:
Jason Wilkinson
Phone #
(805) 542-4663
PEAR Preparer
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (on behalf of City of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works)
Phone #
(805) 547-0900
2. Project Description
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes. There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of the U.S. Route 101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on State and City facilities. This connectivity need extends to all transportation modes.
Goals and objectives of the project include:
1. To improve overall operations of U.S. Route 101 and adjacent interchanges;
2. To improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians;
3. To improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities; and
4. Consistency with local, regional, and State planning.
Description of work
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) proposes to extend Prado Road over U.S. Route 101 (U.S. 101) to connect with Dalidio Drive and reconstruct the existing U.S. 101 northbound ramp onand off-ramp connections to Prado Road to provide congestion relief, operational efficiency and multimodal connectivity. The interchange is located in the City of San Luis Obispo on U.S. 101 post mile (PM) 26.8. The project limits extend from PM 26.5 to PM 27.3.
Alternatives
Four preliminary build alternatives, Alternatives A1, A3, A4, and A7 have been identified by the Project Development Team (PDT) as viable and to be further studied in the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase. A preliminary project build alternative,
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
2 Alternative A2, was also identified as viable by the PDT but was rejected by the PDT and will not be carried into PA/ED. Each of the viable build alternatives includes a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing constructed over U.S. 101 and new U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road. Alternatives A1 and A4 also include two intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout control. The roundabout control option for Alternative A3 would be the same as provided for Alternative A1. Finally, a roundabout-only option at the Prado Road/Elks Lane/U.S. 101 northbound ramps is considered with Alternative A7.
General Assumptions Common to All Build Alternatives
U.S. 101 through the study area is currently a 4-lane divided freeway with auxiliary lanes provided between Madonna Road and Marsh Street. The Ultimate Concept Facility (beyond 2035) for U.S. 101 within the study area is identified as a freeway with capacity of up to 6 lanes though there is no funding currently identified for providing a 6-lane freeway section. Though not funded, each viable build alternative will accommodate the Ultimate Concept Facility through the proposed Prado Road overcrossing.
Alternative A1
Attachment C1 shows the Alternative A1 geometric concept which assumes traffic signal control provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A1 include the following:
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-1 tight diamond configuration to the east of U.S. 101.
Retaining walls are proposed on the inside of both the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp to Prado Road and the Prado Road northbound on-ramp to U.S. 101. An approximately 940-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-ramp. Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A1 would encroach into the current floodplain located both to the east and west of U.S. 101. Potential improvements to reduce this encroachment are shown on the attached Alternative A1 exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the outside of both the northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A1R – Roundabout Option
Attachment C2 shows the Alternative A1R geometric concept with a roundabout provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. Preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative AR1 include the following:
Prado Road has a minimum 3-lane divided arterial section (2-lanes southbound and 1- lane northbound) through the interchange with separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
The other preliminary geometric design elements are consistent with the traffic signal option Alternative A1.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
3 Alternative A1R would encroach into the current floodplain located both to the east and west of U.S. 101. Potential improvements to reduce this encroachment are shown on the attached Alternative A1R exhibit and include optional retaining walls along the outside of both the northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A3
Attachment C3 shows the Alternative A3 geometric concept which assumes traffic signal control provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A3 include the following:
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-1 tight diamond configuration on the east side of U.S. 101.
Retaining walls are proposed on the inside of both the northbound off-ramp and the northbound on-ramp.
An approximately 940-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-ramp. Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A3 would encroach into the current floodplain located both to the east and west of U.S. 101 similar to Alternative A1. Potential improvements to reduce this encroachment are shown on the attached Alternative A3 exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the outside of both the northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Note: The roundabout option for this alternative would be the same as described for Alternative A1R.
Alternative A4
Attachment C4 shows the Alternative A4 geometric concept which assumes traffic signal control provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A4 include the following:
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-7 partial cloverleaf configuration on the east side of U.S. 101.
An approximately 2000-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-ramp. Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A4 would encroach into the current floodplain located to the west of U.S. 101. To the east of U.S. 101, the potential encroachment into the floodplain would be less then Alternatives
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
4 A1 and A3. Potential improvements to reduce these encroachments are shown on the attached Alternative A4 exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the outside of the northbound off-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A4R – Roundabout Option
Attachment C5 shows the Alternative A4R geometric concept with a roundabout provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. The other preliminary geometric design elements are consistent with the traffic signal option Alternative A4.
Alternative A4R would encroach into the current floodplain located both to the east and west of U.S. 101. Potential improvements to reduce these encroachments are shown on the attached Alternative A4R exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the outside of the northbound off-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A7
Attachment C6 shows the Alternative A7 geometric concept which assumes roundabout control provided at the Prado Road/Elks Lane/U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road.
Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A7 include the following:
The interchange configuration is similar in concept to a Type L-6 configuration on the east side of U.S. 101. The exception though is instead of the ramps connecting with a frontage road, the off-ramp is merged with eastbound (EB) Prado Road prior to the roundabout while the on-ramp diverges from westbound (WB) Prado Road after the roundabout.
An approximately 1220-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-ramp. Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A7 would encroach into the current floodplain located to the west of U.S. 101 similar to Alternatives A1, A2 and A4. To the east of U.S. 101, the potential encroachment into the floodplain would be less then Alternatives A1 and A3. Potential improvements to reduce these encroachments are shown on the attached Alternative A7 exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the outside of the northbound off-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
5 3. Anticipated Environmental Approval
CEQA NEPA
Environmental Determination
Statutory Exemption
Categorical Exemption Categorical Exclusion
Environmental Document
Initial Study or Focused Initial Study
with proposed Negative Declaration
(ND) or Mitigated ND
Routine Environmental Assessment
with proposed Finding of No
Significant Impact
Complex Environmental Assessment
with proposed Finding of No
Significant Impact
Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement CEQA Lead Agency (if determined): Caltrans
Estimated length of time (months) to obtain environmental approval:
22 months
Estimated person hours to complete identified tasks: 1,200
4. Special Environmental Considerations
Several sensitive State and federal listed biological species have been documented within the vicinity of the proposed project. However, a preliminary evaluation of the site indicates the majority of the site lacks suitable habitat for these species within the work area. Some project components may fall within the jurisdictional boundaries of San Luis Obispo Creek, along the northeastern auxiliary lane, and wetlands may be present in low-lying undeveloped areas, based on potential for hydric soils outlined in the Soil Survey and current Hydric Soils Lists. San Luis Obispo Creek contains stream and riparian habitat regulated by the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB. An evaluation of the entire site will be conducted to determine if potentially jurisdictional features may be present within the project site, and if so, a formal jurisdictional delineation of the project site will be completed. San Luis Obispo Creek also contains occurrences of federally-listed South Central California Coast steelhead (SCCC steelhead) and critical habitat; and suitable habitat for federally listed California red legged frog (CRLF).
Biological surveys and habitat assessments will be required to confirm presence and extent of habitat for SCCC steelhead and CRLF, and the absence of sensitive species from other areas of the project site. These surveys will be conducted during the bloom period of special status plants documented within the vicinity of the project. Avoidance of nesting birds may be required from February 1 through September 30.
5. Anticipated Environmental Commitments
Project specific mitigation to reduce, minimize, or compensate for temporary and permanent project impacts for each resource area will be defined during the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase of project development, as the impact areas for each alternative are better defined. However, the following general avoidance and minimization measures are recommended:
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
6 Archaeological Resources
Monitoring may be required during ground disturbance if high potential for discovery of resources is determined.
Test any discovered archaeological and/or paleontological resources.
Biological Resources
Avoid introduction of invasive species into the project area. Mitigation will be required for any impacts to special-status species. Project specific mitigation would be determined at the time of project implementation, and may include requiring a biological monitor to monitor exclusion zones for special-status or nesting species if determined necessary.
Conduct preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring (if required).
Hazards
If any indication of contamination, such as odors or stained soils, is encountered during grading, excavating, or other construction activities, work in the area should be stopped immediately.
Geology/Soils
Implement recommendations provided in site specific Geotechnical Investigation, which may include soil stabilization measures for unstable soils.
Noise
Provide noise barriers if determined necessary by the Noise Study Report.
Paleontological Resources
If paleontological resources are discovered mitigation would include removal, preparation, and curation of any important remains. May require presence of paleontologist during ground disturbing activities.
Runoff/Water Quality
Require design measures to prevent scour during a flood event. Prepare and implement erosion control spill prevention and counter measure control plan, measures. Minimum erosion control measures for each alterative include: movein/move-out erosion control; fiber rolls; hydroseeding; and rolled erosion control product (netting).
Implement design pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs). Bio filtration and/or detention basins are recommended to decrease the sediment loading potential.
Implement temporary construction site BMPs. Temporary construction BMPs measures may include: soil stabilization; sediment control; tracking control; non-storm water management; general construction site management; and stormwater sampling and analysis.
Implement permanent treatment BMPs. Permanent treatment BMPs may include the use of biofiltration devices (i.e., swales) and detention devices.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
7 Scenic Resources
Aesthetic treatment may be required at all retaining walls, concrete barriers, soundwalls consistent with the Aesthetic Barrier Design guidance and the California Highway Barrier Aesthetics Report.
Wetland/Riparian Resources
Wetland mitigation if determined jurisdictional wetland would be affected.
The appropriate level of environmental documentation to be prepared during the PA&ED phase of the project would be an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration/Categorical Exclusion (IS-MND/CE) to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The IS-MND/CE would follow guidelines, tools, and templates, provided in the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference, which have been developed in accordance with NEPA responsibility assigned through Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), a funding and authorization bill intended to govern United States federal surface transportation spending. Preparation of the IS-MND/CE, including technical studies, is anticipated to take 22 months, once information and project detail necessary to begin the environmental analysis are available. This timeline includes time for substantive review by the environmental division staff within Caltrans.
6. Permits and Approvals
If the project cannot be designed to fully avoid San Luis Obispo Creek, or if other wetlands are present and cannot be avoided, the project could result in impacts to jurisdictional features.
Impacts to jurisdictional features resulting from project related activities could require a Nationwide Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Likewise, the proposed project could require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Impacts to jurisdictional features typically require mitigation.
Additionally, if San Luis Creek is not fully avoided, the project may require a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, regarding potential effects to CRLF and SCCC-steelhead, respectively. The area of disturbance is expected to be over one acre which will necessitate a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and require enrollment under the Statewide Construction General Permit. The proposed project does not occur within the Coastal Zone and therefore, does not require a Coastal Development Permit.
7. Level of Effort: Risks and Assumptions
Assumptions:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration & Categorical Exclusion is the appropriate CEQA/NEPA document.
The proposed project would not require a Finding of Effect (FOE), a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or additional consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. It is assumed that the allocated funds will be available and ready to spend when needed during the project.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
8 Risks:
Construction schedule may be restricted between February 1 and September 30 if nesting birds are discovered in adjacent trees or if tree removal is required during construction. If tree removal is required, replacement plantings will likely be required. If project components fall within the jurisdictional boundaries of San Luis Obispo Creek jurisdictional features may be present in low-lying undeveloped areas, requiring a formal jurisdictional delineation of the project site.
If San Luis Creek is not fully avoided, the project may require a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, regarding potential effects to CRLF and SCCC-steelhead, respectively.
PA&ED may be delayed if regulatory permits are determined to be required or if a higher-level environmental document is needed.
8. PEAR Technical Summaries
8.1 Land Use/Socioeconomic/Community Impact/Growth:
The proposed project would not conflict with any local land use designations or policies. This project was identified in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element, the City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Accordingly, planned projects adjacent to the project site, including the San Luis Ranch and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Maintenance Facility projects, have been planned and designed to accommodate future development of the proposed U.S. 101/Prado Road interchange connection.
Accordingly, the consideration of environmental effects of the proposed U.S. 101/Prado Road interchange connection are limited to those areas not included within the development footprint of other current approved or planned projects within the project site. Although the project may result in relocation/realignment of the existing Elks Lane, which runs parallel to northbound U.S. 101 north of Prado Road, the project would not induce growth, result in relocations, or otherwise impact any housing, businesses, or low-income and/or minority populations beyond what is and has been planned for in the region. A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) Technical Memorandum will be required.
8.2 Farmlands/Timberlands:
The project would encroach on a portion of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area where prime farmland currently exists. The San Luis Ranch Project was approved with the condition that the project provides land and appropriate financial support for development of the U.S. 101/Prado Road interchange. Mitigation Measure AG-1 in the San Luis Ranch Project EIR, as adopted, requires impacts to Prime Farmland within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area to be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio (acres of Prime Farmland converted to acres of Prime Farmland preserved in perpetuity). There are no other identified farmlands or timberlands in the project area and the project would not result in any impacts to such resources beyond those already evaluated and mitigated for in the San Luis Ranch Project FEIR. Due to the proximity of agricultural land to the project, a Form AD-1006 will prepared in coordination with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) if the score in Part VI exceeds 60 points.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
9 8.3 Visual/Aesthetic Resources:
Prado Road, at the on-ramp for northbound U.S. 101, is designated as a scenic roadway with the category of a moderate scenic vista on Figure 11 of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and Figure 3 of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element. Drivers and other users of Prado Road have intermittent views to Cerro San Luis Obispo and the Santa Lucia Mountains northeast of the City. The segment of U.S. 101 running north to south, over which the proposed overcrossing would pass, is eligible for State Scenic Highway designation by Caltrans, and is also designated by the City as a scenic roadway of high scenic value. Views along U.S. 101 include the Santa Lucia Mountains to the north and Irish Hills to the south, for vehicles travelling in those directions. The views also include Cerro San Luis Obispo and the other Morros, and the riparian corridor along San Luis Obispo Creek.
The project may result in alteration of views from Prado Road and from U.S. 101 where the proposed interchange connection would occur. Therefore, a Visual Impact Assessment will be required.
8.4 Cultural Resources/Tribal Lands/Tribal Coordination:
The project site is not located within a designated Historic District or Burial Sensitivity Area, and does not include any designated Master List Historic Properties or Burial Points identified in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Figure 1:Cultural Resources map.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey was completed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) in November 2016 for the RTA property on the east side of U.S. 101 (APN 053-041-071), on which the project would encroach, as well as the adjacent Sunset Drive-in Theater (APN 053- 041-025), CAPSLO Homeless Services Center (APN 053-041-072), and City Water Resource Reclamation Facility (WRRF; APN 053-051-045) properties. In addition, the San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Study was prepared by Rincon in August 2016 for the San Luis Ranch project site, west of U.S. 101, on which the project would encroach.
Due to the presence of cultural resources identified during previous studies in the project area, a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) that includes a Phase I Archaeological Survey (ASR) will be required.
8.5 Hydrology and Floodplain/Water Quality:
The project would encroach into the current floodplain, located both to the east and west of U.S. 101. As shown on Attachments C1 through C6, all of the build alternatives include improvements to reduce this encroachment. A Location Hydraulic Study will be prepared to evaluate base floodplain encroachments. If the Location Hydraulic Study concludes that the proposed project would result in a significant encroachment (as defined by 23 CFR 650.105), a Floodplain Evaluation Report would be required.
The project is not expected to result in long term impacts on water quality. However, a Water Quality Assessment Report will be required to determine the feasibility of incorporating permanent treatment or structural BMPs into the project. Temporary impacts to water quality and storm water runoff are anticipated during construction but will be minimized by the development
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
10 and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, including erosion and sediment control BMPs. If the project would create more than one acre of new and replaced impervious surfaces within the Caltrans right-of-way, it will be required to treat 100% of all new and replaced impervious surfaces, or Alternative Compliance will be required. Treatment BMPs will be followed within the State-owned right-of-way and the City’s MS4 Permit requirements for post construction runoff control TBMPs will be followed on City-owned right-of-way. Existing permanent TBMPs associated with other facilities will be followed outside of the State- and City-owned right-of-way.
Additionally, an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) will be required to identify potential or known hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and contamination in the project area as well as the party/parties responsible, or potentially responsible, for hazardous waste and contamination.
8.6 Paleontological Resources:
The project site and adjacent property have been previously disturbed, and the proposed project is unlikely to result in new paleontological impacts. The project limits are mapped as Quaternary Deposits, which are defined as extensive marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks. Quaternary Deposits are typically considered to have a low potential for paleontological resources. A memorandum documenting the low potential for impacts to paleontological resources will be prepared for the project. A Paleontological Evaluation Report would not be required for this project.
8.7 Air Quality:
San Luis Obispo County is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour State standards for ozone and the 24-hour State standard for PM10. The County is in attainment/unclassified for all other standards. Temporary air quality emissions are anticipated during construction of the proposed project, but would be minimized with the implementation of standard dust and emissions control measures. The project is intended to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes, specifically providing better connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of U.S. 101 and resolving forecasted operational deficiencies on City facilities and U.S. 101. Accordingly, the project would not induce new vehicle trips or increase roadway capacity and, as a result, is not anticipated to result in longterm air quality impacts. An air quality conformity analysis would be required to determine the project’s compliance with the SLOCOG 2014 RTP and to address ozone, CO, PM10 and PM2.5, and construction impacts. As part of the conformity process, a combined Air Quality/GHG Study would be required to calculate construction emissions and demonstrate that the project would not cause or contribute to any new localized CO or PM10 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO or PM10 violations. The Air Quality/GHG Study will explain that Caltrans, as a State Agency, is not required to comply with local (SLOAPCD) CEQA construction threshold limits, but will estimate the emissions and take the CEQA threshold into consideration in the environmental study process.
8.8 Noise and Vibration:
Temporary noise associated with heavy equipment is anticipated during the construction phase of the proposed project. The closest noise-sensitive receptor to the project site is the CAPSLO
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
11 Homeless Services Center located adjacent to the eastern portion of the proposed development area at 40 Prado Road. The project is intended improve overall circulation for all transportation modes to resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on City facilities and U.S. 101. However, because the project would result in a change to City circulation, a Noise Study Report will be required to determine current and future noise levels and to identify appropriate sound barriers, if required, in the project vicinity, in accordance with the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TNAP).
8.9 Energy and Climate Change:
The project is intended to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes, specifically providing better connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of U.S. 101 and resolving forecasted operational deficiencies on City facilities and U.S. 101. As such, the project would reduce vehicle miles traveled between the communities in the project area and as a result, the project is not expected to result in an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, Caltrans’ Standard Specifications allow or mandate the use of specific construction materials and processes that use less energy and produce more sustainable products, as specified in the 2013 Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change document. The effects of project-related GHG emissions will be evaluated in the combined Air Quality/GHG Study.
8.10 Biology:
The proposed project could impact federally-listed biological resources. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) documents occurrences of several special status species within 3 miles of the project area including but not limited to California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), American badger (Taxidea taxus), south-central California Coast distinct population segment steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa torosa) western pond turtle (Actinemys [=Emys] marmorata), Chorro Creek Bog thistle (San Luis Obispo fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) and Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). The majority of the project limits consist of pavement, disturbed road shoulders, and farmland with no suitable habitat for these species. However, some project components may fall within the jurisdictional boundaries of San Luis Obispo Creek, along the northeastern auxiliary lane. San Luis Obispo Creek contains occurrences of federally-listed South Central California Coast steelhead (SCCC steelhead) and critical habitat; and suitable habitat for federally listed California red legged frog. If habitat for CRLF and SCCC-Steelhead cannot be fully avoided, the project would require a Biological Opinion from the USFWS and NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, regarding potential effects to CRLF and SCCCsteelhead, respectively.
Due to the proximity of certain project elements to San Luis Obispo Creek A Natural Environment Study [NES ] will be required to characterize the habitats present and analyze potential for special-status species to occur in these habitats. Surveys will be conducted within the bloom period of the special-status plant species documented within the vicinity of the project.
San Luis Obispo Creek contains stream and riparian habitat regulated by the USACE, CDFW and RWQCB. No other wetlands have been identified by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory. However, the Soil Survey and current Hydric Soils Lists identify some minor
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
12 components of the mapped soils as hydric, thus wetlands may be present in low-lying undeveloped areas of the project site. If San Luis Obispo Creek and any other wetlands cannot be fully avoided, regulatory permits are expected to be required.
The project area contains several non-native ornamental as well as native landscape trees.
The project may require tree removal, and avoidance of nesting birds would be required from February 1 through September 30 due to the proximity of the trees.
8.11 Cumulative Impacts:
Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of this project. The environmental document will identify the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects resulting from the project and project alternatives in conjunction with other approved and planned projects in the vicinity of the project. This may include, but not be limited to, the San Luis Ranch Project, RTA Maintenance Facility Project, CAPSLO Homeless Services Center Project, and City WRRF Project.
8.12 Section 4(f):
The project area does not contain any public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance as defined under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Act) (49 U.S. Government Code 303). No further studies are required.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
13 9. Summary Statement for PSR-PDS
In order to identify environmental issues and constraints, a Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) has been prepared for the proposed project. All technical studies have been deferred to the PA&ED phase.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would act as the Lead Agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental approval process. Caltrans will serve as the NEPA lead agency under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 U.S. Code 327. The anticipated environmental document for the proposed project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA) and a Categorical Exclusion (NEPA). This document level has been selected based upon a preliminary review of the potential resources within the project limits, which indicates the project has the potential for significant impacts that would require mitigation pursuant to CEQA.
The estimated time to obtain environmental approval is 22 months from receipt of a complete Environmental Document Request. Draft and final environmental documents would be anticipated in 14 months and 22 months, respectively.
It is anticipated multiple studies will be required for this project including (but not limited to): a Community Impact Assessment technical memorandum; an Initial Site Assessment; a Form AD-1006; a Visual Impact Assessment; a Historic Property Survey Report that includes a Phase I Archaeological Survey; a Location Hydraulic Study; a Water Quality Assessment Report; a Noise Study Report; an Air Quality/GHG Study; and a Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts).
10. Disclaimer
This Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) provides information to support programming of the proposed project. It is not an environmental determination or document. Preliminary analysis, determinations, and estimates of mitigation costs are based on the project description provided in the Project Study Report (PSR). The estimates and conclusions in the PEAR are approximate and are based on cursory analyses of probable effects. A reevaluation of the PEAR will be needed for changes in project scope or alternatives, or in environmental laws, regulations, or guidelines.
11. List of Preparers
Cultural Resources specialist
Chris Duran, Principal Investigator
Date: 1/3/2018
Biologist
Jamie Deutsch, Associate Biologist
Date: 1/3/2018
Community Impacts specialist
Chris Bersbach, Technical Services Program Supervisor
Date: 1/3/2018
Noise and Vibration specialist
Chris Bersbach, Technical Services Program Supervisor
Date: 1/3/2018
Attachment A: PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist
Rev. 11/08
Environmental Studies for PA&ED Checklist
Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required
Risk*
L M H
Comments
Land Use L
Growth L
Farmlands/Timberlands L
Community Impacts L
Community Character and Cohesion L
Relocations L
Environmental Justice L
Utilities/Emergency Services L
Visual/Aesthetics L
Cultural Resources: L
Archaeological Survey Report L
Historic Resources Evaluation Report L
Historic Property Survey Report L
Historic Resource Compliance Report L
Section 106 / PRC 5024 & 5024.5 L
Native American Coordination L
Finding of Effect L
Data Recovery Plan L
Memorandum of Agreement L
Other: L
Hydrology and Floodplain L
Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff L
Geology, Soils, Seismic and
Topography
L
Paleontology L
PER L
PMP L
Hazardous Waste/Materials: L
ISA (Additional) L
PSI L
Other: L
Air Quality L
Noise and Vibration L
Energy and Climate Change L
Biological Environment L
Natural Environment Study L
Section 7: L
Formal L
Informal L
No effect L
Section 10 L
USFWS Consultation L
NMFS Consultation L
Species of Concern (CNPS, USFS,
BLM, S, F)
L
Environmental Studies for PA&ED Checklist
Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required
Risk*
L M H
Comments
Wetlands & Other Waters/Delineation L
404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis L
Invasive Species L
Wild & Scenic River Consistency L
Coastal Management Plan L
HMMP L
DFG Consistency Determination L
2081 L
Other: L
Cumulative Impacts L
Context Sensitive Solutions L
Section 4(f) Evaluation L
Permits:
401 Certification Coordination L
404 Permit Coordination, IP, NWP, or
LOP
L
1602 Agreement Coordination L
Local Coastal Development Permit
Coordination
L
State Coastal Development Permit
Coordination
L
NPDES Coordination L
US Coast Guard (Section 10) L
TRPA L
BCDC L
Environmental Document Schedule
Task Duration Start Date End Date
Draft PEAR 9/8/2017
Caltrans review 120 days 9/8/2017 12/15/2017Final PEAR 30 days 12/15/2017 1/11/2018Begin Environment Studies 1/11/2018Biological Resources Natural Environment Study (NES-MI) 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018 Visual Impact Assessment 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Cultural Resources HPSR/HRER/ASR 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018
Air Quality/GHG Study 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Noise Study Report 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Initial Site Assessment 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Water Quality Assessment Report 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Community Impact Assessment 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Draft NEPA CE 75 days 8/15/2018 10/30/2018Final NEPA CE 45 days 10/31/2018 12/15/2018 Administrative Draft IS/MND 90 days 7/23/2018 10/30/2018Draft IS/MND 175 days 10/31/2018 5/11/2019Public Comment Period 30 days 5/12/2019 6/11/2019Final MND 135 days 6/12/2019 11/1/2019PA&ED 11/1/2019 Work in Progress MilestoneCaltrans Review
*If determined to be required
Sep-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Oct-17 Nov-17 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Mar-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 STOP STOP 1520' WEAVE YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 600' AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT CITY CORPORATION YARD PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A1 EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL R=600'; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE PLANNED RTA FACILITY OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
STOP YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 1520' WEAVE AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A1R EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE PLANNED RTA FACILITY RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL
STOP YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELDYIELD YIELD
660'
STOP 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A3 AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PLANNED RTA FACILITY EXISTING R/W (TYP) CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL STATE R/W
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
450'
STOP 2270' WEAVE San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 450' STOP 2270' WEAVE San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4R 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH PLANNED RTA FACILITY OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 1570' WEAVE AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A7 EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALLR=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-10 & AUXILIARY LANE PLANNED RTA FACILITY RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W
LEVEL 2 - RISK REGISTER Project Name: DIST- EA 05-1H640K Project Manager Status ID # Type Category Title Risk Statement Current status/assumptions Probability Cost Impact Cost Score Time Impact Time Score Rationale Strategy Response Actions Risk Owner Updated Active 1 Threat Design Scope Creep
Inaccurate, incomplete or sub-standard plans and estimates could delay project approvals and risk loss of funding.
Survey and design not yet started. 2-Low 4 -Moderate 8 4 -Moderate 8 Design has been taken further than a typical PSRPDS, but questions still remain about required design exceptions.
Avoid
Verify that the survey file and design work is accurate and complete. Follow QC procedures City/Design
Consultant 9/22/2017
Active 2 Threat Environmental CEQA Challenge
Potential lawsuits may challenge the environmental report delaying the start of construction or threatening loss of funding.
Environmental studies beyond preparation of the PEAR have not yet started 2-Low 2 -Low 4 8 -High 16
Project is contained within City General Plan and is anticipated to have minimal impact.
Accept Address concerns of stakeholders and public during environmental process. City 9/22/2017 Active 3 Threat R/W Utility delays
Delays associated with anticipated utility relocations and utility company timelines may delay the project.
Utility requests for information have been sent and preliminary information received and compiled. 3-Moderate 4 -Moderate 12 8 -High 24
Only preliminary utility coordination and field review performed.
Mitigate Follow City/Caltrans utility coordination procedures. City/Design Consultant 9/22/2017 Active 4 Threat Design Design Exceptions
Unforseen design exceptions or known design exceptions not approved requiring major design changes and adding significant cost to the project.
Design approval especially for the non-standard interchange spacing between Prado Road and Madonna Road interchanges is stated to be a high risk with information currently provided. 3-Moderate 2 -Low 6 4 -Moderate 12
Caltrans has indicated a high risk level based on information provided thus far.
Mitigate
Begin Fact Sheet early in order to provide additional information to get more assurance that critical exceptions are approveable.
City/Design
Consultant 9/22/2017
Active 5 Threat Environmental Endangered Species Act Consultation & Permits As a result of suitable habitat for federally listed fish and wildlife species in the project limits, Endangered Species Act consultation may be needed, causing a cost increase and schedule delay.
Studies not yet initiated. 2-Low 4 -Moderate 8 8 -High 16 PEAR indicates that impacts are not anticipated, but a NES is yet to be performed.
Mitigate
Conduct NES and comply with mitigation measures or alter design to avoid impacts if possible.
City/
Environmental
Consultant
1/2/2018
Active 6 Threat Environmental Cultural Resources
HPSR and Phase I ASR find cultural resources in the project area requireing additional consultation with SHPO, adding delays and other as yet unknown mitigations, adding delay and costs to the project.
Cultural resource studies not yet initiated. 2-Low 2 -Low 4 4 -Moderate 8 PEAR indicates that project has a low potential to impact cultural resources, but the HPSR and Phase I ASR have not yet been performed.
Mitigate
Perform studies to determine impacts and potential mitigations. Alter design as feasible to mitigate impact.
City/
Environmental
Consultant
9/22/2017
Active 7 Threat Construction Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials encountered during construction will require an onsite storage area and potential additional costs to dispose An Initial ESA has been performed which noted the potential for the presense of hazardous substance contamination due to past and present uses. 3-Moderate 4 -Moderate 12 4 -Moderate 12
The Initial ESA noted that potential contamination may be present from multiple past and present uses resulting in the high risk level.
Mitigate Conduct further research and studies. City/ Geotechnical Consultant 9/22/2017 Active 8 Threat ROW Acquisition
Right of way impacts affect the City's Corporation Yard ability to operate adding delays and cost to the project.
Design has been taken further than a typical PSR-PDS, but questions still remain about required design exceptions. 3-Moderate 4 -Moderate 12 4 -Moderate 12
Design approval especially for non-standard weave length between Prado Road and Madonna Road interchanges is stated to be a high risk with information currently provided.
Mitigate
Verify that the survey file and design work is accurate and complete. Follow QC procedures City/Design
Consultant 1/2/2018
Active 9 Threat Environmental NPDES Permit Requirements One or more acres of new impervious surfaces are created and an Alternative Compliance project is required adding potential costs and delay to the project.
Design has been taken further than a typical PSR-PDS but is based on preliminary mapping. Survey not yet started. 4-High 4 -Moderate 16 4 -Moderate 16
Design has been taken further than a typical PSRPDS, but questions still remain about required design exceptions.
Accept
Plan for TBMP right of way needs and incororate required TBMPs or address the need for TBMPs or Alternative Compliance.
City/Design
Consultant 1/2/2018
Active 10 Threat Environmental City MS4 Requirements
Must meet City's MS4 requirements for post-construction storm water treatment.
Design has been taken further than a typical PSR-PDS but is based on preliminary mapping. Survey not yet started. 4-High 4 -Moderate 16 4 -Moderate 16
Design has been taken further than a typical PSRPDS, but questions still remain about required design exceptions.
Accept
In consultation with City staff, develop a Storm Water Management Plan that includes BMPs to control volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of storm water runoff from the project area.
City/Design
Consultant 1/2/2018
Active 11 Threat Environmental Higher-Level Environmental Document Environmental technical studies result in the need to prepare an EIR for CEQA and/or EA for NEPA adding potential costs and delay to the project.
Environmental studies beyond preparation of the PEAR have not yet started 3-Moderate 4 -Moderate 12 4 -Moderate 12
PEAR indicates that impacts are not anticipated, but a NES is yet to be performed.
Mitigate
City/
Environmental
Consultant
1/2/2018
Risk Identification Risk Assessment
US 101 / Prado Road Interchange Joe Weiland
Risk Response
Level 2 Risk Register
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index September 30, 2011
1 ARTICLE 2
PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT
DESIGN SCOPING INDEX
Attach the project location map to index to show the location of all design improvements.
Today’s Date: 02/23/2018
Status (Initial,
Update):
Update
General Information:
District: County: Route: Kilometer Post (Post Mile) EA
05 SLO 101 26.5/27.3 05-1H640K
Project Manager Paul Valadao Phone # (805) 549-3016
Task Manager Phone #
Project Engineer Phone #
Design Functional Manager Claudia Espino Phone # (805) 549-3079 General Project
Descriptions:
Reconstruct NB ramps at Prado Road/US 101, construct Prado Rod overcrossing, and construct NB auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road.
Project Need: There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of the 101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on State and City facilities. This connectivity need extends to all transportation modes.
Project Purpose: The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes. Goals and objectives of the project include: 1) improve overall operations of U.S. Route 101 and adjacent interchanges; 2) improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3) improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities; 4) consistency with local, regional and state planning; 5) minimize out of direction travel and reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gases; Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific Comments (summarize pertinent information. assumptions, reference
location of detailed information, and
name of person who will provide
information).
1. Project
Setting (refer to
Planning
Scoping
Checklist)
Rural or Urban? Urban Located in southwestern portion of San Luis Obispo
Current Land Uses:
(e.g., industrial, light industry,
commercial, agricultural
residential etc).
Agricultural,
commercial,
industrial
Current land uses are agricultural,
public and commercial.
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index September 30, 2011
2 Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural,
commercial,
industrial
There are agricultural fields west of the
freeway; commercial businesses
northwest of the interchange; the City’s
corporation yard and water treatment
plant is located southeast of the
interchange; and there is a U-haul
storage area northeast of the
interchange.
Existing Landscaping:
Yes There is existing landscaping along the
south side of Prado Road adjacent to the
City Corporation Yard.
Designated or eligible scenic
highway
No
The following pages are to be used for each alternative provided that the scope is significantly different. If a route has been adopted as a freeway, a decision must be made as to whether or not the project will address improvements to the existing traversable highway or move to construction of a freeway facility.
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific Comments (summarize pertinent information, assumptions and
reference location of detailed
information):
Design
Concept and
Route
Matters
1. Design Concept? Freeway
Freeway/Expressway/
Conventional Highway
Freeway Per the 2014 TCR, the 2035
Corridor Concept is freeway with
capacity of four to six lanes and the
Ultimate Corridor Concept (beyond
2035) is freeway with capacity of up
to six lanes.
Mixed highway and transit No
Mixed highway and rail No
Urban Yes The project is located within the
urbanized are of San Luis Obispo.
Other No
2. Existing Route Adoption Date
3. New Route Adoption Proposed? No
4. Existing Freeway Agreement
Date
July 3, 1972
5 New Freeway Agreement
Proposed?
No
6. Public Road Connection
Proposed?
No Though the Prado Road NB ramps
are to be reconstructed, an existing
connection already exists with Prado
Road.
Design
Criteria
1. Design speed for highway
facilities within the project limit
mi/hr? Freeway – 70
mph
Local – 45 mph
The design speed for Prado Road
will be 45mph (posted 40 mph)
2. Design Period: (10 yr/15 yr/20yr) 20 yr
Construction Year 2025
Design Year 2045
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index September 30, 2011
3 3. Design Capacity - Level of
Service to be maintained over the
design period:
Mainline LOS C/D Per Caltrans TIS guidelines.
Ramp LOS C/D Per Caltrans TIS guidelines.
Local Street LOS D Per City of San Luis Obispo LOS
policy.
Weaving Sections LOS C/D Per Caltrans TIS guidelines.
4. Design Vehicle Selection
STAA Yes US 101 is an STAA route. All
movements to and from the freeway
ramps must accommodate a STAA
truck
California Yes All movements accommodate a CA
Legal 65’ truck
Bus Yes All movements accommodate a
BUS 45 design vehicle
Proposed Roadbed and Structure Widths
Forecasted Average Daily
Traffic volumes
83,000
Percent truck volume 9%
Roadbed Width Structure Width
State Highway Existing Proposed Standard Existing Proposed Standard Lane widths/# 12/4 12/4 12/1 N/A N/A N/A
Left Shoulder 5 5 5 N/A N/A N/A
Right Shoulder 10 10 10 N/A N/A N/A
Median Width 37 37 46 N/A N/A N/A
Bicycle lane N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sidewalk N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Planting strip N/A N/A N/A N/A
Local Streets
Lane widths/# 12/2 12/5 12/1 N/A 12/4 12/1
Left Shoulder N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Right Shoulder 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Median Width N/A 12 N/A N/A 12 N/A
Bicycle lane N/A 6.5 6.5 N/A 6.5 6.5
Sidewalk 6 6 5 N/A 12 6
Planting strip N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index September 30, 2011
4 Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific
Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Roadway
Design Scoping
1. Mainline
Operations
Main lane highway
widening?
No Only widening will be
for the NB auxiliary lane
between Prado and
Madonna. See
alternatives exhibits.
Existing pavement to be
rehabilitated with Asphalt
Concrete/Rubberized
AC/PCC?
No
Widen existing facility from
__ lanes to __lanes.
No
Local street structures to
span 5 lanes.
Future 3-lanes NB
101 and 2-lanes SB
plus C-D SB 101
Prado Road overcrossing
is designed to span 3 NB
lanes, 2 SB lanes, and a
collector-distributor. See
alternatives exhibit.
Curb extensions No
Shoulder improvements No
Bicycle lanes No
Pedestrian refuge islands No
Sidewalks No
Right of Way acquisition
required for ___ lanes.
R/W acquisition in
not anticipated at
this time for US
101 mainline. R/W
is required for the
proposed US 101
/Prado Road ramp
improvements and
the Prado Road
overcrossing.
Identify Potential
Relinquishments and
vacations.
Potential
relinquishments
and vacations are
not anticipated at
this time.
Upgrade existing facility to:
Expressway/Freeway/
Controlled Access
Highway/ Traversable
Highway Standards?
No
Improve Vertical Clearance New structure,
required vertical
clearances will be
provided.
Adequate Falsework
Clearance
Yes Adequate falsework
clearance will be
provided.
Traffic calming features No
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index September 30, 2011
5 Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific
Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Roadway
Design Scoping
2. Ramp/Street
Intersection
Improvements
New Signals? Yes With signal alternatives.
See signal alternatives
exhibits.
Modify Existing Signals? N/A
Right Turn Lanes Yes On some alternatives.
See alternatives exhibits.
Widening for Localized
Through lanes?
Yes Prado Road widened
from 2 lanes to 4 lanes.
Merging Lanes? Yes With some alternatives.
See alternatives exhibits.
Deceleration/Acceleration
lanes?
Yes With some alternatives.
See alternatives exhibits.
Left Turn Lanes? Yes With some alternatives.
See alternatives exhibits.
>300 VPH Left Turn
(Requires Double Left Turn
Lane)
Yes Alternative A4 only. See
Alternative A4 exhibits.
Interchange Spacing? 0.94 to Los Osos
Valley Road
0.65 to Madonna
Road
Ramps Intersect Local
Street < 4% grade?
Yes
Intersection Spacing? 400’ minimum
Exit Ramps >1,500 VPH
(Requires two lane exit)
No
Single lane ramps exceeding
1000’ widened to Two lanes
Not anticipated at
this time.
Curb Ramps? Yes Retaining walls
proposed. See
alternatives exhibits.
Pedestrian Facilities? Yes Sidewalks and/or multiuse paths on Prado Road.
Other?
Operational
Improvements
Truck Climbing
Lane
Sustained Grade exceeding
2% and Total Rise Exceeds
50’?
No
Other? No
Auxiliary Lanes 2000’ between Successive
On-Ramps?
Yes
Two lane Exit Ramps have
1300’ Auxiliary Lane?
N/A
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index September 30, 2011
6 Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific
Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Weaving < 2000’ between
off-ramp and on-ramp?
No Only Alternative A4
provides for minimum
2000’ weaving distance
on NB 101 between
Prado Road on-ramp and
off ramp to Madonna
Road. See alternatives
exhibits.
Other? TBD
Right of Way
Access
Control
Existing access control extends at least 50 ft
beyond end of curb return, radius, or taper?
Yes See alternatives exhibits.
New construction access control extends at
least 100’ (urban areas) or 300' (rural areas)
beyond end of curb returns, radius, or taper?
Yes See alternatives exhibits.
Other? TBD
Highway
Planting and
Irrigation
Clearing and Grubbing? Yes
Relocate Existing Irrigation Facilities? TBD No known irrigation facilities at this time
within the project limits.
Highway Planting and Irrigation (including
median and roadside)
Yes Some form of highway
planting and irrigation
will be required as the
project represents new
construction.
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific Comments (summarize pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Roadside
Management
Vegetation control treatments (road edge,
guardrails, signs, drainage facilities,
miscellaneous pavement narrow areas, etc.)
Yes Guardrail, signs,
drainage facilities
anticipated.
Modernization and clustering of facilities and
hardware (removing and replacing other items),
gore area pavement
Yes Existing NB 101 off and
on ramps will be
reconstructed.
Rehabilitate gore area pavement and pavement
beyond gore areas (remove and replace
miscellaneous pavement and curbs
No Prado Road NB off and
on ramps will be
completely
reconstructed.
Landform grading, contour grading, slope
rounding, stepped slopes and topsoil
reapplication
Yes Grading will be required.
Side slopes/embankment slope Yes Embankment will be
needed for the new
overcrossing.
Visual Assets TBD
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index September 30, 2011
7 Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific
Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Worker Safety Off-Freeway Access (gate, access road, and stairways)
TBD
Maintenance Vehicle Pull-Out TBD
Adequate safety working conditions Yes Adequate safety working conditions will be
provided.
Relocate roadside facilities/features (cabinets,
poles, pull boxes and vaults) away from traffic
Yes With new construction.
Hydraulics/
Stormwater
(Refer to the
Stormwater
Data Report)
Erosion Control Yes
Drainage Yes
Slope Design Yes
Permanent Stormwater BMPs Yes
Structures
(Refer to
Structures
Scoping
Checklist or
APS)
New Bridge? Yes Proposed Prado Road
structure over US 101.
Bridge Rehab? No New structure.
Retaining Wall Yes Retaining walls proposed
on inside of the Prado
Road NB off and on
ramps. Optional walls
identified on the outside
of the Prado Road NB
off and on ramps Bicycle or Pedestrian
Overcrossing/Undercrossing
Yes 12’sidewalk (Class I
bikeway) and Class II
bike lane proposed on
both sides of the
structure. See typical
Othe i hibi r TBD
On STRAIN list for: TBD
Other Class I Bikeway (bicycle path) Yes 12’ sidewalk on structure will serve as a Class 1
bikeway. Roundabout
alternatives have shareduse path around
roundabouts. See
roundabout exhibits.
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 4 – Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet September 30, 2011
1 ARTICLE 4 Transportation Planning Scoping
Information Sheet
PROJECT INFORMATION Project ID No/
District County Route Post Miles Expenditure Authorization No. 05 SLO 101 26.5/27.3 05-1H640K
Project Name and Description : US 101/Prado Road Interchange Improvements - Improvements to extend Prado Road over US 101 to connect with Dalidio Drive, reconstruct the existing U.S. Route 101 (US 101) northbound (NB) off-ramp and on- ramp connections with Prado Road, and construct an auxiliary lane on northbound US 101 between the Prado Road and Madonna Road in order to provide congestion relief, operational efficiency and multimodal connectivity.
Prepared by:
District Information Sheet
Point of Contact*:
Name: Joe Weiland Functional
Unit:
Omni-Means
(City Consultant)
* The District Information Sheet Point of Contact is responsible for completing Project Information, PDT Team and Stakeholder Information, and coordinating the completion of project-related information with the Transportation Planning Stakeholders. Upon completion, provides the Transportation Planning PDT Representative and Project Manager with a copy of the Information Sheet.
Project Development Team (PDT) Information
Title Name (Caltrans) Phone Number
Project Manager Paul Valadao (805) 549-3016
Project Engineer Claudia Espino (805) 549-3079
Transportation Planning PDT
Representative**
Jimmy Ochoa (805) 549-0209
Transportation Planning Stakeholder Information
Title Name Phone Number
Regional Planner
System Planner
Local DevelopmentIntergovernmental Review
(LD-IGR) Planner
Community Planner
Goods Movement Planner
Transit Planner
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Coordinator
Park and Ride Coordinator
Native American Liaison
Other Coordinators:
Project Purpose and Need** –
Purpose: The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes.
2 Need: There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of the 101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on State and City facilities. This connectivity needs extends to all transportation modes.
Goals and objectives of the project include: 1) improve overall operations of U.S. Route 101 and adjacent interchanges; 2) improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3) improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities; and 4) consistency with local, regional and state planning. ** The Transportation Planning PDT Representative is responsible for providing the PDT with the system-wide and corridor level deficiencies identified by Transportation Planning. The PDT uses the information provided by Transportation Planning to develop the purpose and need with contributions from other Caltrans functional units and external stakeholders at the initiation of the PID and is refined throughout the PID process. As the project moves past the project initiation stage and more data becomes available, the purpose and need is refined. For additional information on purpose and need see: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/emo/purpose_need.htm
1. Project Funding:
a
List all known and potential funding sources and percent splits: (ie. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP)/Transportation Enhancement (TE)/Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM)/Safe Routes to School (SR2S)/etc.).
Currently funding has been identified as coming from a combination of local and developer funds. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) is also considering inclusion of the full regional share of the interchange project into the 2018 programming cycle for construction in 2021/22. b Is this a measure project? Yes__/No_X_. If yes, name and describe the measure.
2. Regional Planning:
a
Name of and contact information for Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA).
SLOCOG – Jeff Brubaker, (805) 788-2104
b Name of and contact information for local jurisdiction (City or County) City of San Luis Obispo – Jake Hudson, (805) 781-7255
c
Provide the page number and project description as identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the date of adoption, or provide an explanation if not in RTP. 2014 RTP, Prj ID CEN-MHWY-1402, Page 4-65 “US 101/Prado Rd. I/C and NB auxiliary lane – US 101/Prado Rd. I/C and NB Auxiliary Lane”.
d
Provide nexus between the RTP objectives and the project to establish the basis for the project purpose and need.
The proposed project is aligned with the stated vision and planned improvements in the RTP in that:
Provides operational improvements to both State and Local facilities. Enhances community connectivity and access for all transportation modes. e Is the project located in an area susceptible to sea-level rise? No
f Name of Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
g
If the project is located in a federal non-attainment or attainment-maintenance area is the project: N/A Regionally Significant? (per 40 (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.101) Y__/N__ Exempt from conformity? (per 40 CFR 93.126 and 93.128) Y__/N__ Exempt from regional analysis? (per 40 CFR 93.127) Y__/N__ Not exempt from conformity (must meet all requirements)? Y__/N__
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 4 – Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet September 30, 2011
3 3. Native American Consultation and Coordination:
a If project is within or near an Indian Reservation or Rancheria? If so, provide the name of Tribe.
N/A
b Has/have the Tribal Government(s) been consulted? Y___/N__. If no, why not? c
If the project requires Caltrans to use right-of-way on trust or allotted lands, this information needs to be included as soon as possible as a key topic in the consultation with the Tribe(s). Has the Tribe been consulted on this topic? Y___/N__. If no, why not?
d Has the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) been notified? Y__/N__ e Have all applicable Tribal laws, ordinances and regulations [Tribal Employment Rights Ordinances (TERO), etc.] been reviewed for required contract language and coordination? f
If the Tribe has a TERO, is there a related Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the Tribe?
g
Has the area surrounding the project been checked for prehistoric, archeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial sites, or areas of potentially high sensitivity? If such areas exist, has the Tribe, Native American Heritage Commission or other applicable persons or entities been consulted? h If a Native American monitor is required for this project, will this cost be reflected in cost estimates? i
In the event of project redesign, will the changes impact a Native American community as described above in d, e, or h?
4. System Planning:
a Is the project consistent with the DSMP? Y_X_/N__. If yes document approval date. If no, explain.
August 2015 (NB US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado and Madonna – ID No. 2073) b
Is the project identified in the TSDP? Y X /N__? If yes, document approval date_2002___. If no, explain.
c
Is the project identified in the TCR/RCR or CSMP? Y X /N__. If yes, document approval date December 2014. If no, explain. Is the project consistent with the future route concept? Y__/N__. If no, explain.
d Provide the Concept Level of Service (LOS) through project area.
LOS D
e
Provide the Concept Facility – include the number of lanes. Does the Concept Facility include High Occupancy Vehicle lanes? Y__/N X.
4-lane freeway through City of San Luis Obispo then transitions to 6-lane expressway and conventional highway through the Cuesta Grade.
f
Provide the Ultimate Transportation Corridor (UTC) – include the number of lanes. Does the UTC include High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes? Y__/N X.
The UTC is freeway with capacity of up to 6-lanes.
g Describe the physical characteristics of the corridor through the project area (i.e. flat, rolling or mountainous terrain...).
4 Flat
h Is the highway in an urban or rural area? Urban X /Rural__. Provide Functional Classification.
Urban Principal Arterial
i Is facility a freeway, expressway or conventional highway? Freeway
j
Provide Route Designations: (i.e. Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) High Emphasis or Focus Route, Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Route, Scenic Route…). Federal Aid Primary Route
Freeway Expressway System (F&E)
National Highway System (NHS)
Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STRAHNET)
Interregional Road System (IRRS)
Focus Route
High Emphasis Route
Goods Movement Route
National Network (Truck Designation)
Eligible to be part of the Scenic Highway System
k
Describe the land uses adjacent to project limits (i.e. agricultural, industrial…).
Currently agricultural west of US 101 with plans to transition to agricultural, residential, commercial, office, hotel and open space. Currently public uses (City Corp. Yard) and commercial to the east of US 101.
l
Describe any park and ride facility needs identified in the TCR/CSMP, local plans, and RTP.
SLOCOG’s 2017 Park & Ride Lot Study, Table D identifies a P&R lot on Prado Road at/near the US 101/Prado Road interchange as a potential P&R location. m
Describe the Forecasted 10 and 20-year Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), and Peak Hour truck data in the TCR. Include the source and year of Forecast, and names and types of traffic and travel demand analysis tools used.
Segment 5: 760,000 VMT (2035), 78,000 AADT (TCR), and 8-9.3% trucks (2010). SLOCOG Historical Growth and CT Directional Splits.
n
Has analysis on Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (DVHD) from the Highway Congestion Monitoring Program (HICOMP) been completed and included? Y__/N X.
5. Local Development – Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR ):
List LD-IGR projects that may directly or indirectly impact the proposed Caltrans project or that the proposed Caltrans project may impact. (Attach additional project information if needed.) LD-IGR Project Information Project
a County-Route-Postmile & Distance to
Development.
New and potential development within the City consistent with their General Plan.
b Development name, type, and size.
The development project most immediate to the project
are is San Luis Ranch (SLR) mixed-use development
located just west of US 101. This development project
proposes 580 DU, 150 KSF commercial, 100 KSF office,
a hotel and open space/parks.
c Local agency and/or private sponsor, and
contact information.
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation and Planning, Jake Hudson, (805) 781-7255.
d California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) status and Implementation Date. Approved
e If project includes federal funding, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) status. Pending
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 4 – Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet September 30, 2011
5 f
All vehicular and non-vehicular unmitigated
impacts and planned mitigation measures
including Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) and Transportation
System Management (TSM) that would
affect Caltrans facilities.
Impact and mitigation is similar to purpose and need and proposed project.
g Approved mitigation measures and
implementing party. See above. City of San Luis Obispo. h Value of constructed mitigation and/or
amount of funds provided.
Currently funding has been identified as coming from a
combination of local and developer funds.
i
Encroachment Permit, Transportation Permit,
Traffic Management Plan, or California
Transportation Commission (CTC) Access
approvals needed.
Encroachment Permit and CTC Access approvals needed.
j
Describe relationship to Regional Blueprint,
General Plans, or County Congestion
Management Plans.
N/A
k
Inclusion in a Regional Transportation Plan
Sustainable Community Strategy or
Alternative Planning Strategy?
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan.
l Regional or local mitigation fee program in
place?
City of San Luis Obispo TIF and developer contribution.
6. Community Planning:
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
Has lead agency staff worked with any neighborhood/community groups in the area of the proposed improvements? Y X /N __. If yes, summarize the process and its results including any commitments made to the community. If no, why not?
This project is sponsored by the City of San Luis Obispo, and was recommended in SLOCOG’s 2014 US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan. This plan included extensive public involvement, including seven local workshops, 30 community presentations, two web-based interactive tools, numerous stakeholder meetings and several SLOCOG board presentations. The study team included representatives from SLOCOG, Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and the cities of San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, Regional Transit Authority and the County Air Pollution Control District. b
Are any active/completed/proposed Environmental Justice (EJ) or Community-Based Transportation (CBTP) Planning Grants in the project area? Y__/N X. If yes, summarize the project, its location, and whether/how it may interact with the proposed project.
c
Describe any community participation plans for this PID including how recommendations will be incorporated and/or addressed. Has a context sensitive solutions (CSS) approach been applied? Y__/N X
FINAL PID INFORMATION
d
How will the proposed transportation improvements impact the local community? Is the project likely to create or exacerbate existing environmental or other issues, including public health and safety, air quality, water quality, noise, environmental justice or social equity? Y__/N __. Describe issues, concerns, and recommendations (from sources including neighborhood/community groups) and what measures will be taken to reduce existing or potential negative effects.
6 e
Does this highway serve as a main street? Y__/N X. If yes, what main street functions and features need to be protected or preserved?
7. Freight Planning:
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
Identify all modal and intermodal facilities that may affect or be affected by the project.
None
FINAL PID INFORMATION
b
Describe how the design of this project could facilitate or impede Goods Movement and relieve choke points both locally and statewide through grade separations, lane separations, or other measures (e.g., special features to accommodate truck traffic and at-grade railroad crossings).
The proposed NB US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado and Madonna would improve truck movement onto and through NB US 101 within this segment.
c
Describe how the project integrates and interconnects with other modes (rail, maritime, air, etc.). Do possibilities exist for an intermodal facility or other features to improve long-distance hauling, farm-tomarket transportation and/or accessibility between warehouses, storage facilities, and terminals? N/A
d
Is the project located in a high priority goods movement area, included in the Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) or on a Global Gateways Development Program (GGDP) route? Y X /N__. If yes, describe.
The 2014 TCR identifies US 101 as a Goods Movement Route and a National Network (Truck Designation).
e
Is the project on a current and/or projected high truck volume route [e.g., Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) of 5 axle trucks is greater than 3000]? Yes X /N__. If yes, describe how the project addresses this demand.
The proposed NB US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado and Madonna would improve truck movement onto and through NB US 101 within this segment.
f
If the project is located near an airport, seaport, or railroad depot, describe how circulation (including truck parking) needs are addressed.
No
g
Describe any other freight issues.
None
8. Transit (bus, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, high speed rail):
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a List all local transit providers that operate within the corridor.
SLO Transit
b Have transit agencies been contacted for possible project coordination? Y X /N__. If no, why not? c Describe existing transit services and transit features (bus stops, train crossings, and transit lines) within the corridor.
SLO Transit Route 2A travels Prado Road/Elks Lane with stop at Prado Day Center. d
Describe transit facility needs identified in short- and long-range transit plans and RTP. Describe how these future plans affect the corridor.
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) is proposing a bus maintenance and storage facility with office spaces on the NE quadrant of the Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection. This proposed facility has an effect on the design and location of potential project improvements.
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 4 – Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet September 30, 2011
7 FINAL PID INFORMATION
e
Describe how the proposed project integrates transit and addresses impacts to transit services and transit facilities.
f
Have transit alternatives and improvement features been considered in this project? Y__/N__ If yes, describe. If no, why not?
To be determined.
9. Bicycle:
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a Does the facility provide for bicyclist safety and mobility needs? If no, please explain.
Yes
b
Are any improvements for bicyclist safety and mobility proposed for this facility by any local agencies or included in bicycle master plans? If yes, describe (including location, time frame, funding, etc.).
Yes. Class II bike lanes are proposed to be provided by the City on Prado Road at and over US 101 consistent with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP - November 2013). c
Are there any external bicycle advocacy groups and bicycle advisory committees that should be included in the project stakeholder list? If so, provide contact information.
No
FINAL PID INFORMATION
d Will bicycle travel deficiencies be corrected? How or why not? Yes. Class II bike lanes and additional east/west connectivity across US 101 will be provided. e How will this project affect local agency plans for bicycle safety and mobility improvements? The project is consistent with the 2013 BTP.
f
If the project is the construction of a new freeway or modification to an existing freeway, will it sever or destroy existing provisions for bicycle travel? If yes, describe how bicycle travel provisions will be included in this project.
N/A
10. Pedestrian including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
Does this facility provide for pedestrian safety and mobility needs? If so, describe pedestrian facilities.
Do continuous and well-maintained sidewalks exist? Are pedestrians forced to walk in the roadway at any locations due to lack of adequate pedestrian facilities? Please explain.
The project will result in reconstruction of existing Prado Road from the future realigned Elks Lane intersection and the extension of Prado Road east of US 101 to Dalidio Drive. As this will be new construction, sidewalks will be provided along both sides of Prado Road within these limits. b Are pedestrian crossings located at reasonable intervals? Pedestrian crossing will be provided at public road intersection connections. c
Are all pedestrian facilities within the corridor ADA accessible and in compliance with Federal and State ADA laws and regulations?
All new pedestrian facilities will be ADA accessible and in compliance with Federal and State ADA laws and regulations.
FINAL PID INFORMATION
d
Will pedestrian travel deficiencies be corrected? How or why not? ADA accessible and compliant sidewalks and crossings and additional east/west connectivity across US 101 will be provided.
8 e How will this project affect local agency plans for pedestrian safety and mobility improvements? The project is consistent with City plans and goals.
f
If the project is the construction of a new freeway or modification to an existing freeway, will it sever or destroy existing provisions for pedestrian travel? If yes, describe how pedestrian travel provisions will be included in this project.
N/A
g
Are there any external pedestrian advocacy groups and advisory committees that should be included in the project stakeholder list? If so, provide contact information.
No
h
Have ADA barriers as noted in the District’s ADA Transition Plan been identified within the project limits? If not included in the project, provide justification and indicate whether District Design coordinator approval was obtained.
To be determined.
11. Equestrian:
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
If this corridor accommodates equestrian traffic, describe any project features that are being considered to improve safety for equestrian and vehicular traffic? N/A
FINAL PID INFORMATION
b
Have features that accommodate equestrian traffic been identified? If so, are they included a part of this project? Describe. If no, why not?
N/A
12. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS):
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
Have ITS features such as closed-circuit television cameras, signal timing, multi-jurisdictional or multimodal system coordination been considered in the project? Y__/N__. If yes, describe. If no, explain.
To be determined.
FINAL PID INFORMATION
b
Have ITS features been identified? If so, are they included a part of this project? Describe. If no, why not?
The 2014 RTP does identify in Segment 5 various intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements for implementation within Segment 5. These include closed circuit television cameras (CCTV), inductive loop type census station (LOOP), microwave vehicle detection system (MVDS), wireless access point bridge (WAPB), and wireless client bridge (WCB). Though these elements are noted, specific locations for implementation are not identified. The TCR also identifies locations for ramp meters in the US 101 corridor, but with no locations within Segment 5.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
ARTICLE 11
Division of Engineering Services
PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist
Project Information
District 5 County SLO Route 101 (Post Mile) 26.5/27.3 EA 05-1H640K Project ID# 0516000105 Project Description: Reconstruct NB ramps at Prado Road/US 101, construct Prado Road overcrossing and construct NB auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road Project Manager: Paul Valadao Phone # (805) 549-3016
DES Project Liaison Engineer* (PLE): Select a PLE from pulldown DES Special Funded Projects Liaison Engineer: Phone #
DES Consultant Management Engineer: Phone #
*The Project Liaison Engineer will provide assistance with the completion of this form.
Project Scope
DES acknowledges that scope is in development at this time. The Project Liaison Engineer is available to assist the District in determining the involvement of DES functional units. The intent of the checklist is to gather as much information as possible on the alternatives to accurately identify the involvement of DES.
Describe and identify in the following sections a general description of improvements anticipated as part of the project scope that will require DES functional unit involvement.
Check applicable boxes describing proposed scope of project.
New Expressway/Freeway Other Roadway Realignment Widen Highway on new alignment Emergency/Storm Damage Rockfall Project Construct Interchange Bridge Widening Left-turn Pocket
Modify Interchange Curve Correction Modify Slope
Bridge Replacement Building Project Stabilize Subgrade
(New alignment? Yes No) Median Barrier Retrofit Stabilize Roadway Bridge Rehabilitation Construct Passing Lane Landslide/Slip-out New Bridge Soundwall/Retaining Wall Bridge Deck Rehab.
Bridge Seismic Retrofit Roadway Rehabilitation Bridge Joint Seals Other Design: Explain:
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Briefly describe proposed scope of DES involvement for all alternatives.
Alternative A1: The proposed Prado Road overcrossing is assumed to be a 2-span CIP/PS box concrete structure with an overall length of approximately 250’ and an overall width of approximately 90’. There are two retaining walls proposed on the west side (inside) of both the NB on and off ramps with estimated heights ranging from 0-25’ with the total length of both walls approximately 1,600’. There are also two optional retaining walls on the eastside (outside) of both the NB on and off ramps with estimated heights ranging from 0-25’ with the total length of both optional walls approximately 2,500’ within State right of way. The dimensions of the structure and retaining walls are based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections developed for this alternative and included in Attachment C. Advance Planning Studies will be required during PA/ED, which will require Caltrans oversight and approval.
Alternative A1R: The proposed Prado Road overcrossing is assumed to be a 2-span CIP/PS box concrete structure with an overall length of approximately 255’ and an overall width of approximately 90’. There are two retaining walls proposed on the west side (inside) of both the NB on and off ramps with estimated heights ranging from 0-25 with the total length of both walls approximately 1,600’. There are also two optional retaining walls on the eastside (outside) of both the NB on and off ramps with estimated heights ranging from 0-25 with the total length of both optional walls approximately 2,500’ within State right of way. The dimensions of the structure and retaining walls are based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections developed for this alternative and included in Attachment C. Advance Planning Studies will be required during PA/ED, which will require Caltrans oversight and approval.
Alternative A3: Alternative A3 is similar to Alternative A1. The preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections developed for this alternative are included in Attachment D. Advance Planning Studies will be required during PA/ED, which will require Caltrans oversight and approval.
Alternative A4: The proposed Prado Road overcrossing is assumed to be a 2-span CIP/PS box concrete structure with an overall length of approximately 265’ and an overall width of approximately 90’. There is one retaining wall proposed on the west side (inside) of the NB on ramp with estimated heights ranging from 0-25’ and with the length of approximately 235’. There is also one optional retaining wall on the eastside (outside) of the NB off ramp with estimated heights ranging from 0-25’ and with a total length of approximately 1,300’ within State right of way.
The dimensions of the structure and retaining walls are based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections developed for this alternative and included in Attachment E. Advance Planning Studies will be required during PA/ED, which will require Caltrans oversight and approval.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Alternative A4R: The proposed Prado Road overcrossing is assumed to be a 2-span CIP/PS box concrete structure with an overall length of approximately 265’ and an overall width of approximately 90’. There is one retaining wall proposed on the west side (inside) of the NB on ramp with estimated heights ranging from 0- and with the length of approximately 290’. There is also one optional retaining wall on the eastside (outside) of the NB off ramp with estimated heights ranging from 0-25’ and with a length of approximately 1,300’ within State right of way. The dimensions of the structure and retaining walls are based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections developed for this alternative and included in Attachment E. Advance Planning Studies will be required during PA/ED, which will require Caltrans oversight and approval.
Alternative A7: The proposed Prado Road overcrossing is assumed to be a 2-span CIP/PS box concrete structure with an overall length of approximately 255’ and an overall width of approximately 90’. The structure is similar to Alternative A1R. There are two retaining walls proposed on the west side (inside) of both the NB on and off ramps with estimated heights ranging from 0-25 with the total length of both walls approximately 1,500’. There are also two optional retaining walls on the eastside (outside) of both the NB on and off ramps with estimated heights ranging from 0-25’ with the total length of both optional walls approximately 2,000’ within State right of way. The dimensions of the structure and retaining walls are based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections developed for this alternative and included in Attachment F. Advance Planning Studies will be required during PA/ED, which will require Caltrans oversight and approval.
Project Schedule
PA/ED Date Begin March/April
2018
Project Cost
For PSR (PDS) projects, the following section is to be used for EACH alternative, provided that the scope is significantly different.
For each alternative, the preliminary cost estimate for the Prado Road structure is provided in the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimate included in Attachment H under section II. Structure Items. The estimated retaining wall costs are included within the roadway items under section I. Roadway Items.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Alternative # A1
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-10,000 $4,300
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-20,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A1 (with optional retaining walls)
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $10,000-15,000 $4,300
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $15,000-25,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A1R
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-5,000 $4,500
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-15,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A1R (with optional retaining walls)
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-10,000 $4,500
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-20,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A3
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-10,000 $4,300
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-20,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A3 (with optional retaining walls)
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $10,000-15,000 $4,300
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $15,000-25,000
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A4
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-10,000 $4,600
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-20,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A4 (with optional retaining walls)
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $10,000-15,000 $4,600
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $15,000-25,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A4R
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-5,000 $4,500
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-15,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A4R (with optional retaining walls)
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-10,000 $4,500
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-20,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A7
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-5,000 $4,500
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-15,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Alternative # A7 (with optional retaining walls)
Project Cost Range ($ 1000’s) Cost of Largest Structure ($ 1000’s) Roadway $5,000-10,000 $4,400
Structure** $5,000-10,000
Total $10,000-20,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Project Scope Breakdown by DES Function
Photogrammetry
Note: A Photogrammetry Service Request-PSR (PDS) must be completed and submitted to DES Photogrammetry by the District Photogrammetry Coordinator.
Bridge Design Services (check applicable boxes)
Design by:
Office of Structure Design
Structure Maintenance Design
Office of Structure Contract Management (Consultant Design Oversight) Office of Special Funded Projects (Consultant Design Oversight) Bridge Information:
New Bridge(s) Number 1 Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Bridge Replacement(s) Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Bridge Widening(s) Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
New Bridge over water Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Bridge Replacement over water Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Bridge Widening over water Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Bridge Rail Replacement(s) Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Approach Slab Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Bridge with Railroad Involved Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Bridge w/ Scour Analysis Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Bridge w/ Special Design or
Retrofit
Number Br. Name(s) & No(s).
Other DES functional units required for Structure Work
Structure Hydraulics (include if bridge is over or adjacent to water) Preliminary Investigations (Structure Foundation Plan)
Geotechnical Services (Structure Foundations)
Wall Design Data for Structure Design & Geotechnical Services Soundwall(s)
Number
Est. Max. Ht
Est. Length
Standard
Design
Special
Design
Ret. walls(s)
Number: 2-4
Est. Max. Ht: 25’
Est. Length: 300’-
2,500’
Standard
Design
Special
Design
MSE Wall(s)
Number
Est. Max. Ht
Est. Length
Standard
Design
Special
Design
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Geotechnical Services
Is Oversight for consultant prepared geotechnical reports required? Yes No
Has the Geotechnical Design Liaison or other geotechnical person been contacted? Yes No If yes, who?
Terrain Flat Rolling Mountainous
Cuts: Est. Max Height (ft): 2’ Est. Volume (CY):
Up to 1,900
New Widen
Fills: Est. Max Height (ft): up to
25’
Est. Volume (CY): Up
to 240,000
New Widen
Sign Structures
Overhead Sign Foundations Number 2-4 (Estimated)
Changeable Message Sign Foundations Number
Other:
Special Studies (slope stability, rockfall, erosion, seepage, ground water, settlement, liquefaction, slipout repair, rock slope, etc.) Explain Existing Maintenance Problems: Explain:
Technical Specialist Design
Anticipated insertable plan sheet(s) check below:
Culvert(s) Number
Barrier(s) Number
Signs and Overhead Structures Number 2-4 (Estimated)
Other Design: Explain:
Transportation Architecture Design
Design New Building(s) Explain:
Remodel Existing Buildings(s) Explain:
Bridge Aesthetics Evaluation Explain: New structure
Build scale model Explain:
Other Aesthetics work Explain:
Electrical, Mechanical, Water & Wastewater Design
Pumping Plants Explain:
Movable bridge, drawbridge Explain:
Lighting control system for facilities Explain: Street lighting on structure Sanitary Systems Explain:
Materials Engineering & Testing Services
Pavement
Rigid Flexible Average Grade
0%-5%
Average Superelevation 2%-
12%
Deflection Study Required No. of Locations Lane/miles to be tested
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Consultation and Inspection Loop detectors Signal & Lighting Products Changeable Message Signs, Closed Circuit TV
Concrete Bridge Steel Bridge
Materials Engineering & Testing Services (Continued)
Corrosion Tests Soil Concrete Cathodic Protection System Other
Special Products: Explain
Additional Studies, Investigations or Research from DES Identify additional studies or investigations that may be required from DES Functional Units.
Prepared By: Joe Weiland, Omni-Means (City Consultant) Date: 9/22//17 Please submit this form to DES, to the attention of the Project Liaison Engineer, Office of Project Delivery, in the subdivision of Program/Project & Resource Management.
DES will provide a Structure Cost Estimate Range, for each alternative and a resource summary estimate to be included in the project workplan.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
1 ARTICLE 5
Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
General Guidance:
A. Objectives/Requirements
The responsible-charge engineer shall consult with the Functional Managers identified below in order to estimate the scope and magnitude of the Traffic Engineering studies (i.e. Travel Forecasting; Traffic Analysis; Infrastructure Evaluation; Warrant Analysis; and, Safety Review) that need to be performed during the Project Approval & Environmental Document phase.
These "studies" produce estimates of the operational and safety performance of:
The proposed "base design” (i.e. plans for new, modified or reconstructed infrastructure) Specific traffic elements, devices, features and systems that may cost-effectively enhance performance; or (when added to the scope) will prevent the emergence of a safety / operational performance problem (i.e. hot spots)
These performance estimates are ultimately used to:
Demonstrate if, and quantify how the proposed investment will meet the project Purpose and Need statement
Produce a complete scope of work by identifying the need and value (Benefit / Cost) for including key traffic control, safety, operational, and management systems, features and devices Support critical engineering decisions (e.g. decisions to create or retain a nonstandard geometric design feature)
FUNCTIONAL MANAGERS (Print names; signature not required) Division of Planning:
Travel / Traffic Forecasting Manager Jeff Berkman Date ________ Division of Traffic Operations
Freeway or Highway Operations Engineer Bing Yu Date _______ Traffic Electrical (ITS) Engineer Julie Gonzalez Date _______ Traffic Safety Engineer * Steve Talbert Date _______
Two consultation meetings are recommended:
1. With Travel Forecasting Manager and the appropriate District Operations Engineer
2. With the District Operations, Electrical (ITS) and Traffic Safety Engineers* * Note: The District Traffic Safety Engineer will provide the required written assessment of performance data, infrastructure and operating conditions. This assessment will identify, or be used to identify the scope and magnitude of the formal safety analysis, which will be a component of the eventual Traffic Analysis (Report).
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
2 B. Overview:
Project-related traffic engineering studies produce findings and estimates related to the operational and safety performance of existing and proposed highway infrastructure. These performances related findings and estimates are derived from the:
Analysis of traffic, collision and performance data and forecasted traffic volumes Evaluation of existing infrastructure to identify deficiencies and/or omissions Evaluation of the proposed infrastructure, including geometric design and traffic features or elements (i.e. traffic control, operational, management and safety devices, systems and features).
Performance-related findings and estimates provide the basis for project scoping and design decisions.
Ultimately, formal traffic engineering studies inform and advise the PDT as to whether the project scope is complete, and whether the scope will meet the project “purpose and need.” To meet the purpose of the PSR-PDS, the preliminary traffic engineering studies should be limited to an assessment of readily available information and data, and macro-level analysis and evaluation. This effort will produce preliminary traffic engineering findings and estimates to inform and advise the PDT on:
The potential scope of work and features (especially the traffic "elements" referenced above) Potential performance benefits and deficiencies
The scope and magnitude of traffic engineering work (traffic forecasting, modeling, analysis and evaluation) to be performed during the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase The traffic engineering effort performed during PA & ED will further define the scope of work and produce reliable estimates of the operational and safety impacts (benefits and dis-benefits) of the proposed highway infrastructure.
The information, questions, checklists and report template provided below are intended to guide and advise the engineer and/or traffic analyst who is responsible for the performance and documentation of the traffic engineering assessment.
A summary of the assessment and key findings and estimates should be summarized or incorporated into the PSR-PDS document (see Section F).
C. General Approach & Objective
At the PSR-PDS PID stage, the traffic forecasting activities and tasks should utilize readily available information and traffic models. At this stage of the project development process, it is not intended that effort be devoted to the generation of traffic data and to updating of traffic models. The intent is to utilize existing data, transportation reports, and performance monitoring systems describe and identify in the following sections a general description of the existing traffic and forecasted traffic. Consult with the District Local Development-Intergovernmental Review Planner for applicable local agency studies of land development proposals.
A macro-level analysis or assessment of the infrastructure, operating conditions, and traffic volume, collision and performance data should produce an estimate of performance impacts (benefits and disbenefits) on the subject highway segment, corridor or system.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
3 The primary objective is to identify the traffic forecasting and traffic engineering studies needed to analyze, evaluate, and more accurately predict or estimate operational and safety performance of the proposed improvements. This is necessary for the preparation of the environmental determination/document; and to ensure that a complete project scope is considered and identified during the project approval phase.
D. The Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) Traffic Engineering Study
Objectives:
Ultimately, traffic forecasting and traffic analysis identifies operational and safety performance deficiencies and impacts (needs), and a reliable estimate of how the improved highway infrastructure will perform. This allows for a determination as to whether the scope is adequate, whether the project “purpose and need” will be met, and the cost-effectiveness of the investment. Specifically, the function of the formal traffic study is to:
1. Identify performance deficiencies - both existing and potential - based on the review, evaluation and analysis of:
Infrastructure (current and proposed)
Operating conditions
Traffic, collision and performance data
2. Predict and/or estimate the operational and safety performance of proposed highway geometric designs (for new infrastructure)
3. Predict and/or estimate the operational and safety performance impacts (i.e. benefits and disbenefits) of specific modifications to existing highway infrastructure or a base design; for example:
The performance of an intersection should improve when a left turn lane is added to the base design
The performance of a freeway entrance ramp merging operation during periods of heavy demand should improve when metering is employed
4. Quantify the impact (benefits and disbenefits) of proposed infrastructure reconstruction, expansion, modification, etc. on the operational and safety performance of a highway segment, corridor or system
Content:
A formal traffic engineering study requires and/or is comprised of the following major components:
Traffic Forecasting / Modeling
Traffic Analysis
o Operational Analysis (includes capacity analysis)
o Safety Analysis
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
4 Evaluation of highway infrastructure and operating conditions (e.g. the impact of queuing and unstable flow on adjacent segments, traffic movements, access points and safety) E. Screening
To help estimate the scope and magnitude of the (future) traffic engineering study, the project engineer responsible for the PSR-PDS and key Functional Managers should jointly review the following “checklists” to discuss /decide their applicability to the specific PSR-PDS.
1. Forecasting / Modeling Requirements, Considerations and Assumptions NOTE #1: Forecasting / Modeling Requirements, Considerations and Assumptions are provided in the document “Updated Traffic Forecasts Memorandum for the Prado Road Interchange PSR” (December 2, 2016) which has been reviewed by Caltrans Functional Units including Transportation Planning and Traffic Operations. The italic/underline information provided with the following checklist items is provided in the above referenced memorandum.
Use Local Model?
Forecasts were developed utilizing City of San Luis Obispo Travel Demand Model (TDM).
Update Model
New Model
Existing Traffic Counts
Intersection counts provided by City of San Luis Obispo. US 101 mainline counts obtained from Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS).
New Traffic Counts
Historical Growth
General Plan (GP) Buildout
City of San Luis Obispo TDM assumes full buildout of the City’s GP. Pro-Rate GP Growth
Existing Year (2014)
Design Year (2045)
Interim Year (2025 – project first open for use)
2. Preliminary Scope of Work (Traffic Elements / Features / Systems / Plans) Based on a review and evaluation of performance data, and the existing and future Infrastructure and operating conditions, the project engineer and appropriate functional managers should meet to review the following list of traffic operational, control, management and safety systems, devices, features and strategies (i.e. traffic elements).
The preliminary scope of work should reflect the need to include traffic elements as they relate to the Purpose & Need, or compliance with traffic engineering policy or system performance requirements.
The preliminary list of traffic elements will facilitate the development of a ballpark estimate for construction, right of way, and Maintenance & Operation costs. More importantly, the
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
5 preliminary list will identify elements for which traffic analysis or some other traffic engineering support activity is required to determine the engineering need for their inclusion in the scope based on warrant analysis, benefit/cost analysis, and safety analysis.
NOTE #2: Through participation by the PDT, traffic operations elements were identified to be initially evaluated within a Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR). The Draft US 101/Prado Road Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) (September 2017) was prepared which provides preliminary traffic operation and supplemental ICE Step 1 information and provided to Caltrans for review/comment. The Final TOAR will be completed during PA/ED. The following traffic elements currently included in the Draft TOAR are noted as “(Included)”.
a. Major Traffic Control Devices
Overhead sign structures
Changeable Message Signs (especially overhead)
Sign Gantries (for Active Traffic Management)
b. Operational Features / Treatments / Systems
Auxiliary Lanes (Included)
Channelization lanes
Speed change lanes
Acceleration lanes
Deceleration lanes
Slow moving vehicle lanes
Ramp “braiding”
Median and Traffic Islands / Channelizers (Included)
Intersection Control Strategies / Systems (Included)
Yield Control / roundabouts (Included)
Signalization (Included)
All Way Stop Control
Pedestrian Crossing Devices / Systems
c. Traffic Management Strategies and Systems
Managed Lanes (Express or HOV lanes)
Ramp Metering Systems (Not Included in Draft TOAR but were considered in Draft PSR-PDS where it was determined that ramp metering was not consistent with the project scope)
Changeable Message Signs
Detection Systems
Communication Networks / Hardware
Highway Advisory Radio
Closed-Circuit TV cameras
Park & Ride Lots
d. Safety Systems / Devices / Strategies
Roadside / Roadway Departure Systems and Treatments
Median Barrier Systems
Guardrail Systems
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
6 Clear Zone Enhancements (e.g. slope flattening, tree removal, etc) Glare Screen (May be required between reconfigured Elks Lane and Northbound on-ramp)
Lighting
Truck Escape Ramps
Fencing
Intersection Traffic Control Systems
Roundabouts (yield control) (Included)
Signalization (Included)
All Way Stop Control
Beacons
Real-Time (Intelligent) Warning Sign Systems
Left-turn and right-turn channelization (Included)
Acceleration and Deceleration Lane extensions (via auxiliary lanes) (Included) Pavement Surface Treatments (OGAC, grooving, etc.)
Drainage System Enhancements
Severe Weather Detection & Warning Systems for Ice /Fog / Wind e. Transportation Management Planning (related to construction phase) Construction Staging
Full Closure (review Checklist or consult with Dist Traffic Manager) Strategies (analysis needed to determine which to employ) f. EXAMPLES: (how to use checklist to identify scope of work and Traffic Analysis):
The decision to provide a freeway auxiliary lane to extend the acceleration lane and improve the ability of drivers to find a suitable gap into which they can merge shall be based on Traffic Analysis findings related to the operational and safety benefits during peak periods and peak “shoulders.” The analysis shall consider the density of mainline lanes, the percentage of trucks, ramp volumes, the presence of ramp metering and if it can be effectively operated during peak periods, etc. Therefore, this type of Traffic Analysis needs to be planned for project proposals which intend to add a new interchange, expand the capacity of an existing interchange, or simply allow more vehicles to enter the mainline during critical periods of operation. (Included)
Similarly, Traffic Analysis must be planned to determine the need for, and selection of the optimum form of intersection traffic control at each new or affected interchange ramp termini. In most cases: the interchange configuration, the width of overcrossing or undercrossing structures, and right of way requirements will be based directly on the form of intersection control and the cross-section of approach roadways. Therefore, the Traffic Analysis performed to support the selection of a traffic signal or a roundabout (yield control) will have a significant impact on the scope, cost, right of way, and environmental impacts. (Included) RE: Freeway widening proposals -- The need for, and selection of the treatment to mitigate the affect of headlight glare on the operational and safety performance of drivers during the hours of darkness will be based on Traffic Analysis findings
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
7 regarding impacts and benefits produced by the installation of glare screen or lighting (especially through horizontal curves at which Stopping Sight Distance can be impacted by the installation of glare screen)
3. Traffic Analysis
The following list identifies specific performance measures, infrastructure components (operational, safety and management features, systems and devices), traffic movements, conflicts, etc. for which Traffic Analysis is typically performed or required.
Most traffic analysis relates directly to the operational and safety performance of access points and highway segments that are directly affected by the location, spacing and type of access opening. The capacity and performance of any highway corridor is affected and often limited by the capacity of access points, such as: conventional at-grade intersections, freeway merges and diverges, HOV lane access openings, and the weaving that occurs between adjacent access points.
See NOTE #2 under section 2. Preliminary Scope of Work (Traffic Elements / Features / Systems / Plans)
a. Operational & Capacity Analysis
Mainline LOS (capacity analysis) (Included)
Ramp Merge and Diverge LOS (Included)
Weaving analysis (Included)
Ramp terminal intersection LOS(Included)
o Exit Ramp storage / queue analysis
Interchange / Local System network analysis
Ramp Metering System analysis
o Interchange specific
o Corridor-wide
Managed Lane (HOV Lanes, Express Lanes, Transit Only Lanes, etc.) analysis Intersection Control Alternatives Analysis
o Signal warrant analysis
o Yield Control / Roundabout performance analysis (Included) o All-Way Stop Control
Conventional Intersection Analysis
o Capacity analysis (to determine number of through lanes and channelization) (Included)
o Delay studies
o Queuing and channelization storage analysis (Included) o Network analysis
b. Safety Study / Analysis
Based on a review and assessment of collision data, rates, trends and safety performance management and monitoring reports; and an evaluation of existing and proposed (future) infrastructure and operating conditions (and other relevant
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
8 technical data and information), the District Safety Engineer will estimate the scope and magnitude of the formal (future) safety study / analysis.
This assessment will quantify the safety “need” within the highway segment or corridor, upon which a specific form of engineering analysis and evaluation will be recommended and estimated (e.g. Safety Audit, Safety Analysis and/or Safety Review).
The future safety study will be performed by, or under the direction of the District Traffic Safety Engineer.
Safety Analysis shall be focused on the evaluation of off-peak and “shoulders” of the peak period when speeds are highest and environmental factors (darkness and glare) affect driver performance.
c. Other Analysis
Project & Construction Staging (mostly during design phase) Traffic Management Planning
o Lane Closures
o Full Closure Traffic Studies (consult with District Traffic Manager) Special Truck Studies
F. TEMPLATE - Documentation of the Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
PROJECT PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION (required if this document will not be attached to PSRPDS)
1. District – County –Route – Limits:
2. Facility Type:
3. Project Type (new facility, increase capacity, increase access, expand access, congestion management, safety):
4. Targeted System User (motor vehicles, transit, bicyclists, pedestrians):
5. Key Transportation Agencies (MPO, RTPA, County, Cities):
6. Context (rural, urban, suburban):
7. Project Manager:
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Assessment Approach, Data Sources & Major Assumptions
See NOTE #1 under section 1. Forecasting / Modeling Requirements, Considerations and Assumptions
Forecasted Traffic Volumes & Conditions
Modeling Tools / Methodologies
Traffic Analysis
o Operational / Capacity
o Safety
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
9 Preliminary Assessment Findings (regarding operational and safety performance) See NOTE #2 under section 2 Preliminary Scope of Work (Traffic Elements / Features / Systems / Plans)
Operational Deficiencies
Infrastructure Deficiencies
Infrastructure Omissions
Assessment of Safety Performance / Needs
Project Scope: Recommended or Required Features, Systems, Devices o Operational Features
o Safety Systems
o Traffic Control Systems
o Traffic Management Systems
Include a general description of the operational performance deficiencies and needs for which operational features should be required (e.g. auxiliary lanes, overhead signs, intersection control strategies etc.). Also discuss traffic management systems and elements (e.g. ramp metering, CMS, HOV lanes, etc.) to be incorporated. Discuss any strategies or components of the traffic management system that may be controversial during development of the environmental determination/document (e.g. the addition of tolling to an existing HOV lane).
SCOPE OF FUTURE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES, ACTIVITIES, AND TASKS (based on “Findings”):
(To Be Determined)
Forecasting
Operational / Capacity Analysis & Evaluation
Safety Analysis & Evaluation
Electrical Systems (type, service, hardware, software) Traffic Management Planning (for work zone)
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 8 – PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionnaire Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
1 ARTICLE 8
PSR-PDS SURVEY NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE
General Guidance:
The project datums, vertical and horizontal, need to be established as soon as possible in the schedule, and all other mapping adjusted to the project datums. Obsolete datums such as NAD27 and NGVD29 should not be used for new projects.
What Survey Control Datums will be used for project design and mapping? Vertical Control
NAVD 1988 (Preferred)
NGVD 1929 (Alternative)
Other (Must consult with Caltrans Surveys)
Horizontal Control
California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 5
Epoch _1991.35________
Other than CCS83 (Must consult with Caltrans Surveys)
Will the project need a Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment? No Does the project adjoin the ocean or tidal waterways? No Is the existing highway protected by levees, sea walls, or rip-rap? No Will existing as-builts, centerlines, or base mapping require any datum or unit conversions? Yes.
Some as-builts are in metric units. Base mapping and centerlines are digitized data.
Are the right of way record maps current? Right-of-way and property lines are digitized and not accurate.
Is there any need to accelerate design accuracy surveys for this project? Yes
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
ARTICLE 9
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
For Locally Implemented Projects on the State Highway System General Guidance:
The purpose of the Quality Management Plan is to facilitate an effective and efficient process for the development, review and approval of PIDs for State Highway System (SHS) projects sponsored by others. The project sponsor and/or implementing agency must develop and follow a Quality Management Plan that meets the standards of professional practice and satisfies requirements of the project scope and schedule. The Project Managers from Caltrans and the Lead Agency shall ensure that all Project Development Team (PDT) members, including consultants, utilize the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) elements as described in this document during the production and review of PIDs. QA/QC will be performed before deliverables are submitted to Caltrans for review.
Each team member must understand the project objectives, apply sound engineering principles and is expected to produce quality, accurate, and complete documents within the project schedule and budget.
Project documents will be prepared in accordance with current Caltrans regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards including compliance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements.
The information provided in the Quality Management Plan describes the quality procedures that will be implemented for work performed during all phases of development, review and approval of locally sponsored and/or implemented PIDs.
The Quality Management Plan template is to be modified to fit project needs, reporting relationships, and general circumstances.
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
Quality Management
Plan
For Preparation of Project Initial Documents for Locally Implemented Projects on the State Highway system
Date
EXAMPLE AGREEMENT COVER SHEET
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
OVERCROSSING ON ROUTE 101 AT PRADO ROAD
(EA: 05-1H640K)
Approved by ________________________________________ ________________ Paul Valadao, Caltrans Project Manager Date
Approved by ________________________________________ ________________ City of San Luis Obispo Date
________________________________________
Jake Hudson, Lead Agency Project Manager
Approved by ________________________________________ ________________ Joe Weiland, Consultant Project Manager Date
The respective Project Managers from Caltrans, the City of San Luis Obispo and Omni-Means, a GHD Company, have ensured that all Project Development Team (PDT) members utilized the Quality Management Plan elements as described in this document during the production and review of this PID. Vigorous QA/QC was performed before deliverables were presented to Caltrans District 5.
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Quality Control Reviews ..............................................................................................................................
Checking of Calculations ..............................................................................................................................
Checking of Drawings ...................................................................................................................................
Quality Assurance .........................................................................................................................................
Reporting Structure ......................................................................................................................................
QA/QC Duties and Responsibilities .............................................................................................................
Document Control .........................................................................................................................................
Control of Subconsultants ............................................................................................................................
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Example General List of Deliverables and Assigned QC Reviewers Exhibit B Example Quality Control Review Form
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
Introduction
The purpose of the Quality Management Plan is to facilitate an effective and efficient process for the development, review and approval of Project Initial Documents (PIDs) for State Highway System (SHS) projects sponsored by others. The project sponsor and/or implementing agency must develop and follow a Quality Management Plan that meets the standards of professional practice and satisfies requirements of the project scope, cost, and schedule. The Project Managers from Caltrans and the Lead Agency shall ensure that all Project Development Team (PDT) members utilize the Quality Management Plan elements as described in this document during the production and review of PIDs. QA/QC will be performed before deliverables are presented to Caltrans for review. Each team member must understand the project objectives, apply sound engineering principles and is expected to produce quality, accurate, and complete documents within the project schedule and budget. Project documents will be prepared in accordance with current Caltrans regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards including compliance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements.
The following information describes the quality procedures that will be implemented for work performed during all phases of development, review and approval of locally implemented PIDs.
Quality Control Reviews
1. Quality Control (QC) Reviews shall be conducted for all deliverables. A project schedule shall be developed with the consensus of the PDT that identifies anticipated reports, submittal dates and review periods.
2. Prior to submission to Caltrans, each deliverable will be subject to review by senior staff and the Local Agency Project Manager.
3. Project documents will be reviewed for conformance with project design criteria, legibility, and completeness and compliance with regulatory and code requirements.
4. All QC comments will be evaluated by the lead author for the document, discussed with the QC reviewer as needed and, if appropriate, incorporated into the deliverable. The Local Agency and Caltrans Project Manager will review and approve the resolution of each comment.
5. The Project Quality Control Coversheet, as shown in Appendix B, shall be used to document all quality control reviews.
Checking of Calculations
Final report calculations associated with the conceptual alternatives, cost estimates, and traffic technical reports shall be checked for reasonableness. All calculations shall be reviewed by the Lead.
Checking of Drawings
Conceptual geometric plans figures, mapping, and preliminary bridge plans (if applicable) shall be checked in accordance with established standards (e.g. Highway Design Manual and local standards).
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
Quality Assurance
The Project Managers from Caltrans and the Lead Agency, along with its consultant(s) will be responsible for the development of deliverables and assure that the stated quality control procedures are being followed. A Quality Assurance Log that includes dates when documents were received reviewed, and names of the QC reviewers shall be maintained for each report or work product.
Reporting Structure
An organization chart that describes the reporting structure and assigned staff that are involved in the QA/QC shall be developed at the beginning of the PID project.
QA/QC Duties and Responsibilities
Quality control begins with assigning the most appropriate person to each task. Each member of the team should be responsible for controlling the quality of the product, beginning with the project staff through to the Project Managers. The qualifications of the team members overseeing and doing the work should be identified. All team members should be in constant communication with the each other and their respective Principals and Project Managers in regards to project status, schedule, and any issues that might arise during the development of the PID.
The duties and responsibilities of each of the project members in coordinating and guiding the project efforts are described below:
a. Principals-in-Charge (PICs) – Responsible for allocation of resources and monitoring of the project to ensure adherence to the project objectives, schedule, budget, approvals, and ensuring that the QC/QA plan is in place and being implemented. Provides periodic audits of technical work and performance of respective staff.
b. Caltrans Project Manager - Responsible for Independent Quality Assurance as described in the Cooperative Agreement.
c. Local Agency Project Managers – Responsible for completion of project scope and tasks, and adherence to project schedule and budget, including QA/QC program. The Project Managers allocate resources to various elements of the work, establish and implement the Quality Management Plan, schedule the various activities and adjust plans as the work progresses to identify potential problem areas and resolve them in a timely manner. Responsible for technical review and approval of project documents before issuance to the reviewing agency; certifies that each submittal has been prepared and checked in accordance with Caltrans standards, policies, and procedures, sound engineering practices and represents a quality product; and maintains frequent contact and communication with the Caltrans Project Manager to assure satisfaction with the progress and performance.
d. Consultant Project Manager - The Consultant Project Manager reviews and monitors the implementation of the QA/QC practices and processes and ensures consistency with Caltrans standards, policies, and procedures. The Consultant Project Manager identifies the quality control actions required to be taken, the resources to be applied to these quality control actions,
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
and interaction of these activities with the other elements of work. In this process, it is essential that the Consultant Project Manager clearly identify the personnel involved and their duties; allocate time, effort, and resources to the quality control function; and reviews and revises the allocated resources appropriately as the work progresses. The Consultant Project Manager is responsible for production of the technical work produced by their staff. They also assist the Project Managers in the execution of the Quality Management Plan. The Consultant Project Manager reports administratively to the Project Managers and works closely with them in the early identification and resolution of any product deficiencies. This includes but is not limited to:
Perform periodic reviews of quality control documentation; Identification and control of nonconforming conditions d. Technical Staff – Technical staff are responsible to their Consultant Project Manager for the quality of the work produced within their respective disciplines. In this capacity, technical staff establishes operating guidelines and areas of responsibility within the activity; monitors the work periodically to assure adherence to the contract scope of services and to the established reviewing procedures to ensure consistency with Caltrans standards, policies, and procedures, advises the Consultant Project Manager regarding the progress of work and of any circumstances that may require particular attention; reviews work prior to submittal to the Project Managers for quality control review; resolves QC review comments; insures comments are incorporated into the final document and reviews completed work before it is transmitted to the Project Managers for approval and submittal to the reviewing agencies.
Document Control
The designated agency or consultant shall make available and maintain electronic records and hard copies of drafts and final reports for inspection upon request during the development of the PSR-PDS.
Control of Sub-Consultants
If a portion of the scope of work is subcontracted out by the implementing agency’s consultant, then all sub-consultants will have the same responsibilities as the Lead Agency consultant.
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
EXHIBIT A
EXAMPLE GENERAL LIST OF DELIVERABLES AND ASSIGNED QC REVIEWERS Task
No
Deliverable Consultant Reviewer Lead Agency Reviewer
1.0 Project Management Plan Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
1.1 Project Schedule Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
1.2 QA/QC Plan Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
2.0 Draft Project Purpose and
Need
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
3.0 Corridor Study Base
Mapping
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
4.0 Alternatives Evaluation &
Screening
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
4.1 Right of Way Data Sheet
and Cost Estimate
Mapping
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
5.0 Traffic Analysis
Workplan
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
6.0 Environmental Evaluation
Workplan
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
7.0 Stormwater Data Report Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
8.0 Geometric Evaluation
Workplan
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
9.0 Other discipline areas to
be evaluated
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
10.0 Draft PID Report Review Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
11.0 Final Report Approval Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
EXHIBIT B - QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW FORM
Quality Control Review Sign-Off Form
Client: City of San Luis Obispo Date to Reviewer: 9/29/17 Draft Documents to District 5 Project Name:
Overcrossing on Route 101 at Prado Road in
the City of San Luis Obispo Review Deadline:
Client & Job Number: 0516000105 Actual Review Date:
12/11/17 Comments received from Caltrans Staff
on Draft PSR-PDS/PEAR/SWDR
Project Manager: Joe Weiland
Deliverable Due
Date:
Reviewer: Rich Krumholz Actual Hours:
Production
Coordinator: Project Type: Interchange improvements (Category 3) Item Reviewed: Draft PSR-PDS/TOAR/SWDR/PEAR Task/Activity:
Project Task or Phase: K Phase (PID)
Deliverable %: Internal Review External Review
Type of Review Comment Sheet
Attached/Emailed
Completed by Reviewer
Initial Date
Reports:
Environmental - PEAR X Various 12/11/17
Master Plans
Draft PSR-PDS X Various 12/11/17
Technical Memorandum
Other:
Design:
Architectural
Calculations
Civil
Cost Estimates
Electrical
Spec and/or Front-Ends
Instrumentation & Control
Mechanical
Plan & Profile (Pipeline)
Process
Structural
Stormwater - SWDR X KI and PR 12/11/17
Other:
Miscellaneous:
Submittal/Previous QC
Backcheck
Drafting Backcheck
Project Guide
O&M Manuals
Survey Datums & Sea Level Rise
Other: TOAR X BY
Notes:
Please return "signed" QC Review Sign-off Form and markups to your assigned Production Coordinator.
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
Signatures:
Project Manager Date - Response to Comments
QC Reviewer Date - Resolution Accepted
Instructions:
1) Project Manager fills out QC Review form & transmits to assigned QC Reviewer with document(s); 2) After review, QC Reviewer returns reviewed document/completed QC Review form to PM with comments: 3) Project Manager is responsible for reviewing comments, making appropriate changes/notations, & informing QC Reviewer of changes made; 4) QC Reviewer completes form upon resolution.
QA-QC Program Coord.
Signature Date
Source Acknowledgement: Project Quality Management Plan developed for SR 152 Corridor Management Study, prepared for VTA by HDR Engineering, Inc., July 2009.
DTP-0001 (Revised July 2017)
Assembly: Senate: Congressional:
ADA Improvements
Includes Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals
End Closeout Phase (Closeout Report) 12/22/23
ADA Notice For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654-6410 or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, End Construction Phase (Construction Contract Acceptance Milestone) 03/31/23 Begin Closeout Phase 09/29/23
End Right of Way Phase (Right of Way Certification Milestone) 09/25/20 Begin Construction Phase (Contract Award Milestone) 03/25/21 End Design Phase (Ready to List for Advertisement Milestone) 09/25/20 Begin Right of Way Phase 08/19/19
End Environmental Phase (PA&ED Milestone) 08/16/19
Begin Design (PS&E) Phase 06/17/19
Circulate Draft Environmental Document Document Type ND/FONSI 12/13/18 Draft Project Report 12/07/18
Project Study Report Approved 02/02/18
Begin Environmental (PA&ED) Phase 03/05/18
Yes Yes Y/N
Yes Yes
Project Milestone Existing Proposed
Bike/Ped Improvements Reversible Lane analysis
State Highway Road Construction Modified / Improved Interchanges each 1 Local streets and roads Mixed Flow lane-miles constructed Feet 2000 Project Benefits
See p. 2
Purpose and Need
See p. 2
Category Outputs/Outcomes Unit Total
Construction City of San Luis Obispo
Legislative Districts
35 17 4
PA&ED City of San Luis Obispo
PS&E City of San Luis Obispo
Right of Way City of San Luis Obispo
Project Title
US 101-Prado Road Overcrossing and Northbound Ramp Improvements Location (Project Limits), Description ( Scope of Work) In San Luis Obispo County, at Prado Rd., construct an overcrossing over US 101, improve the US 101-Prado Rd. northbound ramps, and construct a northbound auxiliary lane between the Prado Rd. on-ramp and the Madonna Rd. off-ramp.
Component Implementing Agency
Project Manager/Contact Phone E-mail Address
Jake Hudson 805-781-7255 [email protected]
Element
SLOCOG Capital Outlay
SLO 101 26.5 27.3 City of San Luis Obispo
MPO
County Route/Corridor PM Bk PM Ahd Project Sponsor/Lead Agency Project ID PPNO MPO ID Alt Proj. ID
05 1H640 0516000105 2831 22300000756
Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ● DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST
General Instructions
Amendment (Existing Project) No Date: 12/15/17
District EA
DTP-0001 (Revised July 2017) Date: 12/15/17
ADA Notice
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ● DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST
Additional Information
Project Benefits
As stated in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (Sec. 7.4.4), "construction of a new overcrossing at Prado Road will serve the expanded commercial and residential development of San Luis Ranch and will provide an additional east-west connection in San Luis Obispo that would reduce congestion at the Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road interchanges and route traffic to and from the Airport Area via the Prado Road connection. The Prado Road connection is also a 'Designated STAA Truck [Route]' in the San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element.
The overcrossing is consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element and SLOCOG 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP-SCS). It will include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It is a land-use necessitated improvement adjacent to the approved San Luis Ranch development, which will provide up to 580 homes plus commercial space. Housing options are much-needed in SLO County, and additional housing units serve to improve the jobs-housing balance, reducing singleoccupancy vehicle trips and trip distances.
The NB US 101 Prado Rd. to Madonna Rd. auxiliary lane is included in the improvement concept list in the US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan (adopted by the SLOCOG Board in December 2014) and the constrained project list in the 2014 RTP-SCS.
Purpose
The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes.
Need
There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of the 101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on State and City facilities.
This connectivity needs extends to all transportation modes. Goals and objectives of the project include: 1) improve overall operations of U.S. Route 101 and adjacent interchanges; 2) improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3) improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities; and 4) consistency with local, regional and state planning.
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654-6410 or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814.
DTP-0001 (Revised July 2017) Date: 12/15/17
District EA
05 1H640
Project Title:
Component Prior 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24+ Total
E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E
R/W SUP (CT)
CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
E&P (PA&ED) 250 250
PS&E 2,700 2,700
R/W SUP (CT) 1 1
CON SUP (CT) 1 1
R/W 1 1
CON 28,997 28,997
TOTAL 250 2,700 29,000 31,950
Fund No. 1:
Component Prior 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24+ Total
E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E
R/W SUP (CT)
CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E
R/W SUP (CT)
CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON 6,000 6,000
TOTAL 6,000 6,000
Fund No. 2:
Component Prior 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24+ Total
E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E
R/W SUP (CT)
CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
E&P (PA&ED) 250 250
PS&E 2,700 2,700
R/W SUP (CT) 1 1
CON SUP (CT) 1 1
R/W 1 1
CON 22,997 22,997
TOTAL 250 2,700 23,000 25,950
City of San Luis Obispo
development mitigation
fees and other local
revenue sources
Existing Funding ($1,000s)
Funding Agency
Proposed Funding ($1,000s) Notes
Proposed Funding ($1,000s) Notes
$6m Con Cap in FY 21/22
Local funding Program Code
RTIP-Regional Transportation Improvement Program Program Code Existing Funding ($1,000s) 20.xx.075.600
Funding Agency
SLOCOG
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
Proposed Total Project Cost ($1,000s) Notes
Existing Total Project Cost ($1,000s)
Implementing Agency
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
SLO 101 0516000105 2831
US 101-Prado Road Overcrossing and Northbound Ramp Improvements STATE OF CALIFORNIA ● DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST
County Route Project ID PPNO Alt Proj. ID
DISTRICT 5
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA SHEET/CHECKLIST
District / EA / EFIS: 05/1H6400 Co.-Rte-PM: SLO-101-26.8/26.8 Project Engineer: Paul Valadao Description: Prado Road Interchange Date Prepared: 2/15/2018 Working Days: 250 days
Check each box and reference your attachments to the
item(s) number(s) shown on the list.
RequiredRecommendedNot required
COMMENTS
1.0 Public Information
1.1 Public Awareness Campaign x Estimate $25,000
1.2 Other strategies
2.0 Motorist Information Strategies
2.1 Changeable Message Signs - Portable x Estimate $100,000
2.2 Construction Area Signs x
2.3 Highway Advisory Radio (fixed and mobile)
2.4 Planned Lane Closure Web Site x Construction to provide information to TMC
2.5 Caltrans Highway Information Network (CHIN) x Construction to provide information to TMC
3.0 Incident Management
3.1 COZEEP (during k-rail moving & work in live traffic) x Est.$240,000 ($300/hour nights 35% of time)
3.2 Freeway Service Patrol
4.0 Traffic Management Strategies
4.1 Lane/Ramp Closures Charts x Provided during PS&E
4.2 Total Facility Closure/ Number of days? x
4.3 Coordination with adjacent construction x
4.4 Contingency Plan x Standard SSP
4.4.1 Material/Equipment Standby x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.4.2 Emergency Detour Plan x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.4.3 Emergency Notification Plan x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.5 Speed Limit Reduction Request x
4.6 Special Days: x To be determined
4.7 Other items:
Liquidated Damages Penalty x To be provided during PS&E Maintain Traffic x Include $75,000
4.8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations* x
*Planning for all road users must be included in this process. Bicyclists and Pedestrians shall not be led into direct conflicts with mainline traffic, work site vehicles, or equipment moving through or around the TTC zone. Contact Dario Senor w/ questions.
5.0 Anticipated Delays
5.1 Lane Closure Review Committee x
(for anticipated delays over 30 minutes)
5.2 Planned freeway closures x
5.3 Minimal delay anticipated -
no further action required x yes no If no, explain additional measures on attached sheet.
6.0 Demand Management & Alternate Route Strategies x
6.1 6.2
Shayne Sandeman
District 5 TMP Coordinator
1 of 1
Division / Program / Office Project Type D5
FHWA
Designated high
profile projects only.
Refer to Stewardship
Agreement
Dominic Hoang
HQ Division of Design All Projects Design Report Routing (12/7/2005)
HQ Program Advisor SHOPP
HQ Program Advisor gets
one copy but do not
duplicate other Advisors
listed below. For
Program Advisors not
listed, refer to
http://crweb/pjd/docs/CR_
SHOPP_Program_Adviso
rs.xlsx
HQ Division of Engineering Serv All Projects Division of Engineering Services
STIP Kurt Scherzinger
SHOPP Donna Berry
HQ Environmental All Projects Kirsten Helton
HA22 Amy Fong
HA21 Diana Campbell
HA42, HA23 Gerald Kracher
STIP Patti-jo Dickinson
HQ Traffic Operations HB4N, HB4C Matthew Friedman
HQ Traffic Ops/Traffic Safety Pgm HB1 Abdelraham Beshair HQ Traffic Ops/Traffic Safety Pgm HB711 Elizabeth Dooher HQ SHOPP Program Advisor For other prog
HQ Advisors List (Apr 1,
2016)
Project Manager All Projects Project Manager
Design Manager All Projects Design Manager
Resident Engineer All Projects Resident Engineer
All Projects Lance Gorman
D6 Eastern Kern
Pavement, Bridge &
Culvert Kelly Mcclain
District Traffic Management All Projects Jacques Van Zeventer District Traffic Operations Branch 201.010 & 201.015 Dario Senor District Traffic Operations Branch MON/SB Mark Ballentine District Traffic Operations Branch SLO/SBT Steve Talbert District Traffic Operations Branch SCR Mike Lew
Region Traffic Design All Projects Mohammed Qatami
District Traffic Operations All Projects Paul McClintic Region Materials All Projects Ted Mooradian
Region Environmental All Projects Diana Vargas
Region Landscape All Projects Scott Dowlan
Region Right of Way All Projects Marshall Garcia
Distict Planning All Projects Garin Schneider
PPM All Projects Linda Araujo
District Single Focal Point All Projects No Copy
All Projects
All Projects Jeremy Villegas
Mon/SC/SBt Stacy Meacham
SB/SLO Nick Tatarian
HQ DES/OPPM Proj w/Structures Andrew T S Tan
District Records All Projects
Pat Duty (electronic copy
only)
Last Revised 06/27/17
CALTRANS (PSR-PDS) PID DISTRIBUTION LIST
HQ Transportation Programming
HQ Maintenance
District Maintenance
CR PJD Support
Surveys
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project
On U.S. 101 in San Luis Obispo County
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5-27.3
Project ID Number 0516000105
State Clearinghouse Number 2023020078
Initial Study
with Mitigated Negative Declaration
Volume 1 of 2
Prepared by the
State of California Department of Transportation
May 2023
General Information About This Document
Document prepared by: Dianna Beck, Associate Environmental Planner The Initial Study circulated to the public for 32 days between February 2, 2023 and March 6, 2023. Comments received during this period are included in Appendix B.
Elsewhere, language has been added throughout the document to indicate where a change has been made since the circulation of the draft environmental document.
Minor editorial changes and clarifications have not been so indicated.
Accessibility Assistance
Caltrans makes every attempt to ensure our documents are accessible. Due to variances between assistive technologies, there may be portions of this document that are not accessible. Where documents cannot be made accessible, we are committed to providing alternative access to the content. Should you need additional assistance, please contact us at the phone number in the box below.
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please write to or call Caltrans, Attention: Dianna Beck, Associate Environmental Planner, District 5 Environmental Division, 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401; 805-459-9406 (Voice), or use the California Relay Service 1-800-735-2929 (Teletype to Voice), 1-800-735-2922 (Voice to Teletype), 1-800-855-3000 (Spanish Teletype to Voice and Voice to Teletype), 1-800-854-7784 (Spanish and English Speech-to-Speech), or 711.
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project i
State Clearinghouse Number 2023020078
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5-27.3
Project ID Number 0516000105
Extend Prado Road over U.S. 101 to connect with Dalidio Drive and rebuild the existing U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramp connections to Prado Road
INITIAL STUDY
with Mitigated Negative Declaration
Submitted Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, California Public Resources Code
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
and
City of San Luis Obispo
Responsible Agency: California Transportation Commission Jason Wilkinson
Acting Deputy District Director, Environmental Analysis, District 5 California Department of Transportation
CEQA Lead Agency
Date
The following individual can be contacted for more information about this document:
Dianna Beck, Associate Environmental Planner, District 5, 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401; 805-459-9406.
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project iii
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code
State Clearinghouse Number: 2023020078
District-County-Route-Post Mile: 05-SLO-101-PM 26.5-27.3 EA/Project Number: EA 05-1H640 and Project ID Number 0516000105 Project Description
The City of San Luis Obispo proposes to extend Prado Road over U.S. 101 to connect with Dalidio Drive and rebuild the existing U.S. 101 northbound on- and offramp connections to Prado Road. The interchange is in the City of San Luis Obispo at post mile 26.8 on U.S. 101. The project limits extend from post mile 26.5 to post mile 27.3.
Determination
Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project and, following public review, has determined from this study that the proposed action would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons.
The project would not have a significant effect on energy, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.
The project would have no significantly adverse effect on aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources because the following mitigation measures would reduce potential effects to insignificance:
AES-1 and AES-2 require developing and implementing a Tree Protection and Replacement Plan that protects trees to be preserved during construction and provides suitable replacements for trees that require removal during construction.
AES-3 requires developing a landscaping design with plantings that offer a variety of colors, shapes, and species with an emphasis on drought-tolerant native plant materials.
AG-1 requires that for each acre of Important Farmland that is converted due to project implementation, 1 acre of comparable land in agricultural production will be preserved in perpetuity.
AQ-1 requires implementing fugitive dust control measures during project construction.
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project iv
BIO-1 requires construction activities to avoid and minimize potential impacts to California red-legged frogs and Coast Range newts. BIO-2 requires construction activities to avoid and minimize potential impacts to southwestern pond turtles.
BIO-3 requires construction activities to avoid and minimize potential impacts to steelheads.
BIO-4 requires construction activities to avoid and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds.
BIO-5 requires construction activities to avoid and minimize potential impacts associated with invasive species.
BIO-6 requires construction activities to avoid and minimize potential impacts to riparian habitat and jurisdictional areas.
BIO-7 requires implementing a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that provides a minimum 2-to-1 replacement ratio for permanent impacts to riparian habitat unless otherwise directed by regulatory agencies. CR-1 requires stopping construction work if a potential archaeological resource is encountered. It also requires a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the proper treatment of the potential resource. GEO-1 requires stopping construction work if a potential paleontological resource is encountered. It also requires a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the potential resource.
HAZ-1 requires a preconstruction investigation of surface soils for aerially deposited lead. A workplan will be developed detailing the methodology, results, and measures for proper management and disposal of contaminated soils if aerially deposited lead is detected above acceptable levels in project site soils.
HAZ-2 requires testing surface soils in the proposed right-of-way to determine the presence or absence of pesticides, herbicides, and arsenic. A workplan will be developed describing the sampling methodology, results, and requirements for removal, transportation, and disposal of impacted soil. HAZ-3 requires marking known petroleum pipelines in the project area before the start of any project construction activities and developing a contingency plan that specifies the requirements for soil handling and/or remediation if contaminated soil from a petroleum pipeline is encountered.
Jason Wilkinson
Acting Deputy District Director, Environmental Analysis, District 5 California Department of Transportation
Date
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project v
Table of Contents
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project.............................................................a Chapter 1 Proposed Project ............................................................................1
1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose and Need....................................................................................1
1.2.1 Purpose..............................................................................................1
1.2.2 Need ..................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Description....................................................................................2
1.4 Project Alternatives...................................................................................6
1.4.1 Build Alternatives ...............................................................................6
1.4.2 No-Build (No-Action) Alternative ......................................................15
1.5 Identification of a Preferred Alternative...................................................15
1.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion ...........15
1.7 Standard Measures and Best Management Practices Included in All Build Alternatives.......................................................................................................17
1.8 Discussion of the NEPA Categorical Exclusion ......................................18
1.9 Permits and Approvals Needed ..............................................................18 Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation............................................................................0
2.1 CEQA Environmental Checklist ................................................................0
2.1.1 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................0
2.1.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources....................................................10
2.1.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................15
2.1.4 Biological Resources........................................................................24
2.1.5 Cultural Resources...........................................................................40
2.1.6 Energy..............................................................................................43
2.1.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................47
2.1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................51
2.1.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................57
2.1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................64
2.1.11 Land Use and Planning....................................................................70
2.1.12 Mineral Resources ...........................................................................73
2.1.13 Noise................................................................................................73
2.1.14 Population and Housing...................................................................83
2.1.15 Public Services ................................................................................85
2.1.16 Recreation........................................................................................87
2.1.17 Transportation..................................................................................88
2.1.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................97
2.1.19 Utilities and Service Systems...........................................................99
2.1.20 Wildfire...........................................................................................104
2.1.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...............................................106 Appendix A Title VI Policy Statement.............................................................111 Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses ..............................................112 Comment Letter 1 from Jennifer Best.............................................................113 Comment Letter 2 from Kenneth Riding .........................................................114 Comment Letter 3 from Linda Busek ..............................................................115