HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6a. Approval of the Prado Interchange Project Environmental Document (IS-MND) and confirm the Project Preferred Alternative Design Item 6a
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5010
For Agenda of: 9/5/2023
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 90 Minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Wyatt Banker-Hix, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE – APPROVAL OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE
PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive an update on the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Capital Improvement
Project; and
2. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project”; and
3. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, recommending approval of the US 101/Prado Road
Interchange Project Report.”
REPORT IN BRIEF
The US 101/Prado Road Interchange is a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project that
will install a bridge over US 101 connecting Prado Road to Dalidio Drive, establishing a
continuous transportation link between S. Higuera Street and Madonna Road. The scope
and scale of this project is large and considered a legacy project that supports several
Major City Goals, General Plan policies, and is needed to mitigate cumulative
transportation impacts identified within the Environmental Impact Reports for several
approved development projects. This project is following the required California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) project delivery process and is currently nearing
the end of the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase of this
delivery process. One of the last actions required to complete the PA/ED process and
advance to the final design phase is for the City Council to concur with the analysis and
findings of the project environmental document and recommend approval of the Final
Project Report, which identifies the final interchange design alternative to be endorsed by
the City and Caltrans.
Page 79 of 753
Item 6a
For this project, Caltrans is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency1
and the City is the project sponsor and CEQA responsible agency.2
The purpose of this report is to request that Council: 1) consider the environmental effects
of the Project as shown in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and
recommend that Caltrans adopt the Project’s IS/MND (Attachment D), and 2) recommend
that Caltrans approve the Final Project Report, which identifies the final preferred
interchange design alternative selected by Caltrans and the City (Attachment C). This is
the last step for the City prior to final Caltrans signatures and completion of this project
phase. The next phase of this project is final design of the preferred interchange type.
POLICY CONTEXT
The US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project supports the Major City Goals of: Housing
and Homelessness, Climate Action, Open Space and Sustainable Transportation. The
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the General Plan identifies a lack of multi-
modal east-west connections across town, which this project proposes to build. The 2021
Active Transportation Plan identifies the need for physically protected bike lanes and
sidewalks along Prado Road to create a multi-modal link across town and these elements
are included in the scope of the interchange project.
The General Plan also identifies the Prado Interchange as essential in facilitating growth
in the southern portion of the city. Many of the trips generated from proposed development
projects will use the Prado Interchange as an east-west link. Approved environmental
documents for numerous private housing development projects in this area of the city (i.e.
San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch Specific Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan)
identify construction of the Prado Interchange as an essential infrastructure need to
address current and future traffic congestion and circulation deficiencies.
The City’s concurrence with the environmental document, project report and support for
the final preferred interchange design alternative are necessary to conclude the Project
Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase and begin the P lans,
Specifications and Estimate phases (PS&E), which is necessary to complete project
design and ensure smooth project delivery and minimization of schedule delays. This
project is subject to the Caltrans standard project delivery process, as the project includes
modifications to a state highway and Caltrans will retain ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for portions of the completed interchange.
DISCUSSION
1 The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead
Agency will decide whether an EIR or Negative Declaration will be required for the project and will cause
the document to be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15367).
2 A public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing
or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “Responsible Agency”
includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the
project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381).
Page 80 of 753
Item 6a
Background
The Prado Interchange Project proposes to complete three major roadway impro vements.
A vicinity map of the project can be found below:
Figure 1 – Prado Interchange Vicinity Map
The first component of the project will connect Prado Road to Dalidio Drive by installing
a bridge over US 101. Currently, Prado Road terminates just east of US 101 at an existing
unsignalized intersection with Elks Lane and the US 101 northbound on/off -ramps. The
project will elevate the northbound ramps to connect with the new bridge at a signalized
intersection. A new lane along US 101 will also connect the on-ramp from Prado Road to
the off-ramp at Madonna Road, called an auxiliary lane. Auxiliary lanes provide increased
weaving distances for vehicles to use as they maneuver to either get on or off the highway
mainline. Auxiliary lanes have already been installed between multiple interchanges
within the City, like Santa Rosa Street and Broad Street.
Scale: Not to Scale
Page 81 of 753
Item 6a
The second component of the project is the realignment of Elks Lane behind the new
Regional Transit Authority (RTA) facility and 40 Prado Road Homeless Services Center
to reconnect with Prado Road approximately 500 feet to the east of the existing
intersection. The realigned Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection will be controlled by a new
traffic signal and will serve as the primary entrance for the City’s Corporation Yard and
Water Resource Recovery Facility.
Finally, Prado Road will be widened to ultimately provide a continuous multi-modal
corridor from Madonna Road to South Higuera Street along Dalido Road and ont o Prado
Road. This widening accommodates projected traffic needs and will be completed with
both the Prado Road Interchange project as well as the Prado Creek Bridge Replacement
Project, which is currently in the design phase and is scheduled to start con struction prior
to the Prado Interchange Project. These improvements will provide two auto lanes in each
direction, a center landscaped median and turn lane, stormwater drainage facilities,
streetlighting, parkway with landscaping and street trees, sidewal ks, and protected bike
lanes on each side of the street.
Prado Road must be elevated in order to connect to the proposed bridge over the US 101
and typically this would be done using grading and compacted soil to support the elevated
roadway as this is the most efficient and cost-effective way to elevate roadways.
However, the floodplain analysis prepared for the project confirmed that this is not a
feasible design approach along Prado Road due to floodplain impacts, as construction of
raised embankments would impede floodwaters during intense rain events. Impeding
floodwater would increase water surface elevation during flood events and caus e flooding
on other properties in the vicinity of the interchange including Hwy 101. Flooding others ’
property is not consistent with City, State and Federal flood protection standards.
For this reason, portions of the reconstructed Prado Road need to be elevated using
structural columns and not compacted soil as this will minimize impacts on the floodplain.
This has a significant impact on the complexity of the required engineering work and the
construction cost of the project, as discussed later in the Fiscal Impact section of this
report.
During early project scoping in coordination with Caltrans, a traffic study and Project
Study Report (Attachment C) determined that southbound ramps were not warranted at
the Prado Interchange within the current 20-year planning horizon. For that reason, the
current project scope does not include the addition of southbound on/off ramps to Hwy
101. This remains part of the City’s long-term plans but will need to be undertaken as a
separate project in the future when the improvements are warranted.
Project Need and Benefits
When Hwy 101 was constructed through the City in the 1950 ’s, it split the community in
two, and Caltrans initially constructed several overcrossings and interchanges to ensure
connectivity. As the City developed and traffic increased, these predominantly east -west
connections continued to pose a bottleneck to travelers. As early as the 1970’s, both the
City and State recognized the need for additional east -west connections and proposed
the Prado Overcrossing.
Page 82 of 753
Item 6a
With the approved and already-developed housing and commerce, the lack of
connectivity in the southern part of the city has forced travelers to make circuitous routes
to use the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Interchange and the Madonna Interchange.
Traffic modeling of an overcrossing at Prado Road shows potential to reduce the time
and traveled length of these trips, resulting in a City-wide reduction of Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) by 0.5% Citywide, which equates to 2,700 fewer miles traveled each year.
The design of the interchange also includes separated pedestrian and cyclist features to
create a multi-modal link across town. These features are designed to improve safety and
increase comfort level for riders, particularly for families and less experienced
pedestrians/cyclists to use this overcrossing and access the markets and neighborhoods
on both sides of Hwy 101.
Construction of the Prado overcrossing will also relieve congestion on local streets like
Madonna Road and LOVR, as well as their associated intersections. Congestion relief is
also anticipated at the Madonna Road and LOVR interchanges, and Hwy 101 itself.
A more efficient cross-town link will also benefit nearby regional facilities like the 40 Prado
Homeless Shelter and Regional Transit Authority campus. City facilities like the
Corporation Yard and WRRF will also benefit from this new east-west connection.
Figure 2 – Interchange Renderings (Northbound and Southbound Approaches)
Relationship to Prado Road Bridge Replacement Project
While the subject of this report is the Prado Road Interchange Project, the City has
another project nearby the interchange project that is noteworthy. The City has pursued
the removal and replacement of the existing bridge at Prado Road over San Luis Obispo
Creek since 2013. Caltrans inspections of the bridge have noted structural deficiencies
Page 83 of 753
Item 6a
and narrow deck width, recommending replacement. Due to the existing deficiencies at
the adjacent Prado/South Higuera intersection, as well as the projected growth in the
southern portion of the city, the intersection will be widened and constru cted as a
protected style intersection. This project will also involve creek work and undergrounding
utilities. Staff presented on this topic to Council in October 2022. That report can be found
here.
The project is partially funded through a mix of local funds and the Highway Bridge
Program (HBP), a federal funding source for local bridge replacement ad ministered by
Caltrans. Due to the proximity of the Prado Bridge Replacement and Prado Interchange
projects, and the potential for both to receive Federal funds, City and Caltrans staff
reviewed both to ensure they were independent of one another and did n ot have to be
combined into one large project. The City and Caltrans both agree that the projects have
independent utility, but the City must complete construction of the Prado Bridge prior to
the opening of the Prado Road Interchange project for community use.
The Prado Bridge Replacement Project delivery is ahead of the Prado Interchange
Project as the Prado Bridge Replacement Project is in the final design phase and right -
of-way negotiations, permitting, utility undergrounding and a P lans, Specifications &
Estimate package are all under development. Staff do not anticipate any concerns
regarding timing between the Prado Bridge and Prado Interchange projects.
Future Plans to Extend Prado Road to Broad Street
The General Plan Circulation Element and multiple specific plans include the future
extension of Prado Road east to Broad Street. This improvement would provide a
continuous arterial route with separated bikeways and sidewalks between Broad Street
(Highway 227), to Madonna Road via the Prado Interchange.
While the City is collecting development impact fees to help fund this future infrastructure
project, the ultimate timing of the Prado Road Extension is difficult to project. Construction
of this project requires private right-of-way and significant direct contributions from future
private development. To date, the private property owners have not been interested in
developing or selling this right-of-way to the City. The latest cost estimates available for
this street extension, which do not reflect the significant escalations in construction costs
from the past several years, indicated a potential cost of roughly $27 million.
Caltrans Oversight and Project Development Process
The Prado Interchange Project is a partnership between the City and Ca ltrans. Caltrans
is assisting the City with project delivery and will eventually assume maintenance of
portions of this facility. Throughout the process (from planning to construction), Caltrans
staff review and approve major deliverables to ensure complia nce with Caltrans
standards. Once the interchange is constructed and delivered according to Caltrans
standards, they will assume maintenance for the bridge structure, ramps, and operation
of the Prado Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps traffic signal.
Caltrans, as owner-operator of the State Highway System, has regulatory authority and
obligation to ensure that all modifications or additions to the State Highway System (such
Page 84 of 753
Item 6a
as the Prado Road Interchange), meet its standards and requirements.
The Caltrans interchange delivery process3 is divided into four phases which are as
follows: 1) Project Study Report (PSR), 2) Project Approval and Environmental Document
(PA/ED), 3) Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E), then 4) Construction of the
project. A flowchart of the process can be found below:
Figure 3 – Caltrans Delivery Flowchart
Each phase and their key deliverables are summarized below:
Phase Key Deliverables Status
1) Project Study Report Project Study Report – Interchange Feasibility Complete
2) Project Alternatives
and Environmental
Document (PA/ED)
1. Traffic Study - Complete
2. 30% Plans and Estimates (all alternatives) –
Complete
3. Value Analysis – Complete
4. Selection of preferred alternative - Complete
5. Project Report – Final Draft Complete, Awaiting
Council Concurrence and Caltrans
Approval/Signatures
6. CEQA Document (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration) - Final Draft Complete, Awaiting
Council Concurrence and Caltrans Signatures
7. NEPA Document (Categorical Exemption) –
Caltrans Staff Preparing
8. Council Recommendation of Approval of Project
Report and Adoption of Environmental Document -
In Progress (Council Action 9/5/23)
In Progress
3 A more thorough description of the Caltrans delivery process can be found here: https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/sustainability/documents/2011-how-caltrans-builds-projects-a11y.pdf
Page 85 of 753
Item 6a
3) Project Plans,
Specifications, and
Estimates (PS&E)
1. Council authorize filing of a CEQA Notice of
Determination (NOD) as a Responsible Agency and
authorize advertisement of a request for proposals
for Prado PS&E phase services4
2. 50% Project Plans and Estimates
3. 90% Project Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
4. 100% Project Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
5. Final Bid Package for Advertisement
Not Started
4) Construction 1. Advertisement of Project
2. Award of Project to Contractor
3. Pre-construction Conference
4. Completion of Underground Work
5. Completion of Roadway Work
6. Completion of Structures Work
7. Project Closeout and Ribbon Cutting
Not Started
To date, the Project Study Report Phase has been completed and the PA/ED phase is
nearing completion. Remaining tasks within the PA/ED phase include Council
recommendation of approval of the Preferred Alternative, Project Report and CEQA
Document. Afterwards, Caltrans will provide final approval of those documents and the
phase will be considered complete.
Project Approval / Environmental Document (PA/ED) Phase
Each of the primary tasks/components of the PA/ED phase are described briefly below.
Environmental Document
As the CEQA lead agency, Caltrans has the principal responsibility for approving the
Project and complying with the process-related aspects of CEQA, including the
preparation and filing of all required notices, such as the Notice of Determination following
Caltrans’ approval of the Project. In addition to the City’s role as the project sponsor, the
City is a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA. In this responsible agency role, the City
complies with CEQA by consulting with Caltrans to ensure the environmental document
used by Caltrans (as the lead agency) will comply with CEQA and independently
considering the IS/MND prepared for the project when making a decision to approve and
carry out the Project.
In this instance, pursuant to the process required by Caltrans, the City’s consultant team
has worked closely with City and Caltrans staff to prepare the required environmental
analysis for the interchange project pursuant to CEQA, which includes focused analysis
of multiple interchange design alternatives to evaluate potential impacts to biological
resources, air quality, agricultural resources, transportation/traffic, noise, water quality,
cultural and tribal resources. Staff has submitted individual environmental technical
studies and a draft CEQA document in the form of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) to Caltrans for its review and approval. After multiple rounds of
Caltrans review, the IS/MND was circulated for public review February 2 through March
6, 2023, and a public meeting was held on the project and environmental document on
February 15, 2023.Comments were received and incorporated into the final document.
4 Approved by Council at 8/16/2022 Meeting
Page 86 of 753
Item 6a
Staff requests that Council consider the environmental effects of the Project as presented
in the IS/MND and take action to concur with the analysis and findings of the IS/MND and
recommend that Caltrans adopt the IS/MND (Attachment D), after which Caltrans, as the
lead agency, will provide final approval and will file a Notice of Determination for the
project.
Each mitigation measure is included in the document, which the contractor that builds the
project and the City will be required to implement to reduce project impacts to less than
significant. Areas of resource protection or mitigation measures identified include Air
Quality, Biological Resources and Transportation. Some of the specific mitigation
measures include:
1. Reduce and/or eliminate idling construction equipment to protect air quality.
2. Minimize the disturbed area by the project to reduce dust generated.
3. Provide street sweeping and wheel washing to reduce dirt tracked onto streets
which reduces impacts to water quality.
4. Ordering a stoppage of work should cultural or paleontological resources be
discovered, until review by a qualified archaeologist.
5. Implement appropriate traffic control plans during construction in order to reduce
construction impacts to the community while keeping construction workers safe.
In additional to CEQA, the project is also undergoing federal environmental review under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is a requirement for projects
pursuing federal funding sources. Caltrans is the lead agency for the NEPA review as
well, which is limited in scope and does not require City Council consideration.
Value Analysis (VA)
A Value Analysis (VA) is an important step in the PA/ED process. The VA process
involved bringing in a third-party consultant to perform a five-day workshop with City and
Caltrans staff, as well as an independent civil engineering firm in order to evaluate project
designs to identify potential opportunities to reduce costs, highlight unanticipated
challenges with project delivery, construction, and maintenance, and otherwise identify
areas to improve the quality and/or value of the final project design. This process is a
federal and state requirement for any project with a construction budget of $25 million or
greater. The project scope, schedule, and budget were discussed with a primary focus
on identifying cost and time savings.
The VA workshop was completed in March 2023 and recommended that the City consider
the following recommendations to guide final project design work:
1. Use a cast-in-drilled-hole concrete columns instead of driven piles. This
recommendation requires additional investigation but could significantly reduce costs.
2. Use longer span pre-cast girders in lieu of cast-in-place girders. Using longer span
girders reduces the number of required columns to hold up the girders and could
provide potential project savings.
3. Reduce the vehicle design speed on the bridge over Hwy 101 to 35 mph. This would
allow for tighter (smaller radius) vertical curves to facilitate and help accommodate
recommendations 1 and 2 above.
Page 87 of 753
Item 6a
4. Reduce the design width of travel lanes and roadway shoulders. This would reduce
the total width of the bridge over Hwy 101 and reduce costs.
5. Use recycled materials where possible in order to reduce generation of greenhouse
gases and reduce construction costs.
City and Caltrans staff agree that these considerations require further investigation, which
will be completed during the PS&E phase and require additional time to research.
Project Report
The Project Report summarizes the environmental analysis, traffic operations, safety
considerations and financial impact of each interchange alternative to provide local
stakeholders and Caltrans staff with the detailed information needed to inform the
selection process for the preferred design alternative that will move forward to final design
and construction. Traffic reports, non-standard design features, concept plans, and cost
estimates are summarized and compared for review. In May an d June 2023, City and
Caltrans staff met to discuss the project alternatives and wh ich alternate should be
recommended to move forward to the detailed design process in the PS&E phase , called
the preferred alternative. Each Alternative evaluated in the Pro ject Report is briefly
described below:
Alternative A3 (City/Caltrans Staff Recommended Alternative): Tight Diamond
interchange with signalized intersection control. This alternative was recommended by
staff due to its superior operations and as well as being the lowest cost alternative that
meets the project needs. An image of the concept below is shown, and a more complete
plan is found attached (Attachment F):
Figure 4 – Alternative A3 Plan
Page 88 of 753
Item 6a
Alternative A1R: Tight Diamond interchange with roundabout intersection control. This
alternative was not chosen for recommendation for several reasons, including concerns
with an untested design (there are no existing examples of roundabouts constructed on
elevated bridge structures in North America), safety concerns over an elevated structure
with a void in the center island, and traffic operations concerns (the roundabout option
was projected to result in significant vehicles queues in the long -term analysis horizon).
Design staff also expressed constructability and financial concerns of an elevated
roundabout, which has not been attempted in the United States.
Alternative A4R: Partial Cloverleaf interchange with roundabout intersection control. This
type of interchange would require the on -ramp to pass through the City’s Corporation
Yard and parts of the Water Resource and Recovery Facility (WRRF). This would require
relocation of the entire Corporation Yard and unacceptable impacts to the newly-
upgraded WRRF. The concerns with the A1R roundabout intersection control would also
apply to this alternative.
“No-Build” Scenario: A detailed analysis of traffic circulation for scenarios with and without
construction of the Prado Interchange was prepared as part of the San Luis Ranch EIR
and revisited as part of the Prado Interchange Project Study Report. This analysis
evaluated traffic conditions under current, near-term (5-year horizon) and long-term (20-
year horizon) conditions in order to confirm the need for the proposed interchange and
guide final project designs and decisions. This analysis confirmed that if the interchange
is not built, there will be numerous near-term and long-term impacts to traffic circulation,
with several roadways and intersections experiencing significant congestion, delays, and
emissions. The most significant congestion and level of service (LOS) deficiencies would
be experienced along the surrounding arterial streets providing connectivity east/west of
Hwy 101, including South Higuera, Madonna Road and Los Osos V alley Road, as well
as at the nearby interchanges on Hwy 101 at Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road.
Prado Road is identified as a Tier 1 (top priority) corridor in the City’s 2021 Active
Transportation Plan, which identifies the cross-town routes with the highest potential to
serve walking and bicycling trips if high-quality infrastructure is provided. Under a “no
build” scenario, the Prado Road corridor would remain disconnected, requiring active
transportation and transit users to take more indirect routes around US 101.
Preferred Alternative: After careful deliberation, Caltrans, City and Consultant desgin staff
agree that Alternative A3 is the preferred alternative for this project. Staff recommends
Council affirm this recommendation to Caltrans in order to continue moving this project
forward to the next phase.
Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Phase
The next phase of project development following completion of the PA/ED is final design
or “PS&E”. After the preferred alternative is cho sen and environmental documents are
adopted, staff can begin work on final design and right-of-way acquisition. Note that most
of the necessary right-of-way was already dedicated to the City as part of the San Luis
Ranch development. The remaining properties from which right-of-way is needed are
along Prado Road.
Page 89 of 753
Item 6a
The PS&E work will begin with a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a design consultant.
This will be another multi-year contract and requires several months of seeking and
choosing a qualified consultant to assist City staff. Council previously authorized staff to
seek proposals for these services on August 16, 2022, link here.
Schedule and Next Steps
The project delivery schedule is shown in the figure below.
Table 1 – Prado Interchange Timeline
Note: Q1 equates to July 1st of the Fiscal Year
There has been a delay in schedule due to the recommendations of the Value Analysis,
which will require additional design time during the PS&E phase with the possibility of
reducing the time and cost needed to construct the Interchange. Staff believe this VA
review period, which will include several rounds of Caltrans review, to last approximately
one year.
City staff anticipate completing the PA/ED phase in 2023 and the signing of a Cooperative
Agreement with Caltrans next year to start the PS&E design. D uring that time, staff will
also search for a design consultant via RRP for the next project phase. This phase will
require significant consultant effort to execute a complex structural and civil design, and
staff believes this to be an important factor in the schedule shown above.
Once City and Caltrans staff agree that design work is complete, the PS&E phase will
close and the project will be advertised for construction bids. Staff anticipate construction
to begin in early 2027 and hope this schedule to be conservative.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On July 17, 2018, City Council approved the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) for the San Luis Ranch Development (Staff Report, Minutes). The SEIR detailed
the impacts of the development and need for the Prado Interchange Pro ject. As part of
the SEIR, the San Luis Ranch development was allowed to proceed independent of the
Prado Interchange schedule. Due to project complexity and project lead times necessary
for project development as outlined in the Caltrans process, development of the
Interchange project is not directly tied with the build-out of San Luis Ranch.
On April 12, 2018, Caltrans and the City signed a cooperative agreement (Attachment B)
pursuing PA/ED of the Prado Interchange project. The agreement laid out the
responsibilities of financing, design, and project approval.
On August 16, 2022, Council Authorized Staff to seek VA services and PS&E services
(Minutes).
Project Phase Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
PA/ED
PS&E
Advertise and Award
Construction
FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Page 90 of 753
Item 6a
Public Engagement
There were extensive opportunities for public engagement on the Project through
previous planning efforts, including the 2014 General Plan Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) update, during review of the San Luis Ranch development proposal and
Environmental Impact Report, approved in 2018, and through public input on the City’s
capital project prioritization during the past several two-year budget setting cycles.
Staff and project consultants also organized and held a public meeting on February 15,
2023, which consisted of a focused workshop to solicit input on the latest Prado
Interchange project details and draft environmental document. This meeting included a
presentation on project background, overview of design alternatives considered,
discussion of traffic impacts, summary of environmental analysis and mitigation
recommendations, latest project cost estimates and schedule. The meeting was
advertised via legal ads, via City email and social media notifications, and via direct
mailers sent to businesses and residents located within one half mile of the project limits.
Caltrans representatives were in attendance to help field questions from the public.
The IS/MND was circulated for public review February 2 through March 6, 2023. The
Notice of Availability/Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND was advertised in the local
newspaper ando included information about and invitation to the February 15, 2023 public
meeting. The environmental document and technical studies were made available on the
City and Caltrans websites and at City and Caltrans offices. The required notices,
environmental documents, and technical reports were sent to the State Clearinghouse for
distribution to State Agencies, affected Federal agencies, tribal organizations, and any
individual who requesting public notice of the environmental document for their review
and comment. Tribal organizations were offered formal consultation with staff prior to the
public review period and during preparation of the environmental document pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and Section 21080.3.2 .
Following the public review period, Caltrans and City staff recorded and jointly responded
to 10 comment letters from members of the public and 1 from a local agency. These
responses have been reviewed by staff and approved by Caltrans and are included at the
end of the IS-MND.
CONCURRENCE
Public Works and Utilities concurs with the recommendations of this report. Caltrans
concurs with the recommendation to declare a preferred alternative, as documented in
the attached Project Report, and requests the City’s concurrence with the IS/MND.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As described in this report, the attached IS-MND CEQA document is complete and ready
for Council independent consideration and concurrence. Caltrans is the lead agency and
will provide final approval and signatures in addition to filing a Notice of Determination for
the Project.
Page 91 of 753
Item 6a
Caltrans is also the lead agency for the NEPA Categorical Exemption document. Their
staff is drafting that document and will provide final signatures. No Council review or
action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023,
Funding Identified: Yes 2023-2024
Fiscal Analysis:
As the Prado Interchange is a multi-phased legacy project, funding for the PA/ED Phase
will be discussed separately from the PS&E Phase. The recommendations listed here do
not have a fiscal impact.
PA/ED Phase:
Funding was identified as part of the 2021-2023 Financial Plan for this phase of the
project, of which there is adequate funding to complete this phase of the project.
PS&E Phase Budget and Cost:
Funding for the PS&E Phase has been identified in the 2023-2024 fiscal year, as well as
the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Due to the potential size of the design contract, funding is
programmed over multiple years.
The City will provide the majority of funding for this phase, but will also include an
agreement between the City and County. Updated construction estimates will also be
sought to address the inflation currently seen in roadway construction. The current
available funding is as follows:
Funding Sources Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
Local Revenue
Measure
$2,322,750 $0 $0 N/A
Fees: Transportation
Impact
$359,103 $0 $0 N/A
State
Federal
Other: Airport Area
Impact Fee
$99,047 $0
Other: County $1,435,260 $0 $0
Total $4,216,160 $0 $0 N/A
It is important to note that currently, staff are only seeking authorization and providing a
funding update on the PA/ED and PS&E Phases of the Project. Once the PS&E phase is
nearing completion, the best available information will be used to estimate construction
costs. The total project cost will be further refined during design.
Page 92 of 753
Item 6a
Staff are working to determine the best path forward to fund the construction phases of
the project, including aggressive pursuit of state and federal grant funding, leveraging
developer fees, use of the City’s Infrastructure Investment Fund, and potential debt
financing to support construction of the project. Staff will provide additional updates once
the project design is sufficiently advanced, which will allow for a more accurate and
realistic construction cost updates.
Construction Phase Fiscal Information
Cost Breakdown by Project Components of Preferred Alternative
As stated above, there are three design alternatives under review in the PA/ED Phase.
The recommended preferred alternative is A3. Below is a table which itemizes cost based
upon what is known today about project costs for each alternative. These costs are
estimated based upon 2023 construction cost and escalated to 202 8 using a 3%
inflationary cost. Cost escalation to 2028 represents the anticipated mid -point of
construction activities.
Table 2: Alternative Cost Breakdown
Alternative A1R A3 A4R
Roadway: $ 9,434,000 $11,543,400 $ 11,564,600
Structure: $76,881,800 $74,528,600 $ 78,546,000
ROW/Utility: $ 5,724,000 $ 5,724,000 $ 26,054,800
Elks Lane: $ 3,180,000 $ 3,180,000 $ 3,180,000
Corp Yard Impr: $ 1,060,000 $ 1,060,000 $ 1,060,000
Prado Widening: $ 1,590,000 $ 1,590,000 $ 1,590,000
Total: $97,869,800 $97,626,000 $121,995,400
Currently, construction funding is anticipated to be received from both the City and the
City’s regional partners including: San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG), as well as the San Luis Ranch development. Costs were split
based on percentage split of local traffic, regional traffic, and new development traffic
once the facility is built. Staff have met with SLOCOG to advocate for additional regional
funding towards this project, and will continue to do so throughout the duration of PS&E.
Since construction is not proposed to start until 2027, and there remains significant
uncertainty regarding economic factors such as inflation, staff has calculated a future
range of costs based on several rates of inflation:
Alt A3 Total Costs
Base Year (2023): $ 84,800,000
3% Inflation: $ 97,626,000
5% Inflation: $106,000,000
8% Inflation: $118,800,000
Note: costs shown have been escalated to 2028
Page 93 of 753
Item 6a
Staff anticipates total construction costs to vary between these numbers above based
upon inflationary costs. Additionally, as the VA work is implemented in the final design
and the construction techniques, quantities, and means and methods are further
developed during the PS&E phase of the project, costs will fluctuate as well.
Construction Phase Grant Opportunities
Since the start of the PA/ED phase, staff have been tracking applicable grant
opportunities to help minimize the burden of City costs. With a completed CEQA
document and chosen alternative, staff should now be eligible to apply for these grants.
Eligibility will continue to increase as the project progresses through the PS&E phase.
Below is a table of grant opportunities that staff continue to monitor as possible future
sources of funding for construction related costs.
Program Type Typical Grant Amounts
RAISE Federal Can exceed $25 million
INFRA Federal Can exceed $25 million
SB1 Local Partnership State $5 million to $10 million
Active Transportation Program State $5 million to $10 million
Both the RAISE and INFRA programs are nationwide Federal grants that help State and
Local entities accomplish large transportation infrastructure projects. These grant
applications require significant staff and consultant effort for a competitive application.
Collaboration with other entities or bundling other City projects may be needed for a
compelling region-wide package.
The SB1 Local Partnership Program Competitive Grant Program is a State program and
funding can be used for transportation projects. The Active Transportation Program
(ATP) State grant program is geared towards increasing multi-modal participation.
Staff continues to search for application grant opportunities and plans to continue
engagement with regional entities and grant consultants.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny Recommendations to Recommend Adoption of the IS-MND and Approval of
the Preferred Alternative. Staff does not recommend this option as it would delay
execution of this project. Recommendation by Council is preferred by Caltrans
Administration prior to final Caltrans approval and signatures on the Final Project Report
and environmental documents. Delay of these recommendations would delay transition
to the PS&E phase, which would in turn result in further escalation of project costs.
Page 94 of 753
Item 6a
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the US 101/Prado Interchange Project
B - Draft Resolution recommending approval of the US 101/Prado Road Interchange
Project Report
C - Completed Project Study Report
D - IS-MND, Comment Letters and Responses
E - Project Report
F - Value Analysis Final Report
G - Alt A3 Geometric Approval Drawing
Page 95 of 753
Page 96 of 753
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PRADO
INTERCHANGE PROJECT
WHEREAS, The Prado Interchange Project necessitates an Initial Study/ Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND); and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency and the City is the project
sponsor and the CEQA Responsible Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND was
advertised in the local newspaper, the environmental document and technical studies
were made available on the City and Caltrans websites and at City and Caltrans offices ,
and all required notices, environmental documents, and technical reports were sent to the
State Clearinghouse for distribution to State and Federal agencies, tribal organizations,
and any individual who requesting public notice of the environmental document for their
review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was circulated for public review February 2 through
March 6, 2023 and a public meeting was held by the City at the Corporation Yard on
February 15, 2023 at 6pm; and
WHEREAS, City and Caltrans staff have completed a public and agency review
and responded to all comments received; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans is the lead agency for the environmental analysis of the
Project under CEQA and requests City review, consideration of, and concurrence with
the IS/MND prior to their own adoption of this document; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15096 and 15381, the City is
a responsible agency and is obligated to consult with Caltrans (the lead agency), consider
the IS/MND proposed to be adopted by Caltrans, and reach its own conclusions on
whether and how to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has met its responsible agency consultation obligations by
working closely with Caltrans staff to prepare the required technical reports,
environmental analysis, and public notices for the Project, participate in the February 15,
2023 public meeting for the Project and environmental document, and respond to public,
tribal, and agency comments on the Project and environmental document.
Page 97 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R ______
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo recommends adoption as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Review. Based upon all evidence in the record before
it, including an initial study, the City Council has considered the environmental effects of
the Project as shown in the IS/MND, concurs with the analysis and conclusions of the
IS/MND, hereby recommends that Caltrans, as the lead CEQA agency, adopt the Final
IS/MND prepared and circulated for this project, and adopts all of the findings related to
the Project:
a) The Prado Interchange Replacement Project IS-MND was prepared and
circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and it adequately
addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
Project; and
b) The City’s recommendation that Caltrans adopt the IS/MND and approve the
Project reflects City’s independent judgement and analysis; and
c) The City concurs with the IS/MND that there is no substantial evidence that the
Project will have a significant effect on the environment as mitigated in
accordance with the measures identified in the IS/MND; and
d) The City concurs with the IS/MND that all potentially significant environmental
effects were analyzed adequately, subject to the following mitigation measures
being incorporated into the Project and subject to the following mitigation
monitoring program in the IS-MND:
Aesthetics
AES-1 - Tree Protection and Replacement Plan. Before issuing grading or building
permits, a Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will be prepared for the project based
on the final grading and building plans. The Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will
identify all trees within the project limits. The Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will
stipulate that all trees not proposed for removal will be preserved and protected from harm
during project construction activities (consistent with requirements of Mitigation Measure
AES-2).
If, during the preparation of the Tree Protection and Replacement Plan, it is discovered
that trees within the project study area must be removed, the Caltrans Design Engineer
and District Landscape Architect will agree that tree removal is necessary before final
approval of the project plans. Where trees are authorized by Caltrans for removal, they
will be replaced with native or other horticulturally appropriate species suitable for the
area at a minimum ratio of three new trees for each tree removed, as directed by the
Caltrans District Landscape Architect. All replacement planting will include a minimum
three-year plant establishment period.
The project specifications will include provisions requiring the protection of all trees as
directed in this measure, and the cost estimate will include adequate funds for identified
tree protection measures and tree replacement and maintenance measures, if necessary.
Page 98 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 3
R ______
AES-2 - Tree Protection. All qualifying trees within 25 feet of proposed ground
disturbances that will be retained will be temporarily fenced with chain -link or other
material throughout all grading and construction activities. The fencing shall be installed
outside the dripline of each tree or as far from the trunk as is feasible while
accommodating project construction and be shown in the Tree Protection and
Replacement Plan. No construction equipment shall be staged, parked, or stored within
the dripline of any qualifying tree. If project construction requires activities within the
dripline of a tree that is proposed to be retained, an arborist shall be present during
ground-disturbing work under the dripline.
AES-3 - Landscape Plan. A landscape plan shall be developed by the city and approved
by the District Landscape Architect before project approval. The landscape plan shall
consist of plantings that offer a variety of colors, shapes, and species with an emphasis
on drought-tolerant, native plant materials. The landscape plan shall include plantings
along constructed walls and structures as well as benched and graded areas within the
project corridor to soften visual changes and reduce the visual scale of new project
features. Landscaping shall be overseen for a minimum period of two years or as
determined by the District Landscape Architect.
Agricultural and Forest Resources
AG -1 - Agricultural Conservation. The city shall provide that for every 1 acre of
Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique
Farmland) on the site that is permanently converted to non-agricultural use as a result of
the Elks Lane realignment, one (1) acre of comparable land in agricultural production shall
be preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to agriculture pursuant to this measure
shall be of the size, location, and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable, working
agricultural operation. Said mitigation shall be satisfied through:
Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s), or other
farmland conservation mechanism(s) to a qualified conservation organization that
has been approved by the city, or establishing a perpetual conservation
easement(s) or deed restriction(s) held by the city or other farmland conservation
mechanism(s), for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural land. The
land covered by said onsite and/or offsite easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall
be located within or contiguous to the city’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt,
subject to review and approval of the city’s Natural Resources Manager; or
Making an in-lieu payment to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space Fund to
be applied toward the future purchase of a perpetual conservation easement(s) or
deed restriction(s) held by the city or other farmland conservation mechanism(s),
for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural land. The land covered by
said onsite and/or offsite easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall be located within
or contiguous to the city’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt, subject to review and
approval of the city’s Natural Resources Manager. The amount of the payment
shall be sufficient to conserve similar land on a per acre basis, as determined by
a licensed appraiser; or
Page 99 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 4
R ______
Making an in-lieu payment to a qualified conservation organization that has been
approved by the city and that is organized for conservation purposes, to be applied
toward a future purchase of comparable agricultural land, or a perpetual
conservation easement, deed restriction, or other farmland conservation
mechanism to preserve the required amount of agricultural land in San Luis Obispo
County. The amount of the payment shall be sufficient to conserve similar land on
a per acre basis, as determined by the qualifying entity or a licensed appraiser; or
Any combination of the above.
Air Quality
AQ -1 - Fugitive Dust and Emissions Control Measures. Construction projects shall
implement the following dust control measures to reduce fugitive particulate matter
emissions in accordance with District requirements. All fugitive dust mitigation measures
shall be shown on grading and building plans:
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for
greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency
would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-
potable) water should be used whenever possible. When drought conditions exist
and water use is a concern, the contractor or builder should consider use of a dust
suppressant that is effective for the specific site conditions to reduce the amount
of water used for dust control. Please refer to the following link from the San
Joaquin Valley Air District for a list of potential dust suppressants: Products
Available for Controlling Dust;
All stockpiled dirt should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon
as possible, and building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding, soil binders or other dust controls are used;
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between
top of load and top of trailer) or otherwise comply wi th California Vehicle Code
(CVC) Section 23114;
“Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the
exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then
fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113 and California
Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all
employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track -
out prevention device’ where vehicles enter and exit u npaved roads onto paved
streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of
devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection
of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plat e devices need
Page 100 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 5
R ______
periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils,
the track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
All fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans;
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility
is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance
the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints and reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity
for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for example,
wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior
to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact the Compliance
Division at 805-781-5912).
Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation
and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following
completion of any soil disturbing activities;
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non -invasive
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the APCD;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible.
Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; and
Take additional measures as needed to ensure dust from the project site is not
impacting areas outside the project boundary.
Construction projects shall implement the following emission control measures to reduce
particulate matter and toxic air contaminant emissions from idling diesel engines. All
emission control measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and
Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
Page 101 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 6
R ______
Biological Resources
BIO-1 - California Red-Legged Frog and Coast Range Newt. The city shall implement
the following to avoid and minimize potential impacts to California red -legged frog and
Coast Range newt. Because these species utilize similar habitats, the implementation of
the following measures shall be implemented for both species.
A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 48 hours
before the start of any work activities within and around the project disturbance
footprint. If the preconstruction survey identifies the presence of individuals of
California red-legged frog or Coast Range newt, or if individuals of these species
are encountered during construction, then work shall stop work and comply with
all relevant requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act before resuming
project activities.
No motorized equipment shall enter riparian areas. Arroyo willow tree removal
shall be performed with hand tools only.
Before trimming or removing trees within riparian areas, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a training session for the tree removal crew. At a minimum, the training
shall include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat and
Coast Range newt and its habitat, the specific measures that are being
implemented to conserve the California red-legged frog and Coast Range newt for
the project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.
A biological monitor familiar with semi-aquatic species that have the potential to
occur shall monitor the trimming or removal of trees within riparian areas. If
California red-legged frog or Coast Range newt are observed in the work area, all
shall stop work until all relevant requirements of the federal Endange red Species
Act have been implemented.
All areas of the project site disturbed by activities associated with the project shall
be re-vegetated with an assemblage of native riparian, wetland, and upland
vegetation suitable for the area as detailed in the Landscape Plan and approved
by the District Landscape Architect. Locally collected plant materials shall be used
to the extent practicable.
Southwestern Pond Turtle Mitigation
BIO-2 - Southwestern Pond Turtle. The city shall ensure the following actions are
implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the southwestern pond turtle:
Qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 48 hours before
the start of work activities within and around areas that may serve as potential
habitat for the southwestern pond turtle, including guard rail and erosion control
installation. If individuals of the southwestern pond turtle are found, the approved
biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the project site before
work activities begin. The biologist(s) shall relocate any individual southwestern
pond turtle the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat
that is not likely to be affected by activities associated with the project.
Page 102 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 7
R ______
Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum
area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to
southwestern pond turtle habitat, including locating access routes and construction
staging areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent
practicable.
Before the start of construction activities, high-visibility orange construction fencing shall
be installed along the perimeter of the area of disturbance and construction access
routes to ensure avoidance of sensitive habitat.
Before starting construction activities, a qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a training
session for all construction personnel conducting vegetation removal activities,
including a description of the southwestern pond turtle, its habitat and legal status,
and the need for conservation of the species.
South-Central California Coast Steelhead Trout and Designated Critical Habitat Mitigation
BIO-3 - South-Central California Coast steelhead trout. The applicant shall ensure the
following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to steelhead:
Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
training session for all construction personnel. The training shall include a
description of the steelhead and its habitat, the specific measures that are being
implemented to conserve this species for the current project, and the boundaries
within which the project may be accomplished.
Before starting construction activities, high-visibility orange construction fencing
shall be installed outside of the tops of the banks of San Luis Obispo Creek along
the limits of the proposed disturbance to avoid disturbance to steelhead and its
federally designated critical habitat. Fencing shall be located a minimum of 20 feet
from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of the bank and shall be maintained
throughout the construction period. Once construction in this area is complete, the
fencing may be removed.
During the duration of project activities, waste shall be properly contained and
secured, promptly removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly.
Following construction, all trash and construction debris shall be removed from the
work areas.
Project construction activities within 50 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy
or top of the bank of San Luis Obispo Creek shall only occur during the dry season
(e.g., between May 1 and November 1) in any given year, when potential effects
to steelhead would be minimal.
To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the following
Best Management Practices shall be implemented for the project. It shall be the
city’s responsibility to maintain control of construction operations and to keep the
entire site in compliance with required Best Management Practices.
Page 103 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 8
R ______
o Erosion shall be controlled by covering stockpiled construction materials (i.e.,
soil, spoils, aggregate, fly ash, stucco, hydrated lime, etc.) over 2.0 cubic yards
that are not actively being used, consistent with the applicable construction
general permit, or through other means of erosion control approved by the city
(e.g., temporary erosion and sediment control). The site shall be maintained to
minimize sediment-laden runoff to any storm drainage system, including
existing drainage swales and/or sand watercourses.
o If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes shall be
protected with erosion control measures immediately following grading on the
slopes.
o During construction, to prevent sedimentation and debris from entering San
Luis Obispo Creek during construction, a temporary large sediment barrier shall
be installed along the top of the banks of the channel before the start of
construction activities planned for the project.
o Equipment will be checked daily for leaks before the start of construction
activities. A spill kit will be placed near the creek and will remain readily
available during construction if any contaminant is accidentally released.
o The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in-stream habitat, and
overall performance of Best Management Practices and sediment controls to
identify and reconcile any condition that could adversely affect steelhead or
their habitat. The biologist will stop work if necessary and will recommend site-
specific measures to avoid adverse effects to steelhead and their habitat.
o The city shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and sediment control
measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet protections, and gravel
bags) before, during, and after storm events. Monitoring includes maintaining
a file documenting onsite inspections, problems encountered, corrective
actions, notes, and a map of remedial implementation measures.
Ferruginous Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Purple Martin, Loggerhead Shrike, White -Tailed Kite,
And Other Nesting Birds Mitigation
BIO-4 - Nesting Birds. The city shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid
and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds:
For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally February
1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and
Game Code and/or Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than 3 days before vegetation removal or initial construction
activities. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500 -foot buffer
around the site, where feasible, accounting for private property right -of-entry
constraints. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be conducted
outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The
buffer shall be a minimum of 250 feet for non -raptor bird species and 500 feet for
raptor species unless there is a compelling biologically valid reason for a smaller
buffer (e.g., a physical barrier, such as a hill or large building, between the nest
Page 104 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 9
R ______
and the site, blocks line of sight and reduces noise). Larger buffers may be required
depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in
the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction
personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the
nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and
the young have fledged the nest befo re removal of the buffer. Readily visible
exclusion zones shall be established in areas where nests must be avoided.
Removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats shall be scheduled to
occur in the fall and winter (between September 16 and January 31), after fledging
and before the initiation of the nesting season.
If active white-tailed kite nests are located during surveys, all construction work
shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the
qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptor species,
including white-tailed kites. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the
status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest.
The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until
the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist
shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the
nest before the buffer is removed.
Invasive Species Mitigation
BIO-5 - Invasive Species. The city shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to
avoid and minimize potential impacts associated with invasive species in the project area:
Before construction, a qualified botanist/biologist shall provide invasive plant
prevention training and an appropriate identification/instruction guide to staff and
contractors. A list of target species shall be included, along with measures for early
detection and eradication.
Before construction, specific areas shall be designated for cleaning tools, vehicles,
equipment, clothing, footwear, and other gear.
Before entering and exiting the work site, all tools, equipment, vehicles, clothing
and footwear, and other gear shall be cleaned to remove s oil, seeds, and other
plant parts.
The reproductive parts of any invasive plants, such as seeds, mature flowers, and
roots/shoots of species that can reproduce vegetatively, shall be contained in
sealed containers and removed from the project site and disp osed of at a licensed
landfill/disposal site. Before transporting invasive plant materials, the receiving
areas of the landfill/disposal site shall be confirmed by the city as designated for
invasive plant waste disposal. The city shall ensure that 100 per cent containment
of invasive plant materials is enforced during the transport of invasive plants to the
disposal site.
All disturbed areas that are not converted to hardscape or formally landscaped
shall be hydroseeded with a mix of locally native species upon completion of work
in those areas. In areas where construction is ongoing, hydroseeding shall occur
where no construction activities have occurred before winter rains. If exotic species
Page 105 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 10
R ______
invade these areas before hydroseeding, weed removal shall occur in consultation
with a qualified botanist/biologist. Alternatively, in areas not suitable for
hydroseeding, areas that are not hardscaped and are planned for formal
landscaping shall be mulched to reduce the potential for invasive species to
colonize. Mulch shall be at least four inches thick and shall be weed free.
Riparian Habitat and Jurisdictional Area Mitigation
BIO-6 - Riparian Habitat. The city shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to riparian habitat and jurisdictional areas:
All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at
least 100 feet from riparian habitat or bodies of water and in a location where a
potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that
drains away from the water source). Before the start of work activities, a plan must
be in place for a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers
shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate
measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
Raw cement, concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating
material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be
hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities shall be
prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering jurisdictional areas.
To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate
erosion control Best Management Practices (e.g., temporary erosion and sediment
control) shall be implemented to minimize adverse effects on San Luis Obispo
Creek. Plastic monofilament erosion control matting shall not be implemented
onsite.
Before the start of construction activities, high-visibility orange construction fencing
shall be installed along the limits of the proposed disturbance outside of the top of
the western bank of San Luis Obispo Creek and its associated riparian habitat to
minimize the potential for disturbance of this area.
Project activities within 60 50 feet of San Luis Obispo Creek shall occur during the
dry season (e.g., between May 1 and November 1) in any given year.
BIO-7 - Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be prepared, which will provide a minimum 2-to-1 restoration ratio (replaced to
removed) for permanent impacts to riparian habitat unless otherwise directed by pertinent
regulatory agencies. Mitigation activities associated with the replacement of riparian
habitat shall occur in the designated sensitive habitat mitigation portion of the Biological
Study Area and shall avoid additional impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species. All
areas of temporary disturbance shall be stabilized and revegetated with an assemblage
of native vegetation suitable for the area. Examples of activities associated with the
implementation of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan include the application of
native willow/ riparian seed mix and the removal of non-native weedy species within the
habitat mitigation area. The final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be
implemented immediately after project completion.
Page 106 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 11
R ______
Cultural Resources
CR-1 - Unidentified Cultural Materials. If archaeological resources are exposed during
construction, all work shall be halted within 50 feet of the exposed resource until a
qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the
find(see 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.11.1 and California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]).
Examples of cultural materials that could be exposed during construction include ground
stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools such as
projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not consistent with the immediate geology
such as obsidian or fused shale; historic trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or
structural remains. If the resources are found to be significant, they mus t be avoided or
will be mitigated consistent with State Historic Preservation Officer Guidelines.
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 - Paleontological Resources. If paleontological resources are exposed during
construction, all work shall be halted within 100 feet of the exposed resource until a
qualified paleontologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the
find. Caltrans shall be informed of the discovery immediately. If the paleontological
resource is determined to be significant, the paleontologist shall have the authority to
salvage and remove the fossil from its locality, as appropriate, before ground -disturbing
or other construction activities resume in the area. Any fossils recovered during the
development, along with their contextual stratigraphic data, shall be offered to the City of
San Luis Obispo or other appropriate institution with an educational and research interest
in the materials. The paleontologist shall prepare a report of the results of any findings as
part of a testing or mitigation plan following an accepted professional practice.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 - Aerially Deposited Lead. A workplan shall be developed for aerially deposited
lead sampling for the area of the selected project alternative. Surficial soil samples shall
be collected and analyzed for total lead in areas that are to be disturbed for the project.
The workplan shall require the investigation of surface soils to be conducted before
construction. The workplan shall include all required measu res for proper management
and disposal of contaminated soils in accordance with the U.S. Toxic Substances Control
Act, California Health and Safety Code, and California Occupational Safety and Health
Act if the total lead is detected above acceptable level s in the project site soils. The
workplan shall require that investigation and/or remediation of soil contamination be
performed in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control procedures and
requirements and require Department of Toxic Substances Control approval before
recommencing construction or demolition work.
HAZ-2 - Pesticides and Herbicides. Surface soils shall be tested by a professional
geologist or environmental professional to determine the presence or absence of
pesticides, herbicides, and arsenic along proposed rights -of-way. A workplan describing
sampling locations and sampling and analytical methods shall be prepared by the project
developer before the start of work. The workplan shall include laboratory data for the
Page 107 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 12
R ______
impacted soils to profile excavated soil before transport, treatment, and recycling at a
licensed treatment facility. The workplan shall also detail the requirements for removal,
transportation, and disposal of impacted soil in accordance with applicable federal, state,
and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The workplan shall require that investigation
and/or remediation of soil contamination be performed in accordance with Department of
Toxic Substances Control procedures and requirements and require Department of Toxic
Substances Control approval before recommencing construction or demolition work.
HAZ-3 - Petroleum Pipelines. The petroleum pipeline at the intersection of Elks Lane
and Prado Road shall be properly marked by the developer before the start of any project
construction activities. A contingency plan shall be developed by the developer and
include all applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements for soil handling
and/or remediation if contaminated soil from the petroleum pipeline is encountered during
construction activities. All other known pipelines in the project area shall be identified and
marked by the developer before the start of any construction activities.
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member
___________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 20 23.
___________________________
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
Page 108 of 753
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
PROJECT REPORT AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE
PRADO INTERCHANGE PROJECT
WHEREAS, The Prado Interchange Project is a Caltrans led and City implemented
Project; and
WHEREAS, City and Caltrans staff have completed an operational, environmental
and financial assessment of each interchange type proposed by the Project Study Report;
and
WHEREAS, City and Caltrans staff agree that Alternative A3 is the most suitable
alternative to meet both City and Caltrans project goals; and
WHEREAS, City and Caltrans staff agree that the Project Report, which contains
all of the analysis resulting from the Project Approval/Environmental Document Phase is
ready for final signatures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo recommends adoption as follows:
SECTION 1. Based on information from traffic studies, engineering plans and
estimates and the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative declaration, the following findings are
adopted for this project:
Page 109 of 753
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R ______
a) The Preferred Alternative for this project is A3, and staff should pursue this in future
project phases;
b) The Project Report is substantially complete and ready for Caltrans review and
signature.
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Counc il Member
___________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 20 23.
___________________________
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
Page 110 of 753
Page 111 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
Vicinity Map
Page 112 of 753
Page 113 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………. 1
2. BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………….. 2
3. PURPOSE AND NEED …………………………………………………………… 3
4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT …………………. 3
5. DEFICIENCIES …………………………………………………………………… 7
.
6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION ………………………………… 10
7. ALTERNATIVES …………………………………………………………………. 13
8. RIGHT-OF-WAY …………………………………………………………………. 18
9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT …………………………………………….. 19
10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENTS ……………………... 19
11. FUNDING ………………………………………………………………………… 21
Capital Outlay Project Estimate …………………………………………………… 22
Capital Outlay Support Estimate ………………………………………………….. 22
12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE ………………………………………………………… 23
13. RISKS …………………………………………………………………………….. 23
14. FHWA COORDINATION ……………………………………………………….. 24
.
15. PROJECT PERSONNEL …………………………………………………………. 24
16. ATTACHMENTS ………………………………………………………………… 25
..
A. Existing Conditions Exhibit
B. Circulation Element Street Classification Diagram
C. Alternatives A1 and A1R (Viable Build Alternative)
D. Alternative A3 (Viable Build Alternative)
E. Alternatives A4 and A4R (Viable Build Alternative)
F. Alternative A7 (Viable Build Alternative)
G. Alternative A2 (Viable but Rejected Alternative)
H. PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimates
I. Conceptual Cost Estimate Forms – Right of Way
J. Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR)
K. Risk Register
L. Storm Water Data Report (Signature Page)
M. Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
N. Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet
O. Division of Engineering Services PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist
P. Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Q. PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionnaire
R. Quality Management Plan
S. Project Programming Request
T. Transportation Management Plan Data Sheet/Checklist
U. Caltrans Final Document Distribution List
Page 114 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description:
The proposed project includes improvements to extend Prado Road over U.S. Route 101 (US
101) to connect with Dalidio Drive, reconstruct the existing 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. The interchange is located in the City of
San Luis Obispo in the County of San Luis Obispo at Post Mile (PM) 26.8 and improvements
on northbound US 101 extend from PM 26.5 to PM 27.3. In addition to the No-Build
Alternative, four viable build alternatives have been identified by the Project Development
Team (PDT). Each of the build alternatives includes a partial interchange with the proposed
Prado Road overcrossing constructed over US 101 and new US 101 NB off-ramp to and on-
ramp from Prado Road.
All potential alternatives consider multimodal components and do not preclude future
widening of US 101. The project would also not preclude a future full access interchange at
this location.
Refer to Attachment H for the ‘Current Capital Outlay Construction Cost Range’ and the
‘Current Capital Outlay Right-of-Way Cost Range’ for each build alternative. Additional right
of way cost details for each build alternative are also provided in Attachment I.
Project Limits 05-SLO-101-PM 26.5 / 27.3
Number of Alternatives Five (5) including No Build
Current Capital Outlay
Support Estimate for PA&ED
$765,000
Current Capital Outlay
Construction Cost Range
$11 million to $26 million
Current Capital Outlay Right-
of-Way Cost Range
$1 million to $15 million
Funding Source Impact Fees, Debt Financing, SLOCOG RTIP
Type of Facility Local Interchange
Number of Structures 1
Anticipated Environmental
Determination or Document
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CEQA and Categorical Exclusion for
NEPA
Legal Description On U.S. Route 101 in San Luis Obispo
County, in the City of San Luis Obispo from
PM 26.5 to PM 27.3
Project Development Category 3
This report is for programming Project Approval and Environmental Document support cost
only. A Project Approval & Environmental Documentation report (PA/ED) will be prepared
following the approval of this PSR-PDS. The remaining capital outlay support, right-of way,
and construction components for the project are preliminary estimates and are not suitable for
Page 115 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
2
programming purposes. The resources required from Caltrans to complete the proposed
components are oversight and project approval.
Other approvals required:
City of San Luis Obispo Encroachment Permit
Mandatory and Advisory Design Exceptions
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR)
2. BACKGROUND
U.S. Route 101 (US 101) is the principal north/south freeway/expressway on the Central Coast
traversing the counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito within
District 5. It serves local, regional and interregional travel needs, including business,
recreation, tourism, journey-to-work, freight and goods movement, and national defense
transport and is part of the Pacific Coast Bicycle Route. Through the project area, US 101 is
a four lane freeway with 12-foot through lanes, 5-foot inside shoulder, 10-foot outside shoulder
and approximately 27-foot median. Right-of-Way width varies, but is generally 177 feet. The
nearest interchanges on either side of the project study area include Los Osos Valley Road
located at PM 25.9 and Madonna Road located at PM 27.5. There is an existing northbound
US 101 off-ramp to Prado Road and an existing Prado Road northbound on-ramp to US 101.
The ramp connections to Prado Road are located at PM 26.8. An existing conditions base map
is provided as Attachment A.
A Freeway Agreement between the State of California (Caltrans) and the City of San Luis
Obispo (City) is currently in place and is dated July 3, 1972. The Freeway Agreement includes
the segment of US 101 between 0.5 mile south of Los Osos Valley Road overcrossing and 0.4
mile south of Madonna Road overcrossing and includes the proposed project area.
A Project Study Report (PSR) was previously prepared and approved in December 1996 (EA
41120K). Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards for non-standard interchange
spacing between the proposed Prado Road interchange and the Madonna Road interchange
were also prepared and approved in April 1996. Both the approved PSR and Fact Sheet
Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards were determined to be no longer valid.
Construction of the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) improvements at US 101 were completed
in 2016. The improvements corrected existing operational deficiencies and improved safety;
provided a new LOVR Overcrossing adjacent to the existing LOVR Overcrossing to provide
4-lanes; widened the adjacent bridge crossing San Luis Obispo Creek; provided improved
pedestrian and bicycle access along both sides of LOVR and integration with Bob Jones Trail;
and, provided upgrades on all four on and off ramps at the US 101/LOVR interchange. During
Project Approval & Environmental Documentation (PA/ED) for this project, the
environmental document included the Prado Road interchange in the future scenario.
The City of San Luis Obispo (City), Caltrans District 5 (Caltrans) and San Luis Obispo Council
of Governments (SLOCOG) signed a Caltrans Project Information Form in January 2016 and
Page 116 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
3
the City and Caltrans signed a Project Charter in July 2017. The City and Caltrans also entered
into a Cooperative Agreement (No. 05-0313) in July 2017 in which the City agreed to prepare
a Project Study Report – Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) for the proposed project.
Caltrans agreed to provide project oversight and approvals.
3. PURPOSE AND NEED
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 mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3) improve
transit performance and enhance transit opportunities; and 4) consistency with local, regional
and state planning.
4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Seven project build alternatives concepts were initially developed and analyzed to compare the
impacts to US 101 mainline, weave and ramp operations between Los Osos Valley Road and
Marsh Street, local connectivity, local accessibility and local traffic circulation. A traffic
operations analysis report (TOAR) was prepared in March 2017 to analyze the following
alternatives (each build alternative includes the extension of Prado Road west over US 101 to
a connection with Dalidio Drive):
No Build Alternative
Alternative A1 - Full Access Tight Diamond Interchange Configuration (Type L-2
configuration west of and Type L-1 configuration east of US 101. This alternative also
included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)
Alternative A2 – Full Access Interchange with Partial Clover East of US 101 (Type L-
2 configuration west of and Type L-8 configuration east of US 101. This alternative
also included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or
roundabout.)
Alternative A3 – Full Access with Partial Clover West of US 101 (Type L-8
configuration west of and Type L-1 configuration east of US 101. This alternative also
included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)
Alternative A4 – Full Access Partial Clover Interchange Configuration (Type L-7
configuration west of and Type L-7 configuration east of US 101. This alternative also
included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)
Alternative A5 – Single Point Interchange Alternative (Type L-13 configuration)
Page 117 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
4
Alternative A6 – Partial Access Tight Diamond Interchange Configuration (Type L-1
configuration east of US 101. This alternative also included two ramp intersection
control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)
Alternative B – Prado Road Overcrossing Only Alternative
Alternatives A1 through A5 considered a collector-distributor (C-D) between Madonna Road
and Prado Road. Alternatives A1 through A6 also considered a northbound US 101 auxiliary
lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road.
The TOAR along with a draft alternatives design memorandum was provided to Caltrans for
review and comment in March 2017. The TOAR provided projected year 2045 traffic
operations for the No-Build conditions as well as the seven initial build alternatives. The
following table shows the projected year 2045 US 101 peak hour operations from south of the
Los Osos Valley Road interchange north through the Madonna Road interchange as presented
in the TOAR.
Source: TOAR (March 2017)
The next table shows the projected year 2045 intersection peak hour levels of service for the
Los Osos Valley Road interchange, US 101 NB Ramps/Prado Road intersection, and the
Madonna Road interchange as presented in the TOAR.
Target
LOS
Segment
Type
US 101 Northbound
US 101 NB South of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C
US 101 NB Los Osos Valley Road Off Ramp C Diverge E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D
US 101 NB Los Osos Valley Road On Ramp C Merge D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C
US 101 NB South of Prado Road C Freeway D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C
US 101 NB Prado Road Off Ramp C Diverge D / D D / D D / D D / D D / D D / D D / D -/ -
US 101 NB Prado Road On Ramp C Merge D/ D - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / -
US 101 NB South of Madonna Road C Freeway D/ D - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / -
US 101 NB Madonna Road Off Ramp C Diverge D/ D - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / -D/ D
US 101 NB North of Prado Road C Weave - / - C / C C / C C / C C / C C / C C / C - / -
US 101 NB South of Marsh Street C Weave C
/ D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D
US 101 Southbound - / -- / - - / - - / -
US 101 SB South of Marsh Street C Weave C
/ D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D
US 101 SB Madonna Road On Ramp C Merge B / D -/ --/ --/ --/ --/ -B/ D B / D
US 101 SB Collector Distributor Diverge C Diverge - / - A / B A / B A / B A / B A / B - / - - / -
US 101 SB Collector Distributor Weave C Weave - / - A / A A / A A / A A / A A / A - / - - / -
US 101 SB South of Madonna Road C Freeway C / E B / D B / D B / D B / D B / D C / E C / E
US 101 SB Collector Distributor End C Merge - / - - / - C / D -/ - A/ B C/ D -/ - -/ -
US 101 SB Prado Road On Ramp C Merge - / - A / B C / E A/ B C/ E C / E -/ - -/ -
US 101 SB North of Los Osos Valley Road C Weave - / - B /
D -/ - B/
D - / - - / - - / -
US 101 SB North of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway C / E -/ - C/ E -/ - C/ E C / E -/ - C/ E
US 101 SB Los Osos Valley Road Off Ramp C Diverge C / E -/ - C/ E -/ - C/ E C / E C / E C / E
US 101 SB Los Osos Valley Road On Ramp C Merge C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E
US 101 SB South of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F
US 101 PROJECTED ALTERNATIVE PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Interchange Location
No-Build Alt A1 Alt A2 Alt A3
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
Alt A5 Alt A6 Alt B
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
Alt A4
Page 118 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
5
Source: TOAR (March 2017)
A Project Development Team (PDT) meeting was then held on June 1, 2017 during which the
TOAR results guided the PDT to reject the full interchange option since it is not needed in the
next 20 years. The PDT provided direction that an initial project that provides the Prado Road
crossing over US 101, reconfigured northbound US 101 ramps only with Prado Road, and a
northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road represents the
PSR-PDS project. The following viable build alternatives were then identified by the PDT to
be included in the PSR-PDS and be carried forward into PA/ED.
Alternative A1 (both traffic signal control or roundabout control options)
Alternative A3 (both traffic signal control or roundabout control options)
Alternative A4 (both traffic signal control or roundabout control options)
Since the current alternatives would require extensive structures to accommodate FEMA, the
PDT agreed to consider an alternative (Alternative A7) that constructs the northbound ramps
at grade. This alternative considers bringing the US 101 northbound off-ramp and on-ramp
into Prado Road just prior to the Prado Road intersection with Elks Lane. A roundabout would
provide intersection control at the Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection. A revised traffic
operations analysis report (TOAR) has been prepared to reevaluate the identified viable
alternatives and Alternative A7 and was provided to Caltrans in September 2017 for review
and comment.
The revised TOAR again provided projected year 2045 traffic operations for the No-Build
conditions as well as the identified viable alternatives including Alternative 7. The following
table shows the projected year 2045 US 101 peak hour operations from south of the Los Osos
Valley Road interchange north through the Madonna Road interchange as presented in the
revised TOAR.
No-Build Alt A1 Alt A2 Alt A3 Alt A4 Alt A5 Alt A6 Alt B
AM / PM
Peak Hour
AM / PM
Peak Hour
AM / PM
Peak Hour
AM / PM
Peak Hour
AM / PM
Peak Hour
AM / PM
Peak Hour
AM / PM
Peak Hour
AM / PM
Peak Hour
Target
LOS
Control
Type LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
Los Osos Valley Road/Calle Joaquin D Signal C / B A /A A /A A /A A /A A /A A / B A / B
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 SB Ramps C Signal
E / C C / BC / BC / BC / BC / BD / C C / C
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal D / B B / BB / BB / BB / BB / BC / BD / C
S. Higuera Street/Los Osos Valley Road D Signal D / F D / DC / DC / DC / DC / DC / E C / E
Prado Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal B / C B / B A / A B / B D / C - / -B / B - / -
Prado Road/US 101 SB Ramps C Signal - / -B / B B / B B / B B / B - / - - / - - / -
Prado Road/US 101 Ramps (Single Point) C Signal - / - - / - - / - - / - - / -
C / B - / - - / -
Madonna Road/Higuera Street D Signal D / D C / C C / C C / C C / C C / C C / D D / D
Madonna Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal C / C B / BB / BB / BB / BB / BB / BC / C
Madonna Road/US 101 SB Ramps/Madonna Inn C Signal
D / C C / CC / CC / CC / CC / CD / C C / C
Madonna Road/El Mercado D Signal
A / C B / CB / CB / CB / CB / CB / BB / B
YEAR 2045 PROJECTED ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Intersections
Page 119 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
6
Source: TOAR (September 2017)
The next table shows the projected year 2045 intersection peak hour levels of service for the
Los Osos Valley Road interchange, US 101 NB Ramps/Prado Road/ intersection, and the
Madonna Road interchange as provided in the revised TOAR.
Source: TOAR (September 2017)
Finally, supplemental Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Step 1 analysis and information
has been prepared and provided in the revised TOAR including a collision cost analysis and
benefit/cost (B/C). The resulting B/C for each alternative are provided in the following table.
The negative Traffic Signal B/C’s shown in the table are the result of the “Desired
Improvement” collision cost being greater than the corresponding “Existing Condition”
collision cost.
US 101 Northbound
US 101 NB South of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C
US 101 NB Los Osos Valley Road Off Ramp C Diverge E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D
US 101 NB Los Osos Valley Road On Ramp C Merge D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C
US 101 NB South of Prado Road C Freeway D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C
US 101 NB Prado Road Off Ramp C Diverge D / D D / D D D D / D D / D
US 101 NB Prado Road On Ramp C Merge D/ D
US 101 NB South of Madonna Road C Freeway D/ D
US 101 NB Madonna Road Off Ramp C Diverge D/ D
US 101 NB North of Prado Road C Weave C / C C / C C / C C / C
US 101 NB South of Marsh Street C Weave D/ D C / D C / D C / D C / D
US 101 Southbound
US 101 SB South of Marsh Street C Weave C / E D / E C / E D / E D / E
US 101 SB Madonna Road On Ramp C Merge B / D B / D B / D B / D B / D
US 101 SB South of Madonna Road C Freeway C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E
US 101 SB Los Osos Valley Road Off Ramp C Diverge C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E
US 101 SB Los Osos Valley Road On Ramp C Merge C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E
US 101 SB South of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
Alt A3 Alt A4 Alt A7
US 101 YEAR 2045 PROJECTED ALTERNATIVES PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -- / -
Location
Target
LOS
Segment
Type
No-Build Alt A1
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
Los Osos Valley Road/Calle Joaquin D Signal C / B A / B A / B A / B A / B
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 SB Ramps C Signal E / C D / C D / C D / C D / C
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal
D / B C / B C / B C / B C / B
S. Higuera Street/Los Osos Valley Road D Signal D / F C/ E C/ E C/ E C/ E
Prado Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal B / C B / A B / A C / B A / C
Madonna Road/Higuera Street D Signal D / D C / D C / D C / D C / D
Madonna Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal C / C B / B B / B B / B B / B
Madonna Road/US 101 SB C Signal D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C
Madonna Road/El Mercado D Signal A / C B / B B / B B / B B / B
Control
Type
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
YEAR 2045 PROJECTED ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
No-Build Alt A1 Alt A3 Alt A4 Alt A7
Target
LOSIntersection
AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
Page 120 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
7
ALTERNTIVES BENEFIT COST (B/C) COMPARISON
Alternatives Roundabout B/C Traffic Signal B/C
Alternatives A1/A1R
A1 -0.12
A1R 0.19
Alternatives A3/A1R
A3 -0.12
A1R 0.19
Alternatives A4/A4R
A4 -0.15
A4R 0.20
Source: September 2017 TOAR
5. DEFICIENCIES
The existing Prado Road interchange with US 101 consists only of northbound off- and on-
ramps. Prado Road presently has a compact diamond off-ramp and a hook on-ramp in the
northbound direction. This configuration provides limited access to and from US 101 from
the local street system at this location. The Prado Road extension over US 101 is needed to
provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods and
to support planned roadway improvements east and west of the 101 freeway. Improvements
to US 101 in the study area and the extension of Prado Road over US 101 are critical to the
operations for all modes of travel not only for regional traffic but also for local traffic.
System Connectivity
Within the project area, east/west connectivity across US 101 is currently limited to either Los
Osos Valley Road or Madonna Road. With continued growth and development planned
adjacent to or served by these two corridors, overall circulation and accessibility in the project
area for all transportation modes will degrade without providing additional connectivity. The
following table shows the US 101 existing conditions and the projected year 2025 and year
2045 freeway ramp junction and weave segment peak hour levels of service for the No-Build
condition from the Los Osos Valley Road interchange north through the Madonna Road
interchange.
The next table shows the existing conditions and the projected year 2025 and year 2045
intersection peak hour levels of service for the No-Build condition at the Los Osos Valley Road
Page 121 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
8
interchange, US 101 NB Ramps/Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection, and the Madonna Road
interchange.
Traffic Volumes
US 101 just north of Los Osos Valley Road currently experiences over 60,000 vehicles per day
on an average day with this volume projected to increase by almost 50% by the year 2045.
Continued growth in the use of US 101 for regional and interregional travel will contribute to
this projected growth. Continued growth within the City of San Luis Obispo will result in an
increase in local traffic to the projected growth in traffic on mainline US 101 and also increases
in traffic accessing US 101 from the Los Osos Valley Road interchange, the Prado Road
northbound off and on ramps, and the Madonna Road interchange. The following table shows
the US 101 No-Build condition existing and forecasted year 2025 and year 2045 freeway
mainline and freeway on and off ramp peak hour traffic volumes from south of the Los Osos
Valley Road interchange north through the Madonna Road interchange.
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
Los Osos Valley Road/Calle Joaquin Signal D A A A A C B
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 SB Ramps Signal C B B C B E C
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 NB Ramps Signal C C C B C D B
S. Higuera Street/Los Osos Valley Road Signal D B B C C D F
Prado Road/US 101 NB Ramps AWSC C A B B C B C
Madonna Road/Higuera Street Signal D B C C D D D
Madonna Road/US 101 NB Ramps Signal C B C C C C C
Madonna Road/US 101 SB Ramps/Madonna Inn Signal C D C D C D C
Madonna Road/El Mercado Signal D A B A B A C
Year 2025 Year 2045
EXISTING AND FORECASTED NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Intersection
Control
Type
Target
LOS
Existing Conditions
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
Mainline US 101
US 101 Northbound
South of Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR)2,774 2,249 3,186 2,538 3,751 2,913
North of LOVR 2,443 2,137 2,770 2,420 3,250 2,840
North of Prado Road 2,468 2,497 2,785 2,806 3,200 3,285
North of Madonna Road 2,851 2,919 3,151 3,352 3,552 3,911
US 101 Southbound
South of Marsh Street 2,301 3,361 2,510 3,746 3,114 4,379
South of Madonna Road 1,663 2,881 1,881 3,260 2,210 3,830
South of LOVR 1,406 3,004 1,616 3,516 1,955 4,131
US 101 Interchanges
LOVR
Northbound Off-ramp 546 579 643 620 783 636
Northbound On-ramp 215 467 227 502 282 563
Southbound Off-ramp 621 611 676 573 816 608
Southbound On-ramp 364 774 412 829 561 909
Prado Road
Northbound Off-ramp 225 135 311 150 430 170
Northbound On-ramp 250 495 326 536 380 615
Madonna Road
Northbound Off-ramp 266 299 278 273 276 242
Northbound On-ramp 649 721 644 819 628 868
Southbound Off-ramp 782 857 861 895 1,179 1,002
Southbound On-ramp 144 377 231 409 275 453
Marsh Street
Northbound Off-ramp 384 399 361 363 338 327
Southbound On-ramp 322 597 283 549 244 501
US 101 EXISTING AND FORECASTED NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing Conditions Year 2025 Year 2045
Page 122 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
9
The next table shows the No-Build condition existing and forecasted year 2025 and year 2045
peak hour traffic volumes on the adjacent and intersecting local street system.
Safety
Table B collision information and rates at the study area ramps were obtained from Caltrans
for the three-year period from August 1, 2012 through July 31, 2015. The following table
provides collision data on freeway ramp segments at Prado Road and Madonna Road for this
three-year period. Collision data is not shown for the freeway ramp segments at Los Osos
Valley Road as interchange construction was going on during this time period. As shown in
this table, there were no fatality collisions reported at any of the ramps during the three-year
period. As also shown, each of the Madonna Road ramps experienced actual rates for fatal
plus injury (F+I) and total collisions higher than the corresponding statewide average rates.
The southbound off-ramp experienced the highest number of both injury and total collisions at
5 and 18 respectively while the northbound on-ramp had the lowest number at 1 and 6
respectively. Finally, there were no collisions reported for the northbound on-ramp from
Prado Road and only 1 collision reported for the northbound off-ramp to Prado Road.
US 101 FREEWAY RAMP TRAFFIC COLLISION DATA (MV)
(August 1, 2012 – July 31, 2015)
RAMP
SEGMENT
Collisions Actual Rate Average Rate
FAT INJ F+I TOTAL FAT F + I TOTAL FAT F+I TOTAL
NB Off to Prado Road 0 0 0 1 0.000 .00 .58 0.001 .17 .54
NB On from Prado Road 0 0 0 0 0.000 .00 .00 0.001 .13 .46
SB On from Madonna Road 0 6 6 9 0.000 1.36 2.04 0.002 .22 .63
NB Off to Madonna Road 0 4 4 7 0.000 .93 1.63 0.003 .35 1.01
SB Off to Madonna Road 0 5 5 18 0.000 .49 1.78 0.003 .24 .72
NB On from Madonna Road 0 1 1 6 0.000 .25 1.52 0.002 .22 .63
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
Roadway Segments
Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)
West of Calle Joaquin 1,724 2,788 2,030 3,195 2,578 3,939
West of US 101 SB Ramps 1,869 2,891 2,164 3,305 2,876 4,301
On US 101 Overcrossing 1,749 2,257 2,196 2,543 2,804 3,506
East of US 101 NB Ramps 1,511 1,752 1,991 2,017 2,480 2,927
Prado Road
East of US 101 NB Ramps 468 631 620 685 765 750
Madonna Road
West of US 101 SB Ramps 1,895 2,705 2,230 3,093 2,519 3,304
On US 101 Overcrossing 2,151 2,334 2,462 2,776 2,966 2,994
East of US 101 NB Ramps 1,762 1,912 2,079 2,293 2,606 2,550
S. Higuera Street
South of LOVR 607 714 855 902 1,020 1,480
North of LOVR 1,974 2,308 2,366 2,806 2,809 3,087
South of Prado Road 1,086 1,665 1,384 2,108 1,463 2,189
South of Madonna Road 1,197 1,508 1,505 1,978 2,301 2,649
North of Madonna Road 1,628 2,247 2,050 2,539 2,524 3,123
LOCAL STREET SYSTEM EXISTING AND FORECASTED NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing Conditions Year 2025 Year 2045
Page 123 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
10
Table B collision information and rates for mainline US 101 within the study area were also
obtained from Caltrans for the three-year period from August 1, 2012 through July 31, 2015.
The following table provides collision data on freeway segments within the project area for
this three-year period. As shown in this table, there was one fatality collision reported on
northbound US 101 between the Prado Road and Madonna Road interchanges. Other actual
rates for northbound US 101 are lower than the corresponding statewide average rates. Actual
rates for southbound US 101 area were generally lower than the corresponding statewide
average rates except for the total actual rate.
US 101 FREEWAY SEGMENT TRAFFIC COLLISION DATA (MVM)
(August 1, 2012 – July 31, 2015)
FREEWAY
SEGMENT
Collisions Actual Rate Average Rate
FAT INJ F+I TOTAL FAT F + I TOTAL FAT F+I TOTAL
Los Osos Valley Road –
Madonna Road
Southbound
0 12 12 49 0.000 .23 .94 0.005 .27 .83
Los Osos Valley Road –
Prado Road
Northbound
0 1 1 6 0.000 .03 .19 0.005 .26 .81
Prado Road – Madonna
Road
Northbound
1 2 3 10 0.047 .14 .47 0.005 .27 .83
6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION
U.S. Route 101 (US 101) is designated with the following state and federal classifications:
Federal Aid Primary Route
Freeway Expressway System (F&E)
National Highway System (NHS)
Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STRAHNET)
Interregional Road System (IRRS)
High Emphasis Route
Eligible to be part of the Scenic Highway System
The current US 101 northbound (NB) off and on ramp connections with Prado Road are located
at PM 26.8 within Segment 5 in the US 101 Transportation Concept Report (TCR, December
2014). Segment 5 extends from the South Higuera Street Interchange (PM 24.3) to the State
Route 58 Interchange (PM 37.9). The route is a four lane freeway through the City of San Luis
Obispo and then transitions to a six lane expressway and conventional highway through the
Cuesta Grade.
Within Segment 5 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. US
101 through the study area is currently a four lane divided freeway with auxiliary lanes
provided between Madonna Road and Marsh Street. As noted, the Ultimate Corridor Concept
Page 124 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
11
is identified as freeway with capacity of up to six lanes though there is no funding currently
identified for providing a six lane freeway section.
The TCR identifies 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 potential locations for ramp meters in the US 101 corridor, but with no locations
within Segment 5.
The District System Management Plan (DSMP, August 2015) identifies the construction of a
northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road (DSMP 2015 ID
No. 2073).
The US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan (December 2014) evaluated potential corridor
improvements within four (4) distinct US 101 focus segments within the county. Focus
Segment 2 is located within the City of San Luis Obispo with the segment limits extending
from Los Osos Valley Road to Monterey Street. The US 101/Prado Road interchange and US
101 northbound auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road are identified in Table
1 as projects to be considered during future planning and programming cycles. Within Segment
2, the US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan also identified ramp meters on the northbound
on-ramp from Madonna Road and on the southbound on-ramp from Los Osos Valley Road.
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2017 Park & Ride Lot Study
(August 2017) notes that a major goal of SLOCOG is to help assure the development of an
efficient, coordinated, integrated, and balanced transportation system including providing Park
and Ride (P&R) lot locations throughout the County. Table D in the study identifies a P&R lot
on Prado Road at or near the Prado Road/US 101 interchange as a potential P&R location.
The US 101/Prado Road interchange and US 101 northbound auxiliary lane between Prado
Road and Madonna Road are identified in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (2014 RTP Project ID No. CEN-MHWY-
1402). This project is identified as ‘Constrained’ in the 2014 RTP, Chapter 4, Figure 4-41.
The City’s General Plan (May 2015) is published in separately adopted sections, called
elements, which address various topics. The City updated both the General Plan Land Use and
Circulation elements (San Luis Obispo 2035 Land Use and Circulation Update) which was
adopted in 2014. While the Land Use Element describes the city’s desired character and size,
the Circulation Element describes how transportation will be provided in the community
described by the Land Use Element. A copy of the Circulation Element ‘Street Classification
Diagram is provided in Attachment B while a description of the transportation improvements
is provided in Table 5 (Transportation Capital Projects) in the Circulation Element. The
following roadway improvements which will improve mobility and circulation and relieve
congestion with the project study area have been identified by the City as in place by the year
2035.
Page 125 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
12
Dalidio Drive widened to 4 lanes between Madonna Road and Froom Ranch Way
Froom Ranch Way extended to Dalidio Drive
Prado Road widened to 4 lanes between US 101 and S. Higuera Street
Horizon Lane extended between Avila Ranch and Suburban Drive
Buckley Road extended to S. Higuera Street
A new North/South Collector between Prado Road and Tank Farm Road
Prado Road extended to Broad Street
Madonna Road at S. Higuera Street realigned to Bridge Street
The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP, November 2013) identifies a
need for a Class I crossing of US 101 between Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road
which could be either a Class I crossing only or a combination Class I/Class II facility. The
BTP currently identifies both a Class I and Class II facility crossing of US 101 at the proposed
Prado Road extension over US 101.
The conclusion reached during the 6/1/17 PDT meeting was that an initial project that provides
the Prado Road overcrossing of US 101, reconfigured northbound ramps only with Prado Road,
and a northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road represents
the PSR-PDS project. Though the US 101 southbound Prado Road ramps and C-D are not
being considered under this PSR-PDS, these facilities are still a component of long range
programmatic planning. As such, the PDT also directed that that the Prado Road structure
should be designed in such a way as to accommodate the future southbound Prado Road ramps
and C-D. The City is also reserving right-of-way needed for the future southbound ramps based
on the best information that is available at this time. The reservation of this right-of-way will
not preclude future viable alternatives.
The City’s general plan and circulation element assume and reflect a future full interchange at
US 101 and Prado Road. As these planning documents are updated they will be revised to
include a collector distributor system for the southbound ramps as the ultimate facility (beyond
2040) and in the near term the partial interchange at Prado with the reconfigured northbound
ramps and an auxiliary lane between the Prado northbound on and Madonna northbound off
ramp.
As noted in the ‘Background’ section, a Freeway Agreement between the State of California
(Caltrans) and the City of San Luis Obispo (City is currently in place and is dated July 3, 1972.
The Freeway Agreement includes the segment of US 101 between 0.5-mile south of Los Osos
Valley Road overcrossing and 0.4-mile south of Madonna Road overcrossing and encompasses
the existing US 101 northbound off-ramp and on-ramp connections with Prado Road.
According to Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 24 – Freeway
Agreements, Article 8 – Resolutions of Change, and based on Caltrans opinion of this project’s
impacts, the proposed project would be considered a “Major Change” which will require a
superseding Freeway Agreement prior to construction and California Transportation
Commission (CTC) approval. In the future, the Freeway Agreement will need to be updated
when the southbound Prado Road ramps with US 101 are provided.
Page 126 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
13
7. ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the No Build alternative, multiple build alternatives were investigated during the
preparation of the PSR-PDS document. Four (4) build alternatives were identified by the
Project Development Team (PDT) as viable and to be further studied. These include
Alternative A1, Alternative A3, Alternative A4 and Alternative A7. Each of the viable build
alternatives include a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing
constructed over US 101 and new US 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road (these
new ramps replace US 101 NB off and on ramps that currently connect with Prado Road). The
project build alternatives would not preclude widening US 101 up to a six lane facility
(Ultimate Corridor Concept) with a collector distributor and southbound ramp connections.
No Advance Planning Study was performed as part of this PSR-PDS.
Project Alternatives
No Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative assumes no improvements to existing US 101 or the northbound off
and on ramps to/from Prado Road. This alternative also assumes that Prado Road also
terminates at the northbound ramps/Elks Lane intersection as is the current condition. This
alternative does not meet the need and purpose of the proposed project.
Alternative A1
Alternative A1 assumes traffic signal control provided at the US 101 NB 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 US 101.
Retaining walls are proposed on the inside of both the US 101 NB off-ramp to Prado
Road and the Prado Road NB on-ramp to US 101. (Optional retaining walls are also
identified on the outside of both the US 101 NB off-ramp and on-ramps as options to
reduce right of way impacts to adjacent properties.)
An approximately 940’ auxiliary lane with a 1,520’ weave length is provided between
the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp.
Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with
Class II bike lanes and Class I pathways.
The Prado Road overcrossing over US 101 is a 2-span structure. Per direction received
from the PDT, the westerly span will be designed to accommodate a future collector-
distributor road and future southbound ramps if required.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of US 101 to the intersection with the
future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Exhibits are provided in Attachment C that show the Alternative A1 geometric layout,
preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within
proposed State right of way for Alternative A1 (with and without optional retaining walls) is
Page 127 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
14
estimated to be between $11M and $26M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project
Estimate is provided in Attachment H.
Alternative A1R (Roundabout Option)
Alternative A1R provides a roundabout at the US 101 NB ramp intersection with Prado Road.
The other preliminary geometric design elements are consistent with the traffic signal option
Alternative A1. Exhibits are also provided in Attachment C that show the Alternative A1R
geometric layout, preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction
cost within proposed State right of way for Alternative A1R (with and without optional
retaining walls) is estimated to be between $11M and $21M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital
Outlay Project Estimate is provided in Attachment H.
Alternative A3
Alternative A3 assumes traffic signal control provided at the US 101 NB 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 US 101. With this alternative the Prado Road/US 101
Northbound Ramp intersection is located slightly closer to US 101 mainline when
compared to Alternative A1.
Retaining walls are proposed on the inside of both the NB off-ramp and the NB on-
ramp. (Optional retaining walls are also identified on the outside of both the US 101
NB off-ramp and on-ramps as options to reduce right of way impacts to adjacent
properties.)
An approximately 940’ auxiliary lane with a 1,520’ weave length is provided between
the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp.
Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with
Class II bike lanes and Class I pathways.
The Prado Road overcrossing over US 101 is a 2-span structure. Per direction received
from the PDT, the westerly span will be designed to accommodate a future collector-
distributor road and future southbound ramps if required.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of US 101 to the intersection with the
future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Exhibits are provided in Attachment D that show the Alternative A3 geometric layout,
preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within
proposed State right of way for Alternative 3 (with and without optional retaining walls) is
estimated to be between $11M and $26M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project
Estimate is provided in Attachment H.
Note: The roundabout option for this alternative would be the same as Alternative A1R.
Alternative A4
Alternative A4 assumes traffic signal control provided at the US 101 NB ramp intersection
with Prado Road. Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A4
include the following:
Page 128 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
15
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-7 partial cloverleaf
configuration on the east side of US 101.
(An optional retaining wall is also identified on the outside of the US 101 NB off-ramp
to reduce right of way impacts to the adjacent property.)
An approximately 2000’ auxiliary lane with a 2,270’ weave length is provided between
the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp.
Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with
Class II bike lanes and Class I pathways.
The Prado Road overcrossing over US 101 is a 2-span structure. Per direction received
from the PDT, the westerly span will be designed to accommodate a future collector-
distributor road and future southbound ramps if required.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of US 101 to the intersection with the
future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Exhibits are provided in Attachment E that show the Alternative A4 geometric layout,
preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within
proposed State right of way for Alternative 4 (with and without optional retaining walls) is
estimated to be between $11M and $26M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project
Estimate is provided in Attachment H.
Alternative A4R (Roundabout Option)
Alternative A4R assumes that a roundabout is provided at the US 101 NB ramp intersection
with Prado Road. The other preliminary geometric design elements are consistent with the
traffic signal option Alternative A4. Exhibits are also provided in Attachment E that show
the Alternative A4R geometric layout, preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross
sections. The construction cost within proposed State right of way for Alternative 4R (with
and without optional retaining walls) is estimated to be between $11M and $21M. A copy of
the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimate is provided in Attachment H.
Alternative A7
Alternative A7 only assumes roundabout control is provided at the Prado Road/Elks Lane/US
101 NB ramp intersection with Prado Road. The purpose was to limit to the extent possible
right of way impacts to adjacent properties and impacts within the floodplain.
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 US 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’ auxiliary lane with a 1,570’ weave length is provided between
the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp.
Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with
Class II bike lanes and Class I pathways.
Page 129 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
16
The Prado Road overcrossing over US 101 is a 2-span structure. Per direction received
from the PDT, the westerly span will be designed to accommodate a future collector-
distributor road and future southbound ramps if required.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of US 101 to the intersection with the
future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Exhibits are provided in Attachment F that show the Alternative A7 geometric layout,
preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within
proposed State right of way for Alternative 7 (with and without optional retaining walls) is
estimated to be between $11M and $21M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project
Estimate is provided in Attachment H.
Project Alternatives Design Standards Risk Assessment
Each alternative is likely to have several nonstandard features. The potential nonstandard
features and their probability ratings are identified in the following table.
Design Standards Risk Assessment
Alternative
Design Standard from
Highway Design Manual
Tables 82.1A & 82.1B
Probability of
Design
Exception
Approval (None,
Low, Medium,
High,)
Justification for Probability Rating
A1, A1R, A3,
A4, A4R, A7
501.3, M
Interchange Spacing H
Since it is excessive in cost to meet the
standard spacing and the future concept
of adding the southbound ramps will
mitigate the spacing with a collector
distributor system that operates. The
traffic study demonstrates the proposed
northbound ramps with auxiliary lane
operate.
A1, A1R,
A3,A2
504.7 M
Minimum Weave Length None Equal or less than 1200? feet and
doesn’t operate - unacceptable.
A7 504.7 M
Minimum Weave Length M
Greater than 1500? and demonstrates
that it operates, due to excessive Cost
and can mitigate with auxiliary lane.
A4, A4R,
504.3 A
Distance between Ramp
Intersection and Local
Road Intersection
H
Distance is 450 feet, Advisory Design
Exception, demonstrates that it operates
and access control provided.
A1, A1R, A3,
A4, A4R, A7 Partial Interchange H
North bound ramps needed for the
operations of existing interchanges –
Madonna and LOVR
A1, A1R, A3,
A4, A4R, A7
Access control across ramp
termini H The intersection operates and the
opening across the ramp is a street.
A2 Access control across ramp
termini None A driveway across a ramp termini is not
viable
A2 – viable but rejected – Note: A1, A1R and A3 would also be rejected if it doesn’t operate
Page 130 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
17
The probability rating for the identified design exception approvals were classified by the
Project Development Coordinator and the delegated authority per instructions in the Project
Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) Appendix S. The complex issues involved in
considering design exceptions require more advanced engineering plans that would be
analyzed in the subsequent phases of the project.
Viable but Rejected Alternative
Alternative A2
Alternative A2 was a Type L-8 configuration (partial cloverleaf) with proposed loop NB off-
ramp to and direct on-ramp from Prado Road located on the north side of Prado Road.
Alternative A2 was identified as a viable alternative that was rejected by the PDT due to the
loss of a transportation asset (SLORTA’s new facility) located in the northwest quadrant of the
interchange and the less than standard weave length between Prado Road northbound on-ramp
and Madonna Road northbound off-ramp. As a result, the PDT determined that Alternative 2
did not meet the project’s purpose and need and it was removed from further consideration.
An exhibit showing Alternative 2 is provided in Attachment G.
Non-Viable Alternatives
Alternative A5 (Single Point Interchange)
Alternative A5 was a Type L-13 single point diamond interchange configuration with Prado
Road crossing over US 101. Alternative A5 was removed from further consideration by the
PDT because it could not be constructed in phases.
Alternative A6 (Tight Diamond Configuration)
Alternative A6 was removed from further consideration by the PDT as this alternative is the
same as Alternative A3 and is no longer applicable.
Alternative B (Prado Road Overcrossing Only)
Alternative B considered providing the Prado Road overcrossing only over US 101. Alternative
B was removed from further consideration by the PDT because it does not meet the project’s
purpose and need. Providing the Prado Road overcrossing only is not consistent with City
planning and the removal of the US 101 northbound ramps from Prado Road would have an
impact on the overall operations at the adjacent interchanges.
Transportation Management Plan
For construction of the proposed Prado Road overcrossing (OC), full freeway closures will be
required for falsework erection and removal. This will call for detours and/or median
crossovers which will be addressed in subsequent project phases. It will also need to be
determined whether the current ramp configuration at Prado Road will remain open during
construction, and if they can be used for the northbound detour. Southbound closure will be
more complicated, requiring use of a median crossover, or detour via Madonna Road and
LOVR. Mainline closures of US 101 will be allowed at night only.
Page 131 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
18
A preliminary Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Data Sheet/Checklist has been
prepared ((provided in Attachment T) which identifies strategies that should be included in
the project. Major strategies are listed below:
• Public Awareness Campaign
• Portable Changeable Message Signs
• Construction Area Signs
• Planned Lane Closure Web Site
• Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP)
• Lane/Ramp Closures Charts
• Contingency Plan
• Special Days (to be determined)
• Liquidated Damages Penalty
• Maintain Traffic
8. RIGHT-OF-WAY
The right-of-way impacts associated with this project vary depending on the improvements
proposed by the project alternatives. The No-Build Alternative has no right-of-way impacts.
Each viable alternative has varying levels of right-of-way impacts to the City’s David F.
Romero Corporation Yard located south of and adjacent to Prado Road and east of and adjacent
to the US 101 northbound off-ramp. Each viable alternative also has varying levels of right-
of-way impacts to the planned San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
administration, operations, and bus maintenance facility located north of and adjacent to Prado
Road and east of and adjacent to Elks Lane.
Right-of-way for the future Elks Lane realignment is provided from both the planned RTA site
and the adjacent Homeless Services Center site. Final alignment of Elks lane will be a
component of the Planned RTA & Homeless Services Center project. An interim alignment or
Cul-de-Sac of Elks lane will be provided in the event that the interchange proceeds prior to the
final alignment of those development projects.
A Conceptual Cost Estimate Form – Right of Way (PSR-PDS) has been developed for each of
the identified viable build alternatives (Alternatives A1, A1R, A3, A4, A4R, and A7) with
copies provided in Attachment I. As shown, the Capital Costs for each alternative ranges
between $1M - $16M.
For each of these alternatives, optional retaining walls are also identified on the outside of both
the US 101 NB off-ramp and on-ramps as options to reduce right of way impacts to adjacent
properties. Separate forms have been prepared for each of the alternatives with the optional
retaining walls and copies are also provided in Attachment I.
Utilities:
Based on field reviews, the following utilities facilities have been identified within the project
area:
Page 132 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
19
PG&E - overhead electrical
AT&T - overhead and underground cable
SoCal Gas - underground gas
Phillips Petroleum - underground petroleum pipe line
Caltrans – 2 recycled water distribution lines
City of San Luis Obispo
o underground communications
o underground sewer
o underground water
o water well
Based on the preliminary designs and the observed location of the various utilities, it is
assumed that utility relocations will be required. It is unknown at this time who will be
responsible (project or provider) for utility relocations that will be required with the proposed
project.
Railroad:
There is no railroad involvement with the proposed project.
9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
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.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENT
Environmental Summary:
A Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) has been prepared for the
proposed project and is included as Attachment J. The PEAR identified that the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would act as the Lead Agency for the
preparation of 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.
Page 133 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
20
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 United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
and Regional Water Quality Control Board (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.
The estimated time to obtain environmental approval is up to 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; 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/Green House Gas Study; and a Natural
Environment Study (Minimal Impacts).
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.
Page 134 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
21
Hazardous Waste:
An Initial Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared for this project and provided
separate from this PSR-PDS to Caltrans for review. The initial conclusions from this study
included the following:
The properties along the proposed right of way have been in agricultural use as early as the
1930s and it is likely for the soil within the proposed project site to have been impacted
with hazardous levels of pesticides, herbicides and arsenic (used as an herbicide in the early
20th century).
The nearby roadways have supported vehicular activity since the middle of 20th century
and it is likely that the surface soils are affected by deposition of aerial lead.
The roadway was built prior to the 1980s and it is likely that the surface markings and signs
may contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) in their
construction materials.
A petroleum pipeline is present within the project limits.
The current U-Haul building at the northeast corner of Prado Road and Elks Lane was built
prior to 1980 and it is likely that the structure may contain ACM and LBP in their
construction materials.
The U-Haul Facility was also listed on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
database as the site was a former gasoline service station and repair shop. The underground
storage tanks (USTs) were removed, the site underwent remediation, and a ‘No further
action’ letter was provided in 1992.
Although the USTs were removed, the service station repair shop still contained hydraulic
lifts likely installed in the late 1950’s when the facility was constructed and may contain
hydraulic oils and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
A water well and an abandoned septic tank was also noted on the U-Haul facility site.
The study recommended that additional studies and investigations will be required to
determine if hazardous waste/materials contamination is present within the project site.
11. FUNDING
Funding has been identified as coming from a combination of impact fees, debt financing and
the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP). RTIP funding is programed for construction in Fiscal Year
2021/22. A copy of the current Project Programming Request is provided in Attachment S
with identified STIP and Local funding provided in the following Capital Outlay Project
Estimate.
It has been determined that this project is eligible for Federal-aid funding.
Page 135 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
22
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Range of Estimate STIP Funds Other Funds
Construction Right-of-Way Construction Right-of-Way Construction Right-of-Way
Alternative A1 $11M-$21M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative A1
(optional
retaining walls)
$16M-$26M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative
A1R $11M-$16M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative
A1R (optional
retaining walls)
$11M-$21M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative A3 $11M-$21M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative A3
(optional
retaining walls)
$16M-$26M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative A4 $11M-$21M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative A4
(optional
retaining walls)
$16M-$26M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative
A4R $11M-$16M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative
A4R (optional
retaining walls)
$11M-$21M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative A7 $11M-$16M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative A7
(optional
retaining walls)
$11M-$21M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
The level of detail available to develop these capital outlay project estimates is only accurate
to within the above ranges and is useful for long-range planning purposes only. The capital
outlay project estimates should not be used to program or commit State-programmed capital
outlay funds.
Capital Outlay Support Estimate
Capital outlay support estimate for PA&ED is $765,000 and would be funded by the City of
San Luis Obispo. Oversight work performed by Caltrans staff would not be reimbursed.
Page 136 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
23
12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE
Project Milestones Scheduled Delivery Date
(Month/Year)
PROGRAM PROJECT M015 April 2018
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 April 2018
CIRCULATE DED EXTERNALLY M120 May 2019
PA & ED M200 December 2019
The anticipated funding fiscal year for construction is 2021/22.
13. RISKS
Various risks affecting scope, schedule and cost have been identified.
There are several non-standard design risks that would affect the cost and schedule, including:
Non-standard interchange spacing between Prado Road and Madonna Road specific
to all build alternatives.
Non-standard minimum weave length on northbound US 101 between Prado Road and
Madonna Road specific to Alternatives A1, A1R, A3 and A7.
Additional alternatives may be developed during the PA/ED phase affecting the cost and
schedule.
Right of way impacts potentially affect operations of the City's Corporation Yard thereby
adding delays and cost to the project.
Additional utilities not currently identified may need to be relocated causing delays and
possible cost increases. Also, utility relocation may take longer than expected causing delays
and possible cost increases.
There are several potential environmental risks that would affect the cost and schedule
including:
Endangered Species Act consultation is needed if suitable habitat for federally listed
fish and wildlife species is identified in the project limits.
Archaeological deposits are identified that need mitigation.
Environmental technical studies result in the need for higher-level environmental
document.
One or more acres of new impervious surfaces are created and an Alternative
Compliance project is required.
Must meet City's MS4 requirements for post-construction storm water treatment.
Significant hazardous waste/material contamination is found causing delays and possible cost
increases.
Page 137 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
24
A full listing of risks, and the details of the identified risks including a risk response plan for
each can be found in the risk register provided in Attachment K.
14. FHWA COORDINATION
This project is considered to be an Assigned Project in accordance with the current Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Joint
Stewardship and Oversight Agreement.
15. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Paul Valadao (805) 549-3016
Caltrans Project Manager, District 5
Claudia Espino (805) 549-3079
Caltrans Design, District 5
Bing Yu (805) 549-3664
Caltrans Traffic Operations, District 5
Jimmy Ochoa (805) 549-0209
Caltrans Advance Planning, District 5
Lindsay Leichtfuss (805) 549-3492
Caltrans Environmental, District 5
Jake Hudson (805) 781-7255
City of San Luis Obispo Project Manager
Joe Weiland (805) 858-3131
Omni-Means, a GHD Company, Project Manager
for PSR-PDS (Consultant)
Page 138 of 753
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
25
16. ATTACHMENTS (Number of Pages)
A. Existing Conditions Exhibit (1)
B. Circulation Element Street Classification Diagram (1)
C. Alternatives A1 and A1R (Viable Build Alternative) (6)
D. Alternative A3 (Viable Build Alternative) (3)
E. Alternatives A4 and A4R (Viable Build Alternative) (6)
F. Alternative A7 (Viable Build Alternative) (3)
G. Alternative A2 (Viable but Rejected Alternative) (1)
H. PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimates (36)
I. Conceptual Cost Estimate Forms – Right of Way (48)
J. Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) (23)
K. Risk Register (1)
L. Storm Water Data Report (Signature Page) (1)
M. Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index (7)
N. Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet (8)
O. Division of Engineering Services PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist (8)
P. Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (9)
Q. PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionnaire (1)
R. Quality Management Plan (9)
S. Project Programming Request (3)
T. Transportation Management Plan Data Sheet/Checklist (1)
U. Caltrans Final Document Distribution List (1)
Page 139 of 753
Page 140 of 753
ooo1514119
.
0
1
1518134
.
21
151
9134.
4
1
152
0134.
72
152
1
124
.
7
1
152
2
143
.
4
0
152
3136.
1
2
152
5118.
9
4
693136
.
98
694149
.
1
7
695138.
0
1
696129.
85
697129.4
1
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California NORTH0 400
Scale: 1"= 400 ft.
Existing Conditions
Page 141 of 753
Page 142 of 753
Page 143 of 753
Page 144 of 753
STOPSTOP1520' WEAVEYIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD600'AUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTCITY CORPORATION YARDPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A1EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLR=600'; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANEPLANNED RTA FACILITYOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 145 of 753
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A1DRAFT CONCEPT 0 250Scale: 1"=250' (H)1"=50' (V)
Page 146 of 753
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaALTERNATIVE A1DRAFT CONCEPTPage 147 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDSTOPYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD1520' WEAVEAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A1REXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTR=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANEPLANNED RTA FACILITYRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 148 of 753
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A1RDRAFT CONCEPT 0 250Scale: 1"=250' (H)1"=50' (V)
Page 149 of 753
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaALTERNATIVE A1RDRAFT CONCEPTPage 150 of 753
Page 151 of 753
STOPYIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD660'STOP0Scale: 1"=400400'NORTH San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A3AUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPLANNED RTA FACILITYEXISTING R/W (TYP)CITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 152 of 753
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A3DRAFT CONCEPT 0 250Scale: 1"=250' (H)1"=50' (V)
Page 153 of 753
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A3DRAFT CONCEPTPage 154 of 753
Page 155 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD450'STOP2270'
WEAVE San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A40Scale: 1"=400400'NORTHAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 156 of 753
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A4DRAFT CONCEPT 0 250Scale: 1"=250' (H)1"=50' (V)
Page 157 of 753
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A4DRAFT CONCEPTPage 158 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD450'STOP2270'
WEAVE San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A4R0Scale: 1"=400400'NORTHAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHPLANNED RTA FACILITYOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 159 of 753
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A4RDRAFT CONCEPT 0 250Scale: 1"=250' (H)1"=50' (V)
Page 160 of 753
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A4RDRAFT CONCEPTPage 161 of 753
Page 162 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD
1570' WEAVEAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A7EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLR=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-10 & AUXILIARY LANEPLANNED RTA FACILITYRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 163 of 753
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A7DRAFT CONCEPT 0 250Scale: 1"=250' (H)1"=50' (V)
Page 164 of 753
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaALTERNATIVE A7DRAFT CONCEPTPage 165 of 753
Page 166 of 753
STOP128
0
'
W
EAV
E
410'YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaALTERNATIVE A2DRAFT CONCEPTNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.EXISTING R/W (TYP)FUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONR=600' ; V=45 MPHEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERNORTHBOUND L-8 & AUXILIARY LANEOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPLANNED RTA FACILITYOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 167 of 753
Page 168 of 753
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 A1
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
Page 169 of 753
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $5,550,000 X 1.1 = $6,100,000
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 C. For
further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 170 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
Page 171 of 753
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 A1 (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
Page 172 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 173 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
Page 174 of 753
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
Page 175 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 176 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Page 177 of 753
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
Page 178 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 179 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
Page 180 of 753
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
Page 181 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 182 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
Page 183 of 753
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
Page 184 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 185 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
Page 186 of 753
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
Page 187 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 188 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
Page 189 of 753
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
Page 190 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 191 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
Page 192 of 753
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
Page 193 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 194 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Page 195 of 753
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
Page 196 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 197 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
Page 198 of 753
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
Page 199 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 200 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
Page 201 of 753
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
Page 202 of 753
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
Page 203 of 753
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
Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
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 Joseph.Weiland@GHD.com.
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
Page 204 of 753
Page 205 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 206 of 753
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
15
Page 207 of 753
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)
Page 208 of 753
STOPSTOP1520' WEAVEYIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD600'AUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYCITY CORPORATION YARDPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A1EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.0781.769--------1.7360.4370.394----------0.9960.242--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0380.0610.0255.870 X 10-40.2251.5800.7140.567EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 209 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 210 of 753
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
15
Page 211 of 753
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)
Page 212 of 753
STOPSTOP1520' WEAVEYIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD600'AUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYCITY CORPORATION YARDPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A1EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.0781.769--------1.7360.4370.394----------0.9960.242--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0380.0610.0255.870 X 10-40.2251.5800.7140.567EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 213 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 214 of 753
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
15
Page 215 of 753
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)
Page 216 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDSTOPYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD1520' WEAVEAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A1REXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.1701.277--------1.4600.201----------0.9840.219--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0280.0500.0183.476 X 10-40.1672.0770.5020.473EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY0.028CITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 217 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 218 of 753
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
15
Page 219 of 753
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)
Page 220 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDSTOPYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD1520' WEAVEAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A1REXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.1701.277--------1.4600.201----------0.9840.219--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0280.0500.0183.476 X 10-40.1672.0770.5020.473EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY0.028CITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 221 of 753
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
151,7477
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commercial uses
January 5, 2018
Page 222 of 753
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
15
Page 223 of 753
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)
Page 224 of 753
STOPYIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD660'STOP0Scale: 1"=400400'NORTH San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A3AUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPLANNED RTA FACILITYFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANEKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.0831.260--------1.2040.0420.073----------0.9960.297--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0380.0640.0276.164 X 10-40.2301.6010.714EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY0.847R=600' ; V=45 MPHEXISTING R/W (TYP)CITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 225 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 226 of 753
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
15
Page 227 of 753
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)
Page 228 of 753
STOPYIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD660'STOP0Scale: 1"=400400'NORTH San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A3AUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPLANNED RTA FACILITYFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANEKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.0831.260--------1.2040.0420.073----------0.9960.297--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0380.0640.0276.164 X 10-40.2301.6010.714EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY0.847R=600' ; V=45 MPHEXISTING R/W (TYP)CITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 229 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 230 of 753
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
15
Page 231 of 753
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)
Page 232 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD450'STOP2270'
WEAVE San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A40Scale: 1"=400400'NORTHAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.0783.278--------1.0630.200----------0.9960.092--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0380.0610.0255.870 X 10-40.2251.5870.4380.234EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY1.936R=600' ; V=45 MPHCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 233 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 234 of 753
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
15
Page 235 of 753
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)
Page 236 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD450'STOP2270'
WEAVE San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A40Scale: 1"=400400'NORTHAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.0783.278--------1.0630.200----------0.9960.092--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0380.0610.0255.870 X 10-40.2251.5870.4380.234EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY1.936R=600' ; V=45 MPHCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 237 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 238 of 753
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
15
Page 239 of 753
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)
Page 240 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD450'STOP2270'
WEAVE San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A4R0Scale: 1"=400400'NORTHAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.1113.377--------1.1330.392----------0.9910.082--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0690.0700.0387.126 X 10-40.2452.0110.4440.262EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY1.975NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 241 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 242 of 753
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
15
Page 243 of 753
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)
Page 244 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD450'STOP2270'
WEAVE San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A4R0Scale: 1"=400400'NORTHAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.1113.377--------1.1330.392----------0.9910.082--0.1452.018 X 10-40.0820.0690.0700.0387.126 X 10-40.2452.0110.4440.262EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY1.975NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 245 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 246 of 753
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
15
Page 247 of 753
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)
Page 248 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD
1570' WEAVEAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A7EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLNORTHBOUND L-10 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.1860.735--------1.4270.296----------0.9840.2120.1780.3800.0020.0870.0240.0490.0180.0010.1082.1210.3930.290EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY0.018CITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 249 of 753
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
January 5, 2018
Page 250 of 753
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
15
Page 251 of 753
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)
Page 252 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD
1570' WEAVEAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A7EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLNORTHBOUND L-10 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSION067-121-022APN053-041-037053-041-032053-051-045POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATELEGEND:100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY & SLOPE EASEMENTSKEY053-041-036053-041-072053-041-071POTENTIALSTATE R/WESTIMATE WITHRETAINING WALLSACREPOTENTIALCITY R/WESTIMATEACREPOTENTIALCITY SLOPEEASEMENTESTIMATEACREACRE1.1860.735--------1.4270.296----------0.9840.2120.1780.3800.0020.0870.0240.0490.0180.0010.1082.1210.3930.290EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY0.018CITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 253 of 753
Page 254 of 753
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 on-
and 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,
Page 255 of 753
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.
Page 256 of 753
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
Page 257 of 753
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.
Page 258 of 753
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:
Page 259 of 753
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: move-
in/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.
Page 260 of 753
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.
Page 261 of 753
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.
Page 262 of 753
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
Page 263 of 753
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 long-
term 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
Page 264 of 753
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 SCCC-
steelhead, 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
Page 265 of 753
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.
Page 266 of 753
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
Page 267 of 753
Page 268 of 753
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
Page 269 of 753
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
Page 270 of 753
Environmental Document ScheduleTask Duration Start Date End Date Draft PEAR9/8/2017Caltrans review120 days 9/8/2017 12/15/2017Final PEAR30 days 12/15/2017 1/11/2018Begin Environment Studies1/11/2018Biological ResourcesNatural Environment Study (NES-MI)170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Visual Impact Assessment 170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Cultural Resources HPSR/HRER/ASR170 days 1/11/2018 8/10/2018Air 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 12/15/2018Administrative Draft IS/MND90 days 7/23/2018 10/30/2018Draft IS/MND175 days 10/31/2018 5/11/2019Public Comment Period30 days 5/12/2019 6/11/2019Final MND135 days 6/12/2019 11/1/2019PA&ED11/1/2019Work in Progress MilestoneCaltrans Review*If determined to be requiredAug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19Mar-18Sep-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18Oct-17 Nov-17 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19Page 271 of 753
STOPSTOP1520' WEAVEYIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD600'AUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTCITY CORPORATION YARDPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A1EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLR=600'; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANEPLANNED RTA FACILITYOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 272 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDSTOPYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD1520' WEAVEAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A1REXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTR=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANEPLANNED RTA FACILITYRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 273 of 753
STOPYIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD660'STOP0Scale: 1"=400400'NORTH San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A3AUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPLANNED RTA FACILITYEXISTING R/W (TYP)CITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 274 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELD450'STOP2270'
WEAVE San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A40Scale: 1"=400400'NORTHAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPLANNED RTA FACILITYEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPage 275 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD450'STOP2270'
WEAVE San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A4R0Scale: 1"=400400'NORTHAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTEXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANER=600' ; V=45 MPHPLANNED RTA FACILITYOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSED STATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 276 of 753
YIELDYIELDYIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD
1570' WEAVEAUXILIARY LANEEXISTING R/W (TYP)EXISTING R/W (TYP)ELKS LANE REALIGNMENTPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaNORTH0400Scale: 1"= 400 ft.ALTERNATIVE A7EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERDRAFT CONCEPTRETAINING WALLR=600' ; V=45 MPHOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLFUTURE FROOMRANCH EXTENSIONNORTHBOUND L-10 & AUXILIARY LANEPLANNED RTA FACILITYRETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLCITY CORPORATION YARDPROPOSED STATE R/WPROPOSEDSTATE R/WOPTIONAL RETAINING WALLPROPOSED STATE R/WPage 277 of 753
Page 278 of 753
LEVEL 2 - RISK REGISTERProject Name:DIST- EA05-1H640KProject ManagerStatus ID # Type Category Title Risk Statement Current status/assumptions Probability Cost Impact Cost Score Time Impact Time Score RationaleStrategyResponse ActionsRisk Owner UpdatedActive 1 Threat Design Scope CreepInaccurate, 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 PSR-PDS, but questions still remain about required design exceptions.AvoidVerify that the survey file and design work is accurate and complete. Follow QC proceduresCity/Design Consultant9/22/2017Active 2 Threat Environmental CEQA ChallengePotential 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 started2-Low 2 -Low 4 8 -High 16 Project is contained within City General Plan and is anticipated to have minimal impact.AcceptAddress concerns of stakeholders and public during environmental process.City 9/22/2017Active 3 Threat R/W Utility delaysDelays 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. MitigateFollow City/Caltrans utility coordination procedures.City/Design Consultant9/22/2017Active 4 Threat Design Design ExceptionsUnforseen 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. MitigateBegin Fact Sheet early in order to provide additional information to get more assurance that critical exceptions are approveable. City/Design Consultant9/22/2017Active 5 Threat EnvironmentalEndangered Species Act Consultation & PermitsAs 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. MitigateConduct NES and comply with mitigation measures or alter design to avoid impacts if possible. City/ Environmental Consultant1/2/2018Active 6 Threat Environmental Cultural ResourcesHPSR 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.MitigatePerform studies to determine impacts and potential mitigations. Alter design as feasible to mitigate impact. City/ Environmental Consultant9/22/2017Active 7 Threat Construction Hazardous MaterialsHazardous materials encountered during construction will require an on-site storage area and potential additional costs to disposeAn 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 Consultant9/22/2017Active 8 Threat ROW AcquisitionRight 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. MitigateVerify that the survey file and design work is accurate and complete. Follow QC proceduresCity/Design Consultant1/2/2018Active9 Threat EnvironmentalNPDES Permit RequirementsOne 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 PSR-PDS, but questions still remain about required design exceptions.AcceptPlan for TBMP right of way needs and incororate required TBMPs or address the need for TBMPs or Alternative Compliance.City/Design Consultant1/2/2018Active 10 Threat Environmental City MS4 RequirementsMust 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 PSR-PDS, but questions still remain about required design exceptions.AcceptIn 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 Consultant1/2/2018Active 11 Threat EnvironmentalHigher-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 started3-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 Consultant1/2/2018Risk AssessmentRisk IdentificationUS 101 / Prado Road InterchangeJoe WeilandRisk ResponseLevel 2 Risk RegisterPage 279 of 753
Page 280 of 753
Page 281 of 753
Page 282 of 753
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.
Page 283 of 753
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
Page 284 of 753
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
Page 285 of 753
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
Page 286 of 753
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 multi-
use 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
Page 287 of 753
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
Page 288 of 753
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 rampsBicycle or Pedestrian
Overcrossing/Undercrossing
Yes 12’sidewalk (Class I
bikeway) and Class II
bike lane proposed on
both sides of the
structure. See typical
ihibiOther 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 shared-
use path around
roundabouts. See
roundabout exhibits.
Page 289 of 753
Page 290 of 753
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 Development-
Intergovernmental 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.
Page 291 of 753
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__
Page 292 of 753
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...).
Page 293 of 753
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
Page 294 of 753
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.
Page 295 of 753
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-to-
market 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.
Page 296 of 753
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.
Page 297 of 753
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.
Page 298 of 753
Page 299 of 753
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
Page 1
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:
Page 300 of 753
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
Page 2
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.
Page 301 of 753
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
Page 3
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.
Page 302 of 753
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
Page 4
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 $15,000-25,000
Page 303 of 753
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Page 5
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A4
Project Cost Range ($ 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 $10,000-15,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Page 304 of 753
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Page 6
Alternative # A7 (with optional retaining walls)
Project Cost Range ($ 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
Page 305 of 753
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
Page 7
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
Page 306 of 753
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
Page 8
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.
Page 307 of 753
Page 308 of 753
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).
Page 309 of 753
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.
Page 310 of 753
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
Page 311 of 753
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
Page 312 of 753
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
Page 313 of 753
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
Page 314 of 753
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
Page 315 of 753
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 PSR-
PDS)
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
Page 316 of 753
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)
Page 317 of 753
Page 318 of 753
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
Page 319 of 753
Page 320 of 753
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.
Page 321 of 753
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.
Page 322 of 753
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
Page 323 of 753
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).
Page 324 of 753
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,
Page 325 of 753
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.
Page 326 of 753
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
Page 327 of 753
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.
Page 328 of 753
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.
Page 329 of 753
Page 330 of 753
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 jhudson@slocity.org
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
Page 331 of 753
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 single-
occupancy 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.
Page 332 of 753
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
Page 333 of 753
Page 334 of 753
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 requiredCOMMENTS
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
Page 335 of 753
Page 336 of 753
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
Page 337 of 753
Page 338 of 753
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
Page 339 of 753
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.
Page 340 of 753
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.
Page 341 of 753
Page 342 of 753
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 off-
ramp 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.
Page 343 of 753
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
Page 344 of 753
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
Page 345 of 753
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project vi
Comment Letter 4 from Steven Hoyt, Ph.D. .................................................... 116
Comment Letter 5 from Dale Sutliff ................................................................. 117
Comment Letter 6 from Jake Hudson ............................................................. 119
Comment Letter 7 from Pat McClure .............................................................. 120
Comment Letter 8 from Mila Vujovich LaBarre ............................................... 121
Comment Letter 9 from Ellen Morrison ........................................................... 127
Comment Letter 10 from San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
128
Comment Letter 11 from Paula H ................................................................... 135
Appendix C References .................................................................................. 164
Appendix D Energy Calculations .................................................................... 174
Page 346 of 753
Page 347 of 753
Page 348 of 753
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 1
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
1.1 Introduction
The City of San Luis Obispo proposes to extend Prado Road over U.S. 101 to
connect Prado Road with Dalidio Drive and rebuild the existing U.S. 101
northbound on- and off-ramp 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. U.S. 101 through the study area
is currently a four-lane divided freeway with auxiliary lanes provided between
Madonna Road and Marsh Street.
The project is included in the 2020 State Transportation Improvement
Program. Project construction is expected to start in 2026 and span
approximately three years. The current programmed cost for construction is
approximately $58,700.000.
Caltrans, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration, is the lead
agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (known as NEPA).
Caltrans is also the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (known as CEQA). As the NEPA lead, Caltrans has prepared a separate
Categorical Exclusion document for the project. As the CEQA lead, Caltrans
has prepared this document—an Initial Study with Mitigated Negative
Declaration—for the project.
1.2 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. 101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational
deficiencies on State and city facilities. This connectivity need extends to all
transportation modes.
1.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the project is to:
Improve overall operations on U.S. 101 and nearby interchanges;
Improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; and
Improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities.
1.2.2 Need
The need for the project involves providing better community connectivity by
improving current and future operations on U.S. 101 and nearby
Page 349 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 2
interchanges, improving safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians,
improving transit performance, and enhancing transit opportunities.
Improve Overall Operations of U.S. 101 and Adjacent Interchanges
One need for the project is generated by existing year and/or forecasted year
traffic congestion along U.S. 101 between the interchange with Los Osos
Valley Road and the interchange with Marsh Street. The May 2019 U.S.
101/Prado Road Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report and
Intersection Control Evaluation documents the existing year’s traffic
conditions based on 2019 traffic counts from the City of San Luis Obispo
Traffic Counts and Speed Surveys database and Caltrans mainline traffic
counts from 2014 and 2018. As detailed in the Traffic Operations Analysis
Report and Intersection Control Evaluation, several intersections and freeway
segments in the vicinity of the project site experience congestion that exceeds
Caltrans’ level of service targets during the morning peak hour and evening
peak hour under both the existing (2016) and the forecasted design -year
(2045) intersection traffic conditions without project implementation.
Improve Safety and Mobility for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
The City of San Luis Obispo has identified the need to extend Prado Road
over U.S. 101 to provide connectivity from Madonna Road east to the planned
Prado Road east extension to Broad Street as a main east/west connector
across town to shopping centers and, most notably, the city’s only middle
school. In addition to providing additional pedestrian access and connectivity,
Class 1 bike paths and Class 2 bike lanes are proposed envisioned along
Prado Road from the western boundary of the Margarita Area Specific Plan,
continuing to the proposed Prado Road grade-separated crossing of U.S.
101, and then continuing on Dalidio Road to Laguna Lake Park.
Improve Transit Performance and Enhance Transit Opportunities
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority needs to facilitate more
efficient transit routes. The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority is in
the process of developing administrative and operations office space and
maintenance and storage facilities. The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority is locating these uses next to the northwest corner of the existing
Prado Road/Elks Lane/U.S. 101 northbound ramps intersection based on the
need to provide regional accessibility via U.S. 101. The project would provide
connectivity from the east side of U.S. 101 to the west side of the City of San
Luis Obispo, facilitating more efficient transit connectivity.
1.3 Project Description
This section describes the proposed action and the project alternatives
developed to meet the purpose and need of the project while avoiding or
minimizing environmental impacts.
Page 350 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 3
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 off-ramp connections to Prado Road to provide congestion relief,
operational efficiency, and multimodal connectivity. 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. The regional location of the
project and the project limits are shown in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2.
The area surrounding the project includes commercial use northwest of the
intersection of Prado Road and U.S. 101, commercial and residential uses
northeast of said intersection, the city-owned corporation yard and Water
Resource Recovery Facility southeast of the intersection, and the San Luis
Ranch property west of U.S. 101. The San Luis Ranch property is currently in
the initial phases of development, with approved commercial, residential,
recreational, and agricultural land uses under the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan adopted by the city in 2017 (City of San Luis Obispo 2017a). On the
eastern end of the Prado Road alignment, the project abuts the western limits
of the San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project, which has
independent utility from the proposed project and is being reviewed by the
City of San Luis Obispo as of spring 2022. The proposed action does not
contemplate any improvements to or activity within the riparian area
associated with San Luis Obispo Creek at the location of the San Luis Obispo
Creek Bridge Widening Project.
The project is within Caltrans District 5 in the City of San Luis Obispo in San
Luis Obispo County. The project area is within Township 31 South, Range 12
East on the U.S. Geological Survey San Luis Obispo, California 7.5-minute
quadrangle. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 are regional and project location maps,
respectively.
Page 351 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 4
Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map
Page 352 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 5
Figure 1-2 Project Location Map
Page 353 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 6
1.4 Project Alternatives
Four preliminary Build Alternatives—A1R, A3, A4R, and A7—have been
identified by the project development team as viable and to be further studied
in the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase. Each of the
viable Build Alternatives includes a partial interchange with the proposed
Prado Road Overcrossing built over U.S. 101 and a new U.S. 101 northbound
off-ramp and U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp from Prado Road.
1.4.1 Build Alternatives
This project contains a number of standardized project measures that are
used on most, if not all, Caltrans projects and were not developed in response
to any specific environmental impact resulting from the proposed project.
These measures are listed later in this chapter under “Standard Measures
and Best Management Practices Included in All Build Alternatives.”
U.S. 101 through the study area is currently a four-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 a capacity of up to six lanes, though there is no
funding currently identified for providing a six-lane freeway section. Though
not funded, each viable Build Alternative will accommodate the Ultimate
Concept Facility through the proposed Prado Road Overcrossing.
Common Design Features of the Build Alternatives
The project would include the construction of a new continuous northbound
U.S. 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the
Madonna Road northbound off -ramp. This auxiliary lane is proposed for all
project alternatives. The auxiliary lane will be built next to the existing U.S.
101 northbound travel lane and will require the removal of the existing outside
shoulder. The auxiliary lane will be built to a 12-foot paved width with a new
10-foot paved outside shoulder along the entire length.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) would be extended west of U.S. 101 to the
intersection with the Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection via an
overpass structure. The extension of Prado Road would have a minimum
four-lane divided arterial section through and next to the interchange with a
separate sidewalk/Class 4 bikeway and 5-foot-wide shoulder.
Each Build Alternative would encroach into the current floodplain located to
the east and west of U.S. 101. Improvements to reduce this encroachment
include placing a portion of the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp and northbound
on-ramp and most of the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S.
101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive
intersection on structures raised above the floodplain. A Midwest Guardrail
System is proposed to be placed next to the outside shoulder of the proposed
Page 354 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 7
northbound U.S. 101 auxiliary lanes to mitigate nonstandard Clear Recovery
Zone clearances between the outside U.S. 101 northbound travel lane and
nearby trees within the riparian corridor associated with San Luis Obispo
Creek. Placement of the guardrail system at this location is proposed for all
project alternatives.
The project would require the take of a portion of the city-owned corporation
yard located south of Prado Road and east of U.S. 101 (Assessor’s Parcel
Number 053-051-045), which would result in the need for the city to relocate
some or all operations from this facility to another location. The potential
effect on the corporation yard’s operations would vary based on the area of
take required for each project alternative (described below under Unique
Features of the Build Alternatives). No offsite relocation of corporation yard
buildings is currently proposed as part of this action.
The project would require realigning Elks Lane, which is located east of U.S.
101. The specific future alignment of Elks Lane would depend on the
requirements of the individual Build Alternatives.
The city has an independent project to widen Prado Road from the planned
Elks Lane realignment connection with Prado Road east to the western limits
of the San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project. The project will
transition Prado Road between the proposed interchange and San Luis
Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project improvements.
Construction is expected to start in 2026 and be completed in 2029.
Unique Features of the Build Alternatives
Alternative A1R
Figure 1-3 shows the Alternative A1R geometric concept, which assumes a
roundabout provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado
Road. The other preliminary geometric design elements presented for
Alternative A1R include the following:
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L -1 tight
diamond configuration to the east of U.S. 101.
A portion of the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp and on-ramp will be
placed on the overpass structure.
Most of the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension from the
intersection with the future Elks Lane east of U.S. 101 to the
intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive west of
U.S. 101 will be placed on the overpass structure.
An approximately 1,200-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the
Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound
off-ramp.
Page 355 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 8
Alternative A1R would result in a take of about 1.7 acres of the city-owned
corporation yard on Assessor’s Parcel Number 053-051-045.
Alternative A1R would require relocating Elks Lane around the east side of
the Sunset Drive-In, as shown in Figure 1-3, with the Elks Lane Realignment
Option 2.
Alternative A3
Figure 1-4 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.
A portion of the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp and on-ramp will be
placed on the overpass structure.
Most of the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension from the
intersection with the future Elks Lane east of U.S. 101 to the
intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive west of
U.S. 101 will be placed on the overpass structure.
An approximately 1,060-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the
Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound
off-ramp.
Alternative A3 would result in a take of about 1.6 acres of the city-owned
corporation yard on Assessor’s Parcel Number 053-051-045.
Alternative A3 would retain the alignment of Elks Lane around the west side
of the Sunset Drive-In, as shown in Figure 1-4, with the Elks Lane
Realignment Option 1.
Alternative A4R
Figure 1-5 shows the Alternative A4R geometric concept, which assumes a
roundabout provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado
Road. The other preliminary geometric design elements presented for
Alternative A4R include the following:
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L -7 partial
cloverleaf configuration on the east side of U.S. 101.
A portion of the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp and on-ramp will be
placed on the overpass structure.
Most of the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension from the
intersection with the future Elks Lane east of U.S. 101 to the
Page 356 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 9
intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive west of
U.S. 101 will be placed on the overpass structure.
An approximately 2,280-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the
Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound
off-ramp.
Alternative A4R would result in a take of about 9 acres of the city-owned
corporation yard on Assessor’s Parcel Number 053-051-045 and the city’s
Water Resource Recovery Facility southeast of the intersection.
Alternative A4R would retain the alignment of Elks Lane around the west side
of the Sunset Drive-In, as shown in Figure 1-5, with the Elks Lane
Realignment Option 1.
Alternative A7
Figure 1-6 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 Prado Road before the roundabout while the
on-ramp diverges from westbound Prado Road after the roundabout.
A portion of the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp and on-ramp will be
placed on the overpass structure.
Most of the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension from the
intersection with the future Elks Lane east of U.S. 101 to the
intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive west of
U.S. 101 will be placed on the overpass structure.
An approximately 1,120-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the
Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound
off-ramp.
Alternative A7 would result in a take of about 1.1 acres of the city-owned
corporation yard located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 053-051-045.
Alternative A7 would retain the alignment of Elks Lane around the west side
of the Sunset Drive-In, as shown in Figure 1-6, with the Elks Lane
Realignment Option 1.
Page 357 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 10
Figure 1-3 Alternative A1R Concept
Page 358 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 11
Figure 1-4 Alternative A3 Concept
Page 359 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 12
Figure 1-5 Alternative A4R Concept
Page 360 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 13
Figure 1-6 Alternative A7 Concept
Page 361 of 753
Page 362 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 15
1.4.2 No-Build (No -Action) Alternative
Under the No-Build Alternative, no actions would be taken, and no
improvements would be built at the existing U.S. 101/Prado Road
interchange.
1.5 Identification of a Preferred Alternative
Alternative A3, with signalized intersection control, would provide superior
levels of service and minimize delays at the U.S. 101 Northbound
Ramps/Prado Road intersection for Opening Year (2030) and Design Year
(2050) scenarios, as well as maintaining northbound queues within the
storage available between the ramp intersection and upstream Elks Lane
intersection at the Design Year (2050) scenario. This design provides the
flexibility for the City and Caltrans to consider introducing traffic signal
coordination between the closely spaced Elks Lane intersection and the U.S.
101 Northbound Ramps intersection in the future to improve traffic
progression. This strategy was implemented recently on Los Osos Valley
Road, where signal coordination was introduced between the Caltrans U.S.
101 ramp intersections and the adjacent City intersection at Calle Joaquin.
An additional benefit that a signalized intersection alternative presents at the
U.S. 101 Northbound Ramp/Prado Road intersection is with controlling
conflicts between vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The Prado Road
corridor is designed to serve as a major cross -town route for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic and is identified as a Tier 1 priority corridor in the City’s
Active Transportation Plan. Signalized intersection control provides flexibility
to design a signal phasing strategy that completely separates vehicle left - and
right-turn movements from conflicting pedestrian and bicycle crossing
movements.
In addition to the traffic control and active transportation benefits of
Alternative A3, this alternative would minimize displacement of the City’s 8.5 -
acre Corporation Yard, which provides facilities critical to the City’s essential
operations and maintenance functions, and avoid the unproven design
concept of constructing an elevated roundabout on a bridge structure due to
floodplain concerns. Alternative A3 is also the lowest cost option among the
evaluated alternatives. Therefore, Caltrans has selected Alternative A3 as the
preferred alternative because it provides the greatest traffi c control benefits,
results in the least impact to the City’s Corporation Yard, and meets the
purpose and need of the project.
1.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further
Discussion
The Project Study Report-Project Development Support for the proje ct was
completed in April 2018. This report discussed and evaluated the project
Page 363 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 16
alternatives discussed in detail above and alternatives considered but
eliminated from further discussion.
Viable but Eliminated Alternative
Alternative A2
Alternative A2 was a partial cloverleaf configuration with a proposed loop
northbound off-ramp to and a direct on-ramp from Prado Road located on the
north side of Prado Road. Alternative A2 was identified as a viable alternative
that the project development team eliminated due to the loss of a
transportation asset (S an Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority’s new
facility) in the northwest quadrant of the interchange and the less than
standard weave length between Prado Road northbound on-ramp and
Madonna Road northbound off-ramp. As a result, the project development
team determined that Alternative A2 did not meet the project’s purpose and
need, and it was removed from further consideration.
Non-Viable Alternatives
Alternative A5 (Single -Point Interchange)
Alternative A5 was a single-point diamond interchange configuration with
Prado Road crossing over U.S. 101. When the project development team
agreed that only the northbound ramp configurations to and from Prado Road
were viable for this project, Alternative A5 was removed from further
consideration because it could not be built as two separate projects.
Alternative A6 (Compact Diamond Configuration)
Alternative A6 was a compact diamond interchange configuration with Prado
Road crossing over U.S. 101 and southbound partial cloverleaf ramps on the
west side of U.S. 101. When the project development team determined that
only the northbound ramps to and from Prado Road were viable, the
southbound partial cloverleaf ramps were eliminated , and only the northbound
compact diamond ramps remained. This northbound ramp configuration was
the same as provided with Alternative A 3. As a result, Alternative A6 was
removed from further consideration because this alternative is no longer
applicable.
Alternative B (Prado Roa d Overcrossing Only)
Alternative B considered building the Prado Road Overcrossing only over
U.S. 101. The project development team eliminated Alternative B from further
consideration because it would not meet the project’s purpose and need.
Building the Prado Road Overcrossing over U.S. 101 was determined to be
inconsistent with city planning, and removing the U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Page 364 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 17
from Prado Road was determined to negatively impact the overall operations
at nearby interchanges north and south of the project site.
Alternatives Eliminated During the Project Approval and Environmental
Document Phase
The initial steps of the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase,
such as the technical studies in Volume 2 Technical Studies Bound
Separately, included an evaluation of additional Build Alternatives—A1 and
A4—and a side slope option for all Build Alternatives. Based on the
conclusions of the final Intersection Control Evaluation, Build Alternatives A1
and A4, which would have provided signalized control at the U.S. 101
northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road, were determined to no longer
be viable Build Alternatives moving forward and have been eliminated from
further analysis in the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase.
Similarly, based on the findings of the Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Model
Update Final Report (City of San Luis Obispo 2019a), fill embankments were
found to be hydrologically infeasible. As a result, the side slope option for
each alternative wa s determined to no longer be a viable build option and has
been eliminated from further analysis in the Project Approval and
Environmental Document phase.
1.7 Standard Measures and Best M anagement Practices
Included in All Build Alternatives
Project features, which can include both design elements of a project and
standardized measures that are applied to all or most Caltrans projects , such
as Best Management Practices and measures included in the Standard Plans
and Specifications or as Standard Special Provisi ons, are considered to be an
integral part of the project and have been considered prior to any significance
determinations documented below.
The four preliminary Build Alternative s described in Section 1.4.1 include
design elements intended to avoid or minimize effects on potentially historic
properties in the vicinity. Best Management Practices to be implemented
during project construction to minimize or prevent sediment or pollutants in
stormwater runoff may include but would not be limited to using temporary
desilting basins, locating construction vehicle maintenance activities in
staging areas to avoid leaks or spills of fuels, motor oil, coolant, and other
hazardous materials, and installing a temporary, large sediment barrier and
erosion control blankets. Additionally, postconstruction water quality treatment
Best Management Practices may include but would not be limited to filtration
and infiltration devices, such as detention basins and biofiltration swales, or
low-impact development flow-through treatment devices. To ensure
compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
requirements, existing postconstruction runoff control facilities remove d or
demolished by the project will be rebuilt or replaced within the project area.
Page 365 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 18
1.8 Discussion of the NEPA Categorical Exclusion
This document contains information regarding compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other state la ws and regulations.
Separate environmental documentation, supporting a Categorical Exclusion
determination, has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. When needed for clarity, or as required by CEQA,
this document may contain references to federal laws and/or regulations
(CEQA, for example, requires consideration of adverse effects on sp ecies
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species by the U.S.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service —
that is, species protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act).
1.9 Permits and Approvals Needed
The following permits, licenses, agreements, and certifications are required
for project construction:
Agency Permit/Approval Status
State Water Resources
Control Board
Enrollment under the Statewide
Construction General Permit
Pending application
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife
1602 Agreement for Streambed
Alteration
Pending application
City of San Luis Obispo Tree Removal Permit Pending application
City of San Luis Obispo Temporary Discharge Permit Pending application
City of San Luis Obispo Amendment to Existing Caltrans
Recycled Water Service Application
Pending application
Page 366 of 753
Page 367 of 753
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 0
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
2.1 CEQA Environmental Checklist
This checklist identifies physical, biological, social, and economic factors that
might be affected by the proposed project. Potential impact determinations
include Significant and Unavoidable Impact, Less Than Significant Impact
With Mitigation Incorporated, Less Than Significant Impact, and No Impact. In
many cases, background studies performed in connection with a project will
indicate that there are no impacts to a particular resource. A “No Impact”
answer reflects this determination. The questions in this checklist are
intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not
represent thresholds of significance.
Project features, which can include both design elements of the project and
standardized measures that are applied to all or most Caltrans projects , such
as Best Management Practices and measures included in the Standard Plans
and Specifications or as Standard Special Provisions, are considered to be an
integral part of the project and have been considered prior to any significance
determinations documented below.
“No Impact” determinations in each section are based on the scope,
description, and location of the proposed project as well as the a ppropriate
technical report (bound separately in Volume 2), and no further discussion is
included in this document.
2.1.1 Aesthetics
Considering the information in the Visual Impact Assessment dated
September 2021, the following significance determinations have been made:
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Aesthetics
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
No Impact
Page 368 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 1
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Aesthetics
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality
of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from a publicly accessible
vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
The project is in an area of the City of San Luis Obispo that is largely built but
contains some farmland, with existing streetlights along Prado Road and U.S.
101 and parki ng lot lighting on nearby properties.
U.S. 101 in the vicinity of the project site is eligible for listing as a state scenic
highway but is not officially designated. The nearest officially designated state
scenic highway is State Route 1, north of the San Luis Obispo city limits
(Caltrans 2021).
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space
Element includes policies intended to preserve or enhance the visual
character of the city. The following policies would be applicable to the project:
Policy 9.1.1: Preserve natural and agricultural landscapes . The City of
San Luis Obispo will implement the following policies and will encourage
other agencies with jurisdiction to do the same:
A. Natural and agricultural landscapes that the city has not designated for
urban use will be maintained in their current patterns of use .
B. Any development that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes will
be visually subordinate to and compatible with the landscape features.
Development would include but would not be limited to buildings, signs
(including billboard signs), roads, utility and telecommunication lines , and
structures. Such development will:
1. Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines and slopes
exceeding 20 percent.
2. Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and site lighting .
3. Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping that
respect the setting, including the historical pattern of development in
similar settings, and avoid stark contrasts with its setting.
Page 369 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 2
4. Preserve scenic or unique landforms, significant trees in terms of size,
age, species, or rarity, and rock outcroppings.
Policy 9.1.4: Streetscapes and major roadways . In the acquisition, design,
construction, or significant modification of major roadways (highways/regional
routes and arterial streets), the city will promote the creation of “streetscapes”
and linear scenic parkways or corridors that promote the city’s visual quality
and character, enhance nearby uses, and integrate roadways wi th
surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the city will:
A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways.
B. Encourage the creation and maintenance of median planters and widened
parkway plantings.
C. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way.
D. Emphasize the planting and maintenance of California native tree species
of sufficient height, spread, form, and horticultural characteristics to create
the desired streetscape canopy, shade, buffering from nearby uses, and
other desired streetscape chara cteristics, consistent with the city’s tree
ordinance or as recommended by the tree committee or as approved by
the architectural review commission.
E. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture,
decorative lighting and paving, arcade d walkways, public art, and other
pedestrian-oriented features to enhance the streetscape appearance,
comfort, and safety.
F. Encourage and, where possible, require undergrounding of overhead
utility lines and structures.
Policy 9.2.1: Views to and from public places, including scenic
roadways. The city will preserve and improve views of important scenic
resources from public places and encourage other agencies with jurisdiction
to do the same. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic
buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space s. In
particular, the route segments shown in Figure 11 of the Conservation and
Open Space Element are designated as scenic roadways.
A. Development projects will not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
B. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights will not
intrude on or clutter views, consistent with safety needs .
C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets,
street trees will be clustered to facili tate viewing of the distant features .
D. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic
roadway will be considered “sensitive” and require architectural review.
The General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element identifies scenic
vistas within and next to the city. These vistas include but are not limited to
Page 370 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 3
the southern edge of Laguna Lake looking to the northwest, the southeastern
edge of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve looking to the northeast, and areas
near Cuesta Park looking east (City of San Luis Obispo 2006, Figure 11).
The City of San Luis Obispo regulates tree removal within its jurisdiction.
Certain tree species are afforded protections pursuant to city ordinances
(Tree Ordinance Number 1664 2019 Series). The Tree Ordinance requires a
permit from the city for the removal of any tree outside of the R-1 and R-2
residential zones.
Environmental Consequences
a) The project site is outside the cone of view for each of the city’s designated
vistas. The site is about 1.5 mi les from the vista point, located at the
southeastern edge of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve; however, views of the
site from this point are partially obstructed by intervening vegetation and the
existing Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 interchange. Visual renderings of the
project from the east, west, south, and north are shown in Figures 2 -1 through
2-4. The project’s proposed overcrossing and additional traffic signal or
roundabout would be of similar dominance as the buildings, infrastructure,
and urban vegetation in and around the project area. Therefore, the project
would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista , and this impact
would be less than significant.
b) The project site is not visible from the portion of State Route 1 that is
designated as a state scenic highway, about 2.8 miles to the north. The
project would not affect existing rock outcroppings or historic buildings,
including the two historic structures recently relocated to the northeastern
portion of the San Luis Ranch property. Limited removal of existing mature
non-native trees may be required. However, such tree removal would not
occur within view of a state scenic highway. Consequently, the project would
not substantially damage scenic resources within view of a state scenic
highway, and no impact would occur.
c) The Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 would be built
on existing agricultural land associated with the 131 -acre San Luis Ranch
property. However, the city-adopted San Luis Ranch Specific Plan accounts
for the extension of Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) west of U.S. 101 and
designates land along this extension for Neighborhood Commercial use (City
of San Luis Obispo 2017a). Visual renderings of the project from the east,
west, south, and north are shown in Figures 2-1 through 2-4. The project
would not involve construction in visually prominent locations, such as
ridgelines or hillslopes, that would substantially degrade the visual character
of the site or its surroundings.
Page 371 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 4
Figure 2-1 Visual Rendering from Prado Road looking west toward U.S. 101
Page 372 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 5
Figure 2-2 Visual Rendering from Dalidio Drive looking east toward U.S. 101
Page 373 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 6
Figure 2-3 Visual Rendering from U.S. 101 Northbound
Page 374 of 753
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 7
Figure 2-4 Visual Rendering from U.S. 101 Southbound
Page 375 of 753
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 8
The project would change views from Prado Road and U.S. 101, which are
designated under the city’s General Plan Circulation Element as having
moderate and high scenic value, respectively. The project would result in a
moderate-to -low resource change for viewers along Prado Road because it
would generally be consistent with the scale of urban vegetation and
agricultural land that contribute to the visual character. Similarly, the project
would result in moderate to moderate-to -low visual impacts along U.S. 101
because the proposed overcrossing would be of a similar scale as other
overcrossing structures along U.S. 101, and viewers would pass the
overcrossing at a high rate of speed, minimizing exposure to the structure .
The project would have a moderate-to-high level of resource change in areas
along Dalidio Drive due to the construction of a new dominant infrastructural
feature in a primarily agricultural location. However, Dalidio Drive is not
designated as having moderate or high s cenic value under the city’s General
Plan.
Aesthetic treatment may be required at all auxiliary structures , such as
retaining walls and concrete barriers consistent with the Aesthetic Barrier
Design guidance and the California Highway Barrier Aesthetics Re port
(Caltrans 2002). Design for auxiliary structures would be built consistent with
the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines. The design,
placement, site features, and visual treatments would relate to building
architecture and site topogra phy. These elements would be of the same
quality in design and materials as the surrounding infrastructure. Aesthetic
treatments within the State Right-of-Way would be required to be reviewed
and approved by Caltrans.
Project construction may require the removal of mature, native, and non-
native trees, a key feature contributing to the visual character of the Prado
Road corridor. The number of trees to be removed, trimmed , and/or have
their critical root zones impacted by the project would be dependent on the
final design of the project and construction access needs. In locations where
qualifying tree removal is required, the city requires a tree removal permit and
compensatory tree planting to meet the requirements of the city’s tree
ordinance. Removing trees would potentially conflict with General Plan
Policies 9.1.1(B)(4) and 9.1.4(C). Required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
d) The project may involve the installation of street lighting and/or traffic
signals. Given the largely developed nature of the project site and ample light
sources along U.S. 101 and Prado Road, the project would not add
substantial lighting that would adversely affect nighttime views in the area.
The project would not involve elements that would generate large areas of
reflective surfaces that would increase sources of daytime glare. Operational
impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.
Page 376 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 9
Construction may require temporary lighting ; construction light sources would
include lighting during night work and lighting to illuminate pavement and
portals through overcrossing falsework. Construction lighting would be
directed toward construction activities. Pursuant to Caltrans Standard
Specifications, falsework lighting would be aimed to avoid glare to oncoming
motorists (Caltrans 2018b). Given that construction lighting would be
temporary in nature and directed to minimize glare or light trespas s, this
impact would be less than significant.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures for tree protection and replacement and
landscape plan requirements would be required to reduce potential impacts to
visual resources resulting from project implementation:
Mitigation Measure AES -1. Tree Protection and Replacement Plan.
Before issuing grading or building permits, a Tree Protection and
Replacement Plan will be prepared for the project based on the final grading
and building plans. The Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will identify all
trees within the project limits. The Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will
stipulate that all trees not proposed for removal will be preserved and
protected from harm during project construction activities (consistent with
requirements of Mitigation Measure AES -2).
If , during the preparation of the Tree Protection and Replacement Plan, it is
discovered that trees within the project study area must be removed, the
Caltrans Design Engineer and District Landscape Architect will agree that tree
removal is necessary before final approval of the project plans. Where trees
are authorized by Caltrans for removal, they will be replaced with native or
other horticulturally appropriate species suitable for the area at a minimum
ratio of three new trees for each tree removed, as directed by the Caltrans
District Landscape Architect. All replacement planting will include a minimum
three-year plant establishment period.
The project specifications will include provisions requiring the protection of all
trees as directed in this measure, and the cost estimate will include adequate
funds for identified tree protection measures and tree replacement and
maintenance measures, if necess ary.
Mitigation Measure AES -2. Tree Protection. All qualifying trees within 25
feet of proposed ground disturbances that will be retaine d will be temporarily
fenced with chain-link or other material throughout all grading and
construction activities. The fencing shall be installed outside the dripline of
each tree or as far from the trunk as is feasible while accommodating project
construction and be shown in the Tree Protection and Replacement Plan. No
construction equipment shall be staged, parked, or sto red within the dripline
of any qualifying tree. If project construction requires activities within the
Page 377 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 10
dripline of a tree that is proposed to be retained, an arborist shall be present
during ground-disturbing work under the dripline.
Mitigation Measure AES -3. Landscape Plan. A landscape plan shall be
developed by the city and approved by the District Landscape Architect
before project approval. The landscape plan shall consist of plantings that
offer a variety of colors, shapes, and species with an emphasis on drought-
tolerant, native plant materials. The landscape plan shall include plantings
along constructed walls and structures as well as benched and graded areas
within the project corridor to soften visual changes and reduce the visual
scale of new project features. Landscaping shall be overseen for a minimum
period of two years or as determined by the District Landscape Architect.
2.1.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board.
Considering the information in the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
analysis dated September 2021, the following significance determinations
have been made:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Agriculture and Forest
Resources
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Page 378 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 11
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Agriculture and Forest
Resources
c ) Conflict with existing zoning, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
No Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
The project site is in a portion of the City of San Luis Obispo that is largely
built but contains some farmland. Much of the project site consists of existing
roadways and highways, with nearby parcels zoned for public facilities,
offices, and commercial space. However, the portion of the project site
associated with the proposed Prado Road extension west of U.S. 101 to
Dalidio Drive is on the 131-acre San Luis Ranch property. The portion of the
project site associated with the proposed Elks Lane realignment is on a 12.5 -
acre agricultural property. These areas are designated as Prime Farmland
under the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open
Space Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2006) and the 2016 San Luis Obispo
County Important Farmland Map from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (California Department of Conservation 2016). The project site is not
under a Williamson Act contract (City of San Luis Obispo 2006).
The San Luis Ranch property northwest of the project site is slated for
development with commercial, residential, recreational, and agricultural land
uses under the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, approved by the city in 2017
(City of San Luis Obispo 2017a). The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan includes
the Prado Road extension to Dalidio Drive; parcels next to the roadway are
zoned C -N-SP (Neighborhood Commercial – Specific Plan) and AG-SP
(Agricultural – Specific Plan) (City of San Luis Obispo 2017a).
Environmental Consequences
a, b) Portions of the project site include areas zoned for agricultural
production, although these areas are not under a Williamson Act contract.
The project would result in the direct conversion of about 1.25 acres of
existing prime agri cultural land to transportation use to accommodate the
extension of Prado Road west of U.S. 101 to Dalidio Drive. The extension of
Prado Road may also split about 4 acres of agricultural land in the
Page 379 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 12
northeastern corner of the San Luis Ranch property betwee n the proposed
Prado Road extension and U.S. 101 from the remainder of the San Luis
Ranch property. This may result in an indirect conversion of these 4 acres of
prime agricultural land. In addition, depending on the alternative selected, the
realignment of Elks Lane may result in the conversion of about 2.6 acres of
prime agricultural land on a 12.5-acre property east of the Sunset Drive -In
property. As a result, the project could result in the conversion of a total of up
to about 7.85 acres of prime farmland, including 5.25 acres (4 percent) of
prime farmland on the San Luis Ranch property and 2.6 acres (21 percent) of
prime farmland on the property east of the Sunset Drive -In. The direct and
indirect farmland conversion impacts fo r each project alternative are shown in
Table 1 below.
In Table 1 below, Alternatives A3 and A7 include Options 1 and 2 for Elks
Lane realignment; Option 1 would result in no farmland impacts , and Option 2
would result in direct farmland conversion.
Table 1 Project Alternatives Farmland Impacts
Project Element Alternative
A1R
Alternative
A3
Alternative
A4R
Alternative
A7
Prado Road/Dalidio
Road Connection
Direct Conversion
1.25 acres 1.25 acres 1.25 acres 1.25 acres
Prado Road/Dalidio
Road Connection
Indirect Conversion
4 acres 4 acres 4 acres 4 acres
Elks Lane
Realignment
Direct Conversion
2.6 acres 0 or 2.6 acres 0 acre 0 or 2.6 acres
Elks Lane
Realignment
Indirect Conversion
0 acre 0 acre 0 acre 0 acre
Total Farmland
Conversion 7.85 acres 5.25 or 7.85
acres 5.25 acres 5.25 or 7.85
acres
The project would not change the zoning or prevent agricultural production on
the parcels next to the proposed Prado Road extension and Elks Lane
realignment.
The San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental Impa ct Report, certified by
the City of San Luis Obispo in 2017, assesses the potential impacts on
agricultural land associated with the build-out of the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan, including the Prado Road extension to Dalidio Drive (City of San Luis
Obispo 2017b). The certified San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental
Impact Report includes Mitigation Measure AG-1, which requires 1 acre of
agricultural land of comparable productivity to be preserved in perpetuity for
every acre of Important Farmland on the San Luis Ranch property—including
Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland —
Page 380 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 13
that is permanently converted to nonagricultural use as a result of Specific
Plan development. The Prado Road extension was included a s a project
component in the San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report;
therefore, the Prado Road extension portion of this project would be required
to comply with Mitigation Measure AG-1 from the San Luis Ranch Project
Final Environmental Impact Report. This measure ensures consistency with
Policy 8.6.3C of the city’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space
Element, which states that for widespread habitat type or farmland impacts,
mitigation shall consist of permanently protecting an equa l area of equal
quality, which does not already have permanent protection, in the San Luis
Obispo Planning Area (City of San Luis Obispo 2017a). Similarly, this Initial
Study includes required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ,
which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
c, d) There is no land zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland
production within or next to the project alignment. The project would not result
in the direct or indirect conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact
would occur.
e) The project would introduce new access to the San Luis Ranch property
west of U.S. 101. The build-out of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan would
convert about 56 of the 109 acres (51 percent) of agricultural land on the
property to nonagricultural land uses. The remaining 53 acres of agricultural
land on the San Luis Ranch property, which is next to U.S. 101 and the
western portion of the project site, would remain in agricultural production.
As described under checklist items (a) and (b), the San Luis Ranch Project
Final Environmental Impact Report evaluates impacts to agricultural
resources associated with the build-out of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan,
including the proposed extension of Prado Road, and concludes that such
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure AG-1 under the San Luis Ranch Project Final
Environmental Impact Report calls for each acre of Important Farmland
converted in the Specific Plan Area to be offset by the preservation of an acre
of land of comparable agricultural productivity in perpetuity. This includes
farmland on the site that would be converted either directly or indirectly by the
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange project. Therefore, compliance with
existing requirements would ensure that the project would not result in any
additional conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use not already
addressed in the San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report.
Consequently, this impact would be less than significant.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure for the conservation of Important Farmland
would be required to reduce potential impacts to agricultural resources
resulting from project implementation:
Page 381 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 14
Mitigation Measure AG-1. Agricultural Conservation . The city shall
provide that for every 1 acre of Important Farmland (Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) on the site that is
permanently converted to non-agricultural use as a result of the Elks Lane
realignment, one (1) acre of comparable land in agricultural production shall
be preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to agriculture pursuant to this
measure shall be of the size, location, and configuration appropriate to
maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. Said mitigation shall be
satisfied through:
Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s),
or other farmland conservation mechanism(s) to a qualified
conservation organization that has been approved by the city, or
establishing a perpetual conservation easement(s) or deed
restriction(s) held by the city or other farmland conservation
mechanism(s), for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural
land. The land covered by said onsite and/or offsite easement(s) or
deed restriction(s) shall be located within or contiguous to the city’s
Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt, subject to review and approval of
the city’s Natural Resources Manager; or
Making an in-lieu payment to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open
Space Fund to be applied toward the future purchase of a perpetual
conservation easement(s) or deed restriction(s) held by the city or
other farmland conservation mechanism(s), for the purpose of
permanently preserving agricultural land. The land covered by said
onsite and/or offsite easement(s) or deed restri ction(s) shall be
located within or contiguous to the city’s Urban Reserve Line or
Greenbelt, subject to review and approval of the city’s Natural
Resources Manager. The amount of the payment shall be sufficient to
conserve similar land on a per acre basis , as determined by a
licensed appraiser; or
Making an in-lieu payment to a qualified conservation organization
that has been approved by the city and that is organized for
conservation purposes, to be applied toward a future purchase of
comparable agricultural land, or a perpetual conservation easement,
deed restriction, or other farmland conservation mechanism to
preserve the required amount of agricultural land in San Luis Obispo
County. The amount of the payment shall be sufficient to conserve
similar land on a per acre basis, as determined by the qualifying
entity or a licensed appraiser; or
Any combination of the above.
Page 382 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 15
2.1.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations.
Considering the information in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical
Study dated September 2021, the following significance determinations have
been made:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Air Quality
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
No Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
The City of San Luis Obispo is in the South Central Coast Air Basi n, which is
under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (District)
monitors air pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if
they are not met, develops strategies to meet the standards. Depending on
whether the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as
being in “attainment” or as “non-attainment.” The County of San Luis Obispo
is designated non-attainment for the State 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard
in addition to the state standard for fugitive particulate matter with diameters
of 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10 or fugitive dust). The eastern portion of
the County is also designated as non-attainment for the federal 8-hour ozone
standard; however, the project is located in western San Luis Obispo County.
Thus, this designation does not apply to the project location. The County is
unclassified or in attainment for all other criteria pollutants under the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District 2019).
The major sources of fugitive dust in the South Central Coast Air Basin are
agricultural operations, vehicle dust, gradi ng, and dust produced by high
winds. Additional sources of particulate pollution include diesel exhaust;
mineral extraction and production; combustion products from industry and
motor vehicles; smoke from wildfires and open burning; paved and unpaved
Page 383 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 16
roads; condensation of gaseous pollutants into liquid or solid particles ; and
wind-blown dust from soils disturbed by demolition and construction,
agricultural operations, off-road vehicle recreation, and other activities. Ozone
is a secondary pollutant that is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides
and reactive organic gases in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ozone
levels are dependent on the amount of these precursors. In the South Central
Coast Air Basin, the major sources of reactive organic gases are motor
vehicles, organic solvents, petroleum production, and pesticides. The major
sources of nitrogen oxides are motor vehicles, public utility power generation,
and fuel combustion by various industrial sources (San Luis Obispo County
Air Pollution Control District 2001).
Construction Emissions Thresholds
The district has developed specific daily and quarterly quantitative thresholds
that apply to projects within the South Central Coast Air Basin. Daily
thresholds are for projects that would be completed in less than one quarter
(90 days). Quarterly thresholds are applicable to the project because
construction would last for more than one quarter. The applicable thresholds
from the District’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012) and 2017 Clarification
Memorandum are shown in Table 2 and described below.
Table 2 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Significance Thresholds for Project-Level Construction Impac ts
Pollutant
Daily
(P ounds per
Day)
Quarterly Tier 1
(Tons per
Quarter)
Quarterly Tier 2
(Tons per
Quarter)
Ozone Precursors (Reactive
Organic Gases Plus Nitrogen
Oxides )
137 2.5 6.3
Diesel Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
7 0.13 0.32
Fugitive Particulate Matter
(PM10)
None 2.5 None
Source: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District 2012.
Ozone Precursors Construction Emissions Thresholds
As of October 2016, the District has determined that projects shall implement
Standard Mitigation Measures anytime a construction project exceeds the 137
pounds per day threshold, regardless of whether or not the duration of
construction is over 90 days (1 quarter). In addition, the District requires
Standard Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures if a project has a grading area
greater than 4 acres or is within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor (San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District 2012 and 2017).
Quarterly–Tier 1. For construction projects , exceeding the 2.5
ton/quarter threshold requires standard mitigation measures and best
available control technology for construction equipment. Offsite
Page 384 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 17
mitigation may be required if feasible mitigation measures are not
implemented or if no mitigation measures are feasible for the project;
and
Quarterly–Tier 2. For construction projects exceeding the 6.3
ton/quarter threshold, Standard Mitigation Measures, Best Available
Control Technology, implementation of a Construction Activity
Management Plan and offsite mitigation are required.
Diesel Particulate Matter (PM 2.5) Construction Emissions Thresholds
Quarterly–Tier 1. For construction projects lasting more than one quarter,
exceeding the 0.13 tons per quarter threshold requires standard mitigation
measures, best available control technology for construction equipment;
and
Quarterly–Tier 2. For construction projects lasti ng more than one quarter,
exceeding the 0.32 ton per quarter threshold requires standard mitigation
measures, best available control technology, implementation of a
Construction Activity Management Plan, and offsite mitigation.
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM 10) Dust Construction Emissions Thresholds
Quarterly: Exceeding the 2.5 tons per quarter threshold requires
Fugitive Particulate Matter Mitigation Measures and may require the
implementation of a Construction Activity Management Plan.
Sensitive Receptors
Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of
air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect
public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the
public most susceptible to respiratory distress. Certain population groups are
considered more sensitive to air pollution than others. Sensitive population
groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill,
especially those with cardio -respiratory diseases. Residential uses are also
considered sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and
the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in
sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Nearby s ensitive receptors
include existing residential land uses east of the project site and approved but
not-yet-constructed residential land uses west of the project site, the closest
of which have property boundaries approximately 700 feet from the edge of
the Project Intersection.
Methodology
The district recommends the use of the most recent version of the California
Emissions Estimator Model (version 2020.4.0) to estimate the construction
and operational emissions of a project. The emissions model for the p roject
was based on the construction of a Prado Road extension over U.S. 101 to
connect with Dalidio Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. The model also
included the reconstruction of the existing U.S. 101 northbound ramp on and
Page 385 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 18
off-ramp connections to Prado Road to provide congestion relief, operational
efficiency, and multimodal connectivity.
To conservatively estimate the potential air pollutant emissions generated by
the project, the emissions modeling accounts for the maximum potential build-
out and project footprint among the various alternatives’ designs. As
discussed in Section 1.4.1, Build Alternatives, and shown in Figure 1-3
through Figure 1-6, all Build Alternatives would occur in the same general
area and would include the extension of Prado Road/Dalidio Drive to the
intersection of Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive, realignment of Elks Lane
east of U.S. 101, a new northbound U.S. 101 auxiliary lane between the
Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-
ramp, and a Midwest Guardrail System next to the proposed northbound U.S.
101 auxiliary lane’s outside shoulder.
Construction is expected to start during 202 6 and be completed in 2029. As a
conservative estimate based on the current alternative designs for the project,
the analysis anticipates that up to 325,000 cubic yards of fill material would be
imported (hauled) to the site for the development of the project, depending on
the Project alternative selected. The analysis used California Emissions
Estimator Model default values for the construction schedule and equipment
generated based on the maximum potential area of development input into
the model. In addition, the district Standard Fugitive Dust mitigation measures
are included in the model since the grading area exceeds 4 acres, and the
project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive recepto rs. The California Emissions
Estimator Model results are included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Technical Study.
Although the project would improve traffic flow and reduce idling time, the
project would not involve the construction of additional ve hicle lanes on U. S.
101 or increase the capa city of the existing northbound on- and off-ramps at
the U.S. 101/Prado Road interchange. As a result, the project would not
involve any operational changes or other activities with the potential to result
in long -term emissions; therefore, no analysis of operational emissions is
included. (Refer to Section 2.1.17, Transportation, for a detailed discussion of
the expected traffic volume reductions that would result from project
implementation).
Environmental Consequences
a) The District adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan in 2002. The 2001 Clean Air
Plan is a comprehensive planning document that is intended to provide
evidence to the District and other local agencies, including the city, on how to
attain and maintain the State standards for ozone and fugitive particulate
matter (PM10). The 2001 Clean Air Plan presents a detailed description of the
sources and pollutants which impact the jurisdiction, future air quality impacts
to be expected under current growth trends, and an appropriate control
Page 386 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 19
strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air
quality.
The District identifies significant impacts related to consistency with the 2001
Clean Air Plan by determining whether a project would exceed the population
projections used in the Clean Air Plan for the same area, whether the vehicle
trips and vehicle miles traveled generated by the project would exceed the
rate of population growth for the same area , and whether applicable land use
management strategies and transportation control measures from the Clean
Air Plan have been included in the project to the maximum extent feasible.
Project Implementation would not induce direct or indirect population growth.
The proposed interchange configuration is designed to improve traffic flow
and vehicle speeds and would not involve increases in idling. One of the
considerations in evaluating induced travel is a project’s effect on land use
that could occur as a result of the project. The proposed project would not
result in land use development that would lead to induced travel. As
discussed in detail in Section 2.1.17, Transportation, the proposed
overcrossing would provid e a more direct route through the city, resulting in a
net overall reduction in daily Vehicle Miles Traveled in the city and at the
regional level. Therefore, the project would be consistent with applicable
transportation control measures in the Clean Air Plan by allowing more
efficient travel in the area. Overall, the project would not conflict with the 2001
Clean Air Plan, and there would be no impacts.
b) Temporary construction activities associated with the project would
generate fugitive dust, ozone precursor emissions, and diesel exhaust
emissions, which would contribute to the existing San Luis Obispo County
State non-attainment status for ozone and fugitive particulate matter. Table 3
shows the estimated maximum daily and quarterly emissions during
construction (based on the maximum potential build-out and project footprint
among the various alternatives’ designs).
Table 3 Potential Construction Emissions
Scenario Project
Emissions Significance Threshold Exceeds
Threshold?
Maximum Daily Emissions of
Reactive Organic Gases plus
Nitrogen Oxides
62 137 pounds per day No
Maximum Daily Diesel
Particulate Matter Emissions
1 7 pounds per day No
Maximum Quarterly Emissions
of Reactive Organic Gases
plus Nitrogen Oxides
1.7 Tier 1: 2.5 tons per quarter
Tier 2: 6.3 tons per quarter
No
Maximum Quarterly Emissions
of Diesel Particulate Matter
0.01 Tier 1: 0.13 tons per quarter
Tier 2: 0.32 tons per quarter
No
Page 387 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 20
Scenario Project
Emissions Significance Threshold Exceeds
Threshold?
Maximum Quarterly Emissions
of Fugitive Particulate Matter
(PM10)
0.1 Tier 1: 25 tons per quarter
Tier 2: none
No
Source: Attachment 1 for California Emissions Estimator Model.
The primary pollutants associated with project construction would be
windblown dust and diesel exhaust generated during construction, hauling,
and various other activities. As shown in Table 3, project construction would
not exceed the 137 pounds per day threshold for ozone precursors (combined
Reactive Organic Gases plus Nitrogen Oxides) emissions, nor would it
exceed the Tier 1 quarterly emissions thresholds for ozone precursors, diesel
particulate matter, and fugitive particulate matter.
Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control are required for all
project construction activities. The provisions of Caltrans Standard
Specifications, Section 14 -9.02 “Air Pollution Control” and Section 14 -9.03
“Dust Control” require the contractor to comply with applicable District rules,
ordinances, and regulations. Therefore, District fugitive dust control measures
would be required.
In addition, as described above under Methodology and detailed in Section
2.1.17, Transportation, the project would not involve any operational changes
or other activities with the potential to result in long -term emissions. Rather,
the project would result in reduced vehicle miles traveled and associated air
pollutant emissions. Therefore, the project would have less than significant
operational impacts.
c) A carbon monoxide hot spot analysis for a project is required if the area is
classified as federal “non-attainment” or “maintenance” for carbon monoxide
and/or diesel particulate matter or fugitive particulate matter . On March 10,
2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule that
establishes the transportation conformity criteria and procedures for
determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local air
quality impacts in diesel particulate matter and fugiti ve particulate matter
federal non-attainment and maintenance areas. The project is located in the
South Central Coast Air Basin, which is classified as a non-attainment-
transitional area for the State standard for fugitive particulate matter. The San
Luis Obispo County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin is in
attainment of the State standards for carbon monoxide and is unclassified for
the State standard for diesel particulate matter. According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection A gency’s Transportation Conformity Guidance,
PM2.5 hot-spot analysis is required for Projects of Air Quality Concern in
federal non-attainment areas (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 93.123
[b][1]). Projects that are exempt or not Projects of Air Quality Concern do not
require hot-spot analyses. Because the project is not in a federal non-
Page 388 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 21
attainment area, the project does not require a hot-spot analysis. In addition,
the project is exempt from regional conformity requirements pursuant to the
Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 93.127.
The project is an interchange configuration project that is designed to improve
traffic flow and vehicle speeds and would not involve increases in idling. As a
result, the project is not of Air Quality Concern under 40 Code of Federal
Regulations 93.123(b)(1)(i) and (ii) and does not require a hot spot analysis.
In accordance with the District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, standard
mitigation measures for localized construction impacts on nearby sensitive
receptors are required because there are sensitive receptors located within
1,000 feet of the project site (residential uses within approximately 700 feet),
development of the project site would involve grading more than 4 acres, and
because the South Central Coast Air Basin is in a State non-attainment area
for fugitive particulate matter. Required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
d) During construction, the project would generate odors associated with
diesel exhaust, paving, and painting. However, these emissions would be
temporary and typical of construction activities. The District CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (2012) identifies typi cal land uses that have the potential to result
in odorous emissions and provides recommendations for siting new sensitive
land uses near these uses. The project is not considered a significant odor
source according to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Theref ore, the project
would not result i n significant objectionable odors that would impact a
substantial number of people.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Fugitive Dust and Emissions Control
Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control
measures to reduce fugitive particulate matter emissions in accordance with
District requirements. All fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans:
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in
sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (non-potable) water
shall be used whenever possible;
All dirt stockpile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as
possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
Page 389 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 22
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dat es
greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast
germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized
using approved chemical soi l binders, jute netting, or other methods
approved in advance by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution
Control District;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, and other areas to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m iles
per hour on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum
vertical distance between the top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114;
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads
onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried
onto nearby paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall
be used where feasible;
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to
monitor fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of
the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce
visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent the
transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays a nd
weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the
APCD’s limi t of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -
minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable)
water should be used whenever possible. When drought conditions
exist and water use is a concern, the contractor or builder should
consider use of a dust suppressant that is effective for the specific
site conditions to reduce the amount of water used for dust control.
Please refer to the following link from the San Joaquin Valley Air
District for a list of potential dust suppressants: Products Available for
Controlling Dust;
Page 390 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 23
All stockpiled dirt should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or
other dust barriers as needed;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should b e
completed as soon as possible, and building pads should be laid as
soon as possible after grading unless seeding, soil binders or other
dust controls are used;
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum
vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) or otherwise
comply with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114;
“Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or
agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or
equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or
street as described in CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code
13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all
employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and
operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track -out prevention device’
can be any device or combination of devices that are effective a t
preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an
unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices
need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate
tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be
modified;
All fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans;
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose
responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in
a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation
measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce
visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater
than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include
holi days and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for
example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot).
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided
to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any gradi ng,
earthwork, or demolition (Contact the Compliance Division at 805 -
781-5912).
Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as
possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates
greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast
Page 391 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 24
germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
All disturbed soi l areas not subject to revegetation should be
stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other
methods approved in advance by the APCD;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph
on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with
reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre -wetted prior to
sweeping when feasible; and
Take additional measures as needed to ensure dust from the project
site is not impacting areas outside the project boundary.
Construction projects shall implement the following emission control
measures to reduce particulate matter and toxic air contaminant emissions
from idling diesel engines. All emission control measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans.
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be
permitted;
Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and
Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the
site.
2.1.4 Biological Resources
Considering the information in the Natural Environment Study dated October
2021, the following significance determinations have been made:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Biological Resources
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, or National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Page 392 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 25
Question—Would the project: CEQA Significance Determinations
for Biological Resources
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
Affected Environment
The Area of Potential Impact for this project regarding biological resources is
defined as the maximum amount of potential disturbance area for both
temporary and permanent impacts and is extensive enough to include all
proposed alternatives and project components, including traffic, lane, and
shoulder modifications, subject roads, and city and Caltrans rights-of-way.
The Biological Study Area for this project was established based on an aerial
review of the Area of Potential Impact and adds a 50-foot buffer.
Biological field surveys were conducted on July 27, 2018, April 7, 2021, and
August 4, 2021. These surveys were designed to assess habitat suitability for
special-status species, characterize and map habitats, natural communities ,
and land cover types, map potentially jurisdictional features, and develop an
inventory of all plant and animal species detected within the Biological Study
Area.
Queries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and
Consultation system, California Department of Fish and Wildlife California
Natural Di versity Database, National Marine Fisheries Service species lists,
and California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding State
and federally listed and other special-status species considered to have
potential to occur within the Biological Study Area, the San Luis Obispo,
Page 393 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 26
California U.S. Geological S urvey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, and
the surrounding eight quadrangles .
The city regulates tree removal within i ts jurisdiction. Certain tree species are
afforded protections pursuant to city ordinances (Tree Ordinance Number
1664 2019 Series). The city tree ordinance requires permits from the city for
the removal of any tree , except for the removal of a tree within R-1 and R-2
residential zones.
Environmental Consequences
a) Special -Status Plants
Two special-status plants were determined to have the potential to exist
within the Biological Study Area based on their biological requirements
compared to existing site conditions and the range of each species. These
species include Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) and
black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata). A field survey was conducted
that coincided with blooming periods for these plants , and neither species
was seen. No federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or rare plant
species were seen within the Biological Study Area during the field survey.
Therefore, no impacts to special-status plant species would occur.
Special -Status Ani mals
Nine special-status animal species may occur onsite based on the presence
of suitable habitat. These species include the California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii ), which is federally threatened and state species of special
concern; South-Central California C oast Distinct Population Segment
steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), which is federally
endangered; white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), which is a fully protected
species; ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), which are state watch list species; and purple martin (Progne
subis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Coast Range newt (Taricha
torosa torosa), and southwestern pond turtle (Emys marmorata), which are
state species of special concern.
In addition to special-status wildlife species, the Biological Study Area has
suitable habitat for a variety of common nesting bird species and raptors that
are afforded protection under the California Fish and Game Code and/or
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
No state or federally listed or otherwise sensitive animal species were
observed within the Biological Study Area during the field survey.
C alifornia R ed-Legged Frog Impacts
The Biological Study Area was assessed for the potential to support the
California red-legged frog based on the habitats present within and next to the
Biological Study Area , as well as an occurrence approximately 0.5 mile south
Page 394 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 27
of the Biological Study Area. The project site is within the known range of the
California red-legged frog in San Luis Obispo County, based on the current
range depicted in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the
California red-legged frog (USFWS, 2002). Federally designated critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog has also been identified in the vicinity
and is located approximately 0.65 mile north of the Biological Study Area.
San Luis Obispo Creek, within the northeast corner of the Biological Study
Area, contains potentially suitable breeding habitat for the California red-
legged frog. The arroyo willow thicket lining the creek is considered suitable
habitat for juvenile dispersal and foraging adults. However, the western bank
is heavily incised , limiting access for dispersal. In addition, steep concrete
slope protection was seen along the western bank of the creek in the
northeastern corner of the Biological Study Area. The slope protection runs
from the ordinary high-water mark to the top of the bank. The western side of
San Luis Obispo Creek within the Biological Study Area is also not suitable
dispersal habitat due to the presence of the highway, lack of vegetation cover,
compacted road shoulder and pavement, and heavy, fast-moving vehicular
traffic.
The only areas with suitable dispersal habitat for the California red-legged
frog are lower on the bank, where there may be sufficient vegetation cover
and soil moisture. The Biological Study Area does not currently contain
suitable breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog. Currently, no
areas of potential pooling of standing water of sufficient depth to support
California red-legged frog breeding are present within the Biological Study
Area. However, potential California red-legged frog breeding habitat may
occur further upstream or downstream in the creek.
In addition, one human-made pond associated with the city Water Resource
Recovery Facility occurs in the southeastern portion of the Area of Potential
Impact. While water within the pond could provide potentially suitable habitat
for the California red-legged frog, the concrete wall surrounding the pond
creates a barrier that would prevent the California red-legged frog from
entering. Therefore, it is unlikely that the pond would provide habitat for the
California red-legged frog or that the species would occur within it.
Because the project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, it would be
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities (Order Number 2012-0006-DWQ) adopted by the State
Water Resources Control Board (Water Board). Compliance with the permit
requires the project applicant to file a Notice of Intent with the Water Board.
Permit conditions require the preparati on of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will describe the
site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality
monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans,
Page 395 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 28
construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance
responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of
construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify
stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and
implement erosion controls, where necessary.
Impacts to water quality would be avoided with spill prevention and
mandatory erosion control measures determined suitable for the proposed
project in the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Although the
project would add an auxiliary lane and remove one 3-inch diameter at breast
height arroyo willow next to the west bank of San Luis Obispo Creek, the
project would not impact the California red-legged frog because the work
areas are not considered suitable breeding, foraging or dispersal habitat.
Therefore, no dispersing juveniles or foraging adults are expected to occur in
affected locations next to the west bank of San Luis Obispo Creek .
Potential impacts to the California red-legged frog would require Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures to reduce to a less than significant
level.
Coast Range Newt Impacts
The project site is within the known range of the Coast Range newt, and one
occurrence has been documented within a 3-mile radius of the Biological
Study Area. The arroyo willow thicket on the terrace above the west bank of
San Luis Obispo Creek is considered suitable upland habitat for foraging and
aestivation, although the species was not observed during the field survey.
The project would not result in substantial loss or fragmentation of Coast
Range newt habitat. Direct impacts to this species could occur if it is present
onsite during construction activities. Given that this species is an amphibian
that uses similar habitats to the California red-legged frog, implementing the
mitigation measures provided for the California red-legged frog are suitable
and appropriate for this species as well.
Therefore, potential direct and indirect impacts to this species resulting from
project implementation would require Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures to reduce to a less than significant level.
Southwestern Pond Turtle Impacts
The Biological Study Area occurs within the known range of the southwestern
pond turtle, and there are four occurrences of this species documented by the
California Natural Diversity Database records within a 3-mile radius of the
Biological Study Area . San Luis Obispo Creek provides suitable habitat as it
supports aquatic vegetation and exposed banks for basking. The arroyo
willow thicket lining San Luis Obispo Creek provides suitable nesting habitat
for this species. No southwestern pond turtles were observed during the field
surveys.
Page 396 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 29
The project would not result in substantial loss or fragmentation of
southwestern pond turtle habitat. Habitat for this species is not expected to be
affected because both channels and arroyo willow thicket immediately lining
the channels occur outside the Area of Potential Impact. Due to the nearby
freeway and ground disturbance, this species is not expected to occur on the
western edge of the thicket where the individual tree will be removed. In
addition, due to the high degree of disturbance associated with the remainder
of the site, this species is not expected to overwinter within the proposed
disturbance area. This species is only expected to occur incidentally, if at all if
individuals move through the site during the wet season due to the proximity
of the project site to potentially suitable aquatic habitat. Potential impacts to
the southwestern pond turtle would require Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures to reduce to a less than significant level.
South-Central California Coast Steelhead Trout Impacts
The field surveys identified suitable habitat for South-Central California Coast
steelhead trout (steelhead) within the San Luis Obispo Creek stream channel;
however, no steelhead s were seen. The project would not require work in San
Luis Obispo Creek; therefore, the project would not result in direct take of
steelhead, including harm or harassment. The project does not include
construction within the stream channel itself. However, indirect impacts to
steelhead could result from accidental release of sediment or spills of wet
concrete, chemicals, or oil if the spills reach occupied habitat. Potential
indirect impacts would be avoided using spill prevention and erosion control
measures required for the proposed project through the implementation of the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Potential indirect project-related
impacts to this species as well as potential impacts to San Luis Obispo Creek
from potential invasive species introduction would require Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures to reduce to a less than significant
level.
Designated Critical Habitat for Steelhead Impacts and Mitigation
The project would not result in substantial loss or fragmentation of steelhead
federally designated critical habitat. All project-related disturbances would
occur outside the banks of the creek and no overhanging vegetation would be
impacted. As such, direct impacts to federally designated critical habitat
would not occur, and the project will not result in permanent shading of
federally designated steelhead critical habitat within San Luis Obispo Creek.
Indirect impacts to steelhead critical habitat could occur as a result of general
project-related disturbance, water quality issues, or if a spill containing water
quality contaminants occurs within the Biological Study Area during
construction of the project. Potential indirect project-related impacts to this
species would require Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures to
reduce to a less than significant level.
Page 397 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 30
Ferruginous Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Purple Martin, Loggerhead Shrike, White -
Tailed Kite, And Other Nesting Birds Impacts
Suitable habitats for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
raptors protected under California Fish and Game Code (as discussed above)
occur within and next to the Biological Study Area. No avian nests or
individuals were detected during the field surveys. Although potentially
suitable nesting habitat is present for raptors, foraging habitat is limited within
the Biological Study Area due to existing development and transportation
corridors. Regular cultivation and other agricultural practices within the
western portion of the Biological Study Area generally eliminate habitat for
burrowing animals such as small mammals, which are a common prey base
for raptors. Accordingly, the project would not result in significant loss or
fragmentation of nesting bird habitat.
Potential direct impacts could occur to resident, migratory, and raptor species
if nests are present within the Biological Study Area during construction.
Indirect impacts to nesting birds could result from general project -related
disturbance and noise if nesting pairs are present within the Biological Study
Area during implementation. Potential project-related impacts to nesting bird
species would require Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures to
reduce to a less than significant level.
Invasive Species Impacts
Sixteen invasive species were seen in the Biological Study Area during the
field surveys. Many of the invasive species in the study area are present as
part of intentionally planted landscaping. However, once established, such
species can proliferate and spread into natural areas. Some species can also
regenerate from root and stem fragments. Gro und disturbance in the
Biological Study Area and removal of existing, invasive, non-native plant
species could result in the spread of these species into new areas. Non-
native plants can out-compete native species and/or alter habitat toward a
state that is unsuitable for special-status species.
For example, the spread of certain weed species can reduce the biodiversity
of native habitats through the displacement of vital pollinators, potentially
eliminating special-status plant species. There is potential for the project to
result in the spread of invasive plant species. Required Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures would reduce this impact to a less
than significant level.
b) Potentially jurisdictional features within the Biological Study A rea were
evaluated during the field surveys to record existing conditions and determine
the limits of jurisdiction. The extent of potential California Department of Fish
and Wildlife jurisdiction was delineated by reviewing the topography and
morphology of potentially jurisdictional features to determine the outer limit of
riparian vegetation, where present, or the top of banks for stream features
Page 398 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 31
lacking riparian vegetation, to identify streams potentially subject to Section
1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code . The topography and
morphology of potentially jurisdictional features were also reviewed to
determine the outer limit of the top of the stream banks for additional areas
that the Regional Water Quality Control Board may regulate under the Porter-
Cologne Act.
No evidence of wetlands subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers was seen in the Biological Study Area during field surveys. Other
waters subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality
Control B oard jurisdictions are confined to the reach of San Luis Obispo
Creek bordering the northeastern side of the Biological Study Area confined
to the Ordinary High Water Mark pursuant to the Clean Water Act and
conservatively to the top of the bank pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act.
The San Luis Obispo streambed and streambank habitats up to the top of the
bank, as well as riparian vegetation to the outer dripline of the riparian
community, are subject to the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game
Code. San Luis Obispo Creek has defined bed and banks, supports wildlife
within and outside the Biological Study Area, and maintains a direct
connection to the Pacific Ocean and , therefore, falls under the jurisdiction of
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife . The bed and banks associated
with San Luis Obispo Creek occur outside the Biological Study Area;
however, approximately 0.79 acre of associated riparian habitat sub ject to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ’s permitting authority under Section
1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code occurs within the
Biological Study Area .
Impacts from the implementation of the proposed project would include the
removal of one arroyo willow tree with a diameter at breast height of three
inches, resulting in a permanent impact to 0.02 acre of the 0.79-acre
California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdictional area. The tree
removal is required to accommodate work associated with the northbound
U.S. 101 auxiliary lane.
The project also has the potential to result in accidental sediment release into
San Luis Obispo Creek or accidental release of construction-related
chemicals to the creek. As discussed under checklist item (a), the project
applicant would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan including, but not limited to, a description of the site, erosion and
sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal,
maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls for
the project.
The project would also require a Streambed Alteration Agreement because
tree removal activities would take place within the California Department of
Page 399 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 32
Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction. In compliance with California Department of Fish
and Wildlife requirements, the Streambed Alteration Agreement must detail
the project location and description of the proposed work, the potential
impacts of the project, and specific avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation measures that will be undertaken to protect fish,
wildlife, and plant resources. These measures may include but would not be
limited to pre-activity surveys for sensitive species and nesting birds,
contractor training, flagging of work limits, specific vegetation removal
methodology, and installation of various Best Management Practices to
address project-related pollutants and erosion.
D ue to impacts to the 0.02-acre area of arroyo willow thicket habitat in the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdictional area, a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would be required. The required Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would provide for a 2:1 restoration ratio (2
acres of mitigation for every 1 acre of impacts) for permanent impacts unless
otherwise directed by regulatory agencies. Replacement of the sensitive
habitat resource shall occur in the designated sensitive habitat mitigation
portion of the Biological Study Area and must not inadvertently result in
additional impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species. In addition, all areas of
temporary disturbance shall be stabilized and revegetated with an
assemblage of native disturbance would be required for the Streambed
Alteration Agreement permitting and stipulated in the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to be stabilized vegetation suitable for the area. Anticipated
activities that are associated with the implementation of the required Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan include the application of native willow/
riparian seed mix and the removal of non-native weedy species within the
habitat mitigation area. The final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would
be required to be implemented immediately after project completion and
monitored throughout project construction and during the first year after
completion.
The project will be required to follow the guidelines within the statewide
stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (Caltrans
permit) for portions of the project within the Caltrans right-of-way. The City of
San Luis Obispo’s MS4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit will be followed in all other areas outside of the Caltrans right -of-way.
This permit will include regulations pertaining to stormwater and non-
stormwater discharges from Caltrans properties and facilities and discharges
associated with the operation and maintenance of the State highway system.
Construction Best Management Practices would be implemented in
accordance with the Construction General Permit (Order Number 2009-0009-
DWQ), which requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan.
The Best Management Practices included in the Stormwater P ollution
Prevention Plan may include but are not limited to the use of temporary de -
Page 400 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 33
silting basins, construction vehicle maintenance to avoid leaks or spills of
hazardous materials, and installation of temporary large sediment barrier s
and erosion control blankets. Nevertheless, due to impacts to the 0.02-acre
area of arroyo willow thicket habitat in the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife jurisdictional area, i mplementation of Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures would be required to ensure that impacts to San Luis
Obispo Creek and the riparian corridor surrounding the creek are reduced to
a less than significant level.
c) Potentially jurisdictional features within the Biological Study Area were
evaluated during the field surveys to re cord existing conditions and determine
the limits of jurisdiction. No wetlands were identified in the Area of Potential
Impacts during the field surveys. Therefore, the construction and operation of
the project would not result in a significant impact on wetlands, including, but
not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, and coastal wetlands.
d) San Luis Obispo Creek and its associated riparian habitat within the
northeast corner of the Biological Study Area may b e utilized by wildlife , such
as Steelhead, as a migratory corridor and/or nursery site. Project construction
activities have the potential to impact San Luis Obispo Creek, as described
under Sections 2.1.4.b and 2.1.4.c, above. Therefore, the project would be
required to implement Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures to
avoid impacts to San Luis Obispo Creek during project construction. With the
implementation of required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation
Measures the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory species or impede the use of a native wildlife
nursery site.
e) During the field surveys, native trees, as well as trees planted for
ornamental purposes, were documented within the Biological Study Area,
primarily along the Prado Road and U.S. 101 rights-of-way as well as along
perimeters of the existing water treatment facility south of the project site.
Native trees in the Biological Study Area included coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), California
sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii ),
as well as other species native to California but not known to occur naturally
in the vicinity of the Biological Study Area , such as Monterey pine (Pinus
radiata), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), coast redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens), California incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and
Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa). Non-native tree species in
the Biological Study Area include scattered individuals of the Peruvian pepper
tree (Schinus molle), blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), and acacia
(Acacia sp.). Additionally, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) trees occur in
association with San Luis Obispo Creek in the northern portion o f the
Biological Study Area .
Page 401 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 34
Impacts to trees within the disturbance footprint from the construction of the
project include trimming, disturbance within the critical root zones from work
within the tree’s dripline, or removal. Depending on the alternative selected
and final design of the proposed project, the project may require the removal
of ornamental trees along Prado Road and along the U.S. 101 rights-of-way
which are protected pursuant to the city tree ordinance. Trees in the
Biological Study Area next to work areas may also be indirectly impacted
through pruning or root compaction. The number of trees in the Biological
Study Area that would require removal or trimming or which may have their
critical root zones impacted by the project would depend on the final design of
the project and construction access needs. One arroyo willow tree would be
removed from San Luis Obispo Creek in the northern part of the Project site.
Removal of this arroyo willow tree would require a tree removal permit and
would result in the need for a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and
Streambed Alteration Agreement, as discussed in Section 2.1.4.b, c, and d,
above).
Removing trees would require a tree removal permit and compensatory tree
planting to meet the requirements of the city tree ordinance. Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures require the preparation of a Tree
Protection and Replacement Plan identifying all trees within the project limits
and stipulating that all trees not proposed for removal shall be preserved and
protected from harm during construction activi ties. Compliance with
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures would require
concurrence from the Caltrans Design Engineer and District Landscape
Architect for any necessary tree removal, as well as additional tree protection
measures during project construction activities, which would ensure
compliance with the city’s tree protection ordinances. Implementation of these
requirements would reduce impacts to trees within and next to the Biological
Study Area to a less than significant level.
f) There is no existing Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or another approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
California Red-Legged Frog and Coast Range Newt Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-1. California Red -Legged Frog and Coast Range
Newt. The city shall implement the following to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to California red-legged frog and Coast Range newt. Because these
species utilize similar habitats, the implementation of the following measures
shall be implemented for both species.
A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey within
48 hours before the start of any work activities within and around the
project disturbance footprint. If the preconstruction survey identifies
Page 402 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 35
the presence of individuals of California red-legged frog or Coast
Range newt, or if individuals of these species are encountered during
construction, then work shall stop work and comply with all relevant
requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act before
resuming project activities.
No motorized equipment shall enter riparian areas. Arroyo willow tree
removal shall be performed with hand tools only.
Before trimming or removing trees within riparian areas, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a training session for the tree removal crew. At
a minimum, the training shall include a description of the California
red-legged frog and its habitat and Coast Range newt and its habitat,
the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve the
California red-legged frog and Coast Range newt for the project, and
the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.
A biological monitor familiar with semi -aquatic species that have the
potential to occur shall monitor the trimming or removal of trees within
riparian areas. If California red-legged frog or Coast Range newt are
observed in the work area, all shall stop work until all re levant
requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act have been
implemented.
All areas of the project site disturbed by activities associated with the
project shall be re-vegetated with an assemblage of native riparian,
wetland, and upland vegetation s uitable for the area as detailed in the
Landscape Plan and approved by the District Landscape Architect.
Locally collected plant materials shall be used to the extent
practicable.
Southwestern Pond Turtle Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Southwestern Pond Turtle. The city shall
ensure the following actions are implemented to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to the southwestern pond turtle:
Qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 48
hours before the start of work activities within and around areas that
may serve as potential habitat for the southwestern pond turtle,
including guard rail and erosion control installation. If individuals of
the southwestern pond turtle are found, the approved biologist shall
be allowed sufficient time to move them from the project site before
work activities begin. The biologist(s) shall relocate any individual
southwestern pond turtle the shortest distance possible to a location
that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be affected by
activities associated with the project.
Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the
minimum area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize
potential impacts to southwestern pond turtle habitat, including
Page 403 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 36
locating access routes and construction staging areas outside of
wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable.
Before the start of construction activities, high-visibility orange construction
fencing shall be installed along the perime ter of the area of disturbance
and construction access routes to ensure avoidance of sensitive habitat.
Before starting construction activities, a qualified biologist(s) shall
conduct a training session for all construction personnel conducting
vegetation removal activities, including a description of the
southwestern pond turtle, its habitat and legal status, and the need for
conservation of the species.
South-Central California Coast Steelhead Trout and Designated Critical
Habitat Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-3. South-Central California Coast steelhead
trout. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to steelhead:
Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a training session for all construction personnel. The training
shall include a description of the steelhead and its habitat, the
specific measures that are being implemented to conserve this
species for the current project, and the boundaries within which the
project may be accomplished.
Before starting construction activities, high-visibility orange
construction fencing shall be installed outside of the tops of the banks
of San Luis Obispo Creek along the limits of the proposed
disturbance to avoid disturbance to steelhead and its federally
designated critical habitat. Fencing shall be located a minimum of 20
feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of the bank and shall
be maintained throughout the construction period. Once construction
in this area is complete, the fencing may be removed.
During the duration of project activities, waste shall be properly
contained and secured, promptly removed from the work site, and
disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and
construction debris shall be removed from the work areas.
Project construction activities within 50 feet from the edge of the
riparian canopy or top of the bank of San Luis Obispo Creek shall
only occur during the dry season (e.g., between May 1 and
November 1) in any given year, when potential effects to steelhead
would be minimal.
To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the
following Best Management Practices shall be implemented for the
project. It shall be the city’s responsibility to maintain control of
Page 404 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 37
construction operations and to keep the entire site in compliance with
required B est Management Practices.
o Erosion shall be controlled by covering stockpiled construction
materials (i.e., soil, spoils, aggregate, fly ash, stucco, hydrated li me,
etc.) over 2.0 cubic yards that are not actively being used,
consistent with the applicable construction general permit, or
through other means of erosion control approved by the city (e.g.,
temporary erosion and sediment control). The site shall be
maintained to minimize sediment-laden runoff to any storm
drainage system, including existing drainage swales and/or sand
watercourses.
o If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes
shall be protected with erosion control measures immediate ly
following grading on the slopes.
o During construction, to prevent sedimentation and debris from
entering San Luis Obispo Creek during construction, a temporary
large sediment barrier shall be installed along the top of the banks
of the channel before the start of construction activities planned for
the project.
o Equipment will be checked daily for leaks before the start of
construction activities. A spill kit will be placed near the creek and
will remain readily available during construction if any contaminant
is accidentally released.
o The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in-stream
habitat, and overall performance of B est Management Practices
and sediment controls to identify and reconcile any condition that
could adversely affect steelhead or their habitat. The biologist will
stop work if necessary and will recommend site -specific measures
to avoid adverse effects to steelhead and their habitat.
o The city shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and sediment
control measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet
protections, and gravel bags) before, during, and after storm
events. Monitoring includes maintaining a file documenting onsite
inspections, problems encountered, corrective actions, notes, and a
map of remedial implementation measures.
Ferruginous Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Purple Martin, Loggerhead Shrike, White -
Tailed Kite, And Other Nesting Birds Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Nesting Birds. The city shall ensure the
following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to
nesting birds:
For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the
Page 405 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 38
C alifornia Fish and Game C ode and/or Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 3 days before vegetation
removal or initial construction activities . The surveys shall include the
disturbance area plus a 500 -foot buffer around the site, where feasible,
accounting for private property right-of-entry constraints. If active nests are
located, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone
from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall
be a minimum of 250 feet for non-raptor bird species and 500 feet for
raptor species unless there is a compelling biologically valid reason for a
smaller buffer (e.g., a physical barrier, such as a hill or large building,
between the nest and the site, blocks line of sight and reduces noise).
Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and
the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer
area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until
the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified
biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and the young
have fledged the nest before removal of the buffer. Readily visible
exclusion zones shall be established in areas where nests must be
avoided.
Removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats shall be
scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 16 and
January 31), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season.
If active white-tailed kite nests are located during surveys, all construction
work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be
determined by the qualified biologi st. The buffer shall be a minimum of 300
feet for raptor species, including white -tailed kites. Larger buffers may be
required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction
activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) s hall be
closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and
young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall
confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the
nest before the buffer is removed.
Invasive Species Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Invasive Species. The city shall ensure the
following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts
associated with invasive species in the project area:
Before construction, a qualified botanist/biologist shall provide invasive
plant prevention training and an appropriate identification/instruction guide
to staff and contractors. A list of target species shall be included, along with
measures for early detection and eradication.
Before construction, specific areas shall be designated for cleaning tools,
vehicles, equipment, clothing, footwear, and other gear.
Page 406 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 39
Before entering and exiting the work site, all tools, equipment, vehicles,
clothing and footwear, and other gear shall be cleaned to remove soil,
seeds, and other plant parts.
The reproductive parts of any invasive plants, such as seeds, mature
flowers, and roots/shoots of species that can reproduce vegetatively, shall
be contained in sealed containers and re moved from the project site and
disposed of at a licensed landfill/disposal site. Before transporting invasive
plant materials, the receiving areas of the landfill/disposal site shall be
confirmed by the city as designated for invasive plant waste disposal. The
city shall ensure that 100 percent containment of invasive plant materials is
enforced during the transport of invasive plants to the disposal site .
All disturbed areas that are not converted to hardsca pe or formally
landscaped shall be hydroseeded with a mix of locally native species upon
completion of work in those areas. In areas where construction is ongoing,
hydroseeding shall occur where no construction activities have occurred
before winter rains. If exotic species invade these areas before
hydroseeding, weed removal shall occur in consultation with a qualified
botanist/biologist. Alternatively, in areas not suitable for hydroseeding,
areas that are not hardscaped and are planned for formal landsca ping shall
be mulched to reduce the potential for invasive species to colonize. Mulch
shall be at least four inches thick and shall be weed free.
Riparian Habitat and Jurisdictional Area Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Riparian Habitat. The city shall ensure the
following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to
riparian habitat and jurisdictional areas:
All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles
shall occur at least 100 feet from riparian habitat or bodi es of water
and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly
toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the
water source). Before the start of work activities, a plan must be in
place for a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All
workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and
of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
Raw cement, concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other
coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other
substances that could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from
project-related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the
soil and/or entering jurisdictional areas.
To control sedimentation during and after project implementation,
appropriate erosion control Best Management Practices (e.g.,
temporary erosion and sediment control) shall be implemented to
minimize adverse effects on San Luis Obispo Creek. Plastic
monofilament erosion control matting shall not be implemented
onsite.
Page 407 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 40
Before the start of construction activities, high-visibility orange
construction fencing shall be installed along the limits of the proposed
disturbance outside of the top of the western bank of San Luis Obispo
Creek and its associated riparian habitat to minimize the potential for
disturbance of this area.
Project activities within 60 50 feet of San Luis Obispo Creek shall
occur during the dry season (e.g., between May 1 and November 1)
in any given year.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared , which will provide a
minimum 2-to-1 restoration ratio (replaced to removed) for permanent impacts
to riparian habitat unless otherwise directed by pertinent regulatory agencies.
Mitigation activities associated with the replacement of riparian habitat shall
occur in the designated sensitive habitat mitigation portion of the B iological
Study Area and shall avoid additional impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife
species. All areas of temporary disturbance shall be stabilized and
revegetated with an assemblage of native vegetation suitable for the area.
Examples of activities associated with the implementation of the Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan include the application of native willow/
riparian seed mix and the removal of non-native weedy species within the
habitat mitigation area. The final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be
implemented immediately after project completion.
2.1.5 Cultural Resources
Considering the information in the Historical Resources Evaluation Report,
Archaeological Survey Report, Finding of No Adverse Effect without Standard
Conditions, and Historic Property Survey Report dated February 2020 and
Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report and Supplemental
Archaeological Survey Report dated January 2022, the following significance
determinations have been made:
Question—Would the project: CEQA Significance Determinations
for Cultural Resources
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
The Archaeological Survey Report and Supplemental Archaeological Survey
Report document efforts to identify archaeological resources in the project
Area of P otential Effect. Native American outreach conducted for this project
Page 408 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 41
and nearby projects indicated that the general project vicinity is sensitive for
archaeological resources. Sixteen previously recorded cultural resources
were identified within a 1 -mile radius of the A rea of Potential Effect during a
records search at the Central Coast Information Center. One archaeological
resource, an isolated prehistoric artifact (P -40-038212), was documented in
the Area of Potential Effect. P-40-038212 was originally recorded in 2000 as
an isolated artifact consisting of a single, prehistoric -tested, Franciscan chert
cobble. A 2016 pedestrian survey of the A rea of Potential Effect failed to re-
identify the prehistoric artifact associated with P -40-038212 and did not
identify any other archaeological resources within the A rea of Potential Effect
(Haas et al. 2016).
The Historical Resources Evaluation Report identified one historic property
within the project Area of Potential Effect: the Sunset Drive-In, which is
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level
of significance (Treffers and Zamudio -Gurrola 2020). In addition, the
Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report identified one previously
recorded historic-era built environmental resource at 70 -74 Prado Road in the
indirect A rea of Potential Effect, which was found by the State Historic
Preservation Office to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, California Regi ster of Historical Resources, and/or local
designations.
Environmental Consequences
a) A Finding of No Adverse Effect was completed in February 2020 to
evaluate the project’s potential effect on the Sunset Drive -In, which is eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of
significance. Under 36 C ode of Federal Regulations 800.5 (1), the “criteria of
adverse effect” are described as follows: “An adverse effect is found when an
undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a
historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register
in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or associatio n. Consideration shall
be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those
that may have been identified after the original evaluation of the property’s
eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably
foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be
farther removed in distance , or be cumulative.”
The Finding of No Adverse Effect identified that the project would not
adversely affect the Sunset Drive-In property because the project does not
constitute an adverse effect as defined by 36 Code of Federal Regulations
800.5(a)(2) because the project would not physically alter contributing
features of the theater, the road improvements and realignment, would not
diminish the existing setting, and no new atmospheric or audible elements will
be introduced that would diminish the integrity of the Sunset Drive -In . This
impact would be less than significant.
Page 409 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 42
b) The Area of Potential Effect has been extensively disturbed by the
construction of U.S. 101 and other roadways, the San Luis Obispo Water
Resource Recovery Facility south of the Area of Potential Effect, various
buildings and infrastructure, and agricultural activities within the Area of
Potential Effect. No archaeological resources were identified within or next to
the Area of Potential Effect in the most recent (2016) survey, which failed to
re -identify the isolated prehistoric artifact identified in 2000 . These conditions
indicate a low likelihood of encountering intact archaeological deposits in the
Area of Potential Effect. Nevertheless, due to the known sensitivity of the
project area, there is potential for ground -disturbing activities in and around
the vicinity of the Area of Potential Effect to uncover previously unidentified
archaeological resources. Required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
c) Cultural resources studies and consultation did not identify any
archeological resources, including human remains, within the Area of
Potential Effect. Nevertheless, due to the known sensitivity of the project
area, there is potential for ground -disturbing activities in and in the vi cinity of
the Area of Potential Effect to uncover previously undiscovered human
remains. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance occur until
the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an
unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner would be
notified immediately.
If the human remains are determined to be prehistori c, the coroner would notify
the Native American Heritage Commission, which would determine and notify a
most likely descendant pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 .
The most likely descendant would complete the inspection of the site within 48
hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive
analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
The project would adhere to the statutory require ments of the State Health and
Safety Code and Public Resources Code, which would ensure proper
procedures are implemented if human remains are uncovered. Compliance
with applicable State and local regulations regarding the handling of human
remains would ensure that this impact would be less than significant.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CR -1. Unidentified Cultural Materials. If
archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be
halted within 50 feet of the exposed resource until a qualified archaeologist
can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the find(see 36
Code of Federal Regulations 800.11.1 and C alifornia Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]).
Page 410 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 43
Examples of cultural materials that could be exposed during construction
include ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos;
chipped stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not
consistent with the immediate geolo gy such as obsidian or fused shale;
historic trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or structural remains. If
the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or will be
mitigated consistent with State Historic Preservation Officer Guidelines.
2.1.6 Energy
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Energy
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact
Affected Environment
Section 4 of the city’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
includes goals, policies, and programs related to sustainable energy use in
the city (City of San Luis Obispo 2006). The Conservation and Open Space
Element contains goals and policies supporting an incre ase in the use of
sustainable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and thermal energy.
Supporting policies include those promoting energy efficiency improvements,
efficient city building operation, and solar access. The goals, policies, and
programs contained in the Conservation and Open Space Element pertain
largely to building design and municipal operations.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric provides electri city to the City of San Luis Obispo,
while Southern California Gas provides natural gas service. Table 4 shows
the electricity consumption by sector and the overall total for the Pacific Gas
and Electric service area, which stretches across the State of Ca lifornia from
Eureka in the north to Bakersfield in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean in
the west to the Sierra Nevada in the east. Table 4 also shows the natural gas
consumption by Southern California Gas users throughout Central and
Southern California.
In Table 4, the source for the figures contained in “Electricity Consumption
(Gigawatt-Hours) is the California Energy Commission 2020a. The source for
the figures in “Natural Gas Consumption (Million U.S. Therms) is the
California Energy Commission 20 20b.
Page 411 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 44
Table 4 Energy Consumption in the Service Area in 2020
Sector
Electricity Consumption
(Gigawatt-Hours)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Million U.S. Therms)
Agriculture and Water Pump 6,638 74
Commercial Building 26,247 802
Commercial Other 3,949 88
Industry 9,814 1,616
Mining and Construction 1,748 226
Residential 29,834 2,426
Streetlight 290 Not Applicable
Total Usage 78,519 5,231
Petroleum
Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on-road and off-road equipment in
addition to some industrial processes. In 2019, approximately 39 percent of
the state’s energy consumption was used for transportation activities (U.S.
Energy Information Administration 2020). Though California’s population and
economy are expected to grow, gasoline demand is project ed to decline from
roughly 15.6 billion gallons in 2017 to between 12.1 billion and 12.6 billion
gallons in 2030 (a 19 percent to 22 percent reduction) in response to both
increasing vehicle electrification and higher fuel economy for new gasoline
vehicles (C alifornia Energy C ommission 2018). California requires all
motorists to use California Reformulated Gasoline, which is sourced almost
exclusively from in-state refineries.
Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles,
is the most used transportation fuel in California , with 11.2 billion gallons sold in
2020. Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy-duty trucks, delivery vehicles,
buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty
construction and military vehicles, is the second most used fuel in California , with
1.6 billion gallons sold in 2020 (C alifornia Energy C ommission 2021).
Environmental Consequences
a) Construction Energy Demand
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of
petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and
equipment on the project site, construction workers traveling to and from the
project site, and vehicles used to import or export material to and from the
site. The project would require site preparation and grading, including
importing up to 325,000 cubic yards of material, pavement and asphalt
installation, construction of the freeway overcrossing , and landscaping and
hardscaping.
The total consumption of gasoline and diese l fuel during project construction
was estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model based on the
assumptions and factors used to estimate construction air pollutant emissions
in Section 2.1.3, Air Quality. Table 5 presents the estimated construction fuel
Page 412 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 45
use and associated energy consumption. Appendix B provides the energy
calculation sheets.
Page 413 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 46
Table 5 Estimated Fuel Consumption During Construction
Source Gasoline
(Gallons) Diesel (Gallons)
Construction Equipment and Hauling Trips 0 217,568
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 7,137 0
As shown in Table 5, construction equipment and hauling trips would
consume approximately 217,568 gallons of diesel, and worker trips would
consume approximately 7,137 gallons of gasoline over the project
construction period. The construction energy estimates represent a
conservative estimate as the construction equipment used in each phase of
construction was assumed to be operating every day of construction.
Construction equipment would be maintained to all applicable standards and
requirements, and construction activity and associated fuel consumption and
energy use would be temporary and typical for active construction sites. In
addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the
provisions of the California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and
2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road
diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize
unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Construction Equipment Fuel
Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary fuel consumption. These practices would result in the efficient
use of energy necessary to construct the project. It is also reasonable to
assume contractors would avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary fuel
consumption during construction to reduce construction costs. Therefore, the
project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of
energy during construction, and the co nstruction-phase impact related to
energy consumption would be less than significant.
Operational Energy Demand
The project would not substantially change any existing operational energy
consumption associated with streetlight fixtures or typical roadway
maintenance activities occurring along Prado Road or U.S. 101. The project
would not result in induced land use development that would lead to induced
travel. A s discussed in detail in Section 2.1.17, Transportation, the proposed
overcrossing would provide a more direct route through the city, resulting in a
net overall reduction in daily vehicle miles traveled in the city and at the
regional level. Furthermore, the project does not involve the construction of
any residential, commercial, industrial, or other land uses that would generate
vehicle trips and consume petroleum fuel. Therefore, impacts related to
operational energy consumption would be less than significant.
b) The project does not involve the construction of any buildings and would
not result in a substantial increase in operational energy demand. Therefore,
most of the energy-related policies described in the Conservation and Open
Page 414 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 47
Space Element are not applicable to the project. However, Policy 4.4.2 states
that the city’s transportation and circulation systems shall foster travel by
modes other than motor vehicles, including walking, bicycles, and public
transit. The project would provide a new freeway overcrossing equipped with
bike lanes and sidewalk facilities, enhanc ing connectivity for cyclists and
pedestrians and facilitating active transportation. Therefore, the project would
be consistent with Policy 4.4.2.
Given that the project would not involve substantial long -term operational
energy demand, it would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur.
2.1.7 Geology and Soils
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Geology and Soils
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist -
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on ot her substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact
iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Less Than Significant Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Page 415 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 48
Affected Environment
The project site is in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, characterized
by northwest-trending mountain ranges reaching elevations of up to 6,000
feet above sea level. The province extends along most of coastal California,
from southern Santa Barbara County to near the Oregon state line. The
province is bounded by the Transverse Ranges to the south, the Great Valley
to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west (California Geological Survey
2002).
The C oast Ranges province is seismically active, with ranges and valleys
trending sub-parallel to the San Andreas Fault. Active and potentially active
regional fault zones in the vicinity of the project site include the Los Osos
Fault, off-shore Hosgri Fault, Rinconada Fault, San Simeon Fault, and San
Andreas Fault (City of San Luis Obispo 2000). Seismic events can result in
ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, subsidence, tsunami , and seiche.
The Los Osos Fault Zone is closest to the project site, approxim ately 1.8
miles northwest (California Department of Conservation 2021).
The project site is underlain by Holocene- to late Pleistocene-age young
alluvial deposits (Qya), according to the preliminary geologic map of the west
half of the San Luis Obispo 30’ x 60’ quadrangle (Wiegers 2021). The City of
San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Elements Update Final Program
Environmental Impact Report notes that the most paleontologically productive
formations in the San Luis Obispo region are marine terraces, approximately
8 to 9 miles southwest of the city (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b).
Environmental Consequences
a.i, a.ii, a.iii, a.iv) No portion of the project site is located in a California
Geological Survey designated Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. The
nearest Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone to the project site is the Los Osos
Fault Zone, approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the site near the western
limits of the city (California Department of Conservation 2021).
Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where groundwater is less than 30 feet
from the surface and where the soils are composed of poorly consolidated
fine-to-medium-grained sand. Along with the necessary soil conditions, the
ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must be of a sufficient
level to initiate liquefaction. Similar to most of the city, the project site is
underlain by soils with a high liquefaction potential.
A large seismic event, such as a fault rupture, seismic shaking, or ground
failure, could result in damage to or collapse of the proposed roadway or
overcrossing. This risk already exists with current roadways and
overcrossings along U.S. 101 in the project area. The project does not involve
the construction of any habitable structures that would increase the exposure
of people to potential substantial adverse effects resulting from a seismic
event. The project, including the proposed overcrossing, would be
Page 416 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 49
constructed in accordance with the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (Version
2.0), which includes seismic design criteria detailing minimum requirements to
meet performance goals for Caltrans bridges. The Seismic Design Criteria
include seismicity and foundation design standards to reduce impacts from
ground shaking, liquefaction, and other seismic hazards (Caltrans 2019).
Given the relatively flat nature of the project site, it is not susceptible to
landslide hazards (City of San Luis Obispo 2000).
Because the project would not involve the development of new habitable
structures, is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, does
not cross an active fault, is not susceptible to landslide hazards, and would be
required to comply with Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria to reduce the
potential for collapse or other damage that could expose people to loss,
injury, or death during a seismic event, this impact would be less than
significant.
b) Most of the project area is disturbed, consisting of the existing Prado Road
and U.S. 101 rights-of-way and agricultural land on the San Luis Ranch
property west of the freeway. Nevertheless, construction activities would
result in a new disturbance on the project site, resulting in potential for soil
erosion and loss of topsoil.
Because the project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, it would be
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S ystem General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities (Order Number 2012-0006-DWQ) adopted by the State
Water Resources Control Board (Water Board). Compliance with the permit
requires the project applicant to file a Notice of Intent with the Water Board.
Permit conditions require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan, which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and
sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal,
implementation of approved local plans, construction sediment and erosion
control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater
management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms
is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity
and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Compliance
with existing regulatory requirements, including the implementation of
applicable Best Management Practices related to wind and water erosion
control, would reduce potential soil loss and erosion from the site.
Additionally, exposed soils during constructio n may be susceptible to wind
erosion. Caltrans Standard Specifications require compliance with the rules,
ordinances, and regulations of the applicable Air Pollution Control District.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures discussed in Section
2.1.3, Air Quality, would require implementation of San Luis Obispo County
Air Pollution Control District’s standard dust control measures, which include
Page 417 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 50
using water trucks/sprinklers systems to water exposed soil, spraying dirt
stockpiles daily, limiting vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour on unpaved
roadways, and completing roadway and sidewalk paving as soon as possible
after grading to minimize the duration of soil exposure on the project site.
Required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures would this
impact to a less than significant level.
c) The project area is relatively flat and does not contain any mapped
landslides or landslide hazard areas (City of San Luis Obispo 2000). The
project site is designated by the city as having high liquefaction potential. The
project site is not located in an area of documented subsidence. The nearest
area of documented subsidence in the City of San Luis Obispo is located
along Los Osos Valley Road, approximately 0.7 mile south of the project site;
the subsidence in this area has ceased by discontinuing groundwater
extraction in the area (County of San Luis Obispo 1999).
The project does not involve development on steep slopes, groundwater or
mineral extraction, or other activities that would decrease soil stability. The
project would be constructed in accordance with Caltrans Seismic Design
Criteria, which require preliminary site investigation and soil testing. If such
testing indicates potential for liquefaction or collapse, remediation strategies
such as ground improvement, avoidance, or structural modification would be
required to be incorporated into the project design to minimize potential
impacts to the project. Because the site is not prone to landslides or
subsidence and design criteria would be incorporated to reduce impacts
associated with potential liquefaction or so il collapse, this impact would be
less than significant.
d) The project site is predominantly underlain by Cropley clay and Salinas
silty clay loam soils. According to the city’s Land Use and Circulation
Elements Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Cropley clay
soils have a high shrink-swell potential, while Salinas silty clay loam soils
have low to moderate shrink-swell potential (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b).
Consequently, the project may be located on expansive soil.
The project would not involve the construction of any habitable structures,
which would minimize the exposure of people to risk associated with
expansive soils. Pursuant to Caltrans Standard Specifications (Caltrans
2018b), the project would be required to implement soil stabilization
measures, which include relative compaction standards, application of soil
stabilization agents, and quality control soil testing. The standard
specifications also include standards for the construction of structures and
site drainage, which would further reduce potential impacts associated with
expansive soils. Because the project would not construct habitable structures
and would require site testing and soil stabilization measures consistent with
Caltrans Standard Specifications, the project would not create a substantial
Page 418 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 51
risk to life or property associated with expansive soils, and this impact would
be less than significant.
e) The project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.
f) The project site is underlain by late Quaternary alluvial deposits, which are
generally considered to have low paleontological sensitivity. There are no
known, unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features
in the project site. Furthermore, project construction would be within the
existing Caltrans and city rights-of-way along U.S. 101 and Prado Road and
undeveloped agricultural land west of the freeway. As a result, grading,
excavation, and other constructio n activities would primarily occur in
previously disturbed areas that are not likely to contain intact paleontological
resources. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that ground -disturbing
construction activities could unearth and damage previously unidentified
paleontological resources. Required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Paleontological Resources. If paleontological
resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be halted within 100
feet of the exposed resource until a qualified paleontologist can visit the site
of discovery and assess the significance of the find. Caltrans sha ll be
informed of the discovery immediately. If the paleontological resource is
determined to be significant, the paleontologist shall have the authority to
salvage and remove the fossil from its locality, as appropriate, before ground -
disturbing or other construction activities resume in the area. Any fossils
recovered during the development, along with their contextual stratigraphic
data, shall be offered to the City of San Luis Obispo or other appropriate
institution with an educational and research inte rest in the materials. The
paleontologist shall prepare a report of the results of any findings as part of a
testing or mitigation plan following an accepted professional practice.
2.1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Considering the information in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical
Study dated September 2021, the following significance determinations have
been made:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact
Page 419 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 52
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact
Affected Environment
In response to an increase in human-made greenhouse gas concentrations
over the past 150 years, California has implemented legislation to reduce
statewide emissions. Assembly Bill 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below
2005 emission levels) and the adoption of regulations to require reporting and
verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions. Senate Bill 32 extends
Assembly Bill 32, requiring the State to further reduce greenhouse gases to
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
On December 14, 2017, the California Air Resources Board adopted the 2017
Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 statewide
target set by Senate Bill 32. The 2017 Sco ping Plan does not provide project-
level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local
governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds
consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons of car bon dioxide
equivalent by 2030 and two metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050
(California Air Resources Board 2017). [Carbon dioxide equivalent is a
measure used to compare emissions from a variety of greenhouse gasses
based on their global warmi ng potential. The carbon dioxide equivalent
calculation considers carbon dioxide and the converted equivalent amounts of
carbon monoxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and hydrofluorocarbons.] As
stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-
level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific
individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State.
Most individual projects do not generate sufficient greenhouse gas emissions
to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a
project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if
individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate
change typically involves an a nalysis of whether a project’s contribution
towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past pro jects, other
current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15064[h][1]).
Significance Thresholds
The City of San Luis Obispo adopted greenhouse gas emissions thresholds
for use in CEQA documents on August 18, 2020, based on the a dopted
Climate Action Plan. The adopted greenhouse gas thresholds are as follows:
Page 420 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 53
1. If a project is consistent with the 2014 General Plan land use and zoning
designations and has a pre -2030 build-out year, then illustrated compliance
with the Climate Acti on Plan Consistency Checklist would result in less than
significant greenhouse gas emissions and not result in a cumulatively
considerable greenhouse gas emission impact.
2. If a project is not consistent with the 2014 General Plan land use and
zoning desi gnations and has a pre-2030 build-out year, then the following
quantitative greenhouse gas thresholds and consistency with the Climate
Action Plan Consistency Checklist would result in less than significant
greenhouse gas emissions and not result in a cumulatively considerable
greenhouse gas emission impact:
Residential: 0.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year per
resident.
Non-Residential: 0.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per
year per employee.
Mixed-Use: 0.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year per
service person.
3. If a project has a post-2030 build-out year, then emissions at or below 0
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year would result in less than
significant greenhouse gas emissions and not result in a cumulatively
considerable greenhouse gas emission impact.
The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan serves as the city’s qualified
greenhouse gas reduction strategy. The greenhouse gas -reducing policy
provisions contained in the Climate Action Plan were prepared with the
purpose of complying with the requirements of Senate Bill 32 and achieving
the Senate Bill 32 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and the
carbon neutrality target for 2035.
The 2017 Scoping Plan provides a framework for achieving the 2030
statewide target set by Senate Bill 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan does not
provide project-level thresholds for land use development but recommends
that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative
thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of 6 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 and 2 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent by 2050. As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals are
appropriate for plan-level analyses.
Methodology
While the project is not related to specific land use, the project is identified as
a Transportation Capital Project and is listed under Program 9.2.2. in the
Circulation Element of the C ity’s 2014 General Plan. Refer to Section 2.1.17,
Transportation, for more detail. The project also has a pre -2030 build-out
year. Because the proje ct is consistent with the 2014 General Plan and has a
Page 421 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 54
pre-2030 build-out year, the Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist was
used to demonstrate consistency and tier from the Climate Action Plan per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5
Calculations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen dioxide emissions are
provided for informational purposes. The calculations focus on carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrogen dioxide because these make up 98.9 percent
of all greenhouse gas emissions by volume (IPCC 2007) and are the
greenhouse gas emissions that the project would emit in the largest
quantities. Fluorinated gases, which are primarily associated with industrial
processes, were also considered for the analysis. However, because the
project is a roadway expansion, the quantity of fluorinated gases would not
represent a substantial proportion of emissions from the project. Calculations
are based on the methodologies discussed in the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association CEQA and Climate Change white paper (2008)
and included the use of the California Climate Action Registry General
Reporting Protocol (2009). Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
project were calculated using the most recent version of the California
Emissions Estimator Model (version 2020.4.0). The results are included in the
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Study in Volume 2 of this
document. To conservatively estimate the potential air pollutant emissions
generated by the project, the emissions modeling accounts for t he maximum
potential build-out and project footprint among the various alternatives’
designs. Refer to Section 2.1.3, Air Quality, for a detailed discussion of
emissions results and assumptions.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions
primarily as a result of material processing, operation of construction
equipment onsite as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers
to and from the project site, and emissions arising from traffic delays due to
construction. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest
amount of emissions due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling.
This analysis assumes 325,000 cubic yards of fill material that would be
imported to the site.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association does not discuss whether
any of the suggested threshold approaches adequately address impacts from
temporary construction activity. As stated in the CEQA and Climate Change
white paper, “more study is needed to make this assessment or to develop
separate thresholds for construction activity” (California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association 2008). Nevertheless, total construction greenhouse gas
emissions were calculated for informational purposes.
Page 422 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 55
Operational Emissions
The Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist was used to determine the
consistency of the operation of the project and tier from the City of San Luis
Obispo Climate Action Plan per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
Environmental Consequences
a) Construction activities would result in new, greenhouse gas emissions in
the area. Total greenhouse gas emissions from project construction were
estimated for informational purposes in the 2021 Air Quality Technical Study
using the California Emi ssions Estimator Model, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scenario Carbon
Dioxide Methane Nitrogen
Dioxide
Total (Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent)
Total Emissions
(Metric Tons) 2,190 Less than 1 Less than 1 2,255
Source: Attachment 1 for California Emissions Estimator Model.
With innovations such as longer pavement lives, improved traffic
management plans, and changes in materials, the greenhouse gas emissions
produced during construction can be mitigated to some d egree by longer
intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation events. In addition,
according to Caltrans’ Standard Specifications Section 7-1.02A, 7-1.02C, and
14-9.02, the construction of the project must comply with all local San Luis
Obispo County Ai r Pollution Control District rules, ordinances, and regulations
for air quality restrictions. Project construction would also be required to
comply with the California Air Resources Board’s anti -idling law, which states
that vehicles not engaged in work activities may not idle for more than five
minutes and that vehicles may not idle auxiliary power systems for more than
five minutes to power heaters, air conditioners or any other equipment if the
vehicle has a sleeper berth and is within 100 feet of a rest ricted area (homes
and schools). Compliance with these rules, ordinances, and regulations would
minimize greenhouse gas emissions generated by project construction.
The project does not include operational changes to the local roadways or
U.S. 101 with the potential to result in long -term, operational greenhouse gas
emissions. The project is designed to provide congestion relief, operational
efficiency, and multimodal connectivity and would not induce land use
development that would lead to new travel and i ncreased vehicle miles
traveled. As discussed in detail in Section 2.1.17, Transportation, the
proposed overcrossing would provide a more direct route through the city,
resulting in a net overall reduction in daily vehicle miles traveled in the city
and at the regional level. The highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions
from mobile sources, such as automobiles, occur at stop -and-go speeds (0 to
25 miles per hour) and speeds over 55 miles per hour (2021 Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Technical Study). Therefore, the project would reduce
Page 423 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 56
greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehi cle miles traveled, relieving
congestion, and improving the operation of roadways in the area.
Construction of the project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas
emissions. The project would not result in operational greenhouse gas
emissions and is expected to reduce long-term operational greenhouse gas
emissions with improvements to the local roadways.
The project is consistent with the 2014 General Plan and has a pre -2030
built-out year. Therefore, the Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist was
used to determine if the project complies with greenhouse gas reduction
targets. The Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist is included in Volume
2 of this document. The proposed project is consistent with all applicable
measures and items in the Consis tency Checklist; therefore, it would result in
less than significant greenhouse gas emissions and would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Climate Action Plan Consistency
The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan serves as a qualified
greenhouse gas reduction strategy consistent with State CEQA Guidelines.
The Climate Action Plan outlines a course of action to reach carbon neutrality
and includes six pillars: 1) lead by example, 2) clean energy systems, 3)
green buildings, 4) connected community, 5) circular economy, and 6) natural
solutions. A project is considered consistent with the city’s Climate Action
Plan if it includes provisions to further the emissions reduction goals in the
Plan. The proposed project would provide congestion relief, operational
efficiency, and multimodal connectivity, which could result in a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. The project would not conflict with any of the
foundational actions of the Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the project would
be consistent with the Climate Action Plan, and there would be no impacts.
Senate Bill 32/2017 Scoping Plan Consistency
The 2017 Scoping Plan provides a framework for achieving the 2030
statewide emissions target codi fied by Senate Bill 32 and recommends that
local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative
thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 and two metric tons of carbon di oxide
equivalent by 2050 (California Air Resources Board 2017). As discussed
above, the project would not conflict with the goals of the locally adopted
greenhouse gas reduction strategy or result in an increase in long-term
operational greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan, which has been developed to achieve the
statewide emissions target set by Senate Bill 32, and there would be no
impacts.
Page 424 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 57
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan
Consistency
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan,
which includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy, serve as the blueprint
for the regional transportation system and seeks to promote sustainable
mobility. The project is included in the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan as
an “unconstrained” project. The analysis in the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan includes all projects from
the constrained and unconstrained project li sts. The unconstrained list is
included as a worst-case scenario for purposes of CEQA analysis in the event
all projects from the combined lists become available. Therefore, the project
is included in the regional emission analysis and would be consistent with the
2019 Regional Transportation Plan.
2.1.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
An Initial Environmental Site Assessment, dated August 11, 2017, was
completed for the project site . The Initial Environmental Site Assessment
included a review of databases, city and County records, and a site
reconnaissance in July 2017. Considering the information in the Initial
Environmental Site Assessment, the following significance determinations
have been made:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less Than Significant Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed school?
No Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a signific ant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
Less Than Significant Impact
Page 425 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 58
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
Hazardous Materials Sites
The following databases and listings compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 were checked for known hazardous materials contamination
at the project site:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
o Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System/Superfund Enterprise Management
System/Envirofacts database search
State Water Resources Control Board
o GeoTracker search for leaking underground storage tanks and
other cleanup sites
Department of Toxic Substances Control
o EnviroStor database for hazardous waste facilities or known
contamination sites
o Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites
Airport Hazards
The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan identifies
special function land uses which are commonly regarded as requiring special
protection from hazards such as aircraft collisions. These land uses include
impaired egress uses, such as elementary and secondary schools, hospitals,
nursing homes, and other similar uses where occupants are relatively unable
to move out of harm’s way, and unusually hazardous uses, such as those
including aboveground storage of flammable materials, fuel pumping facilities,
electric transmission lines, or aboveground pipelines (San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Commission 2021).
Emergency Response
The San Luis Obispo city Council adopted the City of San Luis Obispo
Emergency Operations Plan in 2011 and the re vised Emergency Operations
Plan in 2016. The Emergency Operations Plan contains information on
potential emergencies in the city, protective actions available to the city during
disasters, and a detailed description of all applicable emergency management
Page 426 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 59
systems, including the city’s Emergency Operations Center and Emergency
Communications Center. While the Emergency Operations Plan does not
delineate specific evacuation routes within the city, it does state that the field
Incident Commander and/or other ap propriate command staff such as the city
Emergency Operations Center Director, County Emergency Operations
Center Emergency Services Director, or County Health Officer, acting upon
appropriate advice and recommendation from specialists, will determine the
appropriate areas that may need evacuating during a disaster (City of San
Luis Obispo 2016). The Emergency Operations Plan also identifies methods
to disseminate information to the public, such as public address systems on
vehicles, emergency alert systems, emergency new information, or door-to -
door communication.
Environmental Consequences
a, b) The project includes the reconstruction and extension of existing
roadways. The new freeway overcrossing and on/off ramps may be used for
routine transport of hazardous materials. However, transport of hazardous
materials on the new facilities would be subject to the same requirements as
other existing transportation corridors. Operation of the proposed new
facilities would not require the transport of new hazardous materials or
otherwise increase the routine transport of hazardous materials. Potentially
hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents would be used
during project construction. However, the transport, use, and storage of
hazardous materials during the construction of the project would be
conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, such as
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management A ct, and the
California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This impact would be less than
significant.
c) The nearest school to the project site is Pacific Beach High School and the
Family Partnership Charter School, approximately 0.6 mile to the southwest.
Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25
mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur.
d) The following hazardous materials sites were ident ified on or with the
potential to be on the project site during the Initial Environmental Site
Assessment:
Potential presence of aerially deposited lead in project site soils.
Potential presence of pesticides and herbicides in project site soils
from prior agricultural operations.
A petroleum pipeline from a listed Unocal site is present at the
intersection of Elks Lane and Prado Road.
Page 427 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 60
Potential residual petroleum hydrocarbons in surface soils at the
former U-Haul facility (253 Elks Lane; currently Regional Transit
Authority maintenance facility), which is identified as a leaking
underground storage tank site.
In November 2020 Rincon prepared a Remedial Excavation Report for the
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority Bus Maintenance Facility (for mer
U-Haul facility) located at 253 Elks Lane. The Remedial Excavation Report
documented excavation performed at the site to remove soil impacted by
petroleum hydrocarbons above Environmental Screening Levels. A total of
80.76 tons of soil were disposed of under nonhazardous waste manifests at
Cold Canyon Landfill. The Remedial Excavation Report concluded petroleum
hydrocarbon impacted soil identified and delineated during the assessment
was properly removed and disposed of offsite, and no additional assess ment
or remediation is recommended at the site.
No additional hazardous materials or environmental areas of concern are
identified within the project area. However, the potential aerially deposited
lead, pesticides and herbicides, and petroleum pipeline li sted above could
result in hazards to the public or the environment. Required Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures would reduce these impacts to a
less than significant level.
e) The project site is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the S an Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport and is located within the airport’s land use
planning area (Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County
2021). The project site is located within Safety Area S -1b, an area within
gliding distance of prescribed flight paths for aircraft operations at less than
500 feet above ground level. The Airport Land Use Plan contains specific
safety policies to determine project consistency with the Airport Land Use
Plan. Table 7 shows the project’s consistency with applicable Airport Land
Use Plan safety policies.
Page 428 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 61
Table 7 Airport Land Use Plan Safety Policies
Policy Project Consistency
Policy S-1: The proposed project would be
determined to be inconsistent with the Airport
Land Use Plan if the proposed project or local
action would permit or lack sufficient provisions
to prohibit structures and other obstacles within
the Runway Protection Zones for any runway
at the Airport, as depicted in Figure 4.
Consistent. The project site is located
within Safety Area S -1b, an area within
gliding distance of prescribed flight
paths for aircraft operations at less than
500 feet above ground level, and is not
located in a Runway Protection Zone, as
delineated by the Airport Land Use Plan.
Furthermore, the project proposes an
extension of a roadway and a freeway
overcrossing, neither of which would
present an obstacle for any runway at
the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport.
Policy S-2: The proposed project would be
determined to be inconsistent with the Airport
Land Use Plan if the proposed project or local
action would permit or fail to adequately
prohibit any future residential or nonresidential
development or redevelopment , which would
create, within the site to be developed or
redeveloped, a density greater than speci fied
in Table 7 of the Airport Land Use Plan or any
mixed-use development or redevelopment
which would create, within the site to be
developed or redeveloped, densities greater
than illustrated in Figures 5 through 8 of the
Airport Land Use Plan.
Consistent. The project does not
involve any elements that would affect
residential or nonresidential densities
within the Airport Land Use Plan
planning area.
Policy S-3: The proposed project would be
determined to be inconsistent with the ALUP if
the proposed project or local action would
permit or fail to adequately prohibit any future
development project which specifies, entails, or
would result in a greater building coverage
than permitted by Table 7 of the Airport Land
Use Plan.
Consistent. The project does not
involve construction of any buildings and
would not permit or otherwise authorize
such construction on the project site.
Policy S-4: The proposed project would be
determined to be inconsistent with the Airport
Land Use Plan if the proposed project or local
action would permit or fail to adequately
prohibit high-intensity land uses or special land
use functions (impaired egress uses or
unusually hazardous uses), except that, when
conditions specified by Table 7 for density
adjustments have been determined to be met
by the Airport Land Use Commission, high-
intensity land and/or special function uses may
be allowed in Aviation Safety Area S -2.
Consistent. The project does not
propose any high-intensity land uses,
such as amusement parks/fairgrounds,
convention/exhibit halls, major
auditoriums, stadiums, arenas, or space
for temporary events attracting dense
concentrations of people. Furthermore,
the project does not propose any
impaired egress uses or unusually
hazardous uses, as defined above.
Source: Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County 1973.
Page 429 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 62
As shown in Table 7, the project would be consistent with safety policies
described in the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport’s Airport Land Use Plan.
The project does not propose the construction of any habitable structures,
impaired egress or unusually hazardous land uses, or high-intensity land
uses. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area, and this impact would be less than
significant.
f) The project would improve circulation by providing an additional freeway
overcrossing where one does not currently exist, improving access to U.S.
101 from areas west of the freeway, and minimizing out-of-direction travel
during emergency response or evacuation. During project construction,
intermittent ramp or lane closures may temporarily impede emergency
response or evacuation. However, such impacts would be temporary.
Pursuant to Caltrans Deputy Directive 60, the project would be required to
implement a Transportation Management Plan. Consistent with Caltrans’
Transportation Management Plan Guidelines, the project-specific
Transportation Management Plan would be required to include public
information, motorist information, incident management, construction
strategies, demand management, and alternate route/detour strategies to
reduce traffic impacts during roadway construction projects. Public
information strategies include notification to emergency services, including
fire, law enforcement, and ambula nce services, of start dates, work
schedules, significant traffic pattern changes, transit routes, traffic collisions,
and other incidents in the work zone (Caltrans 2015). With the implementation
of the required project-specific Transportation Management Plan, closures or
detours along either roadway would occur with advanced notification to
emergency services, providing an opportunity to coordinate emergency
response and provide appropriate evacuation direction should an emergency
occur during project construction. Consequently, impacts related to
emergency response and evacuation would be less than significant.
g) The project site is located in a developed area in the city. According to the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the projec t site is not in
a very high fire hazard severity zone (California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection 2021). In addition, the city’s General Plan indicates the project
site is in a low fire hazard area and states that all build-out of the area will
apply normal fire protection measures (City of San Luis Obispo 2000). The
project also does not propose new buildings or habitable development.
Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and this impact would be
less than significant. For additional discussion of potential impacts related to
wildfire, please refer to Section 2.1.20, Wildfire.
Page 430 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 63
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to hazardous
materials exposure to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Aerially Deposited Lead . A workplan
shall be developed for aerially deposited lead sampling for the area of
the selected project alternative. Surficial soil samples shall be
collected and analyzed for total lead in areas that are to be dis turbed
for the project. The workplan shall require the investigation of surface
soils to be conducted before construction. The workplan shall include
all required measures for proper management and disposal of
contaminated soils in accordance with the U.S. Toxic Substances
Control Act, California Health and Safety Code, and California
Occupational Safety and Health Act if the total lead is detected above
acceptable levels in the project site soils . The workplan shall require
that investigation and/or remedi ation of soil contamination be
performed in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances
Control procedures and requirements and require Department of
Toxic Substances Control approval before recommencing
construction or demolition work.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Pesticides and Herbicides . Surface
soils shall be tested by a professional geologist or environmental
professional to determine the presence or absence of pesticides,
herbicides, and arsenic along proposed rights -of-way. A workplan
describing sampling locations and sampling and analytical methods
shall be prepared by the project developer before the start of work.
The workplan shall include laboratory data for the impacted soils to
profile excavated soil before transport, treatment, and recycling at a
licensed treatment facility. The workplan shall also detail the
requirements for removal, transportation, and disposal of impacted
soil in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws,
regulations, and ordinances. The workplan shall requi re that
investigation and/or remediation of soil contamination be performed in
accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control procedures
and requirements and require Department of Toxic Substances
Control approval before recommencing construction o r demolition
work.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. Petroleum Pipelines . The petroleum
pipeline at the intersection of Elks Lane and Prado Road shall be
properly marked by the developer before the start of any project
construction activities. A contingency plan s hall be developed by the
developer and include all applicable federal, state, and local
regulatory requirements for soil handling and/or remediation if
contaminated soil from the petroleum pipeline is encountered during
construction activities. All other known pipelines in the project area
Page 431 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 64
shall be identified and marked by the developer before the start of
any construction activities.
2.1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Considering the information in the Water Quality Assessment Report dated
November 2021, the following significance determinations have been made:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface water or
groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or sil tation onsite
or offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding onsite or offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact
(iii) create or contribute runoff water whi ch would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
Less Than Significant Impact
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
The project site is in the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, Point Buchon Hydrologic
Area, and San Luis Obispo Creek sub -area. San Luis Obispo Creek
originates in the Santa Lucia Range northeast of San Luis Obispo and
generally flows southwest, draining an approximately 84 -square mile
watershed before emptying into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. The Area
of Potential Impacts for this project regarding hydrological and water
resources is defined as the maximum amount of potentia l disturbance area
for both temporary and permanent impacts and is extensive enough to
Page 432 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 65
include all proposed alternatives and project components, including traffic,
lane, and shoulder modifications, subject roads, and city and Caltrans rights-
of-way. San Luis Obispo Creek is located approximately 50 feet from the
project site. Surface flows from the project site generally flow toward Prefumo
Creek, a tributary of San Luis Obispo Creek, which flows approximately 0.25
mile west of the project site.
The federal Clean Water Act establishes the framework for regulating
discharges to Waters of the U.S. to protect their beneficial uses. The Porter -
Cologne Water Quality Act regulates water quality within California and
establishes the authority of the State Water Res ources Control Board and the
nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State Water Resources
Control Board requires construction projects to provide careful management
and close monitoring of runoff during construction, including onsite erosion
protection, sediment management, and prevention of non-stormwater
discharges. The State and Regional Water Boards issue National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits to regulate specific discharges. The
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit
regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites disturbing more than
1 acre of land.
The project site overlies the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
(Basin Number 3 -009), an approximately 12,700 -square mile basin bound by
the Santa Lucia Range to the northeast, the San Luis Range to the
southwest, and impermeable Miocene and Franciscan Group rock on all other
sides (Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2004). Groundwater in the
basin is generally found in Pleistocene and Holocene age terrestrial deposits.
Groundwater levels in the basin are susceptible to inter-annual variation in
precipitation, such as multi -year drought or wet cycles, with recorded
fluctuations in groundwater elevations of up to 19.5 feet per year (DWR
2004). Primary sources of recharge in the basin include precipitation,
irrigation, and streamflow. In 2017, the city and County of San Luis Obispo
became the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies for the portions of their
respective jurisdictions overlying the San Luis Obispo Valley basin to
implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The project site is
located entirely in the City of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability
Agency boundary.
Environmental Consequences
a, e) Surface Water
Excavation, grading, and other project construction activities would result in
soil disturbance and potential discharges of sediment, trash, petroleum
products, concrete waste, sanitary waste, or other construction-related
chemicals into nearby water bodie s. Construction activities could also result in
an accidental fuel or hazardous materials leak or spill. As a result, the project
could result in adverse impacts to water quality in Prefumo Creek and San
Page 433 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 66
Luis Obispo Creek. As discussed in Section 2.1.7, Geology and Soils, project
construction activities would be subject to the permitting requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities (Construction General Permit Order Number 2009 -0009-DWQ and
subsequent amendments), requiring the preparation and implementation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan must specify all Best Management Practices for sediment and pollution
prevention for project construction. These Best Management Practices may
include but would not be limited to the use of temporary desilting basins,
construction vehicle maintenance to avoid leaks or spills of hazardous
materials, and installation of temporary large sediment barriers and erosion
control blankets. Construction-related water quality impacts would be avoided
through the implementation of Best Management Practices included in the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to prevent sediment ation and pollution
in nearby waters from the proposed project.
Net new impervious surface for the project is calculated based on both new
and replaced impervious areas. The overall net new impervious surface for
the project would be 0.6 to 2 acres, depend ing on the alternative selected.
Project operation could result in impacts to water quality due to pollutant
accumulation on new impervious surfaces and the associated increase in
stormwater runoff volume and velocity from these surfaces during
precipitati on events. As discussed in the Water Quality Assessment Report,
Best Management Practices for the project would be developed in
accordance with the requirements of the city’s Stormwater Management Plan
and Municipal Code Chapter 12.08, Urban Storm water Quality and Discharge
Control, and the Caltrans Permit and Project Planning and Design Guide. In
addition to the sediment control Best Management Practices (required by
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures discussed in Section
2.1.4, Biological Resources) to prevent impacts to south-central California
coast steelhead and designated critical habitat for steelhead, Best
Management Practices for the project may include but would not be limited to
filtration and infiltration devices, such as detention basins and biofiltration
swales, low-impact development flow-through treatment devices, stormwater
pollution treatment facilities, and erosion control practices. With the
implementation of all applicable water quality treatment Best Management
Practices, project operations would be compliant with the requirements of the
city’s Stormwater Management Plan and Municipal Code Chapter 12.08,
Urban Stormwater Quality and Discharge Control, and the Caltrans Permit
and Project Planning and Design Guide designed to avoid adverse impacts of
projects in the city to water quality by avoiding and/or reducing pollution,
erosion, and sedimentation. Caltrans would be required to verify that
stormwater quality and discharge control requirements have been
implemented to the city’s satisfaction and that the proposed development
does not adversely affect the water quality in the project area. Compliance
with the applicable regulations and guidelines , as well as required Avoidance,
Page 434 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 67
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures , would ensure that water quality
impacts associated with increased impervious surfaces on the project site
would be less than significant.
The project area is under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control
Board Region 3 (Central Coast Region). The Regional Water Quality Control
Board provides permits for projects with the potential to affect surface waters
and groundwater locally. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is
responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central
Coastal Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of
water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality
objectives. The State has developed total maximum daily loads, which are a
calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant a waterbody can have and
still meet water quality objectives es tablished by the region. In the project
area, Prefumo Creek does not meet water quality objectives for its designated
beneficial uses and is listed as impaired for fecal coliform, nitrate, dissolved
oxygen, toxicity, and turbidity (State Water Resources Co ntrol Board 2021).
Additionally, San Luis Obispo Creek (below Osos Street) is listed as impaired
for benthic community effects, chloride, Escherichia coli (E. coli), fecal
coliform, nitrate, dissolved oxygen, and sodium (State Water Resources
Control Board 2021). Project construction and operation could exacerbate
these impairments by increasing the discharge of sediments and other
pollutants to these water bodies via stormwater runoff. As described above,
the project would be required to implement construc tion water quality Best
Management Practices in compliance with the Construction General Permit
and treatment Best Management Practices pursuant to Caltrans and city
policies that avoid and/or reduce pollution, erosion, and sedimentation
associated with project construction activities, ensuring that the project does
not exacerbate existing exceedances of the total maximum daily loads
established to meet water quality objectives for surface water bodies near the
project site, including Prefumo Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek. Caltrans
and the City of San Luis Obispo shall verify that water quality control
requirements have been satisfied and that the proposed roadway
improvements do not adversely affect the water quality in the project area.
With adherence to existing regulatory requirements, the project would not
exacerbate existing water quality issues in the vicinity of the project site, and
it would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of a water quality
plan. This impact would be less than significant.
Groundwater
The project site overlies the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (the
Basin). Existing groundwater issues in the Basin include high levels of total
dissolved solids, averaging around 770 milligrams per liter, as well as
elevated nitrate and sodium concentrations (GSI Water Solutions Inc. 2018).
Project construction equipment could result in pollution of the underlying
groundwater from oil, gasoline, lubricants, or other chemical leaks or spills.
Page 435 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 68
Project compliance with the required Construction General Permit would
involve the implementation of stormwater and non-stormwater Best
Management Practices to reduce spills, leaks, or other pollution from project
construction that would further impair groundwater quality.
In April 2019, the Department of Water Resources published ranked
prioritizations of the State’s groundwater basins to help identify, evaluate, and
determine the need for additional groundwater level monitoring. The
Department of Water Resources ranked the Basin as a “High” priority basin
(DWR 2019). As a result, a Groundwater Sustainability Plan under the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act must be developed and
implemented for the Basin. As required by the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act, the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies developed a Groundwater Sustainability
Plan in October 2021. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan guides
groundwater users on how to reach sustainable groundwater levels in the
future (San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
2021).
Implementation of the water quality treatment Best Management Practices as
well as the water quality treatment Best Management Practices of the City of
San Luis Obispo MS4 permit and the Caltrans National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit, would be required to ensure the project would not
substantially degrade groundwater quality and would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Therefore,
with the implementation of required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures, this impact would be less than significant.
b) The project does not propose any land uses that would increase long -term
demand for water, and it does not propose the e xtraction of groundwater.
Additionally, the existing impervious surface within the State right -of-way
portion of the site would be converted to vegetated right -of-way. Stormwater
runoff from the project site could provide recharge benefits in the vegetated
right-of-way through required infiltration treatment Best Management
Practices and downstream in Prefumo Creek and/or San Luis Obispo Creek.
Therefore, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge to impede sustainable
groundwater management or the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
Groundwater Sustainability Plan. This impact would be less than significant.
c.i, c.ii, c.iii, c.iv) The project site is generally flat, with elevations ranging from
approximately 130 to 140 feet above sea level. Surface flows on the project
site generally travel from north to south toward Prefumo Creek and San Luis
Obispo Creek.
Construction of the project may alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
due to grading and paving activities. The project would result in an overall
Page 436 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 69
increase in impervious surface of up to 2 acres on the project site and would
include the removal of existing biofiltration strips along the U.S. 101
northbound lane.
Pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Statewide
Stormwater Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for the State of California
Department of Transportation (Order 2012 -0011-DWQ and subsequent
amendments), the project would be required to implement postconstruction
treatment control Best Management Practices to infiltrate, harvest, reuse,
evapotranspire, or capture and treat runoff from the 85th percentile, 24 -hour
rainfall event. Best Management Practices required under the Construction
General Permit include but would not be limited to detention and infiltration
basins or low-impact development flow-through treatment devices. To ensure
compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Requirements, existing postconstruction runoff control facilities
removed/demolished by the project will be reconstructed/replaced within the
project area.
Additionally, portions of the project site outside the State right -of-way are
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 Small
MS4 General Permit (Order 2013-0001-DWQ), which requires
postconstruction low-impact development design standards for roadway
projects. Similar to the postconstruction requirements of the Caltrans National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, low-impact development
design standards under the Phase 2 Small MS4 General Permit include the
following design and performance standards:
Low impact design of the project to minimize stormwater runoff and
minimize disturbance of natural drainage features.
Treatment of runoff from the 85th percentile, 24 -hour event using
infiltration, harvest and reuse, or capture Best Management
Practices, such as a bioretention facility.
Retaining the 95th percentile, 24 -hour rainfall event.
Ensuring proposed and existing peak flows match for the 2 -year
through 10-year rainfall events.
Adherence to the requirements of applicable stormwater permits would
reduce impacts associated with site drainage alteration by capturing and
treating, infiltrating, or harvesti ng stormwater flows from the project site.
As depicted in the Water Quality Assessment Report, due to the proximity of
the project to Prefumo Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek, the northwestern
and northeastern portions the majority of the project site are is within the 100-
year floodplain, with the southern with a portion of the western, southern, and
eastern portion of the site within the 500 -year floodplain. Development on the
project site would be subject to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Flood Damage
Page 437 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 70
Prevention Ordinance, as codified in Chapter 17.78 of the city’s Municipal
Code. Pursuant to the ordinance, the project would require review by the
city’s floodplain administrator to verify that permit requirements have been
satisfied and that the proposed de velopment does not adversely affect the
carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been
determined, but a floodway has not been designated. Compliance with the
city’s existing flood damage prevention regulations would ensure that the
proposed new roadway facilities would not substantially impede flood flows or
otherwise result in adverse effects associated with the 100 -year and 500-year
floodplains that extend onto the project site. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
d.) The project site is located approximately 6 miles from the coast and is not
within the Tsunami Inundation Area (California Emergency Management
Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California
2009). According to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety
Element, the city is not subject to inundation from seiche (City of San Luis
Obispo 2000). The project site is within a flood hazard zone. However, the
project would not involve the construction or installation of any struc tures or
facilities that would use, process, or store pollutants that could be released in
the event of inundation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Avoidance, Mini mization, and/or Mitigation Measure BIO-3
would be required to reduce impacts to hydrological resources to a less than
significant level.
2.1.11 Land Use and Planning
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Land Use and Planning
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
East of U.S. 101, Prado Road is an existing highway/regional route
surrounded by commercial, industrial, and public facilities land uses.
Agricultural land is located west of the freeway, with commercial development
located northwest of the project site along Dalidio Drive and Madonna Road.
Parcels north of Prado Road have a General Plan land use designation of
Office and a zoning designation of Office –Planned Development overlay (O-
PD). Parcels south of Prado Road have a General Plan land use designation
of Public and zoning designation of Public Facility (PF). Parcels west of U.S.
101 have land use designations of Neighborhood Commercial and Agriculture
Page 438 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 71
under the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and zoning designations of
Neighborhood Commercial–Specific Plan Area overlay (C -N-SP) and
Agriculture–Specific Plan Area overlay (AG-SP).
Environmental Consequences
a) Improvements to the Prado Road/U.S. 101 interchange would not
physically divide an established community east of U.S. 101 because Prado
Road is an existing roadway. The portion of the project site associated with
the proposed Prado Road extension west of U.S. 101 to Dalidio Drive is
located on the San Luis Ranch property. This area is designated as Prime
Farmland under the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and
Open Space Element. Furthermore, the project would construct a vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian connection over the U.S. 101 freeway that does not
currently exist, connecting portions of San L uis Obispo along Prado Road
east of the freeway with residences, schools, commercial development, and
parks west of the freeway, including planned development in the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the project would not physically divide
an established community and would improve connectivity in the city. No
impact would occur.
b) The project would be constructed primarily within the existing public right -
of-way along Prado Road and U.S. 101. The project would be compatible with
the existing surrounding land uses. Depending on the alternative selected, a
portion of the city-owned corporation yard southeast of the project site may
require relocation to accommodate the proposed interchange and right -of-
way. No offsite relocation of corporation ya rd buildings has been proposed at
this time. Any subsequent relocation or alteration of these facilities would be
subject to applicable environmental review requirements under CEQA, with
mitigation incorporated as necessary to reduce any potentially signif icant
environmental impacts. A discussion of project consistency with applicable
land use plans, policies, and regulations is included below.
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency
The project is included in the Transportation Capital Projects of the City of
San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element (City of San Luis Obispo
2014a). Therefore, the project would implement improvements to the city’s
circulation network identified in the Circulation Element and would be
consistent with goals, policies, and programs contained therein to expand the
bicycle network, support a regional bikeway network, and develop bikeways
with road improvements.
The portion of the proposed Prado Road extension west of U.S. 101 on the
San Luis Ranch property is in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area. In its
discussion of the purpose for the San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan
Area, the Land Use Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
identifies the need for a Prado Road connection, including an overpass or
Page 439 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 72
interchange, as well as circulation connections to integrate the property with
the surrounding circulation network for all modes of travel (City of San Luis
Obispo 2014c). The project is consistent with these i dentified needs.
As further discussed in Section 2.1.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, the
project has the potential to impact prime agricultural lands b ecause the Prado
Road extension west of U.S. 101 would require the acquisition of farmland on
the San Luis Ranch property, and there is the potential to impact prime
agricultural lands for the Elks Lane realignment, depending on the project
alternative. Local policies regarding the protection of prime agricultural lands
are contained in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the San Luis
Obispo General Plan, which has the goal to “secure and maintain a diverse
network of open land encompassing particula rly valuable natural and
agricultural resources, connected with the landscape around the urban area.”
The Conservation and Open Space Element designates the San Luis Ranch
property as prime farmland (City of San Luis Obispo 2006).
The San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report, certified by
the City of San Luis Obispo for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan in 2017,
assesses the environmental impacts of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan,
General Plan Amendment/Pre -Zoning, and Development Plan/Vesting
Tentative Tract Map for the 131 -acre San Luis Ranch site. The Prado Road
extension to Dalidio Drive is included in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan as
part of the proposed street network on the site. The Final Environmental
Impact Report includes an ag ricultural conservation mitigation measure to
reduce the impact to agricultural resources resulting from development on the
property. Mitigation Measure AG-1, Agricultural Conservation, from the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, requires that for
every 1 acre of Important Farmland on the site, including Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland, that is permanently
converted to nonagricultural use as a result of project development, 1 acre of
comparable land in agricultural production shall be preserved in perpetuity
(City of San Luis Obispo 2017b).
Policy 8.6.3C of the Conservation and Open Space Element states that for
widespread habitat types or for farmland, mitigation shall consist of
permanently protecting an equal area of equal quality that does not already
have permanent protection in the San Luis Obispo Planning Area (City of San
Luis Obispo 2006). Because the loss of prime farmland associated with the
project would be offset through perpetua l preservation of comparable
farmland, the proposed project would be consistent with the Conservation and
Open Space Element of the General Plan.
The project would be constructed primarily within the public right-of-way, and
the extension of Prado Road (Da lidio Drive) west of U.S. 101 would be
consistent with policies and projects contained in the city’s General Plan and
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. The project does not propose any General
Page 440 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 73
Plan or Specific Plan amendments or zone changes. Therefore, the pr oject
would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and this impact
would be less than significant.
2.1.12 Mineral Resources
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Mineral Resources
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
According to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and
Open Space Element, mineral resource recovery in and around San Luis
Obispo includes mines and quarries producing basaltic stone, red rock, and
cinnabar, an ore of mercury (City of San Luis Obispo 2006). The Mineral Land
Classification Map for the San Luis Obispo -Santa Barbara Region and the
San Luis Obispo quadrangle designates the project site, along with most of
the city, as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (Miller 1989). Areas located in Mineral
Resource Zone 3 contain mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot
be evaluated from available data.
Environmental Consequences
a, b) Policy 6.5.1(A) of the city’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space
Element prohibits mineral extraction within city limits, and the project does not
include any uses or activities that would result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
Therefore, impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant.
2.1.13 Noise
Considering the information in the U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange
Improvement Project Noise Study Report dated October 2021, the following
significance determinations have been made:
Page 441 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 74
Question—Would the project result in:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Noise
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source,
which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as
sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore
be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on
people can include general annoyance, interference with speech
communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extr eme, hearing impairment
(Caltrans 2013a).
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels using the A -weighted sound
pressure level (A-weighted decibels). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment
to the actual sound pressure levels so they are consistent with the human
hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that
quantifies sound intensity, similar to how the Richter scale is used to measure
earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as
a doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 decibels;
dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 decibels decrease (Crocker
2007).
Human perception of noise is not linear in terms of A-weighted decibels or in
terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one
source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive
changes of 3 A-weighted decibels (increase or decrease) (i.e., twice the
sound energy); that a change of 5 A-weighted decibels is readily perceptible
(8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 A-
weighted decibels sounds twice (half) as loud ([10.5x the sound energy]
(Crocker 2007).
Page 442 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 75
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the
source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as
the distance from the source increases. How noise reduces with distance
depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line, the path
the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstruc tions). Noise levels from
point sources typically reduce or drop off at a rate of 6 A-weighted decibels
per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation
units). Noise from line sources (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typi cally
reduces at about 3 A-weighted decibels per doubling of distance (Caltrans
2013a). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures that
“shield” the receiver from the noise source; the amount of reduction provided
by this shielding depends on the size of the intervening structure(s) and the
frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and
dense woods, and human-made features such as buildings and walls, can
significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large str ucture blocking the line
of sight will provide at least a 5 A-weighted decibels reduction in source noise
levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration 2011). Structures can
substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The Federal Highway
Administration’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction
generally provides an exterior-to -interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 A-
weighted decibels with closed windows.
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when
noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors in a
project’s potential noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few
seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise
descriptors have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise
metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and
sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A -weighted level
equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual
fluctuating levels over time. Typically, Leq is summed over a 1-hour period
(Crocker 2007). Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured
during a specified period.
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than noise that occurs
during the day. Community noise is measured using Community Noise
Equivalent Level, which is the 24 -hour average noise level with a plus 5 A-
weighted decibels penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
and a plus 10 A-weighted decibels penalty for noise occurring from 10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013a). The relationship between the peak -hour
Leq value and the Community Noise Equivalent Level depends on the
distribution of traffic during the day, evening, and night. Quiet suburban areas
typically have Community Noise Equivalent Level noise levels in the range of
40 to 50 A-weighted decibels, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 -
to -60-plus Community Noise Equivalent Level range. Normal conversational
levels are in the 60 to 65 -A-weighted decibels Leq range; ambient noise
Page 443 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 76
levels greater than 65 A-weighted decibels Leq can interrupt conversations
(Federal Transit Administration 2018).
Some land uses are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than other uses
due to the amount of noise exposure and the types of activities involved. For
example, residences, motels, hotels, schools, libraries, churches, nursing
homes, auditoriums, museums, cultural facilities, parks, and outdoor
recreation areas are more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial
land uses.
Vibration
Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through
buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas sound is simply carrie d
through the air. As a result, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some
vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from
passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic
energy at frequencie s that are close to the resonant frequency of the material
being vibrated. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human-made
activities reduces rapidly as the distance from the source of the vibration
increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle
velocity in inches per second peak particle velocity and is referenced as
vibration decibels.
Regulatory Setting
Caltrans
According to Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14 -8.02, “Noise
Control,” construction noise shall not exceed 86 A-weighted decibels Lmax at
50 feet from the job site activities from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Caltrans Noise Abatement Criteria serve as the Caltrans and Federal
Highway Administration standard for identifying potential noise impacts along
roadways. Traffic noise impacts, as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulation
772.5, occur when the predicted noise level approaches or exceeds the land
use specific Noise Abatement Criteria specified in 23 Code of Federal
Regulation 772, or a predicted noise leve l substantially exceeds the existing
noise level (a “substantial” noise increase).
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan and State of California Noise Standards
The Noise Element and Noise Guidebook (1996) of the City of San Luis
Obispo General Plan uses modified land use compatibility standards
recommended by the California Department of Health Services. The noise
criteria for the city and the State of California for current and projected
conditions state that the noise intrusive to interior habitable space of
residential units from exterior sources should not exceed 45 A-weighted
decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level. The General Plan Noise
Element restricts noise in outdoor living areas due to transportation noise
Page 444 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 77
sources to 60 A-weighted decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level.
Community Noise Equivalent Level is a weighted average of noise level over
time.
The following Noise Element policy applies to the project and the local noise
environment:
Policy 1.4. New Transportation Noise Sources . Noise created by new
transportation noise sources, including road, railroad, and airport expansion
projects, shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in Table 4.10 -3
for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise -sensitive land uses,
which were established before the new transportation noise source.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Construction Noise Standards
Tables 8 and 9 show the city’s maximum allowable noise levels for short-term
operation of mobile equipment and long -term operation of stationary
equipment at residential properties. Where technically and economically
feasible, the city requires that construction activities that use mobile or
stationary equipment that may result in noise at residential properties be
conducted so that maximum sound levels from stationary equipment at
affected properties would not exceed 60 A-weighted decibels for single-family
residences (Municipal Code 9.12.050). Except for emergency repair of public
service utilities or where an excepti on is issued by the city Community
Development Department, the city prohibits the operation of tools or
equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work
daily between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sunda ys or
holidays, such that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential
or commercial property line.
Table 8 Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short -
Term Operation (Less Than 10 Days) of Mobile Equipment
Time Single -Family
Residential
Multi family
Residential
Mixed
Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and legal
holidays , from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m.
75 A-Weighted
Decibels
80 A-Weighted
Decibels
85 A-Weighted
Decibels
Daily, from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
and all day Sunday and legal
holidays
60 A-Weighted
Decibels
65 A-Weighted
Decibels
70 A-Weighted
Decibels
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Page 445 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 78
Table 9 Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled and
Relatively Long-Term Operation (Periods of 10 Days or More) of
Stationary Equipmen t
Time Single -Family
Residential
Multifamily
Residential
Mixed
Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and legal
holidays , from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
60 A-Weighted
Decibels
65 A-Weighted
Decibels
70 A-Weighted
Decibels
Daily, from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
and all day Sunday and legal
holidays
50 A-Weighted
Decibels
55 A-Weighted
Decibels
60 A-Weighted
Decibels
Vibration
The City of San Luis Obispo considers construction-related vibration
significant if construction-related activities create a vibration that is above the
vibration perception threshold. The vibration perception threshold is defined in
the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (Section 9.12.050) as “The
minimum ground or structure -borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a
normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not
limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving object s. The
perception threshold shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 inch
per second over the range of 1 to 100 Hertz.”
Section 9.12.050(B)(7) prohibits operating or permitting to the operation of
any device that creates a vibration exceeding the perception threshold of an
individual at the property boundary of the source if located on private property
or 150 feet from the source if on public space or in the public right -of-way.
Since the project involves the construction of roadway infrastructure within the
public right-of-way, vibration impacts would violate the standards set forth in
the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code if construction or operation would
generate groundborne vibration greater than 0.01 inch per second peak
particle velocity (percep tion threshold) at 150 feet from the source .
Additionally, Caltrans’ Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration
Manual (Caltrans 2013b) provides general guidance on vibration issues
associated with the construction and operation of projects in rela tion to
human perception and structural damage. Table 10 indicates vibration levels
at which humans would be affected by vibration levels .
In the second column in Table 10, titled “Maximum Vibration Level (Inches
per Second) for Transient Sources,” transient construction vibrations are
generated by a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or wrecking
balls.
In the third column in Table 10, titled “Maximum Vibration Level (Inches per
Second) for Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources,” continuous/frequent
intermittent vibrations result from equipment or activities such as excavation
Page 446 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 79
equipment, static compaction equipment, tracked vehicles, vibratory pile
drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
Table 10 California Department of Transportation Vibration Annoyance
Potential Criteria
Human Response
Condition
Maximum Vibration Level
(Inches per Second) for
Transient Sources
Maximum Vibration Level
(Inches per Second) for
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.9 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: California Department of Transportation 2013b.
Environmental Consequences
a) Noise Analysis Methodology
Construction Noise
During project construction, noise from construction activities may
intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of
construction. According to Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14 -8.02,
“Noise Control,” construction noise shall not exceed 86 A-weighted decibels
Lmax at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and
internal combustion engines must be equipped with the manufacturer -
recommended muffler and internal combustion engines cannot be operated
on the job site without the appropriate muffler.
Construction noise estimates for the project are based on noise levels
reported by Federal Highway Administration Highway Construction Noise
Handbook (2006) and the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment (2018). Estimated construction noise levels
were adjusted based on the distance to nearby noise -sensitive receptors
using a standard noise reduction rate of 6 decibels per doubling of distance
and do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography,
which could reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Additionally,
construction equipment included in the analysis for the project was based on
typical construction equipment associated with roadway constructio n projects.
The analysis assumes that construction equipment would be operating
concurrently during different phases of the project. Therefore, the noise levels
estimated for the project represent a conservative estimate of expected
construction noise.
Page 447 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 80
Long-Term Operational Noise
Traffic noise levels were predicted using the Federal Highway Administration
Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5. Noise modeling was conducted for each of
the project alternatives to evaluate which alternative(s) would have the worst -
case potential noise impact. The comparison to existing conditions is included
in the analysis to identify traffic noise impacts as defined under 23 Code of
Federal Regulations 772. The comparison to no -project conditions indicates
the direct effect of the project. The estimated noise levels were then
compared to the applicable Caltrans Noise Abatement Criteria to determine
the potential noise impacts of the project. The Noise Abatement Criteria serve
as the Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration standa rd for identifying
potential noise impacts along roadways. Traffic noise impacts, as defined in
23 Code of Federal Regulations 772.5, occur when the predicted noise level
approaches or exceeds the land -use-specific Noise Abatement Criteria
specified in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 772 or a predicted noise level
substantially exceeds the existing noise level (a “substantial” noise increase).
Noise Impacts
Construction Noise
The closest noise-sensitive receptor to the project site is the Prado Day
Center, modeled at 145 feet from the project boundary. The second and third
closest sensitive receptors are a mobile home park and the Embassy Suites
Hotel modeled at 250 feet and 435 feet from the site, respectively. Peak
construction noise levels from the combine d construction phase equipment
could be up to 77 A-weighted decibels Leq at the Prado Day Center, 72 A-
weighted decibels Leq at the mobile home park, and 67 A-weighted decibels
Leq at the hotel. Accordingly, no adverse noise impacts from project
construction would occur because construction noise would not exceed the
Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14.8 -02 of 86 A-weighted decibels
Lmax or the city’s standard of 85 A-weighted decibels in mixed
commercial/residential areas. Additionally, constructio n noise would be short-
term in duration and intermittent, further reducing potential noise impacts.
Construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Long-Term Operational Noise
Table 11 shows the future noise levels at sensitive noise receptors i n the
project vicinity in comparison to the applicable Noise Abatement Criteria for
each land use.
Page 448 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 81
The figures in the second column in Table 11 are rounded to the nearest decibel.
In the fourth column in Table 11, titled “Substantial Increase,” a substantial increase is plus 12 A -weighted decibels
from the existing noise level.
In the fifth column i n Table 11, titled “Noise Abatement Criteria (A-weighted decibels Leq[h]),” the Leq(h) activity
criteria values are for impact determinations only and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. All
values are A-weighted decibels.
In the sixth column in Table 11 titled, “Noise Abatement Criteria Exceedance? (Yes/No),” the noise abatement
criteria for the exterior noise level are not approached or exceeded. Exterior -to -interior noise level reduction is
assumed to be 20 A-weighted decibels, resulting in a 44 A-weighted decibels worst-case interior noise level. These
noise abatement criteria would also not be approached or exceeded.
Table 11 Future (2045) Noise Environment With Project Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7
Sensitive Noise Receptor
With Project
(A-W eighted
Decibels Leq)
Without Project
(A-W eighted
Decibels Leq)
Substantial
Increase?
Noise Abatement
Criteria
(A-W eighted Decibels
Leq[h])
Noise Abatement
Criteria
Exceedance?
(Yes/No)
Prado Day Center
(Exterior) 64 63 No 67 No
Mobile Home Park
(Exterior) 65 61 No 67 No
Hotel (Exterior) 70 69 No 72 No
Page 449 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 82
As shown in Table 11, noise levels at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity
would not exceed the applicable Noise Abatement Criteria. Therefore, the
project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of established standards, and this
impact would be less than significant.
b) Certain types of construction equipment can generate high levels of
groundborne vibration. Construction of the proposed project would utilize
vibration-producing equipment, including dozers, loaded trucks, and
jackhammers during most construction phases. Construction equipment
would operate, on average, approximately 25 feet from the project site
boundary within the public right-of-way along Prado Road or U.S. 101.
Section 9.12.050(B)(7) of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
prohibits operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a
vibration above the perception threshold of an individual (0.01 inch per
second peak particle velocity) at 150 feet from the source if located on a
public space or public right-of-way. Table 12 shows groundborne vibration
levels associated with equipment that is expected to be used in conjunction
with project construction. As shown in Table 12, vibration levels would not
exceed the threshold at 150 feet from the source and, therefore, would
comply with Section 9.12.050(B)(7) of the municipal code.
Table 12 Construction Vibration Levels
Construction Equipment
Groundborne Vibration
Level at 25 Feet
(Reference Distance) in
Inches per S econd Peak
Particle Velocity
Groundborne Vibration
Level at 150 Feet in
Inches per Second Peak
Particle Velocity
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.005
Bulldozer–Large 0.089 0.006
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.006
Jackhammer 0.035 0.002
Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018.
Project operation would involve the passage of vehicular traffic, including
trucks and passenger vehicles, along Prado Road, U.S. 101, and the Prado
Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of the freeway. Such traffic may generate
limited groundborne vibration but would not substantially increase
groundborne vibration above existing levels because vehicle traffic, including
large trucks, is already traveling along Prad o Road and U.S. 101. The project
does not include elements that would generate long-term increases in
vibration, such as railroad tracks or heavy stationary equipment. Therefore,
because project construction would not generate groundborne vibration in
excess of thresholds described in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and
project operation would not substantially increase groundborne vibration, this
impact would be less than significant.
Page 450 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 83
c) As discussed in Section 2.1.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , the
project site is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the San Lui s
Obispo County Regional Airport. According to the Airport Land Use Plan, the
project site is located within the airport’s projected 55 A-weighted decibels
noise contour and 75 A-weighted decibels single-event noise contour (Airport
Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County 2005). As such, the project
site experiences noise associated with airport and air travel activities
overhead.
The project does not involve the construction of residences, businesses,
noise-sensitive receptors, or any habitable structures. Construction workers
would temporarily be exposed to airplane noise overhead during project
construction. However, ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site
range from approximately 59 A-weighted decibels Leq near Dalidio Drive to
70 A-weighted decibels Leq along Prado Road, with roadways serving as the
primary noise source. Given the existing ambient noise levels on the site and
the expected operation of construction equipment, noise on the project site
would be typical of constructi on work zones, and airport noise would not
substantially contribute to ground -level noise during construction. Therefore,
the site’s proximity to the airport would not expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels, and thi s impact would be less
than significant.
2.1.14 Population and Housing
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Population and Housing
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
Affected Environment
The city has a current population of 46,058 (California Department of Finance
2021). The project site includes a portion of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
area. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan calls for the development of the 131 -
acre San Luis Ranch site with residential, recreational, commercial, and
agricultural uses. The San Luis Ranch Project Environmental Impact Report
estimates the build-out of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan would add 1,293
residents to the city, increasing San Luis Obispo’s population b y 2.8 percent.
Development of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area and associated
population growth is accounted for in the City of San Luis Obispo’s General
Plan Land Use Element and is consistent with population projections therein.
Potential future development on the San Luis Ranch property under the San
Page 451 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 84
Luis Ranch Specific Plan was determined to result in less than significant
impacts regarding growth effects such as population and housing, public
services, and utilities and service systems (City of San Luis Obispo 2017b).
Environmental Consequences
a) The project does not include any housing or business development and
would not directly induce population growth in the city. The project would
facilitate the development of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area by
creating a roadway connection and freeway crossing to the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan Area that does not currently exist. While the project would
indirectly facilitate population growth by facilitating the development of the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area, this growth would be consistent with the
city’s General Plan projections and would not result in substantial new
environmental impacts beyond those identified for the General Plan and San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.
b) The project would predominantly be constructed within the existing public
right-of-way along Prado Road and U.S. 101. While the project would require
the acquisition of 4 to 6 acres of Caltrans and city right-of-way and 3 to 4
acres of slope easements, this acquisition would not affect any existing
housing. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, and no impact would occur.
Page 452 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 85
2.1.15 Public Services
Question:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Public Services
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact
Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact
Schools? No Impact
Parks? Less Than Significant Impact
Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
Fire Protection
Fire protection services are provided by the San Luis Obispo city Fire
Department, which is staffed by four administrative professionals and 42
firefighters. Services provided by the fire department include fire response,
emergency medical response, hazard ous materials response, public
assistance, and nonemergency services, such as fire and life safety
inspections, building inspections, fire code investigations, and public
education. The Fire Department maintains a response time goal of four
minutes travel time to 95 percent of all emergencies (City of San Luis Obispo
2021a).
The nearest fire station to the project site is the Fire Department
Headquarters at 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, approximately 1.7 miles
(driving distance) northeast of the project site. Fire Station 4, located at 1395
Madonna Road, is approximately 1.9 miles (driving distance) west of the
project site.
Police Protection
The San Luis Obispo Police Department provides police protection for the
city, including the project site. The Police De partment has 90 employees,
including 61 sworn police officers, and is divided into two Bureaus:
Operations and Administrative Services. The Operations Bureau includes the
Patrol Services Division, the Traffic Safety Unit, Situation Oriented Response
Team, and Neighborhood Services. The Administrative Services Bureau
includes the Administrative Services Division, Investigative Division,
Communications Division, and Records Unit (City of San Luis Obispo 2021b).
The Police Station is located at 1042 Walnut Street, approximately 2.2 miles
(driving distance) north of the project site.
Page 453 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 86
Public Schools
The project site is in the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, which
operates 10 elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools, and
an adult school (San Luis Coastal Unified School District 2021).
Environmental Consequences
a.1) Upon connection of Prado Road to Dalidio Drive under the project build-
out, Fire Station 4 would be located within 1.0 mile of the project site (driving
distance), shortening the distance from the nearest fire station to the site. In
addition, the project would improve traffic flow through the project area by
constructing the overcrossing over U.S. 101, improving potential fire response
times in the project site vicinity. The project does not include new housing or
businesses that would increase the demand for fire protection services.
Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impact s
associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection
facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
a.2) The project site is served by the San Luis Obispo County Police
Department police protection services, and the project would not result in any
new development that would be expected to increase demand for such
services. In addition, the project would improve traffic flow through the project
area by constructing the overcrossing over U.S. 101, improving potential
police response times in the project site vicinity. Therefore, the project would
not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for
new or physically altered police protection facilities. This impact would be less
than significant.
a.3) The project would not involve the construction of any new housing or
businesses that would increase the population in the city or otherwise result in
an increase in enrollment at San Luis Coastal Unified School District schools.
Therefore, the project would not necessitate new or physically altered schools
with the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. No impact
would occur.
a.4) The project may facilitate improved access to existing recreational
facilities, such as the Bob Jones Bike Trail east of U.S. 101 and Laguna Lake
Park west of U.S. 101, by creating a freeway overcrossing with Class 2 bike
lanes and pedestrian facilities that do not currently exist. This may result in a
marginal increase in the usage of these recreational amenities. However, this
increase would not be substantial, as such facilities are currently accessible
via existing freeway overcrossings north and south of the project site. The
project does not involve the construction of any housing or other development
that would increase demand for parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.
a.5) The project does not involve the construction of housing or other
development that would increase demand on government facilities.
Page 454 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 87
Depending on the alternative selected, a portion of the city-owned corporation
yard southeast of the project site may require relocation to accommodate the
proposed interchange and right-of-way. No offsite relocation of corporation
yard buildings has been proposed at this time. Any subsequent relocation or
alteration of these facilities would be subject to applicable environmental
review requirements under CEQA, with mitigation incorporated as necessary
to reduce any potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the
project would not increase demand for government facilities, and because
any relocation of existing facilities would undergo project-specific
environmental review, this impact would be less than significant.
2.1.16 Recreation
Question—Would the proje ct:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact
Affected Environment
The city’s park system includes a mix of 28 parks and recreation facilities
covering approximately 206 acres. The city’s parks include a broad range of
recreational features, including multiuse fields, softball/baseball fields,
basketball courts, soccer fields, tennis courts, pickleball courts, a skate park,
and disc golf courses. The city also owns and manages 16 open spaces and
recreational trails covering nearly 3,800 acres (City of San Luis Obispo
2019b).
Environmental Consequences
a) The project does not involve new housing and would not result in
permanent job creation that would substantially increase the use of area
parks. A minor increase in the use of nearby recreational facilities such as the
Bob Jones Bike Trail east of U.S. 101 and Laguna Lake Park west of U.S.
101 may occur, as the project would enhance bicycle and pedestrian
connections to these facilities by providing Class 2 bike lanes and sidewalks
along the Prado Road overcrossing. Any increase in use would be minimal,
as these facilities are already accessible via the Madonna Road overcrossing
to the north or the Los Osos Valley Road overcrossing to the south, both of
which also provide Class 2 bike lanes and pedestrian connections. Therefore,
this impact would be less than significant.
Page 455 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 88
b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of any
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment. No impact would occur.
2.1.17 Transportation
Considering the information in the U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Traffic
Operations Analysis Report and Intersection Control Evaluation dated May
2019 and the U.S. 101/Prado Road Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Memorandum dated June 2020, the following significance determinations
have been made:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Transportation
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
No Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
Level of Service Standards
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element contains
policies and programs pe rtaining to the city’s circulation network, including
policies targeting traffic reduction, transit, bicycle and pedestrian amenities,
and street network changes (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a). These policies
include performance standards for circulation facilities, including bicycle,
pedestrian, transit, and vehicle facilities.
The Circulation Element also establishes priorities for each mode, such that
construction, expansion, or alteration for one mode does not degrade the
service level of a higher prio rity mode. In the study area, modes are prioritized
as follows: 1) vehicles, 2) transit, 3) bicycles, and 4) pedestrians. Exceptions
to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory
requirements or conflicts with area character, topography, street design, and
existing density.
As described in the CEQA Guidelines and in Public Resources Code
21099(b)(2), “automobile delay, as described solely by Level of Service or
similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be
considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division,
except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” The existing
Page 456 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 89
traffic conditions at intersections and roadway segments in the project vicinity
are provided for informational purposes.
Study Area Intersections
The Traffic Operations Analysis Report and Intersection Control Evaluation
traffic analysis evaluated the project’s effect on regional transportation based
on traffic forecasts for the project Opening Year (2025) and Design Year
(2045) for the following scenarios: No Build Alternative (Prado Road
northbound existing ramps remain), Overcrossing Alternative (Prado Road
overcrossing is constructed without ramps), and Full Build Alternative (full or
partial access interchange at Prado Road is constructed). The Overcrossing
Alternative was removed during the Project Study Report-Project
Development Support phase (completed in April 2018) as it was determined
not to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need (refer to Section 1.2). The traffic
analysis considers impacts at the following study intersections:
Los Osos Valley Road/Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps
Los Osos Valley Road/Higuera Street
Higuera Street/Prado Road
Prado Road/Elks Lane/U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps
Prado Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps (future)
Prado Road/Dalidio Drive/Froom Ranch Way (future)
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps
Madonna Road/El Mercado Street
Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive
Los Osos Valley Road/Madonna Road
Los Osos Valley Road/Froom Ranch Way
Study Area Roadway Segments
The Traffic Operations Analysis Report and Intersection Control Evaluation
consider the project’s effect on the following U.S. 101 highway segments:
South of Los Osos Valley Road
Los Osos Valley Road to Prado Road
Prado Road to Madonna Road
Page 457 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 90
Madonna Road to Marsh Street
Existing Traffic Conditions
The Traffic Operations Analysis Report and Intersection Control Evaluation
assessed the Level of Service at study area intersecti ons and highway
mainlines and ramps for the morning and evening peak hours under existing
conditions using 2019 traffic counts obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo
Traffic Counts and Speed Surveys database and Caltrans mainline traffic
counts from 2014 and 2018. The Project baseline analysis was done for
construction year 2025 with a design year of 2045. The Level of Service and
delay for all intersections and freeway segments were determined using the
methodology documented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
Tables 13 and 14 summarize the existing Level of Service at study area
intersections and freeway mainline, ramps, and weaving sections,
respectively.
In the first column in Table 13, the Analysis of Prado Road/U.S. 101
Southbound Ramps and Prado Road/Dalidio Drive/Froom Ranch Way
intersections are not included for existing conditions because these are future
intersections that have not yet been constructed.
In Table 14, bold values denote the exceedance of Caltrans’ Level of Service
C standard. To supplement the Highway Capacity Manual weaving analysis,
peak hour weaving section operations were also evaluation using the Leisch
Method. Caltrans noted that, though an auxiliary lane currently does not exist
on NB US 101 between Prado Road and Madonna Road, this segment
essentially operates as a weaving section and should also be evaluated using
the Leisch Method. In the seventh row in Table 14, titled “U.S. 101
Northbound North of Prado Road,” supplemental analysis for weavi ng
sections using the Leisch Method indicates that the segment operates at
Level of Service D/E and Level of Service E during the morning and evening
Peak Hours, respectively. In the eighth row in Table 14 titled, “U.S. 101
Northbound South of Marsh Street,” supplemental analysis for weaving
sections using the Leisch Method indicates that the segment operates at
Level of Service C/D and Level of Service D during the morning and evening
Peak Hours, respectively. In the ninth row in Table 14, titled “U.S. 101
Southbound South of Marsh Street,” supplemental analysis for weaving
sections using the Leisch Method indicates that the segment operates at
Level of Service C and Level of Service E during the morning and evening
Peak Hours, respectively.
Page 458 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 91
Table 13 Level of Service for Study Area Intersections under Existing
Conditions
Intersection Control
Type
Target
Level
of
Service
Morning
Peak
Hour
Delay
Morning
Peak
Hour
Level of
Service
Evening
Peak
Hour
Delay
Evening
Peak
Hour
Level of
Service
Los Osos Valley
Road/Calle
Joaquin
Signal D 4.6 A 5.6 A
Los Osos Valley
Road/U.S. 101
Southbound
Ramps
Signal C 12.6 B 18.2 B
Los Osos Valley
Road/U.S. 101
Northbound
Ramps
Signal C 27.6 C 21.8 C
Los Osos Valley
Road/Higuera
Street
Signal D 15.0 B 19.0 B
Higuera
Street/Prado
Road
Signal D 16.1 B 19.2 B
Prado Road/U.S.
101 Northbound
Ramps
Stop
Sign C 9.1 A 13.3 B
Higuera
Street/Madonna
Road
Signal D 18.1 B 21.3 C
Madonna
Road/U.S. 101
Northbound
Ramps
Signal C 17.2 B 21.0 C
Madonna
Road/U.S. 101
Southbound
Ramps
Signal C 16.9 B 23.1 C
Madonna Road/El
Mercado Street Signal D 7.2 A 17.4 B
Dalidio
Drive/Madonna
Road
Signal D 9.5 A 51.3 D
Los Osos Valley
Road/Madonna
Road
Signal D 25.5 C 44.8 D
Los Osos Valley
Road/Froom
Ranch Way
Signal D 19.2 B 31.3 C
Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report and Intersection Control Evaluation, Table 1.
Page 459 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 92
Table 14 Level of Service for Study Area Freeway Mainline, Ramps, and
Weaving Sections U nder Existing Conditions
Segment Segment
Type
Target
Level
of
Service
Morning
Peak
Hour-
Volume
Morning
Peak
Hour-
Level of
Service
Evening
Peak
Hour-
Volume
Evening
Peak
Hour-
Level of
Service
U.S. 101 Northbound
South of Los Osos
Valley Road
Freeway C 2,774 C 2,249 C
U.S. 101 Northbound
Los Osos Valley
Road Off-Ramp
Diverge C 546 D 579 C
U.S. 101 Northbound
Los Osos Valley
Road On-Ramp
Merge C 215 C 467 C
U.S. 101 Northbound
South of Prado Road Freeway C 2,443 C 2,137 C
U.S. 101 Northbound
Prado Road Off-
Ramp
Diverge C 225 C 135 C
U.S. 101 Northbound
North of Prado Road Weave C 2,951 C 2,986 C
U.S. 101 Northbound
South of Marsh
Street
Weave C 3,410 B 3,492 B
U.S. 101 Southbound
South of Marsh
Street
Weave C 2,753 B 4,018 C
U.S. 101 Southbound
Madonna Road On-
Ramp
Merge C 144 B 377 C
U.S. 101 Southbound
South of Madonna
Road
Freeway C 1,663 B 2,881 D
U.S. 101 Southbound
Los Osos Valley
Road Off-Ramp
Diverge C 621 B 611 D
U.S. 101 Southbound
Los Osos Valley
Road On-Ramp
Merge C 364 B 774 D
U.S. 101 Southbound
South of Los Osos
Valley Road
Freeway C 1,406 B 3,044 D
Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report and Intersection Control Evaluation, Tables 2 and
3.
Page 460 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 93
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Caltrans has determined that Vehicle Miles Traveled is the most appropriate
primary measure of transportation impacts for capacity-increasing
transportation projects on the State Highway System. The project would not
involve the construction of additional vehicle lanes on U. S. 101 or increase
the capacity of the existing northbound on- and off-ramps at the U.S.
101/Prado Road interchange; however, a discussion of the project’s potential
affects on regional (Citywide and Countywide) Vehicle Miles Traveled i s
included to compare the same baseline network with the addition of the Prado
Road extension over U.S. 101, northbound ramps, and the northbound
auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Marsh Street.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies criteria for evaluating
transportation impacts. Specifically, the guidelines state that vehicle miles
traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a
significant impact. Caltrans has not adopted thresholds of significance for the
evaluation of potential vehicle miles traveled impacts, but current guidance
refers to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory
on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018). Caltrans
has also published the Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused
Transportation Impact Study Guide (May 2020), which describes methods for
evaluating transportation impacts and projects that would include an analysis
of vehicle miles traveled.
The City of San Luis Obispo adopted the Multimodal Transportation Impact
Study Guidelines in June 2020. The Guidelines include vehicle miles traveled
thresholds of significance for analyses in CEQA documents which are based
on the Office of Planning and Re search Technical Advisory on Evaluating
Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), the Caltrans Vehicle
Miles Traveled -Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (May 2020), and
the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Transition from LOS to Vehicle
Miles Traveled Staff Report (October 2019).
In support of the city’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
and vehicle miles traveled thresholds, a technical study compared the
regional San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and San Luis Obispo city
travel demand models with enumerated vehicle miles traveled data sources
such as Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data. The analysis
demonstrated that the city’s travel demand model, which boundaries
incorporate the entirety of San Luis Obisp o County, more closely represents
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data, and therefore is the
preferred tool for accurately forecasting vehicle miles traveled for projects
within the City of San Luis Obispo and assessing induced travel. As part of
the Prado Road Traffic Operations Analysis Report, the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments endorsed and Caltrans approved the use of the city’s
travel demand model for assessing the project.
Page 461 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 94
The city’s travel demand model is capable of estimating the ne t overall
change in vehicle miles traveled as a result of the proposed interchange; and
is sensitive to travel time and cost as well as mode choice, distribution, and
assignment consistent with the requirements described in Office of Planning
and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in
CEQA (December 2018).
As recommended by the Office of Planning and Research, the city
determined regional geographies as the vehicle miles traveled baseline.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15 064.3(b)(2), transportation projects
that reduce or have no impact on vehicle miles traveled should be presumed
to cause a less than significant transportation impact.
Environmental Consequences
a) The project consists of roadway improvements, including the construction
of a freeway overcrossing and extension of Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) west
of U.S. 101. The project would accommodate Class 4 bike lanes and
pedestrian sidewalks, improving pedestrian and cyclist safety. While the
project would not result in new vehicle trip generation because it does not
propose new development, such as homes or businesses, the proposed
roadway improvements would affect vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
circulation in the city.
The Traffic Operations Analysis Report and Intersection Control Evaluation
(May 2019) analyzed potential intersection and freeway impacts associated
with the build-out of each of the project alternatives and provided a
comparison of the Level of Service at study area intersections under Opening
Year (2025) conditions for each project alternative as well as the no -Build
Alternative. As demonstrated in that analysis, no study area intersections
would exceed the target Level of Service without the project or with the
construction of any of the project alternatives. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with either Caltrans or the City of San Luis Obispo Level of
Service standards. In addition, as described in the CEQA Guidelines and in
Public Resources Code 21099(b)(2), “automobile delay, as des cribed solely
by the level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic
congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment
pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the
guidelines, if any.”
The project is a Capital Improvement Project identified in the City’s General
Plan Circulation Element and would implement improvements along Prado
Road, including vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation improvements,
envisioned in the Circulation Element. Specifically, the project would
implement Circulation Element Program 9.2.2:
Page 462 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 95
Program 9.2.2: Prado Road Improvements . The city shall ensure that
changes to Prado Road (Projects 1, 2, and 19 in Table 5 of the Circulation
Element of the City’s General Plan) and other related system improvements
are implemented in a sequence that satisfies circulation demands caused by
area development.
The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the
Prado Road interchange or overpass (Project 19 on Table 5 of the Circulation
Element of the City’s General Plan) will be required to prepare or fund the
preparation of a Project Study Report for the interchange project. The Project
Study Report shall meet the requirements of the California Department of
Transportation.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, and
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
b) Vehicle Miles Traveled
Using the City of San Luis Obispo’s travel demand model, the 2016 baseline
was compared to the same baseline network with the addition of the Prado
Road extension over U.S. 101, northbound ramps, and the northbound
auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Marsh Street. The results of this
analysis are presented in Table 15. Copies of the analysis supporting these
results are included in the U.S. 101/Prado Road Vehicle Miles Traveled
Analysis Memorandum in Volume 2 of this document.
Table 15 City Travel Demand Model Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Baseline Geography
Baseline Net
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Baseline Net
Vehicle Miles Traveled
W ith Project
Change
Countywide Geography 8,486,293 8,483,614 Negative
0.07 percent
Citywide Geography 1,027,441 1,024,822 Negative
0.50 percent
As shown in Table 15, the project would result in a net overall reduction in
daily vehicle miles traveled by 0.50 percent at the city Sphere of Influence
level and 0.07 percent at the regional level. This finding is consistent with the
purpose of the proposed overcrossing to provide a more direct route through
the city, reducing out-of-direction travel and vehicle volumes on other nearby
routes.
Induced Travel
One of the considerations in evaluating induced travel is a project’s effect on
land use that could occur as a result of the project. The proposed project
would not result in land use development that would lead to induced travel
and vehicle miles traveled. Potential development beyond that envisioned in
Page 463 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 96
the city’s current General Plan would require an assessment of vehicle miles
traveled as it directly relates to future land use development independent of
the Prado Road Interchange.
Induced travel also includes shifts to new facilities from other ro utes, modes,
or times resulting from projects that make vehicle travel easier. The city’s
travel demand model is capable of estimating the net overall change in
vehicle miles traveled as a result of the proposed interchange (results shown
in Table 15). Currently, trips between the east and west sides of U.S. 101 in
the vicinity of the project take direction routes via Madonna Road or Los Osos
Valley Road. The travel demand model forecasts that these trips will re -route
to the more direct Prado Road Overpass when available. The forecasted
vehicle miles traveled reduction is consistent with the volume predicted to
shift to that more direct route and the shorter distance that more direct route
would provide. As a result, the project would not cause substantial induced
travel and would result in an overall reduction in regional vehicle miles
traveled.
c) The project does not propose sharp curves. While the project would involve
the construction of an interchange in a new configuration, ramp intersection
control would be provided by either a traffic signal or roundabout. As a result,
the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature or incompatible use, and this impact would be less than
significant.
d) The project involves roadway improvements that would enhance circulation
by improving a freeway interchange and providing a freeway overcrossing
that does not presently exist. Therefore, the project would result in beneficial
long-term impacts regarding emergency access by improving vehicular flow
and providing an additional freeway crossing for emergency service providers
throughout the city.
During the construction period, vehicular flow along Prado Road and, to a
lesser extent, U.S. 101, may be intermittently disrupted or reduc ed. As
described in Section 2.1.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , the project
would be required to implement a Transportation Management Plan pursuant
to Caltrans Deputy Directive 60. According to Caltrans’ Guidelines,
Transportation Management Plans include public information, motorist
information, incident management, construction strategies, demand
management, and alternate route/detour strategies. Public information
strategies include notification to emergency services, including fire, law
enforcement, and ambulance services, of start dates, work schedules,
significant traffic pattern changes, transit routes, traffic collisions, and other
incidents in the work zone (Caltrans 2015). With the implementation of the
required, project-specific Transportation Management Plan, closures or
detours along either roadway would occur with advanced notification to
emergency services, providing an opportunity to coordinate emergency
Page 464 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 97
access during project construction. Given the short duration and temporary
nature of any reductions in vehicular flow through the project area that may
impede emergency access and the project’s long -term beneficial impact to
emergency service circulation throughout the city, this impact would be less
than significant.
2.1.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the s ignificance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Question:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Tribal Cultural Resources
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of his torical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Affected Environment
On July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 was enacted, expanding
CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.”
Assembly Bill 52 states, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that
may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code
Section 21084.2). It further states the lead agency shall establish measures to
avoid impacts altering the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural
resource when feasible (Public Resources Code Section 21084.3).
Public Resources Code Section 21074 (a)(1)(A ) and (B) defines tribal cultural
resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and
objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Histori cal
Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
Page 465 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 98
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
Assembly Bill 52 also establishes a formal consultatio n process for California
tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be
completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted. Under
Assembly Bill 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a
California Native Ame rican tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated
with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to
be included in the process are those having requested notice of projects
proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agenc y.
On March 20, 2018, and August 12, 2021, the City of San Luis Obispo
distributed Assembly Bill 52 consultation letters for the proposed project,
including project information, map, and contact information, to ten Native
American contacts. The Native American contacts provided with an Assembly
Bill 52 consultation letter via certified mail include the following list of
recipients:
Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians
Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
Northern Chumash Tribal Council
Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
Xolon-Salinan Tribe
Yak Tityu Tityu Yak Tilhini —Northern Chumash Tribe
Under Assembly Bill 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and
request further project information and formal consultation, and lead agencies
have 30 days to begin consultation proceedings after a tribe has requested it.
On August 22, 2021, the city received an email from the
Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians indicating that they defer to the
Northern Chumash Tribe on the project. On August 23, 2021, the city
received an email from the Northern Chumash Tribe requesting consultation
on the project due to the sensitivity of the project area. In addition, on
September 20, 2021, the city received an email from the Salinan Tribe of
Monterey/San Luis Obispo Counties requesting the results of the cultural
resources studies for the project and requesting project updates. The project
will continue to comply with all applicable tribal consultation require ments of
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3 and all other applicable regulations
as the proposed project moves through the required review and approval
process.
Page 466 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 99
Environmental Consequences
a, b) On February 26, 2018, Rincon requested a records search of the Sacred
Lands File from the Native American Heritage Commission to identify the
potential for tribal cultural resources within the project site and to obtain
contact information for Native American groups or individuals who may know
resources within the project site. On March 8, 2018, the Sacred Lands File
search was returned with negative results. At the time of this reporting, no
known sacred sites or tribal cultural resources have been identified within the
project site.
However, based on feedback received from the Northern Chumash Tribe and
Salinan Tribe of Monterey/San Luis Obispo Counties, the potential exists for
construction activities to unearth unknown and unidentified sacred sites or
tribal cultural resources. Required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation
Measures in Section 2.1.5, Cultural Resources, would reduce this impact to a
less than significant level.
2.1.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Utilities and Service Systems
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capa city of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
Water
Water services are provided by the city Utilities Department. The city has four
primary water supply sources including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas
Page 467 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 100
Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with
groundwater serving as a fifth supplemental source. According to the city’s
2020 Urban Water Management Plan and based on the city’s available water
supplies and estimates of future water demand, the city’s water resources are
determined to be reliable during normal and extended drought periods (City of
San Luis Obispo 2021c). The city’s Water Treatment Plant also has the
capacity to meet projected water demand at build -out under the city’s most
recent General Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b).
Wastewater Treatment
The City of San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery Facility collects and
processes wastewater from land uses in the city, California Polytechnic State
University (Cal Poly), and the airport. In 2021, the Water Resource Recovery
Facility treated an average of 2.96 million gallons per day of wastewater,
before discharging it into the San Luis Ob ispo Creek (Metz 2022). The Water
Resource Recovery Facility is undergoing a comprehensive upgrade to the
facility, called SLO Water Plus, which will increase treatment capacity,
provide a new treatment system, update the odor control system, and
improve flood protections (City of San Luis Obispo 2022).
Solid Waste
San Luis Garbage provides waste and recycling services in the city, including
the project site. The nearest landfill to the project site is the Cold Canyon
Landfill at 2268 Carpenter Canyon Road, approximately 6.4 miles southeast
of the project site. According to the city, the Cold Canyon Landfill accepts
various construction-related waste, including asphalt/concrete and mixed
construction and demolition debris (City of San Luis Obispo 2021e). The
facility has a permitted capa city of 23.9 million cubic yards, with a remaining
capacity of approximately 13 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2021). The Cold
Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily throughput of 1,650 tons per day with
an estimated closure date of 2040 (CalRecycle 2021).
Electric Power and Natural Gas
As described in detail in Section 2.1.6, Energy, Pacific Gas and Electric
provides electricity and Southern California Gas provides natural gas service
to the city.
Environmental Consequences
a) Water
The project does not include any new housing or other development that
would generate substantial long -term water demand and does not involve the
construction of new or expanded water supply infrastructure. How ever, the
project would include landscaped areas post-development, which would
involve long-term use of water. Landscaping would consist of drought-tolerant
species watered by efficient landscape irrigation systems, resulting in minor
water use post-project construction. The proposed landscaping would be
Page 468 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 101
required to be consistent with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance. During project construction activities, required Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures implement San Luis Obispo Air
Pollution Control District’s standard fugitive dust control measures, which
require short-term watering of exposed soil during construction to reduce
emissions. However, water demand for fugitive dust mitigation activities would
be limited and temporary and would be met using recycled water supplies to
minimize potable water demand. The project could result in the relocation of
some existing water lines. However, the relocation activities would occur
within the proposed project footprint. The project wo uld not require or result in
the construction of new or expanded water facilities, and this impact would be
less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
The project would not result in any new land uses that would increase
sanitary wastewater generation or otherwise contribute to an increase in
wastewater treatment requirements. The amount or characteristics of
wastewater treated at the Water Resource Recovery Facility would not
change compared to existing conditions with the implementation of the
proposed project. The project could result in the relocation of some existing
wastewater infrastructure. However, the relocation activities would occur
within the proposed project footprint. Any necessary dewatering to the
collection system would be conducted under a Temporary Discharge Permit
from the city and would be required to comply with all permit requirements.
The project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater
treatment infrastructure, and this impact would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section 2.1.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project
would replace existing impervious surfaces on a relatively flat project site. The
project would result in an overall increase in impervious surface of up to 2
acres due to the extension of Prado Road (Dalidio Drive). Increases in the
impervious surface cover have the potential to increase runoff volume and
flow to existing stormwater facilities. The project would be required to
implement postconstruction treatment control Best Management Practices to
infiltrate, harvest, reuse, evapotranspire, or capture and treat runoff from the
85th percentile, 24-hour rainfall event, pursuant to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Statewide Stormwater Permit Waste Discharge
Requirements for State of California Department of Transportati on (Order
2012-0011-DWQ and subsequent amendments) and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 Small MS4 General Permit (Order
2013-0001-DWQ). Stormwater capture, infiltration, or treatment Best
Management Practices required pursuant to these permits include the
following design and performance standards related to detention and
infiltration basins or low-impact development flow-through treatment devices:
Page 469 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 102
Low impact design of the project to minimize stormwater runoff and
minimize disturbance of natural drainage features.
Treatment of runoff from the 85th percentile, 24 -hour event using
infiltration, harvest and reuse, or capture Best Management
Practices, such as a bioretention facility.
Retaining the 95th percentile, 24 -hour rainfall event .
Ensuring proposed and existing peak flows match for the 2 -year
through 10-year rainfall events.
Implementation of these practices would minimize potential impacts to the
stormwater conveyance system. Therefore, compliance with applicable
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements would
ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to
stormwater drainage facilities.
Electric Power
As discussed in Section 2.1.6, Energy, the project would not substantially
increase long-term energy demand. Potential energy demand, such as that
needed for streetlights or typical roadway maintenance activities, would be
met with existing electric power infrastructure that currently serves the project
site and vicinity. Therefore, no new or relocated energy facilities would be
required as a result of the proposed project. The project was designed to
avoid the high voltage tower on the west side of U.S. 101. The project would
not require or result in the need for new or expanded electric power facilities,
and this impact would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
The project would not involve any new land uses that would require natural
gas service. While the project could result in the reloc ation of existing natural
gas facilities, such activities would occur within the proposed project footprint.
Therefore, the project would not require or result in the need for new or
expanded natural gas facilities that would result in physical environment al
impacts beyond those identified throughout this Initial Study. This impact
would be less than significant.
Telecommunications
The project would not involve any new land uses that would require
telecommunications infrastructure. While the project could result in the
relocation of existing telecommunications facilities, such activities would occur
within the proposed project footprint. Therefore, the project would not require
or result in the need for new or expanded telecommunications facilities that
would result in physical environmental impacts beyond those identified
throughout this Initial Study. This impact would be less than significant.
Page 470 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 103
b) As discussed in checklist item a) in this subsection, the project does not
include any new development land uses that would generate substantial long -
term water demand. The project would include landscaped areas post -
development, which would involve long-term use of water. Water use for
landscaping would be minimized through the planting palette and installation
of water-efficient irrigation systems. The proposed landscaping would be
required to be consistent with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance. Compliance with San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District’s
standard fugitive dust control measures during project construction activities
would require short-term watering of exposed soil during construction.
However, water demand for fugitive dust mitigation activities would be limited
and temporary and would be met using reclaimed water supplies to the extent
feasible. The project would not impact water supply availability for any
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years. Therefore, impacts related to the availability of water supply would
be less than significant.
c) As discussed in checklist item a) in this subsection, the project would not
increase sanitary wastewater generation or o therwise contribute to an
increase in wastewater treatment requirements or wastewater treatment
capacity at the Water Resource Recovery Facility. No impact would occur.
d, e) Once constructed, project operation would not result in new solid waste.
Project construction activities would generate solid waste in the form of
demolition debris, asphalt/concrete, and spoiled soils. Construction waste
would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and
local policies. The project would be req uired to comply with the State’s 65
percent construction/demolition waste diversion requirement and would be
required to prepare a construction waste management plan to identify waste
management and diversion procedures. Recycling facilities in the project site
vicinity that accept demolished concrete/asphalt materials include North
County Recycling in Templeton and Hanson Aggregates in Santa Margarita.
Local solid waste infrastructure can accept solid waste generated by project
construction activities that are not diverted for recycling. Once constructed,
long-term project operation would not generate solid waste, and the project
would not otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Potential impacts associated with solid waste management would be less
than significant.
Page 471 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 104
2.1.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones:
Question—Would the project:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Wildfire
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -
fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impact
Affected Environment
The San Luis Obispo region is prone to potential wildfire events due to its
warm, dry climate, surrounding rural hillsides and mountains, and expansive
coverage of ignitable vegetation. During the summer and autumn months,
strong off-shore Santa Ana winds can create fast-moving fires that spread
rapidly from the sparsely populated hillsides in the Irish Hills, Santa Lucia
foothills, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Bishop Peak, and Is lay Hill areas downslope
toward neighborhoods in the city. Recent wildfires near the city include the
1994 Highway 41 Fire, 1996 Highway 58 Fire, and the 2015 Cuesta Fire (City
of San Luis Obispo 2014; California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection 2015).
While a natural ecological process in coastal chaparral and forest systems,
wildfire return intervals have decreased throughout California, resulting in
more frequent ecological disturbance, loss of biodiversity, and colonization by
non-native grass species (U.S. Forest Service 2018). Furthermore, post-fire
conditions leave exposed mountain slopes and hillsides vulnerable to surface
erosion and runoff. Debris flows during post-fire rainy seasons can pose a risk
to life and property and occur with little warning. In California, as little as 0.3
inch of rain in 30 minutes can produce debris flows on post -fire landscapes
(U.S. Geological Survey 2018).
In 2019, San Luis Obispo County published the Community Wildfire
Protection Plan, which identifies opportunities for agency coordination and
Page 472 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 105
pre-fire planning and management strategies (San Luis Obispo County 2019).
The city, including the project site, is located in Planning Area SLO -1 of the
Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
The project site is located in a local responsibility area, Moderate Fire Hazard
Severity Zone, according to the most recent San Luis Obispo County Fire
Hazard Severity Zones Map (California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection 2007, 2009). The nearest state responsibility area is located south
of Los Osos Valley Road, approximately 0.8 mile south of the project site. The
nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is a state responsibility area
near the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, approximately 1.0 mile south of the
project si te.
Environmental Consequences
a, b, c, d) The project site is not located in a state responsibility area or Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project site is developed with existing
roadway infrastructure and agricultural land, with limited potenti al to spark a
widespread wildfire. The project would deliver long -term benefits to circulation
in the city by creating an additional freeway overcrossing, facilitating potential
emergency evacuation.
Project construction may require temporary lane closures or detours, which
would have the potential to impair emergency response or evacuation.
However, as noted in Section 2.1.17, Transportation, any such closures or
detours would be temporary in nature and subject to a Caltrans
Transportation Management Plan, which would include public information
strategies such as notification to emergency services, including fire, law
enforcement, and ambulance services, of start dates, work schedules,
significant traffic pattern changes, transit routes, traffic collisions, and other
incidents in the work zone. Such notification would reduce potential temporary
impacts to wildfire emergency response or evacuation during project
construction.
The project involves the construction of new roadway infrastructure and
connectivity in a developed portion of the city, which would improve
emergency access and would not exacerbate wildfire risks. The project does
not involve the construction of habitable structures and is located on a
relatively flat landscape. As such, the project would not expose people or
structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes. Impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.
Page 473 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 106
2.1.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Question:
CEQA Significance Determinations
for Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Environmental Consequences
a) As discussed in this Initial Study, project development has the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment in several issue areas without the
incorporation of the identified mitigation measures. As discussed in the
Biological Resources section, the project’s potential impacts to special -status
plants and animals would be less than significant with the following
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures discussed throughout
this Initial Study:
BIO-1 including, but not limited to, preconstruction surveys,
specifications for work within/near the arroyo willow tree thicket, and
specifications for revegetation;
BIO-2 including preconstruction survey and limitations on access
routes, staging, and construction areas;
BIO-3 including, but not limited to, construction personnel training,
fencing, waste control, seasonal work limitations, erosion and water
pollution minimization, and sedimentation control;
BIO-4 requiring nesting bird surveys, seasonal limitations for removal
of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats, and nesting bird
avoidance;
Page 474 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 107
BIO-5 including measures for removal from and prevention of
invasive plant species spread on the project site;
BIO-6 including, but not limited to, spill prevention measures,
hazardous materials contamination prevention measures,
sedimentation controls, fencing, and seasonal work avoidance; and
BIO-7 requires the preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan to provide for the restoration of permanent impacts to riparian
habitats.
As discussed in the Cultural Resources section, the project’s potential
impacts to historical or prehistoric resources would be less than significant
with the following Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
discussed throughout this Initial Study:
CR-1 including the stop-work and assessment measures that would
be required if previously unidentified archaeological resources are
exposed during construction.
As discussed in the Geology and Soils section, the project’s potential impacts
to paleontological resources would be less than significant with the following
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures discussed throughout
this Initial Study:
GEO-1 requires evaluating any finds following the unanticipated
discovery of paleontological resources during project construction.
With the implementation of required Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures described herein, the project would not substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare o r endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential i mpacts of
this proposed project. All environmental issues considered in this Initial Study
have been found to result in no impact, a less than significant impact, or a
less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated at the project level. A
cumulative effect assessment looks at the collective impacts posed by
individual land use plans and projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a
period of time.
Cumulative impacts to res ources in the project area may result from other
infrastructure development in the project vicinity or from residential,
commercial, industrial, or other land use development. These activities can
degrade habitat and species diversity through consequences such as
Page 475 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 108
displacement and fragmentation of habitats and populations, alteration of
hydrology, contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of migration
corridors, changes in water quality, and introduction or promotion of
predators. They can also contribute to potential community impacts such as
changes in community character, traffic patterns, housing availability, and
employment.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 describes when a cumulative impact
analysis is necessary and what elements are necessary for an adequate
discussion of cumulative impacts. The definition of cumulative impacts under
CEQA can be found in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines. A definition of
cumulative impacts under NEPA can be found in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations Section 1508.7 of the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations.
Cumulative impacts of several resource areas have been addressed in the
individual resource sections, including Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Noise, Transportation/Circulation, and Utilities and Service
Systems. Other issues (e.g., Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials) are by their nature project-specific, and impacts at one location do
not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. Therefore,
the impacts of the proposed project would be individually limited and not
cumulatively considerable.
Although incremental changes in certain issue areas would occur as a result
of the project, the proposed project would be consistent with existing general
plan goals, programs, po licies, and zoning ordinance requirements for the
transportation improvements. All environmental impacts that could occur as a
result of the project would be reduced to a less than significant level through
compliance with existing regulations and applicab le General Plan policies and
Municipal Code requirements discussed in this Initial Study and
implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study
for the following resource areas: agriculture and forestry resources, air
quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology
and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would
have less than significant cumulative impacts with the implementation of the
mitigation measures included in this Initial Study.
c) Effects on human beings are generally associated with impacts related to
such issue areas as air quality, agriculture, geology and soils, hazards,
hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic safety. As discussed in the
respective sections of this Initial Study, project implementation would result in
potential environmental impacts to human beings in the areas of air quality
and hazards. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures AG-1, AQ-
1, and HAZ-1 through HAZ-4 HAZ-3 would reduce project impacts as a result
of effects on human beings to a less than significant level. Potential impacts
to human beings in the areas of hydrology and water quality, geology and
Page 476 of 753
Chapter 2 CEQA Evaluation
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 109
soils, noise, and traffic safety would be less than significant. With the
implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Page 477 of 753
Page 478 of 753
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 111
Appendix A Title VI Policy Statement
Page 479 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and
Responses
This appendix contains the comments received during the public circulation
and comment period from February 2, 2023 to March 6, 2023 , retyped for
readability. The comment letters are stated verbatim as submitted, with
acronyms, abbreviations, and any original grammatical or typographical errors
included. A response follows each comment presented. Copies of the original
comment letters and documents can be found in Volume 2 of this document.
Page 480 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 113
Comment Letter 1 from Jennifer Best
Comment 1.1 : This project is a LONG time coming, and very long overdue.
The development of housing and shopping centers along Madonna Road
should not have been allowed without concurrent construction of this
interchange.
Looking forward to bridge at Prado Road/Dalidio
That said, omitting on/offramps on southbound 101 is an oversight.
Please include on/offramps on the southbound side to alleviate traffic at
LOVR. The northbound onramp onto 101 from LOVR regularly backs up
through two traffic signals toward the Costco/Target shopping centers. The
southbound offramp also regularly backs up clear to the traffic lanes of 101.
Developing an alternative at Prado Road would give motorists other options,
reduce traffic at the impacted intersection, and help drive traffic to and from a
struggling shopping center (see: recent closure of another big store - Bed
Bath Beyond).
Response to C omment 1.1: The scope of the current Prad o Interchange
project does not include the southbound ramps. As part of the approval of the
initial phase of project development, the Project Development Team –
consisting of Caltrans, City and consultant staff – reviewed the results of the
Traffic Operati ons Analysis Report and determined that the full interchange
option (including the southbound on and off ramps) was not warranted within
the project horizon (20 years) but may be considered as a future stand -alone
project. Under the full interchange option scenario the ramps would be
designed per Caltrans standards, which may require addition of an auxiliary
lane or similar modification to improve merging to/from the Southbound U.S.
101 mainline. However, the full interchange option is not proposed with the
current project, and according to the traffic analysis is not warranted within
the project planning horizon. The proposed alternatives would be constructed
to facilitate future construction of the southbound ramps at a later date when
determined to be necessary.
Page 481 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 114
Comment Letter 2 from Kenneth Riding
Comment 2.1: I think that there should be both on/off access to and from the
bridge to both directions of the freeway. This bridge/access will become a
very important access for SLO. Look to the future!
Response to Comment 2.1: For a discussion of the rationale for not
including the southbound on and off ramps in the Project Description and
Project Alternatives evaluated in this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration, refer to Response to Comment 1.1.
Page 482 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 115
Comment Letter 3 from Linda Busek
Comment 3.1: I am wondering why this project is so behind schedule
already? The Avila Ranch development is already well on its way to
completion and those poor folks are now looking at massive traffic congestion
for the next 7 years! Such poor planning! This should have begun 7 years ago
concurrent with the approvals for the housing development. It also would
have been cheaper if undertaken years ago. Shame!
Response to Comment 3.1: The City originally conceived constructing the
interchange concurrent with the San Luis Ranch development west of U.S.
101. In June 2018 the City Council adopted an Amendment to the San Luis
Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report separating the San Luis
Ranch development project from the interchange in order to expedite the
construction of housing, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for temporary traffic impacts associated with the San Luis
Ranch development. Since that time, changes in the scope of the U.S.
101/Prado Road Interchange Project and the COVID -19 pandemic have
resulted in project delays.
Comment 3.2: Of the choices, my selection is: A4R because the loop back
will provide more space for cars to form a line to access 101 without causing
congestion on the feeder roads.
Response to Comment 3.2: Section 1.5 describes the selection of the
preferred alternative. The Project D evelopment Team has met to evaluate the
costs, right-of-way needs, traffic impacts and benefits, stakeholder
preferences, and other aspects of each alternative that has been under
consideration.
Comment 3.3: However, it is cockamamie to not have a southern direction
on/off ramp incorporated NOW! In seven years the lack of that will be another
folly to contend with.
Response to Comment 3.3: For a discussion of the rationale for not
including the southbound on and off ramps in the Project Description and
Project Alternatives evaluated in this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration, refer to Response to Comment 1.1.
Page 483 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 116
Comment Letter 4 from Steven Hoyt, Ph.D.
Comment 4.1: I was reading a summary of the Meeting on the Prop osed
Prodo Road Overpass in San Luis Obispo. I have resided in San Luis Obispo
for 35 years, and have been awaiting this project forever.
I live and work within 1 mile of Prado Road and certainly agree that this area
of town desperately needs an overpass o n the freeway and on and off ramps.
In addition to the San Luis Ranch development there is the Sara Meadows
development and Toscano development which are just off Prado Road. All of
these residents have been anxiously awaiting the overpass to access their
homes – currently we have to get off at Madonna road when going South
(already conjected) and drive from there to Prado Road. There are also
Mobile home parks, Low income housing, the Social Services Building, DMV,
Social Security that would make use of the exit.
I was horrified when I read the article to find out that there was talk about not
having Southbound exits from 101, because Cal Trans did some study that
said that it would not be used that much. First of all, how could they even do a
study because all the residents and people that desperately need the
southbound exit are now forced to get off elsewhere and are not counted. The
fastest way to get from the rest of town and North County would be to get on
101 southbound and exit Prodo Road – What are they thinking.
Response to Comment 4.1: For a discussion of the rationale for not
including the southbound on and off ramps in the Project Description and
Project Alternatives evaluated in this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration, refer to Response to Comment 1.1.
Page 484 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 117
Comment Letter 5 from Dale Sutliff
Comment 5.1: I have reviewed the options and the EIR for the project.
I ask that my following comments be considered for the successful and most
usable conditions of the interchange and nearby area.
1. I encourage that the Alternative A7 Concept (Figure 1 -6) be used, with
some variations.
a. re-route Elks Lane in the area behind the Sunset Drive In Theater.
this route would be the most direct and convenient way for drivers
using Elks Lane.
the entry to the Sunset Drive In is close to where the new route would
connect with the existing Elks Lane, so a short connect could be used
to access the theater. This would allow for the removal of a section of
existing Elks Lane that connects with the RTA site.
project development would need to assure that the Sunset Theater is
not disrupted by any vehicle traffic, or lighting issue, from the new
Elks Lane route, and assure that the Elks Lane route is not disrupted
by lights and movie projection.
this route behind the Sunset Drive In, connecting to Prado Road,
would create fewer required turns and visibility matters on Elks Lane,
and reduce any vehicle conflicts with Regional Transportation Area
buses.
2. The roundabout at Prado Road and Elks Lane at the Homeless Servi ces
Center is a better location to assist local traffic, without it being part of the on
and off ramp highway system adjacent to the highway.
3. I am concerned about the Hwy. 101 auxiliary lane and extension. The San
Luis Creek area between Hwy. 101 and the Elks Lodge and its RV storage
site is a narrow area. Some San Luis Creek overflow crossed the site during
the January storm period. This area needs to be protected, and not
additionally narrowed. I am a member of Elks, and I store my trailer at the RV
si te.
4. The city's widening of Prado Road and the the bridge at San Luis Creek is
essential.
5. The protecting of bike and pedestrian lanes along Prado Road and across
the overpass is essential. Also, the width of these lanes is increasingly
important. I have been a bicycle rider in the San Luis Obispo area for over
forty years. I now ride a trike. Trikes have been on the increase by many
cyclists. Many cyclists also pull trailers with their bikes to haul materials.
Page 485 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 118
Therefore, bike lanes need to be a minimum of six feet wide for the
convenience and safety of all users of the lanes.
I appreciate the work Cal Trans has been doing regarding this project. I am
willing to meet with anyone regarding conditions and options if desired. I will
copy this message to others of concern and interest.
Response to Comment 5.1: For a discussion of the alternative selection
process, refer to Section 1.5 and Response to Comment 3.2. Potential project
effects on San Luis Obispo Creek are discussed in Section 2.1.4, Biological
Resources. Potential effects of the project related to drainage and flooding
are discussed in Section 2.1.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Although the
project would add an auxiliary lane next to the west bank of San Luis Obispo
Creek, the project would not narrow or otherwise modify the creek channel or
the existing concrete slope protection along the western bank of the creek.
See Response to Comment 8.1 for detail on the minimum width of bicycle
lanes.
Page 486 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 119
Comment Letter 6 from Jake Hudson
Comment 6.1: For sections 2.1.1 Aesthetics and 2.1.5 Cultural Resources I
agree that the impacts on aesthetics and resources can be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated. However, the significant number of
columns necessary to pass flood waters is out of c haracter with surrounding
specific plans design guidelines and the drive -in historical/cultural character.
There is discussion regarding community design guidelines and architectural
features being applied to the project, however there is no specific mitig ation
measures to ensure the columns have some aesthetic/architectural design
feature that incorporates the architectural styles defined in the Margarita Area
Specific Plan, San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, and the Historical character of
the Drive-in. I recommend adding a mitigation measure that requires some
aesthetic/architectural features to be applied to the Columns consistent with
the surrounding specific plan design guidelines and historical character of the
Drive-in, to be reviewed and approved by the City Architectural Review
Commission and CalTrans.
Response to Comment 6.1: The renderings included in this Initial Study-
Mitigated Negative Declaration are conceptual for the purpose of the
environmental analysis, and do not precisely depict the number or
architectural style of columns that would be needed to support the bridge
structures. As discussed in Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics, the construction of a
new dominant infrastructural feature would affect existing views in the project
vicinity. However, the project would not result in a significant adverse change
in any area designated as having moderate or high scenic value under the
city’s General Plan. Auxiliary structures, including structural columns , would
be required to be designed and built consistent with the City of San Luis
Obispo Communi ty Design Guidelines and will be reviewed and approved by
the City Architectural Review Commission. The design, placement, site
features, and visual treatments would relate to building architecture and site
topography. As a result, these elements are expected to be of the same
quality in design and materials as surrounding infrastructure. In addition,
aesthetic treatments within the State Right-of-Way would be required to be
reviewed and approved by Caltrans. As a result, mitigation is not required to
reduce a potential impact associated with aesthetic/architectural features.
During the design phase, the consultant structural designer will coordinate
with the Caltrans Office of Structures Design, Caltrans Bridge Architecture,
and Caltrans Landscape Architecture to determine the necessary number and
spacing of columns for structural purposes, as well as any aesthetic treatment
for the columns and bridge structures.
Page 487 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 120
Comment Letter 7 from Pat McClure
Comment 7.1: Leaving out southbound access to the 101 in the plan for the
Prado overpass seems to overlook the new realities of the hundreds of
homes about to be occupied on Dalidio and their owners' need to exit some
other way than Madonna Road, which is already backe d up to, and past, the
next intersection on many busy days. Getting over to Prado will relieve some
of the pressure (and take some off of the LOVR interchange), but having to
get to the Madonna exit (or LOVR) to go south will be maddening for them
and an ordeal for the rest of us.
It was exciting to hear that Dalidio would finally be developed, but to leave out
the backside access that most of us hoped would be the result immensely
frustrates our hopes for relief from traffic snarls and direct access to the
shopping center from the highway. Surely the hotel and merchants in the
center would have anticipated such a project would result in better flow to and
from their businesses, and separating residential and commercial traffic
somewhat might ease the irrita tion of dealing with the clash of local and
highway speeds. Madonna and LOVR are already vexing.
How much room is there for changes in the plan? The fact that completion is
already projected so far out (why so far?) seems to imply that the project is
still in flux. Why not make it ideal in all directions now and avoid the inevitable
disappointment in half measures?
Response to Comment 7.1: For a discussion of the rationale for not
including the southbound on and off ramps in the Project Description and
Project Alternatives evaluated in this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration, refer to Response to Comment 1.1.
For a discussion of delays to the originally envisioned project schedule for the
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project, refer to Response to Comment
3.1.
Page 488 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 121
Comment Letter 8 from Mila Vujovich LaBarre
Comment 8.1: This letter is for the official comment period about the Prado
Road interchange and overpass.
These matters are currently identified as “The Prado Road Bridge Widening
Project” and “The Prado Road Interchange Project.”
I have sent under separate communication these same comments to Mayor
Stewart and the City of San Luis Obispo Council members.
Although there have been a substantial amount of funds and time devoted to
studying and designing the Prado Road overpass, there are numerous
concerns that still need to be addressed.
As a citizen, I would like to have these concerns about The Prado Road
Bridge Widening Project and the Prado Road Interchange Project addressed.
These comments a re due to my past research on and communication about
this endeavor with City staff and with Caltrans for over two decades.
If we, as a City, are going forward with the construction of a Prado Road
Interchange and the Prado Road Bridge Widening project at this location, it is
critical that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of Prado
Road be done from Broad Street to Madonna Road.
Prado Road as an East-West connector has been on the San Luis Obispo
City Plan since 1960. There has never been a comprehensive Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) of Prado Road analyzing the cumulative impacts, the
cost, and the feasibility of it. Our City staff will say that Prado Road has been
adequately “studied” over the years.
Now is the time for facts, figures, costs, and a timeline to be exposed for
transparency so that the benefits or detriments of these projects will be
revealed.
Most recently in the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) Plan, “Prado
Road” is inked in as a “four-lane truck highway, complete wi th a turn lane,
bike lanes, and sidewalks.”
During the LUCE process, I did attend a majority of the meetings. Many of the
residential units approved via the LUCE Master Plan have been built, without
the approved traffic infrastructure to support them.
Again, “Prado Road” is in the General Plan as a “four-lane truck highway”
however, when portions of Prado Road have been built by developers, they
have been allowed to build roads that are more narrow, as in the Serra
Meadows home development on the East side of Highway 101. The other
Page 489 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 122
section of “Prado Road” on the west side of Highway 101 is now known as
“Dalidio Drive.”
Currently, the construction of Prado Road is being “piecemealed” or
“segmented” which, in my research, is not legal and is in violation of C EQA
guidelines. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
If one takes a tape measure and physically goes along the proposed course
of Prado Road, one can see what my concerns are. “Prado Road” does not
fit.
The basic math is as follows:
Four lanes for cars and trucks: 4 lanes x 12 feet 48 feet
Turn lane: 12 feet 12 feet
Bike paths: 2 lanes x 6 feet 12 feet
Sidewalks: 2 sidewalks x 6 feet 12 feet
Total: 84 feet
A comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) involving all of the
stakeholders including the residents of the developments should be
conducted before one more hour is spent on the design of the interchange
and overpass.
From the posted documents, it appears that Caltrans’ primary involvement is
with the area that is on Highway 101. It is my opinion that both the North-
South impacts and the East-West impacts must be addressed together by
Caltrans and the City of San Luis Obispo.
Also, I have long expressed my concerns about the proximity of the
southbound exit for the Prado Road Interchange and the exit so close to the
southbound onramp at Madonna Road. If one simply gets in their vehicle and
accelerates at the location of the southbound onramp, one can see how cars
and trucks trying to exit slightly south on Prado Road, in the proximity of that
same location, will be extremely problematic.
Also, this “four-lane truck highway, with bike lanes and sidewalks” will detract
from the access and usability of the Prado Road shelter – 40 Prado Road –
as well as the newly constructed treatment facility.
Response to Comment 8.1: A combined Environmental Impact Report for
the two proposed improvement projects along Prado Road between U.S. 101
to South Higuera Street (the U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project and
San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project), was determined to be
Page 490 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 123
unnecessary after review by both City and Caltrans staff. The question of
segmentation has been considered by Caltrans at the CEQA and NEPA level
for the San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project and U.S. 101/Prado
Road Interchange Project. Upon review, it was determined that there was no
nexus for federal or State agencies to request these projects be combined
due to their distinct scopes, project goals, and independent utility (i.e., each
project has a unique purpose and need and could function with or without the
other project). The segment of Dalidio Drive north of Froom Ranch Way was
already evaluated as part of the San Luis Ranch Environmental Impact
Report. The ultimate extension of Prado Road east to Broad Street was
contemplated when evaluating future traffic needs for the U.S. 101/Prado
Road Interchange Project and San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge Widening
Project, but is not proposed at this time and not evaluated in detail as part of
the environmental review for the U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project
and San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project, as those two projects
have separate purpose and need and independent utility.
The City has evaluated the extension of Prado Road to Broad Street as part
of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the General Plan and
associated Environmental Impact Report, but does not currently have
ownership of the required right-of-way, and as a result has no action plan or
proposed timeframe to initiate detailed planning or design. As a result, the
potential Prado Road extension to Broad Street remains in the concept
phase. Therefore, the extension of Prado Road to Broad Street is not
considered reasonably foreseeable, and is not included in the cumulative
setting for this project. Until the City has a reasonable level of assurance the
project will commence, and has an understanding of the timing for
construction and implementation of the project, the pr oject limits, and project
features, staff cannot begin to pursue the technical studies needed to prepare
a CEQA document. There is no timeline for the extension of Prado Road to
Broad Street and City staff believe the project as described is reasonably
scoped.
Prado Road between U.S. 101 and South Higuera Street is currently
identified as a Parkway Arterial Road, featuring design speeds of
approximately 45 miles per hour, two lanes of traffic in each direction as well
as two-way-left-turn-lane/median. The road will require curb and gutter, as
well as bike lanes and sidewalks. The segment of Prado Road between U.S.
101 and South Higuera Street and the segment of Dalidio no rth of U.S. 101
are already designated as truck routes. Per the General Plan Circulation
Element, Prado Road between South Higuera Street and Broad Street would
be a truck route as well and constructed to the same standards whenever the
roadway extension project moves forward.
While this is an important road for regional and truck traffic, the City is
committed to making Prado Road a multi -modal corridor, and has dedicated a
significant portion of the bridge and roadway to cyclist and pedestrian
Page 491 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 124
facilities, which will be physically separated from vehicular traffic. There will
also be landscaping along the roadways and a median to help calm traffic and
ensure pedestrians and cyclists feel comfortable accessing the services
located along the road.
Prado Road as it extends across U.S. 101 to the future Prado Road/Elks
Lane Intersection (at the current 40 Prado driveway) will be 101.75’ wide, and
divided as follows:
(5) 12’ wide vehicular lanes
(2) 5’ wide vehicular shoulders
(2) 6’ wide protected bike lanes
(2) 6’ wide separated sidewalks
(2) 2’ wide barriers between cyclists and vehicles
(2) 1.25’ wide bridge rails
Along Prado Road from the future Prado Road/Elks Lane Intersection to
South Higuera Street, the section will change slightly to 91’:
(4) 11’ + (1) 10’ wide vehicular lanes
(2) 3.5’ wide landscaped buffers
(2) 6’ wide protected bike lanes
(2) 6’ wide separated sidewalks
(2) 2’ wide landscaped buffers at back of sidewalk
This will require widening Prado Road both north towards the existing
buildings and south towards the Wastewater Treatment Plant. There will be
sufficient right-of-way for both roadway sections.
The scope of the current Prado Interchange project does not include the
southbound ramps. For a discussion of the rationale for not including the
southbound on and off ramps in the Project Description and Project
Alternatives evaluated in this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration,
refer to Response to Comment 1.1.
Comment 8.2: Additionally, the proposed intersection of a future Prado Road
at Broad Street has long been a concern of mine. Having a four -lane truck
highway adjacent to the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields will create
environmental hazards for sports enthusiasts and add an additional stop light
at Prado Road along Broad Street.
Page 492 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 125
The late Mayor Dave Romero and I, as well as other concerned citizens
including Eugene Jud and the late Jamie Lopes, long advocated for the fact
that that the “extension of Prado Road” should go south to Santa Fe Road at
a widened Tank Farm Road to protect the integrity of the Damon-Garcia
Sports Fields and to benefit traffic circulation.
Also, the land that was designated for the "extension of Prado Road” adjacent
to the playing fields was purchased with City money. The purchase contract
and verbiage in City documents state that it was “$2 million for 24 acres to be
used for recreation”. There has never been an EIR conducted for putting a
road at that location. Ever. The land was purchased for recreation. The Army
Corps of Engineers supported the construction of the Damon-Garcia Sports
Fields for recreation - not the construction of the road - at that location due to
that very fact.
Response to Comment 8.2: As discussed in Response to Comment 8.1, the
future extension of Prado Road to Broad Street remains in the concept
planning phase and is not part of the current project scope or San Luis
Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project scope. There is no advanced pla nning
or design in progress for this project and it is not currently identified in the
City’s current five-year Capital Improvement Program. Detailed planning,
environmental review, design drawings, and updated cost estimates will be
prepared for this project when it is prioritized at a future date in the City’s
Capital Improvement Program work program.
Comment 8.3: My other concern as a citizen is the recent figures that show
the citizens will bear any cost of this interchange. Originally, during City
planning discussions for the last 20 years, City employees and developers
have stated that the developers of Serra Meadows, Avila Ranch, Righetti
Ranch, and San Luis Ranch homes would be contributing a substantial
portion of the needed funds.
The most recent reports make it appear that the cost for this interchange and
overpass will be passed on to the residents of San Luis Obispo.
Be logical. Please delay any additional approval of this project and demand
that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report of Pr ado Road from
Madonna Road to Broad Street be executed.
Response to Comment 8.3: The City plans to assist with project funding
through a combination of impact fees, debt financing, and the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments Regional Transportation Impr ovement
Program. The Project Approval and Environmental Document, Preparation of
Plans, Specifications, and Estimates, and Right-of-Way Support phases are
programmed with 100% local funds. The construction phase has nearly $64
million currently programmed from a combination of Regional Transportation
Improvement Program and local funding sources.
Page 493 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 126
The funding plan for the Prado Interchange was conceived in 2017 when
project development began. The estimated project cost at that time was $26
million and the project envisioned cost sharing based on the proportions of
traffic anticipated to use it. The San Luis Ranch development west of U.S.
101 is required as part of their Development Agreement to contribute 28% of
the total construction costs. San Luis Obispo C ounty and the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments have also committed approximately $7.4 million
towards the project, and the City remains in negotiations with these agencies
to maximize their contributions.
In addition, some portions of the City funding will also be generated through
Traffic Impact Fees, which are paid by all new development in the City. The
City is currently updating the Traffic Impact Fee program to reflect the current
cost of construction.
The City has determined that this project i s eligible for federal-aid funding. As
a result, City staff are also pursuing State and federal grant funding
opportunities to cover as much of the remaining project cost as possible.
Page 494 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 127
Comment Letter 9 from Ellen Morrison
Comment 9.1: I am writing to state my great concern about the current plans
for the long-awaited overpass of Prado Road over Highway 101 in San Luis
Obispo. My particular concern is the decision not to include a southbound
entrance or exit. There are currently two larg e communities being constructed
on either side of 101, Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch. There is ample land
on both sides of 101 for future development. The need for a southbound
entrance and exit to the freeway will undeniably grow even before the
overpass is completed and for years into the future.
Without a southbound exit, residents of those communities returning from San
Luis Obispo's downtown area, Cal Poly, and all points north will have to
choose between exiting at Madonna Road or Los Osos Valley Ro ad. Both of
those southbound exits are already impacted. During rush hour it is not
uncommon for the southbound exit to Los Osos Valley Road to back up onto
the freeway, resulting in traffic snarls and safety hazards. When the two
communities are fully occupied, these conditions will worsen dramatically.
Without an option for a southbound entrance, residents of San Luis Ranch will
once again be forced to use Madonna or Los Osos Valley, both of which are
already impacted. The Los Osos Valley Road southbound entrance to 101 is
already harrowing, given the short exit-only lane and the fact that the
northbound entrance is so soon after the southbound entrance. Drivers
planning to travel northbound on 101 or to turn right on Higuera a few blocks
away are understandably frustrated to sit through two traffic light cycles, so
often use the left lane, then dart into the right lane at the last minute,
endangering themselves and all other drivers on the Los Osos Valley Road
overpass.
The decision not to include southb ound entrance and exit from Prado Road is
astoundingly short-sighted. The possibility of adding these options in the
future, you must know, is highly unlikely. The current and future members of
our community residing in this section of San Luis Obispo dese rve a complete
solution.
Response to Comment 9.1: For a discussion of the rationale for not
including the southbound on and off ramps in the Project Description and
Project Alternatives evaluated in this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration, refer to Response to Comment 1.1.
Page 495 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 128
Comment Letter 10 from San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District
Comment 10.1: Thank you for including the San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) in the environmental review process. We
have completed our review of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Prado Road Interchange located at Highway 101
at Prado Road in San Luis Obispo (Proposed MND).
The City of San Luis Obispo proposes to extend Prado Road over U.S. 1 01 to
connect Prado Road with Dalidio Drive and rebuild the existing U.S. 101
northbound on- and off-ramp 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. U.S. 101 through the study area
is currently a four-lane divided freeway with auxiliary lanes provided between
Madonna Road and Marsh Street.
The project is included in the 2020 State Transportation Improvement
Program. Project construction is expected to start in 2026 and span
approximately three years. The current programmed cost for construction is
approximately $58,700,000.
The following comments are formatted into 3 sections. The (1) General
Comments section states information pe rtinent to the applicant, lead agency,
and/or public. The (2) Air Quality and (3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
sections may state mitigation measures and/or rules and requirements which
the APCD recommends be set as conditions of approval for the project.
The applicant or agent should contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance
Division about permitting requirements stated in the (1) General Comments
section. The lead agency may contact the APCD Planning Division for
questions and comments related to proposed conditions of approval in the (2)
Air Quality and (3) Greenhouse Gas Emission sections. Both Divisions can be
reached at 805-781-5912.
(1) General Comments
Section 2.1.3 (Air Quality) of the Proposed MND characterizes the APCD as
having jurisdiction over the South Central Coast Air Basin. Please note that
the South Central Coast Air Basin encompasses San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara & Ventura counties, while the San Luis Obispo County APCD has
jurisdiction only in San Luis Obispo County.
Construction Permit Requirements
Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment
that may be present during the project’s construction phase. Portable
equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities
Page 496 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 129
may require a California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by
the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is
provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting
requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive:
Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or
greater;
Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators;
Internal combustion engines;
Rock and pavement crushing; and
Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete
batch plant, etc).
For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4 -4, in the
APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 2012).
Response to Comment 10.1: (1) General C omments
Caltrans acknowledges receipt of these comments on this Initial Study-
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the organization of comments into (1)
General Comments, (2) Air Quality, and (3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For
responses to (2) Air Quality refer to Response to Comment 10.2. For
responses to (3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions refer to Response to Comment
10.3. Responses to (1) General Comments follow.
Caltrans acknowledges that the APCD Engineering and Compliance Division
should be contacted about permitting requirements, and the APCD Planning
Division should be contacted about conditions of approval.
Caltrans acknowledges that portable equipment 50 horsepower or greater
used during construction activities may require a California statewide portable
equipment registration or APCD permit. Consultants and contractors would be
required to secure required permits for all construction equipment and
activities pursuant to the proposed project.
Comment 10.2: (2) Air Quality
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Construction P hase Impacts - Below Threshold(s)
The Project Proponent evaluated the construction impacts of this project
using the most recent CalEEMod computer model. The modeling results
indicate that the construction phase impacts will likely be less than the
Page 497 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 130
APCD’s significance threshold values identified in Table 2 -1 of the CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (April 2012).
To manage fugitive dust emissions, minimize toxic air pollution impacts from
idling diesel engines, and address potential naturally occurring asbestos
impacts the APCD recommends the following mitigation measures for this
project.
Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures
The Proposed MND includes Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to mitigate fugitive
dust. The APCD recommends replacing the language in Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 with the following updated list of mitigation measures to reduce fugitive
dust, which could be a nuisance to residents and businesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Projects with grading areas more
than 4 acres and/or within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall
implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust
emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD 20% opacity limit (APCD
Rule 401) and minimize nuisance (APCD Rule 402) impacts:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of
20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Increased
watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15
mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
When drought conditions exist and water use is a concern, the contractor
or builder should consider use of a dust suppressant that is effective for
the specific site conditions to reduce the amount of water used for dust
control. Please refer to the following link from the San Joaquin Valley Air
District for a list of potential dust suppressants: Products Available for
Controlling Dust;
c. All stockpiled dirt should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other
dust barriers as needed;
d. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed
as soon as possible, and building pads should be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding, soil binders or other dust controls are used;
e. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum
vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) or otherwise
comply with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114;
f. “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates
on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including
Page 498 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 131
tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC
Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’,
designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and
others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track -out prevention device’
where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The
‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of devices
that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of
intersection of an unpaved a rea and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel
plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways
accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to
be modified;
g. All fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans;
h. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose
responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a
nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures
as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions
below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any
60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods
when work may not be in progress (for example, wind -blown dust could be
generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the
start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact the Compliance
Division at 805-781-5912).
i. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as
possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
j. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater
than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast
germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
k. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized
using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods
approved in advance by the APCD;
l. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
m. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water
where feasible. Roads shall be pre -wetted prior to sweeping when
feasible; and
Page 499 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 132
n. Take additional measures as needed to ensure dust from the project site
is not impacting areas outside the project boundary.
Limits of Idling During Construction Phase
State law prohibits idling diesel engines for more than 5 minutes. All projects
with diesel-powered construction activity shall comply with Section 2485 of
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations and the 5 -minute idling
restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources
Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation to minimize toxic air pollution
impacts from idling diesel engines. The specific requirements and exceptions
for the on-road and off-road regulations can be reviewed at the following web
sites: arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/truck -idling and
arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
In addition, because this project i s within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors
(existing residences), the project applicant shall comply with the following
more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors.
1. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
3. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and
4. Signs that specify no idling are as must be posted and enforced at the site.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos on Site
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the California Air
Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks
are very common throughout California and may contain NOA, which may be
released when land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying
operations. The APCD has identified areas throughout the county where NOA
may be present (NOA Map). Because the project site is in a candi date area
for NOA, a geologic evaluation must be conducted by a registered geologist
to determine if the area disturbed is or is not exempt from the CARB Asbestos
Air Toxics Control Measure (NOA ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (Title 17 CCR Section 93105)
regulation. The geologic evaluation must be submitted to the APCD
Engineering Division prior to any grading activities at the site, with the
following documents:
For grading projects qualifying for NOA ATCM exempti on:
Page 500 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 133
o Submit a completed APCD NOA Exemption Form with the geologic
evaluation.
For grading projects in serpentine rock less than 1 acre:
o Submit a completed APCD Project Form with the geologic evaluation;
and
o Mini Dust Control Measures (93105.e.(A -F) as a condition of approval.
For grading projects in serpentine rock greater than 1 acre:
o Submit a completed Project Form with the geologic evaluation; and
o An Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan as a condition of approval.
When submitting the Project or Exemption Form, please fill in all applicable
contact information. More information on NOA can be found on the APCD
website at slocleanair.org/rulesregulations/noa.php, on the California
Geological Survey website at
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_mi nerals/asbestos,
or from CARB at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/asbestos/asbestos.htm
.
Response to Comment 10.2: Caltrans acknowledges the APCD
recommended mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions,
minimize toxic air pollution, and address potential naturally occurring
asbestos impacts from the project. APCD’s recommendations do not identify
new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in Section 2.1.3, Air
Quality, of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration. Rather
APCD’s recommendations note requirements and app ropriate construction
management practices for projects with grading areas more than 4 acres
and/or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors . The text of Mitigation
Measure AQ-1 has been revised to use APCD’s updated list of mitigation
measures to reduce fugitive dust and toxic air pollution for projects with
grading areas more than 4 acres and/or within 1,000 feet of any sensitive
receptor.
APCD notes that the project is in a candidate area for naturally occurring
asbestos (NOA), and that a geologic evaluation must be prepared to
determine if the area disturbed is or is not exempt from the CARB Asbestos
Air Toxics Control Measure (NOA ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (Title 17 CCR Section 93105)
regulation. Grading and structural refinements during final design will include
preparation of the required geologic evaluation, as well as identification of any
required construction best management practices, to meet the requirements
of the CARB NOA ATCM for C onstruction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations. Compliance with these requirements will ensure the
project would not result in any significant impacts associated with the
potential to encounter NOA during construction.
Page 501 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 134
Comment 10.3:
(3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan serves as the city’s qualified
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategy and the Climate Action Plan
Consistency Checklist was used to demonstrate project consistency and tier
from the Climate Action Plan per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The
Proposed MND includes project GHG emission calculations for informational
purposes.
Response to Comment 10.3: Caltrans acknowledges that the Climate Action
Plan Consistency Checklist was used to demonstrate project consistency and
tier from the Climate Action Plan per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
Section Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not
found., describes the available pathways to determining a project’s
consistency with the Climate Action Plan, described in Appendix C to the
Climate Action Plan (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds and
Quantification Consistency Review for New Development). A project is
considered consistent with the city’s Climate Action Plan if it includes
provisions to further the emissions reduction goals in the Plan. The pro posed
project would provide congestion relief, operational efficiency, and multimodal
connectivity, which would result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The project would not conflict with any of the foundational actions of the
Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the
Climate Action Plan.
Page 502 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 135
Comment Letter 11 from Paula H
Comment 11.1: First let me note that there was not sufficient notification of
the availability of this document or of the public hearing. Did Caltrans only
post the notice in the newspaper? No one reads the newspaper anymore.
Please join the 21st century and post notice s where the people are. I receive
between three and five e -mails per week from the City and yet there wasn’t a
single mention of this project. Not even in the City Council meeting
summaries that preceded and followed the public meeting. There was also no
mention on Nextdoor, where the City often makes announcements. Please
don’t assume the poor attendance at the public meeting is indicative of a lack
of public interest in this project; I didn’t hear about it until the day after, on
KSBY. Consequently, my co mments are not as thorough as I would have
liked.
Furthermore, thorough review of this project also requires review of the other
documents, such as the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and city land use
planning documents that reference this location and its vicinity. Presumably
there is an Environmental Impact Report that addresses the change in land
use for this area that the Prado Road Interchange Initial Study is relying upon.
Please identify the relevant planning documents, both Caltrans and City, that
relate to this location and the surrounding projects.
Response to Comment 11.1: Noticing for the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated
Negative Declaration was posted on the City website, Caltrans website, and
State Clearinghouse. The Notice of Intent was published in the New Times on
February 2, 2023, at the start of the advertising period. A social media post
for the public meeting was shared on the Caltrans Twitter profile and sent to
local outlets. Flyers for the public meeting were mailed to property owners
within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area.
The Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration references (Appendix C
in the Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration) include website
addresses for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact
Report, and other City land use planning documents that are referenced in
the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Comment 11.2: The Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration does not
include all the mitigation required to support the statements made for no
significant impacts as a result of the project.
Response to Comment 11.2: The commenter does not disclose which
statements they believe should include additional mitigation to support the
finding of no significant impact. Potentially significant impacts were identified
in Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics; Section 2.1.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources ;
Section 2.1.3, Air Quality; Section 2.1.4, Biological Resources; Section 2.1.5,
Cultural Resources; Section 2.1.7, Geology and Soils; and Section 2.1.9,
Page 503 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 136
Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Appropriate mitigation measures were included in each pertinent
section to ensure the impacts to each resource would be less than significant.
Comment 11.3: The Proposed MND fails to address cumulative impacts from
this project along with past and future projects, which are likely significant.
Response to Comment 11.3: As discussed in in Section 2.1.21, Mandatory
Findings of Significance, the cumulative analysis considers the potential
impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined
with the potential impacts of the proposed project. A lthough incremental
changes in certain issue areas would occur as a result of the proposed
project, the project would be consistent with e xisting general plan goals,
programs, policies, and zoning ordinance requirements for the transportation
improvements. Cumulative impacts of several resource areas have been
addressed in the individual resource sections, including Section 2.1.3, Air
Quality, Section 2.1.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 2.1.13, Noise,
Section 2.1.17, Transportation, and Section 2.1.19, Utilities and Service
Systems. Other issues (e.g., Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials) are by their nature project-specific, and impacts at one location do
not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. Cumulative
environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation
would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations and applicable General Plan policies and Municipal Code,
and through implementation of required mitigation. Therefore, the impacts of
the project were found to be individually limited and not cumulatively
considerable.
Comment 11.4: Who is the CEQA lead agency on this project? Caltrans is
claiming it’s Caltrans, but the City of SLO issued the Notice of Intent. CEQA
states that the lead agency is to issue the NOI.
Response to Comment 11.4: C altrans is the CEQA lead agency. However,
the City of San Luis Obispo was responsible for assisting Caltrans with public
noticing tasks, including creation and mailing of noticing flyers. As described
in detail in Response to Comment 11.1, the Notice of Intent was provided to
the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the State
Clearinghouse, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
Comment 11.5: Both the Proposed MND and the City’s Notice of Intent state,
“the project would have no significantly adverse effect on …hazards and
hazardous materials.” That doesn’t make sense. My concern isn’t with the
project having an effect on hazardous materials. Will the hazardous materials
have an effect on the public? In the same paragraph of the NOI, it states, “A
petroleum pipeline from a Unocal site is present at the intersection of Elks
Lane and Prado Road, and potential aerially deposi ted lead, pesticides and
herbicides could result in hazards to the public or the environment during
Page 504 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 137
construction of the project.” In light of the recent train derailment and resultant
public hazards in Ohio, attention to potential hazards is especially hei ghtened
and should not be discounted. The illogical statement indicates this is being
prepared with boilerplate language and is not being fully considered. (The
same illogical statements are made regarding noise.)
Response to Comment 11.5: Impacts related to hazardous materials are
evaluated in Section 2.1.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials . As discussed
therein, the potential aerially deposited lead, pesticides , and herbicides, and
the existing petroleum pipeline, could result in hazards to the public or to the
environment. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will
require a preconstruction investigation of surface soils be completed to
identify the presence of aerially deposited lead, and a workplan will be
developed detailing the management and disposal of any contaminated soils
if aerially deposited lead is dete cted above acceptable levels. Similarly,
implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 will require the testing of surface
soils in the proposed right-of-way to determine the presence or absence of
pesticides, herbicides, and arsenic, and a workplan will be developed
detailing the proper removal, transportation, and disposal of any impacted
soils, if detected. It is anticipated that the project will avoid the existing
petroleum pipeline at the intersection of Elks Lane and Prado Road;
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 requires the pipeline be marked prior to
construction and a contingency plan be developed in the event c ontaminated
soil is discovered. The nearest rail line is approximately 1.6 miles from the
project site, and an incident along the rail line would not impact the project
location in terms of hazardous waste issues. With implementation of the
required mitigation measures, hazards or hazardous materials associated
with the project would not have a significantly adverse effect on the public or
the environment.
Impacts related to noise are evaluated in Section 2.1.13, Noise, which
concludes that potential noise impacts associated with the project would
result in less than significant i mpacts. Also refer to Response to Comment
11.44 for a detailed response to specific comments related to construction
noise effects.
Comment 11.6: The document states, “The purpose of the project is to
improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all
transportation modes.” In that case, why does the NOI and Proposed MND
state there will be no significant effect on transportation? Isn’t a significant
effect on transportation the whole point of the project?
Response to Comment 11.6: Pursuant to California Public Resources Code
21068, a “significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Therefore, a
significant effect on transportation would mean a substantial adverse change
on transportation. Transportation impacts are evaluated in Section 2.1.17,
Page 505 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 138
Transportation. As determined therein, the project would not have a
significant effect on transportation because substantial adverse changes
would not occur.
Comment 11.7: One of the project’s needs is “a need to provide better
community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods.”
Yet there is no discussion in the document to support this. In fact, there is
nothing about traffic circulation.
Response to Comment 11.7: As described in the CEQA Guidelines and in
Public Resources Code 21099(b)(2), “automobile delay, as described solely
by the level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic
congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment
pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the
guidelines, if any.” Rather, a project’s potential to conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system is considered an
environmental impact, as described in Section 2.1.17, Transportation. As
determined therein, the project would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, and bicycle and pedestrian facilitie s, and no impact would occur.
For information related to the project’s potential to improve connectivity and
circulation, refer to the Traffic Operations Analysis Report (May 2019 ).
Comment 11.8: There is no clear purpose or need explained for this project.
The need statement exactly repeats the purpose, and neither addresses
traffic circulation. There is no expla nation of how this project will “Improve
Overall Operations of U.S. 101 and Adjacent Interchanges.” There is no
explanation of how this project will “Improve Safety and Mobility for Bicyclists
and Pedestrians”. There is no explanation of how this project will “Improve
Transit Performance and Enhance Transit Opportunities.” These are buzz
words used to improve chances for funding. No attempt has been made to
explain why the city is pursuing this project. This is insulting to the public.
Response to Comment 11.8: The commenter’s statements regarding the
purpose and need for the project do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration or the CEQA process. As the
comment is not related to the potential environmental effects of the project, no
further response is required. For informational purposes, the Project Study
Report-Project Development Support (April 2018) describes the purpose of
the project as to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project
area for all transportation modes. The need for the project involves providing
better community connectivity between the existing and planned
neighborhoods east and west of the U.S. 101 freeway by improving current
and future operations on U.S. 101 and nearby interchanges, improving safety
and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians, improving transit performance, and
enhancing transit opportunities. Thes e connectivity needs extend to all
transportation modes, including bicyclists and pedestrians. As a result of
Page 506 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 139
these needs, the goals and objectives of the project include: 1) improve
overall operations of U.S. 101 and adjacent interchanges; 2) improve mobi lity
for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3) improve transit performance and enhance
transit opportunities; and 4) achieve consistency with local, regional and state
planning.
C omment 11.9: How is this project being funded? Why isn’t this addressed in
the document?
Response to Comment 11.9: This comment does not pertain to the
adequacy of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration or the
CEQA process. As the comment is not related to the potential environmental
effects of the project, no further response is required.
For informational purposes, refer to Response to Comment 8.3, which
includes a discussion of the project’s anticipated funding sources .
Comment 11.10: What are “Caltrans’ level of service targets”? Per CEQA,
level of service is not to be used as a parameter for evaluating need or project
success when addressing congestion. Statements to this effect need to be
removed from the analysis and supporting discussion. They should be
provided only for reference.
Response to Comment 11.10: As described in the CEQA Guidelines and in
Public Resources Code 21099, Level of Service is no longer considered an
environmental impact under CEQA. For informational purposes pertaining to
existing traffic conditions, Level of Service standards and targets are provided
in Section 2.1.17, Transportation. The project’s Traffic Operations Analysis
Report (May 2019) concluded that no study area intersections would exceed
the target Level of Service without the project or with the construction of any
of the project alternatives , and the project would not conflict with plans or
policies related to Level of Service standards.
Comment 11.11: The document identifies a need “on U.S. 101 between the
interchange with Los Osos Valley Road and the interchange with Marsh
Street”, and yet then gives a vague reference to traffic studies on the
congestion on “several intersections and freeway segments in t he vicinity of
the project site.” Which? How are these related to the expressed need? And
how does the project address this need? It’s not explained.
Response to Comment 11.11: The commenter’s statements regarding the
purpose and need for the project do no t pertain to the adequacy of the Draft
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration or the CEQA process. As
described in Response to Comment 11.7, a project’s effect on circulation is
no longer considered an environmental impact in the CEQA Guidelines and in
Public Resources Code 21099(b)(2). As discussed in Response to Comment
11.10, Level of Service standards and targets are provided in Section 2.1.17,
Page 507 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 140
Transportation, for informational purposes pertaining to existing traffic
conditions. As the comment is not related to the potential environmental
effects of the project, no further response is required.
For informational purposes, the following intersections and freeway segments
in the vicinity of the project site were studied in the project’s Traffic
Operations Analysis Report (May 2019):
Intersections:
o Los Osos Valley Road NB and SB ramps
o Prado Road NB ramp
o Madonna Road NB and SB ramps
Freeway Segments:
o US 101 south of Los Osos Valley Road
o US 101 north of Los Osos Valley Road
o US 101 north of Prado Road
o US 101 north of Madonna Road
For information related to the p roject’s potential to improve connectivity and
circulation, refer to the Traffic Operations Analysis Report and Intersection
Control Evaluation.
Comment 11.12: The real intent of this project is “to extend Prado Road over
U.S. 101 to provide connectivity from Madonna Road east to the planned
Prado Road east extension to Broad Street as a main east/west connector.”
Why is this buried under a heading about improving mobility for bicyclists and
pedestrians? The planned bike paths (which aren’t mentioned in the project
description) aren’t necessary unless the project is built. You’re trying to use
circular logic to defend your project. If you don’t build the multi -lane overpass,
you won’t need the bike lanes. You haven’t shown bike lanes are an existing
need – it will be a need only if the project is built. You can’t argue for a project
that way. You have not shown a need related to cyclists or pedestrians that
this overpass would address. Where is the multimodal mobility support for this
project?
Response to Comment 11.12: The commenter’s statements regarding the
purpose and need for the project do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration or the CEQA process. Refer to
Response to Comment 11.8 for a discussion of the purpose and need for the
project, referencing the Project Study Report-Project Development Support
(April 2018).
Comment 11.13: “Class 1 bike paths and Class 2 bike lanes are proposed
along Prado Road from the western boundary of the Margarita Area Specific
Page 508 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 141
Plan, continuing to the proposed Prado Road grade -separated crossing of
U.S. 101, and then continuing on Dalidio Road to Laguna Lake Park.” This is
a key feature of the proposal that needs to be up front in the project
description, not buried under the nee d. You have not shown a need for this
feature or local support.
Response to Comment 11.13: The project’s proposed bike lanes are
described in the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration under
Section 1.4.1, Build Alternatives, Common Design Features of the Build
Alternative. Specifically, all build alternatives would extend Prado Road
(Dalidio Drive) west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with Froom Ranch
Road/Dalidio Drive and would include a separate sidewalk/Class 4 bikeway.
The language quoted by the commenter is from Section 1.2.2, Need. This
language refers to the Class 1 bike paths and Class 2 bike lanes envisioned
in the Margarita Area Specific Plan, which are not included as part of the
project’s proposed action. The 2021 Active Transportation Plan envisions the
project area and vicinity being improved with Class 4 facilities. The cited text
in Section 1.2.2, Need, was revised to clarify that the Class 1 bike paths and
Class 2 bike lanes in the Margarita Area Specific Plan are envisioned, rather
than proposed.
Comment 11.14: “Transit Authority is in the process of developing
administrative and operations office space and maintenance and storage
facilities.” How does moving the office space improve “Improve Transit
Performance and Enhance Transit Opportunities”? Ho w will connectivity be
improved between the east and west sides of 101 as stated? Will there be
added bus routes? Is there funding for that? These are a bunch of
disconnected statements about the local transit authority with nothing to
support them. You ha ve not shown a need that this overpass would address.
Response to Comment 11.14: The language quoted by the commenter
references the Transit Authority’s recent relocation to new administrative and
operations office space, maintenance, and storage facilities located adjacent
to the northwest corner of the existing northbound ramp intersection with
Prado Road, Elks Lane, and U.S. 101. The Transit Authority’s reloca tion
provided improved regional accessibility due to its proximity to U.S. 101. The
proposed project would further facilitate accessibility by providing connectivity
from the east side of U.S. 101 to the west side of the City of San Luis Obispo
through a new grade-separated crossing of U.S. 101 where no connection
between the east side and west side currently exists. The project does not
propose changes to existing transit service. However, the grade -separated
crossing of U.S. 101 and the proposed northbound ramps would improve
accessibility from the east side of U.S. 101 to the west side of the City of San
Luis Obispo and to U.S. 101 as described above, improving the local and
regional connectivity for transit providers.
Page 509 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 142
Comment 11.15: Figure 1-2 is worthless. It doesn’t show the place names or
use areas that were used to describe the project (so we can’t identify
anything) and it doesn’t show a project area that would complete the stated
intent. Further, it doesn’t actually show the project, only an outline .
Response to Comment 11.15: Figure 1-2 depicts the general location of the
proposed project in its local context relative to the surrounding transportation
facilities it would connect to, including U.S. 101, Prado Road, Madonna Road,
South Higuera Street, and Elks Lane. The Project Site Boundary shown in
Figure 1-2 is a maximal disturbance boundary that encompasses the
combined area of direct physical impacts for all evaluated build alternatives.
The individual concepts for each build alternative are depic ted in Figure 1-3
through Figure 1-6 and are described in detail in Section 1.4.1, Build
Alternatives, Unique Features of the Build Alternatives.
Comment 11.16: This IS is outdated. “...San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge
Widening Project, which has independent utility from the proposed project
and is being reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo as of spring 2022.” The
public deserves better than material that hasn’t been updated in nearly a
year. Did Jason Wilkinson read this before signing it, or does he just not
care? Further indication that this document is being pushed through the
system without actual analysis and consideration.
Response to Comment 11.16: The status of the San Luis Obispo Creek
Bridge Widening Project was accurately described at the time that the Draft
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review.
The San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project remains in the design
phase and has independent utility from the proposed project (i.e., each
project has a unique purpose and need and could function with or without the
other project).
Comment 11.17: “...a new continuous northbound U.S. 101 auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road northb ound on-ramp and the Madonna Road
northbound off-ramp.” This is widening 101 to three lanes in the northbound
direction and is a MAJOR project feature that should have been identified up
front in the Notice of Intent, the Proposed MND, and the initial project
description. You’ve buried it in the hopes that no one will notice.
Response to Comment 11.17: The northbound U.S. 101 auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road
northbound off-ramp is described in the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration under Section 1.4.1, Build Alternatives, Common Design
Features of the Build Alternatives. The Notice of Intent provides a summary of
the project description, and indicates where copies of the Draft Initial Study-
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the related technical studies are available
for review, including a link to the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Page 510 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 143
Declaration, which was posted on the City website, Caltrans website, and
State Clearinghouse.
Comment 11.18: What is a “four-lane divided arterial section through and
next to the interchange”? That sounds like Prado will be four lanes, which
seems excessive and out of proportion for the neighborhood.
Response to Comment 11.18: The commenter’s statements regarding the
proportionality of the project to the neighborhood do not pertain to the
adequacy of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration or the
CEQA process. For informational purposes , as shown in the Alternative
Concept figures (Figures 1-3 through 1-6), the proposed project envisions
Prado Road as a four-lane facility from the Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive
intersection to the west through to the Prado Road/ S outh Higuera Street
intersection to the east. The proposed improvements to Prado Road are
based on programmed transportation improvements identified in the City’s
Circulation Element to improve mobility and circulation and relieve congestion
with the project study area by 2035, which include:
Dalidio Drive widened to 4 lanes between Madonna Road and F room
Ranch Way (completed in 2021);
Prado Road widened to 4 lanes between U.S. 101 and S outh Higuera
Street; and
Prado Road extended to Broad Street.
Comment 11.19: “Improvements to reduce this encroachment include placing
a portion of the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp and
most of the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the
intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection on
structures raised above the floodplain.” This is so badly wo rded I can’t even
figure out what it’s trying to describe. Try again.
Response to Comment 11.19: The language referenced by the commenter
describes the manner in which the grade -separated crossing of U.S. 101
would be elevated on column structures to minim ize encroachment into the
existing floodplain.
Comment 11.20: “...which would result in the need for the city to relocate
some or all operations from this facility to another location.” This, and the
impact to the yard’s operations, are secondary impacts that you need to
quantify in this document, for this project, and possibly include mitigation for
before this document can be considered adequate.
Response to Comment 11.20: As described in Section 1.4.1, Build
Alternatives, the potential effect of the project on the corporation yard’s
operations would vary based on the area of take required for each project
alternative (described under Unique Features of the Build Alternatives). The
Page 511 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 144
City is required to consider the potential costs and secondary effects of
relocating corporation yard operations as part of the Project Development
Team selection of the preferred alternative. However, no offsite relocation of
corporation yard buildings is currently proposed as part of this action, and no
location(s) for such a project has been identified. The City has previously
evaluated potential locations for relocating corporation yard operations, but
none of the previously evaluated locations remain feasible options. Therefore,
attempting to evaluate the potential environmental effects of relocating
corporation yard operations would be speculative at this time .
Development of any future physical facilities to support corporation yard
operations would be subject to a separate City-led planning process and
applicable environmental review requirements under CEQA at the time
sufficient project details could be known, or appropriate assumptions made, to
support the required environmental review. As part of this requirement,
mitigation would be incorporated as necessary to reduce any potentially
significant environmental impacts associated with relocating corporation yard
operations.
Comment 11.21: “The project would require realigning E lks Lane east of U.S.
101.” It’s already east of 101 – it makes no sense. Impacts from any
realignment have to be described, quantified, and possibly mitigated before
this document can be considered adequate.
Response to Comment 11.21: The cited text in Section 1.4.1, Build
Alternatives, was revised to clarify that the project would require realigning
Elks Lane, which is located east of U.S. 101. The proposed realignment of
Elks Lane is described qualitatively and shown in the Alternative Concept
figures (Figures 1-3 through 1-6). The potential environmental impacts of the
proposed realignment of Elks Lane are discussed in the impact analysis
throughout Chapter 2 of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Comment 11.22: This project must consider, and this document must
describe, cumulative impacts from the “project to widen Prado Road from the
planned Elks Lane realignment connection with Prado Road east to the
western limits of the San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge Widening P roject.”
Response to Comment 11.22: As described in detail in Response to
Comment 11.3, the project-level and cumulative impacts of the project,
including the proposed realignment of Elks Lane , are discussed under
threshold (b) in Section 2.1.3, Air Quality, thresholds (a) and (b) in Section
2.1.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and threshold (b) in Section 2.1.21,
Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Comment 11.23: Figure 1-3, how are we to distinguish “Elks Lane
Realignment Option 2” or Option 1? All options are grey. Why does Prado
Page 512 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 145
westbound flare out and curve back in as it approaches the circle? This is a
poor representation of the proposal.
Response to Comment 11.23: The realignment options for the proposed
Elks Lane Realignment are identified with arrows pointing to each option on
Figure 1-3. The “flare out and curve back” design of the approach to the
roundabout is used to slow traffic speeds. As vehicles approach, they would
travel more slowly to be ready to merge into the roundabout with other
vehicles.
Comment 11.24: What is a “Type L-1 tight diamond configuration”?
Response to Comment 11.24: A Type L-1 interchange is defined in the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual as a “Compact Diamond Interchange.” This
refers to an interchange where the physical, geometric, or right-of-way
restrictions require the on- and off- ramps be placed close to the freeway
alignment. This interchange designation is applicable for Alternatives A1R
and A3, which are depicted in Figures 1 -3 and 1-4.
Comment 11.25: In the first 3 alternative diagrams, there is a second
intersection on Prado that is not identified and not described . What is
happening there?
Response to Comment 11.25: The second intersection referred to in the
comment is the proposed location of the entrance to the city-owned
corporation yard and the proposed realignment of Elks Lane. The corporation
yard entrance and Elks Lane are proposed to be relocated to accommodate
the Prado Road Bridge over U.S. 101 and the increased distance needed for
the bridge to connect to Prado Road at existing ground elevation.
Comment 11.26: What is a “Type L-6 configuration” and why is it meaningful
information?
Response to Comment 11.26: A Type L-6 interchange is defined in the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual as an “Interchange with Parallel Street
Systems.” This refers to an interchange where the freeway ramps connect
with two-way parallel streets. This interchange designation is applicable to
Alternative A7, which would connect the northbound on- and off- ramps
directly to Prado Road, and is depicted in Figure 1 -6.
Comment 11.27: What is this remnant road piece that’s showing on 2 of the
4 alternatives?
Page 513 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 146
Response to Comment 11.27: The comment refers to Figures 1-3 and 1-4.
The “remnant road piece ” referred to in the comment is the line denoting the
right hand edge of the outermost travel lane of U.S. 101 northbound, which is
depicted in the figure to indicate the connection point for the northbound ramp
and auxiliary lane.
Comment 11.28: The No-Build scenario discussion states the obvious. It
addresses only the build itself and not what affect the No-build will have on
environmental and social resources. The No Build is a viable alternative and
must be discussed with the same detail and depth of analysis as the built
alternatives. This section is not adequate per CEQA.
Response to Comment 11.28: The Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration includes the required analysis of potential environmental impacts
of the proposed project. While an Environmental Impact Report requires an
alternatives analysis and a discussion of the potential impacts of a no-build or
no -project alternative, a Mitigated Negative Declaration does not require an
alternatives analysis or a discussion of a no-build alternative. Per CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15071, the required content for a Negative Declaration
(including Mitigated Negative Declarations) is as follows:
a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the
project, if any;
b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of
the project proponent;
c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment;
d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the
finding; and
e) Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially
significant effects.
As part of the project evaluation Caltrans also examines the potential
environmental effects of alternatives being considered for the proposed
project. As a result, the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
explains why the project is being proposed, the alternatives being considered
Page 514 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 147
for the project, the existing environment that could be affected by the project,
potential impacts of each of the alternatives, and proposed avoidance,
minimization, and/or mitigation measures. Therefore, the Initial Study-
Mitigated Negative Declaration includes the required content listed in CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15071. A detailed environmental analysis of the No-Build
Alternative is not required for compliance with CEQA.
Comment 11.29: 1.5.3 simply states alternatives were eliminated but doesn’t
state why. This is not adequate– it must explain the alternatives and why they
were rejected. Furthermore, it appears the contents of Volume II is being
incorporated by reference, as relevant information within it is not covered in
this document, Volume I. Therefore, pre CEQA, Volume II must have been
made available during the same public comment period and in the same
locations at Volume I, including on-line, which it has not been. The public
must have the same opportuni ty to review Volume II before closing the
comment period.
Response to Comment 11.29: As discussed in Section 1.5, Alternatives
Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion, of the Draft Initial Study-
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Section 1.6 of this Final Initial Study-Mitigated
Negative Declaration), the Project Study Re port-Project Development Support
evaluated (April 2018) project alternatives A2, A5, and A6 and included a
detailed discussion on the reasons that alternatives were eliminated from
further consideration. In addition, several alternatives were evaluated in the
Project Approval and Environmental Document phase, including additional
Build Alternatives—A1 and A4—and a side slope option for all Build
Alternatives.
Section 1.5, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion,
included a summary of the alternatives considered but eliminated as part of
the Project Study Report-Project Development Support and Project Approval
and Environmental Document phases, and the reasons they were eliminated.
These alternatives considered were eliminated for the following reasons:
Alternative A2 (Partial Cloverleaf Configuration ): Alternative A2
was eliminated from further consideration due to the loss of a
transportation asset (San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority’s new
facility) in the northwest quadrant of the interchange and the less than
standard weave length between Prado Road northbound on-ramp and
Madonna Road northbound off-ramp.
Alternative A5 (Single-Point Interchange): Only the northbound
ramp configurations to and from Prado Road was determined to be
viable for this project; therefore Alternative A5 was removed from
further consideration because it could not be built as two separate
projects.
Page 515 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 148
Alternative A6 (Compact Diamond Configuration): Only the
northbound ramps to and from Prado Road were determined to be
viable; therefore, the southbound partial cloverleaf ramps were
eliminated and only the northbound compact diamond ramps
remained. This northbound ramp c onfiguration was the same as
provided with Alternative A3 ; therefore Alternative A6 was not longer
applicable and was removed from further consideration.
Alternative B (Prado Road Overcrossing Only): Alternative B would
not meet the project’s purpose and need. Building the Prado Road
Overcrossing over U.S. 101 was determined to be inconsistent with
city planning, and removing the U.S. 101 northbound ramps from
Prado Road was determined to negatively impact the overall
operations at nearby interchanges north and south of the project site.
Alternatives A1 and A4 (Signalized Control at the U.S. 101
Northbound Ramp Intersection with Prado Road): Based on the
conclusions of the final U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Traffic
Operations Analysis Report and Intersection Control Evaluation, these
alternatives were determined to not be viable due to higher mobility
and environmental costs, higher life cycle costs, and a lower benefit to
cost ratio and were therefore eliminated from further analysis.
Side Slope Option: Based on the findings of the Two -Dimensional
Hydraulic Model Update Final Report, fill embankments were found to
be hydrologically infeasible and were therefore eliminated from further
analysis.
As specified on page 139 of the publicly available Draft Initial Study-Mitigated
Negative Declaration (which was made available on-line during the public
review period from February 2, 2023 through March 6, 2023 at
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot -media/district-5/documents/us101-prado-rd-int -
d-051h640-0123-a11y.pdf), the technical studies bound separately in Volume
2 were available to the public upon request. The following contact information
was provided for the public to request any of the technical studies in Volume
2:
To obtain a copy of one or more of these technical studies/reports or the
Initial Study, please send your request to: Dianna Beck Associate
Environmental Planner, District 5 California Department of
Transportation, CEQA Le ad Agency 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401
Or send your request via email to: Dianna.Beck@dot.ca.gov Or call: 805 -
459-9406
Page 516 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 149
In addition to being available from Caltrans upon request, the se documents
were made available on the City’s web site at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents -online/environmental -review-documents/-fsiteid-1/-
folder-2306.
The link to the location of technical studies on the City’s website was included
on the Notice of Intent circulated by the City.
Comment 11.30: Preparation of a NEPA categorical exclusion is not
appropriate under 23 CFR 771.117(b). Encroachment into a floodplain and
inclusion of minimization and avoidance measures indicates “unusual
circumstances,” which precludes the use of a NEPA CE for this project. An
environmental assessment, at minimum, must be prepared that includes a full
discussion of impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Exactly which CE category
was Caltrans intending to apply to this project?
Response to Comment 11.30: The NEPA evaluation being prepared by
Caltrans is not required for documents prepared pursuant to CEQA. The
project is anticipated to meet the categorical exclusion category specified in
23 Code of Federal Regulations Section 771.117(d)(13). The project
overpass was designed to be supported on piers rather than fill embankments
in order to minimize impacts to the 100-year floodplain. According to the 2-
Dimensional Hydraulic Model Update (October 2019) prepared for the project,
grading and structural refinements during final design would ensure that any
floodplain water surface elevation and velocity changes are below the City’s
Drainage Design Manual thresholds and meet the requirements of the
Federal Emergency Manageme nt Agency. In addition, the categorical
exclusion is supported by a Location Hydraulic Study, which demonstrates
that any changes in floodplain elevation and velocity comply with Federal
Emergency Management Agency requirements and would not pose a
significant encroachment as defined by 23 C ode of Federal Regulations
650.105. Because the floodplain encroachment would result in a minimal
encroachment to floodplains, as demonstrated by the required Location
Hydraulic Study, the location of the project within the 100-year floodplain does
not preclude the use of a categorical exclusion.
Comment 11.31: Will the State Historic Preservation Officer be reviewing and
approving the mitigation measures included in the project? It’s not listed in the
approvals. While perhaps not approving the project as a whole, the project
can’t be approved by either Caltrans or the City without approval of the
mitigation measures by the SHPO.
Response to Comment 11.31: The State Historic Preservation Office r
review and concurrence is not required for documents prepared pursuant to
CEQA. Therefore, there is no requirement for the State Historic Preservation
Officer to review the analysis or mitigation measures included in this Initial
Page 517 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 150
Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration. However, the Draft Initial Study-
Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the State Clearinghouse,
who submits the document to State Agencies during the public review period.
As part of the public review process, the State Clearinghouse provided the
Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration to the Office of Historic
Preservation, which is managed by the State Historic Preservation Office r, for
review and comment. The Office of Historic Preservation and the State
Historic Preservation Office r did not provide public comments on the Draft
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration.
For informational purposes, the State Historic Preservation Office r is
responsible for review pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act which is applicable to environmental documents prepared
pursuant to NEPA. The cultural studies for the proposed project were carried
out in a manner consistent with Caltrans’ regulatory responsibilities under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 C ode of Federal
Regulations Part 800) and pursuant to the January 2014 First Amended
Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic
Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation
Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (Section 106 P reservation Act). The Section 106 P reservation Act
requires that Caltrans submit determinations of National Register of Historic
Places eligibility and supporting documentation to the State Historic
Preservation Officer for comment in accordance with 36 C ode of Federal
Regulations Section 800.4(c)(2).
The Historic Property Survey Report, Historic Resources Evaluation Report,
and Finding of No Adverse Effect (without Standard Conditions) were
submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer in January 2020. The
State Historic Preservation Office r’s concurrence was received on April 6,
2020. No further State Historic Preservation Office r review is required.
Comment 11.32: The determinations that the project would have “less than
significant” impacts on aesthetics, even with your plans for “plantings that
offer a variety of colors, shapes, and species” is inappropriate. “The project is
in an area of the City of San Luis Obispo that is largely built” is a false
statement. The project is on the edge of the city, adjacent to designated open
space. Furthermore , the project would forever block views of the distant hills,
particularly impactful because it’s the gateway to the city. This is a significant
adverse impact. The city “policies” are quaint but meaningless in this
expansive freeway setting. Meanwhile, the project violates 9.2.1: “The city will
preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public
places.”
Response to Comment 11.32: The commenter incorrectly states that the
project site is on the edge of the city and adjacent to open space. The project
Page 518 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 151
location is shown in Figure 1 -2. The project site is located in the southwestern
portion of the city and is not located on the edge of the C ity limit or any other
applicable City boundary. The area surrounding the proje ct location is
developed and includes commercial use northwest of the intersection of
Prado Road and U.S. 101, commercial and residential uses northeast of said
intersection, the city-owned corporation yard and Water Resource Recovery
Facility southeast of the intersection, and the San Luis Ranch property west
of U.S. 101. The San Luis Ranch property is currently in the initial phases of
development, with approved commercial, residential, recreational, and
agricultural land uses under the San Luis Ranch Spe cific Plan adopted by the
C ity in 2017. 53 acres of agricultural land on the San Luis Ranch property,
which is next to U.S. 101 and the western portion of the project site, are
planned to remain in agricultural production.
As discussed in Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics, the project site is outside the cone
of view for each of the City’s designated vistas. The site is approximately 1.5
miles from the vista point located at the southeastern edge of the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve; however, views of the site from this point are partially
obstructed by intervening vegetation and the existing Los Osos Valley
Road/U.S. 101 interchange. Visual renderings of the project from the east,
west, south, and north are shown in Figures 2 -1 through 2-4. The project’s
proposed overcrossing and additional traffic signal or roundabout would be of
similar height and visual dominance as existing buildings, infrastructure, and
urban vegetation in and around the project area. As shown in Figures 2-3 and
2-4, the proposed bridge structure would partially obscure views of the
hillsides from U.S. 101. However, the project would result in moderate to
moderate-to -low visual impacts along U.S. 101 because the proposed
overcrossing would be of a similar scale as other overcrossing structures
along U.S. 101, and viewers (motorists on U. S. 101) would pass the
overcrossing at a high rate of speed, minimizing visual exposure to the
structure. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista, including the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, and this impact
would be less than significant.
Comment 11.33: Figure 2-2 is terrible. The perspective is way off – the road
appears to be unrealistically steep and ends abruptly mid -air. It’s unclear what
any of those components are. With the well-developed trees, it appears to
show a time well into the future, which does not give us any idea what the
project will look like for the first 10 -20 years we have to live with it. Figure 2 -1
also shows a skewed perspective, with the distant figures being much smaller
than they would actually appear. It minimizes the impression of this overpass.
Response to Comment 11.33: The renderings included in the Draft Initial
Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration are conceptual for the purpose of
supporting the environmental analysis and do not depict final landscaping or
design of the project. The renderings are provided to give the public and
reviewing agencies a conceptual understanding of the general appearance,
Page 519 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 152
height, and scale of the proposed interchange. As specified in Mitigation
Measures AES -1 through AES -3, the final landscaping will be determined
during final project design. As specified in these required mitigation
measures, a landscape plan will be developed by the City and approved by
the Caltrans’ District Landscape Architect. Existing trees will be protected in
place as feasible. Any trees that cannot be feasibly protected in place will be
replaced with a minimum ratio of three new trees for each tree removed .
Comment 11.34: Figure 2-3: frankly, that’s a hideous monstrosity. THIS is
what you want people to see as they enter the city? Blocking our beautiful
vista of the local hillsides? And what is that giant tree canopy ghosted into the
background? There won’t be any trees like that there at any time in the future,
and the project will take out any that exis t there now. Figure 2-4 is nearly as
bad, and what a parting view for visitors who are leaving. It looks like
something from a Texas oilfield.
Response to Comment 11.34: As discussed in Response to Comment
11.33, the renderings included in this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration are conceptual for the purpose of supporting the environmental
analysis. As discussed in Response to Comment 6.1, and Section 2.1.1,
Aesthetics, auxiliary structures would be required to be designed and built
consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
and will be reviewed and approved by the City Architectural Review
Commission. As a result, these elements are expected to be of the same
quality in design and materials as surrounding infrastructure . In addition,
aesthetic treatments within the State Right-of-Way would be required to be
reviewed and approved by Caltrans. During the design phase, the consultant
structural designer will coordinate with the Caltrans Office of Structures
Design, Caltrans Bridge Architecture, and Caltrans Land scape Architecture to
determine any required aesthetic treatment for bridge structures. Refer to
Response to Comment 11.33 for a discussion of the proposed landscaping.
As discussed in Response to Comment 11.32, the proposed overcrossing
and additional traffic signal or roundabout would be of similar dominance as
the buildings, infrastructure, and urban vegetation in and around the project
area. Refer to Response to Comment 11.35 for a discussion of the height of
proposed project structures in comparison to existing land uses in the project
vicinity.
Comment 11.35: Aesthetics, question a): you’ve addressed only the city’s
designated vistas. That’s not what the question is asking about. You have not
addressed the question. “The project’s proposed overcrossing and additional
traffic signal or roundabout would be of similar dominance as the buildings ,
infrastructure, and urban vegetation in and around the project area.” This is a
FALSE statement.
Response to Comment 11.35: Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics, identifies the
project’s location approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest city-designated
Page 520 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 153
vista point at the southeastern edge of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve ,
including that views of the site from this point are partially obstructed by
intervening vegetation and the existing Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101
interchange. Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics, also notes that the project site is not
visible from a designated state scenic highway, and acknowledges that t he
project would change views from Prado Ro ad and U.S. 101, which are
designated under the city’s General Plan Circulation Element as having
moderate and high scenic value, respectively. The analysis discuss the visual
dominance of the proposed overcrossing and additional traffic signal or
roundabout as compared to the buildings, infrastructure, and urban vegetation
in and around the project area. The tallest proposed structure would be the
proposed bridges, with the top of the bridge railing being approximately 28
feet above ground level. The existing buildings surrounding the proposed
interchange include 40 Prado Road, which is 29 feet tall, the San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority, which is 23 feet tall, the city-owned corporation
yard, which includes structures up to 30.5 feet tall, and the Water Resource
and Recovery Facility, which includes structures up to 35 feet tall. Visual
renderings of the project from the east, west, south, and north (Figures 2-1
through 2-4) show that the project would include similar visual elements –
including infrastructure and urban vegetation – as the existing visual
environment in the project vicinity.
Based on this information, the analysis concludes that the project would result
in a moderate-to -low resource change for viewers along Prado Road because
it would generally be consistent with the scale of urban vegetation and
agricultural land that contribute to the visual character. Similarly, the project
would result in moderate to moderate-to-low visual impacts along U.S. 101
because the proposed overcrossing would be of a similar scale as other
overcrossing structures along U.S. 101, and viewers would pass the
overcrossing at a high rate of speed, minimizing exposure to the structure.
The project would have a moderate-to -high level of resource change in areas
along Dalidio Drive due to the construction of a new dominant infrastructural
feature in a primarily agricultural location. However, Dalidio Drive is not
designated as having moderate or high s cenic value under the city’s General
Plan.
Comment 11.36: Aesthetics, question c): explaining your determination by
discussing city plans for commercial development is avoiding the question.
Furthermore, stating that “The project would not involve construction in
visually prominent locations” and would not “substantially degrade the visual
character of the site or its surroundings” is FALSE. Stating that the project
would “generally be consistent with the scale of urban vegetation and
agricultural land that contribute to the visual character” is FALSE. Stating that
“viewers would pass the overcrossing at a high rate of speed, minimizing
exposure to the structure” is FALSE. (Drivers can see these structures long
before they arrive, and this is the city gateway.)
Page 521 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 154
Response to Comment 11.36: Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics, accurately
discusses the proposed overcrossing and additional traffic signal or
roundabout as compared to the visual character and quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings. The project site is located in a developed area
of San Luis Obispo. Specifi cally, the area surrounding the project is
developed and includes commercial use northwest of the intersection of
Prado Road and U.S. 101, commercial and residential uses northeast of said
intersection, the city-owned corporation yard and Water Resource Re covery
Facility southeast of the intersection, and the San Luis Ranch property west
of U.S. 101. The San Luis Ranch property is currently in the initial phases of
development, with approved commercial, residential, recreational, and
agricultural land uses under the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan adopted by the
C ity in 2017.
As discussed in Response to Comment 11.32, the project site is not located
on the edge of the C ity limit or any other applicable City boundary. The
project site is also relatively flat. Therefore, Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics,
accurately states that the project would not involve construction in visually
prominent locations, such as ridgelines, hillslopes, or visual gateways to the
City. Refer to Response to Comment 11.36 for a discussion of the project’s
consistency with the scale of the surrounding development. The speed limit
on U.S. 101 is 65 mph; therefore, Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics, accurately states
that drivers would pass the overcrossing at a high rate of speed, minimizing
exposure to the proposed bridge structures.
Comment 11.37: The renderings do not show any retaining walls and they
are not described other than in passing. Retaining walls are cold, urbanizing
structures and will degrade the visual quality.
Response to Comment 11.37: The project design does not include any
retaining walls. Therefore, it is appropriate for retaining walls to not be
depicted in the visual renderings. The text of Section 2.1.1, Aesthetics, has
been revised to clarify that retaining walls are not proposed as part of the
project design.
Comment 11.38: There is no mitigation included to address all the
hardscape, the structure itself, any fencing, walls, supports, etc. You have
determined that you can build this huge, elevated structure with all its
urbanizing components on the edge of the city, next to open space, and that
the visual impact will be “low to moderate”. This is an improper and unrealistic
determination.
Response to Comment 11.38: As discussed in Response to Comment
11.31, the project site is not located on the edge of the city or located next to
open space. As discussed in Response to Comment 11.35, the proposed
overcrossing and additional traffic signal or roundabout would be of similar
dominance as the buildings, infrastructure, and urban vegetation in and
Page 522 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 155
around the project area. The proposed bridge structure s will be similar in size
and scale to the other bridge structures along the U.S. 101 corridor through
San Luis Obispo, such as the overcrossings at Los Osos Valley Road and
Madonna Road. As discussed in Response to Comment 6.1, and Section
2.1.1, Aesthetics, auxiliary structures would be required to be designed and
built consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design
Guidelines and will be reviewed and approved by the City Architectural
Review Commission. Concrete barriers would be consistent with the
Aesthetic Barrier Design guidance and the California Highway Barrier
Aesthetics Report (Caltrans 2002). As a result, these elements are expected
to be of the same quality in design and materials as the surrounding
infrastructure. In addition, aesthetic treatments within the State Right-of-Way
would be required to be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. During the
design phase, the consultant structural designer will coordinate with the
Caltrans Office of Structures Design, Caltrans Bridge Architecture, and
Caltrans Landscape Architecture to determine any required aesthetic
treatment for bridge structures.
Comment 11.39: What was the Department of Conservation’s assessment
results for the reduction in agricultural land?
Response to Comment 11.39: A formal Department of Conservation
assessment was not required for the project. The Preliminary Environmental
Analysis Report (January 2018) identified no farmlands in the project area
beyond those already evaluated and mitigated for in the San Luis Ranch
Project Final Environmental Impact Report. Due to the proximity of
agricultural land to the project, a Form AD -1006 (Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating analysis) prepared in coordination with the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) was identified as the appropriate evaluation of
agricultural resources.
The project’s p otential effects on agricultural lands, and specifically the
findings of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating analysis (September
2021), are described in Section 2.1.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources. The
Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that the Prado
Road extension portion of this project would be required to comply with
Mitigation Measure AG-1 from the San Luis Ranch Project Final
Environmental Impact Report, which requires 1 acre of agricultural land of
comparable productivity to be preserved in perpetuity for every acre of
Important Farmland on the San Luis Ranch property that would be
permanently converted to nonagricultural use (City of San Luis Obispo
2017b). Additionally, this Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
includes similar language for impacts to farmland as a result of the Elks Lane
realignment in Mitigation Measure AG-1.
The Department of Conservation did not provide comments on the Draft Initial
Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration. As described in detail in Response to
Page 523 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 156
Comment 11.1, the Notice of Intent was provided to the public, responsible
agencies, trustee agencies, and the State Clearinghouse, consi stent with
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072.
Comment 11.40: “Native American outreach conducted for this project and
nearby projects indicated that the general project vicinity is sensitive for
archaeological resources. Sixteen previously recorded cultural resources
were identified within a 1 -mile radius of the Area of Potential Effect…. [D]ue to
the known sensitivity of the project area, there is potential for ground -
disturbing activities in and in the vicinity of the Area of Potential Effect to
uncover previously undiscovered human remains.” This would constitute
“unusual circumstances” under 23 CFR 771.117(b), precluding preparation of
a NEPA categorical exclusion, therefore an environmental assessment must
be prepared.
Response to Comment 11.40: As discussed in Section 2.1.5, Cultural
Resources, no archaeological resources were identified within or next to the
Area of Potential Effect. As with all ground disturbance, there is a potential for
previously unknown archaeological resources or human remains to be
encountered during project construction. This is not an unusual circumstance
as this is typical for any project that require s ground disturbance or
excavation.
Comment 11.41: “The project would result in an overall increase in
impervious surface of up to 2 acres on the project site.” How much of this is
within the 100-year floodplain?
Response to Comment 11.41: As stated in Section 2.1.10, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the floodplains within the project site are depicted in the Water
Quality Assessment Report prepared for the project. As shown in Figure 3 -4
of the Water Quality Assessment Report, the majority of the project site is
located within the 100-year floodplain, with a portion of the western, southern,
and eastern portion of the site within the 500 -year floodplain. Based on the
location of the floodplains within the project site, a majority (approximately 80
percent) of the increase in impervious surface area would be within a 100 -
year floodplain. The project will be designed such that water that falls on
impervious surfaces will drain via pipes or ditches to natural outlets into the
surrounding area, which would not exacerbate existing flood risks. The
description of the floodplains in the project site has been revised in Section
2.1.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, to clarify the consistency with the
floodplains depicted in Figure 3-4 of the Water Quality Assessment Report.
Comment 11.42: Considering the rains received this year and the
unexpected extensive and expensive flood damage within the city, the
discussion on flood prevention should be expanded. Indications are that the
city’s “flood damage prevention regulations” are no longer adequate in this
time of extreme climate events and si mply stating that adherence to them
Page 524 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 157
“would ensure that the proposed new roadway facilities would not
substantially impede flood flows or otherwise result in adverse effects
associated with the 100 -year and 500-year floodplains that extend onto the
project site” is not adequate insurance. Again, these are “unusual
circumstances” under 23 CFR 771.117(b) and a NEPA CE is not appropriate.
Response to Comment 11.42: City hydrologic models for precipitation and
flood modeling follow the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
standard. The recent 25 -year storm event confirmed the City’s models to be
accurate. Refer to response to comment 11.30 for a discussion of potential
floodplain impacts and the appropriateness of a NEPA categorical exclusion.
Comment 11.43: Referring to the potential (and likely) relocation of the
corporation yard, it is not sufficient under CEQA to defer the analysis of this
component of the Prado Road Interchange project. “Any subsequent
relocation or alteration of these facilitie s would be subject to applicable
environmental review requirements under CEQA, with mitigation incorporated
as necessary to reduce any potentially significant environmental impacts”; this
is deferring the study and possible required mitigation, which is unlawful. It is
a known impact and must be addressed with this project.
Response to Comment 11.43: Refer to Response to Comment 11.20 for a
discussion of the potential effects of the project on the city-owned corporation
yard’s operations and the manner in which future physical facilities to support
corporation yard operations would be subject to a separate planning process
and applicable environmental review requirements .
Comment 11.44: “[C]onstruction noise shall not exceed 86 A -weighted
decibels Lmax at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m.” What is A-weighted decibels Lmax in plain language? How will that be
monitored and regulated during construction? What happens if it’s exceeded?
Response to Comment 11.44: A-weighted decibels are defined in Section
2.1.13, Noise: “The A -weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound
pressure levels so they are consis tent with the human hearing response.”
The identified noise level of 86 A-weighted decibels Lmax at 50 feet from the
project site is used as a threshold of significance for the purpose of the noise
analysis, and noise analysis indicates that this level is not reasonably
anticipated to be exceeded at nearby noise receptors. Specifically, as
discussed in Section 2.1.13, Noise, construction noise levels were determined
to potentially reach up to 77 dBA Leq at the Prado Day Center; 72 dBA Leq at
the Mobile Home Park on Elks Lane; and 67 dBA Leq at the Embassy Suites
Hotel. Therefore, the impact is classified as less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Page 525 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 158
Comment 11.45: “[N]oise intrusive to interior habitable space of residential
units from exterior sources should not exceed 45 CNEL. The General Plan
Noise Element restricts noise in outdoor living areas due to transportation
noise sources to 60 CNEL.” What is CNEL? How will thes e levels be
monitored and regulated? What happens if they’re exceeded?
Response to Comment 11.45: Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is
a weighted average of noise level over time and a description is provided in
the Affected Environment of Section 2.1.13 Noise. CNEL noise levels are not
used as a threshold of significance in the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated
Negative Declaration. CNEL noise levels are described in the discussion of
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan and State of California Noise Sta ndards
for informational purposes. The description of the City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan and State of California Noise Standards has been revised in
Section 2.1.13, Noise, to include a definition of the term CNEL.
Comment 11.46: What are the “levels specified in Table 4.10 -3”? How will
they be monitored and regulated? What happens if they’re exceeded?
Response to Comment 11.46: The language referenced by the commenter
is originally from the City Noise Element, and refers to Table 1 in the Noise
Element, Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise -Sensitive Uses Due to
Transportation Noise Sources. The description of the City General Plan Noise
Standards has been revised in Section 2.1.13, Noise, to remove the
description of Policy 1.4. Policy 1.4 does not apply to modification of existing
transportation noise sources, and the noise expos ure levels in Table 1 of the
Noise Element are not used as thresholds of significance in the Draft Initial
Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration. As described in Section 2.1.13, Noise,
traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted noise level approaches or
exceeds the land-use-specific Noise Abatement Criteria specified in 23 Code
of Federal Regulations 772 or a predicted noise level substantially exceeds
the existing noise level (a “substantial” noise increase).
Section 2.1.13, Noise, evaluates the project’s potential to result in a
substantial noise increase (defined as in Caltrans’ Traffic Noise Analysis
Protocol [April 2020] as an increase of 12 A -weighted decibels fro m the
existing noise level) or exceedance of Caltrans’ Noise Abatement Criteria . As
described in the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, a 3 A-weighted decibels
difference is generally the point at which the human ear will perceive a
difference in noise level. Because this impact would not exceed the applicable
threshold of significance, no mitigation, such as noise monitoring, is required.
Comment 11.47: Will there be any night construction? Have noise
calculations been done to see if night levels will be exc eeded?
Response to Comment 11.47: Nighttime construction may be required and
would be subject to applicable Caltrans and City requirements and limitations.
Page 526 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 159
During the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Phase, Caltrans will evaluate
the construction means and methods to determine if nighttime work is
necessary and what activities would be needed . If necessary, a nonstandard
special provision will be developed, reviewed, and approved by Caltrans
Headquarters that would require the contractor to develop and implement a
Noise Control Plan to ensure the 86 A-weighted decibels threshold is adhered
to in Caltrans Standard Specification Section 14 -8.02 “Noise Control”. The
Noise Control Plan will be developed by a qualified individual and reviewed by
Caltrans environmental engineering staff for approval. As described in
Section 2.1.13, Noise, Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14 -8.02,
“Noise Control” state that construction noise “shall not exceed 86 A -weighted
decibels Lmax at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9:0 0 p.m. to 6:00
a.m.” The City Planning Department may issue a night work permit if night or
weekend hours are required by the City Transportation Division. The Permit
conditions would require the Transportation Division to identify why the night
work is required, and any specific conditions and notification requirements
that will apply. Refer to Response to Comment 11.44 for a discussion of
anticipated construction noise levels in comparison to this requirement.
Comment 11.48: There is no information on how traffic was incorporated into
the predicted noise and vibration levels (with or without the project). Where
did that factor into the results? What percentage of trucks are anticipated, and
how was that number generated? It also seems like levels for both day and
night should be calculated . Based on the opening statement, “Considering the
information in the U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Improvement Project
Noise Study Report,” it’s evident the IS is incorporating that document by
reference, however the Noise Report was not made available to review during
the period and locations that the IS was available. This violated the
requirements for CEQA public review.
Response to Comment 11.48: The details and assumptions of the traffic
analysis and noise analysis are included in the Traffic Operations Analysis
Report and Noise Study Report. As discussed in Response to Comment
11.29, the technical studies are available on the City’s website , or from
Caltrans upon request.
Comment 11.49: Under 2.1.14, this document is making determinations of
significance based on the determinations in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
without explaining them. That is not adequate analysis or discussion. The
Prado Road Interchange project is contributing to the growth of the city by a
predicted 2.8 percent with no explanation on why that has been determined to
be less than significant. Furthermore, the document has failed to discuss
cumulative growth impacts from the other development projects within the
city.
Response to Comment 11.49: The commenter refers to the Affected
Environment discussion in Section 2.1.14, Population and Housing, which
Page 527 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 160
summarizes the population growth and conclusions of the San Luis Ranch
Project Final Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City of San Luis
Obispo in 2017. Section 2.1.14, Population and Housing, provides a project-
level analysis of the U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange P roject’s impacts,
concluding that the project does not include any housing or business
development and would not directly induce population growth in the city.
While the project would indirectly facilitate population growth by facilitating the
development of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area, the growth
associated with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area was evaluated in the
San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report and found to be
consistent with the City’s General Plan projections. As described in detail in
Response to Comment 11.3, the project-level and cumulative impacts of the
project are discussed in Section 2.1.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Comment 11.50: “The project would facilitate the development of the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area.” Therefore, you cannot make the statement
that the project “would not directly induce population growth in the city.” It
facilitates the development of housing, therefore it facilitates the development
of population growth. Any statement to the contrary is FALSE. If there’s no
place to live, people will not move here. Also, just because the project is
consistent with the city’s General Plan projections doesn’t mean the impacts
will be less than significant. This is a false assumption. This needs
explanation.
Response to Comment 11.50: As discussed in Response to Comment
11.49, the growth associated with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan was
evaluated in the San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report,
certified by the City of San Luis Obispo in 2017, and found to be consistent
with the City’s General Plan projections . The U.S. 101/Prado Road
Interchange Project is referenced in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report as mitigation required to support the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan. Therefore, Section 2.1.14, Population and Housing,
appropriately concludes that, while the project would facilitate the
development of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area , growth would be
consistent with the City’s General Plan projections and would not result in
substantial new environmental impacts beyond those previously evaluated
and found to be less than significant, for the General Plan and San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan.
Comment 11.51: The response to question 2.1.15 a.5 doesn’t address the
question. Under “other public services” the answer would be “YES”. One of
the purported “needs” for this project is related to the City’s desire “to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services,” specifically the Transit Authority.
See comment 13. Furthermore, once again, you cannot separate out the
project to relocate the corporation yard that is necessitated by this project.
This is not a “less than significant” impact. At this point, it is an unknown
Page 528 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 161
impact; in that case, CEQA requires prepa ration of an environmental impact
statement.
Response to Comment 11.51: The discussion of “other public facilities” in
Section 2.1.15, Public Services, concludes that the proposed project does not
involve the construction of housing or other development that would increase
demand on any public facility in a manner that results in a physical
environmental effect. Refer to Response to Comment 11.14, which discusses
the Transit Authority’s relocation to new office, maintenance, and storage
facilities located adjacent to the northwest corner of the existing northbound
ramp intersection with Prado Road, Elks Lane, and U.S. 101. Also refer to
Response to Comment 11.6, which explains that a “significant effect on the
environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change
in the environment in the context of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Refer to Response to Comment 11.20 for a discussion of the potential effects
of the project on the city-owned corporation yard’s operations and the manner
in which future physical facilities to support corporation yard operations would
be subject to a sepa rate planning process and applicable environmental
review requirements.
Comment 11.52: “The project would not involve the construction of additional
vehicle lanes or increase the capacity of the existing interchange.” Please
explain. The project DOES construct additional lanes, and there is NO
existing interchange. (How did this document get approved???)
Response to Comment 11.52: The project does not involve the construction
of additional vehicle travel lanes with the potential to induce travel, or
otherwise increase the capacity of the existing interchange. The text cited by
the commenter has been revised in Section 2.1.17, Transportation, to clarify
that the project would not involve the construction of ad ditional vehicle travel
lanes on U.S. 101 or increase the capacity of the existing northbound on- and
off-ramps at the U.S. 101/Prado Road interchange. Caltrans has identified
project types that typically do not increase vehicle miles traveled, which
includes additions of auxiliary lanes less than 1 mile, addition of roadway
capacity on local streets provided project substantially improves ped/bike
conditions, and installation of roundabouts (Caltrans 2020b). The only
additional lanes that would be construc ted as part of the project include the
short segment along Prado Road that would have four lanes and the weave
lanes that would connect the new ramps to U.S. 101. Additional widening
would occur along Prado Road after it returns to City right-of-way and
connects with other local facilities.
Comment 11.53: There appears to be no explanation on how the project will
address “the removal of existing biofiltration strips along the U.S. 101
northbound lane.” This is mitigation for a previous impact.
Page 529 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 162
Response to C omment 11.53: As discussed in Section 2.1.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the portions of the project within Caltrans right-of-way are
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Statewide
Stormwater Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for the State of California
Department of Transportation (Order 2012 -0011-DWQ and subsequent
amendments). In addition, portions of the project site outside the State right-
of-way are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Phase 2 Small MS4 General Permit (Order 2013 -0001-DWQ). Both of these
permits require post construction Treatment Best Management Practices to
infiltrate and/or treat runoff from the project site. Post construction water
quality Treatment Best Management Practices may include, but would not be
limited to, Design Pollution Prevention Infiltration Area Treatment Best
Management Practices, Biofiltration Strips/Swale Treatment Best
Management Practices, or Detention Basins or other flow-through Treatment
Best Management Practices. These Treatment Best Management Practices
are required to treat stormwater runoff from 100 percent of the New
Impervious Surface created by the project. The New Impervious Surface is
the sum of all new and replaced impervious surfaces, plus any tributary areas
from existing Treatment Best Management Practices removed by the project.
The existing biofiltration strips along the U.S. 101 northbound lane that will be
removed as part of the project will be relocated in kind or added to the New
Impervious Surface to be treated by the entire project. Stormwater regulations
in California have continued to get more stringent; therefore, the project would
include more Best Management Practices than are removed and those Best
Management Practices would treat more runoff than the existing Best
Management Practices.
Comment 11.54: A discussion on cumulative impacts is completely lacking.
The document claims to have discussed each section separately, but this is
not the case. Most importantly, the document doesn’t even identify any other
projects, past or future, aside from the San Luis Ranch development , in its
analysis. It makes passing reference, however, to relocation of the
corporation yard, extension of bike lanes to Laguna Lake Park, the “planned
Elks Lane realignment connection with Prado Road east to the western limits
of the San Luis Obispo Cree k Bridge Widening Project”, the San Luis Obispo
Creek Bridge Widening Project, and the “planned Prado Road east extension
to Broad Street as a main east/west connector.” These projects will have
impacts on the community, on visual quality, on noise recepto rs, on air
quality, and more, and they’re all connected. Considering how these projects
will affect traffic circulation patterns and consequently population or
commercial development, there will likely be substantial associated
secondary impacts. This document must contain an extensive discussion on
how all these projects are going to tie together and what effect they’re going
to have on the city, its residents, and the natural environment. This discussion
is required under “mandatory findings of significance”; a thorough analysis will
almost certainly necessitate the preparation of an environmental impact
report.
Page 530 of 753
Appendix B Comment Letters and Responses
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 163
Response to Comment 11.54: As described in Response to Comment 11.3,
the cumulative analysis considers the potential impact of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of
the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) describes the
requirements for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts in an
Environmental Impact Report. The Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration generally follows a “plan” based approach to identifying the
cumulative setting.
The project is included in the Transportation Capital Projects of the City of
San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element (Ci ty of San Luis Obispo
2014a). The project would implement improvements to the city’s circulation
network identified in the Circulation Element, and would be consistent with
applicable goals, policies, and programs contained in the Circulation Element.
Simi larly, the project is included in the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan as
an “unconstrained” project. The analysis in the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan includes all projects from
the constrained and unconstrai ned project lists. The project is also identified
in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, and incorporates by reference the
conclusions of the San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact
Report, certified by the City of San Luis Obispo in 2017.
In addition to the “plan” based approach to identifying the cumulative setting ,
the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration also provides discussion
of specific past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the
immediate project vicinity, where such actions may have specific impacts that
could be cumulatively considerable when combined with the project’s impacts
(e.g., drainage). Specific past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions discussed in the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
include buildout of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, the San Luis Obispo
Creek Bridge Widening Project, the city-owned corporation yard and Water
Resource Recovery Facility, the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
administrati ve and operations office space and maintenance and storage
facilities, and the Prado Road shelter (40 Prado Road).
Refer to Response to Comment 11.20 for a discussion of the potential effects
of the project on the city-owned corporation yard’s operations a nd the manner
in which future physical facilities to support corporation yard operations would
be subject to a separate planning process and applicable environmental
review requirements.
Page 531 of 753
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 164
Appendix C References
Bibliography
Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County. 2005. Airport Land
Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Amended
May 18, 2005. Available at: https://www.sloairport.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/alup_txt.pdf. Accessed February 2022.
California Air Resources Board. 2017. California 2017 Climate Change
Scoping Plan. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scopin
g_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed December 2021 .
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA and Climate
Change whitepaper. January 2008. Available at: www.capcoa.org/wp -
content/uploads/2012/03/capcoa-white-paper.pdf. Accessed
September 2021.
California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Reporting Protocol.
Available at:
https://sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/ccar_grp_3 -
1_january2009_sfe-web.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
California Department of Conservation. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Maps.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/tsunami/maps/tsunam
i_inundation_pismobeach_quad_slo.pdf. Accessed December 2021.
_____2016. California Important Farmland Finder Map. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. A ccessed December 2021.
_____2021. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.
Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq -
zapp. Accessed December 2021.
California Department of Finance. 2021.E -5 Population and Housing
Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010
Census Benchmark. May 2021. Available at:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5/.
A ccessed December 2021.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Luis Obispo
County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. State Responsibility Area.
Adopted November 2007. Available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6795/fhszs_map40.pdf . Accessed
December 2021.
Page 532 of 753
Appendix C References
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 165
_____2009. San Luis Obispo County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. Local
Responsibility Area. Recommended J uly 2009. Available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5980/san_luis_obispo.pdf. A ccessed
December 2021.
_____2015. Cuesta Fire Incident. Available at:
https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2015/8/16/cuesta -fire/. Accessed
December 2021.
_____2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer Map. Available at:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/fhsz/. Accessed December 2021 .
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. California Highway
Barrier Aesthetics. June 2002. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/barrier-aesth1final-
a11y.pdf. A ccessed May 2022.
_____2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis
Protocol. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-
a11y.pdf. A ccessed December 2021.
_____2013b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
September 2013. Available at:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/documentcenter/view/34120/caltrans -
2013-construction-vibration-pdf. Accessed December 2021.
_____2015. Transportation Management Plan Guidelines. November 2015.
Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-
operations/documents/tmp/tmp -guidelines -07202122763-rt1.pdf .
Accessed February 2022).
_____2018a. Scenic Highways. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic -highways/. A ccessed
April 2019).
_____2018b. Standard Specifications. Available at:
http://ppmoe.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_contract_standard s/std
_specs/2018_stdspecs/2018_stdspecs.pdf. Accessed September
2021.
_____2019. Seismic Design Criteria, Version 2.0, April 2019. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot -
media/programs/engineering/documents/seismicdesigncriteria -
sdc/202007-seismicdesigncriteria-v2 -a11y.pdf. Accessed December
2021.
Page 533 of 753
Appendix C References
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 166
_____2020a. Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study
Guide. May 2020. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-05 -
20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf . A ccessed February 2022.
_____2020b. Caltrans Policy on Transportation Impact Analysis and CEQA
Significance Determinations for Projects on the State Highway System.
September 2020. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot -
media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-09 -
10-vmt-policy-memo-fnl-a11y.pdf. Accessed April 2023.
_____2021. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d80
7c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. A ccessed November 2021 .
California Department of Water Resources. 2004. San Luis Obispo Valley
Groundwater Basin, Bulletin 118. Last Updated: February 27, 2004.
Available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/dwr-website/web-
pages/programs/groundwater-management/bulletin-118/files/2003-
basin-descriptions/3_009_sanluisobispovalley.pdf (accessed February
2022)._____2019. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2019
Basin Prioritization. January 2019. Available at:
https://www.emwd.org/sites/default/files/file -
attachments/sgma_basin_prioritization_2019_results.pdf?1559164669
A ccessed February 2022.
California Emergency Management Agency, Californi a Geological Survey,
and University of Southern California. 2009. Tsunami Inundation for
Emergency Planning. Pismo Beach Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. July
1, 2009. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/tsunami/maps/tsunam
i_inundation_pismobeach_quad_slo.pdf. Accessed February 2009.
California Energy Commission. 2018. Revised Transportation Energy
Demand Forecast 2018 -2030. April 19, 2018. Available at:
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 . Accessed
November 2021.
_____2020a. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. A ccessed November 2021.
_____2020b. Gas Consumption by County. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspxv. A ccessed November
2021.
_____2021. “California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC -A15)
Results.” Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data -reports/energy-
Page 534 of 753
Appendix C References
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 167
almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet -annual-
reporting. Accessed November 2021 .
California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Note
36. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/publications/cgs -
notes/cgs-note-36.pdf. Accessed December 2021 .
CalRecycle. 2021. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Cold Canyon
Landfill, Inc. (40-AA-0004). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/solidwaste/siteactivity/details/1509?site
id=3171. Accessed December 2021.
County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors. 2018. Notification of Intent
to Initiate Development of Groundwa ter Sustainability Plan for the San
Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/departments/public -works/forms-
documents/committees-programs/sustainable-groundwater -
management-act-(sgma)/san-luis-obispo-valley-groundwater-basin/slo-
basin-noi.aspx Accessed February 2022.
Crocker, Malcolm J. 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control, John
Wiley & Sons.
Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2019a. EnviroStor database.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed April 2019.
_____2019b. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site
Cleanup (Cortese List).
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/sitecleanup/cortese_list.cfm . Accessed April
2019.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Map Service Center. Map:
06079C1066G, effective November 16, 2012. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?addressquery=san%20luis%20obis
po%2c%20ca#searchresultsanchor
Federal Highway Administration. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and
Abatement Guidance. FHWA -HEP-10-025. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidanc
e/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/revguidance.pdf. Accessed
December 2021.
_____2019. Sustainability.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/. Last
updated February 7, 2019. Accessed: August 21, 2019.
Page 535 of 753
Appendix C References
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 168
_____No date. Sustainable Highways Initiative.
https://www.sustainablehighways.dot.gov/overview.aspx. Accessed:
August 21, 2019.
Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual. September 2018. Available at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research -
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-
manual-fta-report-no -0123_0.pdf . Accessed January 6, 2022.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. April 2018. Available at:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416 -743_technical_advisory_4.16.18.pdf .
A ccessed February 2022.
GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 2018. San Luis Obispo Valley Basin
Characterization and Monitoring Well Installation. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/departments/public -works/forms-
documents/committees-programs/sustainable-groundwater -
management-act-(sgma)/san-luis-obispo-valley-groundwater-basin/slo-
basin-characterization-report.aspx. Accessed February 2022.
Jennings, C. W. 1958. Geologic Map of California, San Luis Obispo Sheet.
Scale 1:250,000. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/prodesc/proddesc_3 28.htm. Accessed
December 2021).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for
Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Metz, Jennifer. 2020. Utilities Project Manager, City of San Luis Obispo.
Personal communication via email regarding City of San Luis Obispo
Water Resource Recovery Facility operations with Chris Bersbach,
Supervising Planner, Rincon Consultants, Inc. October 7, 2020.
Miller, R. V. 1989. Mineral Land Classificatio n map. San Luis Obispo–Santa
Barbara P-C Region, San Luis Obispo Quadrangle. Scale: Reduced
from 1:24,000. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html
?map=mlc. Accessed December 2021.
Page 536 of 753
Appendix C References
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 169
Natural Resources Conservation Se rvice. 2017. Web Soil Survey. Last
Modified: August 21, 2017. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/websoilsurvey.aspx.
Accessed March 2019.
San Luis Coastal Unified School District. 2021. Our Schools. Available at:
https://www.slcusd.org/our-schools . A ccessed December 2021.
San Luis Obispo, City of. 2000. Safety Element. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645 . Accessed
December 2021.
_____2006. Conservation and Open Space Element. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651 . Accessed
December 2021.
_____2014a. Circulation Element. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20412 . Accessed
December 2021.
_____2014b. Land Use and Circulation Element Update Draft Program EIR.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6723 .
Accessed December 2021.
_____2014c Land Use Element. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6635 . Accessed
December 2021.
_____2016. Emergency Operations Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/getattachment/40e9d234 -8576-41a1-
82fe-a07f3b67a20a/county-emergency-operations-plan-(eop).aspx.
Accessed December 2021.
_____2017a. San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24679/6371026
69193230000. A ccessed December 2021.
_____2017b. San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=15653 . Accessed
December 2021.
_____2019a. 2-Dimensional Hydraulic Model Update .
_____2019b. San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master Plan –
Community Needs Assessment. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/23356/6369586
60067030000. A ccessed December 2021.
Page 537 of 753
Appendix C References
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 170
_____2021a. Fire Department: Fire Stations and Training Grounds. Available
at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/fire -
department/about-us/fire-stations-facilities. Accessed December 2021.
_____2021b. Police Department.: About the Department Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/police-
department/about-the-department . A ccessed December 2021.
_____2021c. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31041/6376737
68464130000. A ccessed December 2021.
_____2021e. Utilities Department: Construction & Demolition Recycling
Program. Available at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department -
directory/utilities-department/garbage -recycling/construction-
demolition-recycling-program. Accessed December 2021.
_____2022. Water Plus. Available at: https://www.slowrrfproject.org/about .
A ccessed February 2022.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. 2019. Transition from LOS to VMT
Staff Report. October 2019.
San Luis Obispo, County of. 1999. General Plan Safety Element. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/departments/planning -building/forms-
documents/plans-and-elements/elements/safety-element.pdf.
A ccessed December 2021.
______2019. Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/departments/county-fire-
department/publications/community-wildfire-protection-plan.pdf.
A ccessed December 2021.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (District). 2001. Clean
Air Plan. December 2001. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/cap.pdf. Accessed February
2022.
______2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 2012. Available at:
https://www.prcity.com/documentcenter/view/14604/california -
environmental-quality-act-handbook---2012-volume-1 -pdf. Accessed
February 2022.
______2017. Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
November 2017. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
Page 538 of 753
Appendix C References
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 171
org/images/cms/upload/files/final_clarification%20memorandum%2020
172.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission. 2021. San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/departments/planning -building/forms-
documents/planning -projects/airport -land-use -plan-update/airport-land-
use-plan-(amended-restated).pdf. Accessed December 2021 .
San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. 2021.
San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
October 2021. Available at: https://02ee8e55-e735-4a38-bedf-
455049034f73.filesusr.com/ugd/3de50a_f330a123a74e4007a9cf6d027
961e1f2.pdf. A ccessed February 2022.
State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment.
http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/. Accessed: August 21, 2019.
_____2019. California Climate Strategy. https://www.climatechange.ca.gov/.
Accessed: August 21, 2019.
State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing
Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State —January 1, 2011-2020.
Sacramento, California, May 2020.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2019a. GeoTracker database.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed April 2019.
_____2021. 2018 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section
303(d) List and 305(b) Report).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality
_assessment/2018_integrated_report.html. Accessed February 2022.
United States Department of Transportation. 2011. Policy Statement on
Climate Change Adaptation. June. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policy_a
nd_guidance/usdot.cfm. Accessed August 2019.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2020.“California – State Profile and
Energy Estimates.” Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ca#tabs -2. Accessed November 2021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Section 202(a) of
the Clean Air Act. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangerment-
and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse -gases-under-section-
202a-clean. Accessed August 2019.
Page 539 of 753
Appendix C References
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 172
_____2018. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us -greenhouse-gas-
emissions-and-sinks. Accessed: August 21, 2019.
_____2019. Envirofacts database. https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/. Accessed
April 2019).
United States Forest Service. 2018. “Fire in chaparral ecosystems.” Last
modified November 30, 2018.
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/fire_science/ecosystems/chaparral.sht
ml. Accessed April 2019.
United States Geological Survey. 2018. Post-Fire Flooding and Debris Flow.
Last modified: October 31, 2018. Available at:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/wildfires/wildfires -debris-flow.html. Accessed
April 2019.
United States Global Change Research Program. 2018. Fourth National
Climate Assessment. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/. Accessed:
August 2019.
Wiegers, M.O. 2021. Preliminary geologic map of the west half of the San
Luis Obispo 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California, version 2.0: California
Geological Survey. Scale 1:100,000. Available at:
https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=preliminary-geologic-map-
sanluisobispo-100k-west-v2 -map.pdf. Accessed April 2022 .
Page 540 of 753
Page 541 of 753
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 174
Appendix D Energy Calculations
Page 542 of 753
Appendix D Energy Calculations
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 175
Page 543 of 753
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project 176
List of Tec hnical Studies Bound Separately (Volume 2)
Initial Environmental Site Assessment, August 2017
Remedial Excavation Report, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
Bus Maintenance Facility, 253 Elks Lane, San Luis Obispo, California,
November 2020.
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Memo randum, September 2021
Moderate Level Visual Impact Assessment, September 2021
Air Quality Technical Study, September 2021
Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist, September 2020
Natural Environment Study, October 2021
Archaeological Survey Report, January 2020
Finding of No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions, February 2020
Historic Property Survey Report, January 2020
Historic Resources Evaluation Report, February 2020
Supplemental Historic Properties Survey Report and Archeological
Survey Report, January 2022
Water Quality Assessment Report, November 2021
Noise Study Report, October 2021
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report and
Intersection Control Evaluation, May 2019
U.S. 101/Prado Road Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, June 2020
Community Impact Assessment, September 2021
To obtain a copy of one or more of the se techni cal studies/reports or the
Initial Study, please send your request to:
Dianna Beck
Associate Environmental Planner, District 5
California Department of Transportation, CEQA Lead Agency
50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Or send your request via email to: Dianna.Beck@dot.ca.gov
Or call: 805-459-9406
Please provide the following information in your request:
Project title: U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange Project
General location information: San Luis Obispo County, Californi a
District number-county code-route-post mile: District 5–SLO-101–PM 26.5-27.3
Project ID number: 0516000105
Page 544 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
05-1H640 – 0516000105 PPNO-2831
20.XX.075.600 STIP RIP 20.XX.400.100 Local Funds
June 12, 2023
Project Report
For Project Approval
On Route 101
Between 0.3 mile south of Prado Road
And 0.2 mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
I have reviewed the right-of-way information contained in this report and the right-of-
way data sheet attached hereto, and find the data to be complete, current and accurate:
Marshall Garcia, District Division Chief, Right of Way
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:
Paul Valadao, Project Manager
APPROVED:
Scott Eades, District Director Date
Page 545 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
Vicinity Map
Page 546 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
This project report has been prepared under the direction of the following registered civil
engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained
herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions
are based.
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER DATE
03/31/25
C41227
Jay Walter
Page 547 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
2. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................. 2
3. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2
4. PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................. 4
A. Problem, Deficiencies, Justification .................................................................................... 4
B. Regional and System Planning ............................................................................................ 5
C. Traffic .................................................................................................................................. 8
5. ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................................... 13
5A. Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................... 14
Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................... 14
5B. Rejected Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 18
No Build ............................................................................................................................ 18
Alternative A1 ................................................................................................................... 18
Alternative A1R ................................................................................................................ 19
Alternative A2 ................................................................................................................... 19
Alternative A4 ................................................................................................................... 19
Alternative A4R ................................................................................................................ 20
Alternative A7 ................................................................................................................... 20
6. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION ............................................................... 20
6A. Hazardous Waste ............................................................................................................... 20
6B. Value Analysis .................................................................................................................. 21
6C. Resource Conservation ...................................................................................................... 21
6D. Right of Way Issues .......................................................................................................... 22
6E. Environmental Compliance ............................................................................................... 23
6F. Air Quality Conformity ..................................................................................................... 33
6G. Title VI Considerations ..................................................................................................... 34
6H. Noise Abatement Decision Report .................................................................................... 34
6I. Reversible Lanes ............................................................................................................... 35
7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE ............................................................... 35
Public Hearing Process ...................................................................................................... 35
Route Matters .................................................................................................................... 35
Permits ............................................................................................................................... 36
Cooperative Agreements ................................................................................................... 36
Other Agreements ........................................................................................................... 36
Report of Feasibility of Providing Access to Navigable Rivers ........................................ 36
Public Boat Ramps ............................................................................................................ 36
Transportation Management Plan...................................................................................... 36
Stage Construction ............................................................................................................ 37
Accommodation of Oversize Loads .................................................................................. 37
Graffiti Control .................................................................................................................. 37
Asset Management ............................................................................................................ 37
Complete Streets................................................................................................................ 37
Page 548 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
Climate Change Considerations ........................................................................................ 38
Broadband and Advance Technologies ............................................................................. 38
8. FUNDING, PROGRAMMING AND ESTIMATE ................................................................. 38
Funding .............................................................................................................................. 38
Programming ..................................................................................................................... 38
Estimate ............................................................................................................................. 39
9. DELIVERY SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 39
10. RISKS ...................................................................................................................................... 39
11. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................................... 40
12. PROJECT REVIEWS .............................................................................................................. 40
13. PROJECT PERSONNEL......................................................................................................... 40
14. ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 41
A – ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
B – LOCATION MAP
C – TYPICAL SECTIONS AND LAYOTS
D – STRUCTURES ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY (APS)
E – PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
F – RIGHT OF WAY DATA SHEETS AND UTILITY PLANS
G – STORM WATER DATA REPORT
H – RISK REGISTER
Page 549 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The proposed project includes improvements to extend Prado Road over U.S. Route 101
(US 101) to connect with Dalidio Drive, reconstruct the existing 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 interchanges in order to
provide congestion relief, operational efficiency and multimodal connectivity. The
interchange is located in the City of San Luis Obispo in the County of San Luis Obispo
at Post Mile (PM) 26.8 and improvements on northbound US 101 extend from PM 26.5
to PM 27.3. The preferred alternative includes a partial interchange with the proposed
Prado Road overcrossing constructed over US 101, a new US 101 NB off-ramp to Prado
Road, and a new NB on-ramp from Prado Road. Refer to Attachment B for the Location
Map.
The preferred alternative considers multimodal components and does not preclude
future widening of US 101. The preferred alternative also would not preclude
completion of a future full access interchange at this location by adding SB on and off-
ramps.
Project Limits
05-SLO-101, PM 26.5/27.3
Number of Alternatives One
Alternative A3 Current Cost
Estimate FY 2022:
Escalated Cost
Estimate FY 2025:
Capital Outlay Support $9,900,000 $10,900,000
Capital Outlay Construction $51,700,000 $56,500,000
Capital Outlay Right-of-Way $4,500,000 $5,400,000
Total $66,100,000.00 $72,800,000.00
Funding Source State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP) and Local Funds
STIP-RIP 20.xx.075.600 & Local
20.xx.400.100
Funding Year 2025/2026
Type of Facility Local Interchange
Number of Structures 3
Environmental Determination
or Document
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) –
Categorical Exclusion
Page 550 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
2
Legal Description In San Luis Obispo County, on Route 101
between 0.3 mile south of Prado Road and 0.2
mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Project Development Category 3
2. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this Project Report be approved, and authorization be granted to
proceed to the Plans, Specifications and Estimate phase.
3. BACKGROUND
Project History
A Freeway Agreement between the State of California (Caltrans) and the City of San
Luis Obispo (City) is currently in place and is dated July 3, 1972. The Freeway
Agreement includes the segment of US 101 between 0.5 mile south of Los Osos Valley
Road overcrossing and 0.4 mile south of Madonna Road overcrossing and includes the
proposed project area.
A Project Study Report (PSR) was previously prepared and approved in December 1996
(EA 41120K). Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards for non-standard
interchange spacing between the proposed Prado Road interchange and the Madonna
Road interchange were also prepared and approved in April 1996. Both the approved
PSR and Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards were determined to be
no longer valid.
Construction of the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) improvements at US 101 was
completed in 2016 (EA 0H730). During the Project Approval & Environmental
Documentation (PA/ED) phase for that project, the environmental document included
the constructed Prado Road interchange in the future scenario.
The City of San Luis Obispo (City), Caltrans District 5 (Caltrans) and the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) signed a Caltrans Project Information
Form in January 2016 and the City and Caltrans signed a Project Charter in July 2017.
The City and Caltrans entered into a Cooperative Agreement (No. 05-0313) in July 2017
in which the City agreed to prepare a Project Study Report – Project Development
Support (PSR-PDS) for the proposed project. Caltrans agreed to provide project
oversight and approvals. A PSR-PDS was developed for the project and approved on
April 12, 2018. The current proposal does not differ from the approved PSR-PDS
The City and Caltrans entered into a Cooperative Agreement (No. 05-0332) on April
12, 2018, in which the City agreed to initiate the PA&ED phase for the proposed project.
Caltrans agreed to perform Independent Quality Assurance (IQA), environmental
document quality control and owner/operator approvals for the portions of the work
within the existing and proposed State Highway System right-of-way. At this time no
right of way has been acquired for the project.
Page 551 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
3
Community Interaction
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, SLO Regional
Transit Authority and the County Air Pollution Control District.
The City has continued to support the project concepts from the PSR-PDS and into
PA&ED. The City is committed to providing clear and consistent communication with
the community on this project, and will continue the public outreach efforts through
PA&ED, during final project design, and construction. At this time, no final
commitments on any alternative have been made, but there is substantial support for the
project from the community because of its transportation benefit. No contact has been
initiated with any special interest groups, but that could change after circulation of the
DED. A public meeting was held on March 6, 2023 during which the project alternatives
and environmental impacts were shared.
Existing Facilities
US 101
US 101 is the principal north/south freeway/expressway on the Central Coast traversing
the counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito within
District 5. It serves local, regional and interregional travel needs, including business,
recreation, tourism, journey-to-work, freight and goods movement, and national defense
transport. The Pacific Coast Bicycle Route runs parallel to US 101 in this area along
South Higuera Street.
Within the project limits, US 101 is a four-lane freeway with 12-foot-wide travel lanes,
5-foot-wide left shoulders, 10-foot-wide right shoulders, and a 27 foot wide median with
thrie beam median barrier. Right-of-Way width varies but is generally 177 feet. The area
along US 101 is generally flat, with San Luis Obispo Creek running parallel to the
freeway. The project area is located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, and as such,
the alternatives reflect the need to not impact the floodplain with additional
embankments. US 101 is designated on the National Network as a Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) truck route and the posted speed limit is 65 miles
per hour (mph). Bicycle, pedestrians, and motor driven cycles are prohibited on the
freeway sections of US 101.
US 101/Prado Road Interchange
The US 101 interchange with Prado Road is located between 0.3 miles south of Prado
Road and 0.2 mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing. The interchange is a partial
interchange with access between US 101 and Prado Road currently provided only by a
Page 552 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
4
compact diamond NB off and a hook NB on-ramp. This configuration provides limited
access to and from US 101 from the local street system at this location. All way stop
control is provided at the NB ramps intersection with Prado Road/Elks Lane.
Prado Road
Prado Road is a 2-lane Minor Arterial roadway that extends in a northwest direction and
has a speed limit of 40 mph within the project vicinity. Prado Road provides two 12-
foot-wide travel lanes and Class II bike lanes and is designated as an STAA truck route.
Prado Road currently terminates at the US 101 NB Ramps/Prado Road/Elks Lane
intersection.
Elks Lane
Elks Lane is a two-lane, 30 foot wide Local Road that extends in a northeast direction
between Prado Road and South Higuera Street. Elks Lane currently terminates at the US
101 NB Ramps/Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection.
4. PURPOSE AND NEED
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 US 101 freeway and resolve forecasted
operational deficiencies on State and City facilities. These connectivity needs extend to
all transportation modes.
Goals and objectives of the project include: 1) improve overall operations of US 101
and adjacent interchanges; 2) improve mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3)
improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities; and 4) improve
consistency with local, regional and state planning.
A. Problem, Deficiencies, Justification
The existing Prado Road interchange with US 101 consists only of NB off- and NB on-
ramps. Prado Road presently has a compact diamond off-ramp and a hook on-ramp in
the northbound direction. This configuration provides limited access to and from US
101 from the local street system at this location. The Prado Road extension over US 101
that this project proposes is needed to provide better community connectivity between
the existing and planned neighborhoods and to support planned roadway improvements
east and west of the US 101 freeway. Improvements to US 101 in the study area and the
extension of Prado Road over US 101 are critical to the operations for all modes of
travel, not only for regional traffic, but also for local traffic.
Page 553 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
5
B. Regional and System Planning
Systems
US 101 is designated with the following state and federal classifications:
Federal Aid Primary Route
Freeway Expressway System (F&E)
National Highway System (NHS)
Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STRAHNET)
Interregional Road System (IRRS)
High Emphasis Route
Eligible to be part of the Scenic Highway System
State Planning
The US 101/Prado Road interchange is located at PM 26.80 within Segment 5 in the US
101 Transportation Concept Report (TCR), approved in December 2014. Segment 5
extends from the South Higuera Street Interchange (PM 24.3) to the State Route 58
Interchange (PM 37.9). The route is a four-lane freeway through the City of San Luis
Obispo and then transitions to a six-lane expressway and conventional highway over the
Cuesta Grade.
Within Segment 5 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. US 101 near the study area is currently a four-lane divided freeway with
auxiliary lanes provided between Madonna Road and Marsh Street. As noted, the
Ultimate Corridor Concept is identified as freeway with capacity of up to six lanes
though there is no funding currently identified for providing a six-lane freeway section.
The TCR identifies 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 potential locations for ramp meters in the US 101
corridor, but with no locations within Segment 5.
The District System Management Plan (DSMP), approved in August 2015 identifies the
construction of a northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna
Road (DSMP 2015 ID No. 2073).
During the Project Initiation Development (PID) phase, the PDT recommended the
initial project that provides the Prado Road overcrossing of US 101, reconfigured NB
ramps only with Prado Road, and a northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado
Road and Madonna Road. Provision of US 101 southbound (SB) Prado Road ramps and
southbound collector-distributor road between the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) and
Madonna Road interchanges were also initially evaluated, however, the PDT
recommended that these facilities not be considered within the PSR-PDS. Though not
Page 554 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
6
considered within the PSR-PDS, the PDT directed that these facilities are still a
component of long-range system planning. As such, the PDT also directed that the Prado
Road structure should be designed in such a way as to accommodate the future
southbound Prado Road ramps and collector-distributor road. The City is reserving
right-of-way needed for the future southbound ramps based on the best information that
is available at this time, and the Structures design for each alternative is providing
sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the SB ramps and collector-distributor
road system. The reservation of this right-of-way will not preclude future viable
alternatives.
Regional Planning
The US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan (December 2014) evaluated potential
corridor improvements within four (4) distinct US 101 focus segments within the
county. Focus Segment 2 is located within the City of San Luis Obispo with the segment
limits extending from Los Osos Valley Road to Monterey Street. The US 101/Prado
Road interchange and US 101 northbound auxiliary lane between Prado Road and
Madonna Road are identified as projects to be considered during future planning and
programming cycles. Within Segment 2, the US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan also
identified ramp meters on the northbound on-ramp from Madonna Road and on the
southbound on-ramp from Los Osos Valley Road.
The SLOCOG 2017 Park & Ride (P&R) Lot Study (August 2017) notes that a major
goal of SLOCOG is to help assure the development of an efficient, coordinated,
integrated, and balanced transportation system including providing P&R lot locations
throughout the County. The study identifies a P&R lot on Prado Road at or near the
Prado Road/US 101 interchange as a potential P&R location.
The US 101/Prado Road interchange and US 101 northbound auxiliary lane between
Prado Road and Madonna Road are identified in the SLOCOG 2019 Regional
Transportation Plan (2019 RTP Project ID No. CEN-MHWY-1402). This project is
identified as ‘Constrained’ in the 2019 RTP, Chapter 9, Figure 9-14.
Local Planning
The City’s General Plan (May 2015) is published in separately adopted sections, called
elements, which address various topics. The City updated both the General Plan Land
Use and Circulation elements (San Luis Obispo 2035 Land Use and Circulation Update)
which was adopted in 2014. The Circulation element was subsequently amended in
October 2017. While the Land Use Element describes the city’s desired character and
size, the Circulation Element describes how transportation will be provided in the
community described by the Land Use Element. A description of the transportation
improvements is provided in Table 5 (Transportation Capital Projects) of the Circulation
Element. The following roadway improvements which will improve mobility and
circulation and relieve congestion with the project study area have been identified by
the City as in place by the year 2035:
Dalidio Drive widened to 4 lanes between Madonna Road and Froom Ranch
Way (completed 2021)
Page 555 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
7
Froom Ranch Way extended to Dalidio Drive (completed 2021)
Prado Road widened to 4 lanes between US 101 and S. Higuera Street
Horizon Lane extended between Avila Ranch and Suburban Drive
Buckley Road extended to South Higuera Street (completed 2022)
A new North/South Collector between Prado Road and Tank Farm Road
Prado Road extended to Broad Street
Madonna Road at South Higuera Street realigned to Bridge Street
The City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan (ATP), approved in 2021
identifies a need for a Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossing of US 101 between
Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road which could be a Protected Bicycle Path,
Bike Lanes, or Class IV Cycle Tracks as part of a Grade Crossing project.
The City’s General Plan and Circulation Element assume and reflect a future full
interchange at US 101 and Prado Road. As these planning documents are updated, they
will be revised to include a collector-distributor roadway for the southbound ramps as
the ultimate facility (beyond 2050) and in the near term the partial interchange at Prado
with the reconfigured northbound ramps and an auxiliary lane between the Prado
northbound on and Madonna northbound off-ramp.
The project would require realignment of Elks Lane east of US 101. The specific future
alignment of Elks Lane would depend on the requirements of the three build alternatives.
The City also has an independent project to widen Prado Road from the planned Elks
Lane realignment connection with Prado Road east to the western limits of the San Luis
Obispo Creek Bridge Widening Project. The project will widen Prado Road to four lanes
between the proposed interchange and San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge project
improvements.
Transit Operator Planning
Transit service is currently provided by San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit). SLO
Transit is operated by the City and currently offers eight fixed routes. Within the project
area, only Route 2A would be directly impacted by the proposed closure of Prado Road
and Elks Lane at US 101 during construction of the new Prado Road overcrossing. Route
2A currently provides one way service seven days a week from/to the City’s Transit
Center located on Osos Street between Palm Street and Mill Street. Within the project
vicinity, this route runs southbound along Elks Lane from the intersection with South
Higuera Street to Prado Road then eastbound to a transit stop located on the south side
of Prado Road. Route 2A then continues eastbound on Prado Road before turning
southbound at the intersection with South Higuera Street. This area along Prado Road
is a prominent services location for the City’s homeless population, and at minimum,
consideration should be given to constructing the Elks Lane realignment as a first item
of work to preserve Transit service here. Because of the new connection of Prado Road
over the freeway, it may be possible to re-examine transit routing to take advantage of
the new connection to save time.
Page 556 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
8
SLO Transit will be notified in advance of the start of construction and provided road
closure and/or detour information and schedules. Because of the proximity of the
SLORTA Maintenance & Operations Facility, construction impacts will need to be
closely coordinated.
C. Traffic
Current and Forecasted Traffic
US 101 just north of LOVR currently experiences over 60,000 vehicles per day on an
average day with this volume projected to increase by almost 50% by the design year
2050. Continued growth in the use of US 101 for regional and interregional travel will
contribute to this projected growth. Continued growth within the City of San Luis
Obispo will result in an increase in local traffic to the projected growth in traffic on
mainline US 101 and increases in traffic accessing US 101 from the LOVR interchange,
the Prado Road NB off-ramp and NB on-ramps, and the Madonna Road interchange.
Table 4.1 shows the US 101 No-Build condition existing and forecasted design year
freeway mainline and freeway on and off-ramp peak hour traffic volumes from south of
the LOVR interchange north through the Madonna Road interchange, and on LOVR
and Madonna Road on the respective overcrossing.
Table 4.1 – Existing and Forecasted Design Year Average
Daily Traffic (No Build Condition)
US 101 Collision Analysis
Existing and Forecasted Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes
Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)22,600 37,400
Prado Road N/A N/A
Madonna Road 23,500 31,400
Mainline S. of LOVR 72,400 102,300
NB Off-Ramp to LOVR 8,600 11,390
NB On-Ramp from LOVR 5,000 6,500
SB On-Ramp from LOVR 9,100 12,340
SB Off-Ramp to LOVR 6,500 7,890
Mainline N. of LOVR 65,300 91,200
NB Off-Ramp to Prado Rd.1,600 2,800
NB On-Ramp from Prado Rd. 3,770 5,290
Mainline N. of Prado Rd 65,300 90,300
SB On-Ramp from Madonna Rd.5,540 8,130
NB Off-Ramp to Madonna Rd.5,350 5,150
SB Off-Ramp to Madonna Rd.8,630 11,890
NB On-Ramp from Madonna Rd.3,500 4,010
Mainline N. of Madonna Rd. 65,300 89,700
Location Existing Design Year
Cross Streets (at US 101 O.C.)
US 101
Page 557 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
9
Caltrans’ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) has been developed as a
comprehensive effort to reduce the number and severity of collisions on State and Local
roads. Monitoring systems are in place that identify collision concentrations where
collision history may indicate a pattern susceptible to correction by a safety
improvement project. Projects may be implemented at spot locations, or they may be
system-wide improvements involving highway elements which are associated with
collision frequency or severity.
US 101 NB Mainline between Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) and Prado Road
Interchanges
Collision rates for US 101 NB mainline between the LOVR interchange (PM 25.9) and
the Prado Road interchange (PM 26.8) were obtained from Traffic Accident
Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) – Transportation Systems Network (TSN)
for the five-year period between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2020. Table 4.2 summarizes
the collision data for this five-year period.
4.2 - Table B Collision Data Summary (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020)
US 101 Mainline
Segment (PM-PM)
Number of Collisions Actual Collision Rate
(acc/million veh miles)
Average Collision Rate
(acc/million veh miles)
Total Fatal F + I Fatal F+I Total Fatal F+I Total
US 101 NB (25.991
-26.849) 19 0 7 0.000 .12 .34 0.006 .29 .83
Notes:
1. Collision Rates are measured in collisions per million vehicle miles
As shown in Table 4.2, 19 collisions (0-Fatal, 7-Injury, 12-Property Damage Only
(PDO)) were reported on US 101 NB between PM 25.9 and PM 26.8. Thirteen (13) of
the collisions involved multiple vehicles. The reported collision types are as follows:
Type of Collision Number of Collisions
Hit Object 6
Rear End 7
Sideswipe 4
Other 2
The predominant vehicle direction of travel was NB (100%), and the vehicle movements
preceding the collision are as follows:
Movement
Preceding Collision
Number
Proceeded Straight 13
Ran Off Road 2
Slowing, Stopping 5
Changing Lanes 5
Stopped 4
Other 2
Page 558 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
10
The project is not anticipated to contribute to the collisions reported on NB US 101
between the two interchanges and no improvements are proposed to mainline US 101
with the project.
US 101 / Prado Road Interchange Ramps Collision Analysis
Collision rates for both the US 101 NB off-ramp to, and on-ramp from Prado Road were
obtained from Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) –
Transportation Systems Network (TSN) for the five-year period between July 1, 2015
and June 30, 2020. Table 4.3 summarizes the collision data for each ramp for this five-
year period.
Table 4.3 -Table B Collision Data Summary (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020)
Location (PM) Number of Collisions Actual Collision Rate
(acc/million veh)
Average Collision Rate
(acc/million veh)
Total Fatal F + I Fatal F+I Total Fatal F+I Total
US 101 NB Off to
Prado Road
(26.730)
0 0 0 0.000 .00 .00 0.026 .38 1.01
US 101 NB On
from Prado Road
(26.990)
2 0 0 0.000 .00 .26 0.007 .21 .61
Notes:
1. Collision Rates are measured in collisions per million vehicles
As shown in the table, there were no collisions reported on the US 101 off-ramp to Prado
Road during the five-year period. Two (2) collisions, all PDO, were reported on the NB
US 101 on-ramp from Prado Road. Each of the collisions involved single vehicles and
the reported collision type was Hit Object. One (1) collision was reported within the on-
ramp entry from Prado Road and one (1) collision was reported within the on-ramp. The
project includes reconstruction of the NB on-ramp from Prado Road and this
improvement is anticipated to improve safety and not contribute to any increase in
collision rates within the on-ramp.
US 101 NB Mainline between Prado Road and Madonna Road Interchanges
Collision rates for US 101 NB mainline between the Prado Road interchange (PM 26.8)
and the Madonna Road interchange (PM 27.5) were obtained from Caltrans TASAS –
TSN for the five-year period between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2020. Table 4.5
summarizes the collision data for this five-year period.
Table 4.4 -Table B Collision Data Summary (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020)
US 101 Mainline
Segment (PM-PM)
Number of Collisions Actual Collision Rate
(acc/million veh miles)
Average Collision Rate
(acc/million veh miles)
Total Fatal F + I Fatal F+I Total Fatal F+I Total
US 101 NB (26.850
-27.500) 25 0 4 0.000 .10 .65 0.006 .28 .83
Notes:
1. Collision Rates are measured in collisions per million vehicle miles
Page 559 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
11
As shown in the table, 25 collisions (0-Fatal, 4-Injury, 21-PDO) were reported on US
101 NB between PM 26.8 and PM 27.5. Twelve (12) of the collisions involved
multiple vehicles. The reported collision types are as follows:
Type of Collision Number of Collisions
Hit Object 14
Rear End 8
Sideswipe 2
Broadside 1
The predominant vehicle direction of travel was NB (100%), and the vehicle
movements preceding the collision are as follows:
Movement
Preceding Collision
Number
Proceeded Straight 13
Ran Off Road 6
Slowing, Stopping 5
Changing Lanes 1
Other Unsafe Turn 2
Merging 3
Other 4
The project includes construction of a new NB US 101 auxiliary lane between the on -
ramp from Prado Road and the off-ramp to Madonna Road to improve operations
between the two closely spaced interchanges. These improvements are anticipated to
improve safety and not contribute to any increase in collision rates on NB US101
between the two interchanges.
US 101 / NB Madonna Road Off-Ramp Collision Analysis
Collision rates for the US 101 NB off-ramp to Madonna Road were obtained from
TASAS –TSN for the five-year period between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2020. Table
4.6 summarizes the collision data for this ramp for this five-year period.
Table 4.5 - Table B Collision Data Summary (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020)
Location (PM) Number of Collisions Actual Collision Rate
(acc/million veh)
Average Collision Rate
(acc/million veh)
Total Fatal F + I Fatal F+I Total Fatal F+I Total
US 101 NB Off to
Madonna Road
(27.400)
14 0 6 0.000 .69 1.61 0.008 .39 1.03
Notes:
1. Collision Rates are measured in collisions per million vehicles
Fourteen (14) collisions, (0-Fatal, 6 -Injury, 8-PDO) were reported on the US 101 NB
off-ramp to Madonna Road. Twelve (12) of the collisions involved multiple vehicles.
The reported collision types are as follows:
Type of Collision Number of Collisions
Broadside 2
Page 560 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
12
Rear End 10
Hit Object 1
Seven (7) collisions were reported on the ramp exit to Madonna Road, six (6) collisions
were reported in the ramp area on Madonna Road and one (1) collision was reported
within the off-ramp. There were no collisions reported within the ramp entry from NB
US 101.
The predominant vehicle direction of travel was NB (63%), EB (26%) and WB (7%)
and SB (4%). The vehicle movements preceding the collision are as follows:
Movement
Preceding Collision
Number
Proceeded Straight 12
Making Left Turn 3
Backing 1
Stopped 7
Slowing, Stopping 1
The project includes construction of a new NB US 101 auxiliary lane between the on-
ramp from Prado Road and the off-ramp to Madonna Road to improve operations
between the two closely spaced interchanges. Construction of the auxiliary will also
require reconstruction of the ramp entry from NB US 101 to the off-ramp to Madonna
Road. These improvements are anticipated to improve safety and not contribute to any
increase in collision rates on the ramp entry. The project does not propose any
improvements within the ramp, at the ramp exit to Madonna Road or wit hin the
Madonna Road intersection.
Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Predictive Collision Analysis
The collision analysis was performed for the study area using the Enhanced Interchange
Safety Analysis Tool (ISATe) per National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Project 17-45, May 31, 2012. This safety prediction methodology for
freeways and interchanges is consistent with the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 2014
Supplement, Chapters 18 and 19. ISATe uses the HSM Predictive Method (Part C and
D) to estimate the expected average collision frequency (in total, or by collision type or
severity) for a freeway with known characteristics. The predictive analysis results
include predicted mainline, ramp, and ramp terminal collisions. The overall collision
frequency is predicted based on the relationship of roadway geometric design features
and safety. Since collisions are random in nature, safety is predicted based on adopted
safety performance functions and collision modification factors (CMFs) developed from
several studies of similar freeway facilities with different geometric characteristics. The
predictive methodology can be used to make informed decisions about different build
alternatives in the project development process in quantifying substantive safety.
All Build alternatives are very close in comparison, but Alternative A1R predicts the
least collisions among the build alternatives in the design year 2050. Also, all
alternatives show a slight increase in expected annual crash frequency when compared
to the No Build alternative. This is due to the minor volume changes on US 101 mainline
Page 561 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
13
within the project limits and increase in traffic volumes at Prado Road interchange with
the Build alternatives. In addition, ISATe was not able to model a roundabout at the
Prado Road ramp terminal. The roundabout intersection control was instead modelled
as an all-way stop with a right turn yield control. The results of the predictive model
distribute around 33% of the predicted crashes to the terminal component of the highway
facility in the four alternatives analyzed. Therefore, as ISATe does not have the ability
to correctly model a roundabout intersection treatment, there would be an impact to the
roundabout alternative results. The 2022 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual
(LRSM) notes that converting an intersection with all way stop control to a roundabout
(Countermeasure NS04) has a varied Crash Reduction Factor between 12%-78%. Thus,
the results from the ISATe prediction may be overestimating the results of the
roundabout alternatives slightly (Alt 1R & Alt 4R).
5. ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the No Build alternative, four (4) viable build alternatives were identified
in the approved PSR-PDS. These include Alternative A1R, Alternative A3, Alternative
A4R and Alternative A7. All except Alternative A7 continue to be considered during
the environmental document circulation. Each of the viable build alternatives include a
partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing constructed over US 101
and new US 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road (these new ramps
replace US 101 NB off and on-ramps that currently connect with Prado Road). The
viable build alternatives would not preclude widening US 101 up to a six-lane facility
(Ultimate Corridor Concept) with a collector distributor roadway and southbound ramp
connections.
Within the approved PSR-PDS, each viable build alternative proposed retaining walls
on the inside of the NB US 101 off and on-ramps with fill embankments (side slopes)
proposed on the outside of the ramps and along Prado Road. After approval of the PSR-
PDS, the City of San Luis Obispo developed a two-dimensional (2D) hydraulic model
to evaluate potential hydraulic impacts associated with the proposed Prado Road
overcrossing and modified US 101 NB ramps. Two options were evaluated, the first
option placing Prado Road and the US 101 NB off and on-ramps primarily on fill
embankment (side slopes) generally consistent the PSR-PDS and, the second option
placing Prado Road and the US 101 NB off and on-ramps primarily on piers (structure).
The results of the 2D hydraulic modeling was presented in the 2-Dimensional Hydraulic
Model Update Final Report (October 2019). This report concluded that the fill
embankments option was not a hydraulically feasible alternative as this alternative
exceeds the City’s Drainage Design Manual (DDM) criteria since the import of fill
becomes a barrier resulting in restriction of flood waters. A memorandum was prepared
and submitted to Caltrans on February 11, 2022 recommending that, based on the
report’s conclusions, the project’s viable build alternatives proceed only with placement
of the majority of Prado Road and the US 101 NB off and on-ramps on structures.
Caltrans concurred with this recommendation on February 25, 2022.
Each viable build alternative would also encroach into the current floodplain located
both to the east and west of U.S. 101. Improvements to reduce this encroachment include
Page 562 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
14
placing a portion of both the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp
and a majority of the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the
intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection on structures
raised above the floodplain.
5A. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A3
Proposed Engineering Features
Alternative A3 is consistent with a Type L-1 tight diamond interchange configuration
to the east of US 101. The proposed Alternative A3 design year improvements are
shown in Attachments C & D. Interchange improvements associated with Alternative
A3 include the following:
construct a new four-legged traffic signal controlled intersection at the Prado
Road intersection with the US 101 NB Ramps;
construct a new single-lane NB US 101 off-ramp to Prado Road;
construct a new single-lane on-ramp from Prado Road to NB US 101;
construct a portion of both the US 101 NB off-ramp and NB on-ramp on
structures;
construct a majority of the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension on structures
from the intersection with the future Elks Lane east of US 101 to the intersection
with the Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive west of US 101;
construct Prado Road with a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through
and adjacent to the interchange with a separate 14.75-foot wide sidewalk/Class
IV bikeway and 5-foot wide shoulder;
provide crosswalks and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible
ramps along pedestrian facilities;
construct an approximately 1,060-foot long auxiliary lane with a 12-foot paved
width and 10-foot paved shoulder provided between the Prado Road NB on-
ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp; and
construct Maintenance Vehicle Pullout (MVPs) in appropriate locations as
determined during District Maintenance and Safety review; and
construct new Midwest Guardrail System placed adjacent to the proposed
northbound U.S. 101 auxiliary lanes outside shoulder.
Traffic Forecasts
Traffic forecasts and projected traffic operations for this alternative are provided in
the TOAR and ICE. The TOAR provided projected design year (2050) AM and PM
peak hour operations for Alternative A3. Table 5.4 provides the projected US 101
mainline, ramp merge and diverge, and weaving section peak levels of service (LOS)
from south of the LOVR interchange north to the Marsh Street interchange.
Table 5.1 – Alternative A3 Design Year (2050) Peak Hour Mainline, Ramps
and Weaving Section Operation
Page 563 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
15
The TOAR also provided projected 2050 AM and PM peak hour weave section
operations using the Leisch Method with the results shown in Table 5.5. As shown in
this table, the peak hour weaving LOS on the proposed NB auxiliary lane between the
Prado Road and Madonna Road interchanges are projected to be LOS D or better.
Though LOS D does not meet the target LOS, HDM Index 504.7 notes that weaving
sections in urban areas should be designed for LOS C or D.
Table 5.2 – Alternative A3 Design Year (2050) Peak Hour Weaving Sections
Operations – Leisch Method
Finally, the TOAR provided projected 2050 AM and PM peak hour intersection
operations for this alternative. Table 5.6 provides the projected LOS at the US 101 ramp
intersections with LOVR, Prado Road and Madonna Road.
AM
LOS
PM
LOS
US 101 Northbound
US 101 South of LOVR C Freeway 2 E C
Off Ramp to LOVR C Diverge 1 E D
On Ramp from LOVR C Merge 1 D D
US 101 South of Prado Road C Freeway 2 D C
Off Ramp to Prado Road C Diverge 1 E D
US 101 North of Prado Road C Weave 3 C C
US 101 North of Madonna Road C Weave 3 C C
US 101 Southbound
US 101 South of Marsh Street C Weave 3 C D
On Ramp from Madonna Road C Merge 1 C F
US 101 South of Madonna Road C Freeway 2 C E
Off-Ramp to LOVR C Diverge 1 C F
On Ramp from LOVR C Merge 1 C F
US 101 South of LOVR C Freeway 2 B F
BOLD - LOS worse than Target LOS
Segment
Type
Target
LOS
Alternative A3
Interchange Location
No. of
Lanes
AM
LOS
PM
LOS
US 101 Northbound
US 101 North of Prado Road C Weave 3 C C
US 101 North of Madonna Road C Weave 3 D D
US 101 Southbound
US 101 South of Marsh Street C Weave 3 C D
BOLD - LOS worse than Target LOS
Alternative A3
Interchange Location
Target
LOS
Segment
Type
No. of
Lanes
Page 564 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
16
Table 5.3 – Alternative A3 Design Year (2050) Peak Hour Intersection
Operations
BOLD – LOS worse than Target LOS
Proposed Nonstandard Design Features
Design Standards Risk Assessment
Alternative
Highway
Design
Manual Index
Type Highway
Design
Manual
Standard
Probability of
Design
Exception
Approval
Justification for Probability
Rating
A3
501.3, M
Interchange
Spacing
(1.0 mile
minimum in
Urban Areas)
B Interchange
Spacing
High
Existing roadway connections to
US 101, cannot be feasibly
relocated
A3
502.2 M
Partial
Interchange
B Partial
Interchange High
Existing partial interchange to be
maintained, plus City is reserving
R/W for future conversion to full
interchange.
A3
504.7 M
Minimum
Weave Length
(2000 feet
Urban Areas)
B Weaving
Length High
Project includes addition of an
auxiliary lane to connect the
interchange ramps.
A3
202.5(2) A
Superelevation
Runoff
U Superelevation
Runoff
High
Providing the standard
superelevation runoff length
would result in additional right of
way impacts to the adjacent RTA
facility and Sunset Drive-In
property.
A3
304.1 A
Embankment
Slopes
U Embankment
Slopes High
Most of Interchange will be built
on structures over freeway, with
steeper side slopes to minimize
AM
LOS
PM
LOS
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 SB
Ramps Signal C C B
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 NB
Ramps Signal C C B
Prado Road/US 101 NB Ramps Signal C B A
Madonna Road/US 101 NB Ramps Signal C B C
Madonna Road/US 101 SB
Ramps/Madonna Inn Signal C D C
Alternative A3
Control Type Target
LOSIntersection
Page 565 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
17
impacts to environmentally
sensitive areas.
Interim Features
There are no interim features associated with this alternative.
High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
There are no high occupancy vehicle lanes associated with this alternative.
Ramp Metering
The US 101/Prado Road interchange is not currently listed in the District 5 TCR as a
potential location for ramp meters and provisions are not being made for future ramp
metering with this alternative.
California Highway Patrol (CHP) Enforcement Activities
CHP enforcement areas are not included with this alternative. CHP enforcement
activities will be required during construction.
Park and Ride Facilities
There are no Park and Ride facilities currently located at or immediately adjacent to
the US 101/Prado Road interchange. Provision of a new Park and Ride facility is not
considered with this alternative.
Utility Involvement
A Utility Information Sheet has been prepared for Alternative A3 and is included
with the Right of Way Data Sheets in Attachment F. The following is a preliminary
list of known utilities with potential longitudinal encroachment in existing or proposed
access controlled right of way:
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) - overhead electric transmission lines;
AT&T - overhead and underground cables;
Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) - 2-inch and 10-inch high pressure
underground gas lines;
Phillips Petroleum - two 8-inch underground petroleum pipelines;
Caltrans – two (2) recycled water distribution lines; and
City of San Luis Obispo - underground communications, sewer, water, recycled
water, water well and fiber optic line.
At this time, it is not known which, if any utilities will need to be relocated. Refer to
section 6d for further information.
Noise Barriers
The Noise Study Report (NSR- also reference section 6H, Noise Abatement Decision
Report Section of this DPR) concluded that noise abatement was not required and noise
barriers are not proposed as a project feature.
Page 566 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
18
Nonmotorized and Pedestrian Features
The City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan (ATP), approved in 2021
identifies a need for a Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossing of US 101 between
Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road which could be a Protected Bicycle Path,
Bike Lanes, or Class IV Cycle Tracks as part of a Grade Crossing project. With
Alternative A3, a 14.75-foot wide sidewalk/Class IV bikeway and 5-foot wide shoulder
will be provided along both the north and south sides of Prado Road through the
project area.
Construction and Right of Way Cost Estimates
Capital cost estimates for construction and right of way were prepared for Alternative
A3 with copies of the preliminary cost estimates included in Attachment E. The
estimated capital cost to acquire the right of way and construct the full improvements of
this alternative is $61,900,000 in the year 2025. A cost breakdown by major project
elements is as follows. Capital outlay support costs are not included in the estimates.
Roadway/Roadside Item $ 10,500,000
Structural Items $46,000,000
Right of Way $ 5,400,000
Total Capital Construction Costs $61,900,000
Effect of Alternative Proposal on Operations
The potential effects Alternative A3 will have on the design year capacity/operating
characteristics of US 101 were analyzed in the TOAR. Based on the results of this
analysis, Alternative A3 is projected to operate at a LOS D on the NB US 101 mainline
between the LOVR and Prado Road interchanges during the AM peak hour. The
respective projected No Build design year LOS at this location is LOS C. Alternative
A3 is also projected to operate at LOS E on the SB US 101 off-ramp diverge to LOVR
during the PM peak hour. The respective projected No Build design year LOS at this
location is LOS D.
5B. Rejected Alternatives
No Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative assumes no improvements to existing US 101 or the
northbound off and on-ramps to/from Prado Road. This alternative also assumes that
Prado Road also terminates at the northbound ramps/Elks Lane intersection as is the
current condition. No construction activities would occur, and there would be no change
in the operations of the existing interchange. This alternative does not meet the need and
purpose of the proposed project.
Alternative A1
Alternative A1 was identified as a viable build alternative in the PSR-PDS. Alternative
A1 was a Type L-1 tight diamond interchange configuration to the east of US 101.
Page 567 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
19
Interchange improvements associated with this alternative were similar to Alternative
A1R, except that traffic signal control was provided at the Prado Road intersection with
the US 101 NB ramps instead of a roundabout. The Final ICE was prepared subsequent
to the PSR-PDS which provided a comprehensive evaluation of both the traffic signal
control alternative and the roundabout alternative. Based on these evaluations, the Final
ICE concluded that the roundabout alternative, Alternative A1R, represented the
preferred intersection control. Caltrans reviewed the Final ICE and concurred with the
findings. A memorandum was prepared and submitted to Caltrans on February 11, 2022
recommending that, based on the findings of the Final ICE, the roundabout alternative
represented the preferred intersection control and Caltrans concurrence with this
finding, Alternative A1 be no longer considered as a viable build alternative moving
forward. Caltrans concurred with this recommendation on Februar y 25, 2022.
Alternative A1R
Alternative A1R is similar in concept to a Type L-1 tight diamond interchange
configuration to the east of US 101. The NB on and NB off-ramps meet in a roundabout
intersection with Prado Road. Alternative A1R was identified as a viable alternative in
the PSR-PDS but was rejected by the PDT. A meeting was held with City staff and
Caltrans Design staff recommending that, due to the more complex structure design
Alternative A1R be no longer considered as a viable build alternative moving forward.
Caltrans and the City concurred with this recommendation on April 24, 2023.
Alternative A2
Alternative A2 was a Type L-8 configuration (partial cloverleaf) with proposed loop NB
off-ramp to and direct on-ramp from Prado Road located on the north side of Prado
Road. Alternative A2 was identified as a viable alternative in the PSR-PDS that was
rejected by the PDT due to the loss of a transportation asset, San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority’s (SLORTA) new facility, located in the northwest quadrant of the
interchange and the less than standard weave length between Prado Road northbound
on-ramp and Madonna Road northbound off-ramp. As a result, the PDT determined that
Alternative 2 did not meet the project’s purpose and need and it was removed from
further consideration.
Alternative A4
Alternative A4 was identified as a viable build alternative in the PSR-PDS. Alternative
A4 was a Type L-7 partial cloverleaf interchange configuration to the east of US 101 .
Interchange improvements associated with this alternative were similar to Alternative
A4R except traffic signal control instead of a roundabout was provided at the Prado
Road intersection with the US 101 NB ramps. The Final ICE was prepared subsequent
to the PSR-PDS which provided a comprehensive evaluation of both the traffic signal
control alternative and the roundabout alternative. Based on these evaluations, the Final
ICE concluded that the roundabout alternative, Alternative A4R, represented the
preferred intersection control. Caltrans reviewed the Final ICE and concurred with the
findings. A memorandum was prepared and submitted to Caltrans on February 11, 2022
recommending that, based on the findings of the Final ICE that the roundabout
Page 568 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
20
alternative represented the preferred intersection control and Caltrans concurrence with
this finding, Alternative A4 be no longer considered as a viable build alternative moving
forward. Caltrans concurred with this recommendation on February 25, 2022.
Alternative A4R
Alternative A4R is similar in concept to a Type L-7 partial cloverleaf interchange
configuration to the east of US 101. The NB on and NB off-ramps have sweeping curves
and merge with Prado Road near the intersection with Elks Lane. Alternative A4R was
identified as a viable alternative in the PSR-PDS but was rejected by the PDT. A meeting
was held with City staff and Caltrans Design staff recommending that, due to the
significant right of way needed from the City Corporation Yard, Alternative A4R be no
longer considered as a viable build alternative moving forward. Caltrans concurred with
this recommendation on April 24, 2023.
Alternative A7
Alternative A7 is similar in concept to a Type L-6 interchange configuration to the east
of US 101. The NB on and NB off-ramps have sweeping curves and merge with Prado
Road near the intersection with Elks Lane. Alternative A7 was identified as a viable
alternative in the PSR-PDS but was rejected by the PDT. A meeting was held with City
staff and Caltrans Design staff recommending that, due to the significant number of
design exceptions and safety concerns that were identified after further study and
Caltrans review, Alternative A7 be no longer considered as a viable build alternative
moving forward. Caltrans and the City concurred with this recommendation on
September 16, 2022.
6. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION
6A. Hazardous Waste
An Initial Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for this project during the PID
phase and provided to Caltrans for review. The initial conclusions from this study
included the following:
The properties along the proposed right of way have been in agricultural use as early
as the 1930s and it is likely for the soil within the proposed project site to have been
impacted with hazardous levels of pesticides, herbicides and arsenic (used as an
herbicide in the early 20th century).
The nearby roadways have supported vehicular activity since the middle of 20th
century and it is likely that the surface soils are affected by deposition of aerial lead.
The roadway was built prior to the 1980s and it is likely that the surface markings
and signs may contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint
(LBP) in their construction materials.
A petroleum pipeline is present within the project limits.
Page 569 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
21
The study recommended that additional studies and investigations will be required
during PS&E to determine if hazardous waste/materials contamination is present within
the project site.
6B. Value Analysis
A hybrid Value Analysis (VA) study, sponsored by the City of San Luis Obispo and
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 5 and facilitated by
Value Management Strategies, Inc. (VMS), was conducted for the Prado Interchange
Project located in San Luis Obispo, California. The workshop was facilitated March
20-24, 2023, in-person and online using the WebEx virtual meeting platform. The
document, VA Study Summary Report – Final Results provides an overview of the
project, key findings, the alternatives developed by the VA team, and the decisions of
the project stakeholders from the implementation meeting held April 24, 2023.
The VA team recommended six alternatives to be considered for implementation:
VA Alternative 1.0 – Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph;
VA Alternative 2.0 – Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical;
VA Alternative 3.0 – Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps;
VA Alternative 4.0 – Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I girders
in lieu of CIP girders;
VA Alternative 5.0 – Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment
in lieu of relocation;
VA Alternative 6.0 – Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project.
The project stakeholders rejected one of the six developed VA study alternatives (5.0)
and accepted two of the alternatives (2.0 & 6.0) for inclusion into the project design.
The remaining alternatives (1.0, 3.0 & 4.0) require significant additional analysis and
investigation to determine if they are feasible alternatives to the current design. A
decision was made by the PDT to defer the in-depth investigation of the remaining VA
study alternatives to early in the PS&E phase. Caltrans Management staff has been
briefed and there is concurrence with this approach. Deferring the further study is a
strategy that is prudent to the current project schedule yet holds fast the intentions of
the VA recommendations to determine if significantly changing the design will result
in the cost and time savings that have been identified.
6C. Resource Conservation
Where feasible, existing materials and facilities would be preserved, either through
salvaging and/or incorporating previously salvaged material from existing roadway
facilities, such as signs, light standards, guardrails, and other associated hardware.
This approach would minimize the consumption, destruction, and disposal of
nonrenewable resources. VA Recommendation 6.0, “Utilizing recycled and/or
reclaimed materials in project” was agreed to by the PDT at the implementation
meeting.
Page 570 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
22
6D. Right-of-Way Issues
Right of Way Required
A Right of Way Data Sheet for the preferred alternative is included in Attachment F.
Implementing this alternative will require acquiring approximately 0.6 acres of
additional right of way from nine (9) parcels with no excess parcels. The project would
require take of a portion of the City-owned Corporation Yard located south of Prado
Road and east of US 101 (APN 053-051-045), which would result in the need for the
City to relocate some operations from this facility to another location . No off-site
relocation of corporation yard buildings is currently proposed as part of this action.
The preferred alternative also has right-of-way impacts to the planned SLORTA
administration, operations, and bus maintenance facility located north of and adjacent
to Prado Road and east of and adjacent to Elks Lane. Final alignment of Elks Lane will
be determined in consultation with the owners of the SLORTA Facility & the 40 Prado
Homeless Services Center.
Relocation Impact Studies
Relocations are not anticipated with the preferred alternative.
Railroad
Railroad involvement is not required for this project.
Utilities
Verification of utilities would be performed as an initial phase of PS&E. Each utility
agency, with utilities in the project limits, would be notified and allocated time to
respond to potential concerns. Utilities shown to be High Risk would be positively
located in accordance with Caltrans Policy and the results would be plotted on the PS&E
utility sheets. Relocation of the utilities would be coordinated with each agency or
company to ensure standard requirements are met.
The following is the list of known utilities with potential longitudinal encroachment in
existing or proposed access controlled right of way:
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) - overhead electric transmission lines;
AT&T - overhead and underground cables;
Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) - 2-inch and 10-inch high pressure
underground gas lines;
Phillips Petroleum - two 8-inch underground petroleum pipelines;
Caltrans – two (2) recycled water distribution lines; and
City of San Luis Obispo - underground communications, sewer, water, recycled
water, and water well.
Page 571 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
23
Based on the design of the preferred alternative and the observed location of the various
utilities, it is assumed that utility relocations will be required. It is unknown at this time
who will be responsible (project or provider) for utility relocations that will be required
with the proposed project. The preliminary utility plans prepared for the project are
included as Attachment F.
Airspace Lease Areas
Airspace leases are not within the project limits.
6E. Environmental Compliance
Caltrans is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) lead as assigned by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). The City, in coordination with Caltrans, has
prepared an Initial Study (IS) for this project and, pending public review, expects to
determine from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in
accordance with Caltrans’ environmental procedures, as well as State and federal
environmental regulations. The Draft IS/MND (Attachment A) is the appropriate
document for the proposal.
The project would have no significant effect on forest resources; energy; greenhouse
gas emissions; land use and planning; 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; agricultural
resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils;
hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; and tribal cultural
resources because mitigation measures would reduce potential effects to insignificance.
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure AES-1. Tree Protection and Replacement Plan. Before issuing
grading or building permits, a Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will be prepared
for the project based on the final grading and building plans. The Tree Protection and
Replacement Plan will identify all trees within the project limits. The Tree Protection
and Replacement Plan will stipulate that all trees not proposed for removal will be
preserved and protected from harm during project construction activities (consistent
with requirements of Mitigation Measure AES-2).
If, during the preparation of the Tree Protection and Replacement Plan, it is discovered
that trees within the project study area must be removed, the Caltrans Design Engineer
and District Landscape Architect will agree that tree removal is necessary before final
approval of the project plans. Where trees are authorized by Caltrans for removal, they
will be replaced with native or other horticulturally appropriate species suitable for the
area at a minimum ratio of three new trees for each tree removed, as directed by the
Page 572 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
24
Caltrans District Landscape Architect. All replacement planting will include a minimum
three-year plant establishment period.
The project specifications will include provisions requiring the protection of all trees as
directed in this measure, and the cost estimate will include adequate funds for identified
tree protection measures and tree replacement and maintenance measures, if necessary.
Mitigation Measure AES-2. Tree Protection. All qualifying trees within 25 feet of
proposed ground disturbances that will be retained will be temporarily fenced with
chain-link or other material throughout all grading and construction activities. The
fencing shall be installed outside the dripline of each tree or as far from the trunk as is
feasible while accommodating project construction and be shown in the Tree Protection
and Replacement Plan. No construction equipment shall be staged, parked, or stored
within the dripline of any qualifying tree. If project construction requires activities
within the dripline of a tree that is proposed to be retained, an arborist shall be present
during ground-disturbing work under the dripline.
Mitigation Measure AES-3. Landscape Plan. A landscape plan shall be developed by
the city and approved by the District Landscape Architect before project approval. The
landscape plan shall consist of plantings that offer a variety of colors, shapes, and
species with an emphasis on drought-tolerant, native plant materials. The landscape plan
shall include plantings along constructed walls and structures as well as benched and
graded areas within the project corridor to soften visual chan ges and reduce the visual
scale of new project features. Landscaping shall be overseen for a minimum period of
two years or as determined by the District Landscape Architect.
Agricultural Resources
Mitigation Measure AG-1 . Agricultural Conservation. The city shall provide that for
every 1 acre of Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, and Unique Farmland) on the site that is permanently converted to non-
agricultural use as a result of the Elks Lane realignment, one (1) acre of comparable land
in agricultural production shall be preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to
agriculture pursuant to this measure shall be of the size, location, and configuration
appropriate to maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. Said mitigation shall
be satisfied through:
Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s), or other
farmland conservation mechanism(s) to a qualified conservation organization
that has been approved by the city, or establishing a perpetual conservation
easement(s) or deed restriction(s) held by the city or other farmland conservation
mechanism(s), for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural land. The
land covered by said onsite and/or offsite easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall
be located within or contiguous to the city’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt,
subject to review and approval of the city’s Natural Resources Manager; or
Making an in-lieu payment to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space Fund
to be applied toward the future purchase of a perpetual conservation easement(s)
or deed restriction(s) held by the city or other farmland conservation
Page 573 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
25
mechanism(s), for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural land. The
land covered by said onsite and/or offsite easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall
be located within or contiguous to the city’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt,
subject to review and approval of the city’s Natural Resources Manager. The
amount of the payment shall be sufficient to conserve similar land on a per acre
basis, as determined by a licensed appraiser; or
Making an in-lieu payment to a qualified conservation organization that has been
approved by the city and that is organized for conservation purposes, to be
applied toward a future purchase of comparable agricultural land, or a perpetual
conservation easement, deed restriction, or other farmland conservation
mechanism to preserve the required amount of agricultural land in San Luis
Obispo County. The amount of the payment shall be sufficient to conserve
similar land on a per acre basis, as determined by the qualifying entity or a
licensed appraiser; or
Any combination of the above.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Fugitive Dust and Emissions Control Measures.
Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures to reduce
fugitive particulate matter emissions in accordance with District requirements. All
fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans:
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20%
opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Increased watering
frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. When drought
conditions exist and water use is a concern, the contractor or builder should
consider use of a dust suppressant that is effective for the specific site conditions
to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. Please refer to the following
link from the San Joaquin Valley Air District for a list of potential dust
suppressants: Products Available for Controlling Dust;
All stockpiled dirt should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as
soon as possible, and building pads should be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding, soil binders or other dust controls are used;
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) or otherwise comply with California
Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114;
“Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the
exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may
then fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113 and
California Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points
Page 574 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
26
and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and
operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles enter and exit unpaved
roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or
combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the
point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel
plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways
accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be
modified;
All fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans;
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose
responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance
and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to
minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit
of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties
shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress
(for example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name
and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition
(Contact the Compliance Division at 805-781-5912).
Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation
and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following
completion of any soil disturbing activities;
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the APCD;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material i s carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where
feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; and
Take additional measures as needed to ensure dust from the project site is not
impacting areas outside the project boundary.
Construction projects shall implement the following emission control measures to
reduce particulate matter and toxic air contaminant emissions from idling diesel engines.
All emission control measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and
Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
Page 575 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
27
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1. California Red-Legged Frog and Coast Range Newt. The
city shall implement the following to avoid and minimize potential impacts to California
red-legged frog and Coast Range newt. Because these species utilize similar habitats,
the implementation of the following measures shall be implemented for both species.
A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 48 hours
before the start of any work activities within and around the project disturbance
footprint. If the preconstruction survey identifies the presence of individuals of
California red-legged frog or Coast Range newt, or if individuals of these species
are encountered during construction, then work shall stop work and comply with
all relevant requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act before
resuming project activities.
No motorized equipment shall enter riparian areas. Arroyo willow tree removal
shall be performed with hand tools only.
Before trimming or removing trees within riparian areas, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a training session for the tree removal crew. At a minimum, the
training shall include a description of the California red-legged frog and its
habitat and Coast Range newt and its habitat, the specific measures that are being
implemented to conserve the California red-legged frog and Coast Range newt
for the project, and the boundaries within which the project may be
accomplished.
A biological monitor familiar with semi-aquatic species that have the potential
to occur shall monitor the trimming or removal of trees within riparian areas. If
California red-legged frog or Coast Range newt are observed in the work area,
all shall stop work until all relevant requirements of the federal Endangered
Species Act have been implemented.
All areas of the project site disturbed by activities associated with the project
shall be re-vegetated with an assemblage of native riparian, wetland, and upland
vegetation suitable for the area as detailed in the Landscape Plan and approved
by the District Landscape Architect. Locally collected plant materials shall be
used to the extent practicable.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Southwestern Pond Turtle. The city shall ensure the
following actions are implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the
southwestern pond turtle :
Qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 48 hours
before the start of work activities within and around areas that may serve as
potential habitat for the southwestern pond turtle, including guard rail and
erosion control installation. If individuals of the southwestern pond turtle are
found, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from
the project site before work activities begin. The biologist(s) shall relocate any
individual southwestern pond turtle the shortest distance possible to a location
that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be affected by activities
associated with the project.
Page 576 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
28
Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum
area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to
southwestern pond turtle habitat, including locating access routes and
construction staging areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the
maximum extent practicable.
Before the start of construction activities, high-visibility orange construction
fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the area of disturbance and
construction access routes to ensure avoidance of sensitive habitat.
Before starting construction activities, a qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a
training session for all construction personnel conducting vegetation removal
activities, including a description of the southwestern pond turtle, its habitat and
legal status, and the need for conservation of the species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3. South-Central California Coast steelhead trout. The
applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize
potential impacts to steelhead :
Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
training session for all construction personnel. The training shall include a
description of the steelhead and its habitat, the specific measures that are being
implemented to conserve this species for the current project, and the boundaries
within which the project may be accomplished.
Before starting construction activities, high-visibility orange construction
fencing shall be installed outside of the tops of the banks of San Luis Obispo
Creek along the limits of the proposed disturbance to avoid disturbance to
steelhead and its federally designated critical habitat. Fencing shall be located a
minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of the bank and
shall be maintained throughout the construction period. Once construction in this
area is complete, the fencing may be removed.
During the duration of project activities, waste shall be properly contained and
secured, promptly removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly.
Following construction, all trash and construction debris shall be removed from
the work areas.
Project construction activities within 50 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy
or top of the bank of San Luis Obispo Creek shall onl y occur during the dry
season (e.g., between May 1 and November 1) in any given year, when potential
effects to steelhead would be minimal.
To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the following
Best Management Practices shall be implemented for the project. It shall be the
city’s responsibility to maintain control of construction operations and to keep
the entire site in compliance with required Best Management Practices.
o Erosion shall be controlled by covering stockpiled construction materials
(i.e., soil, spoils, aggregate, fly ash, stucco, hydrated lime, etc.) over 2.0
cubic yards that are not actively being used, consistent with the
applicable construction general permit, or through other means of
erosion control approved by the city (e.g., temporary erosion and
sediment control). The site shall be maintained to minimize sediment-
Page 577 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
29
laden runoff to any storm drainage system, including existing drainage
swales and/or sand watercourses.
o If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes shall be
protected with erosion control measures immediately following grading
on the slopes.
o During construction, to prevent sedimentation and debris from entering
San Luis Obispo Creek during construction, a temporary large sediment
barrier shall be installed along the top of the banks of the channel before
the start of construction activities planned for the project.
o Equipment will be checked daily for leaks before the start of construction
activities. A spill kit will be placed near the creek and will remain readily
available during construction if any contaminant is accidentally released.
o The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in-stream
habitat, and overall performance of Best Management Practices and
sediment controls to identify and reconcile any condition that could
adversely affect steelhead or their habitat. The biologist will stop work if
necessary and will recommend site-specific measures to avoid adverse
effects to steelhead and their habitat.
o The city shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and sediment control
measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet protections, and
gravel bags) before, during, and after storm events. Monitoring includes
maintaining a file documenting onsite inspections, problems
encountered, corrective actions, notes, and a map of remedial
implementation measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Nesting Birds. The city shall ensure the following actions
are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds :
For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the California
Fish and Game Code and/or Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than 3 days before vegetation removal or initial
construction activities. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-
foot buffer around the site, where feasible, accounting for private property right-
of-entry constraints. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be
conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified
biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 250 feet for non-raptor bird species
and 500 feet for raptor species unless there is a compelling biologically valid
reason for a smaller buffer (e.g., a physical barrier, such as a hill or large
building, between the nest and the site, blocks line of sight and reduces noise).
Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the
construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s)
shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and
young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm
that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest before
removal of the buffer. Readily visible exclusion zones shall be established in
areas where nests must be avoided.
Page 578 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
30
Removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats shall be scheduled
to occur in the fall and winter (between September 16 and January 31), after
fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season.
If active white-tailed kite nests are located during surveys, all construction work
shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the
qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptor species,
including white-tailed kites. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the
status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the
nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and
equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A
qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and the
young have fledged the nest before the buffer is removed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Invasive Species. The city shall ensure the following actions
are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts associated with invasive species
in the project area :
Before construction, a qualified botanist/biologist shall provide invasive plant
prevention training and an appropriate identification/instruction guide to staff
and contractors. A list of target species shall be included, along with measures
for early detection and eradication.
Before construction, specific areas shall be designated for cleaning tools,
vehicles, equipment, clothing, footwear, and other gear.
Before entering and exiting the work site, all tools, equipment, vehicles, clothing
and footwear, and other gear shall be cleaned to remove soil, seeds, and other
plant parts.
The reproductive parts of any invasive plants, such as seeds, mature flowers, and
roots/shoots of species that can reproduce vegetatively, shall be contained in
sealed containers and removed from the project site and disposed of at a licensed
landfill/disposal site. Before transporting invasive plant materials, the receiving
areas of the landfill/disposal site shall be confirmed by the city as designated for
invasive plant waste disposal. The city shall ensure that 100 percent containment
of invasive plant materials is enforced during the transport of invasive plants to
the disposal site.
All disturbed areas that are not converted to hardscape or formally landscaped
shall be hydroseeded with a mix of locally native species upon completion of
work in those areas. In areas where construction is ongoing, hydroseeding shall
occur where no construction activities have occurred before winter rains. If
exotic species invade these areas before hydroseeding, weed removal shall occur
in consultation with a qualified botanist/biologist. Alternatively, in areas not
suitable for hydroseeding, areas that are not hardscaped and are planned for
formal landscaping shall be mulched to reduce the potential for invasive species
to colonize. Mulch shall be at least four inches thick and shall be weed free.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Riparian Habitat. The city shall ensure the following actions
are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to riparian habitat and
jurisdictional areas :
Page 579 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
31
All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at
least 100 feet from riparian habitat or bodies of water and in a location where a
potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope
that drains away from the water source). Before the start of work activities, a
plan must be in place for a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills.
All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the
appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
Raw cement, concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating
material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be
hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities shall be
prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering jurisdictional areas.
To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate
erosion control Best Management Practices (e.g., temporary erosion and
sediment control) shall be implemented to minimize adverse effects on San Luis
Obispo Creek. Plastic monofilament erosion control matting shall not be
implemented onsite.
Before the start of construction activities, high-visibility orange construction
fencing shall be installed along the limits of the proposed disturbance outside of
the top of the western bank of San Luis Obispo Creek and its associated riparian
habitat to minimize the potential for disturbance of this area.
Project activities within 60 50 feet of San Luis Obispo Creek shall occur during
the dry season (e.g., between May 1 and November 1) in any given year.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared, which will provide a minimum 2-to-
1 restoration ratio (replaced to removed) for permanent impacts to riparian habitat unless
otherwise directed by pertinent regulatory agencies. Mitigation activities associated
with the replacement of riparian habitat shall occur in the designated sensitive habitat
mitigation portion of the Biological Study Area and shall avoid additional impacts to
sensitive plant or wildlife species. All areas of temporary disturbance shall be stabilized
and revegetated with an assemblage of native vegetation suitable for the area. Examples
of activities associated with the implementation of the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan include the application of native willow/ riparian seed mix and the
removal of non-native weedy species within the habitat mitigation area. The final
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be implemented immediately after project
completion.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1 Unidentified Cultural Materials. If archaeological resources
are exposed during construction, all work shall be halted within 50 feet of the exposed
resource until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the
significance of the find(see 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.11.1 and California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]).
Examples of cultural materials that could be exposed during construction include ground
stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools such as
Page 580 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
32
projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not consistent with the immediate geology
such as obsidian or fused shale; historic trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or
structural remains. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or
will be mitigated consistent with State Historic Preservation Officer Guidelines.
Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures GEO-1 Paleontological Resources. If paleontological resources are
exposed during construction, all work shall be halted within 100 feet of the exposed
resource until a qualified paleontologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the
significance of the find. Caltrans shall be informed of the discovery immediately. If the
paleontological resource is determined to be significant, the paleontologist shall have
the authority to salvage and remove the fossil from its locality, as appropriate, before
ground-disturbing or other construction activities resume in the area. Any fossils
recovered during the development, along with their contextual stratigraphic data, shall
be offered to the City of San Luis Obispo or other appropriate institution with an
educational and research interest in the materials. The paleontologist shall prepare a
report of the results of any findings as part of a testing or mitigation plan following an
accepted professional practice.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Aerially-Deposited Lead. A workplan shall be developed for aerially
deposited lead sampling for the area of the selected project alternative. Surficial soil
samples shall be collected and analyzed for total lead in areas that are to be disturbed
for the project. The workplan shall require the investigation of surface soils to be
conducted before construction. The workplan shall include all required measures for
proper management and disposal of contaminated soils in accordance with the U.S.
Toxic Substances Control Act, California Health and Safety Code, and California
Occupational Safety and Health Act if the total lead is detected above acceptable levels
in the project site soils. The workplan shall require that investigation and/or remediation
of soil contamination be performed in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances
Control procedures and requirements and require Department of Toxic Substances
Control approval before recommencing construction or demolition work.
HAZ-2 Pesticides and Herbicides. Surface soils shall be tested by a professional
geologist or environmental professional to determine the presence or absence of
pesticides, herbicides, and arsenic along proposed rights-of-way. A workplan describing
sampling locations and sampling and analytical methods shall be prepared by the project
developer before the start of work. The workplan shall include laboratory data for the
impacted soils to profile excavated soil before transport, treatment, and recycling at a
licensed treatment facility. The workplan shall also detail the requirements for removal,
transportation, and disposal of impacted soil in accordance with applicable federal, state,
and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The workplan shall require that
investigation and/or remediation of soil contamination be performed in accordance with
Department of Toxic Substances Control procedures and requirements and require
Department of Toxic Substances Control approval before recommencing construction
or demolition work.
Page 581 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
33
HAZ-3 Petroleum Pipelines. The petroleum pipeline at the intersection of Elks Lane
and Prado Road shall be properly marked by the developer before the start of any project
construction activities. A contingency plan shall be developed by the developer and
include all applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements for soil handling
and/or remediation if contaminated soil from the petroleum pipeline is encountered
during construction activities. All other known pipelines in the project area shall be
identified and marked by the developer before the start of any construction activities.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would
reduce impacts to hydrological resources to a less than significant level.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measure CR-1 would
reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Implementation of Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures AG-1, AQ-1,
BIO-1 through BIO-7, CR-1, GEO-1, and HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would reduce impacts
to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
6F. Air Quality Conformity
The Project has been designed to improve roadway operations and would not interfere
with timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) identified in
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and regional conformity analysis. Typical T CMs,
such as improved public transit, traffic flow improvements, and pedestrian/bicycle
facilities, would be implemented by the Project. Because the Project would improve
long-term roadway operations in the vicinity of the project, the improvements proposed
by the Project would reduce the need for additional TCMs.
Conformity at the Project-level requires “hot spot” analysis if an area is classified as
federal “nonattainment” or “maintenance” for CO and/or PM2.5 or PM10. On March
10, 2006, the USEPA published a final rule that establishes the transportation
conformity criteria and procedures for determining which transportation projects must
be analyzed for local air quality impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 non -attainment and
maintenance areas. The Project is located in the City of San Luis Obispo in the Basin,
which is classified as a non-attainment-transitional area for the State standard for PM10.
The San Luis Obispo County portion of the Basin is in attainment for the State standards
for CO and is unclassified for the State standard for PM2.5. According to the USEPA
Transportation Conformity Guidance, PM2.5 hot-spot analysis is required for Projects
of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) in non-attainment areas for federal PM10 and PM2.5
standards (40CFR 93.123 [b][1]). Projects that are exempt or not POAQC do not require
hotspot analyses. As a result, the Project does not require a hot spot analysis. In addition,
Page 582 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
34
the Project is exempt from regional conformity requirements pursuant to 40 CFR
93.127.
The project proposes to extend Prado Road over US 101 to connect with Dalidio Drive
and reconstruct the existing US 101 NB on- and off-ramp connections to Prado Road.
The preferred alternative includes a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road
overcrossing. The preferred alternative considers a traffic signal control design option
for the interchange intended to reduce congestion. Therefore, the Project constitutes an
interchange configuration project that is designed to improve traffic flow and vehicle
speeds and would not involve increases in idling. As a result, the Project is not of Air
Quality Concern under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(i) and (ii) and does not require a hot spot
analysis. In addition, the Project is exempt from regional conformity requirements
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.127.
The Project is included in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ (SLOCOG)
2019 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
project list (SLOCOG 2019). The project is listed as a “constrained” project; therefore,
it is a fundable improvement project that is within the 2019 RTP 25-year planning
horizon.
6G. Title VI Considerations
The purpose of the project is to efficiently convey traffic safely through the Prado Road
at US 101 interchange as well as enhance mobility for all travel modes. Bicycle and
pedestrian facilities would be provided by a new sidewalk/Class IV bikeway provided
along both the north and south sides of Prado Road through the project area, which
would make the interchange more accessible and safer for users. The changes to access
in the immediate area of the project would not adversely affect the community, as the
improvements would enhance circulation and access in the area.
During construction, temporary roadway closures might disrupt routines of community
members for a short period of time. Residents and businesses whose access may be
impacted would be notified in advance of construction activity and a Transportation
Management Plan (TMP) would be in place to manage construction, detours, etc.
The proposed project has no potential to cause disproportionately high and adverse
effects on any minority or low-income populations. No division of existing
neighborhoods or disruption of routines would result from implementation of the
project. Transportation benefits of the proposed project would accrue to all area
residents.
6H. Noise Abatement Decision Report
No significant changes in noise levels are expected within the proposed project
area and therefore, there is no noise abatement required. The Noise Study Report
(NSR) identified that design year traffic conditions noise impacts from the project
would not result in a significant noise impact. Traffic noise impacts from the project
Page 583 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
35
would not approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC) for Activity
Category B (residential) or for Activities C or E.
The NSR also identified that no adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated
because temporary construction would be conducted in accordance with Caltrans
Standard Specifications Section 14.8-02, limiting nighttime construction activities.
Additionally, construction noise would be short-term in duration and intermittent.
As noise abatement was found not to be required, noise barriers are not proposed as a
project feature. However, the preliminary noise abatement decision presented in this
report is based on preliminary project alignments and profiles, which may be subject to
change. As such, the physical characteristics of noise abatement described herein also
may be subject to change. If pertinent parameters change substantially during the final
project design, the preliminary noise abatement decision may be changed or eliminated
from the final project design. A final decision to construct noise abatement will be made
upon completion of the project design. The preliminary noise abatement decision
presented here will be included in the draft environmental document, which will be
circulated for public review.
6I. Reversible Lanes
Reversible lanes have not been considered.
7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE
Public Hearing Process
A public hearing was held on March 6, 2023 at the City’s Corporation Yard.
Approximately 30 people attended and were provided with a presentation of the
project features and the Environmental Approval process, and allowed to ask questions
of City, Caltrans and consultant staff who were present. Comment cards were provided
so those interested could submit comments on the circulating Draft Environmental
Document.
Route Matters
There is an existing Freeway Agreement between the State of California (Caltrans) and
the City of San Luis Obispo dated July 3, 1972. The Freeway Agreement includes the
segment of US 101 between 0.5-mile south of Los Osos Valley Road overcrossing and
0.4-mile south of Madonna Road overcrossing and encompasses the existing US 101
northbound off-ramp and on-ramp connections with Prado Road. According to Caltrans
Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 24 – Freeway Agreements, Article 8
– Resolutions of Change, and based on Caltrans opinion of this project’s impacts, the
proposed project would be considered a “Major Change” which will require a
superseding Freeway Agreement prior to construction and California Transportation
Commission (CTC) approval.
Page 584 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
36
Permits
The City of San Luis Obispo will be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit
from Caltrans for all work within State Right of Way. The following additional permits
will also be required:
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit – California
Regional Water Quality Control Board
California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Encroachment Permit – City of San Luis Obispo
Cooperative Agreements
A Cooperative Agreement (05-0332) between Caltrans and the City was approved on
April 12, 2018. The Cooperative Agreement is for the PA&ED phase, and states that the
City will prepare PA&ED and will fund 100% of all costs. Caltrans will perform
Independent Quality Assurance (IQA), environmental document quality control and
owner/operator approvals for the portions of the work within the existing and proposed
State Highway System right-of-way. The State will fund 100% of all costs of IQA.
A separate Cooperative Agreement will be executed between Caltrans and the City for
the following subsequent distinct Project Components as defined in the Caltrans
Workplan Standards Guide:
Phase 1 – Plans, Specifications and Estimate
Phase 2 – Right of Way Support
Phase 3 – Construction Support
Other Agreements
A Maintenance Agreement will be executed between Caltrans and the City which, at a
minimum, will identify City maintenance responsibilities for the Prado Road
overcrossing and any other City-maintained features in the Caltrans R/W. The
agreement will be formally initiated during PS&E and must be executed prior to the
beginning of construction.
Report on Feasibility of Providing Access to Navigable Rivers
There are no navigable rivers located within the project limits.
Public Boat Ramps
There are no boat ramps located within the project limits.
Transportation Management Plan
For construction of the proposed Prado Road overcrossing (OC), full freeway closures
will be required for falsework erection and removal. This may call for detours and/or
median crossovers which will be addressed in the PS&E phase. It will also need to be
determined whether the current ramp configuration at Prado Road will remain open
during construction, and if they can be used for the northbound detour. Southbound
Page 585 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
37
closure will be more complicated, possibly requiring use of a median crossover, or
detour via Madonna Road and LOVR. Mainline closures of US 101 will be allowed at
night only.
A preliminary Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Data Sheet/Checklist has been
prepared (provided in Attachment I) which identifies strategies that should be included
in the project. Major strategies are listed below:
• Public Awareness Campaign
• Portable Changeable Message Signs
• Construction Area Signs
• Planned Lane Closure Web Site
• Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP)
• Lane/Ramp Closures Charts
• Contingency Plan
• Special Days (to be determined)
• Liquidated Damages Penalty
• Maintain Traffic
Stage Construction
Stage construction exhibits will be developed for the preferred alternative, which will
identify the number of project stages and potential detours that will be required .
Individual stage descriptions will be developed during the PS&E phase.
Accommodation of Oversize Loads
US 101 accommodates oversized loads. No permanent restriction to the movement
of oversized loads would result from this project. The new Prado Road overcrossing
structure over US 101 will be constructed to meet current State standards for vertical
clearance.
Graffiti Control
Standard anti-graffiti measures would be used for the surfaces prone to graffiti installed
for the project. The only surfaces anticipated to require anti-graffiti measures (e.g. anti-
graffiti sign and wall coatings) are the structures, roadside/overhead signs and highway
lighting poles.
Asset Management
There are no outstanding issues carried over from the project initiation phase of the
project.
Complete Streets
The proposed improvements would be developed in compliance with Deputy Directive
64-R1 to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit
riders, and motorists appropriate to the function and context of the facility. The
proposed improvements would be developed in compliance with Policy 9.1.4
Page 586 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
38
Streetscapes and major roadways, of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element, to include street furniture, decorative lighting
and paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to
enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort, and safety.
The City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan (ATP), approved in 2021
identifies a need for a Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossing of US 101 between
Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road which could be a Protected Bicycle Path,
Bike Lanes, or Class IV Cycle Tracks as part of a Grade Crossing project. The proposed
project would benefit pedestrian and bicyclists by providing a new sidewalk/Class IV
bikeway along both the north and south sides of Prado Road through the project area.
The new sidewalk/Class IV bikeway will also provide connections to existing/planned
Class I shared use paths located to either side of the project area.
Climate Change Considerations
A Climate Change Technical Memorandum (July 2022) was prepared for the project
which evaluated climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The report is
included as an attachment to the Environmental Document.
Broadband and Advance Technologies
As part of the utility coordination processes, utility purveyors would be given the
opportunity to upgrade their facilities within the project limits to accommodate existing
or future proposed installation of broadband and advance technology. No improvements
have been identified at this time.
8. FUNDING, PROGRAMMING AND ESTIMATE
Funding
It has been determined that this project is eligible for Federal-aid funding. The City
plans to fund the project with a combination of impact fees, debt financing and the
SLOCOG Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The PA&ED,
PS&E, and Right of Way support phases are programmed with 100% local funds. The
Construction phase has nearly $64 million currently programmed from a combination
of RIP and local funding sources. The City will continue to pursue additional funds
through other state and federal grants.
Programming
Fund Source Fiscal Year Estimate
Local/RIP Prior 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Future Total
Component In thousands of dollars ($1,000)
PA&ED 1,500 1,500
PS&E Support 2,500 2,500
Right-of-Way
Support
Page 587 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
39
Construction
Support
Right-of-Way 3,350 3,350
Construction 57,750 6,000 63,750
Total 1,500 5,850 57,750 6,000 71,100
The support cost ratio is 5.96%.
Estimate
Preliminary project cost estimates for the preferred alternative is provided in Attachment
E. Significant aspects of the construction estimate include items related to construction
of the Prado Road and US 101 NB ramps structures, paving, and grading.
9. DELIVERY SCHEDULE
Project Milestones Milestone Date
Milestone
Designation
(Target)
PROGRAM PROJECT M015 04/12/2018 04/12/2018
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 05/11/2018 01/11/2022
CIRCULATE DPR & DED EXTERNALLY M120 01/04/2023 04/07/2023
PA & ED M200 10/10/2023 01/12/2024
PROJECT PS&E M380 06/20/2025 06/20/2025
RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION M410 06/20/2025 06/20/2025
READY TO LIST M460 08/15/2025 08/15/2025
AWARD M495 09/29/2025 09/29/2025
APPROVE CONTRACT M500 11/21/2025 11/21/2025
CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE M600 11/21/2027 11/21/2027
END PROJECT EXPENDITURES M800 06/30/2028 06/30/2028
FINAL PROJECT CLOSEOUT M900 06/30/2028 06/30/2028
10. RISKS
A Risk Register was completed and is included in Attachment H. Various risks affecting
scope, schedule and cost have been identified.
There are several non-standard design risks that could affect the cost and schedule,
including:
Approval of non-standard interchange spacing between Prado Road and
Madonna Road, and Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road.
Approval of the non-standard partial interchange at Prado Road,
Approval of non-standard minimum weave length on northbound US 101
between Prado Road and Madonna Road.
Right of way impacts potentially affect operations of the City's Corporation
Yard thereby adding delays and cost to the project.
Page 588 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
40
Utility relocation may take longer than expected causing delays and possible
cost increases. Also, additional utilities not currently identified may need to be
relocated causing delays and possible cost increases.
Significant hazardous waste/material contamination is found causing delays and
possible cost increases.
11. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
This project is considered to be an Assigned Project in accordance with the current
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Joint Stewardship and Oversight Agreement.
The project requires the following coordination:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement – City
to acquire.
City of San Luis Obispo
Temporary Discharge Permit
Amendment to Existing Caltrans Recycled Water Service Application
12. PROJECT REVIEWS
Scoping team field review Date
Scoping team field review attendance roster attached.
District Program Advisor Enter Name Date
Headquarters SHOPP Program Advisor Enter Name Date
District Maintenance Enter Name Date
Headquarters Project Delivery Coordinator Enter Name Date
Project Manager Enter Name Date
FHWA Enter Name Date
District Safety Review Date
Constructability Review Date
Other Date
13. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Paul Valadao (916) 764-9123
Caltrans Project Manager, District 5
Page 589 of 753
05 – SLO – 101 - 26.5/27.3
41
Kyle Birch (805) 556-5803
Caltrans Design Manager, District 5 Design II, Branch F
Bing Yu (805) 549-3664
Caltrans Traffic Operations, District 5
Dianna Beck (805) 459-9406
Caltrans Environmental, District 5
Wyatt Banker-Hix (805) 783-7859
City of San Luis Obispo Project Manager
Jay Walter (805) 858-3141
GHD Project Manager (Consultant)
Jorge Vanegas-Moran (805) 858-3130
GHD Lead Designer (Consultant)
Chris Bersbach (805) 547-0900
Rincon Supervising Environmental Planner (Consultant)
14. ATTACHMENTS
Attachments are listed below:
A. Environmental Document
B. Location Map
C. Typical Sections and Layouts
D. Structures Advanced Planning Study (APS)
E. Preliminary Cost Estimates
F. Right of Way Data Sheets and Utility Plans
G. Storm Water Data Report
H. Risk Register
Page 590 of 753
Final Value Analysis
Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo
Prado Interchange Project
EA 5-1H640; PN 0516000105
5-SLO-101 (26.5/27.3)
Task Order No. 3124
May 2023
Prepared by
Value Management Strategies, Inc.
Page 591 of 753
CORPORATE OFFICE: 100 E San Marcos Blvd, Suite 340 | San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: 760 741 5617 | www.vms-inc.com
REMOTE OFFICE LOCATIONS: AZ | CA | CO | IL | KY | LA | NC | ND | NE | NH | NJ | NY | OR | PA | TX | WA
Date:
To:
Subject:
May 3, 2023
Wyatt Banker-Hix
City of San Luis Obispo Project Manager
Final VA Study Report
Prado Interchange (T.O. 3124)
Dear Mr. Banker-Hix,
Value Management Strategies, Inc. is pleased to submit this Final VA Study Report for the referenced
project. This report summarizes the results and events of the hybrid study conducted March 20-24, 2023,
as well as the implementation meeting held April 24th.
It was a pleasure working with the City of San Luis Obispo, District 5 and GHD on this project, and I look
forward to the next opportunity. If you have any questions or comments concerning this final report,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 679-8029 or email Eric.trimble@vms-inc.com.
Sincerely,
Value Management Strategies, Inc.
Eric Trimble, CVS, PMP, MBA
VA Study Team Leader
Copy: (PDF) Addressee
(PDF) Paul Valadao, Caltrans, District 5 Project Manager
(PDF) Jorge Vanegas-Moran, GHD, Design Manager
(PDF) Troy Tusup, HQ VA Program Manager
(PDF) Erika Barrick, HQ VA Program Administrator
Page 592 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL
VA STUDY SUMMARY REPORT ................. 1
Project Summary
VA Study Timing
Project Purpose and Need
VA Study Objectives
Key Project Issues
Evaluation of Baseline Concept
•Performance Attributes
Accepted VA Alternatives
VA Study Results
Rejected VA Alternative
VA Team
VA ALTERNATIVES .................................. 12
VA Alternative Summary Tables
•VA Alternatives
Other Considerations
Summary of Performance Improvements
•Proposed
•Accepted
VA Alternative Documentation
PROJECT INFORMATION ......................... 59
Background
Project Description
Project Design Exceptions
Information Provided to the VA Team
Project Drawings
Project Cost Estimate
PROJECT ANALYSIS ................................. 71
Summary of Analysis
Key Project Factors
•Project Issues
•Site Visit Observations
Cost Model
Function Analysis
•Random Function Determination
•FAST Diagram
PROJECT ANALYSIS (continued)
Value Metrics
•Define Performance Requirements
•Define Performance Attributes and Scales
•Prioritize Performance Attributes
•Measure Performance of Baseline Concept
•Measure Performance of VA Alternatives
•Define VA Strategies
•Compare Performance – Baseline Concept
and VA Strategies
•Rating Rationale for VA Strategies
•Compare Value
•Value Matrix – Baseline Concept and
VA Strategies
IDEA EVALUATION ............................... 112
Performance Attributes
Evaluation Process
Idea Summary
Idea Summary List
Detailed Idea Evaluation Summary
VA PROCESS ......................................... 126
Pre-Study
VA Study
VA Report
Caltrans VA Study Activity Chart
VA Study Agenda
VA Study Meeting Attendees
Appendix: Implementation Documentation and
Comments ........................................... 135
Page 593 of 753
VA STUDY SUMMARY REPORT
FINAL RESULTS
Page 594 of 753
VA Study Summary Report – Final Results
City of San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
PN 05-16000105
EA 5-1H640
05-SLO-101
PM 26.5/27.3
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
A hybrid Value Analysis (VA) study, sponsored by the City of San Luis Obispo and the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 5 and facilitated by Value Management Strategies,
Inc. (VMS), was conducted for the Prado Interchange Project located in San Luis Obispo, California.
The workshop was facilitated March 20-24, 2023, in-person and online using the WebEx virtual
meeting platform. This VA Study Summary Report – Final Results provides an overview of the project,
key findings, the alternatives developed by the VA team, and the decisions of the project
stakeholders from the implementation meeting held April 24, 2023.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project includes improvements to extend Prado Road over U.S Route 101 (US-101) to
connect with Dalidio Drive, reconstruct the existing US-101 northbound (NB) on- and off-ramp
connections with Prado Road, and construct an auxiliary lane on northbound US-101 between the
Prado Road and Madonna Road interchanges in order to provide congestion relief, operational
efficiency, and multi-modal connectivity. The interchange is located in the City of San Luis Obispo in
the county of San Luis Obispo at PM 26.8, and improvements on northbound US-101 extend from PM
26.5 to PM 27.3.
In addition to the No-Build Alternative, three build alternatives have been identified by the PDT. Each
of the build alternatives includes a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing
(OC) constructed over US-101, a new US-101 northbound on-ramp from Prado Road, and a new
northbound off-ramp to Prado Road. For the VA study, two viable build alternatives were studied:
•Design Alternative A1R – An elevated roundabout on the Prado Road overcrossing structure
serving the traffic movements to and from US-101 northbound on- and off-ramps.
•Design Alternative A3 – An elevated tight diamond intersection on the Prado Road
overcrossing structure serving the traffic movements to and from US-101 northbound on- and
off-ramps.
The existing Prado Road interchange with US-101 consists only of northbound off- and on-ramps. The
diamond off-ramp and hook on-ramp configuration that currently exists provides limited access to
and from US-101 from the local street system at this location. The Prado Road extension over US-101
that this project proposes is needed to provide better community connectivity between the existing
1
Page 595 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
and planned neighborhoods and to support planned roadway improvements east and west of the US-
101 freeway. Improvements to US-101 in the study area and the extension of Prado Road over US-
101 are critical to the operations for all modes of travel, not only for regional traffic, but also for local
traffic.
An escalated total capital outlay cost estimate was provided for each design alternative dated
September 29, 2022. The project team provided a further rough order of magnitude (ROM) total
project cost estimate amount for each project at the time of the study which totaled $80M for the
A1R design alternative and $75M for the A3 design alternative.
VA STUDY TIMING
The VA study was conducted during the PA&ED phase of the project which is to be completed in
October 2023. The project is scheduled for Ready to List (RTL) in November 2025 and Construction
Completion is scheduled for November 2027.
PROJECT 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 US-101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies
on state and city facilities. These connectivity needs extend to all transportation modes. Goals and
objectives of the project include:
•Improving overall operations of US-101 and adjacent interchanges.
•Improving mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians.
•Improving transit performance and enhancing transit opportunities.
•Improving consistency with local, regional, and state planning.
VA STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the VA study were to:
1.Analyze the current project design, estimate, and schedule.
2.Provide possible cost and/or schedule saving recommendations.
3.Provide performance improvement recommendations.
KEY PROJECT ISSUES
The items listed below are the key drivers, constraints, or issues being addressed by the project and
considered during this VA study to identify possible improvements.
Project Budget – The project is currently estimated in the $75-80M range which is far in excess of
2
Page 596 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
what was originally anticipated when the project was first planned. Funding for the project will come
from a variety of sources including federal; state; city; and private, but the need to keep design and
construction costs to a minimum through the project delivery process while balancing project quality
in all facets is essential.
Hydraulics – The project is being constructed in a known floodplain where every structural aspect will
have significant repercussions on how the hydraulics of the surrounding terrain function— including
existing stream and surrounding natural infiltration areas. The project must not exceed a 0.1’ impact
to the flood level and must not significantly impede the free flow of future flood waters during large
storm and flooding events.
Project Construction Staging – While a large portion of the project will be constructed on vacant
farmland, significant aspects of the project’s structures will need to be integrated with the continued
operation of US-101 and its northbound on- and off-ramps as well as local streets such as Elks Lane
and Prado Road. In addition, there are several local property access points that will be affected by the
construction effort— most notably the transit property, the drive-in theater, and the City’s
corporation yard. The construction staging plan will need to be formulated to reduce the impacts to
these elements as much as possible while also limiting overall project duration.
EVALUATION OF BASELINE CONCEPT
During the VA study, a number of analytical tools and techniques
were applied to develop a better understanding of the baseline
concept. A major component of this analysis was Value Metrics
which seeks to assess the elements of cost, performance, time, and
risk as they related to project value. These elements require a
deeper level of analysis; the results of which are detailed in the
Project Analysis section of this report. The key performance
attributes identified for the project are listed in the table,
“Performance Attributes.” A summary of the major observations and
conclusions identified during the evaluation of the baseline concept, which led the VA team to
develop the alternatives and recommendations presented in this report follows.
The stakeholders rated the five performance attributes identified as each having a major contribution
to the success of the project. Through a paired comparison process, study participants determined
that Maintainability was weighted the highest at 29% as the project is primarily about establishing a
significant useful life for the structures and reliability in the face of challenging flood plain concerns.
Multi-Modal Connectivity and Long-Term Environmental Impacts were rated on the next tier of
importance at 22% and 20%, respectively. Traffic Operations and Construction Impacts (Short-Term
Environmental Impacts) were weighted the lowest at 19% and 13% but were still viewed as being
important to the overall success of the project.
Performance Attributes
Maintainability
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Long-Term Environmental
Impacts
Construction Impacts
3
Page 597 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
The initial evaluation of the current baseline concepts for the two design alternatives for the project
by the stakeholders determined that they both represent effective and responsible approaches to
improve Traffic Operations while fulfilling the purpose and need of the project in a very conventional
and proven way. Although there are still several details that need to be further developed, the five
performance attributes scored higher than typical projects of this nature and prove that a great deal
of work and effort have been applied to the current design.
The two baseline concepts each provide acceptable solutions to providing a highly functioning east-
west connection for the community while also ensuring good access to and from NB US-101. The two
designs have distinctly different scores regarding how they address Traffic Operations and Multi-
Modal Connectivity— with the higher scores favoring the roundabout option (Design Alternative A1R)
based on anticipated traffic flows of all forms of travel. The scores for Long-term Environmental
Impacts and Maintainability; however, it favors the tight diamond option (Design Alternative A3) as it
requires a smaller environmental footprint for the Prado Road OC structure and less overall structure
to maintain in the future. A slight edge was also given to the intersection option for Construction
Impacts— again, based on the amount of structure to construct and the amount of traffic handling
anticipated.
Overall, the stakeholders concluded that the two baseline design alternatives (Design Alternative A1R
and Design Alternative A3) for the project were good and addressed many of the key concerns
admirably; however, it was determined that there was still room for potential project value
improvement, especially with regard to project staging and making the most of the limited funding
available.
It should be noted that a value metrics comparison of all three the design alternatives conducted by
the project stakeholders and VA team members during the VA study led to a shared opinion that
Design Alternative A3 represented the “best value” to meet the project purpose and need when each
was analyzed using the combined project aspects of estimated project cost, anticipated project
delivery duration, and an assessment of what each design alternative can be expected to achieve in
relation to each of the performance attributes identified above.
4
Page 598 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
Comparison of Value — Design Alternatives
ACCEPTED VA ALTERNATIVES
The project decision stakeholders accepted five of the six VA alternatives developed by the VA team
for improvement of the project’s two competing design alternatives (Design Alternative A1R and
Design Alternative 3A). The following are the alternatives identified along with their associated
potential initial cost savings, potential change in schedule, performance change, a brief discussion of
each proposed concept, and the rationale for acceptance for implementation.
Alternative No. and Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance
1.0 Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35
mph
$1,120,000
$1,023,000
1.5-month
reduction
+ 8.3 %
+ 8.0 %
The baseline concept for the structure utilizes a 45-mph design speed at the Elks Lane intersection
and Froom Ranch Intersection. The alternative concept proposes to reduce the design speed to 35
mph. This will have a direct effect of eliminating the center bent of the structure but will also
simplify the design of the structure profile, intersections (or roundabout), and pedestrian/bicycle
facilities.
It was determined that the reduction in speed is acceptable from an operational standpoint and
would follow the precedent of other nearby structures.
0%9%
-37%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Design
Alternative
A1R
Design
Alternative
A3
Design
Alternative
A4R Change in ValueRelative ScoresPerformance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
5
Page 599 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
Alternative No. and Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance
2.0 Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical $600,000
$531,000 No change + 0.9 %
+0.9 %
The baseline concept meets or exceeds all lane width and shoulder width requirements per the
Caltrans and City engineering standards for the Prado road OC structure as well as the NB on- and
off-ramp structures. The alternative concept proposes to reduce the width of the inside travel lane
from 12’ to 11’ and on the outside shoulder widths from 5’ to 4’ on the Prado road OC structure
and, thereby, reduce the overall width of the Prado road OC structure by 4’.
It was determined that the reduction in lane and shoulder widths is acceptable from an operational
standpoint and would follow the precedent of other nearby structures.
3.0 Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile
caps
$5,014,000
$4,557,000
3-month
reduction
+1.1 %
+ 1.0 %
The baseline concept uses a short-span bridge configuration for the three structures included in the
project (the Prado road OC structure, the NB off-ramp, and the NB on-ramp). The current design
uses spans ranging between 70’ to 118’ in length. Each span is a multi-column bent. Each column
rests on a sub-surface pile cap which requires excavation to construct. Each pile cap rests on
several driven piles. The ground water level of 4’ below surface will require dewatering during the
pile cap construction. The alternative concept proposes to use CIDH piles in lieu of the driven pile
and pile cap configuration. This concept will require temporary casing, slurry displacement with
Baker tanks, and the use of steel cages for reinforcement. This alternative will create additional
spoils from the drilled holes that will need to be hauled off.
It was decided to investigate this alternative further with the intent to implement the alternative if
the upcoming geotechnical investigation determines that the use of CIDH piles are a viable option
for the project. The baseline approach of using driven piles would be the fallback solution if CIDH
proves to be infeasible or too expensive as cautioned by the GDH review— see Appendix B.
6
Page 600 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
4.0 Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast
I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
$16,748,000
$15,093,000
6-month
reduction
+12.2 %
+ 11.6 %
The baseline concept uses a short-span bridge configuration for the three structures included in the
project (the Prado road OC structure, the NB off-ramp, and the NB on-ramp). The current design
uses spans ranging between 70’ to 118’ in length. Each span is a multi-column bent. Each column
rests on a sub-surface pile cap which requires excavation to construct. Each pile cap rests on
several driven piles. The alternative concept proposes to use precast I-girders in lieu of cast-in-
place (CIP) girders to allow for longer structural spans and, therefore, require fewer bents and
columns to support the structures.
As with Alternative 3.0 above, it was decided to pursue this alternative with the intent to implement
if further investigation supports the concept. The baseline approach of using CIP girders would be
an acceptable solution if the use of precast/pre-stressed girders is determined to be unworkable or
too expensive as discussed by the GDH review— see Appendix B.
6.0 Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in
project
$336,000
$344,000 No change + 0.5 %
+ 0.5 %
The baseline concept for the project includes removal of pavement from the ramps and a section
of the existing Prado Road and Elks Lane. It is assumed that this paving material will simply be
hauled away as waste. The alternative concept proposes to recycle a portion of the asphalt
material from the roadway excavation and use it for subbase, base, and HMA material in the
project. It is assumed that the recycled material can be used in Class 2 Aggregate Base (up to 25%).
It was determined that this alternative concept should be implemented into the project as it
represents a means to improve efficiencies, reduce cost for the project, and decrease material
waste in a broader environmental context.
Note: The cost, schedule, and performance impacts are shown with data for Design Alternative A1R shown on
top and data for Design Alternative A3 on the bottom for each VA alternative above.
VA STUDY RESULTS
The project stakeholders accepted five of six developed VA study alternatives for inclusion into the
project design. The accepted alternatives will significantly modify the two leading design alternatives
of the Prado road overcrossing structure by reducing the design speed to 35 mph while also reducing
its overall width (VA Alternatives 1.0 & 2.0); it also greatly simplifies the construction of all three
structures by utilizing CIDH piles and longer precast, pre-stressed spans (VA Alternatives 3.0 and 4.0).
Lastly, it will pursue the use of recycled materials in the roadway (VA Alternatives 6.0).
7
Page 601 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
This combination of alternatives provides performance gains in all of the included performance
attributes but have the greatest net impacts on Multi-Modal Connectivity by making the overcrossing
structure safer for pedestrians and bicycles, Maintainability through reducing the overall size and
structural elements to maintain in the future, and Construction Impacts by lowering the complexity of
the structures for the contractor and reducing both the construction duration and traffic handling
required on US-101. It should be noted that Long-term Environmental Impacts are also significantly
reduced by limiting the number of columns needed, thereby minimizing flood management concerns.
The five VA alternatives accepted for each of the two design alternatives have the net effect of
improving upon the baseline design alternatives A1R and A3 concept performances by 17% and 15%,
respectively. Together, the anticipated cost impact is roughly $20M and $18M savings and a schedule
reduction of 7.5 months. When these value elements are combined, they represent an overall value
improvement over the baseline concept of 47% for Design Alternative A1R and 44% for Design
Alternative A3.
A summary of the accepted VA alternatives are provided in the following table and chart. The chart
illustrates the relative trade-offs between performance (shown by the blue columns) versus cost and
schedule (shown by the green columns). The red value line indicates the net % change in total value
relative to the baseline concept. Please refer to the Project Analysis section of the report for
additional details on this analysis.
Summary of Accepted VA Alternatives
Strategy Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance
Value
Change
Accepted VA Alternatives
Design Alternative A1R
Alts 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0
$20,047,000 7.5-month
reduction +17 %+47 %
Accepted VA Alternatives
Design Alternative A3
Alts 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0
$18,143,000 7.5-month
reduction +15 %+44 %
Note: Net cost, schedule, and performance scores have been adjusted to eliminate double counting when present for
combined VA alternatives.
8
Page 602 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
Comparison of Value —
Design Alternative A1R Baseline & Accepted VA Alternatives
Comparison of Value —
Design Alternative A3 Baseline & Accepted VA Alternatives
0%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Design Alternative A1R
Baseline
Design Alternative A1R
w/ Accepted VA Alternatives Change in ValueRelative ScoresPerformance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
0%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Design Alternative A3
Baseline
Design Alternative A3
w/ Accepted VA Alternatives Change in ValueRelative ScoresPerformance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
9
Page 603 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
REJECTED VA ALTERNATIVES AND RATIONALE
Alternative No. and Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance
5.0 Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane
alignment in lieu of relocation
$672,000
$671,000
1-week
reduction
+ 0.5 %
+ 0.5 %
The baseline concept relocates the existing sewer main from the existing Elks Lane alignment to
the new Elks Lane alignment. The alternative concept proposes to leave the sewer main in its
current alignment with only minor modifications to avoid conflicts with the new NB on-ramp and
Prado road structural elements.
This alternative was rejected by the decision makers due to the existing sewer line alignment being
potential conflict with the new Prado road overcrossing alignment and structural elements. It was
determined that this would also pose challenges for future maintenance to the sewer line if needed.
10
Page 604 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Study Summary Report
VA TEAM
VA Study Team
Name Organization Title
Eric Trimble VMS, Inc. VA Study Facilitator
Meaghan Rowland VMS, Inc. VA Study Assistant
David Romero Caltrans – District 5 Structures Design
Alex Martinez Caltrans – District 5 Structures Construction
Adam Rianda Caltrans – District 5 Bridge Architecture
Phlora Barbash Caltrans – District 5 Landscape Architecture
Luke Schwartz City of San Luis Obispo Transportation Manager
John Rogers GHD Transportation Engineer
Jorge Aguilar Wallace Group Transportation Engineer
Key Project Contacts
Name Organization Title
Wyatt Banker-Hix City of San Luis Obispo Project Manager
Paul Valadao Caltrans – District 5 Project Manager
Jorge Vanegas-Moran GHD Design Manager
11
Page 605 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVES
Page 606 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
VA ALTERNATIVES FINAL
The results of this study are presented as individual alternatives to the baseline concept. Each
alternative consists of a summary of the baseline concept, a description of the suggested change, a
listing of its advantages and disadvantages, a cost comparison, change in performance and value,
discussion of schedule and risk impacts (if applicable), and a brief narrative comparing the baseline
concept with the alternative. (Please refer to the Project Analysis section of this report for an
explanation of how the performance attributes and value are calculated.) Sketches, calculations, and
performance attribute ratings are also presented where applicable. The cost comparisons reflect a
similar level of detail as in the baseline estimate.
VA ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY TABLES
Summary of VA Alternatives
Alternative No. & Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Performance
Change
Value
Change
1.0 Reduce the maximum speed on structure to
35 mph
$1,120,000
$1,023,000
1.5-month
reduction
+8.3 %
+ 8.0 %
+10.4 %
+ 10.0 %
2.0 Reduce lane and shoulder widths where
practical
$600,000
$531,000 No change + 0.9 %
+ 0.9 %
+1.4 %
+ 1.4 %
3.0 Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and
pile caps
$5,014,000
$4,557,000
3-month
reduction
+1.1 %
+ 1.0 %
+7.4 %
+7.2 %
4.0 Use longer spans and fewer columns with
precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
$16,748,000
$15,093,000
6-month
reduction
+12.2 %
+ 11.6%
+35.4 %
+ 33.9 %
5.0 Leave existing sewer main on current Elks
Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
$672,000
$671,000
1-week
reduction
+ 0.5 %
+ 0.5 %
+1.2 %
+ 1.2 %
6.0 Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials
in project
$336,000
$344,000 No change + 0.5 %
+ 0.5 %
+ 0.8 %
+ 0.8 %
13
Page 607 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The VA team identified the following observations and design suggestions, relatively general in
nature, for consideration by the Project Development Team (PDT). More detailed descriptions can be
found in the Idea Evaluation portion of this report.
OC-1 Explore the possibility of securing additional funding sources
This concept would explore the possibility of securing additional funding for the project from the
following previously untapped sources:
•FEMA
•Local bond measures (or a new local tax)
•Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant from Caltrans
It is also possible to rebrand the project as a "Community Connectivity" project to shift the public’s
perception that this is purely a transportation project and focus more on the community connection
aspect. In this way, the project can promote other important benefits of the project such as serving
disadvantaged communities and/or providing support for multi-modal transportation options within
the city. There are several Federal programs that provide funding for these types of projects.
OC-2 Update unit costs and schedule
This concept would ensure that additional progress is being made in keeping the project estimate as
current as possible with ongoing project design refinements as well as with the continual evolving
regional economic conditions, which may affect the project to provide an accurate cost picture. There
are also several aspects of the project that will need to be included in the cost estimate that have not
yet been integrated into the total project cost. This concept seeks to include the following items or
updates in the project estimate:
•Construction Staging Plan
o Construction-related traffic handling on US-101
o Construction-related temporary detours for US-101 and ramps
o Construction-related K-Rail on US-101
o Construction-related COZEEP for traffic handling and detours
•Post construction BMPs
•Structure cost detail and refinements
OC-3 Support multi-modality
This concept would seek to further support and/or enhance the multi-modal aspects of the project.
The team identified several opportunities that the project may be able to integrate into the current
design which would enhance overall community interaction in relation to pedestrians and bicycles:
•Integrate pedestrian scaled lighting on the Prado road overcrossing structure to increase
nighttime visibility and increase user comfort while limiting light pollution to surrounding
community.
14
Page 608 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
•Include bicycle and pedestrian furnishings into the Prado road overcrossing structure.
o Bulbouts
o Benches, bike racks, and waste bins
o Bike wayfinding and signage
•Separate bicycle/pedestrian signal phase vehicle movements at intersection including signal
design modifications for the signalized intersection option.
Example images of focused pedestrian/bicycle lighting on structure
OC-4 Perform peer review of structure design and investigate similar facilities in flood-prone areas
This concept would seek to include a separate peer review of the project— specifically, the structural
element of the project. With such a high use of structures on this project, a peer review of the
preliminary structure Advance Planning Studies (APSs) will provide an independent and “fresh set of
eyes” to review initially proposed concepts with a greater level of technical focus on the details/costs.
This could result in additional concepts to consider how to expedite construction schedule/concepts.
Utility relocations and staging/traffic handling should also be peer reviewed as these are likely to be
significant time and constructability considerations.
OC-5 Consider use of "tear-drop" roundabout
This concept would investigate the practicality of incorporating a “teardrop” roundabout into the A1R
design alternative. The teardrop design lends itself to potentially narrowing the roundabout footprint
as the western side of the roundabout and does not need to accommodate additional traffic
movements (such as southbound US-101 on- and off-ramps).
15
Page 609 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Example image of a “teardrop” roundabout design
OC-6 Determine best use for space below structures
This concept is intended to explore the best possible use for the area created beneath the new
structures that will support the on- and off-ramps as well as the Prado road overcrossing. The current
design is somewhat ambiguous as to how this land will be used, and how it will avoid becoming an
ongoing concern for Caltrans and/or City maintenance personnel. The current assumption is that a
large portion of the Prado road OC structure will be used for an auxiliary maintenance yard facility—
presumably an adjacent parking area for the City of San Luis Obispo’s corporation yard for
maintenance vehicles, which can be quickly relocated if a flooding event occurs. However, there is
much more additional space available under the western portion of the Prado road OC structure as
well as the two US-101 northbound on- and off-ramp structures. Possible uses include the following:
•Providing additional area for mitigation planting as needed.
•Utilizing space below structures for stormwater treatment.
Additionally, to ensure that the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department has the jurisdiction and
ability to enforce the area under the structures, the spaces should be transferred to City ownership
for municipal use. This will help to protect the properties from unofficial use and allow the police to
keep the property clear of trespassers.
OC-7 Determine Construction Staging Plan
The VA team developed a rough construction process of the work required in the project to better
understand what construction staging elements would be required and to have a better picture of the
overall project construction duration/critical path. Below is the rough outline of the major project
construction components:
1.Perform public outreach effort
2.Establish local access, detours for local traffic, and work areas
3.Relocate sewer line (and other utilities), Elks Lane relocation, and Prado/Elks intersection
(with signals).
4.Construct West Prado substructure – including US-101 abutment
Construct West Prado superstructure and deck (see 6d and 6f).
16
Page 610 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
5.Construct East Prado substructure – including US-101 abutment
a.Demo and clear existing Prado, Elks Lane, and sewer line.
b.Construct East Prado superstructure and deck (see 6d and 6f).
6.US-101 work
a.HMA overlay to strengthen shoulder for handling traffic.
b.Establish US-101 traffic control for median structure (close ramps and use shoulders
for traffic) – assume a need for two lanes for US-101.
c.Construct median substructure (piles, pile caps, and columns).
d. Construct US-101 superstructure (including bridge deck).
e.Construct on- and off-ramp substructure.
f.Construct on- and off-ramp superstructure (including Prado road deck and
intersection/roundabout).
g.Shift SB lanes back to normal alignment (reconnect guardrails and stripe).
h.Shift traffic towards median for NB and construct aux lane and ramp gores/
connections – may need to close Madonna Rd while tying in aux lane.
i.Shift NB lanes back to normal alignment (stripe).
7.Stripe pavement, install lighting, signage, landscaping
8.Establish permanent water pollution control measures and plant mitigation/establishment
The main conclusion of the VA team was that the 520 workdays included in the project is somewhat
aggressive and may need to be amended to better address the work being undertaken. Additional
concepts regarding construction staging which may be worth considering include:
•The evaluation of a US-101 median crossover to assist in traffic management.
•Aggressively pursue the use of nightwork – especially if the use of CIDH and the drilling of
column foundations is determined to be feasible.
•Identify and establish construction staging areas early; use Prado road, drive-in, and
corporation yard if practical.
•Use multiple crews for day/night shift work or for multiple locations/efforts. This is specifically
dependent on the capacity and capability of the selected contractor.
•Use construction duration incentives to maintain or improve upon the project construction
schedule. This is reliant on the capacity/capability of the selected contractor and would also
need to be defined in the contracting language.
OC-8 Review options to enhance the bridge aesthetics
This concept would explore several ways in which the structural elements of the Prado road
overcrossing structure can be enhanced or softened to reduce its overall visual impact or potentially
tie in more seamlessly with the existing community aesthetic. Such concepts include:
•Use of colored concrete in structures.
•Use of concrete form liner to add artistic embellishments to columns and spans.
•Use of flared columns (non-structural).
•Use of arch facades between exterior columns (non-structural).
•Use of rounding on exterior spans.
•Use of rounding at abutments.
17
Page 611 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
•Use of public art embedded within bridge barrier railing/fence.
•Incorporating artwork on columns.
•Incorporating similar design used with the LOVR structure.
Example images of the LOVR structure which incorporated the use of concrete form liners to provide
aesthetic structural elements
Example image of the LOVR structure which also incorporated rounded structural elements
18
Page 612 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Additional example images displaying the use of colored concrete form liners,
non-structural fluted columns, and arches in lieu of columns for structure
19
Page 613 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS
The Caltrans HQ VA Program requires the following information to enable reporting of performance
to the FHWA. Only the six standard Caltrans performance attributes, shown in the table below, are to
be documented. Caltrans does not require reporting of the performance of any other attributes
utilized in this study.
Summary of Proposed VA Alternative Performance Improvements
Alt. No. Multi-Modal
Connectivity
Long-Term
Environmental
Impacts
Construction
Impacts
Traffic
Operations Maintainability Project
Schedule
1.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
2.0 Improved Improved Improved
3.0 Improved Improved
4.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved
5.0 Improved Improved Improved
6.0 Improved Improved
Summary of Accepted VA Alternative Performance Improvements
Alt. No. Multi-Modal
Connectivity
Long-Term
Environmental
Impacts
Construction
Impacts
Traffic
Operations Maintainability Project
Schedule
1.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
2.0 Improved Improved Improved
3.0 Improved Improved
4.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved
6.0 Improved Improved
20
Page 614 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $1,120,000/$1,023,000
Change in Schedule: 1.5-month reduction
Performance Change +8.3 %/+ 8.0 %
Value Change +10.4 %/+ 10.0 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept for the structure utilizes a 45-mph design
speed at the Elks Lane intersection and Froom Ranch intersection.
Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to reduce the design speed to
35 mph. This will have a direct effect on eliminating the center bent of the structure but will also
simplify the design of the structure profile, intersections (or roundabout), and pedestrian/bicycle
facilities.
Advantages:
•Multi-Modal Connectivity – Improves the operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by
reducing the speed of the nearby vehicles on the structure.
•Traffic Operations – Reduces the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not
anticipated that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.
•Construction Impacts – Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall
structure design (potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility)
and construction effort. Will allow for the possible elimination of the columns in the median
of US-101. This will also translate to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during
construction. Assume a construction duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will
lessen the noise impacts to surrounding community.
•Long-Term Environmental Impacts – May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by
reducing the number of columns needed to support the structure.
•Maintainability – Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and
structure which may be prone to vandalism or graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance
effort in median.
Disadvantages:
•Multi-Modal Connectivity – If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and
pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.
Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of
construction while also integrating a safer and more sensible operating condition for the Prado road
OC. The reduction in speed should provide more flexibility for the design to use a longer span in the
overcrossing structure over US-101 specifically by removing the central bent from the design and
greatly simplifying construction and traffic handling on US-101. This concept will require coordination
with Caltrans leadership regarding acceptable design speeds for new facilities which tie into mainline
facilities (in relation to HDM section 101.2). There is a precedence for lower prevailing speeds on
nearby facilities such as Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna Road, Santa Rosa Street, etc. It should also
21
Page 615 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
be noted that there is no requirement for physical barrier between EOS and pedestrian/bicycle
facility.
Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a significant impact to the
project schedule’s critical path due to the elimination of the central structural bent, which is a
challenging structural element that otherwise needs to be completed amidst the traffic on US-101.
The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be a reduction in 1.5 months (30 workdays).
Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept should reduce construction related risk by
reducing the construction effort. The alternative should represent a reduction in future operational
risk as the lower speeds should reduce the potential and severity of traffic conflicts (however, there
still may be a potential for drivers to operate at above the posted speed which may cause traffic
conflicts).
22
Page 616 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3
7.4
7.0
6.3
5.1
5.7
7.7
7.7
7.3
5.6
6.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
5.8
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.6
6.1
6.9
8.1
7.7
6.9
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
23
Page 617 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Baseline Concept Images
Images of the Prado road OC structure for both design alternatives
Image depicting the current design with central bent in US-101 median
supporting the overcrossing structure
24
Page 618 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Alternative Concept Image
Image of existing overcrossing structure at Madonna Road with speed posted as 35 mph
25
Page 619 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:
The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Eliminates the center bent and the support columns in the median of US-101. Structure cost
can therefore be reduced by 5% (piles, excavation, form work, reinforcement, and concrete).
Includes an increased superstructure cost but lower substructure cost for the Prado road OC
structure.
• Reduction in traffic handling and construction staging (assume reduction by 50%)
• Reduce workdays by 1.5 months (30 days)
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
Traffic Handling LS 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 0.50 250,000$ 125,000$
Detours LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 0.50 50,000$ 25,000$
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL 300,000$ 150,000$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%197,700$ 98,850$
ROADWAY TOTAL 497,700$ 248,850$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,821$ 946,920$ 490 1,821$ 892,290$
TRO SUBTOTAL 946,920$ 892,290$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%295,439$ 278,394$
TRO TOTAL 1,242,359$ 1,170,684$
-$ -$
Prado OC LS 1 36,593,000$ 36,593,000$ 0.98 36,593,000$ 35,861,140$
-$ -$
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL 36,593,000$ 35,861,140$
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only)9%3,403,149$ 3,335,086$
STRUCTURES TOTAL 39,996,149$ 39,196,226$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $1,120,000
$41,736,000 $40,616,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
41,736,208$ 40,615,761$
STRUCTURES WORK
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
26
Page 620 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0 (MT-2)
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
Traffic Handling LS 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 0.50 250,000$ 125,000$
Detours LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 0.50 50,000$ 25,000$
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL 300,000$ 150,000$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%197,700$ 98,850$
ROADWAY TOTAL 497,700$ 248,850$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,693$ 880,360$ 490 1,693$ 829,570$
TRO SUBTOTAL 880,360$ 829,570$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%274,672$ 258,826$
TRO TOTAL 1,155,032$ 1,088,396$
-$ -$
Prado OC LS 1 32,391,200$ 32,391,200$ 0.98 32,391,200$ 31,743,376$
-$ -$
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL 32,391,200$ 31,743,376$
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only)9%3,012,382$ 2,952,134$
STRUCTURES TOTAL 35,403,582$ 34,695,510$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $1,023,000
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
STRUCTURES WORK
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$37,056,000 $36,033,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
37,056,314$ 36,032,756$
27
Page 621 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $600,000/$531,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change + 0.9 %/+ 0.9 %
Value Change + 1.4 %/+ 1.4 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept meets or exceeds all lane width and
shoulder width requirements per the Caltrans and City engineering standards for the Prado road OC
structure as well as the NB on- and off-ramp structures:
• 12’ lanes, 5’ shoulders on the Prado road OC structure
• 12’ separation between east and westbound lanes for left turn lanes and/or raised median on
the Prado road OC structure
• 4’ left shoulder and 8’ right shoulder, and 12’ lane for the NB on- and off-ramps
• 6’ sidewalk, 6” buffer between bike path and sidewalk, 6’ bike path, and 2’ buffer between ES
and bike path on the Prado road OC
Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to reduce the width of the
inside travel lane from 12’ to 11’ and the on the outside shoulder widths from 5’ to 4’ on the Prado
road OC structure and thereby reduce the overall width of the Prado road OC structure by 4’.
Advantages:
• Multi-Modal Connectivity – The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as
additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict
between the modes of travel.
• Traffic Operations – The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as
additional traffic calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No
measurable impact on traffic volumes.
• Construction Impacts – Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.
• Long-Term Environmental Impacts – Reduces overall footprint of the Prado riad OC structure
which also reduces stormwater volumes. Less disturbed soil and land.
• Maintainability – Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.
Disadvantages:
• Multi-Modal Connectivity – Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of
travel way and bike path.
Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of the
Prado road OC structure. The use of 11’ lanes for the innermost travel lanes on the structure will not
require a design exception per HDM Section 308.1. It is important to note that anticipated truck
volumes may require the use of 12’ interior lanes.
28
Page 622 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
There is a precedence for using 11’ lanes elsewhere in San Luis Obispo:
• Prado Road south of the Elks Lane
• Dalidio Drive west of Froom Ranch Way
• Madonna Road over US-101
The use of 4’ minimum shoulders is allowable per HDM Section 308.1 unless a barrier is present in
which case the shoulder width would need to be maintained at 5’.
Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents no significant impact to the
project schedule’s critical path as the reduction in the overcrossing structure width is considered
negligible within the structure construction effort. The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be
zero.
Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept will have a slight reduction in the construction
related work as it represents less structure to construct and fewer materials to handle. The slight
reduction in lanes and shoulder widths may contribute to a slight increase in future operational risk,
but the design would still remain within established standards.
29
Page 623 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3
7.4
7.0
6.3
5.1
5.7
7.4
7.0
6.4
5.2
5.8
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
5.8
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.6
5.8
6.2
7.2
7.3
6.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
30
Page 624 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Alternative Concept Image
Image showing the Prado road overcrossing structure and identified locations of lane and shoulder
widths which can be reduced by 1’ each
31
Page 625 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:
The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Reduce Prado OC structure by 4’ of width which roughly equates to a 1.5% reduction in overall
structure cost
• Assume no significant impact to traffic handling and construction staging
• Assume no significant change in project duration (no change in workdays)
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL -$ -$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%-$ -$
ROADWAY TOTAL -$ -$
Time Related Overhead WD -$ -$
TRO SUBTOTAL -$ -$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%-$ -$
TRO TOTAL -$ -$
Prado OC LS 1 36,593,000$ 36,593,000$ 0.99 36,593,000$ 36,044,105$
NB Off-Ramp LS 1 2,993,000$ 2,993,000$ 1.00 2,993,000$ 2,993,000$
NB On-Ramp LS 1 2,794,000$ 2,794,000$ 1.00 2,794,000$ 2,794,000$
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL 42,380,000$ 41,831,105$
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only)9%3,941,340$ 3,890,293$
STRUCTURES TOTAL 46,321,340$ 45,721,398$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $600,000
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
STRUCTURES WORK
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$46,321,000 $45,721,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
46,321,340$ 45,721,398$
32
Page 626 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0 (AP-2)
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL -$ -$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%-$ -$
ROADWAY TOTAL -$ -$
Time Related Overhead WD -$ -$
TRO SUBTOTAL -$ -$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%-$ -$
TRO TOTAL -$ -$
Prado OC LS 1 32,391,200$ 32,391,200$ 0.99 32,391,200$ 31,905,332$
NB Off-Ramp LS 1 3,128,400$ 3,128,400$ 1.00 3,128,400$ 3,128,400$
NB On-Ramp LS 1 2,587,800$ 2,587,800$ 1.00 2,587,800$ 2,587,800$
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL 38,107,400$ 37,621,532$
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only)9%3,543,988$ 3,498,802$
STRUCTURES TOTAL 41,651,388$ 41,120,334$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $531,000
$41,651,000 $41,120,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
41,651,388$ 41,120,334$
STRUCTURES WORK
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
33
Page 627 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $5,014,000/$4,557,000
Change in Schedule: 3-month reduction
Performance Change + 1.1 %/+ 1.0 %
Value Change + 7.4 %/+ 7.2 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept uses a short-span bridge configuration for
the three structures included in the project (the Prado road OC structure, the NB off-ramp, and the
NB on-ramp). The current design uses spans ranging between 70’ to 118’ in length. Each span is a
multi-column bent. Each column rests on a sub-surface pile cap which requires excavation to
construct. Each pile cap rests on several driven piles. The ground water level of 4’ below surface will
require dewatering during the pile cap construction.
Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to use CIDH piles in lieu of
the driven pile and pile cap configuration. This concept will require temporary casing, slurry
displacement with Baker tanks, and the use of steel cages for reinforcement. This alternative will
create additional spoils from the drilled holes that will need to be hauled off.
Advantages:
• Construction Impacts – Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at
each column location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will
reduce the amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site.
The rate of production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation,
forming, and backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 3
months (60 workdays).
Disadvantages:
• Construction Impacts – Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies can be encountered
when pouring concrete.
Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to significantly reduce the cost
and time needed to construct each of the project structures. An important consideration with the
CIDH concept is that the existing soil conditions may vary greatly on this site. This can create
challenges to the process and efforts to avoid anomalies in the concrete pour for the CIDH pile will
need to be undertaken. This may require on-site analysis of the CIDH pile and may lead to additional
mitigation to address any abnormalities encountered in the field to ensure that the CIDH pile is
structurally adequate for the design. Of course, the pile driving process also has production risks to
consider as well; therefore, the schedule and cost risk per each method can be considered to be
similar.
Each column can be constructed as an extension of the CIDH pile, but this would increase the
complexity of the process as the reinforcement cage would need to extend above ground.
34
Page 628 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a significant impact to the
project schedule’s critical path as the CIDH piles allow for the column construction to be completed at
a much more accelerated pace. The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be a reduction of three
months (60 workdays).
Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept will have a significant impact on reducing the
construction risk due to the shortening of the project’s duration by three months. The future
operational risk of the facility will be unaffected.
35
Page 629 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3
7.4
7.0
6.3
5.1
5.7
7.4
7.0
6.8
5.1
5.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
5.8
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.6
5.8
6.2
7.6
7.2
6.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
36
Page 630 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Baseline Concept Image
Example image of typical pile driving and pile cap forming process
Alternative Concept Image
Diagram of typical CIDH process with casings
37
Page 631 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:
The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Structure construction work reduction of 10% for each structure
o Eliminate pile driving
o Eliminate pile cap construction
o Include CIDH construction
• Traffic handling reduction by 50% (US-101 center median location only)
• Reduce workdays by 4 months (80 workdays)
o Time savings is from avoiding driving piles and excavation/forming of pile cap
o Assume 1 week of time savings per pier x 28 / 2 crews = 14 weeks / 4.5 = 3 months
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
Traffic Handling LS 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 0.50 250,000$ 125,000$
Detours LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 0.50 50,000$ 25,000$
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL 300,000$ 150,000$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%197,700$ 98,850$
ROADWAY TOTAL 497,700$ 248,850$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,693$ 880,360$ 460 1,693$ 778,780$
TRO SUBTOTAL 880,360$ 778,780$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%274,672$ 242,979$
TRO TOTAL 1,155,032$ 1,021,759$
Prado OC LS 1 36,593,000$ 36,593,000$ 0.90 36,593,000$ 32,933,700$
NB Off-Ramp LS 1 2,993,000$ 2,993,000$ 0.90 2,993,000$ 2,693,700$
NB On-Ramp LS 1 2,794,000$ 2,794,000$ 0.90 2,794,000$ 2,514,600$
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL 42,380,000$ 38,142,000$
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only)9%3,941,340$ 3,547,206$
STRUCTURES TOTAL 46,321,340$ 41,689,206$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $5,014,000
$47,974,000 $42,960,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
47,974,072$ 42,959,815$
STRUCTURES WORK
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
38
Page 632 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0 (SL-2)
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
Traffic Handling LS 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 0.50 250,000$ 125,000$
Detours LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 0.50 50,000$ 25,000$
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL 300,000$ 150,000$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%197,700$ 98,850$
ROADWAY TOTAL 497,700$ 248,850$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,821$ 946,920$ 460 1,821$ 837,660$
TRO SUBTOTAL 946,920$ 837,660$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%295,439$ 261,350$
TRO TOTAL 1,242,359$ 1,099,010$
Prado OC LS 1 32,391,200$ 32,391,200$ 0.90 32,391,200$ 29,152,080$
NB Off-Ramp LS 1 3,128,400$ 3,128,400$ 0.90 3,128,400$ 2,815,560$
NB On-Ramp LS 1 2,587,800$ 2,587,800$ 0.90 2,587,800$ 2,329,020$
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL 38,107,400$ 34,296,660$
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only)9%3,543,988$ 3,189,589$
STRUCTURES TOTAL 41,651,388$ 37,486,249$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $4,557,000
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
STRUCTURES WORK
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$43,391,000 $38,834,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
43,391,447$ 38,834,109$
39
Page 633 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $16,748,000/$15,093,000
Change in Schedule: 6-month reduction
Performance Change +12.2 %/+ 11.6 %
Value Change +35.4 %/+ 33.9 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept uses a short-span bridge configuration for
the three structures included in the project (the Prado road OC structure, the NB off-ramp, and the
NB on-ramp). The current design uses spans ranging between 70’ to 118’ in length. Each span is a
multi-column bent. Each column rests on a sub-surface pile cap which requires excavation to
construct. Each pile cap rests on several driven piles.
Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to use precast I-girders in
lieu of cast-in-place (CIP) girders to allow for longer structural spans and therefore require fewer
bents and columns to support the structures.
Advantages:
•Construction Impacts – Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of
bents to be placed – which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will
also significantly reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for
CIP elements. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (amount of
columns needed and piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be
reduced by up to 6 months (120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling
and lane closures required for the mainline. Impacts to the local community – noise from pile
driving and hauling on local roads can also be expected to be reduced.
•Long-Term Environmental Impacts – Will reduce the number of columns needed to support
the spans which will have a significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The
reduction in columns should also reduce the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more
flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’ rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.
•Maintainability – Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to
inspect and maintain the structures – including maintaining the spaces below the structures,
which will now be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism
will also be reduced.
Disadvantages:
•Construction Impacts – Will require space for crane operation and hauling of large structural
elements.
•Maintainability – Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure
where the utility lines would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.
40
Page 634 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of
construction, structure design, and simplify the construction effort as whole. The reduction in
columns represents a significant aesthetic improvement for the structures. It should be noted that
there are several structural options in addition to the use of precast I-girders that can be considered
in lieu of the CIP baseline design. These would include:
• Steel plate girder – may require additional maintenance and inspection due to the use of steel
which can be expected to oxidize. This oxidation can however be mitigated by incorporating a
sacrificial layer that would provide a distinct rust-colored aesthetic.
• Precast box girder – slightly more expensive, however provides a cleaner form or aesthetic to
the bridge than the I-girder option. Also, allows for placement of utility conduit inside the
cells.
• Precast T-beams – a slight variation to the I-girder option
• Precast inverted U-section – a slight variation to the I-girder option
All of these options have potential benefits in lieu of the proposed CIP box that is currently in the
baseline design. The proposal in this alternative for the precast I-girder simply represents the most
likely option identified by the VA team.
An important aspect of precast structural construction is the potential for the structural elements to
not fit together as designed in the field which can lead to construction delays and additional cost.
However, there can be design or construction actions taken to provide for additional flexibility in the
field to mitigate this risk.
This alternative would work well with several other proposed VA alternatives. Additionally, the
precast elements can be manufactured with integral color to match any desired aesthetic. It would be
of further value to the construction and design to ensure that the spans are pre-stressed during their
manufacture.
Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a significant impact to the
project schedule’s critical path as the structure construction effort is considered a major critical path
element. The schedule impact is assumed to be a 6-month reduction in project duration (120
workdays).
Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept will have a significant impact on reducing
construction related risks due to the shortening of the project duration by 6 months and also the
reduction in pile driving and CIP work that requires more effort by the contractor and more traffic
handling and lane closures/lane shifting on US-101. The future operational risk is unchanged.
41
Page 635 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3
7.4
7.0
6.3
5.1
5.7
7.4
7.0
7.8
6.6
6.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
5.8
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.6
5.8
6.2
8.6
8.7
7.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
42
Page 636 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Baseline Concept Image
Image of Prado road overcrossing design elevation with 125’ spans
Alternative Concept Image
Image of Prado road overcrossing design elevation depicting which columns can be eliminated by
using longer precast and prestressed structural spans
43
Page 637 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Alternative Concept Images (cont.)
Example images of precast and pre-stressed spans being manufactured, transported, and placed in
structure construction effort
44
Page 638 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:
The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
• Eliminates the center bent and the support columns in the median of US-101. Structure cost
can therefore be reduced by 40% (piles, excavation, falsework, reinforcement, and concrete).
Includes an increased superstructure cost, but lower substructure cost for the Prado road OC
structure. Assume that this alternative can reduce the number of spans and columns needed
for each structure by up to 50%. However, the additional costs need to include the use of
cranes, off-site manufacture, hauling and handling of precast elements.
• Reduction in traffic handling and construction staging (assume reduction by 50%)
• Reduce workdays by 6 months (120 days)
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
Traffic Handling LS 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 0.50 250,000$ 125,000$
Detours LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 0.50 50,000$ 25,000$
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL 300,000$ 150,000$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%197,700$ 98,850$
ROADWAY TOTAL 497,700$ 248,850$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,821$ 946,920$ 400 1,821$ 728,400$
TRO SUBTOTAL 946,920$ 728,400$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%295,439$ 227,261$
TRO TOTAL 1,242,359$ 955,661$
Prado OC LS 1 36,593,000$ 36,593,000$ 0.65 36,593,000$ 23,785,450$
NB Off-Ramp LS 1 2,993,000$ 2,993,000$ 0.65 2,993,000$ 1,945,450$
NB On-Ramp LS 1 2,794,000$ 2,794,000$ 0.65 2,794,000$ 1,816,100$
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL 42,380,000$ 27,547,000$
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only)9%3,941,340$ 2,561,871$
STRUCTURES TOTAL 46,321,340$ 30,108,871$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $16,748,000
$48,061,000 $31,313,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
48,061,399$ 31,313,382$
STRUCTURES WORK
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
45
Page 639 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0 (SL-1)
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
Traffic Handling LS 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 0.50 250,000$ 125,000$
Detours LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 0.50 50,000$ 25,000$
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL 300,000$ 150,000$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%197,700$ 98,850$
ROADWAY TOTAL 497,700$ 248,850$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,693$ 880,360$ 400 1,693$ 677,200$
TRO SUBTOTAL 880,360$ 677,200$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%274,672$ 211,286$
TRO TOTAL 1,155,032$ 888,486$
Prado OC LS 1 32,391,200$ 32,391,200$ 0.65 32,391,200$ 21,054,280$
NB Off-Ramp LS 1 3,128,400$ 3,128,400$ 0.65 3,128,400$ 2,033,460$
NB On-Ramp LS 1 2,587,800$ 2,587,800$ 0.65 2,587,800$ 1,682,070$
STRUCTURES SUBTOTAL 38,107,400$ 24,769,810$
STRUCTURES MARK-UP (Escalation only)9%3,543,988$ 2,303,592$
STRUCTURES TOTAL 41,651,388$ 27,073,402$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $15,093,000
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
STRUCTURES WORK
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$43,304,000 $28,211,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
43,304,121$ 28,210,739$
46
Page 640 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $672,000/$671,000
Change in Schedule: 1-week reduction
Performance Change + 0.5 %/+ 0.5 %
Value Change +1.2 %/+ 1.2 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept relocates the existing sewer main from the
existing Elks Lane alignment to the new Elks Lane alignment.
Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to leave the sewer main in
its current alignment with only minor modifications to avoid conflicts with the new NB on-ramp and
Prado road structural elements.
Advantages:
•Construction Impacts – Simplifies the construction effort by eliminating relocation of the
sewer line. Should reduce the construction duration for the work being performed with the
Elks Lane Relocation – assume a 1-week reduction (5 workdays).
•Long-Term Environmental Impacts – Avoids additional excavation and soil disturbance for
new alignment. Reduces the loss of the residual value of the existing sewer main.
•Maintainability – Future maintenance access should be improved as it is located farther from
an active roadway and within the City’s R/W.
Disadvantages:
•Construction Impacts – Will require careful consideration when placing structural elements
for the NB on-ramp and the Prado road OC structures to avoid conflicts between the existing
alignment and placement of piles and pile caps.
•Maintainability – Will not be installing a new sewer main; will be forgoing an extension of the
sewer main’s anticipated useful life.
Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to reduce the initial cost of
construction and to simplify the construction and utility relocation effort. Additional coordination will
be required between the design team and the city with regards to the final alignment and
implications to future sewer maintenance.
47
Page 641 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a negligible impact to the
project schedule’s critical path as the sewer main relocation is a small component of the project’s
critical path; however, it is part of the Elks Lane realignment. The schedule impact is therefore
assumed to be a 1-week reduction (5 workdays).
Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept will not have a significant impact on reducing
overall project risk or future operational risk.
48
Page 642 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3
7.4
7.0
6.3
5.1
5.7
7.4
7.0
6.4
5.2
5.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
5.8
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.6
5.8
6.2
7.2
7.3
6.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
49
Page 643 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Baseline Concept Image
Image depicting baseline design location of relocated sewer line (brown line)
along new Elks Lane alignment
Alternative Concept Image
Image showing existing sewer line (red line) along US-101 northbound on-ramp
and along/under new Prado road OC structure alignment
50
Page 644 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:
The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
•Eliminate relocation of sewer main (removal of existing line, trenching, placement, testing,
and backfill) assume $500/LF – using a 30”/48” diameter PVC for 1300 LF.
•Include some modification of existing line where needed $500/LF for 200 LF.
•Reduce workdays by 1 week (5 workdays)
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL -$ -$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%-$ -$
ROADWAY TOTAL -$ -$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,821$ 946,920$ 515 1,821$ 937,815$
TRO SUBTOTAL 946,920$ 937,815$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%295,439$ 292,598$
TRO TOTAL 1,242,359$ 1,230,413$
-$ -$
30" to 48" PVS Sewer Main LF 1,300 500$ 650,000$ 200 500$ 100,000$
-$ -$
R/W or OTHER SUBTOTAL 650,000$ 100,000$
R/W or OTHER MARK-UP (Escalation only)20%130,000$ 20,000$
R/W or OTHER TOTAL 780,000$ 120,000$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $672,000
$2,022,000 $1,350,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
2,022,359$ 1,350,413$
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
R/W or OTHER MATERIALS and EXPENSES
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
51
Page 645 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0 (CU-3)
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL -$ -$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%-$ -$
ROADWAY TOTAL -$ -$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,693$ 880,360$ 515 1,693$ 871,895$
TRO SUBTOTAL 880,360$ 871,895$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%274,672$ 272,031$
TRO TOTAL 1,155,032$ 1,143,926$
-$ -$
30" to 48" PVS Sewer Main LF 1,300 500$ 650,000$ 200 500$ 100,000$
-$ -$
R/W or OTHER SUBTOTAL 650,000$ 100,000$
R/W or OTHER MARK-UP (Escalation only)20%130,000$ 20,000$
R/W or OTHER TOTAL 780,000$ 120,000$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $671,000
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
R/W or OTHER MATERIALS and EXPENSES
$1,935,000 $1,264,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
1,935,032$ 1,263,926$
52
Page 646 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Savings: $336,000/$344,000
Change in Schedule: No change
Performance Change + 0.5 %/+ 0.5 %
Value Change + 0.8 %/+ 0.8 %
Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept for the project includes removal of
pavement from the ramps and a section of the existing Prado Road and Elks Lane. It is assumed that
this paving material will simply be hauled away as waste.
Description of Alternative Concept: The alternative concept proposes to recycle a portion of the
asphalt material from the roadway excavation and use it for subbase, base, and HMA material in the
project. It is assumed that the recycled material can be used in Class 2 Aggregate Base (up to 25%).
Advantages:
•Construction Impacts – May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling
of materials can be completed on-site, which may reduce project duration slightly.
•Long-Term Environmental Impacts – Aligns with Caltrans sustainability objectives.
Disadvantages:
•Construction Impacts – Will require additional effort by contractor to stockpile and combine
into HMA mixes on-site or off-site before the material can be used on the project. This may
require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder on-site which may require additional
space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).
Discussion: The main benefit of this proposed alternative concept is to align with Caltrans and City
sustainability initiatives that seek to enhance sustainability concepts throughout state-funded capital
projects in California by using recycled or repurposed materials. This concept will require
coordination with Design, Materials, and Construction to determine the feasibility of this approach.
The effective use of this concept is reliant on the capacity and capabilities of the contractor to work
with and store asphalt materials. It is possible that the contractor could also use any existing
appropriate asphalt stockpiles that they have on hand for use with this alternative – assuming that it
meets Caltrans project standards (per Section 25-1.02A General - Caltrans Standard Specifications -
circa 2022).
Discussion of Schedule Impacts: This alternative concept represents a negligible impact to the
project schedule’s critical path as the recycling of the pavement material is not a critical path
element. The schedule impact is therefore assumed to be zero.
Discussion of Risk Impacts: The alternative concept does not have a significant impact on either
construction related risk or future operational risk.
53
Page 647 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A1R
Comparison of Performance – Design Alternative A3
7.4
7.0
6.3
5.1
5.7
7.4
7.0
6.4
5.2
5.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
5.8
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.6
5.8
6.2
7.2
7.3
6.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Construction Impacts
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Maintainability
Baseline Concept Alternative Concept
54
Page 648 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Alternative Concept Images
Image of an onsite RAP portable plant
55
Page 649 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Assumptions and Calculations:
The initial cost assumption of the alternative concept:
•Reduce Class 2 Aggregate Base (assume a 25% reduction to obtain an R-value of 78)
•Assume no change in working days
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A1R
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,092 100$ 809,200$ 6,069 100$ 606,900$
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL 809,200$ 606,900$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%533,263$ 399,947$
ROADWAY TOTAL 1,342,463$ 1,006,847$
Time Related Overhead WD 520 1,821$ 946,920$ 520 1,821$ 946,920$
TRO SUBTOTAL 946,920$ 946,920$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%295,439$ 295,439$
TRO TOTAL 1,242,359$ 1,242,359$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $336,000
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$2,585,000 $2,249,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
2,584,822$ 2,249,206$
56
Page 650 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0 (RE-1)
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Alternatives
Initial Cost Estimate – Design Alternative A3
Description Unit Quantity Cost/Unit Total Quantity Cost/Unit Total
-$ -$
Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,296 100$ 829,600$ 6,222 100$ 622,200$
-$ -$
-$ -$
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL 829,600$ 622,200$
ROADWAY MARK-UP 66%546,706$ 410,030$
ROADWAY TOTAL 1,376,306$ 1,032,230$
Time Related Overhead WD -$ -$
TRO SUBTOTAL -$ -$
TRO MARK-UP (Contingency & Escalation only)31%-$ -$
TRO TOTAL -$ -$
Reengineering and Redesign -$ -$
Project Engineering -$ -$
TOTAL
TOTAL (Rounded)
SAVINGS $344,000
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
ROADWAY ITEMS
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD (TRO) ITEMS
$1,376,000 $1,032,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT ITEMS
1,376,306$ 1,032,230$
57
Page 651 of 753
PROJECT INFORMATION
Page 652 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
US-101 is the principal north/south freeway/expressway on the Central Coast traversing the counties
of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and San Benito within District 5. It serves local, regional,
and interregional travel needs including business, recreation, tourism, journey-to-work, freight and
goods movement, and national defense transport. The Pacific Coast Bicycle Route runs parallel to US-
101 in this area along South Higuera Street.
Within the project limits, US-101 is a four-lane freeway, with 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 5-foot-wide
left shoulders, 10-foot-wide right shoulders, and a 27-foot-wide median with a thrie beam median
barrier. The R/W width varies but is generally 177 feet. The area along US-101 is generally flat with
San Luis Obispo Creek running parallel to the freeway. The project area is located within the FEMA
100-year floodplain, and as such, the alternatives presented in the baseline concept design reflect the
need to not impact the floodplain with additional embankments. US-101 is designated on the
National Network as a Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) truck route, with a posted speed
limit of 65 miles per hour.
The US-101 interchange with Prado Road is located between 0.3 miles south of Prado Road and 0.2
mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing. The interchange is a partial interchange with access
between US-101 and Prado Road currently provided only by a compact diamond northbound off-
ramp and a hook northbound on-ramp. This configuration provides limited access to and from US-101
from the local street system at this location. All way stop control is provided at the northbound
ramps’ intersection with Prado Road/Elks Lane.
Prado Road is a two-lane minor arterial roadway that extends in a northwest direction and has a
speed limit of 40 mph within the project vicinity. Prado Road provides two 12-foot-wide travel lanes
and Class II bike lanes and is designated as an STAA truck route. Prado Road currently terminates at
the US-101 northbound ramps/Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection.
Elks Lane is a two-lane, 30-foot-wide local road that extends in a northeast direction between Prado
Road and South Higuera Street. Elks Lane currently terminates at the US-101 northbound
ramps/Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes improvements to extend Prado Road over US-101 to connect with
Dalidio Drive, reconstruct the existing US-101 northbound on- and off-ramp connections with Prado
Road, and construct an auxiliary lane on northbound US-101 between the Prado Road and Madonna
Road interchanges in order to provide congestion relief, operational efficiency, and multimodal
connectivity. The interchange is located in the City of San Luis Obispo in the county of San Luis Obispo
at PM 26.8 and improvements on northbound US-101 extend from PM 26.5 to PM 27.3.
In addition to the No-Build Alternative, three build alternatives have been identified by the PDT. Each
of the build alternatives includes a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing
59
Page 653 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Information
constructed over US-101, a new US-101 northbound on-ramp from Prado Road, and a new
northbound off-ramp to Prado Road. For the VA study, two viable build alternatives were studied:
•Design Alternative A1R – an elevated roundabout on the Prado Road overcrossing structure
serving the traffic movements to and from US-101 northbound on- and off-ramps.
•Design Alternative A3 – an elevated tight diamond intersection on the Prado Road
overcrossing structure serving the traffic movements to and from US-101 northbound on- and
off-ramps.
The existing Prado Road interchange with US-101 consists only of northbound off- and on-ramps. The
diamond off-ramp and hook on-ramp configuration that currently exists provides limited access to
and from US-101 from the local street system at this location. The Prado Road extension over US-101
that this project proposes is needed to provide better community connectivity between the existing
and planned neighborhoods and to support planned roadway improvements east and west of the US-
101 freeway. Improvements to US-101 in the study area and the extension of Prado Road over US-
101 are critical to the operations for all modes of travel; not only for regional traffic, but also for local
traffic.
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 US-101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies
on state and city facilities. These connectivity needs extend to all transportation modes. Goals and
objectives of the project include:
•Improve overall operations of US-101 and adjacent interchanges
•Improve mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians
•Improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities
•Improve consistency with local, regional, and state planning
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:
•Draft Project Report – Caltrans, District 5 – December 1, 2022
•Structures Advanced Planning Studies – Caltrans, District 5 – November 2, 2022
•Typical Sections and Layouts – Caltrans, District 5 – March 20, 2023
•Primary Cost Estimates – Caltrans, District 5 – September 29, 2002
60
Page 654 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Information
•Collision Cost Analysis and Benefit/Cost – City of San Luis Obispo – May 2019
•Preliminary Foundation Report – City of San Luis Obispo – January 4, 2022
•2-Dimensional Hydraulic Model Update Final Report – City of San Luis Obispo – October 22,
2019
PROJECT DRAWINGS
The project team provided preliminary project layouts and cross-sections 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 escalated capital cost outlay estimate for the two project design
alternatives dated September 29, 2002. The project team provided a further ROM total project cost
estimate amount for each project at the time of the study which totaled $80M for the A1R design
alternative and $75M for the A3 design alternative. The two September 29, 2022 cost estimates are
provided on the following pages.
61
Page 655 of 753
EA: 05-1H640 05-SLO-101
PID: 516000105 26.5-27.3
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost
Escalated Cost
(3%/YR - 2025)
8,125,300$ 8,878,735$
42,380,000$ 46,309,770$
50,505,300$ 55,188,505$
4,497,234$ 5,396,681$
55,010,000$ 60,590,000$
DATE:9/29/2002
On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile South of Prado Road and 0.2-mile South
of Madonna Road
Partial Interchange Reconstruction
Construct New Prado Road crossing over Route 101, Route 101 off-ramp to and on-ramp from
Prado Road, and NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road and Madonna Road
Project Description:
Scope :
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL STRUCTURES COST
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Draft Project Report
PM:
District-County-Route:
Alternative A1R (Roundabout) - Structure OptionAlternative :
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY / UTILITY COST
TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :
Project Limits :
1
62
Page 656 of 753
PRELIMINARY
COST ESTIMATE
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 1,072,700$
2 1,819,600$
3 300,000$
4 182,400$
5 409,500$
6 727,600$
7 50,000$
8 451,200$
9 496,300$
10 323,200$
11 -$
12 1,345,900$
13 946,900$
8,125,300$
Overhead
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Contingencies
Section
Detours
Earthwork
Environmental
Roadway Mobilization
State Furnished
Supplemental Work
Pavement Structural Section
Traffic Items
Specialty Items
Drainage
Minor Items
2
63
Page 657 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
160101 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 30,000.00 = 30,000$
170101 Develop Water Supply LS x =-$
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 14,323 x 55.00 = 787,765$
190103 Roadway Excavation (Type Y) ADL (Assumed) LS x =-$
190105 Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2) ADL CY x =-$
192037 Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall)CY x =-$
193013 Structure Backfill (Retaining Wall)CY 209 x 65.00 = 13,585$
193031 Pervious Backfill Material (Retaining Wall) CY x =-$
194001 Ditch Excavation CY x =-$
198010 Imported Borrow CY 12,064 x 20.00 = 241,280$
198007 Imported Material (Shoulder Backing)TON x =-$
198050 Embankment CY x =-$
1,072,700$
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150771 Remove Asphalt Concrete Dike LF x = -$
150860 Remove Base and Surfacing LS x = -$
153103 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD x = -$
1532XX Remove Concrete (type) CY x = -$
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = -$
260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,092 x 100.00 = 809,200$
290201 Asphalt Treated Permeable Base CY x = -$
365001 Sand Cover TON x = -$
374002 Asphaltic Emulsion (Fog Seal Coat) TON x = -$
374492 Asphaltic Emulsion (Polymer Modified) TON x = -$
3750XX Screenings (Type XX) TON x = -$
377501 Slurry Seal TON x = -$
390095 Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing CY x = -$
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 5,148 x 160.00 = 823,680$
390136 Minor Hot Mix Asphalt TON x = -$
390137 Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) TON x = -$
393003 Geosynthetic Pavement Interlayer SQYD x = -$
39405X Shoulder Rumber Strip (HMA, Type XX Indenta STA x =-$
394071 Place Hot Mix Asphalt Dike LF x =-$
394090 Place Hot Mix Asphalt (Misc. Area)SQYD x =-$
397005 Tack Coat TON x =-$
401000 Concrete Pavement CY x =-$
401108 Replace Concrete Pavement (Rapid Strength C CY x =-$
404092 Seal Pavement Joint LF x =-$
404094 Seal Longitudinal Isolation Joint LF x =-$
413112A Repair Spalled Joints (Polyester Grout) SQYD x =-$
413115 Seal Existing Concrete Pavement Joint LF x =-$
420102 Groove Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x =-$
420201 Grind Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x =-$
721431 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete -Truck
Apron)CY x -$
721431 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete Medians) CY x -$
730020 Minor Concrete (Curb)CY x -$
730020 Minor Concrete(Curb-Truck Apron)CY x -$
730070 Detectable Warning Surface SQFT 331 x 75.00 24,825$
731504 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter)CY 101 x 800.00 80,800$
731521 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk)CY 81 x 1,000.00 = 81,000$
XXXXXX Some Item x =-$
1,819,600$ TOTAL STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS
3
64
Page 658 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150206 Abandon Culvert LF x = -$
150805 Remove Culvert LF x = -$
150820 Modify Inlet EA x = -$
152430 Adjust Inlet LF x = -$
155003 Cap Inlet EA x = -$
193114 Sand Backfill CY x = -$
510502 Minor Concrete (Minor Structure) CY x = -$
510512 Minor Concrete (Box Culvert) CY x = -$
62XXXX XXX" APC Pipe LF x = -$
64XXXX XXX" Plastic Pipe LF x = -$
65XXXX XXX" RCP Pipe LF x = -$
66XXXX XXX" CSP Pipe LF x = -$
68XXXX Edge Drain LF x = -$
69XXXX XXX" Pipe Downdrain LF x = -$
70XXXX XXX" Pipe Inlet LF x = -$
70XXXX XXX" Pipe Riser LF x = -$
70XXXX XXX" Flared End Section EA x = -$
703233 Grated Line Drain LF x = -$
72XXXX Rock Slope Protection (Type and Method) CY x = -$
721420 Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY x = -$
721430 Concrete (Channel Lining) CY x = -$
729010 Rock Slope Protection Fabric SQYD x = -$
750001 Miscellaneous Iron and Steel LB x = -$
XXXXXX Storm Drain System LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000$
XXXXXX Some Item x = -$
300,000$
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070012 Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$
150662 Remove Metal Beam Guard Railing LF x = $ -
150668 Remove Terminal Systems EA x =-$
1532XX Remove Barrier (Insert Type)LF x =-$
153250 Remove Sound Wall SQFT x =-$
190110 Lead Compliance Plan LS 1 x 5,000.00 = 5,000$
475xxx Retaining Wall & Aesthetic Treatment SQFT 2,260 x 50.00 = 113,000$
510060 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) CY x =-$
510133 Class 2 Concrete (Retaining Wall)CY x =-$
510524 Minor Concrete (Sound Wall)CY x =-$
511048 Apply Anti-Graffiti Coating SQFT x =-$
5136XX Reinforced Concrete Crib Wall (Insert Type)SQFT x =-$
518002 Sound Wall (Masonry Block)SQFT x =-$
520103 Bar Reinf. Steel (Retaining Wall)LB x =-$
80XXXX Fence (Insert Type )LFx=-$
832005 Midwest Guardrail System LF 800 x 68.00 = 54,400$
839310 Double Thrie Beam Barrier LF x =-$
839521 Cable Railing LF x =-$
83954X Transition Railing (Insert Type)EA x =-$
8395XX Terminal System (Type CAT)EA x =-$
8395XX Alternative Flared Terminal System EA x =-$
8395XX End Anchor Assembly (Insert Type )EA x =-$
839561 Rail Tensioning Assembly EA x =-$
839XXX Crash Cushion (Insert Type)EA x =-$
83XXXX Concrete Barrier (Insert Type)LF x =-$
182,400$
TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS
TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4
65
Page 659 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Biological Mitigation LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
071325 TEMPORARY REINFORCED SILT FENCE LF x = -$
Tree Removal and Mitigation LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
100,000$
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
20xxxx Planting and Irrigation SQFT 3,978 x 25.00 = 99,450$
20XXXX XXX" (Insert Type ) Conduit (Use for LF x = -$
20XXXX Extend XXX" (Insert Type) Conduit LF x = -$
201700 Imported Topsoil CY x = -$
2030XX Erosion Control (Type __) SQYD x = -$
203021 Fiber Rolls LF x = -$
203026 Move In/ Move Out (Erosion Control) EA x = -$
204099 Plant Establishment Work LS x = -$
204101 Extend Plant Establishment (X Years) LS x = -$
208000 Irrigation System LS x = -$
208304 Water Meter EA x = -$
209801 Maintenance Vehicle Pullout EA x = -$
210210 Erosion Control LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
149,450$
5C - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
074016 Construction Site Management LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
074017 Prepare WPCP LS x = -$
074019 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$
074023 Temporary Erosion Control SQYD x = -$
074027 Temporary Erosion Control Blanket SQYD x = -$
074028 Temporary Fiber Roll LF x = -$
074032 Temporary Concrete Washout Facility EA x = -$
074033 Temporary Construction Entrance EA x = -$
074035 Temporary Check Dam LF x = -$
074037 Move In/ Move Out (Temporary Erosion Con EA x =-$
074038 Temp. Drainage Inlet Protection EA x =-$
074041 Street Sweeping LS x =-$
074042 Temporary Concrete Washout (Portable) LS x =-$
XXXXXX Temporary Facilities & SWPPP Compliance LS 1 x 100,000.00 = 100,000$
Supplemental Work for NPDES
(These costs are not accounted in total here but under Supplemental Work on sheet 7 of 11).
066595 Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing LS x =-$
066596 Additional Water Pollution Control**LS x =-$
066597 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis*** LS x =-$
XXXXXX Some Item
160,000$
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 409,500$
**Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs.
Subtotal NPDES (Without Supplemental Work)
Subtotal Environmental
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation
5
66
Page 660 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150760 Remove Sign Structure EA x = -$
151581 Reconstruct Sign Structure EA x = -$
152641 Modify Sign Structure EA x = -$
5602XX Furnish Sign Structure LB x = -$
5602XX Install Sign Structure LB x = -$
56XXXX XXX" CIDHC Pile (Sign Foundation) LF x = -$
860090 Maintain Existing Traffic Management LS x = -$
860810 Inductive Loop Detectors EA x = -$
86055X Lighting & Sign Illumination LS 1 x 400,000.00 = 400,000$
8607XX Interconnection Facilities LS x = -$
8609XX Traffic Monitoring Stations LS x = -$
860XXX Signals & Lighting LS x = -$
8611XX Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = -$
8611XX Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = -$
86XXXX Fiber Optic Conduit System LS x = -$
XXXXX Service Point LS x -$
400,000$
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 30,000.00 = 30,000$
150701 Remove Yellow Painted Traffic Stripe LF x = -$
150710 Remove Traffic Stripe LF x = -$
150713 Remove Pavement Marking SQFT x = -$
150742 Remove Roadside Sign EA x = -$
152320 Reset Roadside Sign EA x = -$
152390 Relocate Roadside Sign EA x = -$
566011 Roadside Sign (One Post) EA 40 x 350.00 = 14,000$
566012 Roadside Sign (Two Post) EA 4 x 650.00 = 2,600$
560XXX Furnish Sign Panels SQFT x = -$
560XXX Install Sign Panels SQFT x = -$
82010X Delineator (Class X) EA x = -$
84XXXX Permanent Pavement Delineation LS 1 x 31,000.00 = 31,000$
77,600$
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 250,000.00 = 250,000$
120120 Type III Barricade EA x = -$
120143 Temporary Pavement Delineation LF x = -$
12016X Channelizer EA x = -$
128650 Portable Changeable Message Signs EA x = -$
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = -$
129100 Temp. Crash Cushion Module EA x = -$
129099A Traffic Plastic Drum EA x = -$
839603A Temporary Crash Cushion (ADIEM) EA x = -$
XXXXXX Some Item
250,000$
727,600$
Subtotal Traffic Electrical
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping
Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS
6
67
Page 661 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
0713XX Temporary Fence (Type X) LF x = -$
07XXXX Temporary Drainage LS x = -$
120143 Temporary Pavement Delineation LF x = -$
1286XX Temporary Signals EA x = -$
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = -$
190101 Roadway Excavation CY x = -$
198001 Imported Borrow CY x = -$
198050 Embankment CY x = -$
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = -$
260201 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY x = -$
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON x = -$
XXXXXX DETOUR/MISC TEMP FACILITES LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
50,000$
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1-7 4,511,800$
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 0.0% -$
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 0.0% -$
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 10.0% 451,180$
Total of Section 1-7 $ 4,511,800 x 10.0% = 451,180$
451,200$
SECTIONS 9: MOBILIZATION
Item
code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 4,963,000 x 10% = 496,300$
496,300$
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066015 Federal Trainee Program LS x = -$
066063 Traffic Management Plan - Public Informatio LS 1 x 25,000.00 = 25,000$
066090 Maintain Traffic LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
066094 Value Analysis LS x = -$
066204 Remove Rock & Debris LS x = -$
066222 Locate Existing Cross-Over LS x = -$
066670 Payment Adjustments For Price Index Fluctu LS x =-$
066700 Partnering LS x =-$
066866 Operation of Existing Traffic Management S LS x =-$
066920 Dispute Review Board LS x =-$
XXXXXX Some Item x=-$
=-$
Total Section 1-8 $ 4,963,000 5% = 248,150$
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK 323,200$
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5C
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS
TOTAL DETOURS
TOTAL MOBILIZATION
Include constructing, maintaining, and removal
768
Page 662 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066063 Public Information LS x =$0
066105 RE Office LS x =$0
066803 Padlocks LS x =$0
066838 Reflective Numbers and Edge Sealer LS x =$0
066901 Water Expenses LS x =$0
066062A COZEEP Expenses LS x =$0
06684X Ramp Meter Controller Assembly LS x =$0
06684X TMS Controller Assembly LS x =$0
06684X Traffic Signal Controller Assembly LS x =$0
XXXXXX Some Item
Total Section 1-8 $ 4,963,000 0% =-$
$0
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Estiamted Time-Releated Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 2%
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070018 Time-Related Overhead WD 520 X $1,820.96 = $946,900
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $946,900
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCY
(Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%)
Total Section 1-11 $ 6,729,400 x 20% = $1,345,880
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $1,345,900
TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
869
Page 663 of 753
PRELIMINARY
COST ESTIMATE
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
119 LF 32 LF 28 LF
1538 LF 468 LF 498 LF
182965 SQFT 14965 SQFT 13970 SQFT
$42,380,000.00
$36,593,000.00
Prado OC NB OFF-RAMP NB ON-RAMP
Bridge Name Prado Road/US 101 Overcrossing NB Off-Ramp NB On-Ramp
Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Type CIP/PS CIP/PS CIP/PS
Cost Per Square Foot $200.00 $200.00 $200.00
COST OF EACH
STRUCTURE $2,993,000.00 $2,794,000.00
TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES $42,380,000.00
TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES
970
Page 664 of 753
EA: 05-1H640 05-SLO-101
PID: 516000105 26.5-27.3
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost
Escalated Cost
(3%/YR - 2025)
9,319,500$ 10,183,669$
38,107,400$ 41,640,985$
47,426,900$ 51,824,654$
4,531,747$ 5,438,096$
51,960,000$ 57,270,000$
DATE:9/29/2022
On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile South of Prado Road and 0.2-mile South
of Madonna Road
Partial Interchange Reconstruction
Construct New Prado Road crossing over Route 101, Route 101 off-ramp to and on-ramp from
Prado Road, and NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road and Madonna Road
Project Description:
Scope :
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL STRUCTURES COST
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Draft Project Report
PM:
DistrictͲCountyͲRoute:
Alternative A3 - Structure OptionAlternative :
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY / UTILITY COST
TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :
Project Limits :
1
71
Page 665 of 753
PRELIMINARY
COST ESTIMATE
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 1,353,900$
2 1,830,800$
3 300,000$
4 469,600$
5 377,500$
6 978,600$
7 50,000$
8 536,100$
9 589,700$
10 369,900$
11 30,000$
12 1,553,300$
13 880,100$
9,319,500$
Overhead
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Contingencies
Section
Detours
Earthwork
Environmental
Roadway Mobilization
State Furnished
Supplemental Work
Pavement Structural Section
Traffic Items
Specialty Items
Drainage
Minor Items
2
72
Page 666 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
160101 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 30,000.00 = 30,000$
170101 Develop Water Supply LS x =-$
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 14,334 x 55.00 = 788,370$
190103 Roadway Excavation (Type Y) ADL (Assumed) LS x =-$
190105 Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2) ADL CY x =-$
192037 Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall)CY x =-$
193013 Structure Backfill (Retaining Wall)CY 741 x 65.00 = 48,165$
193031 Pervious Backfill Material (Retaining Wall) CY x =-$
194001 Ditch Excavation CY x =-$
198010 Imported Borrow CY 24,368 x 20.00 = 487,360$
198007 Imported Material (Shoulder Backing) TON x =-$
198050 Embankment CY x =-$
1,353,900$
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150771 Remove Asphalt Concrete Dike LF x = -$
150860 Remove Base and Surfacing LS x = -$
153103 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD x = -$
1532XX Remove Concrete (type) CY x = -$
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = -$
260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,296 x 100.00 = 829,600$
290201 Asphalt Treated Permeable Base CY x = -$
365001 Sand Cover TON x = -$
374002 Asphaltic Emulsion (Fog Seal Coat) TON x = -$
374492 Asphaltic Emulsion (Polymer Modified) TON x = -$
3750XX Screenings (Type XX) TON x = -$
377501 Slurry Seal TON x = -$
390095 Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing CY x = -$
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 5,277 x 160.00 = 844,320$
390136 Minor Hot Mix Asphalt TON x = -$
390137 Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) TON x = -$
393003 Geosynthetic Pavement Interlayer SQYD x = -$
39405X Shoulder Rumber Strip (HMA, Type XX Indenta STA x =-$
394071 Place Hot Mix Asphalt Dike LF x =-$
394090 Place Hot Mix Asphalt (Misc. Area)SQYD x =-$
397005 Tack Coat TON x =-$
401000 Concrete Pavement CY x =-$
401108 Replace Concrete Pavement (Rapid Strength C CY x =-$
404092 Seal Pavement Joint LF x =-$
404094 Seal Longitudinal Isolation Joint LF x =-$
413112A Repair Spalled Joints (Polyester Grout) SQYD x =-$
413115 Seal Existing Concrete Pavement Joint LF x =-$
420102 Groove Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x =-$
420201 Grind Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x =-$
721431 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete -Truck
Apron)CY -$
721431 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete Medians) CY -$
730020 Minor Concrete (Curb)CY -$
730020 Minor Concrete(Curb-Truck Apron)CY -$
730070 Detectable Warning Surface SQFT 416 x 75.00 31,200$
731504 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter)CY 57 x 800.00 45,600$
731521 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk)CY 80 x 1,000.00 = 80,000$
XXXXXX Some Item x =-$
1,830,800$ TOTAL STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS
3
73
Page 667 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150206 Abandon Culvert LF x = -$
150805 Remove Culvert LF x = -$
150820 Modify Inlet EA x = -$
152430 Adjust Inlet LF x = -$
155003 Cap Inlet EA x = -$
193114 Sand Backfill CY x = -$
510502 Minor Concrete (Minor Structure) CY x = -$
510512 Minor Concrete (Box Culvert) CY x = -$
62XXXX XXX" APC Pipe LF x = -$
64XXXX XXX" Plastic Pipe LF x = -$
65XXXX XXX" RCP Pipe LF x = -$
66XXXX XXX" CSP Pipe LF x = -$
68XXXX Edge Drain LF x = -$
69XXXX XXX" Pipe Downdrain LF x = -$
70XXXX XXX" Pipe Inlet LF x = -$
70XXXX XXX" Pipe Riser LF x = -$
70XXXX XXX" Flared End Section EA x = -$
703233 Grated Line Drain LF x = -$
72XXXX Rock Slope Protection (Type and Method) CY x = -$
721420 Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY x = -$
721430 Concrete (Channel Lining) CY x = -$
729010 Rock Slope Protection Fabric SQYD x = -$
750001 Miscellaneous Iron and Steel LB x = -$
XXXXXX Storm Drain System LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000$
XXXXXX Some Item x = -$
300,000$
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070012 Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$
150662 Remove Metal Beam Guard Railing LF x = $ -
150668 Remove Terminal Systems EA x =-$
1532XX Remove Barrier (Insert Type)LF x =-$
153250 Remove Sound Wall SQFT x =-$
190110 Lead Compliance Plan LS 1 x 5,000.00 = 5,000$
475xxx Retaining Wall & Aesthetic Treatment SQFT 8,003 x 50.00 = 400,150$
510060 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) CY x =-$
510133 Class 2 Concrete (Retaining Wall)CY x =-$
510524 Minor Concrete (Sound Wall)CY x =-$
511048 Apply Anti-Graffiti Coating SQFT x =-$
5136XX Reinforced Concrete Crib Wall (Insert Type)SQFT x =-$
518002 Sound Wall (Masonry Block)SQFT x =-$
520103 Bar Reinf. Steel (Retaining Wall)LB x =-$
80XXXX Fence (Insert Type )LFx=-$
832005 Midwest Guardrail System LF 800 x 68.00 = 54,400$
839310 Double Thrie Beam Barrier LF x =-$
839521 Cable Railing LF x =-$
83954X Transition Railing (Insert Type)EA x =-$
8395XX Terminal System (Type CAT)EA x =-$
8395XX Alternative Flared Terminal System EA x =-$
8395XX End Anchor Assembly (Insert Type )EA x =-$
839561 Rail Tensioning Assembly EA x =-$
839XXX Crash Cushion (Insert Type)EA x =-$
83XXXX Concrete Barrier (Insert Type)LF x =-$
469,600$
TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS
TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4
74
Page 668 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Biological Mitigation LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
071325 TEMPORARY REINFORCED SILT FENCE LF x = -$
Tree Removal and Mitigation LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
100,000$
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
20xxxx Planting and Irrigation SQFT 2,700 x 25.00 = 67,500$
20XXXX XXX" (Insert Type ) Conduit (Use for LF x = -$
20XXXX Extend XXX" (Insert Type) Conduit LF x = -$
201700 Imported Topsoil CY x = -$
2030XX Erosion Control (Type __) SQYD x = -$
203021 Fiber Rolls LF x = -$
203026 Move In/ Move Out (Erosion Control) EA x = -$
204099 Plant Establishment Work LS x = -$
204101 Extend Plant Establishment (X Years) LS x = -$
208000 Irrigation System LS x = -$
208304 Water Meter EA x = -$
209801 Maintenance Vehicle Pullout EA x = -$
210210 Erosion Control LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
117,500$
5C - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
074016 Construction Site Management LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
074017 Prepare WPCP LS x = -$
074019 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$
074023 Temporary Erosion Control SQYD x = -$
074027 Temporary Erosion Control Blanket SQYD x = -$
074028 Temporary Fiber Roll LF x = -$
074032 Temporary Concrete Washout Facility EA x = -$
074033 Temporary Construction Entrance EA x = -$
074035 Temporary Check Dam LF x = -$
074037 Move In/ Move Out (Temporary Erosion Con EA x =-$
074038 Temp. Drainage Inlet Protection EA x =-$
074041 Street Sweeping LS x =-$
074042 Temporary Concrete Washout (Portable) LS x =-$
XXXXXX Temporary Facilities & SWPPP Compliance LS 1 x 100,000.00 = 100,000$
Supplemental Work for NPDES
(These costs are not accounted in total here but under Supplemental Work on sheet 7 of 11).
066595 Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing LS x =-$
066596 Additional Water Pollution Control**LS x =-$
066597 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis*** LS x =-$
XXXXXX Some Item
160,000$
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 377,500$
**Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs.
Subtotal NPDES (Without Supplemental Work)
Subtotal Environmental
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation
5
75
Page 669 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
150760 Remove Sign Structure EA x = -$
151581 Reconstruct Sign Structure EA x = -$
152641 Modify Sign Structure EA x = -$
5602XX Furnish Sign Structure LB x = -$
5602XX Install Sign Structure LB x = -$
56XXXX XXX" CIDHC Pile (Sign Foundation) LF x = -$
860090 Maintain Existing Traffic Management LS x = -$
860810 Inductive Loop Detectors EA x = -$
86055X Lighting & Sign Illumination LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000$
8607XX Interconnection Facilities LS x = -$
8609XX Traffic Monitoring Stations LS x = -$
860XXX Signals & Lighting LS 1 x 350,000.00 = 350,000$
8611XX Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = -$
8611XX Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = -$
86XXXX Fiber Optic Conduit System LS x = -$
XXXXX Service Point LS x -$
650,000$
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 30,000.00 = 30,000$
150701 Remove Yellow Painted Traffic Stripe LF x = -$
150710 Remove Traffic Stripe LF x = -$
150713 Remove Pavement Marking SQFT x = -$
150742 Remove Roadside Sign EA x = -$
152320 Reset Roadside Sign EA x = -$
152390 Relocate Roadside Sign EA x = -$
566011 Roadside Sign (One Post) EA 40 x 350.00 = 14,000$
566012 Roadside Sign (Two Post) EA 4 x 650.00 = 2,600$
560XXX Furnish Sign Panels SQFT x = -$
560XXX Install Sign Panels SQFT x = -$
82010X Delineator (Class X) EA x = -$
84XXXX Permanent Pavement Delineation LS 1 x 32,000.00 = 32,000$
78,600$
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 250,000.00 = 250,000$
120120 Type III Barricade EA x = -$
120143 Temporary Pavement Delineation LF x = -$
12016X Channelizer EA x = -$
128650 Portable Changeable Message Signs EA x = -$
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = -$
129100 Temp. Crash Cushion Module EA x = -$
129099A Traffic Plastic Drum EA x = -$
839603A Temporary Crash Cushion (ADIEM) EA x = -$
XXXXXX Some Item
250,000$
978,600$
Subtotal Traffic Electrical
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping
Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS
6
76
Page 670 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
0713XX Temporary Fence (Type X) LF x = -$
07XXXX Temporary Drainage LS x = -$
120143 Temporary Pavement Delineation LF x = -$
1286XX Temporary Signals EA x = -$
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = -$
190101 Roadway Excavation CY x = -$
198001 Imported Borrow CY x = -$
198050 Embankment CY x = -$
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = -$
260201 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY x = -$
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON x = -$
XXXXXX DETOUR/MISC TEMP FACILITES LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
50,000$
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1-7 5,360,400$
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 0.0% -$
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 0.0% -$
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 10.0% 536,040$
Total of Section 1-7 $ 5,360,400 x 10.0% = 536,040$
536,100$
SECTIONS 9: MOBILIZATION
Item
code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 5,896,500 x 10% = 589,650$
589,700$
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066015 Federal Trainee Program LS x = -$
066063 Traffic Management Plan - Public Information LS 1 x 25,000.00 = 25,000$
066090 Maintain Traffic LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
066094 Value Analysis LS x = -$
066204 Remove Rock & Debris LS x = -$
066222 Locate Existing Cross-Over LS x = -$
066670 Payment Adjustments For Price Index Fluctuations LS x = -$
066700 Partnering LS x =-$
066866 Operation of Existing Traffic Management System Ele LS x =-$
066920 Dispute Review Board LS x =-$
XXXXXX Some Item x=-$
=-$
Total Section 1-8 $ 5,896,500 5% = 294,825$
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK 369,900$
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5C
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS
TOTAL DETOURS
TOTAL MOBILIZATION
Include constructing, maintaining, and removal
777
Page 671 of 753
PRELIMINARY
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066063 Public Information LS x = $0
066105 RE Office LS x = $0
066803 Padlocks LS x = $0
066838 Reflective Numbers and Edge Sealer LS x = $0
066901 Water Expenses LS x = $0
066062A COZEEP Expenses LS x = $0
06684X Ramp Meter Controller Assembly LS x = $0
06684X TMS Controller Assembly LS x = $0
06684X Traffic Signal Controller Assembly LS 1 x 30,000.00 = $30,000
XXXXXX Some Item
Total Section 1-8 $ 5,896,500 0% = -$
$30,000
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Estiamted Time-Releated Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 2%
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070018 Time-Related Overhead WD 520 X $1,693 = $880,100
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $880,100
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCY
(Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%)
Total Section 1-11 $ 7,766,200 x 20% = $1,553,240
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $1,553,300
TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
878
Page 672 of 753
PRELIMINARY
COST ESTIMATE
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
105 LF 35 LF 29 LF
1538 LF 474 LF 464 LF
161956 SQFT 15642 SQFT 12939 SQFT
$38,107,400.00
$32,391,200.00
Prado OC NB OFF-RAMP NB ON-RAMP
Bridge Name Prado Road/US 101 Overcrossing NB Off-Ramp NB On-Ramp
Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Type CIP/PS CIP/PS CIP/PS
Cost Per Square Foot $200.00 $200.00 $200.00
COST OF EACH
STRUCTURE $3,128,400.00 $2,587,800.00
TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES $38,107,400.00
TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES
979
Page 673 of 753
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Page 674 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project 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 project is currently estimated in the $75-80M range which is far in excess of
what was originally anticipated when the project was first planned. Funding for the project will come
from a variety of sources including federal; state; city; and private, but the need to keep design and
construction costs to a minimum through the project delivery process while balancing project quality
in all facets is essential.
Hydraulics – The project is being constructed in a known floodplain where every structural aspect will
have significant repercussions on how the hydraulics of the surrounding terrain function including
existing stream and surrounding natural infiltration areas. The project must not exceed a 0.1’ impact
to the flood level and must not significantly impede the free flow of future flood waters during large
storm and flooding events.
Project Construction Staging – While a large portion of the project will be constructed on vacant
farmland, significant aspects of the project’s structures will need to be integrated with the continued
operation of US-101 and its northbound on- and off-ramps as well as local streets such as Elks Lane
and Prado Road. In addition, there are several local property access points that will be affected by the
construction effort most notably the transit property, the drive-in theater, and the City’s corporation
yard. The construction staging plan will need to be formulated to reduce the impacts to these
elements as much as possible while also limiting overall project duration.
Site Visit Observations
A virtual site visit was conducted by the VA study team using Google Maps 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.
81
Page 675 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
COST MODEL
The VA team leader prepared a cost model from the cost estimated presented in the Project
Information section of this report. The model is based on the updated project cost estimate dated
September 29, 2022, 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 below provide a concise
perspective of where major cost items reside within the project cost estimate.
Cost Model – Design Alternative A1R
Item Cost % of Total Cumulative %
Structures - Prado OC $36,593,000 72.5 % 72.5 %
Structures - NB Off-Ramp $2,993,000 5.9 % 78.4 %
Structures - NB On-Ramp $2,794,000 5.5 % 83.9 %
Pavement Structural Section $1,819,600 3.6 % 87.5 %
Roadway Contingency $1,345,900 2.7 % 90.2 %
Earthwork $1,072,700 2.1 % 92.3 %
Time-Related Overhead $946,900 1.9 % 94.2 %
Traffic Items $727,600 1.4 % 95.6 %
Roadway Mobilization $496,300 1.0 % 96.6 %
Minor Items $451,200 0.9 % 97.5 %
Environmental $409,500 0.8 % 98.3 %
Supplemental Work $323,200 0.6 % 98.9 %
Drainage $300,000 0.6 % 99.5 %
Specialty Items $182,400 0.4 % 99.9 %
Detours $50,000 0.1 % 100.0 %
State Furnished $0 0.0 % 100.0 %
Right-of-Way $0 0.0 % 100.0 %
TOTAL $50,505,300
82
Page 676 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Pareto Chart - Design Alternative A1R
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
Structures - Prado OCStructures - NB Off-RampStructures - NB On-RampPavement Structural SectionRoadway ContingencyEarthworkTime-Related OverheadTraffic ItemsRoadway MobilizationMinor ItemsEnvironmentalSupplemental WorkDrainageSpecialty ItemsDetoursState FurnishedRight-of-WayCost Cumulative Percent
83
Page 677 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Cost Model – Design Alternative A3
Item Cost % of Total Cumulative %
Structures - Prado OC $32,391,200 68.3 % 68.3 %
Structures - NB Off-Ramp $3,128,400 6.6 % 74.9 %
Structures - NB On-Ramp $2,587,800 5.5 % 80.3 %
Pavement Structural Section $1,830,800 3.9 % 84.2 %
Roadway Contingency $1,553,300 3.3 % 87.5 %
Earthwork $1,353,900 2.9 % 90.3 %
Traffic Items $978,600 2.1 % 92.4 %
Time-Related Overhead $880,100 1.9 % 94.3 %
Roadway Mobilization $589,700 1.2 % 95.5 %
Minor Items $536,100 1.1 % 96.6 %
Specialty Items $469,600 1.0 % 97.6 %
Environmental $377,500 0.8 % 98.4 %
Supplemental Work $369,900 0.8 % 99.2 %
Drainage $300,000 0.6 % 99.8 %
Detours $50,000 0.1 % 99.9 %
State Furnished $30,000 0.1 % 100.0 %
Right-of-Way $0 0.0 % 100.0 %
TOTAL $47,426,900
84
Page 678 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Pareto Chart - Design Alternative A3
For VA alternative development, additional percentage-based cumulative mark-ups not included in
the initial cost of construction are reflected within the total project estimate. These mark-ups include
10% for Minor Items, 10% for Mobilization, 5% for Supplemental Work, 20% for Roadway
Contingency, and 9.3% for escalation. The mark-up for each initial construction cost items
cumulatively amounts to 65.9% for roadway construction items, 31.2% for Time-Related Overhead,
and 9.3% for the interchange structures. This mark-up total was used for the purpose of developing
initial construction costs for analyzing individual practical design VA alternatives.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
Structures - Prado OCStructures - NB Off-RampStructures - NB On-RampPavement Structural SectionRoadway ContingencyEarthworkTraffic ItemsTime-Related OverheadRoadway MobilizationMinor ItemsSpecialty ItemsEnvironmentalSupplemental WorkDrainageDetoursState FurnishedRight-of-WayCost Cumulative Percent
85
Page 679 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project 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 Determination
Project Element Function
Construction Prepare Site
Construction Remove Existing
Construction Remove HAZMAT
Design Improve Operations
Design Improve Mobility
Design Enhance Safety
Design Enhance Maint.
Design Accom Vehicles
Design Match Existing
Design Inform Public
Design Separate Traffic
Design Control Access
Design Provide Access
Design Control Traffic
Design Accom Movements
Design Accom Pedestrians
Design Reduce Incidents
Design Control Speed
Design Accom Bicycles
Design Inform Users
Electrical Illuminate Space
Environmental Mitigate Environment
Hydraulics Remove Water
Hydraulics Collect Water
Hydraulics Convey Water
Project Element Function
Landscaping Resist Erosion
Landscaping Establish Vegetation
Materials Support Load
Materials Support Pavement
Materials Protect Roadway
Materials Increase Longevity
Materials Enhance Durability
Planning Introduce Traffic
Project Mgmt Maintain Operations
Project Mgmt Maintain Access
Project Mgmt Meet Budget
Project Mgmt Meet Schedule
Project Mgmt Meet Standards
Project Mgmt Protect Environment
Project Mgmt Coordinate Projects
Project Mgmt Manage Contract
Project Mgmt Manage Risk
Project Mgmt Obtain Permits
Project Mgmt Award Contract
Project Mgmt Notify Public
Project Mgmt Investigate Cond.
Project Mgmt Stage Construction
R/W Maintain Utilities
Structures Retain Earth
Structures Protect Structures
86
Page 680 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
The study team concluded that the higher-order function of the project is to Improve Operations
through the basic functions of Improve Mobility, Reduce Maintenance, and Enhance Safety. Key
secondary functions include Support Load, Match Existing, Separate Traffic, Remove Water,
Accommodate Vehicles, Accommodate Pedestrians, Accommodate Bicycles, and Inform Public.
Essential requirements included Maintain Existing Operations, Maintain Access, Protect Environment,
Meet Budget, Meet Schedule, Meet Standards, and Reduce Risk. The project’s FAST diagram is below.
FAST Diagram
87
Page 681 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
VALUE METRICS
Value Methodology (VM) has traditionally been perceived as an effective means for reducing project
costs. This paradigm only addresses one part of the value equation, oftentimes at the expense of the
role that VM can play with regard to improving project performance. Project costs are fairly easy to
quantify and compare; performance is not.
Project performance must be properly defined and agreed to by the stakeholders at the beginning of
the VA study. The performance requirements and attributes developed are then used throughout the
study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives. This process, Value Metrics, emphasizes the
interrelationship between the elements of performance, cost, and time and can be quantified and
compared in terms of how they contribute to overall value. The basic equation for value is:
Value = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Value Metrics provides a standardized means of identifying, defining, evaluating, and measuring
performance. Once this has been achieved and costs for all VA alternatives have been developed,
measuring value is very straightforward.
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 course of 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 PA&ED – Oct.
2023; PS&E – Oct. 2025; RTL – Nov. 2025; Award – Jan. 2026; Begin
Construction – Feb. 2026; End Construction – Nov. 2027.
88
Page 682 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Define Performance Attributes and Scales
Performance attributes represent those aspects of a project’s scope that may possess a range of
potential values. For example, an attribute called “Short-Term Environmental Impacts” may have a
range of acceptable values for a project ranging from 1 acre to 20 acres of wetlands mitigation. It is
clear that a concept that offered 15 acres of mitigation would perform at a higher level than one that
offered 5 acres, but both would meet the project’s need and purpose, and their values (i.e., the
relationship between performance and cost) could be rationally compared. The following
performance attributes were selected for this project.
Multi-Modal Connectivity
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.
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.
Long-Term Environmental 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.
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.
89
Page 683 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Construction Impacts (Short-Term Environmental 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.
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.
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.
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.
90
Page 684 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
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).
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.
Prioritize Performance Attributes
The performance attributes of a project are seldom of equal importance. Therefore, a systematic
approach must be utilized to determine their relative importance in meeting the project’s need and
purpose.
Once the performance attributes were defined and their scales developed, the project team and
stakeholders prioritized them based on their relative importance to the project. The Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) was utilized in the prioritization process. The performance attributes were
systematically compared in pairs, asking the question: “An improvement to which attribute will
provide the greatest benefit relative to the project’s need and purpose?” Participants were then
asked to indicate their priorities and the relative intensities of their preferences. The chart on the
following page provides the results of this analysis and includes the complete breakdown of the
priorities, expressed as a percentage of the whole.
91
Page 685 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Performance Attributes Prioritization
13%
19%
20%
22%
26%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Construction Impacts
Traffic Operations
Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Multi-Modal Connectivity
Maintainability
92
Page 686 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Measure Performance of Baseline Concept – Design Alternative A1R
The project team and stakeholders evaluated the performance of the baseline concept relative to the
scales previously identified. The information below reflects the performance ratings and associated
rationale for each attribute.
Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 7
Rating Rationale: High – The roundabout design alternative provides a high level of multi-modal
support. The use of a roundabout allows for continuous movement for bicycles and pedestrians
along Prado road and over US-101. All design standards for spacing and distance are followed in
the design.
Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 5.1
Rating Rationale: Medium – The roundabout design alternative has slightly more impacts to the
long-term environmental impacts, as its overall project footprint is slightly higher than the
intersection alternative. The elevated roundabout will have a greater impact on the 0.1’ floodplain
limitation but should not exceed it. The overall aesthetic of the structures and the sheer number of
columns used is a concern and opportunities are present to enhance the visual impact of the
facility.
Construction Impacts Rating: 6.3
Rating Rationale: High – The level of construction impacts for this project is seen as better than
typical for the amount of structures being constructed. Extended detours, limited property access,
on- and off-ramp closures, and traffic revisions on US-101 during construction of the Prado road OC
structure are to be expected but appear to be standard and can be mitigated through typical
means. The roundabout design alternative is seen as slightly worse than the intersection design
alternative due to the slightly larger elevated structure, additional materials handled, and
structural work involved. A large portion of the project can be constructed with little to no impacts
to the public as it is occurring in open farmland property. There will be some utility impacts as well
while services are rerouted.
Traffic Operations Rating: 7.4
Rating Rationale: High – The roundabout design alternative is seen to have a high level of traffic
operations both for the mainline US-101 facility (on- and off-ramps) as well as for the Prado road
and Elks Lane local roads. The roundabout is seen as a way to effectively and efficiently maintain
traffic volume movement to and from the US-101 facility while also allowing for traffic on Prado
road as an east-west connector road. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic are also supported effectively
while all design standards are maintained.
93
Page 687 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Maintainability Rating: 5.7
Rating Rationale: Medium – The roundabout design alternative will result in a fairly typical level of
future maintainability. The elevated roundabout design alternative is seen as slightly worse than
the intersection design alternative simply due to its larger size and more surface area to maintain.
The finished facility will be designed and constructed while following all necessary standards and
will provide a high level of future accessibility. The open areas under the structures will introduce a
challenge for Caltrans and the City to keep clear but are necessary to limit and maintain floodwater
flows and to limit impacts to the floodplain’s ability to weather severe flood events.
Measure Performance of Baseline Concept – Design Alternative A3
The project team and stakeholders evaluated the performance of the baseline concept relative to the
scales previously identified. The information below reflects the performance ratings and associated
rationale for each attribute.
Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 6.2
Rating Rationale: High – The intersection design alternative provides a high level of multi-modal
support. The use of the signaled intersection allows for good movement of bicycles and pedestrians
along Prado road and over US-101. All design standards for spacing and distance are followed in
the design.
Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 7.2
Rating Rationale: High – The intersection design alternative does a good job of limiting the amount
of long-term environmental impacts. The project footprint is slightly better than the roundabout
alternative which will have a lesser impact on the 0.1’ floodplain limitation. The overall aesthetic of
the structures and the sheer number of columns used is a concern and opportunities are present to
enhance the visual impact of the facility.
Construction Impacts Rating: 7.1
Rating Rationale: High – The level of construction impacts for this project is seen as better than
typical for the number of structures being constructed. Extended detours, limited property access,
on- and off-ramp closures, and traffic revisions on US-101 during construction of the Prado road OC
structure are to be expected but appear to be standard and can be mitigated through typical
means. The intersection design alternative is seen as slightly better than the roundabout design
alternative due to the slightly larger elevated structure, additional materials handled, and
structural work involved. A large portion of the project can be constructed with little to no impacts
to the public as it is occurring in open farmland property. There will be some utility impacts as well
while services are rerouted.
94
Page 688 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Traffic Operations Rating: 5.8
Rating Rationale: Medium – The intersection design alternative is seen to have a medium level of
traffic operations both for the mainline US-101 facility (on- and off-ramps) as well as the Prado
road and Elks Lane local roads. The intersection will require stop-and-go traffic movements for
both the traffic to and from the US-101 facility and the traffic on Prado road. Bicycle and
pedestrian traffic will be supported by standard design practices but will also be required to be
controlled by the signalized intersection.
Maintainability Rating: 6.6
Rating Rationale: High – The intersection design alternative will result in a fairly typical level of
future maintainability. The elevated intersection design alternative is seen as slightly better than
the roundabout design alternative simply due to its smaller size and limited surface area to
maintain. The finished facility will be designed and constructed while following all necessary
standards and will provide a high level of future accessibility. The open areas under the structures
will introduce a challenge for Caltrans and the City to keep clear but are necessary to limit the
maintain floodwater flows and to limit impacts to the floodplain’s ability to weather severe flood
events.
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 a VA strategy for each design alternative for consideration. The
Recommended VA Strategies reflect the combination of complimentary VA alternatives
recommended by the team and is summarized in the table below.
Summary of Recommended VA Strategies
Strategy Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Performance
Change
Value
Change
Design Alternative A1R - VA Strategy
Alts. 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 $20,707,000 7.5-month
reduction +17 %+48 %
Design Alternative A3 - VA Strategy
Alts. 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 $18,803,000 7.5-month
reduction +16 %+46 %
95
Page 689 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Compare Performance – Baseline Concept and Recommended VA Strategies
The VA team considered the combined effect of all VA alternatives for the Recommended VA
Strategies. 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 each VA strategy.
Comparison of Performance - Design Alternative A1R - VA Strategy
Comparison of Performance - Design Alternative A3 - VA Strategy
96
Page 690 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Rating Rationale for Recommended VA Strategies
The rating rationale for the performance of the baseline concept was presented previously in this
section. The rating rationales for the VA strategies developed by the VA team are provided below.
Design Alternative A1R - VA Strategy (Alternatives 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0)
Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (7 - 7.7) Improves the operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of
the nearby vehicles on the structure. If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and
pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.
2.0 - (7 - 7) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic
calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.
Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path.
Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 6.8
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (5.1 - 5.6) May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns
needed to support the structure.
2.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Reduces overall footprint of the Prado road OC structure which also reduces
stormwater volumes. This will result in less disturbed soil and land.
4.0 - (5.1 - 6.6) Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a
significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce
the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’
rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.
5.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Avoids additional excavation and soil disturbance for new alignment. Reduces the
loss of the residual value of the existing sewer main.
6.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Aligns with Caltrans sustainability objectives.
97
Page 691 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Construction Impacts Rating: 8
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (6.3 - 7.3) Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design
(potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort.
Will allow for possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also translate
to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a construction
duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to surrounding
community.
2.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.
3.0 - (6.3 - 6.8) Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column
location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the
amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site. The rate of
production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and
backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 4 months (80 workdays).
Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies may be encountered when pouring concrete.
4.0 - (6.3 - 7.8) Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be
placed which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly
reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have
less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (reduced amount of columns needed and
piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6 months
(120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required for the
mainline. Impacts to the local community, noise from pile driving and hauling on local roads, can
also be expected to be reduced. Will require space for crane operation and hauling of large
structural elements.
5.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) Simplifies the construction effort by eliminating relocation of the sewer line. Should
reduce the construction duration for the work being performed with the Elks Lane Relocation –
assume a 1-week reduction (5 workdays). Will require careful consideration when placing structural
elements for the NB on-ramp and the Prado road OC structures to avoid conflicts between the
existing alignment and placement of piles and pile caps.
6.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials
can be completed onsite which may reduce project duration slightly. Will require additional effort
by contractor to stockpile and combine into hot mixed asphalt (HMA) mixes onsite or off-site
before the material can be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile
recycler/grinder onsite which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may
reduce hauling).
98
Page 692 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Traffic Operations Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (7.4 - 7.7) Reduce the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated
that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.
2.0 - (7.4 - 7.4) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic
calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on
traffic volumes.
Maintainability Rating: 6.7
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (5.7 - 6) Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure which
may be prone to vandalism or graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.
2.0 - (5.7 - 5.8) Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.
4.0 - (5.7 - 6.7) Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect
and maintain the structures including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now
be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.
Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines
would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.
5.0 - (5.7 - 5.7) Future maintenance access should be improved as it is located farther from an
active roadway and within the City’s right-of-way (R/W). Will not be installing a new sewer main;
will be foregoing an extension of the sewer main’s anticipated useful life.
Design Alternative A3 - VA Strategy (Alternatives 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 & 6.0)
Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 6.9
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (6.2 - 6.9) Improves operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of the
nearby vehicles on the structure. If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and
pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.
2.0 - (6.2 - 6.2) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic
calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.
Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path.
99
Page 693 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 8.8
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (7.2 - 7.7) May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns
needed to support the structure.
2.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Reduces overall footprint of the Prado road OC structure which also reduces
stormwater volumes. Results in less disturbed soil and land.
4.0 - (7.2 - 8.7) Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a
significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce
the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’
rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.
5.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Avoids additional excavation and soil disturbance for new alignment. Reduces the
loss of the residual value of the existing sewer main.
6.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Aligns with Caltrans sustainability objectives.
Construction Impacts Rating: 8.8
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (7.1 - 8.1) Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design
(potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort.
Will allow for the possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also
translate to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a
construction duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to
surrounding community.
2.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.
3.0 - (7.1 - 7.6) Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column
location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the
amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site. The rate of
production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and
backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 4 months (80 workdays).
Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies can be encountered when pouring concrete.
4.0 - (7.1 - 8.6) Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be
placed – which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly
reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have
less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (amount of columns needed and piles
driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6 months (120
workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required for the
100
Page 694 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
mainline. Impacts to the local community, noise from pile driving and hauling on local roads, can
also be expected to be reduced. Will require space for crane operation and hauling of large
structural elements.
5.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) Simplifies the construction effort by eliminating relocation of the sewer line. Should
reduce the construction duration for the work being performed with the Elks Lane Relocation –
assume a 1-week reduction (5 workdays). Will require careful consideration when placing structural
elements for the NB on-ramp and the Prado road OC structures to avoid conflicts between the
existing alignment and placement of piles and pile caps.
6.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials
can be completed onsite which may reduce project duration slightly. Will require additional effort
by contractor to stockpile and combine into HMA mixes onsite or off-site before the material can
be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder onsite
which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).
Traffic Operations Rating: 6.1
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (5.8 - 6.1) Reduces the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated
that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.
2.0 - (5.8 - 5.8) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic
calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on
traffic volumes.
Maintainability Rating: 7.6
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (6.6 - 6.9) Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure
which may be prone to vandalism/graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.
2.0 - (6.6 - 6.7) Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.
4.0 - (6.6 - 7.6) Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect
and maintain the structures including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now
be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.
Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines
would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.
5.0 - (6.6 - 6.6) Future maintenance access should be improved as it is located farther from an
active roadway and within the City’s R/W. Will not be installing a new sewer main but will be
foregoing an extension of the sewer main’s anticipated useful life.
101
Page 695 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
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 62 %
TIME 38 %
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:
•V = Value •P = Performance •t = Time
•f = Function •C = Cost •α = Risk𝑉𝑉𝑃𝑃(𝑃𝑃,𝐶𝐶,𝑡𝑡)𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡=∑𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ∙ 𝛼𝛼∞𝑃𝑃=1∑[(𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃∙ 𝛼𝛼
)+ (𝑡𝑡𝑃𝑃∙ 𝛼𝛼)]∞𝑃𝑃=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 Design Alternative A1R VA Strategy
0%
48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Design Option A1R Baseline Option A1R VA Strategy Change in ValueRelative ScoresPerformance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
102
Page 696 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Comparison of Value –
Baseline Concept and Design Alternative A3 VA Strategy
0%
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Design Option A3 Baseline Option A3 VA Strategy Change in ValueRelative ScoresPerformance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
103
Page 697 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Rating Rationale for Design Alternative A1R with Accepted VA Alternatives
The rating rationale for the performance of the baseline concept was presented previously in this
section. The rating rationale for the accepted VA alternatives that were developed by the VA team is
provided below.
Design Alternative A1R with Accepted VA Alternatives (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0)
Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (7 - 7.7) Improves the operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of
the nearby vehicles on the structure. If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and
pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.
2.0 - (7 - 7) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic
calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.
Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path.
Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 6.8
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (5.1 - 5.6) May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns
needed to support the structure.
2.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Reduces overall footprint of the Prado road OC structure which also reduces
stormwater volumes. Results in less disturbed soil and land.
4.0 - (5.1 - 6.6) Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a
significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce
the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’
rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.
6.0 - (5.1 - 5.2) Aligns with Caltrans’ sustainability objectives.
Construction Impacts Rating: 8
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (6.3 - 7.3) Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design
(potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort.
Will allow for possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also translate
to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a construction
duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to surrounding
community.
104
Page 698 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
2.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.
3.0 - (6.3 - 6.8) Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column
location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the
amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site. The rate of
production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and
backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 4 months (80 workdays).
Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies may be encountered when pouring concrete.
4.0 - (6.3 - 7.8) Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be
placed which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly
reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have
less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (reduces the amount of columns needed
and piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6
months (120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required
for the mainline. Impacts to the local community, noise from pile driving and hauling on local
roads, can also be expected to be reduced. Will require space for crane operation and hauling of
large structural elements.
6.0 - (6.3 - 6.4) May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials
can be completed onsite, which may reduce project duration slightly. Will require additional effort
by contractor to stockpile and combine into HMA mixes onsite or off-site before the material can
be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder onsite
which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).
Traffic Operations Rating: 7.7
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (7.4 - 7.7) Reduce the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated
that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.
2.0 - (7.4 - 7.4) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic
calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on
traffic volumes.
Maintainability Rating: 6.7
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (5.7 - 6) Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure which
may be prone to vandalism or graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.
2.0 - (5.7 - 5.8) Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.
105
Page 699 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
4.0 - (5.7 - 6.7) Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect
and maintain the structures including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now
be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.
Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines
would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.
Value Matrix
Design Alternative A1R Baseline & A1R with Accepted VA Alternatives
Strategies Performance
Score
Net
Change
Cost/Time
Score
Net
Change
Value
Index
Change in
Value
Design Alternative A1R
Baseline 0.626 -- 0.558 -- 1.122 --
A1R w/ Accepted VA
Alternatives 0.730 +17 %0.442 -21 %1.651 +47 %
Comparison of Value
Design Alternative A1R Baseline & A1R with Accepted VA Alternatives
0%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Design Alternative A1R
Baseline
Design Alternative A1R
w/ Accepted Alternatives Change in ValueRelative ScoresPerformance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
106
Page 700 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Rating Rationale for Design Alternative A3 w ith Accepted VA Alternatives
The rating rationale for the performance of the baseline concept was presented previously in this
section. The rating rationale for the accepted VA alternatives that were developed by the VA team is
provided below.
Design Alternative A3 with Accepted VA Alternative (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0)
Multi-Modal Connectivity Rating: 6.9
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (6.2 - 6.9) Improves operations of the pedestrian/bicycle facility by reducing the speed of the
nearby vehicles on the structure. If the physical barrier is removed from between the EOS and
pedestrian/bicycle facility, there may be a higher incidence of traffic conflicts.
2.0 - (6.2 - 6.2) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic
calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict between the modes of travel.
Reduces the shoulder width buffer area between the edge of travel way and bike path.
Long-Term Environmental Impacts Rating: 8.7
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (7.2 - 7.7) May improve the overall aesthetic of the bridge by reducing the number of columns
needed to support the structure.
2.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Reduces overall footprint of the Prado road OC structure which also reduces
stormwater volumes. Results in less disturbed soil and land.
4.0 - (7.2 - 8.7) Will reduce the number of columns needed to support the spans which will have a
significant impact on the lasting structure aesthetics. The reduction in columns should also reduce
the permanent flood zone impacts and provide more flexibility in terms of staying below the 0.1’
rise maximum set for the project by FEMA.
6.0 - (7.2 - 7.3) Aligns with Caltrans sustainability objectives.
107
Page 701 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Construction Impacts Rating: 8.8
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (7.1 - 8.1) Will provide more design flexibility and may simplify the overall structure design
(potentially longer spans and completely spanning over the US-101 facility) and construction effort.
Will allow for the possible elimination of the columns in the median of US-101. This will also
translate to a reduction in traffic staging and traffic handling during construction. Assume a
construction duration reduction of 1.5 months (30 workdays). Will lessen the noise impacts to
surrounding community.
2.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) Will reduce the overall materials needed for structure construction.
3.0 - (7.1 - 7.6) Requires fewer holes to drill compared to numerous piles to drive at each column
location. Will have less impact on local community from a noise standpoint. Will reduce the
amount of material stockpile (driven piles) to be located near construction site. The rate of
production can be considered to be improved as the pile cap work (excavation, forming, and
backfill) can be eliminated. Assume a reduction of the project duration of 4 months (80 workdays).
Will require the use of Baker tank. Anomalies can be encountered when pouring concrete.
4.0 - (7.1 - 8.6) Will simplify the construction effort by the reducing the number of bents to be
placed – which will in turn reduce the number of columns and piles needed. Will also significantly
reduce the amount of structure falsework and concrete pouring needed for CIP elements. Will have
less impact on local community from a noise standpoint (reduces the amount of columns needed
and piles driven). The overall construction duration can be expected to be reduced by up to 6
months (120 workdays). This will reduce the amount of traffic handling and lane closures required
for the mainline. Impacts to the local community, noise from pile driving and hauling on local
roads, can also be expected to be reduced. Will require space for crane operation and hauling of
large structural elements.
6.0 - (7.1 - 7.2) May reduce the amount of haul for borrow and export. The recycling of materials
can be completed onsite, which may reduce project duration slightly. Will require additional effort
by contractor to stockpile and combine into HMA mixes onsite or off-site before the material can
be used on the project. This may require the contractor to have a mobile recycler/grinder onsite
which may require additional space for staging and stockpiling (which may reduce hauling).
Traffic Operations Rating: 6.1
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (5.8 - 6.1) Reduces the frequency and severity of potential traffic conflicts. It is not anticipated
that traffic flow and volume would be affected by the reduction in speed.
2.0 - (5.8 - 5.8) The narrower shoulder and narrower inside lane will function as additional traffic
calming elements and should reduce the potential for traffic conflict. No measurable impact on
traffic volumes.
108
Page 702 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Maintainability Rating: 7.6
Rating Rationale: Improved
1.0 - (6.6 - 6.9) Should improve maintenance by reducing the number of columns and structure
which may be prone to vandalism/graffiti in the future. Will reduce maintenance effort in median.
2.0 - (6.6 - 6.7) Reduces overall square footage and structure to maintain.
4.0 - (6.6 - 7.6) Represents a lower maintenance burden in terms of structural elements to inspect
and maintain the structures including maintaining the spaces below the structures, which will now
be more open and easier to access. The potential for graffiti and/or vandalism will also be reduced.
Would require utility conduit to be hung along the Prado road OC structure where the utility lines
would be more exposed to vandalism unless casing is provided.
Value Matrix
Design Alternative A3 Baseline & A3 with Accepted VA Alternatives
Strategies Performance
Score
Net
Change
Cost/Time
Score
Net
Change
Value
Index
Change in
Value
Design Option A3
Baseline 0.655 -- 0.556 -- 1.178 --
Accepted Option A3
Alternatives 0.755 +15 %0.444 -20 %1.701 +44 %
109
Page 703 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Project Analysis
Comparison of Value –
Design Alternative A3 Baseline & Accepted VA Alternatives
0%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Design Alternative A3
Baseline
Design Alternative A3
w/ Accepted VA Alternatives Change in ValueRelative ScoresPerformance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value
110
Page 704 of 753
IDEA EVALUATION
Page 705 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project 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 Environmental 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
AP Accom Pedestrians
CA Control Access
CE Change Elevation
CW Convey Water
CU Connect Utilities
EA Enhance Aesthetics
IS Illuminate Space
ME Mitigate Environment
Idea Code Related Function
MR Manage Risk
MT Manage Traffic
MW Manage Water
OF Obtain Funding
RE Remove Existing
SC Stage Construction
SL Support Load
SM Support Multi-Modality
112
Page 706 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
A detailed idea evaluation summary is also included. This summary includes additional information
related to how each idea improves or degrades the elements of performance, cost, time (schedule),
and risk. Only those elements where the idea differs from the baseline concept are included in this
summary.
IDEA SUMMARY LIST
Idea Code and Description Rating
AP-1: Keep ped/bike facility at-grade, cross under US-101 DIS
AP-2: Reduce some lane/shoulder widths DEV
CA-1: Remove consideration for space below for maintenance vehicle parking DIS
CA-2: Lots under bridge to city ownership for municipal use DS
CA-3: Trespass resistant landscape/hardscape DIS
CE-1: At-grade roundabout along the main line DIS
CE-2: Embankment fill with culverts/arches rather than columns DIS
CE-3: Lower some ground areas to offset some additional fill DIS
CE-4: Bridge type to allow for future raising if US-101 needs to be raised OC
CW-1: Revisit flood bypass channel/basin DIS
CU-1: Install utility conduit across structure OC
CU-2: Provide utility conduit along under hang DIS
CU-3: Leave existing sewer line in place DEV
EA-1: Use screen in front of columns DIS
EA-2: Integrally colored concrete OC
EA-3: Use concrete form liner for columns OC
EA-4: Use flared columns, non-structural OC
EA-5: Use arch facades between exterior columns OC
EA-6: Eliminate structure within roundabout central island area ABD
EA-7: Join columns with arches at abutment DIS
EA-8: Use rounding at exterior girder OC
EA-9: Explore other ideas for exterior aesthetic at abutment that include rounding OC
EA-10: Ensure that design uses consistent aesthetics with LOVR OC
EA-11: Use art on columns OC
EA-12: Public art embedded within bridge barrier railing and fence OC
EA-13: Use texture on columns and barrier; combine with above DIS
113
Page 707 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
Idea Code and Description Rating
EA-14: Plantings along larger columns (living wall) OC
IS-1: Install pedestrian scaled lighting OC
ME-1: Incorporate mitigation planting under structure OC
MR-1: Conduct peer review of structures OC
MR-2: Update unit costs OC
MR-3: Review similar facilities in flood-prone areas OC
MT-1: Separate bike/ped signal phase vehicle movements at intersection DIS
MT-2: Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph DEV
MW-1: Utilize space below structures for post-const. stormwater requirements OC
OF-1: Plantings along larger columns (living wall) OC
OF-2: Pursue funding from Bond Measures OC
OF-3: Pursue ATP grants for additional funding OC
OF-4: Pursue additional funding by re-branding as "Community Connectivity" project OC
OF-5: Combine with concurrent main line project DIS
OF-6: Consider the no-project option DIS
RE-1: Use recycled and/or reclaimed material in project DEV
SC-1: Daytime closure opportunities OC
SC-2: Move bridge crossing a block or two south DIS
SC-3: Evaluate feasibility of SB median crossover given horizontal curve of mainline OC
SC-4: Consider shift in layout to straighten bridge DIS
SC-5: Shift roundabout to reduce R/W impacts DIS
SC-6: Reduce construction duration OC
SC-7: Prioritize construction staging plans OC
SC-8: Pursue use of night work; drilling of foundations; use more crews OC
SC-9: Identify construction staging areas OC
SL-1: Use longer spans/fewer columns; steel girders or precast T-beams in lieu of CIP
girders DEV
SL-2: Use CIDH columns in lieu of pile caps DEV
SL-3: Use steel girders in lieu of CIP DIS
SL-4: Use larger diameter columns DIS
SL-5: Use spread footings for columns DIS
114
Page 708 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
Idea Code and Description Rating
SL-6: Use ABC - bents and abutments DIS
SL-7: Use long precast spans for structures DIS
SL-8: Reduce number of supports for structures DIS
SM-1: Construct separate pedestrian bridge DIS
SM-2: Incorporate vehicle barrier rail between ES and ped/bike facility DIS
SM-3: Incorporate "teardrop" style roundabout OC
SM-4: Incorporate aesthetic on vehicle barrier rail between ES and ped/bike DIS
SM-5: Provide bike/ped amenities/furniture OC
DEV: Develop as a VA Alternative
DS: Design Suggestion
ABD: Already Being Done in the Baseline Concept
DIS: Dismissed
OC: Other Consideration
DETAILED IDEA EVALUATION SUMMARY
AP-1: Keep ped/bike facility at-grade, cross under US-101 Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Not feasible with Caltrans and US-101 requirements.
AP-2: Reduce some lane/shoulder widths Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a feasible VA alternative.
CA-1: Remove consideration for space below for maintenance vehicle parking Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this space is needed by the City.
CA-2: Lots under bridge to city ownership for municipal use Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: Should be documented as “other consideration.”
115
Page 709 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
CA-3: Trespass resistant landscape/hardscape Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this was not a feasible solution to the area
under the structures and would lead to additional maintenance. It also would hinder infiltration of
stormwater.
CE-1: At-grade roundabout along the main line Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – This concept is not keeping with Caltrans and FHWA standards.
CE-2: Embankment fill with culverts/arches rather than columns Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – It was determined that this concept would not be practical from a
design and construction standpoint.
CE-3: Lower some ground areas to offset some additional fill Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this would not have the desired effect on flood
control.
CE-4: Bridge type to allow for future raising if 101 needs to be raised Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
COWA-1: Revisit flood bypass channel/basin Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this would not have the desired effect on flood
control.
CU-1: Install utility conduit across structure Overall
Rating: ABD
General comments: Determined that this concept is already being considered in the Prado Road
OC design.
116
Page 710 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
CU-2: Provide utility conduit along underhung Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determine that this was not desirable by maintenance.
CU-3: Leave sewer in place Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a VA alternative.
EA-1: Use screen in front of columns Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this would become a maintenance issue.
EA-2: Integrally colored concrete Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
EA-3: Concrete form liner Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
EA-4: Flared columns - non-structural Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
EA-5: Use arch facades between exterior columns Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
117
Page 711 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
EA-6: Eliminate structure within roundabout central island area Overall
Rating: ABD
General comments: Determined that this was already in the plans.
EA-7: Join columns with arches at abutment Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
EA-8: Use rounding at exterior girder Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
EA-9: Explore other ideas for exterior aesthetic at abutment that include rounding Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
EA-10: Ensure that design uses consistent aesthetics with LOVR Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
EA-11: Art on columns Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
EA-12: Public art embedded within bridge barrier railing/fence Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
118
Page 712 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
EA-13: Texture on columns and barrier - combine with above Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that the barrier was not needed in the design. Based
on a review of the ped/bike requirements.
EA-14: Plantings along larger columns (living wall) Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
IS-1: Ped scaled lighting Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
ME-1: Mitigation planting under structure Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
MR-1: Perform a peer review of structures Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
MR-2: Update unit costs Overall
Rating: ABD
General comments: Determined that this is already in process.
MR-3: Review similar facilities in flood-prone areas Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
119
Page 713 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
MT-1: Separate bike/ped signal phase vehicle movements at intersection Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determine that this was not necessary.
MT-2: Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a VA alternative.
MW-1: Utilize space below structures for post-const. stormwater requirements Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
OF-1: Plantings along larger columns (living wall) Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
OF-2: Pursue funding from Bond Measures Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
OF-3: Pursue ATP grants Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
OF-4: Re-brand as "Community Connectivity" project Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
OF-5: Combine with concurrent main line project Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Does not appear feasible from a funding standpoint.
120
Page 714 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
OF-6: Pursue the no-project option Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this is not a feasible option given the amount of
growth and current/projected traffic volumes.
RE-1: Recycled use of materials (AC, base, etc.) Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a VA alternative.
SC-1: Daytime closure opportunities Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
SC-2: Move bridge crossing a block or two south Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this is not a feasible option given the alignments
and current use.
SC-3: Evaluate feasibility of SB median crossover given horizontal curve of mainline Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
SC-4: Layout shift to straighten bridge Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this is not a feasible option given the alignments
and current use.
SC-5: Shift roundabout to reduce R/W impacts Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this is not a feasible option given the alignments
and current use.
121
Page 715 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
SC-6: Reduce construction duration Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
SC-7: Prioritize staged construction plans Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
SC-8: Pursue use of night work - drilling of foundations - use more crews Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
SC-9: Identify staging areas: use Prado , drive-in, and corporation yard Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
SL-1: Use longer spans/fewer columns; steel girders or precast T-beams in lieu of
CIP girders
Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: This will be developed as a VA alternative.
SL-2: Use CIDH columns in lieu of pile cap Overall
Rating: DEV
General comments: Will be developed as a VA Alternative.
SL-3: Use steel girders in lieu of CIP Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that this would introduce a maintenance element
that was not acceptable to maintenance staff.
122
Page 716 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
SL-4: Larger diameter columns Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that the larger columns would have a negative
impact on flood water management.
SL-5: Spread footings Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismissed – Determined that spread footings were not desirable from a
constructability standpoint.
SL-6: Use ABC: bents and abutments Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: This can be combined with the other VA alternative addressing longer spans.
SL-7: Pursue precast long spans for structure Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Can be combined with other alternatives.
SL-8: Reduce supports Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Can be combined with other alternatives.
SM-1: Construct separate pedestrian bridge Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Is not financially feasible. Desire is to integrate OC with multi-modal
operations.
SM-2: Include vehicle barrier rail between ES and ped/bike facility Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Determined that a vehicle barrier is not required for the Prado Road
OC structure.
123
Page 717 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project Idea Evaluation
SM-3: Incorporate "teardrop" style roundabout Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
SM-4: Include aesthetics on vehicle barrier rail between ES and ped/bike Overall
Rating: DIS
General comments: Dismiss – Determined that a vehicle barrier is not required for the Prado OC
structure.
SM-5: Provide bike/ped amenities/furniture Overall
Rating: OC
General comments: This will be documented as “other consideration.”
124
Page 718 of 753
VA PROCESS
Page 719 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
VA PROCESS
The Caltrans Value Analysis (VA) process involves 16 activities needed to accomplish a VA study, and
is organized into three parts: Pre-Study, VA Study, and Report. Integral to Caltrans’ VA process is the
Value Metrics process. Value Metrics offers the cornerstone of the Caltrans VA process by providing a
systematic and structured means of considering the relationship of a project’s performance and cost
as they relate to value.
VA has traditionally been perceived as an effective means for reducing project costs. This paradigm
only addresses one part of the value equation, often at the expense of the role that VA can play with
regard to improving project performance. Project costs are fairly easy to quantify and compare;
performance is not.
Project performance must be properly defined and concurred 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 alternatives. This process, Value Metrics, emphasizes the
interrelationship between cost and performance and can be quantified and compared in terms of
how they contribute to overall value.
Value Metrics provides a standardized means of identifying, defining, evaluating, and measuring
performance. Once this has been achieved, and costs for all VA alternatives have been developed,
measuring value is straightforward.
Value Metrics can improve VA studies by:
•Building consensus among project stakeholders (especially those holding conflicting views)
•Developing a better understanding of the project goals and objectives as they relate to
purpose and need
•Developing a baseline understanding of how the project is meeting performance goals and
objectives
•Identifying areas where project performance can be improved through the VA process
•Developing a better understanding of an alternative concept’s effect on project performance
•Developing a deeper understanding of the relationship between performance and cost in
determining value
•Using value as the basis for selecting the best project or design concept
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.
126
Page 720 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
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 pre-
study 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.
VA STUDY
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
127
Page 721 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
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.
Analyzing the functional requirements 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 element in a VA study and is used
to develop alternatives. 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
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.
128
Page 722 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
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 life-
cycle 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
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.
129
Page 723 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project 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 decision-
makers 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
130
Page 724 of 753
Prado Interchange Project
City of San Luis Obispo & Caltrans District 5
VA Study Agenda
WebEx Meeting Info to be provided via email / Outlook
Day 1 – Monday, March 20 – City of San Luis Obispo - Prado Road Corporation Yard – Room TBD
8:30 Introductions
8:35 Brief overview of the VA Process
8:45 Overview of the Project by Designers
•Purpose & Need / Scope
•Issues & Concerns
•Project Design Clarifications
10:00 Confirmation of Project Baseline
•Discuss Cost & Schedule
•Discuss and Weight Performance Attributes
•Discuss and Score Current Design
11:00 VA Study Focus & Additional Q&A
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Site Visit & Observations & Initial Team Brainstorming
2:00 Team Review and Discussion of Design Documentation & Estimate Review
3:00 Initial Team Brainstorming
4:00 Adjourn
Day 2 – Tuesday, March 21 – City of San Luis Obispo - Prado Road Corporation Yard – Room TBD
8:00 Review Agenda
8:30 FAST Analysis Discussion
9:30 Team Brainstorming
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Team Brainstorming (cont.)
1:00 Team Evaluation of VA Ideas
2:00 Technical Review of VA Ideas
4:00 Adjourn
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉=𝑃𝑃𝑉𝑉𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑉𝑉𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑉𝑉𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶+𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑉𝑉
131
Page 725 of 753
Prado Interchange Project
City of San Luis Obispo & Caltrans District 5
VA Study Agenda
Day 3 – Wednesday, March 22 – City of San Luis Obispo - Prado Road Corporation Yard – Room TBD
8:00 Review Agenda & Validated VA Alternatives
8:30 Team Development of VA Alternatives
11:00 Lunch
Need to be out of room between 11:00 to 1:00
1:00 Team Development of VA Alternatives (cont.)
4:00 Adjourn
Day 4 –Thursday, March 23 – City of San Luis Obispo - Prado Road Corporation Yard – Room TBD
8:00 Review Agenda & Developed VA Alternatives
8:30 Team Development of VA Alternatives (cont.)
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Team Development of VA Alternatives (cont.)
4:00 Adjourn
Day 5 – Friday, March 24 – San Luis Obispo – Prado Maint. Facility (w/ WebEx if needed)
8:00 Review Agenda & VA Team Recommended Strategy
8:30 Finalization of VA Alternatives
10:00 Determine and Score VA Team Recommended Strategy
11:00 Finalization of VA Design Suggestions
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Final Review of VA Alternatives, Design Suggestions, VA Study Presentation
2:00 Presentation of Initial VA Study Results (VA Team Recommended Strategy)
4:00 Adjourn
Tentative VA Study Process Dates:
Preliminary Report Distribution: by Friday, April 7th
Review/Implementation Comments Due: by Date TBD
Final Report Distribution: by Friday, May 5th
132
Page 726 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
VA STUDY MEETING ATTENDEES
PM 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24 Name Organization Position/Role E-mail
X X X X X X Eric Trimble VMS VA Study Team Leader eric.trimble@vms-inc.com
X X X X X Meaghan Rowland VMS Asst VA Study Team Leader meaghan.rowland@vms-inc.com
X X X X X Wyatt Banker-Hix City of SLO Project Manager wbanker@slocity.org
X X X X X Luke Schwartz City of SLO Transportation Manager lschwart@slocity.org
X X X Kyle Anderson City of SLO kanderso@slocity.org
X X Jay Walter GHD Design Manager jay.walter@ghd.com
X X X X Jorge Vanegas-Moran GHD jorge.vanegas-moran@ghd.com
X X X X John Rogers GHD Transportation Engineer john.rogers@ghd.com
X X X X X X Jorge Aguillar Wallace Group Transportation Engineer jorgea@wallacegroup.us
X X X X Paul Valadao Caltrans – D5 Project Manager paul.valadao@dot.ca.gov
X Corby Kilmer Caltrans – D5 corby.kilmer@dot.ca.gov
X X Scott Dowlan Caltrans – D5 scott.dowlan@dot.ca.gov
X X X X X David Romero Caltrans – D5 Structures Design (VA FT) david.romero@dot.ca.gov
X X X X X Alex Martinez Caltrans – D5 Structures Construction (VA FT) alex.martinez@dot.ca.gov
X X X X X Adam Rianda Caltrans – D5 Construction (VA FT) adam.rianda@dot.ca.gov
X X X X X Phlora Barbash Caltrans – D5 Landscape Architecture (VA FT) phlora.barbash@dot.ca.gov
X X X Kristen Langager Caltrans – D5 Landscape Architecture (VA PT) kristen.langager@dot.ca.gov
X X X Patrick Bolger Caltrans – D5 Landscape Architecture (VA PT) pat.bolger@dot.ca.gov
X X X X Valerie Moore Caltrans – D5 Bridge Aesthetics valerie.moore@dot.ca.gov
X Abraham Almaw Caltrans – HQ Bridge Architecture (VA PT) abraham.almaw@dot.ca.gov
X X Kevin Mcguigan Caltrans – D5 R/W Utilities (VA PT) kevin.mcguigan@dot.ca.gov
X MD Alam Caltrans – D5 Geotechnical (VA PT) md.z.alam@dot.ca.gov
X X Michael Britton Caltrans – D5 Maintenance (VA PT) michael.britton@dot.ca.gov
X Berkeley Lindt Caltrans – D5 Maintenance Design
X X David Silverberger Caltrans – D5 Office Chief – Project Management
X X Joe Erwin Caltrans – D5 Corridor Manager
X Dianna Beck Caltrans – D5 Environmental Planner
133
Page 727 of 753
San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project VA Process
PM 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24 Name Organization Position/Role E-mail
X Sara von Schwind Caltrans – D5
X Miguel Barcenas City of SLO Deputy Director – Utilities
X X Josh Erquiaga City of SLO IT Dept
X Kurt Spradling City of SLO CIP
X Jason Wilkinson
X Richard Rosales
X Kelly McClendon
X Darron Hill
X Aaron Henkel
X Marshall Garcia
X Peter Hendrix
134
Page 728 of 753
APPENDIX:
Implementation Documentation and
Comments
Page 729 of 753
Implementation Documentation and Comments
The PDT and Stakeholders reviewed all proposed alternatives presented within the Preliminary Value
Analysis Study Report and provided decisions and comments concerning project decisions. The
documentation is presented on the following pages. The first document includes the provided,
collective decision from both the City and GHD/Bengal with full accepted alternative highlighted in
green, accepted with modification in yellow, and rejected in red. The second document provides the
comments for decisions from GHD/Bengal concerning the proposed alternatives.
Page 730 of 753
Recommendation Overall City GHD/BengalNotes1YY NGHD ‐ Concerned about liability if speed reduced to 35 mphCity ‐ New standards will support 35 mphCaltrans ‐ Interested in design exception2YY YGHD ‐ Will Paul Gennaro have to be involved?City ‐ Excellent cost savings potentialCaltrans ‐ Yes, Paul Gennaro will make final decision3Y /Mods Y /Mods NGHD ‐ Doubtful due to soils report that CIDH can be usedCity ‐Caltrans ‐ Agree with modifications ‐ more geotech analysis required4Y /ModsY /Mods NGHD ‐City ‐Caltrans ‐5NN YGHD ‐City ‐Caltrans ‐6YY YGHD ‐City ‐Caltrans ‐VE Alternative Implementation Action Recommendation: Collective DecisionsGreen: AcceptedYellow: Accepted with ModificationRed: Rejected Page 731 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
Providing your disposition of these alternatives denotes your recommendation to implement, based on current
information, in the given project development phase. It is recognized that future conditions may change this
disposition. Your comments will be discussed at the Implementation Meeting where final disposition and savings
validation will be determined.
1 of 9
Responses prepared by: GHD/Bengal
Date: 4/24/2023
VA ALTERNATIVE 1.0
Reduce the maximum speed on structure to 35 mph
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)
AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:
Design Speed of 45 mph for Future/Existing Prado Road was selected in accordance with the Street
Classification in the Circulation Element and in accordance with the 2020 City of San Luis Obispo
Engineering Standard 1010, Section 3.1.3.
Solely reducing the Design Speed of Prado Road from 45mph to 35mph does not necessitate
removing the center bent proposed in the US-101 median. VA Alternative 1.0 is tied to VA Alternative
4.0 (use longer spans, removing the center bent in US-101 median). Longer spans will increase the
bridge depth which will result in needing to raise the vertical profile to meet vertical clearance
requirements. Reducing the design speed of Prado Road can provide more flexibility in the vertical
design to raise the vertical profile to attempt to achieve longer spans with an increased bridge depth.
Please note that any changes to the Prado Road Vertical Profile will need to consider future
Southbound Ramps and ensure not to preclude them. There is an alternative for the Future SB Ramps
that goes underneath the structure.
Page 732 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
2 of 9
VA ALTERNATIVE 2.0
Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)
AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:
We agree that reducing the inside travel lanes from 12’ to 11’ and shoulders from 5’ to 4’ on Prado
Road will result in cost savings by reducing the structure width by 4’.
Lane and shoulder widths for the Prado Road Overcrossing within Caltrans right-of-way should follow
the HDM design standards. HDM Index 308.1 sets 12’ Travel Lanes and 5’ Shoulders as a boldface
standard. A meeting with District 5 Design staff and possibly Paul Gennaro (Caltrans Project Delivery
Coordinator for Headquarters Division of Design) will need to be set up to discuss the likelihood of
approving this design exceptions if it needs to be included in the Design Standard Decision Document
(DSDD).
Page 733 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
3 of 9
VA ALTERNATIVE 3.0
Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)
AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:
The VA team has recommended the use of CIDH columns in conjunction with longer spans to reduce
the project cost. However, increasing the span lengths affects the design of the bridge's supporting
foundations which are interrelated with many other factors in highway and bridge design. It is
important to consider the potential ramifications of such changes, as altering one aspect can have a
domino effect on others.
We believe that the use of CIDH columns coupled with longer spans will significantly increase the
project's cost due to several factors not solely because of the foundation type change from driven
piles to CIDH piles. While we have addressed some of these factors, this topic is quite broad.
Ultimately, we do not consider these recommendations to be a cost-effective and feasible alternative
to the concepts presented in the approved Advanced Planning Studies, and thus would not
recommend pursuing them as a "preferred alternative."
Furthermore, we would like to draw attention to the issue of risk which must be considered in
addition to economic considerations. For instance, building CIDH piles generally increases the danger
of "claims" during construction, as most Structure Reps agree that they bring more construction risk
than the use of driven piles. Additionally, there is a risk of encountering problems during construction
that may lead to redesigns, delays, and additional costs associated with such issues. If even one CIDH
pile must be abandoned due to equipment failure or a collapsed hole, or if testing reveals a
problematic CIDH pile, the contractor has less liberty to try something else than if driven piles had
been used. We also note that there are far fewer contractors who can build large CIDH piles
compared to those who can drive piles. As such, risks associated with building CIDH piles can also
bring associated increased costs.
Page 734 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
4 of 9
Technical Aspects of CIDH Piles
The technical aspects of using CIDH piles must also be considered. Designers will need more
geotechnical information than what is provided in the Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR). This
being said, the document was based on practical recommendations from experienced practitioners
and considered a valuable resource. It seems those who suggested the use of CIDH piles should have
noticed that the PFR does not recommend CIDH piles due to the presence of groundwater and sandy
materials at the proposed project site.
Bengal reviewed the PFR during the development of the Advanced Planning Studies (APS) and found
that the recommendations to use driven piles and pile caps for the bridges were reasonable given the
available information. The decision to use driven piles and pile caps in lieu of CIDH was made based
on Bengal's experience with designing bridges supported by these foundation types around California
including several different freeway interchanges on US-101 in District 5.
We have taken into account several factors during the design process including:
• Historically, the construction of large-diameter CIDH piles has exposed agencies to greater
construction claims compared to driven piles. However, CIDH piles can be a suitable
alternative in certain locations based on appropriate investigation and engineering. As such
investigations were not undertaken at the early APS stage, the designs we included focused
on driven piles and pile caps.
• For larger structures, it is rare to consider using CIDH/CISS columns instead of driven piles and
pile caps for bridges unless the structure crosses rivers where there is a possibility of river
scour. The bridge designer usually explores these options during the Structure Type Selection
Phase rather than the APS phase.
• Once the bridge designer has access to data on pile vertical capacity, seismic ARS curves, and
soil p-y data for static, dynamic, and liquefiable cases they can analyze the foundation of the
structure for CIDH and driven piles options. If the soil strata are found to be liquefiable, as
indicated by the PFR, this situation will present an added challenge for large diameter CIDH
piles due to the addition of downdrag force. This will result in larger and longer CIDH piles for
the structures.
• When looking ahead to construction and project specifications, it is important to consider that
groundwater may vary over time due to seasonal fluctuations, influences from nearby creeks,
local irrigation practices, surface and subsurface flows, ground surface run-off, and other
factors. If the use of CIDH piles is adopted in the design, Caltrans standard slurry displacement
method and temporary casing should be anticipated throughout the entire construction
process.
Page 735 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
5 of 9
Use of CIDH Piles in the Center of US-101
The use of CIDH piles in the center of US-101 was a topic of discussion during the workshop. The
practicality of building a bent in the median of US-101, which is supported by a pile cap and driven
piles, was disputed despite this approach being commonly used in bridge construction. This method
has been successfully utilized in several of our previous projects, including Storke Road, Cathedral
Oaks, Betteravia, and Los Osos Valley Road overcrossings. There is adequate width in the median to
allow only shoulder closures with slightly reduced lane width to accommodate construction.
Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the notion that the "single span idea" is necessary to solve a
problem that does not exist.
Longer Spans—Increase “Demand” and Downdrag Forces
It is important to note that as span lengths increase, so does loading on foundations, leading to
increased static and dynamic load demands. As pile sizes increase, liquefaction-induced downdrag
forces also increase due to friction between piles and downward-moving soil. Given concerns raised
in the PFR specifically mentioning liquefaction, we would like to inquire how the VAT plans to address
additional demand created by downdrag resulting from lengthening spans. This consideration raises
an important question regarding the feasibility of the proposed VA team project approach.
Page 736 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
6 of 9
VA ALTERNATIVE 4.0
Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP girders
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)
AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:
We understand this comment is proposed to save costs. However, should this concept be
undertaken, the effect on cost will have opposite intentions: the project will cost more because of the
following.
1. Precast I-girder structures are reported to be between 18% and 40% more expensive than
CIP/PS Box Girder Structures as indicated by the CT Comparative Bridge Costs report of 2019.
2. The implementation of precast I-girders will have a significant impact on the roadway profile
resulting in increased costs throughout the project. Further details regarding this issue are
provided below – given its importance to the project.
3. Constructability when evaluating design options. For instance, the proposal to use a single
span across the US-101 mainline is mentioned throughout the document, resulting in spans of
approximately 250 feet across the freeway. However, it is unclear how the VA team plans to
construct such a structure and why this option is preferred when simpler alternatives are
available.
4. Concerns regarding the number of contractors, particularly local contractors, who will be able
to bid on such a unique project compared to one designed using more manageable spans
presented in the APS.
5. The implementation of unique structures such as the 250-foot long free-span suggested by
the proposal presents a significant increase in risk. Notably, the construction of such
structures brings with it unique risks which result in higher costs to transport and handle their
installation at the site.
6. It is prudent to consider the possibility of damage to the bridge or the need for modifications
in the future should an accident occur. In the event of damage or modifications, the 250-foot
span is likely to be more expensive to accommodate than a conventional design.
Page 737 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
7 of 9
Roadway Profile
The VA team has suggested the use of a single-span bridge over US-101 as a means of saving on
construction costs. However, this idea has significant implications for the roadway profiles
throughout the project, as the profile of Prado Road will control the project grades. Even if the cost of
design and construction for such a concept is not a concern, the use of a single-span bridge across US-
101 will require a bridge that is much thicker than the concepts shown in the APS plans. As a result,
the Prado Road profile will likely be raised, pending running any numbers, by approximately 5 feet to
accommodate this massive 250-foot single span. This will have a domino effect on the alignment and
lengthening of the ramps to conform to US-101, thereby increasing the cost of each of these ramps.
Lengthening the ramps will also pose challenges. The intersection of the ramps will likely have to be
shifted northward to accommodate the more distant freeway conforms, which may impact other
infrastructure, potentially requiring more right-of-way and TCEs to the north, and possibly
inconveniencing access to the new RTA O&M facility.
ADA-Compliance
In addition to these challenges, it is crucial to consider ADA-compliance. Although the APS team has
provided profiles compliant with ADA walkways, the estimates provided in the VA team information
include $0 for "ADA Items" in their suggestions. Since the project design is partially controlled by
ADA-compliance, it cannot be ignored when implementing the massive 250-foot single span as the
Prado Road is raised and the resultant impacts on the bridge profiles.
Viewshed Impacts
Projects often receive public push-back, particularly regarding impact on viewsheds. Alternatives with
higher profiles are generally unpopular among the public. Bengal has not seen a case where the
public prefers a higher bridge over a lower.
Impact to Foundations Due to Longer Spans
In terms of foundations, the overall structure weight will rise due to the increased depth, and bridge
support systems such as columns, abutments, and foundations will have to handle additional seismic
and static forces due to the increased weight. This topic is covered in the CIDH discussion.
Spliced I-Girder Construction for Longer Spans
Spliced girders are precast, prestressed concrete members that are fabricated in several relatively
long pieces (i.e. girder segments) that are assembled into a single girder for the final bridge structure.
Designers use spliced girders to overcome limitations of fabrication, shipping, and erection of the
girders. Post-tensioning reinforces the connection between girder segments.
Page 738 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
8 of 9
In concrete bridge designs using spliced girders, site conditions frequently determine the span layout.
Transportation constraints and facilities at the fabrication plant usually govern maximum segment
size. Segment sizes are selected to accommodate these constraints and provide splices at locations
that are accessible at the construction site or dictated by flexural stresses in the girder.
The process of girder erection, shoring, splicing, and post-tensioning adds significant construction
cost to traditional PC/PS I-girder structures.
Construction Costs
We know the PC/PS I-girders have a few advantages over CIP/PS Box Girders, but construction cost is
usually not one of them. Regardless, the different structure types will be considered in the Structure
Type Selection (STS) process and not at this APS stage.
When the time for the STS comes, Bengal will duly consider the PC/PS I-Girder option. However, at
this APS stage, Bengal has the knowledge and experience to see the implications generated by such
profiles, span lengths, foundation locations, performance, and construction cost, and has developed a
solid and feasible concept using the current information available.
Practicality of Using PC/PS I-Girders on the Ramps
It is also important to note that even now at the APS level, the use of longer spliced PC/PS I-girders on
the NB on-ramp may not be practical as the ramp has a fairly complicated profile consisting of
reversing vertical curves. Additionally, structure depth will be an important consideration because of
the ramp's proximity to the freeway as it conforms to it. The difficulty of forming and pouring a roller-
coaster deck on top of spliced PC/PS girders may make this idea impractical, or even infeasible,
compared to the CIP/PS Box for this situation.
Page 739 of 753
VA ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION RECOMMENDATION
D-5 San Luis Obispo – Prado Interchange Project
9 of 9
VA ALTERNATIVE 5.0
Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)
AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:
We agree that the existing sewer main should be left in place and not be relocated as part of the Elks
Lane Realignment.
Please note that Elks Lane Realignment is not currently part of the interchange project. Although
related, the realignment of Elks Lane is its own standalone project.
VA ALTERNATIVE 6.0
Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project
Disposition Recommendation: (Select one)
AGREE AGREE WITH MODIFICATIONS DISAGREE
Explain, comment, and/or discuss rationale for disposition recommendation:
We agree that the project should utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials.
Page 740 of 753
sssssssssssssssFHssssss sssssFHssss407136.85410135.60 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊XXXXXXFHSTOP ssssss403132.74 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX◊◊◊◊XFHsFHs FH409139.24144.76 XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXX XXXXXΔ0200'100'PRELIMINARY, NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION
Page 741 of 753
Page 742 of 753
PRADO INTERCHANGE
PROJECT UPDATE
City Council Meeting
September 5, 2023
RECOMMENDATION
1.Introduce a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the US 101/Prado Interchange Project”; and,
2.Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, recommending
approval of the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project
Report”.
2
PROJECT NEED
3
Southern SLO Vicinity Map
•Hwy 101 created few east-
west connections
•Incoming development needs
Interchange
•Prado Interchange, Bridge and
Extension to Broad
PRADO BRIDGE
4
•Remove and replace bridge
•Widen Prado/South Higuera
intersection
•Stabilize SLO creek
•Underground all overhead
utilities
PRADO BRIDGE
5
•Local and Federal funds
•Need to construct prior
to Prado Interchange
•Final Design Phase
•Start Construction:
Summer 2025
PRADO EXTENSION
•Future extension to Broad St
•Regional east-west connection
•Dependent on development
and property owner
•Schedule unknown
6
PRADO INTERCHANGE SCOPE
7
•Continue Prado Rd over Hwy 101
•Elevate Northbound Ramps
•Auxiliary lane between Prado and
Madonna
•Re-align Elks Lane
•Widen Prado Rd
PROJECT SCOPE
•Floodplain analysis – regional flooding
•Typical construction – compacted soil
ramps to bridge
•Need to construct interchange on
structure
8
PROJECT SCOPE
•Proposed Section – 101.5 ft wide
•5 Vehicle Lanes (60 ft), separated ped and cyclist facilities (28 ft)
•Bridge section subject to Caltrans oversight
9
Overcrossing Section Off/On Ramp Section
PROJECT SCOPE
Elks Lane Re-Alignment Plan View
10
•Re-Align Elks Lane around
Interchange
•Align through RTA and 40 Prado
Shelter
•New Intersection + WRRF/Corp
Yard Entrance
•Re-align trunk utilities to Corp Yard
PROJECT SCOPE
•Widen Prado Road to Bridge Project
•Similar section to bridge
11
PROJECT BENEFITS
12
Efficient Cross-Town Link
•Multi-modal
•Regional (RTA, Homeless Shelter)
Vehicle Miles Traveled
•Citywide reduction of 0.5%
Local + Regional Congestion relief
•Madonna, LOVR and South Higuera
•Madonna + LOVR Interchange
•Hwy 101
Local + Regional Benefit – Funding Partners
Vehicle Trips by Source
DELIVERY PROCESS
City – Caltrans Collaborative Project
City to:
•Lead design + construction
•Maintain roadway
Caltrans to:
•Review all deliverables
•Approve plans, reports, environmental
•Maintain Structure
City and Caltrans have
worked together since 2016
13
Construction
“Build the
Interchange”
Start 2027
DELIVERY PROCESS
14
Project Study
Report (PSR)
“Do we need an
interchange?”
Completed 2018
Project Alternatives/
Environmental
Document (PA/ED)
“What type of
interchange is best?”
To be completed
2023
Plans, Specifications
and Estimate (PS&E)
“Design the
Interchange”
To be completed
late 2026
DELIVERY PROCESS
15
Task Status Notes
Traffic Study Complete Completed 4/2023
30% Plans and Cost
Estimates Complete Completed 11/2022
Value Analysis Complete Completed 5/2023
Selection of Preferred
Alternative (A3)Complete Completed 7/2023
CEQA IS-MND In Progress City Council to Approve,
Caltrans Final Approval
NEPA CE In Progress Caltrans staff to draft +
approve
Project Report In Progress City Council to Approve,
Caltrans Final Approval
Key Deliverable Summary – PA/ED Phase
After Project Report – City & Caltrans sign Coop
Agreement for next phase – PS&E
VALUE ANALYSIS
•Federal Third-Party Review of project
•City-Caltrans-Consultant review of
scope, schedule and cost
•Recommendations - City and Caltrans
team approved
•Confirmation elevated interchange
16
VALUE ANALYSIS
17
Use Cast-In-Drilled-Hole instead of
driven piles
Construct long-span pre-cast girders:
reduce columns
Reduce vehicle speeds for tighter
vertical curves
Reduce lane widths: narrow bridge
Utilize recycled materials
1
2
3
4
5
ENVIRONMENTAL
18
CEQA (State) and NEPA (Federal)
Environmental documents being prepared
NEPA: Caltrans to prepare and approve
•Categorical Exemption (CE)
CEQA: City to prepare, Caltrans to approve
•Initial Study – Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-MND)
NEPA and CEQA contain Technical Reports:
Caltrans to review and approve
ENVIRONMENTAL
19
Recommendation: Approve Mitigation
Measures to avoid significant impacts
Tech reports study areas that could impact
the community or environment
•Aesthetics: Need to Mitigate
•Agriculture & Forestry: Need to Mitigate
•Air Quality: Need to Mitigate
•Biological Resources: Need to Mitigate
•Noise: Need to Mitigate
•Transportation: Need to Mitigate
ENVIRONMENTAL
20
Air Quality
•Restrict idling of vehicles
•Water trucks/stockpile management
•Soil sampling (asbestos)
Biological Resources
•Survey species of interest (Monarch
butterfly, Red Legged Frog, Steelhead)
•Biologist to monitor worksite
•Replant disturbed project area
ENVIRONMENTAL
21
Noise
•Monitor vibrations during drilling
•Require mufflers on equipment
Traffic
•Full closure of Prado Road and Elks Lane
•Update emergency services prior to road
closures
•Contractor to prepare traffic handling plan
PUBLIC OUTREACH
CEQA adoption requires a 30 -day
public comment period
•Federal, State and local agencies
encouraged to comment
•AB 52 outreach to Tribal agencies
Comments incorporated into
final IS-MND
22
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public meeting on
February 15th 2023 at the Corp Yard
Project stations covered:
•Scope, Schedule and Budget
•Environmental Impacts
•Design (Roadway and Bridge)
•Traffic
Received + responded to 11 comments
23
Recommendation: Recommend
Approval of IS-MND to Caltrans
PROJECT REPORT
All information from PA/ED Phase
(All Alternates)
•30% Plans and Estimates
•Traffic Impacts
•Non-Standard Caltrans features
•Value Analysis Recommendations
•CEQA + NEPA impacts
Recommendation: Recommend
preferred Alternative to move into PS&E
24
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE: ALT A3
•Tight Diamond
•Signalized intersection
•Familiar elevated construction
•Coordinate with Prado/Elks signal
•Smallest footprint
Total Construction Costs: $97 million
City/Caltrans Staff
recommend this Alternative
25
US 101
NB OFF-RAMP NB ON-RAMP
FUTURE ELKS LANE
•Tight Diamond
•Roundabout intersection
•Concerns with elevated roundabout:
•Untested design
•Challenging construction
•Vehicle queuing concerns
•Never attempted in North America
Total Construction Costs: $98 million
26
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE: ALT A1R
US 101
NB OFF-RAMP NB ON-RAMP
FUTURE ELKS LANE
•Partial Cloverleaf
•Roundabout intersection
•Roundabout concerns
•Right-of-Way take:
•Corp Yard Relocation
•WRRF Clarifier
Total Construction Costs: $122 million
27
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE: ALT A4R
US 101
NB OFF-RAMP
NB ON-RAMP
FUTURE ELKS LANE
PROJECT REPORT
•City/Caltrans staff agree:
Alt A3 should proceed to PS&E
•Final Step in PA/ED phase
•Ready for Council Approval
Recommendation: Recommend
Approval of Project Report to Caltrans
28
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
•From VA: Re-calculate structures cost
•Structure largest factor
•Alt A3 least expensive option
29
Alternative A1R A3 A4R
Roadway:9,434,000$ 11,543,400$ 11,564,600$
Structure:76,881,800$ 74,528,600$ 78,546,000$
ROW/Utility:5,724,000$ 5,724,000$ 26,054,800$
Elks Lane:3,180,000$ 3,180,000$ 3,180,000$
Corp Yard Impr:1,060,000$ 1,060,000$ 1,060,000$
Prado Widening:1,590,000$ 1,590,000$ 1,590,000$
Total:97,900,000$ 97,700,000$ 122,000,000$
Costs escalated to 2028, 3% / year
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
•Range of costs based on inflation
•California Construction Cost Index – 6% / year since 2018
•Costs split between funding partners: SLO County, San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments and San Luis Ranch Developer
•Split based on traffic
30
Base Year (2023):84,800,000$
3% Inflation: 97,600,000$
5% Inflation:106,000,000$
8% Inflation: 118,800,000$
Alt A3 Construction Costs
Costs escalated to 2028
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
Key drivers of schedule:
•Complexity of design
•Value Analysis recommendations
•City/Caltrans review of deliverables
Start PS&E: Early 2024
Start Construction: Summer 2027
31
Project Phase Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
PA/ED
PS&E
Advertise and Award
Construction
FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Note Q1 = July 1st 2023
NEXT STEPS
Send Project Report and IS-MND
to Caltrans
Request for proposals: Final Design
Sign coop agreement: Enter PS&E
Start PS&E Work: Value Analysis
32
1
2
3
4
RECOMMENDATION
1.Introduce a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the US 101/Prado Interchange Project”; and,
2.Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, recommending
approval of the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project
Report”.
33
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
Total costs include design of Alt A3, services during
construction, and construction costs
35
Expense Phase Amount
Design:PS&E 8,000,000$
Construction Management:PS&E 10,000,000$
Construction Admin:PS&E 2,000,000$
Construction:CON 106,000,000$
126,000,000$ Total Projects Costs:
Alt A3 Construction Costs
1.Deny Recommendations to Approve IS-MND and
Preferred Alternative.Staff does not recommend this
option as it would delay execution of this project.
Recommendation by Council is preferred by Caltrans
Administration prior to final Caltrans approval and
signatures on the Final Project Report and environmental
documents.Delay of these recommendations would delay
transition to the PS&E phase,which in turn result in further
escalation of project costs.
36
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION