San Luis Obispo City Council
August 4, 2026

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (SD-1)
Reduce overall width of Prado Creek Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $3,000,000
Change in Schedule: 2-week reduction
Performance Change - 3.5 %
Value Change + 1.3 %
Description of Baseline Concept:

The baseline concept replaces the existing Prado Creek Bridge with a new single-span precast girder bridge that is 142’ long and 114’ wide. The new bridge will accommodate 6 lanes of vehicular traffic for Prado Road with sidewalks and sidewalk level Class IV and on-street shoulder Class II bike lanes on either side. The current width of this new bridge will require the relocation of the Bob Jones Trail Bridge during and after construction.

Description of Alternative Concept:

The alternative concept proposes to reduce the overall width of the new Prado Creek Bridge through the following concepts:
• The elimination of the eastbound through-lane
• The use of sidewalk and shoulder in lieu of Class IV on the north side • The use of a Class I bike lane in lieu of a protected bikeway (Class IV) and sidewalk on south side
• Reduction of all travel lanes on the bridge from 12’ to 11’ The resulting total width of the bridge would be 91’, whereas the length of the new bridge would be maintained at 142’. The new bridge width would be comprised of the following design elements:
• A 4’ median
• Five 11’ travel lanes
• Two 5’ outside shoulders
• A 6’ sidewalk on the north side
• A 14’ combined path on the south side
• Two 1’ bridge rails
Additionally, this concept would result in the following indirect impacts to the overall project design:
• Elimination of the second eastbound lane on Prado Road east of Higuera Street • Maintained roadway width but elimination of one of the Southbound S. Higuera left-turn lane to eastbound Prado Road
• Elimination of the Class IV bike facilities on Prado Road east of Higuera Street 13

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (SD-1)
Reduce overall width of Prado Creek Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
This 23’ bridge reduction (and partial shift northward in its alignment) may allow for the Bob Jones Trail Bridge to remain in place during construction – which would avoid the need to remove, upgrade, and relocate the bridge as part of the project.

Advantages:
• Traffic Operations – Improved by reduced wait times at intersection • Multi-modal Operations – Improved by reduced distance/wait times for pedestrian crossings at intersection
• Construction Impacts – Improved by reduction in bridge structure and roadway construction.

Eliminates need to relocate Bob Jones Trail Bridge. Assume schedule reduction of 2 weeks (3.8 – 5.0)
• Long-Term Impacts – Improved aesthetic by reducing overall scale of bridge (6.6 – 7.0) • Maintainability – Improved by reducing size and number of assets to maintain in future. Less stormwater volume (6.4 – 7.0)
Disadvantages:
• Traffic Operations – Degraded by reduction in capacity and flexibility for future traffic volume growth (7.7 – 6.5)
• Multi-Modal Operations – Degraded by reduction in capacity and losing buffer from traffic (7.8 – 7.0)
• Construction Impacts – Degraded by keeping the Bob Jones Trail Bridge constraining structure work
• Long-Term Impacts – Degraded by constraining future growth in the near term • Maintainability – Degraded by reducing roadway space for performing future roadway maintenance
Discussion:

The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to significantly reduce the initial project cost and to simplify the overall construction of the project. Discussions during the VE study determined that many of the features of the full build design concept are not required by near term traffic volumes and would not likely be needed until a Prado Rd. connection to Broad Street is constructed.

These improvements are not anticipated in the next 10-15 years (and may not occur at all). This discussion led to the development of this concept, which more properly matched the design to the traffic volume that is more immediately needed with the connection to the upcoming US-101 interchange project.

Discussion of Schedule Impacts:

This alternative concept represents a small impact to the project schedule’s critical path as the bridge construction effort and in-water work is still a controlling and integral part of the work being performed. By reducing the overall width of the bridge, a schedule reduction of 2 weeks was 14

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (SD-1)
Reduce overall width of Prado Creek Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
conservatively estimated.

Discussion of Risk Impacts:

The alternative concept represents a reduction to the construction-related project risk as the inwater work and bridge work will be reduced, along with the project duration being shortened by two weeks.

The alternative concept represents an increase in future operational facility risk by reducing the overall capacity to handle vehicular traffic in the future should growth and a future regional connection of Prado to Broad Street on the east materialize. Additionally, the reduction in facility widths – both on and off the bridge – will reduce the amount of space available for future maintenance efforts and traffic handling flexibility.
15

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (SD-1)
Reduce overall width of Prado Creek Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Baseline Concept Image
Image showing portions of the current full build bridge and intersection design for the project Image showing baseline design cross-section
16

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (SD-1)
Reduce overall width of Prado Creek Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Alternative Concept Image
Image showing those bridge and roadway design elements (in red/yellow) that could be eliminated or modified by the proposed bridge width reduction. White text boxes denote proposed bicycle path modifications
Image showing proposed cross-section
17

VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (SD-1)
Reduce overall width of Prado Creek Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Reduction of the overall bridge width by 23’ (includes reduction of in-creek work, falsework, concrete and concrete curing, roadway materials, and removal of falsework, striping, and paint)
• Reduction of Prado Road width east and west of bridge (roadway excavation & roadway structural section)
• Reduction in traffic handling
• Reduction in project duration and time-related overhead of 2 weeks A total cost reduction of between $2-3M was discussed. An aggressive $3M cost savings was applied for the Value Metrics calculation. The funding for this portion of the bridge is separate from the federal funding received for the project as the federal funding provides for 5 lanes of bridge width. 18

VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (MU-2)
Remove undergrounding of overhead utilities from project Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $500,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change - 0.7 %
Value Change + 0.1 %
Description of Baseline Concept:

The baseline concept includes the temporary and permanent relocation of local utilities in the project area, including a sewer line, a recycled water line, a potable water line, electrical service lines, and several fiber communication lines. The sewer, recycled water, and potable water lines will be routed under the new bridge structure. The electrical lines will be undergrounded and gathered together with the communication lines, placed in separate conduits, and routed through the bridge structure.

The electrical and fiber lines will be placed in a shared trench on either side of the bridge with a top depth of 7’.

Description of Alternative Concept:

The alternative concept proposes to remove the undergrounding of the electrical and communication lines from the project. This will require that the existing utility lines be relocated to new overhead alignments in the public R/W (right-of-way) at the utility owners’ expense. The project will still require the construction of a joint trench and ducting of some of the other fiber communication lines.

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Improved by removing the undergrounding component of the electrical and some of the fiber utility work from the project. The size of the joint trench can be reduced, and this reduces utility coordination (3.8 – 3.9) Disadvantages:
• Multi-modal Operations – Degraded by maintaining poles, which will impede the pedestrian and bicycle travel area (7.8 – 7.7)
• Construction Impacts – Degraded by impeding the use of cranes during construction • Long-Term Impacts – Degrades the local aesthetics by maintaining poles and overhead lines (6.6 – 6.5)
• Maintainability – Degraded by maintaining maintenance of overhead utilities into the future and additional potential for damage to these overhead utilities (6.4 – 6.3) Discussion:

The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of the project by removing the utility undergrounding component. It was discussed during the VE study that, although the undergrounding of electrical and telecom utilities is a desired aspect and the project provides an 19

VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (MU-2)
Remove undergrounding of overhead utilities from project Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
opportunity to address this condition, it does not represent a requirement or an essential element of the project.

Discussion of Schedule Impacts:

Although the removal of the undergrounding work would provide additional flexibility for the contractor in completing the utility work for the project, it does not represent a critical path element for the project schedule.

Discussion of Risk Impacts:

The alternative concept represents a minor reduction to the construction-related project risk as the utility work will be reduced.

The alternative concept represents a minor increase in future operational facility risk by increasing the potential for overhead utility lines to be damaged by weather or accident, which would require otherwise avoidable repair work and/or possible facility operational downtime.

Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Eliminate undergrounding of all overhead utilities
• Assumes no impact to the overall project duration
A total cost reduction of $500K was applied for the Value Metrics calculation. The funding for this project element is separate from the federal funding received for the project. 20

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (MU-3)
Reduce minimum depth of cover of joint trench from 7’ to 3’ Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $100,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change + 0.2 %
Value Change + 0.3 %
Description of Baseline Concept:

The baseline concept includes the temporary and permanent relocation of local utilities in the project area including a sewer line, a recycled water line, a potable water line, electrical service lines, and several fiber communication lines. The sewer, recycled water, and potable water lines will be routed under the new bridge structure. The electrical lines will be undergrounded and gathered together with the communication lines, placed in separate conduits, and routed through the bridge structure.

The electrical and fiber lines will be placed in a shared trench on both sides of the bridge with a top depth of 7’ minimum. There is currently 2,800 LF of joint trenching for utilities.

Description of Alternative Concept:

The alternative concept proposes to reduce the minimum amount of cover over the joint trench from 7’ to 3’ in specific locations. The joint trench locations that can be reduced are limited to the S.

Higuera Street and the western Prado Road segments and only when the joint trench is running parallel to road centerline and not crossing transverse (in other words, can be done when not in conflict with other underground utilities).

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Improved by reducing trenching and shoring required by the contractor (3.8 – 3.9)
• Maintainability – Improved by shallower depth of repairs if needed (minor improvement) Disadvantages:
• None noted
Discussion:

The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of the project. The trench depth can be decreased along Higuera Street south and Prado Road west of the intersection as the amount of other buried utilities in the area is limited and the potential for utility conflicts should be greatly diminished.
21

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (MU-3)
Reduce minimum depth of cover of joint trench from 7’ to 3’ Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Discussion of Schedule Impacts:

Although the removal of the undergrounding work would provide additional flexibility for the contractor in completing the utility work for the project, it does not represent a critical path element for the project schedule.

Discussion of Risk Impacts:

The alternative concept represents a minor reduction to the construction-related project risk as the utility trenching work will be reduced.

The alternative concept represents a minor increase in future operational facility risk by increasing the potential for accidental damage by near-surface roadway or utility work, which would require otherwise avoidable repair work and possible facility operational downtime. 22

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (MU-3)
Reduce minimum depth of cover of joint trench from 7’ to 3’ Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Baseline/Alternative Concept Image
Image showing the affected trenching area - Higuera Street south of intersection and Prado Road west
23

VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (MU-3)
Reduce minimum depth of cover of joint trench from 7’ to 3’ Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Reduce depth of trenching and protective shoring by 4’ • Assumes no impact to the overall project duration
A total cost reduction of $100K was applied for the Value Metrics calculation. The funding for this project element may be considered as part of the federal funding package received for the project. 24

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (MU-5)
Limit sewer, recycled water, and potable water utility relocation Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $300,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change - 0.3 %
Value Change + 0.2 %
Description of Baseline Concept:

The baseline concept includes the temporary and permanent relocation of local utilities in the project area, including a sewer line, a recycled water line, a potable water line, electrical service lines, and several fiber communication lines. The sewer, recycled water, and potable water lines will be routed under the new bridge structure.

Description of Alternative Concept:

The alternative concept proposes to address the wet utility relocation (the sewer line, recycled water line, and potable water) for the bridge segment only and extending westerly to the Higuera/Prado intersection only (sewer). The Higuera Street water utility relocation would be removed from this project and deferred to a later project.

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Improved by reducing the amount of trenching and shoring required and providing additional utility work flexibility for the contractor in Stage 1 (3.8 – 3.9) Disadvantages:
• Maintainability – Degraded by increasing the amount of maintenance work on existing (older) utilities, as well as disruptions in future years to traffic and community for deferred utility work (6.4 – 6.2)
Discussion:

The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of the project. The wet utility work east of the Prado Creek Bridge would be deferred to a later time.

Discussion of Schedule Impacts:

The removal of the wet utility work east of the new bridge would greatly impact the project schedule but would not ultimately equate to a reduction in the project schedule’s critical path as the bridge and roadway work is already scheduled for Spring of 2028 through Summer 2029.

Discussion of Risk Impacts:

The alternative concept represents a significant reduction to the construction-related project risk as 25

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (MU-5)
Limit sewer, recycled water, and potable water utility relocation Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
the utility work will be greatly reduced, which will decrease the amount of traffic handling and the potential for traffic conflicts between the public and the contractor.

The alternative concept represents an increase in future operational facility risk by deferring the utility work and its required traffic handling and potential traffic conflicts to a later period.

Baseline/Alternative Concept Image
Image showing the utility work locations at the intersection, along Higuera Street north and south, as well as Prado Road west and east of the bridge
26

VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (MU-5)
Limit sewer, recycled water, and potable water utility relocation Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Elimination of the wet utility work not being relocated under the new bridge, which will carry the sewer line, recycled water line, and potable water line • Sewer line work extending westerly to existing MH J15-11 would still be required • Assumes no impact to the overall project duration
A total cost reduction of $300K was applied for the Value Metrics calculation. The funding for this project element may be considered as part of the federal funding package received for the project. 27

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (RE-3)
Use RSP to eliminate the retaining wall underneath the bridge Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $2,000,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change + 0.9 %
Value Change + 3.8 %
Description of Baseline Concept:

The baseline concept uses a soldier pile retaining wall with precast concrete lagging to support the slope under each side of the new bridge.

Description of Alternative Concept:

The alternative concept proposes to use rock slope protection (RSP) underneath the new bridge in lieu of soldier pile wall sections which will need to be studied for hydraulic viability. The RSP would tie into the remaining soldier pile wall sections that are constructed away from the bridge along each slope.

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Improved by simplifying the construction process of the retaining wall, reducing steps, removing some of the horizontal lagging, and being less overall work for contractor (3.8 – 4.0)
• Long-Term Impacts – Improved by potentially improving or maintaining hydraulic flow under the bridge, reducing environmental disturbance impacts, and enhancing aesthetics (6.6 – 6.7) • Maintainability – Easier to maintain the RSP than the retaining wall (6.4 – 6.5) Disadvantages:
• Maintainability – Degraded by more frequent maintenance effort Discussion:

The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of the project while simplifying the construction process. This alternative would allow for the retaining wall in front of the abutment to be eliminated.

It is important to note that this alternative may have an impact on the hydraulic characteristics of the creek flow under the bridge. This should be investigated with a hydraulics analysis by the team to ensure that the impact of this design change does not increase the chance of erosion of the creek slopes or the scour of the bridge supports. The potential impacts to the hydraulics presented by this concept can be mitigated (or improved) as needed by modifying the location and configuration of the abutment on the west side.
28

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (RE-3)
Use RSP to eliminate the retaining wall underneath the bridge Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Discussion of Schedule Impacts:

Although the removal of the soldier pile retaining wall under the bridge would provide additional flexibility for the contractor in completing the in-water work for the project, it does not represent a critical path element for the project schedule.

Discussion of Risk Impacts:

The alternative concept represents a minor reduction to the construction-related project risk as the in-water work will be reduced.

The alternative concept represents no significant future operational work. The RSP may need to be adjusted or added to in the future, but this is anticipated to be equivalent to ongoing maintenance work with the retaining wall.

Alternative Concept Images
The use of RSP in lieu of soldier pile retaining wall under the bridge The use of RSP in lieu of soldier pile retaining wall under the bridge 29

VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (RE-3)
Use RSP to eliminate the retaining wall underneath the bridge Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Reduce the amount of soldier pile wall (excavation, pile driving, piles, lagging, and backfill) • Increase the amount of rock slope protection and placement • Assumes no impact to the overall project duration
A total cost reduction of $2M was applied for the Value Metrics calculation. The funding for this project element may be considered as part of the federal funding package received for the project. 30

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (CT-1)
Reduce raised Prado Road median length on bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $20,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change + 0.4 %
Value Change + 0.5 %
Description of Baseline Concept:

The baseline concept includes a raised median that extends for the full length of the bridge – widening as it moves from east to west.

Description of Alternative Concept:

The alternative concept proposes to shorten and narrow the raised median.

Advantages:
• Traffic Operations – Improved by providing additional movement flexibility (7.7 – 7.8) • Construction Impacts – Improved by reduction in raised median construction (3.8 – Push) • Maintainability – Improved by reduced raised median to maintain (6.4 – Push) Disadvantages:
• None noted
Discussion:

The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of the project while simplifying the construction effort. The new alignment of the raised median will still need to serve to negate the left-turn out movement from the affected property at 3380 S Higuera St.

Discussion of Schedule Impacts:

Although the reduction of the median would provide additional flexibility for the contractor in completing the roadway work west of the bridge, it does not represent a critical path element for the project schedule.

Discussion of Risk Impacts:

The alternative concept represents a negligible reduction to the construction-related project risk as the pavement work will be reduced.

The alternative concept represents a negligible reduction of the future operational risk related to future maintenance efforts.
31

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (CT-1)
Reduce raised Prado Road median length on bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Baseline Concept Image
Image showing current full build design, including the full center median design Alternative Concept Image
Image showing a reduction of the center median
32

VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (CT-1)
Reduce raised Prado Road median length on bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Reduce center median on Prado Road on the new bridge and west of the bridge • Assumes no impact to the overall project duration
A total cost reduction of $20K was applied for the Value Metrics calculation. The funding for this project element is not included in the federal funding package received for the project. 33

VA ALTERNATIVE 7.0 (AP-1)
Remove and do not replace the Bob Jones Trail Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $150,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change + 0.9 %
Value Change + 1.2 %
Description of Baseline Concept:

The baseline concept is to remove the Bob Jones Trail Bridge (BJTB) during the demo and reconstruction of the new Prado Creek Bridge, store the BJTB onsite, improve the BJTB abutments, and then return the BJTB to its original location (the western abutment will remain as is. The eastern abutment will be relocated, so the BJTB will be in a slightly rotated position compared to existing).

Description of Alternative Concept:

The alternative concept proposes to remove the Bob Jones Trail Bridge permanently from the project location.

This concept would only be considered if the Bob Jones Trail Bridge is required to be removed for the construction of the new bridge. If any of the other concepts under consideration would help to avoid contact with the bridge during the project, then the Bob Jones Trail Bridge can be left in place without impact.

Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Improved by simplifying the construction effort and eliminating the bridge storage, foundation improvement, and reinstallation work from the project scope.

Additionally removes the bridge from the in-water bridge construction area (3.8 – 4.2) • Long-Term Impacts – Improved by eliminating the bridge from the creek area and enhancing the natural aesthetic (6.6 – 6.8)
• Maintainability – Improved by eliminating the bridge from further future maintenance efforts (6.4 – 6.6)
Disadvantages:
• Multi-Modal Operations – Degraded by removing an access point for the Bob Jones Trail (7.8 – 7.6)
Discussion:

The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of the project while simplifying the construction effort.

Discussions during the VE study determined that the existing Bob Jones Trail Bridge would be redundant once the new Prado Creek Bridge bicycle facilities are in place. Additionally, it is understood that the future plan for the trail is for it to be routed toward Elks Lane to the northwest 34

VA ALTERNATIVE 7.0 (AP-1)
Remove and do not replace the Bob Jones Trail Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
of the Prado Creek Bridge, which makes the connection of the trail to the Prado/Higuera intersection via the Bob Jones Trail Bridge less important.

The permanent removal of the Bob Jones Trail Bridge is somewhat dependent on the potential impact to the creek flow hydraulics in relation to the new bridge support structure, the RSP, and the soldier pile retaining wall along the slopes.

Discussion of Schedule Impacts:

Although the permanent removal of the Bob Jones Trail Bridge would provide additional flexibility for the contractor in completing the in-water work for the project, it does not represent a critical path element for the project schedule.

Discussion of Risk Impacts:

The alternative concept represents a minor reduction to the construction-related project risk as the in-water work will be reduced.

The alternative concept represents a reduction of the future operational risk as the bridge will be removed from future maintenance efforts.

Baseline Concept Images
Image showing the location of the Bob Jones Trail Bridge in relation to the new bridge 35

VA ALTERNATIVE 7.0 (AP-1)
Remove and do not replace the Bob Jones Trail Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
Baseline Concept Images (cont.)
Image showing the Bob Jones Trail Bridge (looking north from trail toward Prado Road) Assumptions and Calculations:

The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Eliminate Bob Jones Trail Bridge relocation from project (bridge storage, abutment upgrade, and reinstallation)
• Assumes no impact to the overall project duration
A total cost reduction of $150K was applied for the Value Metrics calculation. The funding for this project element is not included in the federal funding package received for the project. 36

PROJECT INFORMATION

Prado Creek Bridge Project Information

PROJECT INFORMATION

BACKGROUND
The City of San Luis Obispo (City), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is proposing to replace Bridge No. 49C-0107 on Prado Road over San Luis Obispo Creek, located approximately 190 feet west of the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street in the City of San Luis Obispo.

The City of San Luis Obispo is replacing the bridge with a wider structure that will add improvements to provide safe access to drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, better accommodate creek flow, and accommodate anticipated traffic for years to come. The project will include multi-modal improvements to South Higuera at both Prado Road and at Elks Lane, which will be installed ahead of this project beginning construction.

Planned for construction in 2027, the Prado Road Bridge Widening Project improvements will pave the way for a brighter, bustling southern district of SLO. This project provides the opportunity to plan for using state-of-the-art infrastructure and forward-thinking design. It sets the stage for an even larger future endeavor: the long-planned Prado Road Interchange Project, a critical infrastructure project that will provide a new crossing over US 101 between Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road.

This project will be primarily funded through both local City and Caltrans’ Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project would replace the existing bridge with a wider, four-lane bridge with shoulders, additional turn lanes, protected bike lanes, and sidewalks. The existing two-lane Prado Road Bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek is currently structurally deficient and has no bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Traffic studies also indicate that the bridge is not wide enough to accommodate existing and projected future traffic demands. This means that the project will provide a safer, more accessible route for local businesses, residents, commuters, and visitors into the future.

During the bridge removal and construction phase, this project will require closure of the bridge and detours will be created. The project will temporarily move and then relocate the existing adjacent Bob Jones Bike Trail Bridge and trailhead statue to a slightly different onsite location. A temporary trail connection will allow continued trail use during the project.

The scope of the project design includes the following elements:
• Construction of a wider bridge designed to meet vehicular and multi-modal needs into the future
• Safety improvements, including shoulders and protected pedestrian/bicycle paths for travel over the bridge and at the S. Higuera intersection
37

Prado Creek Bridge Project Information
• Increased channel opening under the bridge, which will improve creek flow capacity • Undergrounding of overhead utilities in the project area for safety and aesthetics • Realignment of the Bob Jones Trail Bridge and the existing trailhead statue, “Oh Great Spirit”, to accommodate the bridge widening while preserving access to the trail throughout construction • A noise barrier or “sound wall” will also be constructed to reduce noise levels from vehicle traffic, as heard by the adjacent mobile home residential units

PROJECT DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
At the time of the study, no mandatory or advisory design exceptions were noted.

INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE VA TEAM
The following project documents were provided to the VA team for their use during the study:
• Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form – City of San Luis Obispo, 2020 • Type Selection Report for Prado Road Bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek – Quincy Engineering, May 2022
• Foundation Report – Caltrans Bridge No. 49C0107 – Yeh and Associates, November 2025 • Technical Specifications for City of San Luis Obispo Prado Road Bridge Widening – Wallace Group, March 2026

PROJECT DRAWINGS
The project team provided preliminary project layouts, cross-sections, and renderings for the VA team during the VA study. The project location and the typical cross-section drawings are included in the project report when applicable and are available from the PDT upon request.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
The VA study used the most current cost estimate for the project dated March 25, 2026. This estimate reflects the preferred design option at the time of the study and details the fully supported and escalated project cost at $45,500,000.
38

PROJECT ANALYSIS

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis

PROJECT ANALYSIS

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
The following analysis tools were used to study the project:
• Key Project Factors
• Cost Model
• Function Analysis
• Value Metrics

KEY PROJECT FACTORS
The first day of the VA study included meetings with the project stakeholders. The following summarizes key project issues and site visit observations identified during these sessions.

Project Issues
The following are some of the issues and concerns associated with the project:

Project Budget – The total project cost is currently estimated at $45.5M and will tap funding from several sources – including the federal government through Caltrans. A significant amount of the project will be funded by the City of San Luis Obispo.

Present Need vs Potential Need – The present design is a full build approach that is scaled to accommodate the upcoming improved interchange with Highway 101 and is expected to provide capacity for the anticipated development and growth to the east of the Higuera Street - Prado Road intersection including a long-term planning connection of Prado to Broad St. The project must balance the present need and the potential need when determining what to include in the current project design, especially regarding which facility elements to fund with this project. It should be noted that coordination with the upcoming Prado Road/Highway 101 interchange project is a priority for the success of this project.

Utility Improvement and Relocation – The current design will require maintaining nearly all the existing utilities that run through the intersection and across the current bridge until they can be relocated to their permanent new locations. Overhead utilities will be undergrounded in a joint trench. Additionally, the project will take the opportunity to improve stormwater management along S. Higuera Street. The utility work requires significant coordination with the utility companies and will encompass the majority of the first stage of the project with traffic handling and construction impacts anticipated.
39

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
Site Visit Observations
A virtual site visit was conducted by the VA study team using google maps, etc. in order to visually assess the project’s site conditions and to provide context to all project design components. Through this effort and through the use of several project plan sheets, the VA team was able to more fully understand the constraints, challenges, and issues relating to the project.

COST MODEL
The VA team leader prepared a cost model from the cost estimate presented in the Project Information section of this report. The model is based on the updated project cost estimate, dated March 25, 2026, which was made available during the VA study and is organized to identify major construction element or trade categories, the original estimated costs, and the percent of total project cost for the significant cost items. The cost model and Pareto chart that follows provide a concise perspective of where major cost items reside within the project cost estimate.

Cost Model
Item Cost % of Total Cumulative %
Bridge Structure $14,791,069 45.8 % 45.8 %
Pavement Structural Section $9,874,673 30.6 % 76.3 %
Utilities - Sewer $1,506,098 4.7 % 81.0 %
Utilities - Stormwater $1,504,608 4.7 % 85.7 %
Utilities – Water & Recycled Water $1,355,735 4.2 % 89.8 % Utilities - Dry $1,341,276 4.2 % 94.0 %
Landscaping $1,061,922 3.3 % 97.3 %
Bike $877,289 2.7 % 100.0 %
TOTAL $32,312,670
40

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
Pareto Chart
The cost items included in the estimate include a 10% markup for Mobilization and a 15% markup for Contingency.

The $45.5M total project cost estimate used during the VA study for the project baseline includes additional support costs and markups not detailed in the cost estimate provided to the team.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
Bridge Structure
Pavement Structural Section
Utilities - Sewer
Utilities - Stormwater
Utilities - Water
Utilities - Dry
Landscaping
Bike
Cost Cumulative Percent
41

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis

FUNCTION ANALYSIS
Function analysis was performed, and a Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram was produced, which revealed the key functional relationships for the project. This analysis provided a greater understanding of the total project and how the project’s performance, cost, time, and risk characteristics are related to the various functions identified. The FAST diagram arranges the functions in logical order so that when read from left to right, the functions answer the question “How?” If the diagram is read from right to left, the functions answer the questions “Why?” Functions connected with a vertical line are those that happen at the same time as, or are caused by, the function at the top of the column (a “When?” relationship).

Random Function Identification
Function
Accomm. Pedestrians
Accomm. Vehicles
Acquire R/W
Connect Roadway
Control Access
Control Traffic
Convey Water
Coordinate Projects
Coordinate Stakeholders
Collect Water
Enhance Aesthetics
Establish Vegetation
Improve Maintenance
Improve Mobility
Improve Safety
Improve Service (LOS)
Increase Lifespan
Function
Inform Public
Investigate Conditions
Maintain Budget
Maintain Habitat
Maintain Operations
Maintain Recreation
Maintain Schedule
Maintain Services
Maintain Standards
Maintain Utilities
Manage Risk
Mitigate Impacts
Obtain Funding
Obtain Permits
Protect Bridge
Protect Environment
Protect Foundations
Function
Protect Wildlife
Provide Access
Relocate Utilities
Remove Existing
Remove Water
Resist Erosion
Resist Fire
Resist Scour
Resist Weather
Retain Earth
Separate Traffic
Span Distance
Stage Construction
Store Equipment
Store Materials
Support Load
The study team concluded that the higher-order function of the project is to Improve Mobility through the basic functions of Span Distance, Improve Maintenance, Match Existing, and Improve Safety. Key secondary functions include Connect Roadway, Accommodate Vehicles, Accommodate Pedestrians, Accommodate Bicycles, and Support Load. Essential requirements include Maintain Operations, Maintain Access, Protect Environment, Meet Budget, Meet Schedule, Meet Standards, and Reduce Risk.
42

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis

VALUE METRICS
Value Metrics provides a systematic and structured means of considering the relationship of a project’s performance, cost, time (schedule), and risk as they relate to value. Project performance must be properly defined and agreed upon by the stakeholders at the beginning of the VA study. The basic equation for value is:

The performance attributes and requirements developed are then used throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document changes to performance and value. OptionLab® was used to facilitate the Value Metrics portions of the VA Study.

The following pages describe the steps in the Value Metrics process.

Define Performance Requirements
Performance requirements represent essential, non-discretionary aspects of project performance.

Any concept that fails to meet the project’s performance requirements, regardless of whether it was developed during the project’s design process or during the VA study, cannot be considered as a viable solution. Concepts that do not meet a performance requirement cannot be considered further unless such shortcomings are addressed through the VA study process in the form of VA alternatives.

It should be noted that in some cases, a performance requirement may also represent the minimum acceptable level of a performance attribute. The following performance requirements were selected for this project.

Performance Requirement Definition
Highway Design
Standards
Any deviation from the Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual must be approvable by the District’s Design Reviewer.

Structural Design
Standards
Any structure on the project must comply with current seismic design standards and meet the Load Resistance Design Factor.

Environmental Review
Process
Any concept or design modification considered must comply with state and federal environmental law and be compatible with the environmental review process.

Project Milestones
Several critical schedule milestones must be met in order to meet legislative and/or funding requirements, these include R/W Certification September 2026; RTL – Early 2027; Award –Spring 2027; Begin Construction – September 2027; End Construction – July 2029. 43

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
Define Performance Attributes and Scales
The Project Development Team (PDT) identified several performance attributes that represent those aspects of a project’s scope that possess a range of potential acceptable values. A standard numeric scale is used for each attribute ranging from 1 to 10 where (Minimum Acceptable = 1) to an ideal level of performance (Ideal = 10). The following performance attributes were selected for this project.

Rating Label Description
8-10 Ideal The highest reasonable level of performance is achieved. 6-8 High A high level of performance is achieved.
4-6 Medium A medium level of performance is achieved.
2-4 Low A low level of performance is achieved.
0-2 Minimum
Acceptable The minimum acceptable level of performance is achieved.

Multi-Modal Operations
The degree to which the project is contributing to the overall connectivity of the transportation network and access to modal options. Enhancements in multi-modal connectivity should correlate to reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and vehicle miles traveled (VMTs). Possible sub-attributes that may be considered include bicycles, pedestrians, and transit.

Long-Term Impacts
These are impacts to the environment that extends beyond the completion of construction. This category includes multiple different types of environmental considerations such as ecological (both air and water quality); biological (both animals and plants); cultural (such as parks, historical buildings, and other resources related to the built environment); archaeological (sites and resources that could be disturbed); visual; noise; equity; and economic impacts.

Construction Impacts
These are impacts to the environment that encompasses the construction time up through the completion of construction. This category includes multiple different types of short-term environmental and construction impacts such as ecological (both air and water quality); biological (both animal and plant); cultural (such as parks, historical buildings and other resources related to the built environment), archaeological (sites and resources that could be disturbed); visual, noise (including vibration and dust); equity, economic, and interim traffic operations. 44

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
Maintainability
The impact to long-term maintenance and operations of the infrastructure. This attribute is focused on life-cycle costs and maintenance access considerations. Maintainability may also consider the resiliency of the infrastructure which includes design and service life in the face of uncertainty. This category encompasses items such as long-term maintenance costs; energy costs related to lighting and technology; maintenance access; service and design life; preservation of critical lifelines; and resiliency of the infrastructure to climate change, seismic events, forest fires, drought, sea-level rise, and surface drainage.

Traffic Operations
This category considers the degree to which the project improves or degrades traffic operations and conforms to design standards on the transportation system. Included are items such as mainline operations (traffic movement on mainline facilities and/or specific ramp or weaving movement) and local operations (traffic movement on specific local arterials and streets).

Prioritize Performance Attributes
Once the performance attributes were defined and their scales developed, the PDT and stakeholders prioritized them based on their relative importance to the project using OptionLab®. The performance attributes were systematically compared to each other using the software. Participants were then asked to indicate their priorities and the relative intensities of their preferences. The chart below provides the results of this analysis and includes the complete breakdown of the priorities, expressed as a percentage of the whole.

Performance Attributes Prioritization
29%
26%
13%
16%
16%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Operations
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Impacts
Maintainability
45

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
Measure Performance of Baseline Concept
The PDT and stakeholders evaluated the performance of the baseline concept relative to the performance attribute definitions and scales previously identified. The information below reflects the performance ratings and associated rationale for each attribute.

Multi-Modal Operations Rating: 7.8
Rating Rationale: Very Good – The completed facility offers considerable improvements to bicycle and pedestrian connectivity on Prado Road and Higuera Street. All facilities have excellent space and buffers provided with extensive pavement markings along the route, as well as at the Prado/ Higuera intersection. The project will maintain and improve access to the Bob Jones Trail while also enhancing connections to other San Luis Obispo areas, both current and future.

Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 6.6
Rating Rationale: Good – The project will replace the existing bridge with a larger structure while seeking to minimize the impacts to the Prado Creek waterway. Additional mitigation efforts are planned to return the creek habitat to its natural state after the in-water work has been completed.

Construction Impacts Rating: 3.8
Rating Rationale: Fair – The project is anticipated to have a 3-season construction duration going from September 2027 to July 2029. The project has been broken into 5 logical construction stages.

The first stage will focus on utility relocation and stages 3-4 will concentrate on the bridge structure, with stage 3 accomplishing the in-water work. Stages 3-4 will require the closure of Prado Road, and the other stages will maintain operations with traffic handling required. The impacts of the construction effort on the local community and local traffic is expected to be include significant noise, dust, and traffic disruption, but these issues are nearly impossible to avoid.

Traffic Operations Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Very Good – The project is expected to provide a high level of future traffic capacity for the Prado Creek Bridge, as well as Higuera Street and the intersection of the two roadway facilities. Several features will be included to provide for all anticipated traffic movements and excellent space has been included for safe interaction with pedestrian and bicycle traffic flows.

Maintainability Rating: 6.4
Rating Rationale: Good – The project should provide high quality facility elements with good access for future maintenance needs. The project design is expected to responsibly reduce future LCC demands for the city regarding the bridge, utilities, and the two roadway facilities. 46

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
Measure Performance of VA Alternatives
The VA team prepared performance assessments of each of the VA alternatives during the Development Phase of the VA study. For each VA alternative, the VA team rated its performance using the previously defined scale for each performance attribute. The rationale for any change in performance as compared to the baseline concept was recorded. Please refer to the individual performance assessments for each VA alternative as presented in the VA Alternatives section of this report.

Define VA Strategies
The VA team identified two VA strategies for consideration. The developed VA Strategies reflect the combination of complimentary VA alternatives recommended by the team and are summarized in the table below.

Summary of VA Strategies
Strategy Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Performance
Change
Value
Change
VA Strategy 1 – Narrow Bridge Only/
Minimum Build
Alternative 1.0
$3,000,000 2-week
reduction - 3.5 % + 1.3 %
VA Strategy 2 – Maximum Savings
Alternatives 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 , 6.0 &

7.0 $6,070,000 2-week
reduction - 2.1 % + 8.0 %
Compare Performance – Baseline Concept and VA Strategies The VA team considered the combined effect of all VA alternatives for the Recommended VA Strategy. The total performance scores reflect the performance rating for each attribute multiplied by its overall priority (weight) expressed using a ration scale. A total performance score of “1” would indicate the highest level of desired performance (i.e., “ideal” performance). The chart below compares the total performance scores for the baseline concept and the VA strategy.

Comparison of Performance
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Baseline Concept
VA Strategy #1
VA Strategy #2
Traffic Operations Multi-Modal Operations Construction Impacts Long-Term Impacts Maintainability 47

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
Rating Rationale for VA Strategy 1 (Alternative 1.0)
The rating rationale for the performance of the baseline concept was presented previously in this section. The rating rationale for the First VA strategy developed by the VA team is provided below.

Multi-Modal Operations
Rating: 7.0
Rating Rationale: Good to Very Good

1.0 – Improved by reduced distance/wait times for pedestrian crossings at intersection. Degraded by reduction in capacity and losing buffer from traffic. (7.8 – 7.0) Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Rating: 7.0
Rating Rationale: Good to Very Good

1.0 – Degraded by constraining future growth in the near term. Improved aesthetic by reducing overall scale of bridge. (6.6 – 7.0)
Construction Impacts
Rating: 5.0
Rating Rationale: Average

1.0 – Degraded by keeping the Bob Jones Trail Bridge constraining structure work. Improved by reduction in bridge structure and roadway construction. Eliminates need to relocate Bob Jones Trail Bridge. Assume schedule reduction of 2 weeks. (3.8 – 5.0) Traffic Operations
Rating: 6.5
Rating Rationale: Good

1.0 – Improved by reduced wait times at intersection. Degraded by reduction in capacity and flexibility for future traffic volume growth. (7.7 – 6.5) Maintainability
Rating: 7.0
Rating Rationale: Good to Very Good

1.0 – Degraded by reducing space for performing future maintenance. Improved by reducing size and number of assets to maintain in future. Less stormwater volume. (6.4 – 7.0) 48

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
Rating Rationale for VA Strategy 2 (Alternatives 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 & 7.0) The rating rationale for the Second VA strategy developed by the VA team is provided below.

Multi-Modal Operations
Rating: 6.7
Rating Rationale: Good

1.0 – Improved by reduced distance/wait times for pedestrian crossings at intersection. Degraded by reduction in capacity and losing buffer from traffic. (7.8 – 7.0)

2.0 – Degraded by maintaining poles, which will impede the pedestrian and bicycle travel area. (7.8 –

7.7)

7.0 – Degraded by removing an access point for the Bob Jones Trail. (7.8 – 7.6) Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Rating: 7.2
Rating Rationale: Good to Very Good

1.0 – Degraded by constraining future growth in the near term. Improved aesthetic by reducing overall scale of bridge. (6.6 – 7.0)

2.0 – Degrades the local aesthetics by maintaining poles and overhead lines. (6.6 – 6.5)

5.0 – Improved by potentially improve or maintain hydraulic flow under the bridge and environmental disturbance impacts and enhanced aesthetics. (6.6 – 6.7)

7.0 – Improved by eliminating the bridge from the creek area and enhancing the natural aesthetic. (6.6 – 6.8)
Construction Impacts
Rating: 5.9
Rating Rationale: Good

1.0 – Degraded by keeping the Bob Jones Trail Bridge constraining structure work. Improved by reduction in bridge structure and roadway construction. Eliminates need to relocate Bob Jones Trail Bridge. Assume schedule reduction of 2 weeks. (3.8 – 5.0)

2.0 – Degraded by impeding the use of cranes during construction. Improved by removing the undergrounding component of the electrical and some of the fiber utility work from the project. The size of the joint trench can be reduced, and this reduces utility coordination. (3.8 – 3.9)

3.0 – Improved by reducing trenching and shoring required by the contractor. (3.8 – 3.9)

4.0 – Improved by reducing the amount of trenching and shoring required and providing additional utility work flexibility for the contractor in Stage 1. (3.8 – 3.9)

5.0 – Improved by simplifying the construction process of the retaining wall. There would be fewer steps. This removes some of the horizontal lagging and results in less overall work for contractor. (3.8 – 4.0)

6.0 – Improved by reduction in raised median construction. (3.8 – Push) 49

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis

7.0 – Improved by simplifying the construction effort by eliminating the bridge storage, foundation improvement, and reinstallation work from the project scope. Additionally removes the bridge from the in-water bridge construction area. (3.8 – 4.2)
Traffic Operations
Rating: 6.6
Rating Rationale: Good

1.0 – Improved by reduced wait times at intersection. Degraded by reduction in capacity and flexibility for future traffic volume growth. (7.7 – 6.5)

6.0 – Improved by providing additional movement flexibility. (7.7 – 7.8) Maintainability
Rating: 7.0
Rating Rationale: Good to Very good

1.0 – Degraded by reducing space for performing future maintenance. Improved by reducing size and number of assets to maintain in future. Less stormwater volume. (6.4 – 7.0)

2.0 – Degraded by maintaining maintenance of overhead utilities into the future and additional potential for damage to these overhead utilities. (6.4 – 6.3)

3.0 – Improved by shallower depth if repairs needed. (6.4 – 6.4 push)

4.0 – Degraded by increasing the amount of maintenance work on existing (older) utilities, as well as disruptions in future years to traffic and community for deferred utility work (6.4 – 6.2)

5.0 – Degraded by more frequent maintenance effort. Improved by being easier to maintain the RSP than the retaining wall. (6.4 – 6.5)

6.0 – Improved by reduced raised median to maintain. (6.4 - push)

7.0 – Improved by eliminating the bridge from further future maintenance efforts. (6.4 – 6.6) Compare Value
The cost and time (i.e., schedule) elements were compared and prioritized by the project decision makers. The relative importance of cost and time is shown on the following table. These factors were applied to the cost and time scores and incorporated into the value calculations.

Relative Importance
COST 65 %
TIME 35 %
Once relative scores for performance, cost, and time have been derived, the next step is to synthesize a value index for the baseline concept and each VA strategy. This is achieved by applying the following algorithm for value:
50

Prado Creek Bridge Project Analysis
• V = Value • P = Performance • t = Time
• f = Function • C = Cost • α = Risk
•
𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓(𝑃𝑃, 𝐶𝐶,𝑡𝑡)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = ∑ 𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 ∙ 𝛼𝛼 ∞
𝑛𝑛=1
∑ [(𝐶𝐶𝑛𝑛 ∙ 𝛼𝛼) + (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛 ∙ 𝛼𝛼)] ∞
𝑛𝑛=1
A Value Matrix was prepared which facilitated the comparison of competing strategies by organizing and summarizing this data into a tabular format. The performance scores for each strategy were divided by the total cost/time scores for each strategy to derive a value index. The value indices for the VA strategy are then compared against the value index of the baseline concept and the difference is expressed as a percent (±%) deviation.

Comparison of Value
Baseline Concept and VA Strategies

0.0% 1.3%

8.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Baseline Concept VA Strategy #1 VA Strategy #2
Perf. Cost Time Value % Δ
51

IDEA EVALUATION

Prado Creek Bridge Idea Evaluation

IDEA EVALUATION
The ideas generated by the VA team were carefully evaluated, and project-specific attributes were applied to each idea to assure an objective evaluation.

PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES
The following are key performance attributes identified for this project and used to assist the VA team in evaluating the ideas:
• Multi-Modal Connectivity • Traffic Operations
• Long-Term Impacts • Maintainability
• Construction Impacts
The VA team enlisted the assistance of the stakeholders and project team (when available) to develop these attributes so that the evaluation would reflect their specific requirements.

EVALUATION PROCESS
The VA team generated and evaluated ideas on how to perform the various project functions using other approaches. The idea list was grouped by function or major project element. Each idea was evaluated with respect to the functional requirements of the project. Performance, cost, time, and risk may also have been considered during this evaluation. Once each idea was fully evaluated, it was rated to determine which ideas had the greatest potential for value improvement. Ideas identified for development as VA alternatives or as other considerations are documented in the VA Alternatives section of this report.

IDEA SUMMARY
All the ideas generated during the Creativity Phase using brainstorming techniques are recorded on the following pages. The team created and evaluated these ideas together using Miro. Each idea received an idea code based on the function statement under which it was brainstormed. The following table indicates the functions related to each idea code.

Idea Code Related Function
AB Accomm. Bicycles
AP Accomm. Pedestrians
CR Connect Roadway
CT Control Traffic
CP Coordinate Projects
EA Enhance Aesthetics
Idea Code Related Function
MU Maintain Utilities
MS Manage Schedule
RE Retain Earth
SD Span Distance
SL Support Load
52

Prado Creek Bridge Idea Evaluation

IDEA SUMMARY LIST
Code Function/Idea Description Rating
Accommodate Bicycles
AB-1 Use Class I in lieu of protected bike lane (Class IV) on south side of Prado COM AB-2 Use sidewalk and shoulder in lieu of Class IV in north side of Prado COM AB-3 Eliminate bike facilities on Prado east of Higuera COM AB-4 Reduce/remove green pavement markings (possibly include in min build) OC AB-5 Eliminate the protected corner on NW corner of Prado/Higuera DIS AB-6 Reduce size of protected corners at Prado/Higuera ABD AB-7 Provide transition from shoulder to Class I on Prado at Elks (com w/AB-1) COM AB-8 Eliminate western Bob Jones Trail connection DIS
AB-9 Remove colored concrete and reduce thickness from Class IV bikeways OC Accommodate Pedestrians
AP-1 Do not replace the Bob Jones Bridge DEV
AP-2 Provide temporary fenced corridor through water treatment area to maintain Bob Jones Trail access DIS
Connect Roadway
CR-1 Eliminate second eastbound lane on Prado east of Higuera COM CR-2 Maintain roadway width but eliminate Southbound Higuera left-turn lane to eastbound Prado (must go with CR-1) COM
Control Traffic
CT-1 Reduce raised median length on west Prado (still need to negate left-turn out movement) DEV
Coordinate Projects
CP-1 Delay schedule to align construction with interchange project OC CP-2 Remove Higuera pavement portion from project (shift to future South Higuera project) DIS
53

Prado Creek Bridge Idea Evaluation
Enhance Aesthetics
EA-1 Reduce architectural treatments on bridge OC
Maintain Utilities
MU-1 Use the Bob Jones Bridge for relocation of utilities (sewer & recycled water) DIS MU-2 Remove undergrounding of overhead utilities from project DEV MU-3 Reduce depth of cover of joint trench from 7’ to 3’ DEV MU-4 Maintain temporary utilities on the stream diversion in lieu of temporary bridge - combine with removal of retaining wall COM
MU-5 Reduce utilities to be replaced to just on bridge (do not address utilities on Higuera – defer to later project) DEV
MU-6 Use a wider joint trench in lieu of a deeper joint trench DIS MU-7 Bury sewer line under creek in lieu of routing along bridge DIS MU-8 Eliminate temporary utility bridge by supporting existing sewer at R/W lines in place DEV
MU-9 Eliminate reconnecting potable water main post-construction DIS Manage Schedule
MS-1 Extend in-water work window (earlier and later) ABD Retain Earth
RE-1 Reduce length of retaining wall – outside of bridge (hydraulics question) DEV RE-2 Reduce retaining wall – underneath the bridge (hydraulics question) DEV RE-3 Use rock-slope protection in lieu of retaining wall under bridge – combine with RE-2 COM
RE-4 Use tangent pile wall in lieu of soldier pile wall outside of bridge – combine with RE-1 DEV
Span Distance
SD-1 Reduce width of bridge by eliminating one lane (eastbound through) DEV SD-2 Reduce width of bridge by consolidating pedestrian and bicycle lanes on south side COM
SD-3 Reduce width of ridge on north side by eliminating protected bike lane COM SD-4 Reduce width of bridge by minimizing width of median DIS 54

Prado Creek Bridge Idea Evaluation
Enhance Aesthetics
SD-5 Reduce width of bridge by reducing lanes from 12’ to 11’ COM Support Load
SL-1 Reduce depth of all girders DIS
SL-2 Reduce depth of some of the girders DIS
SL-3 Eliminate all girders DIS
SL-4 Leave existing buried PCC section at Prado/Higuera intersection and pave with

HMA DIS
SL-5 Construct a cast-in-place bridge in lieu of precast bridge DIS SL-6 Use sub-grade stabilization in lieu of full depth reclamation cement (FDRC) DEV DEV: Combine with other VA Alternative idea
OC: Other Consideration
ABD: Already Being Done (in the Baseline Concept)
DIS: Dismissed
COM: Combine
55

VA PROCESS

Prado Creek Bridge VA Process

VA PROCESS
The Value Analysis (VA) process used for this study borrows heavily from the VA process developed in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) over the last 30+ years. The process involves 16 activities needed to accomplish a VE study, and is organized into three parts: PreStudy, VA Study, and Report. Integral to Caltrans’ VA process is the Value Metrics. Value Metrics provides a systematic and structured means of considering the relationship of a project’s performance, cost, time (schedule), and risk as they relate to value.

Project performance must be properly defined and agreed upon by the stakeholders at the beginning of the VA study. The performance attributes and requirements developed are then used throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document changes to performance and value. OptionLab® was used to facilitate the Value Metrics portions of the VA Study.

The following provides an overview of the Caltrans approach to VA. The Caltrans VA Study Activity Chart at the end of this narrative identifies the steps in each activity, which are detailed as follows.

PRE-STUDY
Meaningful and measurable results are directly related to the pre-study work performed. Depending on the type of study, all or part of the following information needs to be determined during the prestudy phase:
• Clear definition of the current situation and study objectives • Identification of study team members
• Identification of project stakeholders
• Definition of how stakeholders are impacted by the project • Identification of key issues and concerns
• Identification of project’s performance requirements and attributes • Status of project cost estimate
• Project data gathered to be distributed to VA team
In preparation for the VA study, the team leader confers with owners and stakeholders to outline the VA process; initiate data gathering; refine project scope and objectives; structure the scope, team members, and technical specialists; and finalize study plans. Specific deliverables are provided.

Following the initial planning meeting, the team leader reviews the data collected for the project and develops a cost model. The team leader also consults with the technical specialists to prepare them for the VA study.
56

Prado Creek Bridge VA Process

VA STUDY
This VA study was conducted in a virtual environment using MS Teams. MS Teams is a virtual meeting platform that supports audiovisual communications and facilitates the use of breakout sessions to allow for multiple, parallel meetings. The VA Job Plan guides the VA team in their search to enhance value in the project or process. Caltrans follows a seven-phase VA Job Plan:

1. Information Phase

2. Function Analysis Phase

3. Creativity Phase

4. Evaluation Phase

5. Development Phase

6. Presentation Phase

7. Implementation Phase
Information Phase
At the beginning of the VA study, the design team presents a more detailed review of the design and the various systems. This includes an overview of the project and its various requirements, which further enhances the VA team’s knowledge and understanding of the project. The project team also responds to questions posed by the VA team. The project’s performance requirements and attributes are discussed, and the performance of the baseline concept is evaluated.

Function Analysis Phase
Key to the VA process are the function analysis techniques used during the Function Analysis Phase.

These techniques may include but are not limited to:
• Random Function Identification
• Function-Resource Allocation
• Function Analysis System Technique (FAST Diagrams)
• Graphic Function Identification
Analyzing the functions of a project is essential to assuring an owner that the project has been designed to meet the stated criteria and its need and purpose. The analysis of these functions in terms of cost, performance, time, and risk is a primary focus in a VA study and is used to identify areas within a project for value improvement. This procedure is beneficial to the VA team, as it forces the participants to think in terms of functions and their relative value in meeting the project’s need and purpose. This facilitates a deeper understanding of the project.

Creativity Phase
The Creativity Phase involves identifying and listing creative ideas. During this phase, the VA team participates in a brainstorming session to identify as many means as possible to provide the necessary project functions. The judgement of the ideas is not permitted in order to generate a broad 57

Prado Creek Bridge VA Process
range of ideas. The idea list includes all of the ideas suggested during the study. These ideas should be reviewed further by the project team since they may contain ideas worthy of further evaluation and may be used as the design develops. These ideas could also help stimulate additional ideas by others.

Evaluation Phase
The purpose of the Evaluation Phase is to systematically assess the potential impacts of ideas generated during the Creativity Phase relative to their potential for value improvement. Each idea is evaluated in terms of its potential impact to performance, cost, time, and risk. Once each idea is fully evaluated, it is classified as an idea to either “Develop” or “Dismiss.” Some ideas can also be “Combined” with other promising ideas or ideas which are “Already Being Done.” The rationale for why ideas were rated highly but not developed as alternatives is documented in the Idea Evaluation section of the report.

Development Phase
During the Development Phase, the highly rated ideas are expanded and developed into VA alternatives. The development process considers the impact to performance, cost, time, and risk of the alternative concepts relative to the baseline concept. This analysis is prepared as appropriate for each alternative, and the information may include a performance assessment, initial cost and lifecycle cost comparisons, schedule analysis, and an assessment of risk. Each alternative describes the baseline concept and proposed changes and includes a technical discussion. Sketches and calculations are also prepared for each alternative as appropriate.

Presentation Phase
The VA study concludes with a preliminary presentation of the VA team’s assessment of the project and VA alternatives. The presentation provides an opportunity for the owner, project team, and stakeholders to preview the alternatives and develop an understanding of the rationale behind them.

Implementation Phase
After the stakeholders have had an opportunity to review the alternatives identified by the VA team, the team leader conducts an implementation meeting to discuss the alternatives and resolve appropriate action for each VA alternative. If necessary, any other VA report edits requested by the representatives are also made by the VA team leader and a final report is issued. This implementation meeting helps to ensure that savings or process improvements are not lost due to a lack of communication, and that those VA alternatives that are accepted are properly integrated into the project design.

VA REPORT
Preliminary Report: Following the completion of the VA study, the team leader compiles the information developed during the VA study into the Preliminary Value Analysis Study Report. This 58

Prado Creek Bridge VA Process
report, documenting viable alternatives, is provided to the customer within the timeframe requested (usually within two weeks of study completion). The preliminary report also contains a VA Study Summary Report – Preliminary Findings, designed to highlight critical elements of the VA study, including detailed documentation of VA alternatives, in a concise manner for the use of parties without the opportunity to review the report in its entirety. More details can be found in the complete preliminary report, which consists of the following documentation: Executive Summary, VA Alternatives, Project Information, Project Analysis, Idea Evaluation, and VA Process.

Final Report: Once all VA alternatives have been either accepted or rejected, the team leader updates the Preliminary Value Analysis Study Report to show the final results of the study in a Final Value Analysis Study Report. In addition, a Value Analysis Study Summary Report (VASSR) is sent to Caltrans HQ to permit easy documentation into the Caltrans Annual Report to FHWA.

The following Caltrans VA Study Activity Chart describes each activity. 59

Prado Creek Bridge VA Process

CALTRANS VA STUDY ACTIVITY CHART

PREPARATION

INITIATE STUDY
 Identify study project
 Identify study roles and
responsibilities
 Define study goals
 Select team leader
 Prepare draft Study Charter
1 ORGANIZE STUDY
 Conduct Pre-Study Meeting
 Select team members
 Identify stakeholders,
decision-makers, and
technical reviewers
 Identify data collection
 Select study dates
 Determine study logistics
 Update VA Study Charter
 Identify and define
performance requirements
2 PREPARE DATA
 Collect and distribute data
 Develop construction cost
models
 Develop highway user
benefit/life-cycle cost (LCC)
model (if required)
3 VA STUDY
Segment 1

INFORM TEAM
 Review study activities and
confirm reviewers
 Present design concept
 Present stakeholders’
interests
 Review project issues and
objectives
 Rate performance of
baseline concept
 Visit project site 4

ANALYZE FUNCTIONS
 Analyze project data
 Expand project functions
 Prepare FAST diagram
 Determine functional cost
drivers and performance
5 CREATE IDEAS
 Focus on functions
 List all ideas
 Apply creativity and
innovation techniques
(group and individual)
6 EVALUATE IDEAS
 Apply key
performance
attributes to rate idea
 List advantages and
disadvantages
 Consider cost impacts
 Rank all ideas
 Assign alternatives for
development
7 Segment 2

DEVELOP ALTERANTIVES
 Develop alternative
concepts
 Prepare sketches and
calculations
 Measure performance
 Estimate costs, LCC
benefits/costs
8 CRITIQUE ALTERNATIVES
 VA alternatives technical
review
 VA alternatives team
consensus review
 Identify mutually exclusive
groups of alternatives
 Identify VA strategies
 Validate performance
9 PRESENT ALTERNATIVES
 Present findings
 Document feedback
 Confirm pending reviews
 Prepare preliminary report
*Interim presentation of study
findings
10 Segment 3
ASSESS ALTERNATIVES**
 Review Preliminary Report
 Assess alternatives for
project acceptance
 Prepare draft
implementation
dispositions
**Activities performed by PDT,
Technical Reviewers, and
Stakeholders 11

RESOLVE ALTERNATIVES
 Review implementation
dispositions
 Resolve implementation
actions with decisionmakers and stakeholders
 Edit alternatives
 Revisit rejected
alternatives, if needed
12 PRESENT RESULTS*
 Present results
 Obtain management
approval on implemented
alternatives
 Summarize performance,
cost, and value
improvements
*Final presentation of study
results 13
REPORT

DOCUMENT STUDY
 Document process and
study findings
 Distribute Preliminary VA
Report
 Distribute electronic report
to HQ VA Branch
 Conduct Implementation
Meeting
14 VA IMPLEMENTATION ACTION
MEMO
(If Conditionally Accepted
Alternatives exist)
 Publish memo to document
action plan to complete
study
 Resolve Conditionally
Accepted Alternatives
15 PUBLISH RESULTS
 Document process and
study results
 Incorporate all comments
and implementation actions
 Distribute Final VA Report
 Distribute electronic report
to HQ VA Branch
 Update VA Study Summary
Report (VASSR)
 Provide HQ the Final VA
Report in PDF format 16
Note: The dashed
boxes indicate steps
that may not be
required in some VA
studies
60

Prado Creek Bridge Project
VA Study Agenda
Day 1 – Monday, March 30th – 612 Clarion Ct., San Luis Obispo (and virtual via Microsoft Teams) 7:45 Facilitator Set-up
8:00 Introductions & Agenda Review
8:15 Sponsor (PM, Design Team & VA Facilitator) In-Brief • Need & Purpose
• Overview of Current Project Status
• Study Process
• Study Deliverables
9:30 Discussion on Focused Project Items
11:30 Discussion of Performance Measures
11:45 Additional Q/A
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Team Review and Discussion of Design Documentation & Estimate Review 2:00 FAST Analysis Discussion
2:30 Initial Team Brainstorming
4:00 Adjourn
Day 2 – Tuesday, March 31st – 612 Clarion Ct., San Luis Obispo (and virtual via Microsoft Teams 8:00 Team Set-up & Agenda Review
8:15 Team Brainstorming (cont.)
9:30 Team Evaluation of VA Ideas
10:30 Team Development of VA Alternatives
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Team Development of VA Alternatives (cont.)
4:00 Adjourn
Day 3 – Thursday, April 2nd – virtual Via Microsoft Teams 8:00 Team Set-up & Agenda Review
8:15 Team Development of VA Alternatives (cont.)
10:30 Finalization of VA Alternatives
11:00 Determine and Score Team Recommended VA Strategy
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Design Suggestion Finalization & VA Study Presentation Preparation 1:00 Presentation of Initial VA Study Results (Team Recommended VA Strategy) 3:00 Adjourn
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
61

Prado Creek Bridge VA Process

VA STUDY MEETING ATTENDEES
Prado Creek Bridge
March 30-31 & April 2, 2026
PM 3/30 3/31 4/2 IM Name Organization Position/Role E-mail X X X X Eric Trimble VMS, Inc. VA Study Facilitator [email protected] X X X X Jorge Aguilar Wallace Group Project Manager [email protected] X X V Sarah Huffman Wallace Group Project Engineer, Roadway Design [email protected] X X X Ethan Pence Wallace Group Roadway Design [email protected] X X X Steven Tanaka Wallace Group Project Engineer, Sewer/Water Design [email protected] X X X Travis Vasquez Wallace Group Sewer/Water/Recycled Water Design [email protected] X X X Scott McCauley Consor Structures Lead [email protected] X X V Matt Vaggione Consor Project Engineer, Structures [email protected] X X V Thomas Truchement Consor Structures Design [email protected] X X Brent Lemon Consor Transportation Design Specialist [email protected] X X V Judd King Yeh & Assoc. Geotechnical Engineer [email protected] X X Lyle Nemeth Filippin Engin. Constructability [email protected] X V Joe Fernandez CCTC CCTC - Traffic Analysis Lead/Electrical Design [email protected] V Michelle Matson CCTC CCTC - Traffic Analysis / Electrical Design [email protected] X X X X Matt Horn City of SLO Project Manager [email protected] X Brian Nelson City of SLO Dep. Director of Public Works - City Engineer X X Luke Schwartz City of SLO Traffic and Active Transportation - Peds & Bikes X X X Miguel Barcenas City of SLO Utilities
X = In-person Participation
V = Virtual Participation
62

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2026 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR

THE PRADO CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Prado Creek Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge Project) will replace the structurally deficient Prado Road bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek and improve the Prado Road and South Higuera Street intersection, multimodal access, safety, and utility reliability; and
WHEREAS, the Bridge Project budget currently includes $4,130,000 in Federal Earmark Funds, although the maximum authorized reimbursement is $2,065,000; and WHEREAS, the Bridge Project budget currently includes $6,000,000 in Highway Bridge Program Funds that are not yet authorized for expenditure; and WHEREAS, the estimated Highway Bridge Program funding for the Bridge Project is currently $13,861,673, and the correct amount will be appropriated when those grant funds are authorized for expenditure; and
WHEREAS, these budget adjustments will align the projects' funding sources and grant appropriations with current reimbursement authorizations without increasing the total approved project budgets; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Review. The funding actions authorized by this resolution are not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act because they are not a project, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, and do not commit the City to any change in the previously approved projects.

SECTION 2: Grant Budget Adjustments. The City Council authorizes the Finance Director, or designee, to:

1. Decrease the Federal Earmark Fund appropriation for the Prado Creek Bridge Replacement Project from $4,130,000 to $2,065,000 to correct a duplicated appropriation and align the project budget with the maximum authorized grant reimbursement.

2. Decrease the Highway Bridge Program Fund appropriation for the Prado Creek Bridge Replacement Project from $6,000,000 to $0 because the funds are not currently authorized for expenditure. The correct grant amount will be appropriated when the funds are authorized for expenditure.

Resolution No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 3: Administrative Authority. The Finance Director, or designee, is authorized to make the accounting entries and other administrative adjustments necessary to implement this resolution.

Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2026. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ___________________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2026 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF GRANT

APPLICATIONS FOR THE PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT

AND PRADO CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, AND

REQUIRING COUNCIL APPROPRIATION UPON GRANT AWARD
WHEREAS, the Prado Road Interchange Project will construct a new Prado Road overcrossing of US 101, reconstruct the northbound interchange ramps, add a northbound auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road, realign Elks Lane, and widen Prado Road; and
WHEREAS, the Prado Creek Bridge Replacement Project will replace the structurally deficient Prado Road bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek and improve the Prado Road and South Higuera Street intersection, multimodal access, safety, and utility reliability; and
WHEREAS, the Prado Road Interchange Project and Prado Creek Bridge Replacement Project are significant transportation capital improvement projects that advance City mobility, safety, infrastructure resilience, and long-term community development objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City Financial Management Manual Grant Management Policy provides that the City will actively pursue federal, state, and other grant funding consistent with identified City goals and objectives, particularly for capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the Grant Management Policy requires City Council approval of grant applications in excess of $5,000 and allows the Council to delegate receipt of grant funds and execution of related grant documents to the City Manager when permitted by the granting agency; and
WHEREAS, grant opportunities may become available that could provide funding for either or both the Prado Road Interchange Project and Prado Creek Bridge Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize staff to pursue and submit eligible grant applications while retaining Council authority to appropriate awarded grant revenues, approve any required local match, and authorize expenditures before grantfunded work proceeds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Review. The authorization to prepare and submit grant applications is an administrative and fiscal action that does not authorize construction, commit the City to a physical change in the environment, or alter the scope of either

Resolution No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 2
R ______
project. Accordingly, this resolution is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

SECTION 2: Authorization to Submit Grant Applications. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to identify eligible local, state, federal, and other grant opportunities and to prepare and submit grant applications for the Prado Road Interchange Project, the Prado Creek Bridge Replacement Project, or both projects, provided that each application is consistent with the applicable project scope, City plans and policies, and grant program requirements.

SECTION 3: Application Documents and Certifications. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute grant application forms, certifications, and other documents required to submit an application, provided that doing so does not accept a grant award, appropriate funds, commit the City to an unbudgeted expenditure, or obligate the City to provide a local match that has not been approved by the City Council.

SECTION 4: Grant Award and Appropriation. If grant funding is awarded for either project, staff shall return to the City Council, as applicable, with a recommendation to accept the grant award, appropriate grant revenues and any required local matching funds, authorize any necessary budget amendments, and request authority to execute grant agreements or other award documents. No grant funds may be expended and no required local match may be committed unless and until the City Council takes the necessary appropriation and authorization actions.

SECTION 5: Administrative Authority. The Finance Director, or designee, is authorized to make the accounting entries and other administrative adjustments necessary to implement this resolution after the City Council has approved the applicable grant acceptance and appropriation actions.

Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2026. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:

Resolution No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 3
R ______
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ___________________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk