HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-12 Final Signed PSR PID 05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
Vicinity Map
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
ooo15
1
4
119
.
0
1
15
1
8
134
.
2
1
15
1
9
134
.
41
15
2
0
13
4
.7
2
15
2
1
124
.
7
1
152
2
14
3
.4
0
15
2
3
13
6
.
1
2
15
2
5
118
.
9
4
693136
.98
694149
.
1
7
69513
8
.0
1696129
.
8
5 697129
.
41
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California NORTH0 400
Scale: 1"= 400 ft.
Existing Conditions
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 WALL
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A1
DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250
Scale: 1"=250' (H)
1"=50' (V)
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaALTERNATIVE A1DRAFT CONCEPT
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 WALL
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A1R
DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250
Scale: 1"=250' (H)
1"=50' (V)
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaALTERNATIVE A1RDRAFT CONCEPT
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 WALL
San Luis Obispo, California
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
ALTERNATIVE A3
DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250
Scale: 1"=250' (H)
1"=50' (V)
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A3DRAFT CONCEPT
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 WALL
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A4
DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250
Scale: 1"=250' (H)
1"=50' (V)
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A4DRAFT CONCEPT
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/W
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A4R
DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250
Scale: 1"=250' (H)
1"=50' (V)
San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRALTERNATIVE A4RDRAFT CONCEPT
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/W
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A7
DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250
Scale: 1"=250' (H)
1"=50' (V)
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSRSan Luis Obispo, CaliforniaALTERNATIVE A7DRAFT CONCEPT
STOP1280' 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 WALL
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A1R
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $16M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $32M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $3,750,000 X 1.1 = $4,130,000
Explanation:
Include a brief (no more than 1 paragraph) discussion of the items that are The
“Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101
NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between
the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road
within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure. See layout
provided in Attachment C. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane
Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage,
specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization,
supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been
identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to
implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For
further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or
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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A1R (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12M - $27M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $5,850,000 X 1.1 = $6,440,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route
101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and
Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment C. Items that are included in the “Average Cost
per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section,
drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway
mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies
have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the
estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per
Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131
or 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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A3
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M to $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $37M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $6,350,000 X 1.1 = $6,990,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route
101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and
Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment D. Items that are included in the “Average Cost
per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section,
drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway
mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies
have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the
estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per
Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-
3131 or 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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3- mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A3 (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10M - $15M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $16M - $26M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $17M - $32M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $8,050,000 X 1.1 = $8,860,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route
101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and
Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment D. Items that are included in the “Average Cost
per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section,
drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway
mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies
have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the
estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per
Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-
3131 or 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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A4
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M to $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $37M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $4,050,000 X 1.3 = $5,270,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route
101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and
Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment E. Items that are included in the “Average Cost
per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section,
drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway
mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies
have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the
estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per
Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-
3131 or 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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3- mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A4 (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10M - $15M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $16M - $26M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $17M - $32M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $5,850,000 X 1.3 = $7,600,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route
101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and
Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment E. Items that are included in the “Average Cost
per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section,
drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway
mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies
have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the
estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per
Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-
3131 or 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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A4R
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $16M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $32M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $2,750,000 X 1.3 = $3,580,000
Explanation:
Include a brief (no more than 1 paragraph) discussion of the items that are The
“Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101
NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between
the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road
within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure. See layout
provided in Attachment E. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane
Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage,
specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization,
supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been
identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to
implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For
further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or
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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A4R (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12M - $27M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $4,350,000 X 1.3 = $5,660,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route
101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and
Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment E. Items that are included in the “Average Cost
per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section,
drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway
mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies
have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the
estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per
Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-
3131 or 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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A7
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS Less than $5M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M to $16M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12M - $22M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $3,750,000 X 1.1 = $4,130,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route
101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and
Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment F. Items that are included in the “Average Cost
per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section,
drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway
mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies
have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the
estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per
Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-
3131 or 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
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
1
Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3- mile south of Prado Road
and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101,
new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101
auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp
Alternate: Alternative A7 (With Optional Retaining Walls)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M - $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12M - $27M
2
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost
Total Cost $6,250,000 X 1.1 = $6,880,000
Explanation:
The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route
101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane
between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and
Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.
See layout provided in Attachment F. Items that are included in the “Average Cost
per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section,
drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway
mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies
have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the
estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per
Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-
3131 or 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
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
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
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
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)
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 WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A1 (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101,
mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7
-0-N/A
N/A
-0-
101,679
X
X
X
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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 WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A1R - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
9 243,902
7 143,197
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
commercial uses
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A1R (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101,
mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7 73,496
-0-N/A
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A3 - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
9 233,272
151,7477
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commercial uses
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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 WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt 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
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
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)
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 WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A4 - 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
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
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)
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 WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A4 (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101,
mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7
-0-
-0-
294,998
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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 WALL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A4R - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7
7
305,493
133,760
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commercial uses
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A4R (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101,
mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7
-0-
162,750
N/A
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A7 - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101, mixed industrial and
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7
7
227,166
129,808
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
commercial uses
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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/W
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM -
4-EX-8 (NEW 7/2016)
RIGHT OF WAY
Page 1 of 3
(Form #)
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FORM - RIGHT OF WAY
(PSR-PDS)
*NOT VALID FOR PROGRAMMING PURPOSES*
To:Date:
(REQUESTING DIVISION)
Dist-Co-Rte-PM:
Project ID:
EA:
From:
RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY
(Estimator)(Estimating Senior)
The Conceptual Cost Estimate Request –Right of Way was received for the above-referenced project on (date submitted)
with a requested completion date of (requested completion date).
A field review for this estimate:Was Requested Was Not Required
Was Performed Was Not Performed
Scope of the Right of Way
Description of Required Right of Way: _________________________________________________________________
Right of Way Required:Yes No
Number of Total Parcels:1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 >100
Project Setting:Urban Rural Current Land Use:
_________________________________
Right of Way Requirements
Number of Fee Parcels _______________ Total Additional Fee Area _________________
Number of Permanent Easements _______ Total Permanent Easement Area ____________
Number of Temporary Easements _______ Total Temporary Easement Area ____________
Length of Term Required for Temporary Easements _____________________________________
Number of Excess Parcels/Other_____________________________________________________
Displaced Persons/Businesses:Yes No
Demolition/Clearance Required:
Yes No
Railroad Involvement:
Yes No
Utility Involvement:
Yes No Number of Utilities in Area __________
Cost Estimates
Capital Costs $0-$100,000 $5,000,001-$15,000,000
$100,001-$500,000 $15,000,001-$50,000,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $50,000,001-$100,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000
Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000
$25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000
$100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000
$250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000
05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1H640K
Kevin Thorne Lillian Jewell
X
X
X
Alt A7 (optional retaining walls) - intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101,
mixed industrial and commercial uses
public use, planned development,and
commercial
-0-
N/A
X
X
X
X 9
Omni-Means
7
-0-
95,005
N/A
N/A
-0-
X
X
X
January 5, 2018
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
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)
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/W
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
1
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REPORT
1. Project Information
District
05
County
San Luis Obispo
Route
101
PM
26.5/27.3
EA
1H640K
Project Title:
U.S. 101/Prado Road Interchange
Project Manager:
Paul Valadao
Phone #
(805) 549-3016
Project Engineer:
Claudio Espino
Phone #
(805) 549-3079
Environmental Branch Chief:
Jason Wilkinson
Phone #
(805) 542-4663
PEAR Preparer
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (on behalf of City of San Luis
Obispo Department of Public Works)
Phone #
(805) 547-0900
2. Project Description
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area
for all transportation modes. There is a need to provide better community connectivity between
the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of the U.S. Route 101 freeway and resolve
forecasted operational deficiencies on State and City facilities. This connectivity need extends to
all transportation modes.
Goals and objectives of the project include:
1. To improve overall operations of U.S. Route 101 and adjacent interchanges;
2. To improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians;
3. To improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities; and
4. Consistency with local, regional, and State planning.
Description of work
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) proposes to extend Prado Road over U.S. Route 101 (U.S.
101) to connect with Dalidio Drive and reconstruct the existing U.S. 101 northbound ramp 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,
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
2
Alternative A2, was also identified as viable by the PDT but was rejected by the PDT and will
not be carried into PA/ED. Each of the viable build alternatives includes a partial interchange
with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing constructed over U.S. 101 and new U.S. 101
northbound off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road. Alternatives A1 and A4 also include two
intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout control. The roundabout control
option for Alternative A3 would be the same as provided for Alternative A1. Finally, a
roundabout-only option at the Prado Road/Elks Lane/U.S. 101 northbound ramps is considered
with Alternative A7.
General Assumptions Common to All Build Alternatives
U.S. 101 through the study area is currently a 4-lane divided freeway with auxiliary lanes
provided between Madonna Road and Marsh Street. The Ultimate Concept Facility (beyond
2035) for U.S. 101 within the study area is identified as a freeway with capacity of up to 6 lanes
though there is no funding currently identified for providing a 6-lane freeway section. Though
not funded, each viable build alternative will accommodate the Ultimate Concept Facility
through the proposed Prado Road overcrossing.
Alternative A1
Attachment C1 shows the Alternative A1 geometric concept which assumes traffic signal control
provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary
geometric design elements presented for Alternative A1 include the following:
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-1 tight diamond configuration
to the east of U.S. 101.
Retaining walls are proposed on the inside of both the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp to
Prado Road and the Prado Road northbound on-ramp to U.S. 101.
An approximately 940-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the Prado Road
northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-ramp.
Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with
separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the
future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A1 would encroach into the current floodplain located both to the east and west of
U.S. 101. Potential improvements to reduce this encroachment are shown on the attached
Alternative A1 exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the outside of both the
northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S.
101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection
with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A1R – Roundabout Option
Attachment C2 shows the Alternative A1R geometric concept with a roundabout provided at the
U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. Preliminary geometric design elements
presented for Alternative AR1 include the following:
Prado Road has a minimum 3-lane divided arterial section (2-lanes southbound and 1-
lane northbound) through the interchange with separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian
sidewalks.
The other preliminary geometric design elements are consistent with the traffic signal
option Alternative A1.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
3
Alternative A1R would encroach into the current floodplain located both to the east and west of
U.S. 101. Potential improvements to reduce this encroachment are shown on the attached
Alternative A1R exhibit and include optional retaining walls along the outside of both the
northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S.
101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection
with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A3
Attachment C3 shows the Alternative A3 geometric concept which assumes traffic signal control
provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary
geometric design elements presented for Alternative A3 include the following:
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-1 tight diamond configuration
on the east side of U.S. 101.
Retaining walls are proposed on the inside of both the northbound off-ramp and the
northbound on-ramp.
An approximately 940-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the Prado Road
northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-ramp.
Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with
separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the
future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A3 would encroach into the current floodplain located both to the east and west of
U.S. 101 similar to Alternative A1. Potential improvements to reduce this encroachment are
shown on the attached Alternative A3 exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the
outside of both the northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp, along the north side of Prado
Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to
the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Note: The roundabout option for this alternative would be the same as described for Alternative
A1R.
Alternative A4
Attachment C4 shows the Alternative A4 geometric concept which assumes traffic signal control
provided at the U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary
geometric design elements presented for Alternative A4 include the following:
The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-7 partial cloverleaf
configuration on the east side of U.S. 101.
An approximately 2000-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the Prado Road
northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-ramp.
Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with
separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the
future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A4 would encroach into the current floodplain located to the west of U.S. 101. To the
east of U.S. 101, the potential encroachment into the floodplain would be less then Alternatives
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
4
A1 and A3. Potential improvements to reduce these encroachments are shown on the attached
Alternative A4 exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the outside of the northbound
off-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road
(Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch
Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A4R – Roundabout Option
Attachment C5 shows the Alternative A4R geometric concept with a roundabout provided at the
U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road. The other preliminary geometric design
elements are consistent with the traffic signal option Alternative A4.
Alternative A4R would encroach into the current floodplain located both to the east and west of
U.S. 101. Potential improvements to reduce these encroachments are shown on the attached
Alternative A4R exhibit and includes optional retaining walls along the outside of the
northbound off-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of U.S. 101, and along the Prado
Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch
Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A7
Attachment C6 shows the Alternative A7 geometric concept which assumes roundabout control
provided at the Prado Road/Elks Lane/U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection with Prado Road.
Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A7 include the following:
The interchange configuration is similar in concept to a Type L-6 configuration on the
east side of U.S. 101. The exception though is instead of the ramps connecting with a
frontage road, the off-ramp is merged with eastbound (EB) Prado Road prior to the
roundabout while the on-ramp diverges from westbound (WB) Prado Road after the
roundabout.
An approximately 1220-foot auxiliary lane is provided between the Prado Road
northbound on-ramp and the Madonna Road northbound off-ramp.
Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with
separate Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of U.S. 101 to the intersection with the
future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
Alternative A7 would encroach into the current floodplain located to the west of U.S. 101 similar
to Alternatives A1, A2 and A4. To the east of U.S. 101, the potential encroachment into the
floodplain would be less then Alternatives A1 and A3. Potential improvements to reduce these
encroachments are shown on the attached Alternative A7 exhibit and includes optional retaining
walls along the outside of the northbound off-ramp, along the north side of Prado Road east of
U.S. 101, and along the Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) extension west of U.S. 101 to the
intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
5
3. Anticipated Environmental Approval
CEQA NEPA
Environmental Determination
Statutory Exemption
Categorical Exemption Categorical Exclusion
Environmental Document
Initial Study or Focused Initial Study
with proposed Negative Declaration
(ND) or Mitigated ND
Routine Environmental Assessment
with proposed Finding of No
Significant Impact
Complex Environmental Assessment
with proposed Finding of No
Significant Impact
Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement
CEQA Lead Agency (if determined): Caltrans
Estimated length of time (months) to obtain environmental
approval:
22 months
Estimated person hours to complete identified tasks: 1,200
4. Special Environmental Considerations
Several sensitive State and federal listed biological species have been documented within the
vicinity of the proposed project. However, a preliminary evaluation of the site indicates the
majority of the site lacks suitable habitat for these species within the work area. Some project
components may fall within the jurisdictional boundaries of San Luis Obispo Creek, along the
northeastern auxiliary lane, and wetlands may be present in low-lying undeveloped areas, based
on potential for hydric soils outlined in the Soil Survey and current Hydric Soils Lists. San Luis
Obispo Creek contains stream and riparian habitat regulated by the USACE, CDFW, and
RWQCB. An evaluation of the entire site will be conducted to determine if potentially
jurisdictional features may be present within the project site, and if so, a formal jurisdictional
delineation of the project site will be completed. San Luis Obispo Creek also contains
occurrences of federally-listed South Central California Coast steelhead (SCCC steelhead) and
critical habitat; and suitable habitat for federally listed California red legged frog (CRLF).
Biological surveys and habitat assessments will be required to confirm presence and extent of
habitat for SCCC steelhead and CRLF, and the absence of sensitive species from other areas of
the project site. These surveys will be conducted during the bloom period of special status plants
documented within the vicinity of the project. Avoidance of nesting birds may be required from
February 1 through September 30.
5. Anticipated Environmental Commitments
Project specific mitigation to reduce, minimize, or compensate for temporary and permanent
project impacts for each resource area will be defined during the Project Approval and
Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase of project development, as the impact areas for each
alternative are better defined. However, the following general avoidance and minimization
measures are recommended:
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
6
Archaeological Resources
Monitoring may be required during ground disturbance if high potential for discovery of
resources is determined.
Test any discovered archaeological and/or paleontological resources.
Biological Resources
Avoid introduction of invasive species into the project area.
Mitigation will be required for any impacts to special-status species. Project specific
mitigation would be determined at the time of project implementation, and may include
requiring a biological monitor to monitor exclusion zones for special-status or nesting
species if determined necessary.
Conduct preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring (if required).
Hazards
If any indication of contamination, such as odors or stained soils, is encountered during
grading, excavating, or other construction activities, work in the area should be stopped
immediately.
Geology/Soils
Implement recommendations provided in site specific Geotechnical Investigation, which
may include soil stabilization measures for unstable soils.
Noise
Provide noise barriers if determined necessary by the Noise Study Report.
Paleontological Resources
If paleontological resources are discovered mitigation would include removal,
preparation, and curation of any important remains. May require presence of
paleontologist during ground disturbing activities.
Runoff/Water Quality
Require design measures to prevent scour during a flood event.
Prepare and implement erosion control spill prevention and counter measure control plan,
measures. Minimum erosion control measures for each alterative include: 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.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
7
Scenic Resources
Aesthetic treatment may be required at all retaining walls, concrete barriers, soundwalls
consistent with the Aesthetic Barrier Design guidance and the California Highway
Barrier Aesthetics Report.
Wetland/Riparian Resources
Wetland mitigation if determined jurisdictional wetland would be affected.
The appropriate level of environmental documentation to be prepared during the PA&ED phase
of the project would be an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration/Categorical Exclusion
(IS-MND/CE) to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The IS-MND/CE would follow
guidelines, tools, and templates, provided in the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference,
which have been developed in accordance with NEPA responsibility assigned through Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), a funding and authorization bill intended to
govern United States federal surface transportation spending. Preparation of the IS-MND/CE,
including technical studies, is anticipated to take 22 months, once information and project detail
necessary to begin the environmental analysis are available. This timeline includes time for
substantive review by the environmental division staff within Caltrans.
6. Permits and Approvals
If the project cannot be designed to fully avoid San Luis Obispo Creek, or if other wetlands are
present and cannot be avoided, the project could result in impacts to jurisdictional features.
Impacts to jurisdictional features resulting from project related activities could require a
Nationwide Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act and a Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Likewise, the proposed project could
require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Impacts to jurisdictional features typically require mitigation.
Additionally, if San Luis Creek is not fully avoided, the project may require a Biological
Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, regarding potential effects to
CRLF and SCCC-steelhead, respectively. The area of disturbance is expected to be over one acre
which will necessitate a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and require enrollment
under the Statewide Construction General Permit. The proposed project does not occur within
the Coastal Zone and therefore, does not require a Coastal Development Permit.
7. Level of Effort: Risks and Assumptions
Assumptions:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration & Categorical Exclusion is the appropriate
CEQA/NEPA document.
The proposed project would not require a Finding of Effect (FOE), a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) or additional consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office.
It is assumed that the allocated funds will be available and ready to spend when needed
during the project.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
8
Risks:
Construction schedule may be restricted between February 1 and September 30 if nesting
birds are discovered in adjacent trees or if tree removal is required during construction.
If tree removal is required, replacement plantings will likely be required.
If project components fall within the jurisdictional boundaries of San Luis Obispo Creek
jurisdictional features may be present in low-lying undeveloped areas, requiring a formal
jurisdictional delineation of the project site.
If San Luis Creek is not fully avoided, the project may require a Biological Opinion from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, regarding potential effects to
CRLF and SCCC-steelhead, respectively.
PA&ED may be delayed if regulatory permits are determined to be required or if a
higher-level environmental document is needed.
8. PEAR Technical Summaries
8.1 Land Use/Socioeconomic/Community Impact/Growth:
The proposed project would not conflict with any local land use designations or policies. This
project was identified in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element, the City
of San Luis Obispo San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, and the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Accordingly, planned
projects adjacent to the project site, including the San Luis Ranch and San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (RTA) Maintenance Facility projects, have been planned and designed to
accommodate future development of the proposed U.S. 101/Prado Road interchange connection.
Accordingly, the consideration of environmental effects of the proposed U.S. 101/Prado Road
interchange connection are limited to those areas not included within the development footprint
of other current approved or planned projects within the project site. Although the project may
result in relocation/realignment of the existing Elks Lane, which runs parallel to northbound U.S.
101 north of Prado Road, the project would not induce growth, result in relocations, or otherwise
impact any housing, businesses, or low-income and/or minority populations beyond what is and
has been planned for in the region. A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) Technical
Memorandum will be required.
8.2 Farmlands/Timberlands:
The project would encroach on a portion of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area where prime
farmland currently exists. The San Luis Ranch Project was approved with the condition that the
project provides land and appropriate financial support for development of the U.S. 101/Prado
Road interchange. Mitigation Measure AG-1 in the San Luis Ranch Project EIR, as adopted,
requires impacts to Prime Farmland within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area to be
mitigated at a 1:1 ratio (acres of Prime Farmland converted to acres of Prime Farmland preserved
in perpetuity). There are no other identified farmlands or timberlands in the project area and the
project would not result in any impacts to such resources beyond those already evaluated and
mitigated for in the San Luis Ranch Project FEIR. Due to the proximity of agricultural land to
the project, a Form AD-1006 will prepared in coordination with the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) if the score in Part VI exceeds 60 points.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
9
8.3 Visual/Aesthetic Resources:
Prado Road, at the on-ramp for northbound U.S. 101, is designated as a scenic roadway with the
category of a moderate scenic vista on Figure 11 of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element and Figure 3 of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Circulation Element. Drivers and other users of Prado Road have intermittent views to Cerro San
Luis Obispo and the Santa Lucia Mountains northeast of the City. The segment of U.S. 101
running north to south, over which the proposed overcrossing would pass, is eligible for State
Scenic Highway designation by Caltrans, and is also designated by the City as a scenic roadway
of high scenic value. Views along U.S. 101 include the Santa Lucia Mountains to the north and
Irish Hills to the south, for vehicles travelling in those directions. The views also include Cerro
San Luis Obispo and the other Morros, and the riparian corridor along San Luis Obispo Creek.
The project may result in alteration of views from Prado Road and from U.S. 101 where the
proposed interchange connection would occur. Therefore, a Visual Impact Assessment will be
required.
8.4 Cultural Resources/Tribal Lands/Tribal Coordination:
The project site is not located within a designated Historic District or Burial Sensitivity Area,
and does not include any designated Master List Historic Properties or Burial Points identified in
the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Figure 1:Cultural Resources map.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey was completed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) in
November 2016 for the RTA property on the east side of U.S. 101 (APN 053-041-071), on
which the project would encroach, as well as the adjacent Sunset Drive-in Theater (APN 053-
041-025), CAPSLO Homeless Services Center (APN 053-041-072), and City Water Resource
Reclamation Facility (WRRF; APN 053-051-045) properties. In addition, the San Luis Ranch
Project Cultural Resources Study was prepared by Rincon in August 2016 for the San Luis
Ranch project site, west of U.S. 101, on which the project would encroach.
Due to the presence of cultural resources identified during previous studies in the project area, a
Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) that includes a Phase I Archaeological Survey (ASR)
will be required.
8.5 Hydrology and Floodplain/Water Quality:
The project would encroach into the current floodplain, located both to the east and west of U.S.
101. As shown on Attachments C1 through C6, all of the build alternatives include
improvements to reduce this encroachment. A Location Hydraulic Study will be prepared to
evaluate base floodplain encroachments. If the Location Hydraulic Study concludes that the
proposed project would result in a significant encroachment (as defined by 23 CFR 650.105), a
Floodplain Evaluation Report would be required.
The project is not expected to result in long term impacts on water quality. However, a Water
Quality Assessment Report will be required to determine the feasibility of incorporating
permanent treatment or structural BMPs into the project. Temporary impacts to water quality and
storm water runoff are anticipated during construction but will be minimized by the development
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
10
and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, including erosion and sediment
control BMPs. If the project would create more than one acre of new and replaced impervious
surfaces within the Caltrans right-of-way, it will be required to treat 100% of all new and
replaced impervious surfaces, or Alternative Compliance will be required. Treatment BMPs will
be followed within the State-owned right-of-way and the City’s MS4 Permit requirements for
post construction runoff control TBMPs will be followed on City-owned right-of-way. Existing
permanent TBMPs associated with other facilities will be followed outside of the State- and
City-owned right-of-way.
Additionally, an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) will be required to identify potential or known
hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and contamination in the project area as well as the
party/parties responsible, or potentially responsible, for hazardous waste and contamination.
8.6 Paleontological Resources:
The project site and adjacent property have been previously disturbed, and the proposed project
is unlikely to result in new paleontological impacts. The project limits are mapped as Quaternary
Deposits, which are defined as extensive marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks. Quaternary
Deposits are typically considered to have a low potential for paleontological resources. A
memorandum documenting the low potential for impacts to paleontological resources will be
prepared for the project. A Paleontological Evaluation Report would not be required for this
project.
8.7 Air Quality:
San Luis Obispo County is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour State standards for ozone
and the 24-hour State standard for PM10. The County is in attainment/unclassified for all other
standards. Temporary air quality emissions are anticipated during construction of the proposed
project, but would be minimized with the implementation of standard dust and emissions control
measures. The project is intended to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project
area for all transportation modes, specifically providing better connectivity between the existing
and planned neighborhoods east and west of U.S. 101 and resolving forecasted operational
deficiencies on City facilities and U.S. 101. Accordingly, the project would not induce new
vehicle trips or increase roadway capacity and, as a result, is not anticipated to result in 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
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
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
12
components of the mapped soils as hydric, thus wetlands may be present in low-lying
undeveloped areas of the project site. If San Luis Obispo Creek and any other wetlands cannot be
fully avoided, regulatory permits are expected to be required.
The project area contains several non-native ornamental as well as native landscape trees.
The project may require tree removal, and avoidance of nesting birds would be required from
February 1 through September 30 due to the proximity of the trees.
8.11 Cumulative Impacts:
Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions, combined with the potential impacts of this project. The environmental document will
identify the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects resulting from the project and
project alternatives in conjunction with other approved and planned projects in the vicinity of the
project. This may include, but not be limited to, the San Luis Ranch Project, RTA Maintenance
Facility Project, CAPSLO Homeless Services Center Project, and City WRRF Project.
8.12 Section 4(f):
The project area does not contain any public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or
local significance as defined under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966
(Act) (49 U.S. Government Code 303). No further studies are required.
EA-1H640K January 3, 2018
13
9. Summary Statement for PSR-PDS
In order to identify environmental issues and constraints, a Preliminary Environmental
Analysis Report (PEAR) has been prepared for the proposed project. All technical studies
have been deferred to the PA&ED phase.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would act as the Lead Agency
for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) environmental approval process. Caltrans will serve as the NEPA
lead agency under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 U.S. Code 327. The
anticipated environmental document for the proposed project is a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (CEQA) and a Categorical Exclusion (NEPA). This document level has been
selected based upon a preliminary review of the potential resources within the project
limits, which indicates the project has the potential for significant impacts that would
require mitigation pursuant to CEQA.
The estimated time to obtain environmental approval is 22 months from receipt of a
complete Environmental Document Request. Draft and final environmental documents
would be anticipated in 14 months and 22 months, respectively.
It is anticipated multiple studies will be required for this project including (but not limited
to): a Community Impact Assessment technical memorandum; an Initial Site Assessment;
a Form AD-1006; a Visual Impact Assessment; a Historic Property Survey Report that
includes a Phase I Archaeological Survey; a Location Hydraulic Study; a Water Quality
Assessment Report; a Noise Study Report; an Air Quality/GHG Study; and a Natural
Environment Study (Minimal Impacts).
10. Disclaimer
This Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) provides information to
support programming of the proposed project. It is not an environmental determination or
document. Preliminary analysis, determinations, and estimates of mitigation costs are
based on the project description provided in the Project Study Report (PSR). The
estimates and conclusions in the PEAR are approximate and are based on cursory
analyses of probable effects. A reevaluation of the PEAR will be needed for changes in
project scope or alternatives, or in environmental laws, regulations, or guidelines.
11. List of Preparers
Cultural Resources specialist
Chris Duran, Principal Investigator
Date: 1/3/2018
Biologist
Jamie Deutsch, Associate Biologist
Date: 1/3/2018
Community Impacts specialist
Chris Bersbach, Technical Services Program Supervisor
Date: 1/3/2018
Noise and Vibration specialist
Chris Bersbach, Technical Services Program Supervisor
Date: 1/3/2018
Attachment A: PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist
Rev. 11/08
Environmental Studies for PA&ED Checklist
Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required
Risk*
L M H
Comments
Land Use L
Growth L
Farmlands/Timberlands L
Community Impacts L
Community Character and Cohesion L
Relocations L
Environmental Justice L
Utilities/Emergency Services L
Visual/Aesthetics L
Cultural Resources: L
Archaeological Survey Report L
Historic Resources Evaluation Report L
Historic Property Survey Report L
Historic Resource Compliance Report L
Section 106 / PRC 5024 & 5024.5 L
Native American Coordination L
Finding of Effect L
Data Recovery Plan L
Memorandum of Agreement L
Other: L
Hydrology and Floodplain L
Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff L
Geology, Soils, Seismic and
Topography
L
Paleontology L
PER L
PMP L
Hazardous Waste/Materials: L
ISA (Additional) L
PSI L
Other: L
Air Quality L
Noise and Vibration L
Energy and Climate Change L
Biological Environment L
Natural Environment Study L
Section 7: L
Formal L
Informal L
No effect L
Section 10 L
USFWS Consultation L
NMFS Consultation L
Species of Concern (CNPS, USFS,
BLM, S, F)
L
Environmental Studies for PA&ED Checklist
Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required
Risk*
L M H
Comments
Wetlands & Other Waters/Delineation L
404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis L
Invasive Species L
Wild & Scenic River Consistency L
Coastal Management Plan L
HMMP L
DFG Consistency Determination L
2081 L
Other: L
Cumulative Impacts L
Context Sensitive Solutions L
Section 4(f) Evaluation L
Permits:
401 Certification Coordination L
404 Permit Coordination, IP, NWP, or
LOP
L
1602 Agreement Coordination L
Local Coastal Development Permit
Coordination
L
State Coastal Development Permit
Coordination
L
NPDES Coordination L
US Coast Guard (Section 10) L
TRPA L
BCDC L
Environmental Document 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-19
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 WALL
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 WALL
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 WALL
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 WALL
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/W
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/W
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 Register
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
September 30, 2011
1
ARTICLE 2
PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT
DESIGN SCOPING INDEX
Attach the project location map to index to show the location of all design improvements.
Today’s Date: 02/23/2018
Status (Initial,
Update):
Update
General Information:
District: County: Route: Kilometer Post (Post Mile) EA
05 SLO 101 26.5/27.3 05-1H640K
Project Manager Paul Valadao Phone # (805) 549-3016
Task Manager Phone #
Project Engineer Phone #
Design Functional Manager Claudia Espino Phone # (805) 549-3079
General Project
Descriptions:
Reconstruct NB ramps at Prado Road/US 101, construct Prado Rod overcrossing, and
construct NB auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road.
Project Need: There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned
neighborhoods east and west of the 101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational
deficiencies on State and City facilities. This connectivity need extends to all transportation
modes.
Project Purpose: The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project
area for all transportation modes. Goals and objectives of the project include: 1) improve
overall operations of U.S. Route 101 and adjacent interchanges; 2) improve safety and
mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3) improve transit performance and enhance transit
opportunities; 4) consistency with local, regional and state planning; 5) minimize out of
direction travel and reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gases;
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific Comments (summarize pertinent
information. assumptions, reference
location of detailed information, and
name of person who will provide
information).
1. Project
Setting (refer to
Planning
Scoping
Checklist)
Rural or Urban? Urban Located in southwestern portion of San
Luis Obispo
Current Land Uses:
(e.g., industrial, light industry,
commercial, agricultural
residential etc).
Agricultural,
commercial,
industrial
Current land uses are agricultural,
public and commercial.
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
September 30, 2011
2
Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural,
commercial,
industrial
There are agricultural fields west of the
freeway; commercial businesses
northwest of the interchange; the City’s
corporation yard and water treatment
plant is located southeast of the
interchange; and there is a U-haul
storage area northeast of the
interchange.
Existing Landscaping:
Yes There is existing landscaping along the
south side of Prado Road adjacent to the
City Corporation Yard.
Designated or eligible scenic
highway
No
The following pages are to be used for each alternative provided that the scope is significantly different. If
a route has been adopted as a freeway, a decision must be made as to whether or not the project will
address improvements to the existing traversable highway or move to construction of a freeway facility.
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific Comments (summarize pertinent
information, assumptions and
reference location of detailed
information):
Design
Concept and
Route
Matters
1. Design Concept? Freeway
Freeway/Expressway/
Conventional Highway
Freeway Per the 2014 TCR, the 2035
Corridor Concept is freeway with
capacity of four to six lanes and the
Ultimate Corridor Concept (beyond
2035) is freeway with capacity of up
to six lanes.
Mixed highway and transit No
Mixed highway and rail No
Urban Yes The project is located within the
urbanized are of San Luis Obispo.
Other No
2. Existing Route Adoption Date
3. New Route Adoption Proposed? No
4. Existing Freeway Agreement
Date
July 3, 1972
5 New Freeway Agreement
Proposed?
No
6. Public Road Connection
Proposed?
No Though the Prado Road NB ramps
are to be reconstructed, an existing
connection already exists with Prado
Road.
Design
Criteria
1. Design speed for highway
facilities within the project limit
mi/hr? Freeway – 70
mph
Local – 45 mph
The design speed for Prado Road
will be 45mph (posted 40 mph)
2. Design Period: (10 yr/15 yr/20yr) 20 yr
Construction Year 2025
Design Year 2045
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
September 30, 2011
3
3. Design Capacity - Level of
Service to be maintained over the
design period:
Mainline LOS C/D Per Caltrans TIS guidelines.
Ramp LOS C/D Per Caltrans TIS guidelines.
Local Street LOS D Per City of San Luis Obispo LOS
policy.
Weaving Sections LOS C/D Per Caltrans TIS guidelines.
4. Design Vehicle Selection
STAA Yes US 101 is an STAA route. All
movements to and from the freeway
ramps must accommodate a STAA
truck
California Yes All movements accommodate a CA
Legal 65’ truck
Bus Yes All movements accommodate a
BUS 45 design vehicle
Proposed Roadbed and Structure Widths
Forecasted Average Daily
Traffic volumes
83,000
Percent truck volume 9%
Roadbed Width Structure Width
State Highway Existing Proposed Standard Existing Proposed Standard
Lane widths/# 12/4 12/4 12/1 N/A N/A N/A
Left Shoulder 5 5 5 N/A N/A N/A
Right Shoulder 10 10 10 N/A N/A N/A
Median Width 37 37 46 N/A N/A N/A
Bicycle lane N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sidewalk N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Planting strip N/A N/A N/A N/A
Local Streets
Lane widths/# 12/2 12/5 12/1 N/A 12/4 12/1
Left Shoulder N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Right Shoulder 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Median Width N/A 12 N/A N/A 12 N/A
Bicycle lane N/A 6.5 6.5 N/A 6.5 6.5
Sidewalk 6 6 5 N/A 12 6
Planting strip N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
September 30, 2011
4
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific
Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Roadway
Design Scoping
1. Mainline
Operations
Main lane highway
widening?
No Only widening will be
for the NB auxiliary lane
between Prado and
Madonna. See
alternatives exhibits.
Existing pavement to be
rehabilitated with Asphalt
Concrete/Rubberized
AC/PCC?
No
Widen existing facility from
__ lanes to __lanes.
No
Local street structures to
span 5 lanes.
Future 3-lanes NB
101 and 2-lanes SB
plus C-D SB 101
Prado Road overcrossing
is designed to span 3 NB
lanes, 2 SB lanes, and a
collector-distributor. See
alternatives exhibit.
Curb extensions No
Shoulder improvements No
Bicycle lanes No
Pedestrian refuge islands No
Sidewalks No
Right of Way acquisition
required for ___ lanes.
R/W acquisition in
not anticipated at
this time for US
101 mainline. R/W
is required for the
proposed US 101
/Prado Road ramp
improvements and
the Prado Road
overcrossing.
Identify Potential
Relinquishments and
vacations.
Potential
relinquishments
and vacations are
not anticipated at
this time.
Upgrade existing facility to:
Expressway/Freeway/
Controlled Access
Highway/ Traversable
Highway Standards?
No
Improve Vertical Clearance New structure,
required vertical
clearances will be
provided.
Adequate Falsework
Clearance
Yes Adequate falsework
clearance will be
provided.
Traffic calming features No
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
September 30, 2011
5
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific
Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Roadway
Design Scoping
2. Ramp/Street
Intersection
Improvements
New Signals? Yes With signal alternatives.
See signal alternatives
exhibits.
Modify Existing Signals? N/A
Right Turn Lanes Yes On some alternatives.
See alternatives exhibits.
Widening for Localized
Through lanes?
Yes Prado Road widened
from 2 lanes to 4 lanes.
Merging Lanes? Yes With some alternatives.
See alternatives exhibits.
Deceleration/Acceleration
lanes?
Yes With some alternatives.
See alternatives exhibits.
Left Turn Lanes? Yes With some alternatives.
See alternatives exhibits.
>300 VPH Left Turn
(Requires Double Left Turn
Lane)
Yes Alternative A4 only. See
Alternative A4 exhibits.
Interchange Spacing? 0.94 to Los Osos
Valley Road
0.65 to Madonna
Road
Ramps Intersect Local
Street < 4% grade?
Yes
Intersection Spacing? 400’ minimum
Exit Ramps >1,500 VPH
(Requires two lane exit)
No
Single lane ramps exceeding
1000’ widened to Two lanes
Not anticipated at
this time.
Curb Ramps? Yes Retaining walls
proposed. See
alternatives exhibits.
Pedestrian Facilities? Yes Sidewalks and/or 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
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
September 30, 2011
6
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific
Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Weaving < 2000’ between
off-ramp and on-ramp?
No Only Alternative A4
provides for minimum
2000’ weaving distance
on NB 101 between
Prado Road on-ramp and
off ramp to Madonna
Road. See alternatives
exhibits.
Other? TBD
Right of Way
Access
Control
Existing access control extends at least 50 ft
beyond end of curb return, radius, or taper?
Yes See alternatives exhibits.
New construction access control extends at
least 100’ (urban areas) or 300' (rural areas)
beyond end of curb returns, radius, or taper?
Yes See alternatives exhibits.
Other? TBD
Highway
Planting and
Irrigation
Clearing and Grubbing? Yes
Relocate Existing Irrigation Facilities? TBD No known irrigation
facilities at this time
within the project limits.
Highway Planting and Irrigation (including
median and roadside)
Yes Some form of highway
planting and irrigation
will be required as the
project represents new
construction.
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Roadside
Management
Vegetation control treatments (road edge,
guardrails, signs, drainage facilities,
miscellaneous pavement narrow areas, etc.)
Yes Guardrail, signs,
drainage facilities
anticipated.
Modernization and clustering of facilities and
hardware (removing and replacing other items),
gore area pavement
Yes Existing NB 101 off and
on ramps will be
reconstructed.
Rehabilitate gore area pavement and pavement
beyond gore areas (remove and replace
miscellaneous pavement and curbs
No Prado Road NB off and
on ramps will be
completely
reconstructed.
Landform grading, contour grading, slope
rounding, stepped slopes and topsoil
reapplication
Yes Grading will be required.
Side slopes/embankment slope Yes Embankment will be
needed for the new
overcrossing.
Visual Assets TBD
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 2 – Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
September 30, 2011
7
Item Considerations Yes/No/Specific
Comments (summarize
pertinent information,
assumptions and
reference location of
detailed information):
Worker Safety Off-Freeway Access (gate, access road, and
stairways)
TBD
Maintenance Vehicle Pull-Out TBD
Adequate safety working conditions Yes Adequate safety working
conditions will be
provided.
Relocate roadside facilities/features (cabinets,
poles, pull boxes and vaults) away from traffic
Yes With new construction.
Hydraulics/
Stormwater
(Refer to the
Stormwater
Data Report)
Erosion Control
Yes
Drainage Yes
Slope Design Yes
Permanent Stormwater BMPs Yes
Structures
(Refer to
Structures
Scoping
Checklist or
APS)
New Bridge? Yes Proposed Prado Road
structure over US 101.
Bridge Rehab? No New structure.
Retaining Wall Yes Retaining walls proposed
on inside of the Prado
Road NB off and on
ramps. Optional walls
identified on the outside
of the Prado Road NB
off and on 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.
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.
2
Need: There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned
neighborhoods east and west of the 101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on State and
City facilities. This connectivity needs extends to all transportation modes.
Goals and objectives of the project include: 1) improve overall operations of U.S. Route 101 and adjacent
interchanges; 2) improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3) improve transit performance
and enhance transit opportunities; and 4) consistency with local, regional and state planning.
** The Transportation Planning PDT Representative is responsible for providing the PDT with the system-wide and
corridor level deficiencies identified by Transportation Planning. The PDT uses the information provided by
Transportation Planning to develop the purpose and need with contributions from other Caltrans functional units and
external stakeholders at the initiation of the PID and is refined throughout the PID process. As the project moves past
the project initiation stage and more data becomes available, the purpose and need is refined. For additional
information on purpose and need see: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/emo/purpose_need.htm
1. Project Funding:
a
List all known and potential funding sources and percent splits: (ie. State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP)/State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP)/Transportation
Enhancement (TE)/Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM)/Safe Routes to School
(SR2S)/etc.).
Currently funding has been identified as coming from a combination of local and developer funds. The
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) is also considering inclusion of the full regional
share of the interchange project into the 2018 programming cycle for construction in 2021/22.
b Is this a measure project? Yes__/No_X_. If yes, name and describe the measure.
2. Regional Planning:
a
Name of and contact information for Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA).
SLOCOG – Jeff Brubaker, (805) 788-2104
b Name of and contact information for local jurisdiction (City or County)
City of San Luis Obispo – Jake Hudson, (805) 781-7255
c
Provide the page number and project description as identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
and the date of adoption, or provide an explanation if not in RTP.
2014 RTP, Prj ID CEN-MHWY-1402, Page 4-65 “US 101/Prado Rd. I/C and NB auxiliary lane – US
101/Prado Rd. I/C and NB Auxiliary Lane”.
d
Provide nexus between the RTP objectives and the project to establish the basis for the project purpose
and need.
The proposed project is aligned with the stated vision and planned improvements in the RTP in that:
Provides operational improvements to both State and Local facilities.
Enhances community connectivity and access for all transportation modes.
e Is the project located in an area susceptible to sea-level rise?
No
f Name of Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
g
If the project is located in a federal non-attainment or attainment-maintenance area is the project: N/A
Regionally Significant? (per 40 (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.101) Y__/N__
Exempt from conformity? (per 40 CFR 93.126 and 93.128) Y__/N__
Exempt from regional analysis? (per 40 CFR 93.127) Y__/N__
Not exempt from conformity (must meet all requirements)? Y__/N__
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 4 – Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet
September 30, 2011
3
3. Native American Consultation and Coordination:
a If project is within or near an Indian Reservation or Rancheria? If so, provide the name of Tribe.
N/A
b Has/have the Tribal Government(s) been consulted? Y___/N__. If no, why not?
c
If the project requires Caltrans to use right-of-way on trust or allotted lands, this information needs to be
included as soon as possible as a key topic in the consultation with the Tribe(s). Has the Tribe been
consulted on this topic? Y___/N__. If no, why not?
d Has the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) been notified? Y__/N__
e Have all applicable Tribal laws, ordinances and regulations [Tribal Employment Rights Ordinances
(TERO), etc.] been reviewed for required contract language and coordination?
f
If the Tribe has a TERO, is there a related Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the
Tribe?
g
Has the area surrounding the project been checked for prehistoric, archeological, cultural, spiritual, or
ceremonial sites, or areas of potentially high sensitivity? If such areas exist, has the Tribe, Native
American Heritage Commission or other applicable persons or entities been consulted?
h If a Native American monitor is required for this project, will this cost be reflected in cost estimates?
i
In the event of project redesign, will the changes impact a Native American community as described
above in d, e, or h?
4. System Planning:
a Is the project consistent with the DSMP? Y_X_/N__. If yes document approval date. If no, explain.
August 2015 (NB US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado and Madonna – ID No. 2073)
b
Is the project identified in the TSDP? Y X /N__? If yes, document approval date_2002___. If no,
explain.
c
Is the project identified in the TCR/RCR or CSMP? Y X /N__. If yes, document approval date
December 2014. If no, explain. Is the project consistent with the future route concept? Y__/N__. If no,
explain.
d Provide the Concept Level of Service (LOS) through project area.
LOS D
e
Provide the Concept Facility – include the number of lanes. Does the Concept Facility include High
Occupancy Vehicle lanes? Y__/N X.
4-lane freeway through City of San Luis Obispo then transitions to 6-lane expressway and conventional
highway through the Cuesta Grade.
f
Provide the Ultimate Transportation Corridor (UTC) – include the number of lanes. Does the UTC
include High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes? Y__/N X.
The UTC is freeway with capacity of up to 6-lanes.
g Describe the physical characteristics of the corridor through the project area (i.e. flat, rolling or
mountainous terrain...).
4
Flat
h Is the highway in an urban or rural area? Urban X /Rural__. Provide Functional Classification.
Urban Principal Arterial
i Is facility a freeway, expressway or conventional highway?
Freeway
j
Provide Route Designations: (i.e. Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) High Emphasis or
Focus Route, Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Route, Scenic Route…).
Federal Aid Primary Route
Freeway Expressway System (F&E)
National Highway System (NHS)
Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STRAHNET)
Interregional Road System (IRRS)
Focus Route
High Emphasis Route
Goods Movement Route
National Network (Truck Designation)
Eligible to be part of the Scenic Highway System
k
Describe the land uses adjacent to project limits (i.e. agricultural, industrial…).
Currently agricultural west of US 101 with plans to transition to agricultural, residential, commercial,
office, hotel and open space. Currently public uses (City Corp. Yard) and commercial to the east of US
101.
l
Describe any park and ride facility needs identified in the TCR/CSMP, local plans, and RTP.
SLOCOG’s 2017 Park & Ride Lot Study, Table D identifies a P&R lot on Prado Road at/near the US
101/Prado Road interchange as a potential P&R location.
m
Describe the Forecasted 10 and 20-year Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT), and Peak Hour truck data in the TCR. Include the source and year of Forecast, and names and
types of traffic and travel demand analysis tools used.
Segment 5: 760,000 VMT (2035), 78,000 AADT (TCR), and 8-9.3% trucks (2010). SLOCOG Historical
Growth and CT Directional Splits.
n
Has analysis on Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (DVHD) from the Highway Congestion Monitoring
Program (HICOMP) been completed and included? Y__/N X.
5. Local Development – Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR ):
List LD-IGR projects that may directly or indirectly impact the proposed Caltrans project or that the proposed
Caltrans project may impact. (Attach additional project information if needed.)
LD-IGR Project Information Project
a County-Route-Postmile & Distance to
Development.
New and potential development within the City consistent
with their General Plan.
b Development name, type, and size.
The development project most immediate to the project
are is San Luis Ranch (SLR) mixed-use development
located just west of US 101. This development project
proposes 580 DU, 150 KSF commercial, 100 KSF office,
a hotel and open space/parks.
c Local agency and/or private sponsor, and
contact information.
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation and
Planning, Jake Hudson, (805) 781-7255.
d California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) status and Implementation Date. Approved
e If project includes federal funding, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) status. Pending
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 4 – Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet
September 30, 2011
5
f
All vehicular and non-vehicular unmitigated
impacts and planned mitigation measures
including Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) and Transportation
System Management (TSM) that would
affect Caltrans facilities.
Impact and mitigation is similar to purpose and need and
proposed project.
g Approved mitigation measures and
implementing party. See above. City of San Luis Obispo.
h Value of constructed mitigation and/or
amount of funds provided.
Currently funding has been identified as coming from a
combination of local and developer funds.
i
Encroachment Permit, Transportation Permit,
Traffic Management Plan, or California
Transportation Commission (CTC) Access
approvals needed.
Encroachment Permit and CTC Access approvals needed.
j
Describe relationship to Regional Blueprint,
General Plans, or County Congestion
Management Plans.
N/A
k
Inclusion in a Regional Transportation Plan
Sustainable Community Strategy or
Alternative Planning Strategy?
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan.
l Regional or local mitigation fee program in
place?
City of San Luis Obispo TIF and developer contribution.
6. Community Planning:
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
Has lead agency staff worked with any neighborhood/community groups in the area of the proposed
improvements? Y X /N __. If yes, summarize the process and its results including any commitments
made to the community. If no, why not?
This project is sponsored by the City of San Luis Obispo, and was recommended in SLOCOG’s 2014
US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan. This plan included extensive public involvement, including
seven local workshops, 30 community presentations, two web-based interactive tools, numerous
stakeholder meetings and several SLOCOG board presentations. The study team included
representatives from SLOCOG, Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and the cities of San Luis
Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, Regional Transit
Authority and the County Air Pollution Control District.
b
Are any active/completed/proposed Environmental Justice (EJ) or Community-Based Transportation
(CBTP) Planning Grants in the project area? Y__/N X. If yes, summarize the project, its location, and
whether/how it may interact with the proposed project.
c
Describe any community participation plans for this PID including how recommendations will be
incorporated and/or addressed. Has a context sensitive solutions (CSS) approach been applied? Y__/N X
FINAL PID INFORMATION
d
How will the proposed transportation improvements impact the local community? Is the project likely to
create or exacerbate existing environmental or other issues, including public health and safety, air quality,
water quality, noise, environmental justice or social equity? Y__/N __. Describe issues, concerns, and
recommendations (from sources including neighborhood/community groups) and what measures will be
taken to reduce existing or potential negative effects.
6
e
Does this highway serve as a main street? Y__/N X. If yes, what main street functions and features need
to be protected or preserved?
7. Freight Planning:
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a Identify all modal and intermodal facilities that may affect or be affected by the project.
None
FINAL PID INFORMATION
b
Describe how the design of this project could facilitate or impede Goods Movement and relieve choke
points both locally and statewide through grade separations, lane separations, or other measures (e.g.,
special features to accommodate truck traffic and at-grade railroad crossings).
The proposed NB US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado and Madonna would improve truck movement
onto and through NB US 101 within this segment.
c
Describe how the project integrates and interconnects with other modes (rail, maritime, air, etc.). Do
possibilities exist for an intermodal facility or other features to improve long-distance hauling, farm-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.
Project Development Procedures Manual - Appendix S
Chapter 5 – Scoping Tools
Article 4 – Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet
September 30, 2011
7
FINAL PID INFORMATION
e
Describe how the proposed project integrates transit and addresses impacts to transit services and transit
facilities.
f
Have transit alternatives and improvement features been considered in this project? Y__/N__ If yes,
describe. If no, why not?
To be determined.
9. Bicycle:
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a Does the facility provide for bicyclist safety and mobility needs? If no, please explain.
Yes
b
Are any improvements for bicyclist safety and mobility proposed for this facility by any local agencies or
included in bicycle master plans? If yes, describe (including location, time frame, funding, etc.).
Yes. Class II bike lanes are proposed to be provided by the City on Prado Road at and over US 101
consistent with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP - November 2013).
c
Are there any external bicycle advocacy groups and bicycle advisory committees that should be included
in the project stakeholder list? If so, provide contact information.
No
FINAL PID INFORMATION
d Will bicycle travel deficiencies be corrected? How or why not?
Yes. Class II bike lanes and additional east/west connectivity across US 101 will be provided.
e How will this project affect local agency plans for bicycle safety and mobility improvements?
The project is consistent with the 2013 BTP.
f
If the project is the construction of a new freeway or modification to an existing freeway, will it sever or
destroy existing provisions for bicycle travel? If yes, describe how bicycle travel provisions will be
included in this project.
N/A
10. Pedestrian including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
Does this facility provide for pedestrian safety and mobility needs? If so, describe pedestrian facilities.
Do continuous and well-maintained sidewalks exist? Are pedestrians forced to walk in the roadway at
any locations due to lack of adequate pedestrian facilities? Please explain.
The project will result in reconstruction of existing Prado Road from the future realigned Elks Lane
intersection and the extension of Prado Road east of US 101 to Dalidio Drive. As this will be new
construction, sidewalks will be provided along both sides of Prado Road within these limits.
b Are pedestrian crossings located at reasonable intervals?
Pedestrian crossing will be provided at public road intersection connections.
c
Are all pedestrian facilities within the corridor ADA accessible and in compliance with Federal and State
ADA laws and regulations?
All new pedestrian facilities will be ADA accessible and in compliance with Federal and State ADA laws
and regulations.
FINAL PID INFORMATION
d
Will pedestrian travel deficiencies be corrected? How or why not?
ADA accessible and compliant sidewalks and crossings and additional east/west connectivity across US
101 will be provided.
8
e How will this project affect local agency plans for pedestrian safety and mobility improvements?
The project is consistent with City plans and goals.
f
If the project is the construction of a new freeway or modification to an existing freeway, will it sever or
destroy existing provisions for pedestrian travel? If yes, describe how pedestrian travel provisions will be
included in this project.
N/A
g
Are there any external pedestrian advocacy groups and advisory committees that should be included in
the project stakeholder list? If so, provide contact information.
No
h
Have ADA barriers as noted in the District’s ADA Transition Plan been identified within the project
limits? If not included in the project, provide justification and indicate whether District Design
coordinator approval was obtained.
To be determined.
11. Equestrian:
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
If this corridor accommodates equestrian traffic, describe any project features that are being considered
to improve safety for equestrian and vehicular traffic?
N/A
FINAL PID INFORMATION
b
Have features that accommodate equestrian traffic been identified? If so, are they included a part of
this project? Describe. If no, why not?
N/A
12. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS):
INITIAL PID INFORMATION
a
Have ITS features such as closed-circuit television cameras, signal timing, multi-jurisdictional or
multimodal system coordination been considered in the project? Y__/N__. If yes, describe. If no,
explain.
To be determined.
FINAL PID INFORMATION
b
Have ITS features been identified? If so, are they included a part of this project? Describe. If no, why
not?
The 2014 RTP does identify in Segment 5 various intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements for
implementation within Segment 5. These include closed circuit television cameras (CCTV), inductive
loop type census station (LOOP), microwave vehicle detection system (MVDS), wireless access point
bridge (WAPB), and wireless client bridge (WCB). Though these elements are noted, specific locations
for implementation are not identified. The TCR also identifies locations for ramp meters in the US 101
corridor, but with no locations within Segment 5.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
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:
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.
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.
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 $15,000-25,000
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Page 5
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Alternative # A4
Project Cost Range ($ 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 $10,000-15,000
**Structure Cost Range to be provided by (check one)
Consultant Structure Design Technical Liaison.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 11– PSR-PDS DES Scoping Checklist
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
Page 6
Alternative # A7 (with optional retaining walls)
Project Cost Range ($ 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
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
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.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
1
ARTICLE 5
Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
General Guidance:
A. Objectives/Requirements
The responsible-charge engineer shall consult with the Functional Managers identified below in order to
estimate the scope and magnitude of the Traffic Engineering studies (i.e. Travel Forecasting; Traffic
Analysis; Infrastructure Evaluation; Warrant Analysis; and, Safety Review) that need to be performed
during the Project Approval & Environmental Document phase.
These "studies" produce estimates of the operational and safety performance of:
The proposed "base design” (i.e. plans for new, modified or reconstructed infrastructure)
Specific traffic elements, devices, features and systems that may cost-effectively enhance
performance; or (when added to the scope) will prevent the emergence of a safety / operational
performance problem (i.e. hot spots)
These performance estimates are ultimately used to:
Demonstrate if, and quantify how the proposed investment will meet the project Purpose and Need
statement
Produce a complete scope of work by identifying the need and value (Benefit / Cost) for including
key traffic control, safety, operational, and management systems, features and devices
Support critical engineering decisions (e.g. decisions to create or retain a nonstandard geometric
design feature)
FUNCTIONAL MANAGERS (Print names; signature not required)
Division of Planning:
Travel / Traffic Forecasting Manager Jeff Berkman Date ________
Division of Traffic Operations
Freeway or Highway Operations Engineer Bing Yu Date _______
Traffic Electrical (ITS) Engineer Julie Gonzalez Date _______
Traffic Safety Engineer * Steve Talbert Date _______
Two consultation meetings are recommended:
1. With Travel Forecasting Manager and the appropriate District Operations Engineer
2. With the District Operations, Electrical (ITS) and Traffic Safety Engineers*
* Note: The District Traffic Safety Engineer will provide the required written assessment of performance data,
infrastructure and operating conditions. This assessment will identify, or be used to identify the scope and
magnitude of the formal safety analysis, which will be a component of the eventual Traffic Analysis (Report).
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
2
B. Overview:
Project-related traffic engineering studies produce findings and estimates related to the operational and
safety performance of existing and proposed highway infrastructure. These performances related findings
and estimates are derived from the:
Analysis of traffic, collision and performance data and forecasted traffic volumes
Evaluation of existing infrastructure to identify deficiencies and/or omissions
Evaluation of the proposed infrastructure, including geometric design and traffic features or
elements (i.e. traffic control, operational, management and safety devices, systems and features).
Performance-related findings and estimates provide the basis for project scoping and design decisions.
Ultimately, formal traffic engineering studies inform and advise the PDT as to whether the project scope
is complete, and whether the scope will meet the project “purpose and need.”
To meet the purpose of the PSR-PDS, the preliminary traffic engineering studies should be limited to an
assessment of readily available information and data, and macro-level analysis and evaluation. This effort
will produce preliminary traffic engineering findings and estimates to inform and advise the PDT on:
The potential scope of work and features (especially the traffic "elements" referenced above)
Potential performance benefits and deficiencies
The scope and magnitude of traffic engineering work (traffic forecasting, modeling, analysis and
evaluation) to be performed during the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase
The traffic engineering effort performed during PA & ED will further define the scope of work and
produce reliable estimates of the operational and safety impacts (benefits and dis-benefits) of the
proposed highway infrastructure.
The information, questions, checklists and report template provided below are intended to guide and
advise the engineer and/or traffic analyst who is responsible for the performance and documentation of
the traffic engineering assessment.
A summary of the assessment and key findings and estimates should be summarized or incorporated into
the PSR-PDS document (see Section F).
C. General Approach & Objective
At the PSR-PDS PID stage, the traffic forecasting activities and tasks should utilize readily available
information and traffic models. At this stage of the project development process, it is not intended that
effort be devoted to the generation of traffic data and to updating of traffic models. The intent is to utilize
existing data, transportation reports, and performance monitoring systems describe and identify in the
following sections a general description of the existing traffic and forecasted traffic. Consult with the
District Local Development-Intergovernmental Review Planner for applicable local agency studies of
land development proposals.
A macro-level analysis or assessment of the infrastructure, operating conditions, and traffic volume,
collision and performance data should produce an estimate of performance impacts (benefits and
disbenefits) on the subject highway segment, corridor or system.
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
3
The primary objective is to identify the traffic forecasting and traffic engineering studies needed to
analyze, evaluate, and more accurately predict or estimate operational and safety performance of the
proposed improvements. This is necessary for the preparation of the environmental
determination/document; and to ensure that a complete project scope is considered and identified during
the project approval phase.
D. The Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) Traffic Engineering
Study
Objectives:
Ultimately, traffic forecasting and traffic analysis identifies operational and safety performance
deficiencies and impacts (needs), and a reliable estimate of how the improved highway infrastructure will
perform. This allows for a determination as to whether the scope is adequate, whether the project
“purpose and need” will be met, and the cost-effectiveness of the investment. Specifically, the function
of the formal traffic study is to:
1. Identify performance deficiencies - both existing and potential - based on the review,
evaluation and analysis of:
Infrastructure (current and proposed)
Operating conditions
Traffic, collision and performance data
2. Predict and/or estimate the operational and safety performance of proposed highway
geometric designs (for new infrastructure)
3. Predict and/or estimate the operational and safety performance impacts (i.e. benefits
and disbenefits) of specific modifications to existing highway infrastructure or a base design; for
example:
The performance of an intersection should improve when a left turn lane is added to the base
design
The performance of a freeway entrance ramp merging operation during periods of heavy
demand should improve when metering is employed
4. Quantify the impact (benefits and disbenefits) of proposed infrastructure reconstruction,
expansion, modification, etc. on the operational and safety performance of a highway segment,
corridor or system
Content:
A formal traffic engineering study requires and/or is comprised of the following major components:
Traffic Forecasting / Modeling
Traffic Analysis
o Operational Analysis (includes capacity analysis)
o Safety Analysis
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
4
Evaluation of highway infrastructure and operating conditions (e.g. the impact of queuing and
unstable flow on adjacent segments, traffic movements, access points and safety)
E. Screening
To help estimate the scope and magnitude of the (future) traffic engineering study, the project
engineer responsible for the PSR-PDS and key Functional Managers should jointly review the
following “checklists” to discuss /decide their applicability to the specific PSR-PDS.
1. Forecasting / Modeling Requirements, Considerations and Assumptions
NOTE #1: Forecasting / Modeling Requirements, Considerations and Assumptions are
provided in the document “Updated Traffic Forecasts Memorandum for the Prado Road
Interchange PSR” (December 2, 2016) which has been reviewed by Caltrans Functional
Units including Transportation Planning and Traffic Operations. The italic/underline
information provided with the following checklist items is provided in the above referenced
memorandum.
Use Local Model?
Forecasts were developed utilizing City of San Luis Obispo Travel Demand
Model (TDM).
Update Model
New Model
Existing Traffic Counts
Intersection counts provided by City of San Luis Obispo.
US 101 mainline counts obtained from Caltrans Performance Measurement
System (PeMS).
New Traffic Counts
Historical Growth
General Plan (GP) Buildout
City of San Luis Obispo TDM assumes full buildout of the City’s GP.
Pro-Rate GP Growth
Existing Year (2014)
Design Year (2045)
Interim Year (2025 – project first open for use)
2. Preliminary Scope of Work (Traffic Elements / Features / Systems / Plans)
Based on a review and evaluation of performance data, and the existing and future
Infrastructure and operating conditions, the project engineer and appropriate functional
managers should meet to review the following list of traffic operational, control, management
and safety systems, devices, features and strategies (i.e. traffic elements).
The preliminary scope of work should reflect the need to include traffic elements as they
relate to the Purpose & Need, or compliance with traffic engineering policy or system
performance requirements.
The preliminary list of traffic elements will facilitate the development of a ballpark estimate
for construction, right of way, and Maintenance & Operation costs. More importantly, the
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
5
preliminary list will identify elements for which traffic analysis or some other traffic
engineering support activity is required to determine the engineering need for their inclusion
in the scope based on warrant analysis, benefit/cost analysis, and safety analysis.
NOTE #2: Through participation by the PDT, traffic operations elements were identified to
be initially evaluated within a Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR). The Draft US
101/Prado Road Interchange Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) (September 2017)
was prepared which provides preliminary traffic operation and supplemental ICE Step 1
information and provided to Caltrans for review/comment. The Final TOAR will be
completed during PA/ED. The following traffic elements currently included in the Draft
TOAR are noted as “(Included)”.
a. Major Traffic Control Devices
Overhead sign structures
Changeable Message Signs (especially overhead)
Sign Gantries (for Active Traffic Management)
b. Operational Features / Treatments / Systems
Auxiliary Lanes (Included)
Channelization lanes
Speed change lanes
Acceleration lanes
Deceleration lanes
Slow moving vehicle lanes
Ramp “braiding”
Median and Traffic Islands / Channelizers (Included)
Intersection Control Strategies / Systems (Included)
Yield Control / roundabouts (Included)
Signalization (Included)
All Way Stop Control
Pedestrian Crossing Devices / Systems
c. Traffic Management Strategies and Systems
Managed Lanes (Express or HOV lanes)
Ramp Metering Systems (Not Included in Draft TOAR but were considered in
Draft PSR-PDS where it was determined that ramp metering was not consistent
with the project scope)
Changeable Message Signs
Detection Systems
Communication Networks / Hardware
Highway Advisory Radio
Closed-Circuit TV cameras
Park & Ride Lots
d. Safety Systems / Devices / Strategies
Roadside / Roadway Departure Systems and Treatments
Median Barrier Systems
Guardrail Systems
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
6
Clear Zone Enhancements (e.g. slope flattening, tree removal, etc)
Glare Screen (May be required between reconfigured Elks Lane and
Northbound on-ramp)
Lighting
Truck Escape Ramps
Fencing
Intersection Traffic Control Systems
Roundabouts (yield control) (Included)
Signalization (Included)
All Way Stop Control
Beacons
Real-Time (Intelligent) Warning Sign Systems
Left-turn and right-turn channelization (Included)
Acceleration and Deceleration Lane extensions (via auxiliary lanes) (Included)
Pavement Surface Treatments (OGAC, grooving, etc.)
Drainage System Enhancements
Severe Weather Detection & Warning Systems for Ice /Fog / Wind
e. Transportation Management Planning (related to construction phase)
Construction Staging
Full Closure (review Checklist or consult with Dist Traffic Manager)
Strategies (analysis needed to determine which to employ)
f. EXAMPLES: (how to use checklist to identify scope of work and Traffic Analysis):
The decision to provide a freeway auxiliary lane to extend the acceleration lane and
improve the ability of drivers to find a suitable gap into which they can merge shall
be based on Traffic Analysis findings related to the operational and safety benefits
during peak periods and peak “shoulders.” The analysis shall consider the density of
mainline lanes, the percentage of trucks, ramp volumes, the presence of ramp
metering and if it can be effectively operated during peak periods, etc. Therefore,
this type of Traffic Analysis needs to be planned for project proposals which intend
to add a new interchange, expand the capacity of an existing interchange, or simply
allow more vehicles to enter the mainline during critical periods of operation.
(Included)
Similarly, Traffic Analysis must be planned to determine the need for, and selection
of the optimum form of intersection traffic control at each new or affected
interchange ramp termini. In most cases: the interchange configuration, the width of
overcrossing or undercrossing structures, and right of way requirements will be based
directly on the form of intersection control and the cross-section of approach
roadways. Therefore, the Traffic Analysis performed to support the selection of a
traffic signal or a roundabout (yield control) will have a significant impact on the
scope, cost, right of way, and environmental impacts. (Included)
RE: Freeway widening proposals -- The need for, and selection of the treatment to
mitigate the affect of headlight glare on the operational and safety performance of
drivers during the hours of darkness will be based on Traffic Analysis findings
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
7
regarding impacts and benefits produced by the installation of glare screen or lighting
(especially through horizontal curves at which Stopping Sight Distance can be
impacted by the installation of glare screen)
3. Traffic Analysis
The following list identifies specific performance measures, infrastructure components
(operational, safety and management features, systems and devices), traffic movements,
conflicts, etc. for which Traffic Analysis is typically performed or required.
Most traffic analysis relates directly to the operational and safety performance of access
points and highway segments that are directly affected by the location, spacing and type of
access opening. The capacity and performance of any highway corridor is affected and often
limited by the capacity of access points, such as: conventional at-grade intersections, freeway
merges and diverges, HOV lane access openings, and the weaving that occurs between
adjacent access points.
See NOTE #2 under section 2. Preliminary Scope of Work (Traffic Elements / Features /
Systems / Plans)
a. Operational & Capacity Analysis
Mainline LOS (capacity analysis) (Included)
Ramp Merge and Diverge LOS (Included)
Weaving analysis (Included)
Ramp terminal intersection LOS(Included)
o Exit Ramp storage / queue analysis
Interchange / Local System network analysis
Ramp Metering System analysis
o Interchange specific
o Corridor-wide
Managed Lane (HOV Lanes, Express Lanes, Transit Only Lanes, etc.) analysis
Intersection Control Alternatives Analysis
o Signal warrant analysis
o Yield Control / Roundabout performance analysis (Included)
o All-Way Stop Control
Conventional Intersection Analysis
o Capacity analysis (to determine number of through lanes and
channelization) (Included)
o Delay studies
o Queuing and channelization storage analysis (Included)
o Network analysis
b. Safety Study / Analysis
Based on a review and assessment of collision data, rates, trends and safety
performance management and monitoring reports; and an evaluation of existing
and proposed (future) infrastructure and operating conditions (and other relevant
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
8
technical data and information), the District Safety Engineer will estimate the
scope and magnitude of the formal (future) safety study / analysis.
This assessment will quantify the safety “need” within the highway segment or
corridor, upon which a specific form of engineering analysis and evaluation will be
recommended and estimated (e.g. Safety Audit, Safety Analysis and/or Safety Review).
The future safety study will be performed by, or under the direction of the District
Traffic Safety Engineer.
Safety Analysis shall be focused on the evaluation of off-peak and “shoulders” of the
peak period when speeds are highest and environmental factors (darkness and glare)
affect driver performance.
c. Other Analysis
Project & Construction Staging (mostly during design phase)
Traffic Management Planning
o Lane Closures
o Full Closure Traffic Studies (consult with District Traffic Manager)
Special Truck Studies
F. TEMPLATE - Documentation of the Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
PROJECT PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION (required if this document will not be attached to 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
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 5 - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
9
Preliminary Assessment Findings (regarding operational and safety performance)
See NOTE #2 under section 2 Preliminary Scope of Work (Traffic Elements / Features / Systems /
Plans)
Operational Deficiencies
Infrastructure Deficiencies
Infrastructure Omissions
Assessment of Safety Performance / Needs
Project Scope: Recommended or Required Features, Systems, Devices
o Operational Features
o Safety Systems
o Traffic Control Systems
o Traffic Management Systems
Include a general description of the operational performance deficiencies and needs for which
operational features should be required (e.g. auxiliary lanes, overhead signs, intersection control
strategies etc.). Also discuss traffic management systems and elements (e.g. ramp metering, CMS,
HOV lanes, etc.) to be incorporated. Discuss any strategies or components of the traffic management
system that may be controversial during development of the environmental determination/document
(e.g. the addition of tolling to an existing HOV lane).
SCOPE OF FUTURE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES, ACTIVITIES, AND TASKS (based
on “Findings”):
(To Be Determined)
Forecasting
Operational / Capacity Analysis & Evaluation
Safety Analysis & Evaluation
Electrical Systems (type, service, hardware, software)
Traffic Management Planning (for work zone)
Appendix S
Chapter 5 Scoping Tools – Article 8 – PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionnaire
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
September 30, 2011
1
ARTICLE 8
PSR-PDS SURVEY NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE
General Guidance:
The project datums, vertical and horizontal, need to be established as soon as possible in the
schedule, and all other mapping adjusted to the project datums. Obsolete datums such as
NAD27 and NGVD29 should not be used for new projects.
What Survey Control Datums will be used for project design and mapping?
Vertical Control
NAVD 1988 (Preferred)
NGVD 1929 (Alternative)
Other (Must consult with Caltrans Surveys)
Horizontal Control
California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 5
Epoch _1991.35________
Other than CCS83 (Must consult with Caltrans Surveys)
Will the project need a Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment? No
Does the project adjoin the ocean or tidal waterways? No
Is the existing highway protected by levees, sea walls, or rip-rap? No
Will existing as-builts, centerlines, or base mapping require any datum or unit conversions? Yes.
Some as-builts are in metric units. Base mapping and centerlines are digitized data.
Are the right of way record maps current? Right-of-way and property lines are digitized and not
accurate.
Is there any need to accelerate design accuracy surveys for this project? Yes
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
ARTICLE 9
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
For Locally Implemented Projects on the State Highway System
General Guidance:
The purpose of the Quality Management Plan is to facilitate an effective and efficient process for the
development, review and approval of PIDs for State Highway System (SHS) projects sponsored by
others. The project sponsor and/or implementing agency must develop and follow a Quality Management
Plan that meets the standards of professional practice and satisfies requirements of the project scope and
schedule. The Project Managers from Caltrans and the Lead Agency shall ensure that all Project
Development Team (PDT) members, including consultants, utilize the Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) elements as described in this document during the production and review of PIDs. QA/QC will
be performed before deliverables are submitted to Caltrans for review.
Each team member must understand the project objectives, apply sound engineering principles and is
expected to produce quality, accurate, and complete documents within the project schedule and budget.
Project documents will be prepared in accordance with current Caltrans regulations, policies, procedures,
manuals, and standards including compliance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
requirements.
The information provided in the Quality Management Plan describes the quality procedures that will be
implemented for work performed during all phases of development, review and approval of locally
sponsored and/or implemented PIDs.
The Quality Management Plan template is to be modified to fit project needs, reporting relationships, and
general circumstances.
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
Quality Management
Plan
For Preparation of Project Initial Documents for Locally Implemented Projects on the
State Highway system
Date
EXAMPLE AGREEMENT COVER SHEET
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
OVERCROSSING ON ROUTE 101 AT PRADO ROAD
(EA: 05-1H640K)
Approved by ________________________________________ ________________
Paul Valadao, Caltrans Project Manager Date
Approved by ________________________________________ ________________
City of San Luis Obispo Date
________________________________________
Jake Hudson, Lead Agency Project Manager
Approved by ________________________________________ ________________
Joe Weiland, Consultant Project Manager Date
The respective Project Managers from Caltrans, the City of San Luis Obispo and Omni-Means, a GHD
Company, have ensured that all Project Development Team (PDT) members utilized the Quality
Management Plan elements as described in this document during the production and review of this
PID. Vigorous QA/QC was performed before deliverables were presented to Caltrans District 5.
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Quality Control Reviews ..............................................................................................................................
Checking of Calculations ..............................................................................................................................
Checking of Drawings ...................................................................................................................................
Quality Assurance .........................................................................................................................................
Reporting Structure ......................................................................................................................................
QA/QC Duties and Responsibilities .............................................................................................................
Document Control .........................................................................................................................................
Control of Subconsultants ............................................................................................................................
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Example General List of Deliverables and Assigned QC Reviewers
Exhibit B Example Quality Control Review Form
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
Introduction
The purpose of the Quality Management Plan is to facilitate an effective and efficient process for the
development, review and approval of Project Initial Documents (PIDs) for State Highway System (SHS)
projects sponsored by others. The project sponsor and/or implementing agency must develop and follow
a Quality Management Plan that meets the standards of professional practice and satisfies requirements of
the project scope, cost, and schedule. The Project Managers from Caltrans and the Lead Agency shall
ensure that all Project Development Team (PDT) members utilize the Quality Management Plan elements
as described in this document during the production and review of PIDs. QA/QC will be performed
before deliverables are presented to Caltrans for review. Each team member must understand the project
objectives, apply sound engineering principles and is expected to produce quality, accurate, and complete
documents within the project schedule and budget. Project documents will be prepared in accordance
with current Caltrans regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards including compliance with
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements.
The following information describes the quality procedures that will be implemented for work performed
during all phases of development, review and approval of locally implemented PIDs.
Quality Control Reviews
1. Quality Control (QC) Reviews shall be conducted for all deliverables. A project schedule shall be
developed with the consensus of the PDT that identifies anticipated reports, submittal dates and
review periods.
2. Prior to submission to Caltrans, each deliverable will be subject to review by senior staff and the
Local Agency Project Manager.
3. Project documents will be reviewed for conformance with project design criteria, legibility, and
completeness and compliance with regulatory and code requirements.
4. All QC comments will be evaluated by the lead author for the document, discussed with the QC
reviewer as needed and, if appropriate, incorporated into the deliverable. The Local Agency and
Caltrans Project Manager will review and approve the resolution of each comment.
5. The Project Quality Control Coversheet, as shown in Appendix B, shall be used to document all
quality control reviews.
Checking of Calculations
Final report calculations associated with the conceptual alternatives, cost estimates, and traffic technical
reports shall be checked for reasonableness. All calculations shall be reviewed by the Lead.
Checking of Drawings
Conceptual geometric plans figures, mapping, and preliminary bridge plans (if applicable) shall be
checked in accordance with established standards (e.g. Highway Design Manual and local standards).
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
Quality Assurance
The Project Managers from Caltrans and the Lead Agency, along with its consultant(s) will be responsible
for the development of deliverables and assure that the stated quality control procedures are being
followed. A Quality Assurance Log that includes dates when documents were received reviewed, and
names of the QC reviewers shall be maintained for each report or work product.
Reporting Structure
An organization chart that describes the reporting structure and assigned staff that are involved in the
QA/QC shall be developed at the beginning of the PID project.
QA/QC Duties and Responsibilities
Quality control begins with assigning the most appropriate person to each task. Each member of the team
should be responsible for controlling the quality of the product, beginning with the project staff through to
the Project Managers. The qualifications of the team members overseeing and doing the work should be
identified. All team members should be in constant communication with the each other and their
respective Principals and Project Managers in regards to project status, schedule, and any issues that
might arise during the development of the PID.
The duties and responsibilities of each of the project members in coordinating and guiding the project
efforts are described below:
a. Principals-in-Charge (PICs) – Responsible for allocation of resources and monitoring of the
project to ensure adherence to the project objectives, schedule, budget, approvals, and ensuring
that the QC/QA plan is in place and being implemented. Provides periodic audits of technical
work and performance of respective staff.
b. Caltrans Project Manager - Responsible for Independent Quality Assurance as described in the
Cooperative Agreement.
c. Local Agency Project Managers – Responsible for completion of project scope and tasks, and
adherence to project schedule and budget, including QA/QC program. The Project Managers
allocate resources to various elements of the work, establish and implement the Quality
Management Plan, schedule the various activities and adjust plans as the work progresses to
identify potential problem areas and resolve them in a timely manner. Responsible for technical
review and approval of project documents before issuance to the reviewing agency; certifies that
each submittal has been prepared and checked in accordance with Caltrans standards, policies,
and procedures, sound engineering practices and represents a quality product; and maintains
frequent contact and communication with the Caltrans Project Manager to assure satisfaction with
the progress and performance.
d. Consultant Project Manager - The Consultant Project Manager reviews and monitors the
implementation of the QA/QC practices and processes and ensures consistency with Caltrans
standards, policies, and procedures. The Consultant Project Manager identifies the quality
control actions required to be taken, the resources to be applied to these quality control actions,
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
and interaction of these activities with the other elements of work. In this process, it is essential
that the Consultant Project Manager clearly identify the personnel involved and their duties;
allocate time, effort, and resources to the quality control function; and reviews and revises the
allocated resources appropriately as the work progresses. The Consultant Project Manager is
responsible for production of the technical work produced by their staff. They also assist the
Project Managers in the execution of the Quality Management Plan. The Consultant Project
Manager reports administratively to the Project Managers and works closely with them in the
early identification and resolution of any product deficiencies. This includes but is not limited to:
Perform periodic reviews of quality control documentation;
Identification and control of nonconforming conditions
d. Technical Staff – Technical staff are responsible to their Consultant Project Manager for the
quality of the work produced within their respective disciplines. In this capacity, technical staff
establishes operating guidelines and areas of responsibility within the activity; monitors the work
periodically to assure adherence to the contract scope of services and to the established reviewing
procedures to ensure consistency with Caltrans standards, policies, and procedures, advises the
Consultant Project Manager regarding the progress of work and of any circumstances that may
require particular attention; reviews work prior to submittal to the Project Managers for quality
control review; resolves QC review comments; insures comments are incorporated into the final
document and reviews completed work before it is transmitted to the Project Managers for
approval and submittal to the reviewing agencies.
Document Control
The designated agency or consultant shall make available and maintain electronic records and hard copies
of drafts and final reports for inspection upon request during the development of the PSR-PDS.
Control of Sub-Consultants
If a portion of the scope of work is subcontracted out by the implementing agency’s consultant, then all
sub-consultants will have the same responsibilities as the Lead Agency consultant.
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
EXHIBIT A
EXAMPLE GENERAL LIST OF DELIVERABLES AND ASSIGNED QC REVIEWERS
Task
No
Deliverable Consultant Reviewer Lead Agency Reviewer
1.0 Project Management Plan Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
1.1 Project Schedule Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
1.2 QA/QC Plan Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
2.0 Draft Project Purpose and
Need
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
3.0 Corridor Study Base
Mapping
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
4.0 Alternatives Evaluation &
Screening
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
4.1 Right of Way Data Sheet
and Cost Estimate
Mapping
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
5.0 Traffic Analysis
Workplan
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
6.0 Environmental Evaluation
Workplan
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
7.0 Stormwater Data Report Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
8.0 Geometric Evaluation
Workplan
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
9.0 Other discipline areas to
be evaluated
Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
10.0 Draft PID Report Review Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
11.0 Final Report Approval Rich Krumholz Jake Hudson
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
EXHIBIT B - QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW FORM
Quality Control Review Sign-Off Form
Client: City of San Luis Obispo Date to Reviewer: 9/29/17 Draft Documents to District 5
Project Name:
Overcrossing on Route 101 at Prado Road in
the City of San Luis Obispo Review Deadline:
Client & Job Number: 0516000105 Actual Review Date:
12/11/17 Comments received from Caltrans Staff
on Draft PSR-PDS/PEAR/SWDR
Project Manager: Joe Weiland
Deliverable Due
Date:
Reviewer: Rich Krumholz Actual Hours:
Production
Coordinator: Project Type: Interchange improvements (Category 3)
Item Reviewed: Draft PSR-PDS/TOAR/SWDR/PEAR Task/Activity:
Project Task or Phase: K Phase (PID)
Deliverable %: Internal Review External Review
Type of Review Comment Sheet
Attached/Emailed
Completed by Reviewer
Initial Date
Reports:
Environmental - PEAR X Various 12/11/17
Master Plans
Draft PSR-PDS X Various 12/11/17
Technical Memorandum
Other:
Design:
Architectural
Calculations
Civil
Cost Estimates
Electrical
Spec and/or Front-Ends
Instrumentation & Control
Mechanical
Plan & Profile (Pipeline)
Process
Structural
Stormwater - SWDR X KI and PR 12/11/17
Other:
Miscellaneous:
Submittal/Previous QC
Backcheck
Drafting Backcheck
Project Guide
O&M Manuals
Survey Datums & Sea Level Rise
Other: TOAR X BY
Notes:
Please return "signed" QC Review Sign-off Form and markups to your assigned Production Coordinator.
Appendix S
Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS)
Project Initiation Documents
Chapter 5, Article 9, Quality Management Plan
September 30, 2011
Signatures:
Project Manager Date - Response to Comments
QC Reviewer Date - Resolution Accepted
Instructions:
1) Project Manager fills out QC Review form & transmits to assigned QC Reviewer with document(s); 2) After
review, QC Reviewer returns reviewed document/completed QC Review form to PM with comments: 3) Project
Manager is responsible for reviewing comments, making appropriate changes/notations, & informing QC Reviewer
of changes made; 4) QC Reviewer completes form upon resolution.
QA-QC Program Coord.
Signature Date
Source Acknowledgement: Project Quality Management Plan developed for SR 152 Corridor Management Study,
prepared for VTA by HDR Engineering, Inc., July 2009.
DTP-0001 (Revised July 2017)
Assembly:Senate:Congressional:
ADA Improvements
Includes Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals
End Closeout Phase (Closeout Report)12/22/23
ADA Notice For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916)
654-6410 or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento,
End Construction Phase (Construction Contract Acceptance Milestone)03/31/23
Begin Closeout Phase 09/29/23
End Right of Way Phase (Right of Way Certification Milestone)09/25/20
Begin Construction Phase (Contract Award Milestone)03/25/21
End Design Phase (Ready to List for Advertisement Milestone)09/25/20
Begin Right of Way Phase 08/19/19
End Environmental Phase (PA&ED Milestone)08/16/19
Begin Design (PS&E) Phase 06/17/19
Circulate Draft Environmental Document Document Type ND/FONSI 12/13/18
Draft Project Report 12/07/18
Project Study Report Approved 02/02/18
Begin Environmental (PA&ED) Phase 03/05/18
Yes Yes Y/N
Yes Yes
Project Milestone Existing Proposed
Bike/Ped Improvements Reversible Lane analysis
State Highway Road Construction Modified / Improved Interchanges each 1
Local streets and roads Mixed Flow lane-miles constructed Feet 2000
Project Benefits
See p. 2
Purpose and Need
See p. 2
Category Outputs/Outcomes Unit Total
Construction City of San Luis Obispo
Legislative Districts
35 17 4
PA&ED City of San Luis Obispo
PS&E City of San Luis Obispo
Right of Way City of San Luis Obispo
Project Title
US 101-Prado Road Overcrossing and Northbound Ramp Improvements
Location (Project Limits), Description ( Scope of Work)
In San Luis Obispo County, at Prado Rd., construct an overcrossing over US 101, improve the US 101-Prado Rd. northbound ramps, and
construct a northbound auxiliary lane between the Prado Rd. on-ramp and the Madonna Rd. off-ramp.
Component Implementing Agency
Project Manager/Contact Phone E-mail Address
Jake Hudson 805-781-7255 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
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.
DTP-0001 (Revised July 2017)Date:12/15/17
District EA
05 1H640
Project Title:
Component Prior 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24+Total
E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E
R/W SUP (CT)
CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
E&P (PA&ED)250 250
PS&E 2,700 2,700
R/W SUP (CT)1 1
CON SUP (CT)1 1
R/W 1 1
CON 28,997 28,997
TOTAL 250 2,700 29,000 31,950
Fund No. 1:
Component Prior 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24+Total
E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E
R/W SUP (CT)
CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E
R/W SUP (CT)
CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON 6,000 6,000
TOTAL 6,000 6,000
Fund No. 2:
Component Prior 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24+Total
E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E
R/W SUP (CT)
CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
E&P (PA&ED)250 250
PS&E 2,700 2,700
R/W SUP (CT)1 1
CON SUP (CT)1 1
R/W 1 1
CON 22,997 22,997
TOTAL 250 2,700 23,000 25,950
City of San Luis Obispo
development mitigation
fees and other local
revenue sources
Existing Funding ($1,000s)
Funding Agency
Proposed Funding ($1,000s)Notes
Proposed Funding ($1,000s)Notes
$6m Con Cap in FY 21/22
Local funding Program Code
RTIP-Regional Transportation Improvement Program Program Code
Existing Funding ($1,000s)20.xx.075.600
Funding Agency
SLOCOG
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
Proposed Total Project Cost ($1,000s)Notes
Existing Total Project Cost ($1,000s)
Implementing Agency
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
SLO 101 0516000105 2831
US 101-Prado Road Overcrossing and Northbound Ramp Improvements
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ● DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST
County Route Project ID PPNO Alt Proj. ID
DISTRICT 5
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA SHEET/CHECKLIST
District / EA / EFIS: 05/1H6400 Co.-Rte-PM:SLO-101-26.8/26.8
Project Engineer: Paul Valadao Description:Prado Road Interchange
Date Prepared: 2/15/2018 Working Days:250 days
Check each box and reference your attachments to the
item(s) number(s) shown on the list.RequiredRecommendedNot 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
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