HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2007, BUS 4 - LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO RELEASE AN RF t
t
council.
j acEnaa wpont ,�Hba
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Department Head: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director M Public Works
SUBJECT: LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO RELEASE AN RFP FOR THE NEXT
PHASE OF WORK
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize staff to amend the existing contract with Dokken Engineering and advance
funding from the existing project budget in order to complete work on the Caltrans Project
Report and Environmental Determination(PA&ED) for the US 101/Los Osos Valley Road
Interchange project.
2. Authorize staff to circulate a Request for Proposals (RFP) for design and right of way
services for the project and return to Council with an award of contract.
3. Endorse an advocacy strategy for pursuing funding through the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments process. _
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
City staff has been working for the last several years to get project approval for an upgrade to the Los
Osos Valley Road (LOVR)/US 101 interchange. The project involves working with Caltrans to
identify alternatives along with environmental concerns for the interchange, and ultimately getting
Caltrans approval for the project to be constructed. City staff has also been working with local
developers to install interim improvements to reduce congestion as well as contributing funds to the
Los Osos Valley Road Sub Area fee for the future project. The interchange project is one component
of the Major City Goal to reduce congestion and has had funds approved in the 2007-09 CIP for
preparation of construction documents. This report outlines for the Council the progress made to date
and the next steps needed to keep it moving towards construction.
DISCUSSION
Background
In late 2005 and early 2006, staff along with the City's consultant Dokken Engineering, began work
developing a Caltrans Project Report and environmental determination for the Los Osos Valley Road
Interchange project. This stage in the Caltrans project development process, commonly referred to as
the Project Report & Environmental Determination (PA&ED) stage, is where project alternatives are
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project PA&ED Update Page 2
evaluated, technical studies are performed to investigate environmental issues and potential impacts.
The result is a final report that identifies a preferred alternative and makes an environmental
determination under both CEQA and NEPA.
Since that time Dokken Engineering and their sub-consultants, along with City and Caltrans staff
have been processing individual technical reports to identify issues that must be reviewed as part of
the final Project Report process. Project alternatives have been narrowed to three, down from the five
identified in the Caltrans approved Project Study Report (PSR)that was approved in 2003.
Work on the PA&ED process has taken longer than expected for a number of reasons. Most notably
has been the need to use the consultant team to help address design and compatibility issues
associated with the Calle Joaquin Relocation project that is now complete. Defining the potential
future ramp locations as well as coordinating with private development projects for access to the
adjacent street system have been critical tasks during this stage. In addition, with the passage of
Measure J and the possibility that the Prado Road interchange may be delayed for a number of years,
Caltrans requested an additional assessment of what the LOVR Interchange would look like in
twenty years without the Prado Road interchange in place. The assessment has confirmed that critical
points along LOVR will become significantly congested if the Prado Road interchange is not
eventually built.
The consultant is scheduled to submit the final draft Project Report to Caltrans for review during the
week of November 5"'. Caltrans has reviewed and commented on the draft technical studies that were
required for the project, and the draft environmental document will be submitted to Caltrans in
December. It is anticipated that a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be required for CEQA review
and that a Categorical Exclusion will be the federal clearance document required to meet NEPA
review standards. A public meeting will be held during the circulation of the draft environmental
document with the City as the co-sponsor of the hearing. Because Caltrans is the lead agency on the
environmental process, the City will be providing assistance with the public review process of the
document reviews and may include a joint public meeting with Planning Commission to ensure
opportunities are made for public input.
Alternatives Update
As part of the work done to date, the consultant team along with Caltrans and City staff initially
developed eight alternatives for consideration for the project. Prior to finalizing the Project Study
Report these alternatives were reduced to five because of significant impacts in the following areas:
property acquisition, excessive design standards, project cost and biology. In 2005, Council reviewed
the remaining five alternatives and reduced them down to three: Alternative #3 — Minimum Build,
Alternative #6 — Moderate Build, and Alternative #7 — Full Caltrans Standard. Figures 1 and 2 show
Alternatives#6 and #3 respectively.
Each of these alternatives needed additional environmental and design evaluation as part of the PA-
ED stage of the Caltrans process. The consultant worked to reduce the number of design exceptions
O
- �Qn
z ° i
F
Y
l
G• � r Acs-• r I S ,�
11 l
CI `� f '� V Iq�1.-,jet i�{J��L /�'•C'. j -Z �/ !"
CQ � -
Ap
0
J
y -3
I
C•.a C :.v_����rS d. � s
i
N N • u tts _
r; /
I
iJ
or
LLD
Al
1.2
cc
Q `.n J d.!�� �r�f l \ _- •' �`` � �� <"�r��f�����•'�% yam„
1 - F
u 111 f 88
/f I
y
O
J
r 1\
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project PA&ED Update Page 5
associated with Alternative 6 (the Moderate Build). These revisions included improved sight
distances at intersections and larger centerline radii to meet Caltrans minimum standards. Because
this alternative has been revised to be able to meet most Caltrans standards, Alternative 7 (the
former Caltrans Standard alternative required by Caltrans) was dropped from further consideration
due to its significant impact to existing businesses and the high project cost.
Alternative 3 (the Minimum Build) was initially considered problematic due to the close proximity
of the exiting freeway ramps and the new intersection of Calle Joaquin. However, based upon signal
coordination efforts, observations of LOVR since the Calle Joaquin realignment has opened, and a
very thorough traffic assessment, this alternative provides adequate capacity for the 20- year design
scenario required by Caltrans. While this alternative does not achieve the same Level of Service or
all of the standard design features of Alternative 6, it is approximately 73% of the cost of Alternative
6. Alternative #3 assumes that design exceptions.are approved by Caltrans to allow the existing
LOVR bridge to remain in place, with a second bridge being constructed to improve the capacity and
also for the spacing of Calle Joaquin. Preliminary meetings with Caltrans indicate that this is an
acceptable strategy. The final design exceptions need to be approved with the Project Report.
Table 1 —Alternative Cost Comparison 2007 Dollars
Alternative Cost
#3 —Minimum Build $21,700,000
#6—Moderate Build $29,430,000
Caltrans requires that no "preferred" alternative be identified until the Project Report and
environmental review is completed for the project. Both Alternatives 3 and 6 are viable from a City
and Caltrans perspective with each having pros and cons associated with their implementation. It is
not necessary at this point in time for the City to choose a preferred project, however cost will
undoubtedly be a major factor in our determination.
Major Project Issues
In the two alternatives being reviewed there are common issues that the City may want to go above
Caltrans minimum standards to address. The two major areas are in hydrology and local traffic
issues.
Hydrology
Design capacity for storm water infrastructure, particularly beneath the US 101 freeway is a concern.
The following issues have been identified as part of the technical study on hydrology submitted to
Caltrans.
■ Prefumo Creek culvert under the SB Off-Ramps has 100-Year Hydraulic Capacity
■ Prefumo Creek culvert has a 10-15 Year Hydraulic Capacity under US-101
■ Prefiuno Creek periodically overtops US-101, which last occurred in 1995.
■ Proposed increase to Prefumo Creek Capacity to pass 25 Year Storm Event
.— S.
i
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project PA&ED Update Page 6
Caltrans minimum design standards require a 25 year event design feature for State facilities. Both
project Alternatives 3 & 6 propose to upgrade this culvert to the minimum 25 year design capacity
required by Caltrans. Because of City concerns about flooding in this vicinity, the culvert capacity
could be increased to a 100 year design capacity beneath US 101.
[C_�7
�kVBOOA9I=NEWNBID0B'. - �O•tp�� -.
80019QSI1DID S8APPIC "'W
Af00W O2i3A1O \
TIWAM
HNBB QCR'�88
c�®� � t�:flra■ `_ Culvert
iY'j YCJl . SRNS1ro'
AM MMAMU
Figure 3 —US 101/Pref imo Creek Culvert
Traffic staging and construction costs for this option add approximately$1,000,000 in project cost to
either of the alternatives. Staff currently recommends against including this upgrade unless outside
grant funding can be secured for the project. Even at $21,700,000 for the lower cost Alternative 3, it
will be difficult to fully fund the project based upon anticipated funding from non-local sources that
may be allocated through SLOCOG and projected City revenue through the Transportation Impact
Fees.
Local Traffic Issues—Los Verdes Condominiums
Staff has worked with the consultants to try and identify possible improvements to the access issues
raised by residents of the Los Verdes Condominiums located near the corner of Higuera and LOUR.
Unfortunately, the close proximity of this major intersection to the sole access to both of the Los
Verdes complexes (see Figure 4) limits options for possible traffic control changes such as
signalization or a round-a-bout design at the driveways.
Staff also investigated the creation of new access points out to Higuera Street to allow alternative
turn access to each complex. Grade elevations and off-site property acquisition issues exist such that
creating these alternative accesses are problematic. Unfortunately, there is not a "magic bullet"
solution to this access situation. Staff will continue to work with the consultants and residents of Los
Verdes I& II to determine if other alternatives may be possible.
� -4
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project PA&ED Update Page 7
Los Verdes `
Driveways y
- �•�,, L ��^t, � � � may. � lD�:.. � C t� '� L
J
Figure 4—Los Verdes Driveway 400' from Hi era/LOVR intersection
Next Steps
City staff will be working with Caltrans to complete the Project Report and Environmental
Determination for the project. The draft project report for the project should be resubmitted to
Caltrans the week of November 5`h. The draft environmental document is anticipated to be submitted
to Caltrans in late November or early December. Using general processing timelines these
documents should work their way towards final approval sometime in spring(April) 2008.
Program
Funding
Plans, Specifications &
Approve Alternatives/ Project Report, Estimates (PS&E)
PSR Initial Study Environmental Construction
Feb Nov April 2008 Mar 2010
2004 2006 2008 2009 or
2011
LOVR Interchange- Projected Timeline
As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan Council appropriated $2,500,000 in Transportation Impact
Fees to begin the plans, specifications and estimation stage of the process. Approximately $115,000
'+ _7
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project PA&ED Update Page 8
is needed now to complete the final work associated with the environmental determination stage of
the project. This will leave about $2,385,000 to use as seed money to begin the design of the project
however, depending on market costs, there may need to be additional money allocated to the project
to finish this work. Staff is currently working on a.request for proposals (RFP) for the design work
with an intention of soliciting proposals in December 2007.
Once started, and assuming no significant processing delay through the various permitting agencies,
design and right-of-way acquisition should take approximately 18-24 months to complete.
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) will be conducting a "call for projects"
later this year to prioritize and program FY 2008-10 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) funding. Staff will be working with SLOCOG and Caltrans to apply for STIP monies during
the call to determine a funding program for the project. It is anticipated that competition for the
limited STIP funding will be fierce, so it remains critical that the City continues to support the
project by allocating appropriate amounts of local funding. Literally "putting our money where our
mouth is", will be important in demonstrating that the City is serious about constructing this project.
As part of preparing for this process staff has developed an LOVR IC Project advocacy strategy(see
Attachment 1) that will include Council members, stakeholders and community groups(such as the
Chamber of Commerce and area businesses) to express a strong and unified support for the regional
benefits of the project. The main efforts of the strategy will be focused on securing the needed
construction funds for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed above, Council programmed $2,500,000 in design funding for the project in FY 2007-
08. The current contract for environmental services needs an additional $115,000 to complete the
environmental and design work on the project for the PA&ED phase. Staff initially identified the
potential need for additional environmental funding as part of the November 2005 staff report to
Council when it was cautioned that environmental conditions in the project area were difficult to
anticipate. The additional funds are needed for a number of reasons, including:. a completion
schedule extended due to unforeseen conditions, additional traffic analysis required by Caltrans for
Prado Rd IC, and additional environmental surveys needed after discovery of Red Legged frogs in
the project area. If the entire additional amount is not necessary to complete the environmental work,
remaining funding will be used during the design phase of the project.
Staff will be circulating an RFP for design services in December of this year. A project budget for
this work will be established at the remaining funding in the FY 2007-09 Financial Plan
($2,385,000).
Funding for this project is form the City's Transportation Impact Fee program so there will be no
impact to the General Fund from this recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project PA&ED Update Page 9
Council could deny the request to amend the contract. If this alternative is selected, Council will halt
progress being made on the Major City Goal for congestion relief.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
A copy of the current draft Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project Report and the Request for
Proposals will be made available for review prior to the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LOVR advocacy strategy
G:\Staf7-Reports-Agendas-Minutes\_CAR\2007\Transportation Planning\LOVR IC Update\CAR LOVR PA—ED 11 Update 20074.DOC
Attachment 1
city O f October 29, 2007
san Luis OBI SPO
Advocacy Strategy for the
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange
Objective: Begin construction of the LOVR IC as soon as possible. Secure
through the San Luis Obispo County of Governments (SLOCOG) process a
minimum of 50% State funding match for the construction of the total Los Osos
Valley Road (LOVR) Interchange project (includes credit for Phase I — Calle
Joaquin Relocation).
Action Items
1. Promote a Successful SLOCOG Decision Making Process
• Ensure that the SLOCOG process and criteria for prioritizing and funding
projects does not create fatal flaws or significant obstacles to successful
prioritization and funding for the LOVR Interchange;
• Avoid the development of SLOCOG criteria, such as: "No new projects'; or
"Prioritization should favor projects already receiving STIP funding"; or that
"Prioritization should favor projects underway but needed more money."
2.. Clearly and Strongly Express the Unique Regional Assets of
the LOVR Interchange Project
• Present the well documented need for interchange improvements and a
"public-private partnership" to accomplish the project in a concise "Fact
sheet";
• Demonstrate the role of the LOVR Interchange as a major thoroughfare
and access point for Morro Bay, Baywood Park, and Los Osos as well as.
Montana de Oro and Morro Bay State Parks;
• Express the strong and united Council and community support-to invest
money and staff time in accomplishing interchange improvements
Adopted 2007-09 Major City Goal —Traffic Congestion Relief.
"Expand efforts to reduce and manage traffic congestion
throughout the City, including the Los Osos Valley Road
corridor and interchange";
T:\LOVR Advocacy Strategy\L.OVR Advocacy Strategy.doc Page I
• Show that the City has local funding mechanisms in place now and are
collecting fees prior to construction of the interchange. (funding sources
include City TIF and LOVR Sub Area toward a total estimated cost of
$21-26 million);
• Present the cumulative analysis which concludes, after project completion,
clear interchange performance enhancements that will benefit local,
regional and statewide interests;
• Create a user friendly "FAQ Sheet" that outlines the points expressed
above in a handout that can be used during all phases of advocacy.
3. Fully Funded Design
• Substantial design study and environmental work is already complete
a) All required technical studies are complete
b) The final draft Project Report will be resubmitted to Caltrans during the week
of November 5th
c) The final draft Environmental Document will be resubmitted to Caltrans
during the week of December 3rd;
• Funding for the design has been approved as part of the City's 2007-09
Budget ($2.5 million in.2007/08);
• The project preferred alternative includes building a new,bridge next to the
existing bridge. Caltrans has indicated that a Design Exception would be
granted for that alternative, potentially saving the project millions of
additional dollars..
4. Engage Board of Supervisor Members
• Meet first with County Supervisor Jerry Lenthall (Board Chair; project is in
his district);
• Meet with others, too (Sup. Katcho Achadjian, Sup. Jim Patterson and
Sup. Bruce Gibson all share some part of SLO). In addition, Morro Bay,
Baywood Park and North Coast residents all will benefit from the
interchange;
• Demonstrate that this appeals to Diablo Canyon safety issues as well as
regional traffic issues.
T:UAVR Advocacy Strategy\LOVR Advocacy Strategy.doc Page 2
5. Engage Other Elected Representatives
• Meet with State Senator Abel Maldonado and Assemblyman Sam
Blakeslee.
• Meet with Congress Member Lois Capps to discuss potential federal
funding opportunities.
6. Engage the Private Sector
• Hold a meeting of private sector stakeholders (or meet with them
individually or in small groups) to engage them in actively advocating for
State funding (lobbying Board of Supervisors, lobbying SLOCOG);
• Private sector stakeholders including all businesses in the Sub-area and
who "suffer" from traffic issues on LOVR/Madonna Road Area (whether or
not they have had to pay sub-area fees), and perhaps others who
frequently use the LOVR corridor and interchange;
• Request the Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors to take a position
on funding the issue;
• Request the Bicycle Coalition to take a position on funding the issue;
• Present to PG&E as a safety enhancement for Diablo Canyon and request
they engage their lobbyists with the City.
7. Engage the Media/Answer Questions
• Develop a media plan, FAQ sheet & press releases;
• Brief the Editorial Board of Tribune and New Times, and meet with
representatives from KSBY, KCOY, etc.
T:\LOVR Advocacy Strategy\LOVR Advocacy Strategy.doc Page 3