HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2003, BUS 1 - STATUS UPDATE AND DIRECTION ON THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR THE US 101/ council Wei.,Dae
August 28,2003
j ACEndA REpoRt '1vTN° i
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: STATUS UPDATE AND DIRECTION ON THE PROJECT STUDY
REPORT-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR THE US 101/LOS
OSOS VALLEY ROAD INTERCHANGE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive oral and written report regarding the status of the PSR-PDS for the US 101/LOVR
Interchange Request for Proposal
2. That Council comment on project alternatives being recommended to be advanced to the
next stage in the Caltrans review process, with direction on the staffs suggested preferred
alternative(6a) and the budgetary planning number of$16 million.
DISCUSSION
In December 1999, the City received a $60,000 Regional State Highway Assistance (SHA) grant
from SLOCOG to perform a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) for the Los Osos Valley Road—
US 101 Interchange. A PSR is the first planning report that must be prepared in the long road
toward eventual construction. Its primary role is to establish the "scope"of the project so that more
definitive analysis can be undertaken i.e. preparation of the"Detailed Environmental& Engineering
Studies for Project Alternatives" (PA&ED), the second step in the process and the one that decides
upon a final plan. In addition to the regional $60,000 in SHA monies, the County and City agreed,
via a memorandum of understanding (MOU)to participate in the project with each entity providing
another 25%match($30,000) for the SHA grant for a total budget of $120,000.
With the City acting as lead agency for the project, an RFP was issued and a consultant selected,
and a scope and cost for the services was negotiated. During this process Caltrans suggested that a
formal PSR would take too long and that a better use of time and funds available could be made by
using the Project Study Report—Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) process. However, the
cost of a PSR-PDS exceeded the initial $120,000 budget for the project and additional monies were
secured from SLOCOG ($40,000),the County($30,000)and City Transportation Impact Fees(TIF)
fund($10,000). This brought the total budget to $200,000 and the project proceeded.
To manage the project, a specialized group of interested stakeholders that includes members of
Caltrans, the County, SLOCOG and the City was formed to act as the Project Development Team
(PDT)to oversee the PSR work and consultant process.
The PSR-PDS—What's It All About?
The PSR-PDS is a scaled down version of a standard PSR normally required for projects on the
State system. The PSR-PDS perforans an initial review and identifies constraints to project
I-
Council Agenda Report:RFP for the LOUR-US 101 Interchange
Page 2
alternatives on the issues of hazardous materials, biological resources, right-of-way, adjacent land
use and other environmental subjects that may limit the project. In addition, two areas that needed
focused investigations (traffic assessment and hydrology) received additional analysis during the
PSR-PDS process. Unfortunately, due to the poor performance of the traffic consultant, the traffic
analysis took much longer than expected and will need some additional work in the next stage of
the project's development. The traffic work completed by the sub-consultant is sufficient to process
the PSR-PDS through Caltrans but subsequent modeling of the project alternatives will be
necessary in the next stage. The PSR-PDS identifies seven project alternatives, as well as cost
estimates for the various project alignments.
After development of the alternatives and a preliminary PSR-PDS, staff along with the consultant
team held a public workshop on March 27, 2003 to discuss the alternatives and their pros and cons.
This meeting was well attended and both positive and negative comments were received on all
alternatives. Based upon that input, the alteratives have been pared down from 7 to 5 for further
analysis in the PA&ED. Alternative 1 was so similar to Alternative 3 that it was deleted due to
overlapping issues. Also, even though it is not being recommended for inclusion in the next stage,
staff has included a picture of Alternative 5 — "The Roundabout" in Attachment 1 for Council's
information.
Proiect Alternatives and Constraints
The location of the LOVR Interchange, its alignment with US 101, adjacent land use and biological
areas all lead to a very constrained system for potential project development. Quite simply, because
of the immediate proximity of wetlands, San Luis Creek, Prefumo Creek and existing businesses,
any alternative that is developed for the project will have some impact to existing resources.
Therefore, as project alternatives were being developed, it was quickly realized that some project
impacts(particularly to biological resources)could not be avoided.
Attachment 1 shows Alternates 2-7 that were developed for assessment in the PSR-PDS
(Alternative 1 was replaced by Alternative 3 because of similarities so it is not included final draft).
Because the project altemative numbers had already been established, the original project number
descriptions have been retained in order to reduce confusion when describing each of the projects.
Therefore there is no Alternative 1 or 5 in the final draft PSR-PDS.
Staff, the PDT and the consultant team developed these alternatives in order to "test" the limits of
any one alternative (or it's components) that may move forward to the PA&ED. Some of these
alternatives are "out-of-the box" in nature due to the project constraints listed above. The following
is a brief description of each alternative.
Alternative 1 —Deleted due to similarities with Alternative 3.
Alternative 2 — "The Comprehensive Alternative" This alternative relocates Calle Joaquin South,
constructs realigned NB on and off-ramps and widens the freeway and SLO Creek bridges to four
� -a
Council Agenda Report: RFP for the LOUR-US 101 lnterchange
Page 3
lanes. This alternative also analyzed the potential to have a new LOVR connection to Higuera that
meanders south of the LOS Verdes 2 residential development.
Alternative 3 — "Minimum Build" This alternative relocates Calle Joaquin South but only ties into
existing Calle Joaquin,maintains the SB on-ramp at its present location and widens SLO Creek and
freeway bridges to five lanes.
Alternative 4 — "LOVR-Prado Hybrid" This alternative analyzed sharing the US 101 on and off-
ramps for both Prado Road and LOVR in between the two interchanges on the west side of the
freeway. Calle Joaquin South is relocated and the SLO Creek and freeway bridges are widened to 4-
5 lanes.
Alternative 5 — "The Roundabout" This alternative analyzed constructing a roundabout at the
relocated Calle Joaquin intersection and widened the SLO Creek and freeway bridge to 4-5 lanes.
This alternative was ultimately rejected in the draft PSR-PDS due to severe impacts to existing
resources and significant negative comments at the public workshop and is not recommended for
further study in the PA&ED.
Alternative 6 — "The Middle-Ground" This alternative analyzed relocating the SB ramps to a loop
system south of LOVR, relocating Calle Joaquin South, creating a NB on-ramp slip lane and
widening the freeway and SLO Creek bridges to 4 lanes.
Alternative 7 — "The Caltrans Standard" This alternative analyzed a project that meets all of the
Caltrans standards design criteria. It relocates Calle Joaquin South, maintains the SB ramps in their
current configuration, removes the NB hook on-ramp by creating a new NB ram, and widens the
SLO Creek and freeway bridge to 5-6 lanes.
Because the PSR-PDS is a scoping document only, some of these alternatives contain individual
components that may ultimately be used to develop the final preferred project. Therefore, no
alternative should be considered as the "only" alternative that includes a design feature — such as
the new NB slip on-ramp. That feature may ultimately be mixed and matched with other
alternatives to develop the final project that will be constructed.
Staff is seeking any Council preferences, comments (positive or negative) on any of the five
alternatives moving forward. Staff will forward that recommendation on to Caltrans, the ultimate
decision makers, for their consideration.
Project Costs
It is important to note that although "order of magnitude" costs estimates have been developed
during the PSR-PDS process, these estimates range wildly due to the nature of each alternative and
the fact that this is a scoping document only. Thus the document forecasts a low end and high end
cost potential for the various improvements that could be made.
i - 3
Council Agenda Report:RFP for the LOUR-US 101 Interchange
Page 4
The engineer's estimates range from approximately $13.2 million for the minimum build
Alternative #3 to as much as $42 million if the "Comprehensive" Alternative #2 is fully
implemented. Obviously, a$42 million dollar project is not realistic and, as such, we need to target
a more realistic budget amount for the interchange project that can be used for our internal
programming purposes in establishing private development contributions and for seeking outside
funding grants.
Staff believes that the Interchange project will ultimately evolve into a combination alternative that
is somewhere in the lower cost estimate range but above the minimum build alternative that insures
a traffic capacity greater than twenty years at the location. We therefore are estimating that for
programming purposes we establish a budgetary planning number of$16,000,000 for delivery of
this LOVR Interchange project. That amount will be used to guide decisions in the next stage of the
project development process as well as establish development participation and outside funding
sources.
Development of.yet another Alternative
Since the initial development of the seven alternatives, staff has been working on refining
Alternative 6 into Alternative 6a (Attachment #2), which appears to be the most likely of the
projects alternatives to satisfy public project need and purpose as well as private development
potential for project mitigation. This variation contains most of the elements of Alternative 6 but
also avoids the removal of the existing hotel structures along Calle Joaquin South thereby
potentially reducing costs and avoiding some impacts of the project.
Where to from here?
The PSR-PDS document does not require a formal adoption by Council in order to be approved by
Caltrans. Rather, the PSR-PDS makes recommendations of which alternatives should be passed on
to the next stage for development including identification of the preferred project and
environmental review. The draft PSR-PDS recommends that Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6(6a), and 7 be
passed on to the next stage for analysis. Staff believes that of those project alternatives, that
variation Alternative 6a will likely be the most doable of all project alternatives because it satisfies
most of the goals and objectives of the project, marginally impacts biological resources and can be
implemented incrementally by public or private projects.
Project Schedule
It is anticipated that Caltrans will approve the draft PSR-PDS by the end of September of this year.
Once the draft PSR-PDS is completed, the lengthy Caltrans review process will begin with the next
stage the PA&ED stage. After that stage is complete, construction documents can commence.
Therefore,project milestone delivery schedules are very roughly projected as follows:
Milestone Date
Caltrans Review and Approval September 2003
of PSR-PDS f I
Council Agenda Report: RFP for the LOUR-US 101 Interchange
Page 5
Begin PANED October 2003
Complete PANED Aril 2005
Complete PS&Ea May 2006
Construction Com letiona July 2008
a)To be determined based upon funding availability.
CONCURRENCES
Caltrans, SLOCOG and the County have reviewed the initial draft PSR-PDS and have offered
comments on the document. Most of these comments were technical in nature regarding design
features and Caltrans design standards and processes. Some asked for clarification of how other
features, such as the Bob Jones Trail, will be incorporated into the project. A revised draft of the
PSR-PDS that has incorporated these comments has been resubmitted to Caltrans for review.
A public workshop was held on March 27`", 2003 to discuss project alternatives and receive public
comment on the proposed alternatives.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to providing input to Caltrans on preferences found in the PSR-PDS. No
additional funding for this project needs to be allocated at this time.
Once the PSR-PDS has been approved by Caltrans staff will initiate the next step of the project
which includes: returning to Council with an RFP or negotiated contract or conducting consultant
work on the PANED, continued discussions with private development and area landowners to
incrementally construct interchange improvements and prepare focused budgets for the project
based upon potential funding sources.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Project Alternatives 2-7
Attachment 2 - Alternative 6a
A full copy of the Draft PSR-PDS is available in the Council Reading File.
I-Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reportslTransportation and Development Review(Bochum)TOVR Interchange PSR Update.doc
I � �
i
ATTACHMENT 1
ALTERNATIVES 2-7
0
z
W -
Now
ag Mal-
A.4
.J = D 06
Yid W �• 4us r T.
�i €€{ a
~ `
II _ ■
„ s 00 s m 'f--
On■ °
" Oz C-5
o d
VW
'
J,�o .4 g 3 G n
V. .� N €€€ u < Lg
j$f 0.72.tiz
[]p O N
o ttt'33s3 G F C t
00
d I
000 yd a a N =,16)
0L vs n • W s
r
01
=S W
i
\ �
1 I COO Z.8
00■
GOO ,
f•U
h �9
of
\\\ Fm W y
� y
\\ wit
�i m
\ IC tlR= }
O=J <0,0 g
jtl< 6mJC
OC; 600 W
• 'god
W
„
N
€€€
pOJ
� ILi
m
=Q �
\ \ W '
Om
aoo \ a
a i c
1
r.
W ry,
iL Q� 7
�) %,7 g
f z:
oLU
CC
Al
CN
77
j Y• I//� f 1/I �
vT '
17 ✓/*fit 1 k-.
SJ': _. I i i I f _ ��Q`3ji�}Jyr ))rrrrL ly•`�n+��+\��,' qq
0 SL
IL
W
O
LLI
LLJ
CO
:fir~ — `\ ' ', / II ` L` d / �' ✓ � m
Zs
006
r+I' cl
/1 F
_ 4 O
W
// r .uric; I ✓ 1'f 11 y / h. C$
ij
el tt
1
r:f _
f ;
i -g
WY [ >>
WON
O 'i- Q
1 IL—
NY mm j.`
W I H uN 4wdd
a
.9 8 i p� m3 eiH Y
�N O_� 'm ' .N i
II h I
Oe O
�►� gi _ H i !Ad, Si
� i w
till
i } Q
qq H xIy Z l 0 i'J—
w
1
06 €u N
Z =
3
�, Ob ff �
H
O� N4 NH Ig. H e a
�Ni Ml H Y
O � — Y
1p
O�
tg
co
A :6
\
a N
L1;9.i 3pW6W '
c10 W
SS
aJ �
' M Z-j Q W
P Z i
mp @00
WIL
H
Q aC ab V Z O O >o
\ Z
O r
c zip
j 3�0 88�.
J
\\ cc N 0
N 1
\ so oil
\
cc_
0
J
j Ul
a
a oe 3
y
r
_ h_ - i `� l✓.'1'•I _ S,\ .'y / �� " ///elf .:'. �_
CD
LL
co
LU
_ f
r � �\\'j711�r� tt'♦ S� /r✓ r / rY� W
r
ui
b
.-.�a.i•.! I. I l \ b t, ..� t //.fn I � r I Y... P;4 C`�y"a_ ae �U
Ky- -• `i�r / (•I_ ��' �,+.f,.G I/ l �� li•�� �vT-L A oS u�
WO
•.� df ''/�, /Ir 1 -� I r�l^ �')��' \�ItC h.A\ h�Jrq $ Q Lu
r !.r q � ! ^'i / •/' \n !!�- '•;� _ ♦ it 1\4\.�
"V--�I Y L\a` ��: Coco
t ��71� i v' •/ v 4.I I",I!5 5�i�l n ux,. W�
T LU
V )I/,��4✓ I 1 r'�� �/��,` �y-.w♦ { -''j/lea/S�� x V�r,�i
�` / t•.-nI c i` v 1
Y.11
NV
! CSS I A� •%,1 ' % V�/f /
���♦�< "F,�.-
9 W1
J !/
/ d S
s� r' /'� •JYJ' I C �� ��Y 1 t, 13
s
� 3 =
� V- -i--AIL It ■ 111 � tia95i
• _ _ �; soWON
t
Mal-
99 S ySy d+ Lii
'Cox
IN 16
I.
S i r O!t o =
g 1 0°e o
„• g r o
,x
23 l-
ox
w gog / o w
W k a
�_ i •g i Ydd qZ � eg
all ,
g :.12
i
■
cc
she r
♦ S � ` ,
4p J Sal
a
\` m Y
w -
J� c a
S30
o
aeQ°
moo
as mic
oxo z -c°a 4
moo i,
1 coo Inc W030
¢; a.ro
\ 66�(► m y
\\ sm E
M� Az
29
\\ o�ic snm
v
a�ea3 ooQ a�f/
� �u
..-.i, ', � '1 `}��v\`vet`f'f J'1'�y�.. roG•� _. / _, !� � J
U.
r �`. `�`,` t '�`^ }J v'Y ,.p •,�,�C, j`p�/��.1'„l',fs �,Cr�fi� 9 00 ,
r�� . a a
-` b''^T r V ll W o
CO
1 _ (J$' ✓ S a
TS' Iti f�;/.rte t'�A. / r�l,�/ C�C.�S4^r N�q.�y: I Q m
C
LU
7,. -�. � /'• '� � � C Jlr�S�r YID-^tc �ti � 2'2 .; }�
) ` S'�`��%�/�lf� �' :rte �J/ An7v _`' r \ � ! f'. •�_ � m
J �q1
/ _ % , �jl , J, `� Irr��� rr,� l4 •j J .f..i �.. W yi
� It
� hili.+ir \�� \),�j.' j�� flJ / N i t f J J/ SII(-;. EL
r/ A )�\� yr�i I�I t �/� �(• e"fry
T /-
/�/ � J/jT✓ It'�1 `�A � v'I ll�q �// ,�V"Y�P �n(rk'r � ! , �,
�':.� � I 1- .fir!-� � .`)?a✓` �. t O�
C�
/� / i lilA > -`�• l � �/I ;,�Y7 �� c��'�l���V i r�r�t � � �� r
0
LID
cli
U.]
'AMM I(ow
LL
cn
LLI
w
U)co
t�z
A
(D
.t,C , FV) a
Z.E
LU
Lai
y7
LU
MID
14 v
46
44
lit 11
it
TIC< xkz
• v
CU�A!11)43ns
1 - 13
w N N 19 a 9 Iff in wo IEKWILVLNL
•_ a eo e
L9
I �, �— - ,�-«• � «� Owe S r•
ioe z
C ►6- O
u n oqi W1 1.e<J Y
I 97 Oz< O
i F pi Yid *0 ccn
`gig Io=
> w
A.
as
a
« : ;
� x o
tea► P t0 �� ', �ss w a � � � � �
All
�6 u g
no
n A 1"'x'1 =
Q e °
dol A al r
_ _
` 1
a is
z FW J
W t = O OY 6 C
W3
OLI CJ 1
i
coo J
ICZ
>F �9 8
WOO er
<Oa
I
&OW
� mJ0 O� W p�
, z
w N n
=<v y sd'a
aC0 Ile
zoo
` kc
Wz
m
m. V<J
J
01-
omit
a
0
z
F 0 �� 1 - 14
cc
�YGI
xw IL�
1 LL
in
`/_}/f .9`• _• f 4y ,�' \ .t_.''Y\ c i� 7/17�.�'�r •°
kiImt t�,/• �,g
co
CO
\lir, t\Li Q\ ./ �,�• i/ / i! 1 1 �'� r L_ r1 '• \
/ r _
� y r vi"f W
trfifl'+�(} luf Sl._ f�';)
i/?,1i t ii 4•
` f" .� Ci Z Or
"!!. ; \ , r• / �r; ,�• i7 Dui
It
LU
1/ s•. ••t .�t�`� /,} � �x'/�'.e�i�l�i��l�• 7bl r. }Q'
Lu
..+` r , .(�`rrr� V/<,F ` ll.r' mo
fL
TT
/r/ r •IIS (�\� f )7�����< �r �rr;j' f¢y"'7'��•i, \!"t/' f �5
\��i'//�'/i/ r ,,•t I _ j La 1 I� Y r� y' l 1 \ !I
iit
fills
/ ✓J r,.J/lel[t��'. � /a �!/ ]�A
� a- n������ � - _stn �� � �•�///)I�I1 V t/�rl l,� c
f �/�r � •r / '✓ Z z� ��r it /%�/� , .4doa.t�Hone � d 3
.
tt
V o`
>> i
030
con W.
II— tl 9 Si> p
a 8 ' >,a
a d
e } kr.—I o o
« } g I t99 oe = �—
9
y o i 9« Yid pp O d
1g eee0=
RIFa
is
QP p tl L —
1 .1
I Yad s s Yad -
Q 9- 6 Ilf N
all 1
b "
F-izqp4
�4 r
0j .1 �!
x G10
m o -
A Ell
F W i! 1� D
`_I z
m
W tl «
ac T-1
dcz
` >r «e C99
am Ydd �
owC
-coo
ie I 5.28/ \ W = ' G�
> _ WOW
VO FJ Q
i CJO QA
v x C 3 1i 6 QST W
C m
\ GG
G
i O R Y
« y
W2 F� �—
R= CI
UQ
J O=
a¢3
i
/
I
I 61«S
r m R H
0,3 I- 1 Lp
At.
W�V20 A
`� may,. Y�'6S• "
ellLU
/r//�l--r•;;,
nq
1 .\ f' 1. .�a..!-y, � l"t."1 / /�!1'//f th�/r •%ryl , 7
I .� �% lg�rB!�
%
v �.... x �j)ip' ) jf�/J !`y.(per,�• ' � ' ;,�K��,1q) �F d'" W
�0
CO
93
\\�iv ��%��i I f "\ ` r//4� MJ"l/•-����MLrx�`.Y;'I n i t�f"�/�rn: I �+�-
te'''a- ..✓'i� 'wi�C'I
- 11�f/r L( �✓� �� IT- / A ` � .✓��4 I Y � I ���1ei�rJff LI I�1 �
�i ll•r!!zl Lt� r ��J rJ '`;/e�(w}+'�S�i�' `r�` lJ ��
Z m
Ww
w 0
lAg
01
���r
=
09 A31Xone
r�rL .1i� S
p J o
ATTACENIENT 2
ALTERNATIVES 6a
ori
t
x✓ ,
-10
pop r
IS f
i� � •• -
a� �`a (
RECEIVED
AUG 2 7 2003
.august 27, 2003 SL0 CITY CLERK
Dear City Council Member,
I read today that you are to consider issues relating to the LOUR interchange and I hoped to inject a notion
into the planning process. I understand these are complex matters with political,economic and
environmental concerns, so I have no unrealistic expectations,just an idea.
I propose that a road be built from the intersection of LOVR and West Foothill Blvd to the foot of Marsh
Street.This would:
• Greatly ease congestion at the LOVR/101 interchange.
• Reduce mileage(emissions)for traffic between Los Osos and the 101,as well as downtown.
• Reduce traffic on the heavily used portion of LOVR in the city of San Luis Obispo.
I realize this plan has costs and would have opponents,but it is irresistibly logical.An elevated approach to
the saddle south of San Luis peak would allow cattle and farm vehicles to traverse the bisected elements of
Mr.Madonna's ranch.
And speaking of Mr.Madonna,who has so handsomely profited from large projects around the area,I can't
help but think it would be only appropriate for him to donate the land for this public improvement. Or at
least give us a truly good price.Perhaps instead of South Marsh Street it could be named Madonna Blvd.,
or Alex Road? D
c 1 .Pj000NCI 2 CDD DIR
RED FILE ACA FIN DIR
.CACAO B'FIRE CHIEF
Geral Clare ME
NG AGENDA grArcRNEY IYPW DIR
Los Osos DA ITEM # .L p CLERK/ORIG B POUCE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS -2 REC DIR
Gerald@clareware.com �J 21/HR D RIR
Ramona Dr 7-
j} ___4 rCta Dr antaRasa'
INN
San' uis:Obispo*
Priolo-martin 7- �
,N� .-Park Lag asLake Meadow Park
11, y Family s
Sutcliffe
r
metery
�agUftlake
Course,, - �a aad go10} Or
y
Paz,