ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Transcription

1 Item #1 Study Session ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LARRY A. PATTERSON, CITY MANAGER PREPARED BY: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 18, 2014 SUBJECT: HILLSDALE/US101 PEDESTRIAN/BIKE BRIDGE PROJECT STUDY REPORT-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FEEDBACK RECOMMENDATION Provide feedback on the draft Project Study Report Project Development Support (dpsr-pds). BACKGROUND The Hillsdale/US101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge project (Project) envisions a Class I pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossing over Highway 101 (US101) south of the Hillsdale interchange and a Class II facility on Hillsdale from Norfolk to the San Mateo/Foster City limit. The Project would allow for safe and unimpeded pedestrian and bicyclist access to existing facilities on both sides of US101 by separating pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the high vehicular volumes at the Hillsdale Boulevard interchange. Since the Project spans Caltrans right-of-way, US101, the Project must be consistent with Caltrans project development process, which requires a project to first receive Project Approval from Caltrans before beginning the design phase. There are two phases for this project that must be completed prior to receiving Project Approval (1) the Project Initiation Document phase (PID phase), and (2) the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase (PA&ED phase). Project Status to Date In April 2013, the City entered into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the first phase of the project. The cooperative agreement is only applicable for the PID phase and includes the development of the Project Study Report Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) which will act as the Project Initiation Document upon Caltrans final approval. In October 2013, the City

2 City Council Administrative Report 8/18/2014 Hillsdale/US101 Ped/Bike Bridge Draft PSR-PDS Feedback Page 2 selected a consultant to provide professional services for assisting with the public outreach process and coordination efforts, as well as preparing the PSR-PDS. In July 2013, the City submitted a draft PSR-PDS to Caltrans to begin Caltrans initial eight week internal review period. Once the PSR-PDS has gained Caltrans approval, the project will be able to move into the PA&ED phase. PSR-PDS Overview The PSR-PDS introduces the Project by presenting background information, upcoming phases and anticipated costs, and outlines the Project s purpose and need, where the need identifies a transportation deficiency or problem and the purpose is the set of objectives that will be met to address the transportation deficiency. The PSR-PDS also presents the Project s alignment alternatives. Since the City completed the 2007 Alignment Study, this section of the PSR-PDS presents the recommended alternative while demonstrating that all other alternatives would not meet the Project s needs. Preparation of the PSR-PDS includes review of the project site and existing reports, studies, mapping and other information. Scoping tools are included to facilitate this review and to assist identification of additional data requirements for project scoping in the PA&ED and future phases. Next Steps Staff anticipates to finalize the PSR-PDS and to complete the PID phase by October Once the PID phase requirements have been met, a cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the PA&ED phase will be required to continue project development activities. The City s grant application submitted to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) for the PA&ED phase has been approved; a funding agreement is currently being finalized by TA Staff. The PA&ED phase will identify the Caltrans-approved alignment and meet environmental clearance requirements. Completion of the PA&ED phase will open the gateway to begin the right-of-way phase, if applicable, and the design phase of the project. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for this phase of the project is provided by the San Mateo County Transit Authority (TA) through a Measure A grant in the amount of $480, and by the City s 20% matching funds in the amount of $120, These funds have been allocated to Project #465157, Hillsdale/US101 Bridge Overcrossing. A grant for the next phase of the project submitted in response to the TA s FY14/15 Call for Projects has been approved by the TA. City Council also adopted a resolution on February 3, 2014 authorizing the application submittal and the commitment of matching funds.

3 City Council Administrative Report 8/18/2014 Hillsdale/US101 Ped/Bike Bridge Draft PSR-PDS Feedback Page 3 Future funding sources for design and construction have not been identified, but various opportunities have been outlined in the 2007 Alignment Study, including but not limited to, Recreational Trails Program, Safe Routes to School Program, Bicycle Transportation Account, Office of Traffic Safety Grants, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (RBPP), and San Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure A Funding. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) CEQA analysis is not required for this study session, because City Council is providing feedback to Staff. However, a Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) has been prepared as part of this phase and included in the PSR-PDS to determine the appropriate environmental clearance document. Appropriate CEQA/NEPA clearance documentation will be prepared as part of the next phase of the project and will also address concerns including safety and visual impact. NOTICE PROVIDED All meeting noticing requirements were met. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Draft Project Study Report Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) STAFF CONTACT Aaron Lam, Associate Engineer alam@cityofsanmateo.org (650) Gary Heap, Engineering Services Manager heap@cityofsanmateo.org (650)

4

5 ATTACHMENT 1

6

7 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 Project EA 04-4H330 Project # June 2014 Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) To Request Programming in the 2016 STIP for Capital Support of the Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase (PA&ED) And Request Approval for a Locally Funded Project to Proceed to PA&ED Phase On Route 101 Between And APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: APPROVED: 0.2 mile South of East Hillsdale Blvd Overcrossing East Hillsdale Blvd Overcrossing GARY HEAP, CITY OF SAN MATEO, PROJECT SPONSOR, Accepts Risks Identified in this PSR-PDS and Attached Risk Register BIJAN SARTIPI, DISTRICT DIRECTOR RON MORIGUCHI, CALTRANS PROJECT MANAGER DATE

8 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 Vicinity Map

9 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 This project study report-project development support has been prepared under the direction of the following registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. JIMMY W. SIMS - REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER Reviewed by: MIMY HEW Senior Transportation Engineer Office of Advance Planning DATE JIMMY W. SIMS C /30/2016

10 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND PURPOSE AND NEED TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DEFICIENCIES CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION ALTERNATIVES...11 A. Alternatives Determined Not Viable...11 B. Viable Alternatives...12 C. Nonstandard Design Features RIGHT OF WAY...15 A. Utilities...15 B. Railroad STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENTATION FUNDING...17 A. Capital Outlay Project Estimate...17 B. Capital Outlay Support Estimate SCHEDULE RISKS FHWA COORDINATION DISRICT CONTACTS PROJECT REVIEWS ATTACHMENTS...19

11 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/ INTRODUCTION The US 101 freeway is a major barrier to east/west pedestrian and bicycle (ped/bike) travel throughout the County and in the City of San Mateo, and the existing US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange provides limited ped/bike connectivity. Conflict points at the interchange onramps exist between low-speed pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the path of high-speed vehicles. High volumes of motor vehicles along Hillsdale Blvd are uninviting for peds/bikes, and create challenging conditions that discourages those who wish to walk or bicycle from using the existing US 101/Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing. This project proposes to provide a less challenging and more inviting crossing of US 101 that improves ped/bike connectivity across and within the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange area; is sensitive to the local context; and encourages a mode shift away from motorized travel. Two build alternatives are proposed, consisting of a separated ped/bike bridge to the south of the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange. Total construction costs for the build alternatives range from $17M to $32M, and capital outlay support costs (for PA&ED, PS&E and construction management) range from $4M to $6M. Anticipated sources of funding include federal, state, and local funds. This Project Study Report Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) identifies the project scope, schedule, and support costs necessary to complete needed studies and work during the next Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. A Project Report will serve as project approval of the preferred alternative and program construction and right of way capital costs. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is providing oversight and Independent Quality Assurance (IQA) for the project, and it is anticipated that Caltrans would be the lead agency for required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental approvals. It is anticipated all design work will be performed with non-caltrans staff, with Caltrans providing only IQA. The PA&ED phase is scheduled to be completed by Fall 2015, and the anticipated funding year for construction is This project has an initial Project Development Category 4A because it will not require a CTC Route adoption or access control freeway agreement, and is a new alignment that will require right of way. See Attachment A for conceptual geometric layout plans and typical cross sections. 2. BACKGROUND The proposed project is located in the southeastern portion of the City of San Mateo, at the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange. Hillsdale Blvd is the only existing ped/bike crossing of US 101 for approximately a two mile stretch between Fashion Island Blvd to the north and the Ralston Ave ped/bike bridge to the south in the City of Belmont. US 101 is a north-south freeway on the Federal-Aid National Highway System, and within project limits US 101 is an 8-lane facility with four 12-ft-wide travel lanes in each direction. Inside shoulders vary from 4-ft to 8-ft-wide, while outside shoulders are 10-ft-wide. Auxiliary lanes extend from all US 101/Hillsdale Blvd directional interchange ramps to the adjacent freeway interchanges. The posted speed limit on this segment of US 101 is 65 mph. 1

12 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 The US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange was converted from a four-quadrant cloverleaf configuration to a partial cloverleaf (Type L9) in 2001, which is reflected in the interchange s existing configuration today. All of the interchange on-ramps are individually metered, while only the NB loop on-ramp has an HOV preferential lane. This interchange serves as a major entryway to the Cities of San Mateo and Foster City, and is the southernmost interchange within the City of San Mateo along US 101. The existing Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing structure at US 101 has two 12-ft-wide through lanes and one 12-ft-wide auxiliary lane in each direction between the loop ramps, a 5-ft-wide curbed median, 2-ft-wide outside shoulders, 5-ft-wide sidewalks and concrete barriers with chain link railing Type 7 along both outside edges. Both of the loop on-ramps have doublelane entrances from Hillsdale Blvd. The minimum vertical clearance between US 101 and the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing structure is 16-ft 3-in. The posted speed limit on this segment of Hillsdale Blvd is 35 mph, and is designated as a Class III bike route. Beyond the overcrossing structure, Hillsdale Blvd is a six-lane urban arterial with a curbed median. The Franklin Parkway/SB US 101 ramps intersection is about 300-ft to the west of the Hillsdale overcrossing, while the next intersection at Saratoga Dr is about 1,200-ft west of the overcrossing. To the east, the NB US 101 directional ramp intersection is 300-ft from the overcrossing, while the Norfolk St intersection is about 900-ft from the overcrossing. Local bicyclists first identified the need for improved access across US 101 in the Hillsdale Blvd area after reconstruction of the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange in 2001, after which the San Mateo Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee identified the project as a high priority need. The City obtained feedback from the public through two community meetings in 2006 and held a field review meeting with the Caltrans pedestrian/bicycle coordinator. In 2007 the City completed an alternatives analysis study that identified the existing problems, the needs of the bicycle and pedestrian community, and the goals and objectives for improving the connection across US 101. The study evaluated a variety of alternatives for improving the freeway crossing to minimize or eliminate at-grade crossing points of the high speed freeway on/off ramps. A locally-preferred solution was identified as a grade-separated overcrossing structure and path over all the interchange ramps on the south side of the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing. During review of the 2007 alternatives analysis study, the City Council indicated an interest in considering a signature structure design for the proposed overcrossing to become a landmark for the City of San Mateo. In 2012 the City received grant funding through the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) Measure A program to complete the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase of the Caltrans project development process for a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing. The City of San Mateo is both the sponsor and proponent of the project, and is committed to see that this project is constructed. In April 2013 the City and Caltrans entered into cooperative agreement to complete a PSR-PDS for this project. The basis for the purpose and need of the project was derived from the City s 2007 alternatives analysis study, and was further refined through a series of Project Development Team (PDT) meetings with Caltrans in early

13 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/ PURPOSE AND NEED Need: There is a need for better bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in the southern half of the City of San Mateo between the residential/commercial areas west of US 101 and the residential/commercial and recreation destinations east of US 101. US 101 is a barrier between the existing and proposed bikeways on both sides of the freeway. Hillsdale Boulevard is the only crossing for approximately two miles. There is a need to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflict points. Pedestrians and bicyclists attempting to travel east-west on Hillsdale Blvd across US 101 are presented with multiple vehicle conflict points and challenging maneuvers. Low-speed pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at the interchange ramps experience potential high-speed conflicts with vehicles because of the geometry configurations (large radius curves) of the onramps. Compounding this safety situation are the double-lane entrances to the loop onramps and limited sight distances at the crossing locations of these ramps. There is a need for more options for modes of travel in the City of San Mateo. The existing infrastructure is primarily designed to support motorized vehicular travel. Separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities would provide a more legitimate option for people to change their mode of travel from motorized vehicles to other self-propelled modes, increasing health and reducing environmental impacts. Purpose: Provide a continuous path to improve pedestrian and bicycle east-west connectivity across US 101 in the southern half of the City of San Mateo and connect the existing and proposed bikeway and pedestrian networks. Improve pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety by eliminating vehicle ramp conflict points for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange and providing an ADA compliant route. Provide an alternative travel route for non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicycles, and person with disabilities) to increase travel mode flexibility and encourage a mode shift away from motorized vehicle travel, enabling pedestrians and bicyclists to take longer trips and better support the needs of low-mobility groups. 3

14 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT The Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA) was prepared using available traffic data obtained from: Hillsdale Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Study (Phase 4) 2003 City of San Mateo California Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS), 2014 California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2014 Hillsdale Boulevard Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Over Crossing, Final Report, June 2007 Daily ramp volumes obtained from Caltrans counts in 2007 and 2010 are shown below in Table 1. Intersection Northbound off-ramp to eastbound and westbound Hillsdale Boulevard Southbound on-ramp from eastbound and westbound Hillsdale Boulevard Northbound on-ramp from eastbound Hillsdale Boulevard Northbound on-ramp from westbound Hillsdale Boulevard TABLE 1: PROJECT RAMP AUTOMOBILE VOLUMES Annual Average Daily Traffic 18,200 15,600 Traffic volumes along Hillsdale Boulevard at the ramps and nearby intersections are high, creating an unpleasant environment to walk and bike especially when vehicles routinely travel above the posted 35 mph speed limit. Collision data for the ramp intersections was accessed from Caltrans Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) and Caltrans Transportation Systems Network (TSN) reports. Since this is a bicycle/pedestrian improvement project, collisions involving bicycles and pedestrians are of primary interest. A three-year period has been assessed: 2009 through A summary of collision data can be found in Table 2. Collision data for two adjacent non-ramp intersections was accessed from TSN using the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the same three-year period. 9,600 9,000 4

15 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 Location Northbound on-ramp from eastbound Hillsdale Boulevard Northbound on-ramp from westbound Hillsdale Boulevard Southbound off-ramp to westbound Franklin Parkway Southbound on-ramp from eastbound Hillsdale Boulevard Southbound on-ramp from westbound Hillsdale Boulevard Northbound off-ramp to eastbound and westbound Hillsdale Boulevard Southbound off-ramp to eastbound Hillsdale Boulevard TABLE 2: COLLISIONS IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ( ) Number of collisions Injuries/ Deaths Collisions involving bicycles Collisions involving pedestrians 4 5 / / / / / / / RAMP SUBTOTAL / Hillsdale Boulevard/Norfolk Street 5 5 / Hillsdale Boulevard/Saratoga Drive 6 6 / NON-RAMP SUBTOTAL / TOTAL / Notes: 1. Bicyclist fatality 2. Pedestrian crossing within crosswalk 3. Pedestrian in roadway (roadway includes shoulder) 4. One injury, no deaths. Crash type: Broadside. Violation category: Traffic signals and signs 5. One injury, no deaths. Crash type: Vehicle/Pedestrian. Violation category: Pedestrian right of way Source: California Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS), 2014; California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), At the ramp intersections there were six collisions involving bicycles and two collisions involving pedestrians. One collision at the southbound on-ramp from westbound Hillsdale Boulevard resulted in the death of a bicyclist. At this location bicyclists must weave across ramp traffic to continue along Hillsdale Boulevard. At the non-ramp intersections, there was one collision at Hillsdale Boulevard/Norfolk Street where a bicyclist was injured in a hit-andrun broadside collision. There was one collision involving a pedestrian at Hillsdale Boulevard/Saratoga Drive intersection. During this incident, a pedestrian was injured when a driver violated pedestrian right of way. In total over the three-year period there were seven collisions involving bicycles and three involving pedestrians, demonstrating that collisions of these kinds are prevalent. Based on the results of the TEPA, the next step would be to prepare a Traffic Forecasting and Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the PA&ED phase to analyze the potential operational 5

16 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 performance of signalized intersections that may require operational modifications to accommodate the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facility. This may include modifications to signal timings or additional bicycle/pedestrian phases. Three signalized study intersections are recommended for the PA&ED phase of the study. These are: 1. Hillsdale Boulevard/Norfolk Street 2. Hillsdale Boulevard/US 101 northbound off-ramp 3. Hillsdale Boulevard/US 101 southbound ramps/franklin Parkway A level of service analysis should be undertaken at the study intersections to determine if the construction of the project would require any operational modifications at the study intersections, and if so, if it would result in any operational impacts that may require mitigation. While the study intersections currently have existing pedestrian crossing phases with pedestrian push-button activation, further analysis would be required to determine if any modification to the signals are required due to the proposed project and demonstrate that the project would maintain acceptable operations for the US 101 off-ramps. Additional intersections may need to be included depending on the final limits of the proposed alternative. New vehicle and bicycle turning movement counts, as well as pedestrian counts would need to be conducted at the study intersections. Due to the pedestrian/bicycle nature of the project and the fact that it is not a vehicle capacity-increasing or operational improvement project, a cumulative year study may not be required; however, this must be confirmed by Caltrans before proceeding with the PA&ED phase. If a cumulative design year is selected, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) 2040 Travel Demand Model is recommended since the project would likely be constructed after DEFICIENCIES Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity: Hillsdale Blvd within the US 101 interchange area has been identified as a challenging corridor in both the 2011 City of San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan and 2012 Pedestrian Master Plan. Bicyclists and pedestrians in San Mateo have consistently indicated that US 101 is one of the major barriers for walking and bicycling in southeastern San Mateo. Existing conditions along Hillsdale Blvd provide limited pedestrian and bicycle connectivity across US 101. For pedestrians, the existing 5 -wide sidewalks are narrow, provide limited room for passing, offer little separation from adjacent high-speed traffic, and are often used by bicyclists who do not want to contend with vehicles at the double-lane entrances to the loop on-ramps. Visibility of approaching vehicles is limited for pedestrians attempting to cross at the loop on-ramp crosswalks because of the reduced design speed profile of the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing and ramps, as well as the position of the crosswalks relative to approaching vehicles. Within the southern limits of the City of San Mateo, Hillsdale Blvd serves as the only US 101 crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists. To the west of US 101 are the main residential 6

17 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 and commercial areas for the city as well as the Hillsdale Caltrain station, while to the east of US 101 are additional residential and commercial areas of San Mateo and Foster City, as well as recreation areas such as parks, the Bay Trail, and the San Francisco Bay shoreline. As a gap closure project, the proposed project would provide a vital connection to the existing pedestrian sidewalks and bikeway networks on both sides of the US 101/Hillsdale interchange. See Attachment G for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Map. Safety: Current vehicle speeds, volumes, lane configurations, sight distances, minimal bicycle accommodation and accident rates at the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange create challenging conditions for peds/bikes as indicated by vehicle volumes and accident rates in the preceding TEPA discussion (Section 4). The City has received numerous complaints from pedestrians and bicyclists saying they either minimize use of or completely avoid travelling through the current interchange because they feel unsafe doing so. In the City s 2011 Bicycle Master Plan, the existing US 101/Hillsdale interchange and the Norfolk/Hillsdale intersection are identified in the Top Ten locations for bicycle collisions over the last five years. In the development of the 2011 City s Pedestrian Master Plan, the Saratoga/Hillsdale and Norfolk/Hillsdale intersections are identified in the Top Twenty intersections for pedestrian collisions. The existing US 101/Hillsdale interchange and the two adjacent intersections (Saratoga/Hillsdale and Norfolk/Hillsdale) have been identified in the Bicycle Master Plan and the needs analysis of the Pedestrian Master Plan as high collision intersections. By constructing a dedicated, grade-separated, pedestrian and bicycle route over US 101, the proposed project would provide a safe and low-stress travel route free of vehicular conflicts for both pedestrians and bicyclists between the Hillsdale/Franklin and Hillsdale/Norfolk intersections. The three existing ramp crossing conflict points in each direction of Hillsdale Blvd would be completely eliminated for peds/bikes that use the proposed project path alignment. Mode shift: There are a number of residential areas, shopping centers, employment centers and recreation areas less than one-half mile from each other on both sides of the US 101/Hillsdale interchange. The Hillsdale Caltrain station, Hillsdale Mall, Whole Foods Center and Bay Meadows Park on the west side of US 101 are one mile or less from the Los Prados Park and Lakeshore residential neighborhoods on the east side of US 101. The Marina Lagoon Trail, Bay Trail, Los Prados Park and Marina Plaza Center on the east side of US 101 are less than one mile from George Hall Elementary and the Hillsdale and Glendale Village residential neighborhoods on the west side of US 101. Typically destinations less than three miles from residential areas are attractive for bicycle trips, while destinations one-half mile or less attract pedestrian trips. The build alternatives would support the needs of both ped/bike recreational users and commuters by providing a safe and low-stress connection free of interchange ramp vehicle conflict points, while also providing a direct and fast (no stops at the signalized Hillsdale/ramp intersections) route to destinations on either side of the interchange. Non- 7

18 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 motorized modes of travel such as walking and bicycling are healthy, efficient, low-cost, and available to nearly everyone. These forms of travel reduce transportation-related environmental impacts such as vehicle emissions and noise, while also helping to reduce traffic congestion. Public input at previous community workshops held by the City of San Mateo demonstrated that this proposed project is consistent with community goals. 6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION Federal The Federal government has increasingly recognized the importance of multimodal travel by issuing policies and authorizing funding for more ped/bike projects over the past two decades in a series of transportation bills. The US Department of Transportation (DOT) adopted the first national transportation policy to increase bicycling, and encourage planners and engineers to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian needs in designing transportation facilities for urban and suburban areas while increasing pedestrian safety. The goal was to double the percentage of total trips made by bicycling and walking in the United States from 8 percent to 16 percent of all travel trips, while simultaneously reducing the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured in traffic crashes by 10 percent. In 2010, DOT reinforced this commitment in a policy statement to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. The Purpose and Need of this project is fully compatible with the goals of the DOT. State The 2010 Complete Streets Implementation Plan put Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R1 Complete Streets Integrating the Transportation System into action. A Complete Street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users. All transportation improvements (new and retrofit) are viewed as opportunities to improve safety, mobility and access for all travelers, including transit users, bicyclists and pedestrians. This project Purpose and Need is consistent with the goals of Complete Streets by reducing pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with motor vehicles within the interchange area, and improving pedestrian and bicycle east-west connectivity across US 101. Regional The MTC s Plan Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy plan is the Bay Area s 25 year guide to transportation investments and land use strategy. California s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) requires that each of the state s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO, MTC is the MPO for the San Francisco Bay Area) develop a long-range plan to reduce per-capita greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. The Sustainable Communities Strategy promotes transportation projects and land development that is walkable and bikable and close to mass transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation and other amenities. By improving 8

19 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 ped/bike connectivity and encouraging a mode shift to active forms of transportation, the Purpose and Need of the proposed project is consistent with Plan Bay Area. The MTC 2009 Regional Bicycle Plan (RBP) identifies regional bikeway connections in the San Francisco Bay Area and strategies to fill gaps in the regional bikeway network. The RBP s principle goal is to ensure that bicycling is a safe, convenient, and practical means of transportation and healthy recreation throughout the Bay Area to reduce traffic congestion and risk of climate change; and to increase opportunities for physical activity to improve public health. This goal is consistent with the Purpose and Need of the proposed project. The SMCTA Measure A transportation sales tax Expenditure Plan (2004) states that a 3% share of sales tax revenues (an estimated $45 million over the next 25-year period) will be allocated towards pedestrian and bicycle projects. The goal of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program is to fund capital projects that encourage and improve bicycling and walking conditions in San Mateo County. The proposed project is listed in the SMCTA s 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan as a project contributing to the overall goals of the Measure A Program to reduce commute corridor congestion, make regional connections, enhance safety and meet local mobility needs. In 2012 the City of San Mateo received grant funding through the SMCTA Pedestrian and Bicycle Program to complete the PID phase for this proposed project, and has been approved on the FY Pedestrian and Bicycle Program to receive additional funding to proceed with the PA&ED phase. C/CAG is San Mateo County s Congestion Management Agency, and is responsible for the coordination, planning, and programming of transportation, land-use, and air quality related programs and projects. Pedestrian and bicycle measures have been added to C/CAG s 2011 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) to ensure transportation projects provide accommodation for active forms of transportation. Trip reduction and travel demand elements required in the CMP promote walking and biking modes of transportation to help reduce traffic congestion, and specifically encourage bicycle facilities that connect with other transportation systems (transit stations) as this proposed project would do. The County of San Mateo has several plans that are consistent with the Purpose and Need of the proposed project. The 1986 Countywide General Plan outlines transportation goals encouraging Cities to develop local bikeway plans and provide pedestrian bridges and connections in areas where State highways have divided communities. The Countywide General Plan does not identify specific bicycle or pedestrian projects, but encourages ped/bike paths connecting to activity centers, schools, transit stops and shopping centers, directing reference to City bicycle plans and the County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The 2001 San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) sets key policies to develop a bikeway system that is fully integrated into the transit system, with an overarching goal to reduce traffic congestion in San Mateo County by increasing transit and non-motorized facility capacity. The goal of the 2011 San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) is to provide policies that lead to a comprehensive and safe countywide system of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, and recommends policies that encourage more people to ride or walk for transportation and recreation. The CBPP places special attention on reducing barriers to east-west access by emphasizing access across freeways and major roadways, and specifically lists the proposed project. 9

20 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 Local The Purpose and Need for the proposed project draws upon the goals identified in the City of San Mateo s 2007 alternatives analysis study. Goals for the study were sourced from the City s previous planning documents and input from the community, and include: Goal 1: The project should improve east-west access for bicyclists and pedestrians at the Hillsdale Boulevard crossing of US 101. Goal 2: Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety in the Hillsdale Boulevard area. Goal 3: The project should provide maximum benefits to the public. Goal 4: The project should minimize negative impacts on the environment and local communities. Goal 5: The project should be consistent with adopted policies, standards, and goals. The 2011 City of San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan guides the future development of bicycle facilities and programs in the City, with the goal of creating a comprehensive, safe, and logical citywide bicycle network that will support bicycling as a viable, pleasant, safe, convenient and popular travel choice to help achieve sustainability, active living, and a sense of community that encourages fewer trips by car. The Master Plan specifically identifies the Hillsdale ped/bike overcrossing as a near-term high priority project that should be focused on. The Master Plan was developed with extensive input from the community, and is supported by numerous adopted goals, policies, and implementation strategies included in the City of San Mateo Vision 2030 General Plan (2010) and Sustainable Initiatives Plan (2007). Specific goals and objectives supporting the Purpose and Need of the proposed project include: Goal 1: Develop and maintain a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian circulation network which provides safe recreation opportunities and an alternative to automobile travel. Objective 1.6: construct a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing in the vicinity of Hillsdale Boulevard over US 101. Goal 2: Increase mode share for pedestrian and bicycle travel to 30% for trips of one mile or less by Bicycle and pedestrian travel currently represents about 3% of all travel. Goal 3: Increase mode share of bicycle travel to schools. Like the Bicycle Master Plan, the 2012 City of San Mateo Pedestrian Master Plan draws on a number of previous City plans, policies and studies, and specifically recommends the Hillsdale Overcrossing to improve conditions for pedestrians. The City of San Mateo envisions a continuous pedestrian network that supports active living, provides for safe and healthy transportation, and enables people of all ages and abilities to access jobs, recreation, school, shopping and transit by foot as a part of daily life. The City of San Mateo intends to provide and promote pedestrian friendly environments including streets, sidewalks, and multi-use paths that are attractive, convenient, and safe for pedestrian activity. The City of San Mateo Vision 2030 General Plan adopted in 2010 includes the following policies supporting the Purpose and Need of the proposed project: 10

21 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 Pedestrian and Bikeway Connections: Implement an area-wide pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan which will result in convenient and direct connections throughout San Mateo. Hillsdale Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing: Construct a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing in the vicinity of Hillsdale Boulevard over US 101. Modal Share: Increase mode share from pedestrian and bicycle travel, for trips of one mile or less, from 3 percent in 2005 to 30 percent by Travel to Schools: Reduce private automobile school trips by 50% before 2020 by working with private and public schools to increase the number of students walking or bicycling to school. 7. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives will continue to be defined based on input from the community during the PA&ED phase in order to incorporate Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) that integrate and balance community, aesthetic, multimodal and environmental values with transportation safety, maintenance, and performance goals. Based on the previous 2007 alternatives analysis study and PDT meetings since then, two build alternatives (Alternatives A and B) are proposed in addition to a No Build alternative. The viability and effectiveness in meeting the purpose and need of the project for these alternatives is discussed below. A brief discussion of alternatives considered but determined not viable from the 2007 study is also included for reference. The boundary of the project study area is the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange, including the Hillsdale/SB Ramps/Franklin intersection and Hillsdale Court to the west, the Hillsdale/Norfolk intersection to the east, the north side of the existing Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing, and 1,000 south of the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing to La Selva St. The City is interested in providing additional bikeway connection points to the west (along Hillsdale Court and Saratoga Dr) and to the east (along Hillsdale Blvd over Marina Lagoon into Foster City), but for the purposes of Caltrans involvement this report will only focus on the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange area as the project study area. A. Alternatives Determined Not Viable The Hillsdale Boulevard Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Final Report (alternatives analysis) prepared for the City of San Mateo in 2007 looked at a total of three build alternatives and dismissed a fourth. Since then, it has been determined that two of the three build alternatives proposed in the 2007 report are not viable because they do not satisfy the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives are as follows: Alternative 2: This alternative proposed a widened sidewalk or multi-use path on the southern side of the existing Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing. Within the interchange area, this configuration would have required peds/bikes to cross three ramps, including an uncontrolled crossing at the NB loop on-ramp with a double-lane high-speed entrance. This alternative is 11

22 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 not considered viable because it does not eliminate ped/bike conflict points with vehicles at the interchange ramps. Alternative 3: This alternative proposed a separated ped/bike bridge on the north side of the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing, including a bridge over the NB diagonal on-ramp. Within the interchange area, this configuration would have eliminated one of the existing ramp crossings for peds/bikes, but would require crossing two other ramps, including an uncontrolled crossing at the SB loop on-ramp with a double-lane high-speed entrance. This alternative is not considered viable because it does not eliminate ped/bike conflict points with vehicles at the interchange ramps. Median Crossing Alternative: This alternative proposed a barrier-separated path down the center median of the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing. This alternative was considered not viable in the 2007 report because it would still have conflict points and time delays for crossing the Hillsdale/SB ramps and Hillsdale/NB ramps intersections. In addition, it is a nonstandard configuration not supported by the Caltrans Highway Design Manual because it creates ped/bike flows in unexpected directions and locations. Additional ped/bike bridge crossings to the north of the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing that spanned all of the interchange ramps were considered in the 2007 study, but no acceptable landing locations could be established on the west side US 101 because of the recently placed development along Franklin Parkway. In addition, feedback from public meetings during the study tended to favor a south side alignment because an elementary school and a couple of parks are located to the south of Hillsdale Boulevard. B. Viable Alternatives No-Build: The No-Build alternative assumes no project improvements would be constructed, and therefore peds/bikes would continue to use Hillsdale Blvd to cross over US 101 for the foreseeable future. This alternative would not improve ped/bike connectivity along the Hillsdale Blvd corridor, would continue to allow challenging crossing conditions for peds/bikes at the interchange ramps to persist, and would not encourage a mode shift away from motorized forms of transportation. The No Build Alternative provides a basis of comparison, but does not meet the established purpose and need of the project. Build Alternatives: Alternative 1: This alternative from the 2007 study proposed a separated Class I path and ped/bike bridge over US 101 on the south side of the Hillsdale Blvd interchange, and scored the highest of all the alternatives primarily because it eliminated all ped/bike crossings at the interchange ramps. This alternative is considered viable because it satisfies the project s purpose and need by providing a continuous ped/bike path across US 101 that improves connectivity, eliminates vehicle ramp conflicts for peds/bikes, and would encourage a mode shift away from motorized travel by providing a safe, convenient and low-stress ped/bike link across US 101 between multiple destinations within range of ped/bike activity destinations. 12

23 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 For this PSR-PDs document, Alternative 1 has been updated/replaced with two new similar alternatives (Alternatives A and B). See Attachment A for layouts and typical sections of these Alternatives. Alternative A (Minimum Alternative): This alternative proposes a 12 wide Class I path and ped/bike bridge on the south side of the existing Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing that spans over US 101 and all ramp crossings. On the west side of the interchange, the path/bridge would connect at the southwest corner of the Hillsdale Blvd/SB Ramps/Franklin Parkway signalized intersection. The bridge would then extend southeast over the SB on-ramps, US 101, and then continue northeast over the NB directional off-ramp before descending back down to connect at the southwest corner of the Hillsdale Blvd/Norfolk Street signalized intersection. This entire alignment would be entirely within State right of way, would provide a Class I path compliant with ADA design standards, and would provide standard vertical clearance over US 101 and the interchange ramps. Alternative B (Maximum Alternative): This alternative includes the same main Class I path and ped/bike bridge alignment as Alternative A, but provides additional connections on both sides of US 101. On the west side of the interchange, a Class I path would branch off the main path alignment approximately 100 south of Hillsdale Blvd and provide a connection to the adjacent Hillsdale Court. Approximately half of this path connection would be in State right of way, and the other half would require acquisition of private right of way. On the east side of the interchange, a bridge connector would branch off the main bridge alignment approximately 100 east of US 101 and provide a connection to La Selva Street to the south. Most of this bridge connection would be within and follow the state right of way, while the remaining 150 of path closest to La Selva Street would require private right of way acquisition. The proposed project viable build alternatives would consist of site preparation including necessary excavation/grading, construction of bridge columns and spans, and placement of falsework for the bridge or any prefabricated bridge sections. The project would likely require dewatering for bridge column foundation work due to existing shallow groundwater conditions. Standard stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during project construction to eliminate water pollution (such as excessive erosion or sedimentation) during and after construction activities. The project would require temporary night time closures of US 101 and the interchange ramps for placement of overhead falsework and to install K-rail concrete barriers necessary to provide the working zones for construction and placement of the bridge columns and falsework. The location of equipment staging would likely be within portions of the interchange adjacent to the proposed bridge alignment and at the Hillsdale Inn parking lot on the west side of the project. It's anticipated that the City would have responsibility for maintenance of this ped/bike facility across US 101. The estimated capital outlay support cost to support only the PA&ED phase (engineering, environmental and right of way studies) for this project is approximately $900,000 to $1,500,

24 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 C. Nonstandard Design Features The following is a list of anticipated design exceptions for the viable build alternatives that do not conform to the design standards of the March 2014 Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). Design exception fact sheets will be submitted to Caltrans during the PA&ED phase. The assumed design speed along the proposed Class I path/overcrossing is 20 mph. Mandatory Exceptions: M1) Bicycle Path Design Speed - HDM Index (8) The design speed given in Table shall be the minimum. For a Bike Path with Mopeds Prohibited, the design speed shall be 20 mph. (Design speed established using same principles as those applied to highway design, i.e. Table 203.2, requires R=130' for V=20 mph.) Expected to have multiple curves along the proposed path alignment that have less than R=130 at connectors and end of path locations to avoid taking excessive right of way. M2) Bicycle Stopping Sight Distance - HDM Index (10) The minimum stopping sight distance based on design speed of 20 mph shall be 125. The proposed path is expected to have barrier/fence along a majority of the alignment, and the lateral clearance from the centerline of the inside lane to barrier/fence is 3 for a 12 -wide path. For a path with curve R=130 to meet the minimum stopping sight distance of 125, the path would need to be approximately 24 wide (18 inside lane/shoulder, 6 outside lane). M3) Shoulder Width - HDM Index Median Width - HDM Index 305.1(3)(a) Horizontal Clearance to Objects - HDM Index 309.1(3)(a) The shoulder widths given in Table shall be the minimum continuous usable width of paved shoulder on highways. (For freeways with 6 or more lanes, both left and right shoulder widths shall be 10 ) In areas where restrictive conditions prevail the minimum median width shall be 22 feet. The minimum horizontal clearance to all objects, such as bridge rails and safety-shaped concrete barriers, etc., on all freeway and expressway facilities shall be equal to the standard shoulder width of the highway facility as stated in Table A minimum clearance of 4 feet shall be provided where the standard shoulder width is less than 4 feet. The existing median width on US 101 where the Class 1 path overcrossing is proposed is approximately 12, including a 2 -wide concrete barrier. By placing a 4 -wide column to support the path overcrossing in the median of US 101, both inside (left) shoulders of the freeway would be reduced to approximately 4 wide. 14

25 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/ RIGHT OF WAY Build Alternative A will construct improvements entirely within existing State right of way, while Alternative B will require private right of way acquisition on both the east and west sides of US 101. On the east side of the interchange, Alternative B would require acquisition from one parcel, impacting approximately 8 parking spots adjacent to an office building near La Selva St. On the west side of the interchange, Alternative B would require acquisition from one parcel, impacting a corner of an unimproved parking lot for the adjacent Hillsdale Inn hotel at the end of Hillsdale Court. Redevelopment of the Hillsdale Inn parcel is planned in the future. The City has coordinated with the developer of this parcel and has come to a tentative right of way understanding for the proposed project. The City will work actively with the east side property owner as part of the right of way phase and public outreach process. Right of Way Data Sheets will be prepared during the PA&ED phase. A Right of Way Conceptual Cost Estimate Component scoping tool sheet is included as Attachment E. A. Utilities Within State right of way, there is an existing underground water line crossing US 101 approximately 350 south of Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing, while a utility corridor crossing US 101 approximately 750 south of the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing consists of an underground gas line, telephone lines, a drainage pipe, and overhead electric lines. Along the southeast quadrant of the interchange within private property, a utility corridor consisting of an underground gas line, water line, and overhead electric and communication lines runs parallel to the State right of way line. Alternative A will likely require minimal relocation of existing utilities, while the east side connector to La Selva St for Alternative B will likely require relocation of some existing utilities closer to La Selva St. Both alternatives will have some impacts to the existing drainage system within the interchange, requiring new drainage pipes and inlets. Formal utility coordination procedures will begin during the PA&ED phase. B. Railroad There are no active rail lines within project limits, therefore no railroad involvement or agreement is needed. 9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT project. The project Purpose and Need originated shortly after the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange was reconfigured in 2001 and bicyclists expressed concerns about the challenging conditions crossing through the interchange. The public meetings held by the City in 2006 helped in the selection of a locally preferred alternative alignment on the south side of the Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing, which is summarized in the 2007 alternatives analysis study. The City received SMCTA Measure A funding in 2012 to begin the PID phase for the proposed 15

26 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 The PDT was formed in 2013, and consists of staff from the City of San Mateo, Caltrans and consultants. During a design focus meeting in March 2014, the PDT discussed and refined the project Purpose and Need, and it was agreed the PSR-PDS could proceed with the locally preferred alternative (separated ped/bike structure on the south side of the interchange) identified in the 2007 alternatives analysis study. At another design focus meeting in June 2014 the PDT agreed that the alternative should be divided into two separate alternatives, one that includes separate connectors from the main ped/bike structure connecting to La Selva St and Hillsdale Court, and the other without the connectors. Alternatives will continue to be defined based on input from the community during the PA&ED phase in order to incorporate Context Sensitive Solutions. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENTATION The project would likely have minimal impact on the environment, and is anticipated to be eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (23CFR [c][3], Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities) under NEPA. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration appears appropriate for CEQA because it would allow the public an opportunity to provide input on the project, complimenting public outreach efforts the City of San Mateo has already initiated. In addition, the project has the potential to result in temporary construction related noise impacts. The key environmental issues that would need to be addressed for this project are noise, biology, cultural resources, aesthetics, and community impacts. The PA&ED for the project will require the following reports/studies: Community Impact Assessment Visual Impact Assessment (abbreviated) Noise and Vibration Analysis Sea Level Rise Analysis Land Use Memo Cultural Resources PQS Review Geotechnical Analysis Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Air Quality Technical Report Natural Environment Study (NES) Cumulative Impacts Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis Additionally, the following may be required pending the findings of the Natural Environment Study and Cultural Resources PQS Review: Subsurface Presence/Absence Testing for Cultural Resources Wetland Delineation The project s permit needs would be formalized during the PA&ED phase. The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP) and Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). In the event wetlands are identified on site, 401/404 permitting would be required. The estimated 16

27 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 timeline for obtaining these permits would be months and the cost would be approximately $20,000-25,000 for permit application support, assuming all necessary biological investigations and consultation was completed as part of the PA&ED phase. The project s mitigation needs would be determined as the impacts and impact areas are better defined. The project would likely need to mitigate for tree removal in accordance with City of San Mateo policies. A small portion of right of way acquisition would be required for the project. If the cultural resources investigation results in the discovery of previously unknown archaeological artifacts, consultation with the NAHC would be required. 11. FUNDING A. Capital Outlay Project Estimate The estimated capital outlay project cost for the build alternatives is approximately $17M to $32M in 2014 dollars, which includes $3M to $4M for roadway items, $14M to $27M for structures, and $0 to $2M for right of way. The low end of the estimate accommodates Alternative A with an enhanced box girder bridge structure, and the high end of the estimate accommodates Alternative B with a signature style bridge structure. The Capital Outlay Project Estimate is included as Attachment B, and the Right of Way Conceptual Cost Estimate Component is included as Attachment E. Permanent right of way acquisition cost is anticipated only for Alternative B. Anticipated sources of funding include Federal, State (STIP), and Local (C/CAG, SMCTA and City) funds. Capital Outlay Project Estimate Summary (in 2014 dollars) Range of Estimate STIP Funds Other Funds (Local, Federal) Construction Right of way Construction Right of way Construction Right of way Build Alternatives $17M to $32M $0 to $2M TBD TBD TBD TBD 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. B. Capital Outlay Support Estimate The estimated capital outlay support cost for the build alternatives needed to support only the PA&ED phase for this project is approximately $900,000 to $1,500,000. The City has been approved to receive approximately $900k from SMCTA Measure A funding to proceed with the PA&ED phase. A cooperative agreement will be executed between Caltrans and the City prior to the start of the PA&ED phase. Separate future Cooperative Agreements for the PS&E, Right of Way 17

28 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/11.2 and Construction phases of the project will be prepared before those phases begin. It is anticipated that the project will require a new maintenance agreements between Caltrans and the City for the ped/bike structure through the interchange. 12. SCHEDULE Project Milestones Scheduled Delivery Date PROGRAM PROJECT M015 10/2014 BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 12/2014 PA&ED M200 9/2015 The anticipated funding year for construction is This schedule assumes the viable alternative will not require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA. If additional compliance or permitting is required, this has the potential to delay the project up to 1 year. It s assumed some minor utility relocations will be required, and that the preferred alternative will generally have the support of the community based on City planning documents and public outreach. 13. RISKS There are potential delays to project implementation since the project is currently not fully funded. Since the PSR-PDS does not provide conceptual approval of alternatives, there is a risk that non-approvable nonstandard features may be discovered in the next phase of PA&ED, which could potentially slow the project development process. There are risks associated with environmental issues for the project as well, including the possibility of uncovering prehistoric and/or historic cultural materials on the project site during construction, or identifying wetlands affected by the project, both of which could delay the project schedule. A Risk Register has been prepared for this project to assist the project team in identifying, analyzing, and managing negative impacts on the schedule, cost, scope and quality of this project. The Risk Register is included as Attachment F. 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 dated October 14,

29 June /Hillsdale Ped/Bike Bridge PSR-PDS 04-SM-101, PM 11.0/ DISRICT CONTACTS Senior Transportation Engineer Advance Mimy Hew (510) Planning Caltrans Regional Project Manager Ron Moriguchi (510) Caltrans Acting HQ Project Development Larry Moore (916) Coordinator Caltrans Environmental Unit Supervisor Kathy Boltz (510) City Project Manager Aaron Lam (650) Consultant Project Manager Jimmy Sims (408) Consultant Project Engineer Karsten Adam (408) PROJECT REVIEWS This PSR-PDS has been reviewed by the following Caltrans, City of San Mateo, and consultant staff. District Maintenance District Traffic Safety Engineer HQ Design Coordinator Caltrans Project Manager City Project Manager Consultant Project Manager 17. ATTACHMENTS Date Date Date Date Date Date A. Conceptual Geometric Layout Plans and Typical Cross Sections B. Capital Outlay Project Estimate C. Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) D. Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet E. Right of Way Conceptual Cost Estimate Component F. Risk Register G. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Map 19

30 ATTACHMENT A CONCEPTUAL GEOMETRIC LAYOUT PLANS AND TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS

31

32

33 ATTACHMENT B CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECT ESTIMATE

34 Project Study Report Project Development Support Capital Outlay Project Estimate Dist - Co - Rte Program Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 101/Hillsdale ped/bike overcrossing 04-SM-101 PM 11.0/11.2 TBD Project Number Month/Year June 2014 Limits: Within US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange, on south side of Hillsdale Blvd overcrossing from Hillsdale/Franklin/SB ramps intersection to Hillsdale/Norfolk intersection. Proposed Improvement (Scope): Ped/bike overcrossing structure across US 101 freeway and interchange ramps. Alternate: Alternatives A and B SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $ 2.7M 3.8M TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 14.2M 26.9M TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS $ 0.1M SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 17.0M 30.8M TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $ 0.1M 1.6M TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 17.1M 32.4M 1

35 I. ROADWAY ITEMS II. Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost X = Explanation: Since this project is a ped/bike path and overcrossing structure project, the cost per lane mile calculation does not apply. More detailed 6-page project development cost estimates were prepared to develop the costs above. Contact Karsten Adam at (408) if further information is needed. STRUCTURES ITEMS Bridge Name TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS: $2.7M - 3.8M Structure 1 (Alternatives A&B) Main Overcrossing ( P Line) Total Cost for Structure $14.2M-$21.3M $5.6M Structure 2 (Alternative B only) La Selva Connector ( C2 Line) Explanation: Variations in cost for each structure depends on the type of bridge selected. The lower cost range accommodates an enhanced concrete box girder type of bridge, while the higher cost range accommodates a signature inclined arch type of bridge. TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS: $14.2M 26.9M 2

36 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Environmental Mitigation 2,200 SF X $60 = $132,000 Explanation: Mitigation allowance provided for removal of existing trees and impacts to possible wetlands within project limits. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS: $132,000 IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS A. Acquisition, including excess lands, damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $ 0 1.3M Escalated Value B. Utility Relocation (project share) $ 0.1M 0.3M Explanation: Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification June 2016 (Date to which values are escalated) Alternative B requires right of way acquisition and greater impacts to existing utilities. TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS: $0.1M 1.6M 3

37 ATTACHMENT C PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REPORT (PEAR)

38 1. Project Information PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REPORT District 04 County San Mateo Route 101 PM SM-101-PM 11.0/11.2 Project Title: US 101/Hillsdale Blvd Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Project Manager Phone # Ron Moriguchi (510) Project Engineer Phone # Reeja Natarajan (510) Environmental Office Chief/Manager Phone # Kathy Boltz (510) PEAR Preparer Phone # Brad J. Napientek, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. (408) Project Description Purpose and Need The primary needs of the project are: EA 04-4H330 There is a need for better bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in the southern half of the City of San Mateo between the residential/commercial areas west of US 101 and the residential/commercial and recreation destinations east of US 101. US 101 is a barrier between the existing and proposed bikeways on both sides of the freeway. Hillsdale Boulevard is the only crossing for approximately two miles. There is a need to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflict points. Pedestrians and bicyclists attempting to travel east-west on Hillsdale Blvd across US 101 are presented with multiple vehicle conflict points and challenging maneuvers. Low-speed pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at the interchange ramps experience potential high-speed conflicts with vehicles because of the geometry configurations (large radius curves) of the on-ramps. Compounding this situation are the double-lane entrances to the loop on-ramps and limited sight distances at the crossing locations of these ramps. There is a need for more options for modes of travel in the City of San Mateo. The existing infrastructure is primarily designed to support motorized vehicular travel. Separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities would provide a more legitimate option for people to change their mode of travel from motorized vehicles to other self-propelled modes, increasing health and reducing environmental impacts. June 2014

39 The primary purposes of the project are to: Provide a continuous path to improve pedestrian and bicycle east-west connectivity across US 101 in the southern half of the City of San Mateo and connect the existing and proposed bikeway and pedestrian networks. Improve pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety by eliminating vehicle ramp conflict points for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange and providing an ADA compliant route. Provide an alternative travel route for non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicycles, and person with disabilities) to increase travel mode flexibility and encourage a mode shift away from motorized vehicle travel, enabling pedestrians and bicyclists to take longer trips and better support the needs of low-mobility groups. Description of work The proposed project would construct a Class I path and pedestrian/bicycle bridge adjacent to the existing Hillsdale Boulevard overcrossing of US 101. Two viable build alternatives are considered in this report. Other alternatives considered but determined not viable are discussed below. The two viable build alternatives considered in this report would both consist of a 12 wide Class I path and pedestrian/bicycle bridge on the south side of the existing Hillsdale Boulevard overcrossing. The bridge would connect to the Hillsdale Boulevard/Southbound (SB) Ramps/Franklin Parkway intersection on the west side of US 101 and the Hillsdale Boulevard/Norfolk Street intersection on the east side of US 101. Alternative A (Minimum Alternative) would consist of just this main path and bridge across US 101, while Alternative B (Maximum Alternative) would also include a connector on the east side of US 101 providing access to La Selva Street, and another connector on the west side of US 101 providing access to Hillsdale Court. See Attachment E for displays of these two viable alternatives. The proposed project would consist of site preparation including necessary excavation/grading, construction of bridge columns and spans, and placement of falsework for the bridge or any prefabricated bridge sections. The project would likely require dewatering for bridge column foundation work due to existing shallow groundwater conditions. The project would also require temporary closures of US 101 to install K-rail concrete barriers to provide working zones for construction and placement of the bridge columns and falsework. The use of construction cranes will be required. The location of equipment staging would likely be within portions of the interchange adjacent to the proposed bridge alignment and at the Hillsdale Inn parking lot on the west side of the project. The limits of the project are described as follows: Northerly limits: The project s northerly limit is Hillsdale Boulevard and its existing overcrossing of US 101. Southerly limits: For the Alternative A, the project s southerly limit is approximately 400 feet south of the existing Hillsdale Boulevard overcrossing. For Alternative B, the project s southerly limit would be approximately 1,000 feet south of Hillsdale Boulevard near the large bend in La Selva Street, parallel to US 101. June 2014

40 Easterly limits: The project s easterly limit is the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Norfolk Street, approximately 900 feet east of US 101. Westerly limits: The project s westerly limit is approximately 500 feet west of US 101, between the Hillsdale Boulevard/SB Ramps/Franklin Parkway intersection and Hillsdale Court. Alternatives Alternatives will need to be addressed and will continue to be defined depending on the types and magnitude of environmental impacts. Based on the previous 2007 alternatives analysis report and PDT meetings since then, two build alternatives are proposed in addition to a No Build alternative. The viability and effectiveness in meeting the purpose and need for the project for these alternatives is discussed below. A brief discussion of alternatives considered but found to be not viable is included for reference. 1. No Build Alternative This alternative would not construct the pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing, and pedestrians and bicyclists (peds/bikes) would continue to use Hillsdale Boulevard to cross over US 101. This scenario would not improve ped/bike connectivity along the Hillsdale Boulevard corridor, would continue to allow challenging crossing conditions for peds/bikes at the interchange ramps to persist, and would not encourage a mode shift away from motorized forms of transportation. The No Build Alternative provides a basis of comparison, but does not meet the established purpose and need of the project. 2. Build Alternatives Alternatives Considered but Determined Not Viable: The Hillsdale Boulevard Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Final Report prepared for the City of San Mateo in 2007 looked at a total of three build alternatives and dismissed a fourth. Since then, it has been determined that two of the three build alternatives proposed in the 2007 report are not viable because they do not satisfy the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives are discussed below: Alternative 2: This alternative proposed a widened sidewalk or multi-use path on the southern side of the existing Hillsdale Boulevard overcrossing. Within the interchange area, this configuration would have required peds/bikes to cross three ramps, including an uncontrolled crossing at the Northbound (NB) loop on-ramp with a double-lane high speed entrance. This alternative is not considered viable because it does not eliminate conflict points at the interchange ramps between peds/bikes and vehicles. Alternative 3: This alternative proposed a separated ped/bike bridge on the north side of the Hillsdale Boulevard overcrossing, including a bridge over the NB directional on-ramp. Within the interchange area, this configuration would have eliminated one of the existing ramp crossings for peds/bikes, but would require crossing two other ramps, including an uncontrolled crossing at the SB loop on-ramp with a double-lane high speed entrance. This alternative is not considered viable June 2014

41 because it does not eliminate conflict points at the interchange ramps between peds/bikes and vehicles. Median Crossing Alternative: This alternative proposed a barrier-separated path down the center median of the Hillsdale Boulevard overcrossing. This alternative was considered not viable in the 2007 report because it would still have conflict points and time penalties for crossing the Hillsdale/SB ramps and Hillsdale/NB ramps intersections. In addition, it is a nonstandard configuration not supported by the Caltrans Highway Design Manual because it creates ped/bike flows in unexpected directions and locations. Additional ped/bike bridge crossings to the north of Hillsdale Boulevard that spanned all of the interchange ramps were considered in the 2007 study, but no acceptable landing locations could be established on the west side US 101 because of the recently placed development along Franklin Parkway. In addition, feedback from public meetings during the study tended to favor a south side alignment because of schools to the south of Hillsdale Boulevard. Viable Alternatives: Alternative 1 from the 2007 study proposed a separated Class I path and ped/bike bridge over US 101 on the south side of the Hillsdale Boulevard interchange, and scored the highest of all the alternatives primarily because it eliminated all ped/bike crossings at the interchange ramps. This alternative is considered viable because it satisfies the project s purpose and need, and has been further developed into two new alternatives for the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase. Alternative A (Minimum Alternative): This alternative proposes a 12 wide Class I path and ped/bike bridge on the south side of the existing Hillsdale Boulevard overcrossing that spans over US 101 and all ramp crossings. On the west side of the interchange, the path/bridge would connect at the southwest corner of the Hillsdale Boulevard/SB Ramps/Franklin Parkway signalized intersection. The bridge would then extend southeast over the SB on-ramps, US 101, and then continue northeast over the NB directional off-ramp before descending back down to connect at the southwest corner of the Hillsdale Boulevard/Norfolk Street signalized intersection. This entire alignment would be within State right-of-way. Alternative B (Maximum Alternative): This alternative includes the same main Class I path and pedestrian/bicycle bridge alignment as Alternative A, but provides additional connections on both sides of US 101. On the west side of the interchange, a Class I path would branch off the main path alignment approximately 100 south of Hillsdale Boulevard and provide a connection to the adjacent Hillsdale Court. Approximately half of this path connection would be in State right-ofway, and the other half would require acquisition of private right-of-way. On the east side of the interchange, a bridge connector would branch off the main bridge alignment approximately 100 east of US 101 and provide a connection to La Selva Street to the south. Most of this bridge connection would be within and follow the state right-of-way alignment, while the remaining 150 of path closest to La Selva Street would require private right-of-way acquisition. June 2014

42 3. Anticipated Environmental Approval Check the anticipated environmental determination or document for the proposed project in the table below. CEQA Environmental Determination Statutory Exemption Categorical Exemption Environmental Document Initial Study or Focused Initial Study with proposed Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated ND Environmental Impact Report CEQA Lead Agency (if determined): Estimated length of time (months) to obtain environmental approval: Estimated person hours to complete identified tasks: 4. Special Environmental Considerations NEPA Categorical Exclusion Routine Environmental Assessment with proposed Finding of No Significant Impact Complex Environmental Assessment with proposed Finding of No Significant Impact Environmental Impact Statement City of San Mateo No special environmental considerations are identified at this time. In the event the biological evaluation completed during the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase identifies potential wetlands on site, a wetland delineation, 401/404 permitting, and off-site mitigation could be required. Additionally, if subsurface presence/absence testing for cultural resources which may be required during the PA&ED phase identifies previously unknown archaeological resources, consultation with the Native American Heritage Council (NAHC) and mitigation may be required. 5. Anticipated Environmental Commitments Mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts will need to be defined during the PA&ED phase of the project, as the impact areas are better defined. A preliminary evaluation of the project s mitigation needs indicates mitigation may be needed for impacts to trees that would be removed. Previous mitigation for tree removal near the project site consisted of replacement at a 1:1 ratio. This would not add considerable cost to the project. Any other required mitigation and its cost would need to be identified during the PA&ED phase of the project. 6. Permits and Approvals Permits for the project would be defined during the PA&ED phase. The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP) and June 2014

43 Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). In the event wetlands are identified on site, 401/404 permitting would be required. The estimated timeline for obtaining these permits would be months and the cost would be approximately $20,000-25,000 for permit application support, assuming all necessary biological investigations and consultation were completed as part of the PA&ED phase. 7. Level of Effort: Risks and Assumptions Assumptions Risks Study limits have been properly identified and will remain unchanged throughout the project study period. The process to determine the final design for the bridge will continue to include input from the community. There would be continued community outreach efforts by the City of San Mateo. Previously conducted biological and cultural evaluations of the project site were thorough and accurate. The project will minimize removal of landscaping both east and west of US 101 and will replace landscaping as required. Work that will require closure of US 101 and/or its associated ramps will be conducted at night. Preliminary investigation indicates that overall, the project would have minimal impact on the environment. The project appears eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (23CFR [c][3], Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities) under NEPA. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration appears appropriate for CEQA because it would allow the public an opportunity to provide input on the project, complimenting public outreach efforts the City of San Mateo has already initiated. In addition, the project has the potential to result in temporary construction related noise impacts. Risk Probability Ranking Ranking Probability of Risk Event % % % % 1 1-9% June 2014

44 Evaluating Impact of a Threat of Project Objectives Impact Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Objectives Time Insignificant Schedule Slippage Delivery Plan Milestones Delay within Delivery Plan Milestones Delay of One Delivery Plan Milestones Delay of more than Delivery Plan Milestones Outside Fiscal Year Quarter Quarter One Quarter Cost Insignificant Cost Increase <5% Cost Increase 5-10% Cost Increase 10-20% Cost Increase >20% Cost Increase There is a moderate risk of uncovering prehistoric and/or historic cultural materials on the project site. Previous analyses of the potential for discovery of cultural resources on the site differ dramatically in terms of the likelihood of such a find. If resources are discovered, testing, evaluation, and reporting of resources could result in delays of a quarter (approximately 3 months) to more than a quarter. Probability of occurrence is a three and impact on the schedule is high. There is a low to moderate risk of wetlands being identified on site. A determination that wetlands are present would require a USACE determination, possible 401/404 permitting, and possible off-site mitigation. Probability of occurrence is a three and impact on the schedule is high. June 2014

45 8. PEAR Technical Summaries 8.1 Land Use: The Hillsdale/US 101 interchange provides access to residential and business centers which abut US 101 in the vicinity of the interchange and serves as one of the primary access points to downtown San Mateo and Foster City. The southwest and northeast quadrants are dominated by residential neighborhoods and the northwest and southeast quadrants are predominantly commercial. Hotels are located both east and west of US 101 south of Hillsdale Boulevard. Potential land use compatibility issues will be addressed in the environmental documents prepared during the PA&ED phase. June 2014 The City of San Mateo has developed comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle master plans which are intended to increase mode share for pedestrian and bicycle travel to 30% for trips of one mile or less by The proposed project would improve pedestrian and bicycle access in the City and would be consistent with its Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans. The federal government has also established a goal of increasing non-motorized transportation to at least 15% of all trips while simultaneously reducing the number of non-motorized travelers killed or injured in traffic collisions by at least 10%. The proposed project is consistent with both goals. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would conflict with any other state, regional, and/or local plans. No Section 4(f) resources are located in the project area and the project would not constitute a use of any Section 4(f) resources. 8.2 Growth: The project site is located in an urban setting on the east side of the City of San Mateo near its boundary with Foster City. The proposed pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing would provide improved access and accommodate pedestrian/bicycle traffic between areas east and west of US 101. The bridge would serve existing and planned future growth within the City of San Mateo and would not result in direct or indirect growth impacts. No additional studies are necessary. 8.3 Farmlands/Timberlands: The project site is not used or designated as farmland. According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland Map (2006), the majority of land in San Mateo and Foster City, including the project site, is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Furthermore, the project site and surrounding area are not used or classified as Timberland per Public Resources Code For these reasons, the project would not result in impacts to agricultural land or timberland and no additional studies are necessary. 8.4 Community Impacts: The project would require the acquisition of right-of-way for the Alternative B connectors to both La Selva Street and Hillsdale Court. The right-of-way acquisition would not alter business access, residential access, or existing vehicle travel patterns, but the connection to La Selva Street could eliminate up to 9 business parking spaces. A report will be required during the PA&ED phase to address potential community impacts including right-of-way acquisitions and land use changes. Impacts to police and fire service should be included in this report. As proposed, the project would not result in the relocation of people or housing and would not disproportionately affect low-income or minority populations. Community outreach efforts the City of San Mateo has conducted and will continue to conduct, should be discussed in this report. 8.5 Visual/Aesthetics: The project is located in a highly urbanized area of San Mateo. The area southwest of the Hillsdale/101 interchange is predominantly older multi-family residential, with some commercial uses. The area northwest of the interchange is fully developed with

46 the Bay Meadows Specific Plan. The area northeast of the interchange consists almost entirely of single-family residences and the southeast corner is developed with a shopping center and hotels, with multi-family residences further south. US 101 is not a designated state scenic highway in San Mateo County, nor is it eligible for future designation. The project site s low elevation and relatively flat topography restricts views from nearby residences to the adjacent area. The proposed project would construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge parallel to the existing Hillsdale Boulevard bridge over US 101. The City has not yet determined the aesthetic design of the bridge, but has indicated a preference for a signature style bridge that has more visual elements than a standard box girder or slab bridge. Views by nearby residences, businesses, and travelers on all roadways would be altered by the proposed project. Landscaping trees both east and west of US 101 would be removed or relocated. Views from the proposed bridge would primarily be of US 101, the surrounding businesses, and the residential areas southwest of the interchange. Though the project would alter existing views in the area, the project vicinity is highly urbanized and its visual character would not change substantially with the proposed bridge. The City of San Mateo has conducted, and will continue to conduct, community meetings to determine the final design of the bridge which will allow local residents and business owners to provide input on the project. A visual impact assessment checklist was completed during a site visit on April 8, The resulting score was 16, which concludes noticeable visual changes to the environment are proposed and an abbreviated Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) is appropriate. Though visual simulations are optional in an abbreviated VIA, based on the number of residences near the site, their inclusion is recommended. The abbreviated VIA will be completed during the PA&ED phase. 8.6 Cultural Resources: The project site is in an area considered by the City of San Mateo to have low sensitivity to cultural resources. An archaeological investigation and literature review was completed for the site in April One resource was found to be located within one mile of the project site, near Laurel Creek (CA-SMA-104). The site was originally salt marsh and is now covered with two to 15 feet of fill. No additional historic/prehistoric resources were identified during studies conducted in 1981, 1989, or A 2009 study was previously prepared for the project area which included a records search, geoarchaeological sensitivity analysis, and consultation with the NAHC and local historical societies. This 2009 report concluded that the project would not penetrate the imported fill on the site and reach native soil, so it would not endanger archaeological resources. Although the 2009 study determined that the project area has a low sensitivity for archaeological materials, it is the opinion of the archaeologist who prepared this latest literature review that the 2009 study was deficient because it did not include subsurface presence/absence testing to verify the findings. Additionally, the archaeologist believes the site has the potential to encounter previously unknown archaeological resources due to its proximity to the historic courses of Laurel Creek and Seal Slough. The archaeologist recommends subsurface presence/absence testing be undertaken to search for buried archeological materials. June 2014

47 Based on the conflicting information about this site, it is recommended that Caltrans Professionally Qualified Staff evaluate the site, and if necessary, subsurface presence/absence testing be conducted to verify the findings during the PA&ED phase. While the preponderance of evidence suggests the site is not located in an archaeologically sensitive area, testing would confirm that the potential to encounter previously unknown resources during construction is considered low. 8.7 Hydrology and Floodplain: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency s 100-year flood map (FIRM Community Panel No C0166E, date October 16, 2012), the project site is located in Flood Zone X (shaded). Zone X corresponds to the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1-percent-annualchance flood by a levee. A Location Hydraulic Study and either a Summary Floodplain Encroachment Report or Summary Floodplain Report would be required during the PA&ED phase. The project site is outside of a tsunami inundation area and is not located in an area prone to mudslides or seiche; therefore, no further review of these hazards will be required. 8.8 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff: The project area would need to be evaluated for possible water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project during the PA&ED phase. Groundwater is located four to 19 feet below ground surface, so dewatering should be anticipated. A dewatering plan would be required and appropriate permits or waste discharge requirements would be obtained from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Site access and staging areas would need to be included in any water quality analysis. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has implemented an NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) for the state. Projects disturbing one acre or more of soil must obtain permit coverage under the CGP by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the SWRCB prior to commencement of construction. The CGP includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and projects for certain risk levels, monitoring. Though site access, staging areas, and the exact footprint of the project have yet to be identified, it is likely the project will exceed one acre and require CGP permit coverage. The RWQCB has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) [Permit Number CAS612008]. Projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. The project would create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface and would be required to comply with the MRP. 8.9 Geology, Soils, Seismic, and Topography: The project site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Region and is in an area designated as having very high susceptibility to liquefaction by the US Geological Survey (USGS). Soil in the area is considered to be artificial fill which could also affect stability. Additionally, the bay mud found at depths of 13 to 26 feet below ground surface is highly corrosive to concrete and steel. A Foundation Feasibility Report has been completed for the project detailing seismic design criteria to be considered in project design. The project site is mapped by the County June 2014

48 of San Mateo as being least susceptible to landslides and no further analysis of landslide hazards will be required Paleontology: An EIR completed for the City s 2010 General Plan update concluded that there are no known paleontological resources in the City. Due to the project s location near the historic shoreline of San Francisco Bay and the fact that the soil is identified by USGS as artificial fill over estuarine mud (less than 150 years old), the presence of previously undiscovered paleontological resources is unlikely. Standard procedures should be included in future environmental documents and followed in the event previously undiscovered paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, but no further studies are recommended at this time Hazardous Waste/Materials: A preliminary records search conducted in March 2014 revealed no hazardous waste sites of concern within the project site. Two permitted RCRA sites are present just outside the project footprint. One of these, a gasoline station located at 2900 Norfolk Street, reported leaks in 1965 and The project would not excavate soil down gradient of this site and is unlikely to encounter contaminated soil as a result. When the Hillsdale/US 101 interchange was evaluated as part of the Bay Meadows EIR in 1996, no hazardous waste sites were identified and no obvious signs of contamination were observed. The potential for aerially deposited lead was noted and soil sampling was recommended, but the results of this sampling were not available at the time of this report. If aerially deposited lead was identified, it was likely remediated during the interchange reconfiguration work in An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) will be completed during the PA&ED phase. If the results of previous sampling for aerially deposited lead are not available, this should be evaluated during the ISA investigation Air Quality: The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the Bay Area is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality standards are set by the federal government (the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments) and the state (California Clean Air Act of 1988 and its subsequent amendments). Regional air quality management districts such as BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state standards would be met. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet state or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and state standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The area is in attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. Per 40 CFR , Table 2, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are exempt from requirements to determine project level conformity with the Clean Air Act. However, per 40 CFR , the project is not exempt from regional conformity requirements. The project is not identified in the MTC Transportation 2035 Plan, nor is it included in the 2013 TIP as a nonexempt project. A conformity determination will need to be made during the PA&ED phase. June 2014

49 Sensitive receptors are located near the project site on both sides of US 101. Constructionrelated air quality impacts will need to be evaluated during the PA&ED phase Noise and Vibration: The proposed project would result in increased noise levels during construction, but little if any increase once operational. To avoid impacting freeway operations, some construction activities would occur on nights and weekends to permit lane closures. According to the City of San Mateo s General Plan, ambient noise levels near the project site exceed 65 db, with noise levels in excess of 75 db closest to US 101. Noise measurements taken for the Bay Meadows EIR in 1996 identified noise levels close to US 101 as high as 90 db. The project does not meet the definition of a Type 1 project and therefore, evaluation of noise and vibration in a technical memo during the PA&ED phase would be sufficient Energy and Climate Change: The project would require energy and result in temporary increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction, but would not result in impacts once operational. The Bicycle Master Plan discussed in Section 8.1 of this document supports regional and statewide goals to reduce GHG emissions. Safe ped/bike travel along the Hillsdale Boulevard corridor over US 101 is a vital part of the city s bicycle network and would be facilitated by the project. By making pedestrian and bicycle travel more inviting and improving access/connectivity for these modes, the project would ultimately reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. Historic records show that sea level in San Francisco Bay has risen nearly eight inches in the past century. Using sea level rise data provided by USGS, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the California Climate Action Team project that sea level will rise between 20 and 55 inches (0.5 and 1.4 meters) by the year The project site is located in an area considered to be susceptible to inundation by sea level rise. The effects of sea level rise on the project will be evaluated during the PA&ED phase Biological Environment: Most of the area of potential effect (APE) consists of areas that are developed (i.e., occupied by existing roads, parking areas, or structures) or are dominated by landscaping. Non-native vegetation that was intentionally planted as part of previous landscaping efforts dominates the site. Willows and hyprophytic vegetation such as cattails are found scattered in a number of locations, primarily near drainages. A preliminary review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) shows 20 special status plant and animal species are known to occur in San Mateo County Quadrangle , which includes a large portion of the City of San Mateo. The potential for these species to occur in or near the APE will be evaluated during the PA&ED phase. Given the level of disturbance on the site and the fact that vegetation within the APE is dominated by landscaping, the identification of high value habitat within the APE is not anticipated. required. National Wetland Inventory maps were reviewed to determine if mapped wetlands occur within the APE. No mapped wetlands are present. Hydrophytic plant species were identified within the APE; however, they do not appear to be part of a natural or connected wetland system. These areas will be evaluated during the PA&ED phase, with the possibility of a formal wetland delineation and determination by the US Army Corps of Engineers if June 2014

50 The Hillsdale/US 101 interchange was reconfigured in 2001 as a mitigation measure for the adjacent Bay Meadows project. When this site was evaluated for the Bay Meadows EIR in 1996, no native vegetation was identified and in spite of hydrophytic vegetation on the site, no wetlands were identified within the project area. The EIR concluded that the site does not provide habitat for wildlife and work on the interchange would not result in significant biological impacts. Trees currently used for landscaping on the east side of US 101 would be removed under the proposed project. In addition to compliance with MBTA protections for nesting birds, removal of these trees would be required to comply with the City of San Mateo s Heritage Tree Ordinance (Chapter of the municipal code). Evaluation of the trees to be removed would be completed during the PA&ED phase. Previous projects in the vicinity were required to replace trees at a 1:1 ratio Cumulative Impacts: The area around the project site is mostly developed with uses included in the Bay Meadows project. Current and future residents of the Bay Meadows development may benefit from the proposed project. No other pending projects of significance were identified at the time of this report. The majority of impacts anticipated with the proposed project are temporary. The project is unlikely to result in cumulatively considerable impacts, but the potential for such impacts will be addressed in the environmental documents completed during the PA&ED phase Context Sensitive Solutions: Quality transportation design requires innovative and inclusive approaches that integrate and balance community, aesthetic, historic, and environmental values with transportation safety, maintenance, and performance goals and is reached through a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach involving all stakeholders. Whether a project is in an urban, rural, or natural setting, the transportation facility must be in harmony with the community goals and the natural environment. Caltrans Context Sensitive Solutions strive to meet transportation goals in harmony with community goals and natural environments. They require careful, imaginative, and early planning, and continuous community involvement. This project is a context sensitive solution. As discussed above, the City of San Mateo has conducted community outreach efforts since 2006 to develop a project design that meets the community s needs and the City s commitment to improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The City will commit to further community outreach efforts prior to making a determination on final project design. June 2014

51 9. Summary Statement for PSR or PSR-PDS The project would likely have minimal impact on the environment. The project appears eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (23CFR [c][3], Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities) under NEPA. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration appears appropriate for CEQA because it would allow the public an opportunity to provide input on the project, complimenting public outreach efforts the City of San Mateo has already initiated. In addition, the project has the potential to result in temporary construction related noise impacts. The key environmental issues that would need to be addressed for this project are noise, biology, cultural resources, aesthetics, and community impacts. The PA&ED for the project will require the following reports/studies: Community Impact Assessment Visual Impact Assessment (abbreviated) Noise and Vibration Analysis Sea Level Rise Analysis Land Use Memo Cultural Resources PQS Review Geotechnical Analysis Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Air Quality Technical Report Natural Environment Study (NES) Cumulative Impacts Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis Additionally, the following may be required pending the findings of the Natural Environment Study and Cultural Resources PQS Review: Subsurface Presence/Absence Testing for Cultural Resources Wetland Delineation The project s permit needs would be formalized during the PA&ED phase. The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP) and Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). In the event wetlands are identified on site, 401/404 permitting would be required. The estimated timeline for obtaining these permits would be months and the cost would be approximately $20,000-25,000 for permit application support, assuming all necessary biological investigations and consultation was completed as part of the PA&ED phase. The project s mitigation needs would be determined as the impacts and impact areas are better defined. The project would likely need to mitigate for tree removal in accordance with City of San Mateo policies. A small portion of right-of-way acquisition would be required for the project. June 2014

52 If the cultural resources investigation results in the discovery of previously unknown archaeological artifacts, consultation with the NAHC would be required. 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 Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) document. 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 Miley Holman, Archaeologist, Holman & Associates PEAR Preparer Brad J. Napientek M.S., Associate Project Manager, David J. Powers & Associates 12. Review and Approval Date: 4/28/2014 Date: 6/12/2014 I confirm that environmental cost, scope, and schedule have been satisfactorily completed and that the PEAR meets all Caltrans requirements. Also, if the project is scoped as a routine EA, complex EA, or EIS, I verify that the HQ DEA Coordinator has concurred in the Class of Action. Environmental Branch Chief Project Manager REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS: Date: Date: Attachment A: PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist Attachment B: Estimated Resources by WBS Code (NOT APPLICABLE) Attachment C: Schedule (Gantt Chart) Attachment D: PEAR Environmental Commitments Cost Estimate (Standard PSR- PDS) OTHER ATTACHMENTS: Attachment E: Hillsdale Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Alternative Displays June 2014

53 PEAR Appendix A PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist

54 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 Abbreviated VIA Cultural Resources: M Archaeological Survey Report M Further study required Historic Resources Evaluation Report L Historic Property Survey Report L Historic Resource Compliance Report L Section 106 / PRC 5024 & M Further study required Native American Coordination M Further study required Finding of Effect M Further study required Data Recovery Plan M Further study required Memorandum of Agreement M Further study required Other: L Hydrology and Floodplain L Location Hydraulic Study Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff L Geology, Soils, Seismic and L Topography Paleontology L PER L PMP L Hazardous Waste/Materials: L ISA (Additional) L PSI L Other: ADL L Survey required if no city records Air Quality L Noise and Vibration H Temporary noise impacts likely Energy and Climate Change L Sea level rise Biological Environment L Natural Environment Study L Section 7: L NES to confirm Formal L NES to confirm Informal L NES to confirm No effect L NES to confirm Section 10 L NES to confirm USFWS Consultation L NES to confirm

55 Environmental Studies for PA&ED Checklist Not anticipated Memo to file Report required Risk* L M H Comments NMFS Consultation L Species of Concern (CNPS, USFS, L NES to confirm BLM, S, F) Wetlands & Other Waters/Delineation M NES to confirm 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 M NES to confirm 404 Permit Coordination, IP, NWP, or M NES to confirm LOP 1602 Agreement Coordination L Local Coastal Development Permit L Coordination State Coastal Development Permit L Coordination NPDES Coordination L Permit required US Coast Guard (Section 10) L TRPA L BCDC L

56 PEAR Appendix B Estimated Resources by WBS Code

57 Attachment B is not applicable to this project.

58 PEAR Appendix C Schedule (Gannt Chart)

59 Attachment C: Estimated Environmental Schedule February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 Task Duration Start End Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Perform Environmental Studies and Prepare DED 6 months 2/15 8/15 NES 12 weeks 2/15 5/15 Location Hydraulic Study 6 weeks 2/15 3/15 *Subsurface Presence/Absence Testing 4 weeks 3/15 3/15 *NAHC Consultation *Wetland Delineation *401/404 Permitting *If required after initial biological/cultural review. 3 months 4/15 6/15 4 weeks 3/15 4/15 3 months 4/15 7/15

60 PEAR Appendix D PEAR Environmental Commitments Cost Estimate

61 Attachment D: PEAR Environmental Commitments Cost Estimate Standard PSR Only (Prepare a separate form for each viable alternative described in the Project Study Report) PART 1 PROJECT INFORMATION rev. 11/08 District-County-Route-Post Mile EA: 04-San Mateo / H330 Project Description: Construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over US 101 adjacent to Hillsdale Boulevard Form completed by (Name/District Office): Project Manager: Ron Moriguchi Date: 8 May, 2014 Phone Number: PART 2 PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS Permits and Agreements ($$) Fish and Game 1602 Agreement 0 Coastal Development Permit 0 State Lands Agreement 0 Section 401 Water Quality Certification 0 Section 404 Permit Nationwide (U.S. Army 0 Corps) Section 404 Permit Individual (U.S. Army 0 Corps) Section 10 Navigable Waters Permit (U.S. Army 0 Corps) Section 9 Permit (U.S. Coast Guard) 0 Other: Total (enter zeros if no cost) 0

62 PART 3. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS FOR PERMANENT IMPACTS To complete the following information: o Report costs in $1,000s. o Include all costs to complete the commitment: O.K. to break down by phase: Design, ROW, Construction, and/or provide Sub-Total. Capital outlay and staff support. Refer to Estimated Resources by WBS Code. For example, if you estimated 80 hours for biological monitoring (WBS Long Term Mitigation Monitoring), convert those hours to a dollar amount for this entry. For current conversion rates from PY to dollars, see the Project Manager. Cost of right of way or easements. If compensatory mitigation is anticipated (for wetlands, for example), insert a range for purchasing credits in a mitigation bank. Long-term monitoring and reporting Any follow-up maintenance Use current costs; the Project Manager will add an appropriate escalation factor. This is an estimating tool, so a range is not only acceptable, but advisable. Environmental Commitments Build Alternative Estimated Cost in $1,000 s Notes Phases Design ROW Construction Sub- Total Noise abatement or mitigation Special landscaping Compliance with City tree ordinance Archaeological resources Biological resources Historical resources Scenic resources Wetland/riparian resources Res./bus. relocations Other: Total (enter zeros if no cost) Cost assumes presence/absence testing would be required and no

63 additional biological studies would be required

64 PEAR Appendix E Hillsdale Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Alternative Displays

65

66

67 ATTACHMENT D TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SCOPING INFORMATION SHEET

68 Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet PROJECT INFORMATION Project ID No/ District County Route Post Miles Expenditure Authorization No. 04 SM /11.2 EA 04-4H330 Project Name and Description : US 101/Hillsdale ped/bike Overcrossing Prepared by: District Information Sheet Point of Contact*: TBD Name: Karsten Adam (Mark Thomas & Co) Functional Unit: * 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 Phone Number Project Manager Ron Moriguchi (510) District Office Chief Mimy Hew (510) Advance Planning Project Engineer Karsten Adam (Mark Thomas & Co) (408) HQ Project Development Larry Moore (916) Coordinator Environmental Unit Kathy Boltz (510) Supervisor Traffic Operations Lance Hall (510) Transportation Planning PDT Representative** TBD Transportation Planning Stakeholder Information Title Name Phone Number Regional Planner TBD System Planner TBD Local Development- TBD Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Planner Community Planner Beth Thomas (510) Goods Movement Planner N/A Transit Planner N/A Bicycle and Pedestrian Beth Thomas (510) Coordinator Park and Ride Coordinator N/A Native American Liaison N/A Other Coordinators: TBD 1

69 Project Purpose and Need** Need: There is a need for better bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in the southern half of the City of San Mateo between the residential/commercial areas west of US 101 and the residential/commercial and recreation destinations east of US 101. US 101 is a barrier between the existing and proposed bikeways on both sides of the freeway. Hillsdale Boulevard is the only crossing for approximately two miles. There is a need to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflict points. Pedestrians and bicyclists attempting to travel east-west on Hillsdale Blvd across US 101 are presented with multiple vehicle conflict points and challenging maneuvers. Low-speed pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at the interchange ramps experience potential high-speed conflicts with vehicles because of the geometry configurations (large radius curves) of the on-ramps. Compounding this situation are the double-lane entrances to the loop on-ramps and limited sight distances at the crossing locations of these ramps. There is a need for more options for modes of travel in the City of San Mateo. The existing infrastructure is primarily designed to support motorized vehicular travel. Separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities would provide a more legitimate option for people to change their mode of travel from motorized vehicles to other self-propelled modes, increasing health and reducing environmental impacts. Purpose: Provide a continuous path to improve pedestrian and bicycle east-west connectivity across US 101 in the southern half of the City of San Mateo and connect the existing and proposed bikeway and pedestrian networks. Improve pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety by eliminating vehicle ramp conflict points for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange and providing an ADA compliant route. Provide an alternative travel route for non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicycles, and person with disabilities) to increase travel mode flexibility and encourage a mode shift away from motorized vehicle travel, enabling pedestrians and bicyclists to take longer trips and better support the needs of low-mobility groups. ** 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: 1. Project Funding: 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 a (SR2S)/etc.). Anticipated Federal, State (ATP), Regional (MTC, C/CAG and OBAG) and Local (SMCTA Measure A and City). Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds have been secured to fund PID and PA&ED phases. Is this a measure project? b Not listed in original SMCTA Measure A program, but is has secured SMCTA Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding as mentioned above. 2

70 2. Regional Planning: Name of and contact information for Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional a Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA). N/A Name of and contact information for local jurisdiction (City or County) b City of San Mateo Aaron Lam (650) Provide the page number and project description as identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) c and the date of adoption, or provide an explanation if not in RTP. Not listed in RTP. Provide nexus between the RTP objectives and the project to establish the basis for the project purpose and need. d The project offers sustainability enhancements by providing better ped/bike activity and connectivity that is consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy listed in MTC Plan Bay Area (RTP) and California SB 375. Is the project located in an area susceptible to sea-level rise? e Yes. Name of Air Quality Management District (AQMD) f Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). If the project is located in a federal non-attainment or attainment-maintenance area is the project: Regionally Significant? (per 40 (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ) No g Exempt from conformity? (per 40 CFR and ) Yes Exempt from regional analysis? (per 40 CFR ) Yes Not exempt from conformity (must meet all requirements)? No 3. Native American Consultation and Coordination: If project is within or near an Indian Reservation or Rancheria? If so, provide the name of Tribe. a No. Has/have the Tribal Government(s) been consulted? If no, why not? b Not within Indian Reservation or Rancheria. 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 c consulted on this topic? If no, why not? N/A Has the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) been notified? d N/A e Have all applicable Tribal laws, ordinances and regulations [Tribal Employment Rights Ordinances (TERO), etc.] been reviewed for required contract language and coordination? N/A If the Tribe has a TERO, is there a related Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the f Tribe? N/A 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? g A preliminary check has been done for the PEAR, but further review would not happen until the next phase of PA&ED. A curation program may be required prior to project construction to create protocols for how to protect any resources discovered during construction. If a Native American monitor is required for this project, will this cost be reflected in cost estimates? h Native American monitor will likely not be required for this project. i In the event of project redesign, will the changes impact a Native American community as described 3

71 above in d, e, or h? N/A 4. System Planning: Is the project consistent with the DSMP? If yes document approval date. If no, explain. No. System planning is N/A to this project since it is a ped/bike crossing over US 101. The proposed a project will place bridge columns outside of the freeway clear recovery zones and therefore allow US 101 to continue as an 8-lane facility while providing for future expansion of HOV/HOT lanes or reconfiguration of the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd to accommodate auxiliary lanes to/from US 101/ SR 92 interchange to the north. b Is the project identified in the TSDP? If yes, document approval date. If no, explain. N/A Is the project identified in the TCR/RCR or CSMP? If yes, document approval date. If no, explain. Is c the project consistent with the future route concept? If no, explain. N/A d Provide the Concept Level of Service (LOS) through project area. N/A Provide the Concept Facility include the number of lanes. Does the Concept Facility include High e Occupancy Vehicle lanes? N/A Provide the Ultimate Transportation Corridor (UTC) include the number of lanes. Does the UTC f include High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes? N/A Describe the physical characteristics of the corridor through the project area (i.e. flat, rolling or g mountainous terrain...). N/A h Is the highway in an urban or rural area? Provide Functional Classification. N/A i Is facility a freeway, expressway or conventional highway? N/A Provide Route Designations: (i.e. Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) High Emphasis or j Focus Route, Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Route, Scenic Route ). N/A Describe the land uses adjacent to project limits (i.e. agricultural, industrial ). k N/A l m n Describe any park and ride facility needs identified in the TCR/CSMP, local plans, and RTP. N/A 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. N/A Has analysis on Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (DVHD) from the Highway Congestion Monitoring Program (HICOMP) been completed and included? N/A 4

72 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.) a b c d e f g h i j k l LD-IGR Project Information County-Route-Postmile & Distance to Development. Development name, type, and size. Local agency and/or private sponsor, and contact information. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status and Implementation Date. If project includes federal funding, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) status. 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. Approved mitigation measures and implementing party. Value of constructed mitigation and/or amount of funds provided. Encroachment Permit, Transportation Permit, Traffic Management Plan, or California Transportation Commission (CTC) Access approvals needed. Describe relationship to Regional Blueprint, General Plans, or County Congestion Management Plans. Inclusion in a Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Community Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy? Regional or local mitigation fee program in place? Project SM Immediately adjacent to proposed project on west side of US 101 between Hillsdale Blvd and Hillsdale Court. Redevelopment of the Hillsdale Inn hotel parcel, approximately 3 acres. City of San Mateo Planning Dept TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Yes, City of San Mateo has a development impact fee program. 6. Community Planning: INITIAL PID INFORMATION Has lead agency staff worked with any neighborhood/community groups in the area of the proposed improvements? If yes, summarize the process and its results including any commitments made to the community. If no, why not? a Yes. The City of San Mateo has been actively engaging the community on this project since 2006, and is continuing public outreach meetings during the current PID phase. The City will continue the outreach during the next PA&ED phase. Are any active/completed/proposed Environmental Justice (EJ) or Community-Based Transportation (CBTP) Planning Grants in the project area? If yes, summarize the project, its location, and whether/how b it may interact with the proposed project. Not within the immediate project area. The North Central San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan was prepared in 2011 for an area in the City approximately 2.5 miles north of the proposed project 5

73 c d e location. 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? Yes. 2 public workshops are being held during the PID process, in addition to multiple City Council and Public Works Commission meetings. Comments from the public are being used to help design proposed project alignments and bridge types. Further community participation will take place during the PA&ED phase. FINAL PID INFORMATION 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? Describe issues, concerns, and recommendations (from sources including neighborhood/community groups) and what measures will be taken to reduce existing or potential negative effects. The project is a net positive for the local community as it will provide a convenient and low-stress travel route for walking and bicycling modes of transportation, thereby providing more flexibility in travel modes within the area. By providing enhancements that encourage active modes of transportation, the project will likely increases public health and safety, improve air quality and provide more options for those that are not able to travel by private vehicle. Does this highway serve as a main street? If yes, what main street functions and features need to be protected or preserved? The existing Hillsdale Blvd parallel to the proposed project does not function as a main street within project limits because it is part of the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange. Existing conditions along Hillsdale Blvd do not encourage Ped/bike activity because of challenging lane configurations and crossing locations, limited sidewalk width, and the volume and speed of vehicles. 7. Freight Planning: INITIAL PID INFORMATION a Identify all modal and intermodal facilities that may affect or be affected by the project. N/A. The proposed project would not affect or impeded the movement of goods within the project area. FINAL PID INFORMATION Describe how the design of this project could facilitate or impede Goods Movement and relieve choke b 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). N/A Describe how the project integrates and interconnects with other modes (rail, maritime, air, etc.). Do c possibilities exist for an intermodal facility or other features to improve long-distance hauling, farm-tomarket transportation and/or accessibility between warehouses, storage facilities, and terminals? N/A Is the project located in a high priority goods movement area, included in the Goods Movement Action d Plan (GMAP) or on a Global Gateways Development Program (GGDP) route? If yes, describe. N/A Is the project on a current and/or projected high truck volume route [e.g., Average Annual Daily Truck e Traffic (AADTT) of 5 axle trucks is greater than 3000]? If yes, describe how the project addresses this demand. N/A If the project is located near an airport, seaport, or railroad depot, describe how circulation (including f truck parking) needs are addressed. N/A g Describe any other freight issues. N/A 6

74 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. SamTrans and Alameda County (AC) transit buses travel through the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange. Caltrain station is approximately 0.5 miles west of the project limits, and the proposed project would provide good connectivity for ped/bike access to/from the Caltrain station through the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange. Have transit agencies been contacted for possible project coordination? If no, why not? b No. The proposed project would not affect existing transit routes, and there are no bus stops within the project limits. c Describe existing transit services and transit features (bus stops, train crossings, and transit lines) within the corridor. There are no bus stops within project limits. Caltrain station is approximately 0.5 miles west of the project limits. Describe transit facility needs identified in short- and long-range transit plans and RTP. Describe how d these future plans affect the corridor. N/A FINAL PID INFORMATION Describe how the proposed project integrates transit and addresses impacts to transit services and transit facilities. e Project focuses on improvements to encourage pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. These transportation modes integrate well with the expanded destination ranges offered by transit. Have transit alternatives and improvement features been considered in this project? If yes, describe. If f no, why not? No, because there are no transit stops within the proposed project limits. 9. Bicycle: INITIAL PID INFORMATION Does the facility provide for bicyclist safety and mobility needs? If no, please explain. a Yes, this project would improve bicyclist s safety and connectivity needs by providing a grade separated path that eliminates conflict points and interchange ramps. 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, the entire point of the proposed project is to provide improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. b The project is included in the 2011 San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the 2011 City of San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan, and the 2012 City of San Mateo Pedestrian Master Plan. 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. Bike San Mateo County: Steve Vanderlip at bikesmc@hotmail.com c d e Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition: Corinne Winter at corinne@bikesiliconvalley.org (408) FINAL PID INFORMATION Will bicycle travel deficiencies be corrected? How or why not? Existing conditions along Hillsdale Blvd do not encourage bike activity because of challenging lane configurations and crossing locations, and the volume and speed of vehicles. This project would improve bicyclist s safety and connectivity needs by providing a grade separated path that eliminates conflict points and interchange ramps. The project is a net positive for the local community as it will provide a convenient and low-stress travel route for walking and bicycling modes of transportation. How will this project affect local agency plans for bicycle safety and mobility improvements? 7

75 f The project will be implementing the plans to provide improved ped/bike connectivity across the barrier of US 101. 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 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. a Yes, this project would improve pedestrian safety and connectivity needs by providing a grade separated path that eliminates conflict points and interchange ramps. Existing conditions along Hillsdale Blvd provide narrow 5 wide sidewalk and crosswalks at the entrances to high-speed double lane ramps with limited sight distance. Are pedestrian crossings located at reasonable intervals? b The project is providing a grade separated path that provides a conflict-free crossing route across the US 101/Hillsdale Blvd interchange. Are all pedestrian facilities within the corridor ADA accessible and in compliance with Federal and State c ADA laws and regulations? The proposed project will be compliant ADA guidelines for accessibility. FINAL PID INFORMATION Will pedestrian travel deficiencies be corrected? How or why not? d Yes. See explanation provided in section 10a above. How will this project affect local agency plans for pedestrian safety and mobility improvements? e The project will be implementing the plans to provide improved ped/bike connectivity across the barrier of US 101. The project is included in the 2012 City of San Mateo Pedestrian Master Plan. 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 f included in this project. N/A Are there any external pedestrian advocacy groups and advisory committees that should be included in g the project stakeholder list? If so, provide contact information. No known local pedestrian advocacy groups. 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 h coordinator approval was obtained. The proposed project will be compliant ADA guidelines for accessibility. 11. Equestrian: INITIAL PID INFORMATION If this corridor accommodates equestrian traffic, describe any project features that are being considered to a improve safety for equestrian and vehicular traffic? Project will not accommodate equestrian traffic, FINAL PID INFORMATION Have features that accommodate equestrian traffic been identified? If so, are they included a part of this b project? Describe. If no, why not? N/A 8

76 12. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): INITIAL PID INFORMATION Have ITS features such as closed-circuit television cameras, signal timing, multi-jurisdictional or a multimodal system coordination been considered in the project? Yes. If yes, describe. If no, explain. ITS features are N/A to this ped/bike project. FINAL PID INFORMATION Have ITS features been identified? If so, are they included a part of this project? Describe. If no, why b not? N/A 9

77 ATTACHMENT E RIGHT OF WAY CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE COMPONENT

78 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY COMPONENT To: Kristin L. Schober, District Branch Chief Date: 6/18/2014 R/W Local Public Agency Services 04-SM-101 PM 11.0/11.2 From: Karsten Adam Project ID: Mark Thomas & Co EA: 04-4H330 (408) /Hillsdale ped/bike overcrossing A Field Review was conducted Yes Scope of the Right of Way X No Provide a general description of the right of way including the location attributes. Right of Way Required X Yes No Number of Parcels X >100 X Urban Rural Land Area: Fee 10,000 sf Easement Displaced Persons/Businesses Yes X No Demolition/Clearance Yes X No Railroad Involvement Yes X No Utility Involvements X Yes No 4 Number of Utilities in area Cost Estimates Support Costs $0-$25,000 $500,001-$1,000,000 $25,001-$100,000 $1,000,001-$5,000,000 X $100,001-$250,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000 $250,001-$500,000 >$10,000,000 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 X $1,000,001-$5,000,000 >$100,000,000 Schedule Right of Way will require 6 months to deliver a Right of Way Certification #1 from PA&ED approval estimated September

79 Areas of Concern Provide a description of areas in close proximity to the project footprint that are likely to result in complex right of way issues if impacted (i.e. junkyards, cemeteries, utility towers, etc.). Project is not anticipated to result in complex right of way issues. Impacts are primarily to existing parking lots. Impacts to underground (water and gas) and overhead (electric and communication) are assumed for Alternative B. Any overhead electric lines affected would only be distribution rated, not transmission rated, and are not expected to delay the overall project schedule. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Provide a description of assumptions and limiting conditions. Refer to the PSR-PDS for project displays. The right of way acquisition costs for Alternative B were estimated by a qualified right of way specialist (ARWS) based on a current review of market data for commercial property in San Mateo. Sales were not confirmed with the parties involved, but the data is considered accurate. Estimates of the market value of the partial takes are as follows: Assessor s Parcel (7,000 sf, Hillsdale Inn, west side of US 101): $564,240 Assessor s Parcel (3,000 sf, Best Western, east side of US 101): $261,800** Total: $826,040 ** This assumes there is a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent properties and the removal of the eight parking spaces will not result in damages to the remainder of the property. The total right of way acquisition value was rounded up to $1,000,000 to be conservative. Project scope and limits could change as the project development process moves along. Further certainty would be obtained at next PA&ED phase when the preferred alternative is identified and a right of way data sheet is prepared. 2

80 ATTACHMENT F RISK REGISTER

81 ITEM DIST- EA 04-4H330 ID # Status Threat / Opport-unity Category Date Risk Identified Project Risk Register Project Name: US 101/Hillsdale Blvd Ped/Bike Overcrossing Project Manager: Aaron Lam (City of San Mateo) / Jimmy Sims (MTCo) Risks sorted by Date Created: Last Updated: Co - Rte - PM: SM /11.2 Telephone: (650) (City of San Mateo)/ (408) (MTCo) 05/16/14 6/25/2014 Risk Discription Root Causes Primary Objective Overall Risk Rating Cost/Time Impact Value Risk Owner Risk Trigger Strategy Response Actions w/ Pros & Cons Adjusted Cost/Time Impact Value (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) H Active H Active H Active H Active H Active Threat Threat Threat Threat 04-4H Active Threat H Active ENV ENV 05/21/14 ENV ENV 05/21/14 ORG 05/21/14 Hazardous materials encountered Delay technical studies until PA&ED Additional Capital Funding unavailable Requirement COST No agreement on preferred Threat DESIGN 05/21/14 Performance and Reliability SCOPE alternative for PA&ED Threat DESIGN 05/21/14 Approved by: date 05/21/14 Wetlands and/or Waters of US present Structure design and construciton issues Requirement Paleontological and cultural 05/21/14 Requirement resources discovered Requirement Funding Complexity and Interface TIME TIME TIME Time QUALITY Probablility 3=Med (20-39%) High Impact 8 =High Probablility 3=Med (20-39%) Low Impact 2 =Low Probablility 3=Med (20-39%) Med Impact 4 =Med Probablility 2=Low (10-19%) Low Impact 2 =Low Probablility 3=Med (20-39%) High Impact 8 =High Probablility 1=Very Low (1-9%) Low Impact 4 =Med Probablility 2=Low (10-19%) Low Impact 2 =Low 12 months TBD 4 months TBD Until funding becomes available N/A N/A Jodi Starbird (DJPA) (408) jstarbird@davidjpowers.com Jodi Starbird (DJPA) jstarbird@davidjpowers.com Jodi Starbird (DJPA) jstarbird@davidjpowers.com Jodi Starbird (DJPA) jstarbird@davidjpowers.com City of San Mateo publicworks@cityofsanmateo.org Jimmy W. Sims (MTCo) Jsims@markthomas.com Jimmy W. Sims (MTCo) Jsims@markthomas.com Environmental field surveys, APE Soil sampling Environmental field surveys, APE Design team may encounter unforeseen tasks or tasks deferred to PA&ED that may take longer than anticipated; require extra budget Funding sources currently not allocated for construciton A preferred cannot be agreed/concluded by the PDT. Design issues during PS&E MITIGATE MITIGATE MITIGATE MITIGATE AVOID MITIGATE ACCEPT Ensure that a contingency reserve is in place to handle funding and resources needed for wetland mitigation and schedule accomodates permitting Ensure that a contingency reserve is in place to handle funding and resources needed for HazMat discovery Prepare workplan to construct portions of project unaffected by by potential paleontological resources. Early communication and coordination with PDT members to make sure there is common understanding on these key items Continue to pursue additional funding sources Provide reserved fund for PA&ED to evaluate other viable alternatives Ensure that a contingency reserve is in place to handle funding and resources needed to prepare necessary changes WBS Item 165 PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 235 MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CLEAN UP HAZARDOUS WASTE 165 PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 165 PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 265 AWARDED AND APPROVED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 180 PREPARE AND APPROVE PROJECT REPORT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 240 STRUCTURES PS&E Status Date and Review Comments 6/26/2014 AL Hillsdale POC Risk Register xls 1/2

82 ITEM DIST- EA 04-4H330 ID # Status Threat / Opport-unity Category Date Risk Identified Project Risk Register Project Name: US 101/Hillsdale Blvd Ped/Bike Overcrossing Project Manager: Aaron Lam (City of San Mateo) / Jimmy Sims (MTCo) Risks sorted by Date Created: Last Updated: Co - Rte - PM: SM /11.2 Telephone: (650) (City of San Mateo)/ (408) (MTCo) 05/16/14 6/25/2014 Risk Discription Root Causes Primary Objective Overall Risk Rating Cost/Time Impact Value Risk Owner Risk Trigger Strategy Response Actions w/ Pros & Cons Adjusted Cost/Time Impact Value (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) Probablility Jimmy W. Sims (MTCo) 2=Low (10-19%) Perform constructability analysis early and often H Active Threat DESIGN 05/21/ to ensure that project Unresolved constructability Details/Staging plans for Final 230 PREPARE Performance and Reliability TIME Low N/A AVOID components are issues PS&E cannot be completed PS&E buildable at the estimated cost and Impact schedule Jsims@markthomas.com 2 =Low Probablility 2=Low (10-19%) Jimmy W. Sims (MTCo) Research R/W cost in 225 OBTAIN RIGHT OF H Active Threat R/W 05/21/14 R/W acquisitions Performance and Reliability TIME Med 6 months R/W negotiation is taking the area to ensure off WAY INTERESTS FOR MITIGATE longer than normal price for acquistion is PROJECT RIGHT OF attractive to owners WAY CERTIFICATION Impact 4 =Med Jsims@markthomas.com Probablility Jimmy W. Sims (MTCo) 2=Low (10-19%) Involved utility complanies early so that H Active Threat R/W 05/21/14 Utility Relocation Complexity and Interface TIME Med 6 months work may be scheduled Utility relocations require more 200 UTILITY MITIGATE earlier; monitor schedule time than planned RELOCATION and milestone dates; continuous coordination Impact on reqular basis. Jsims@markthomas.com 4 =Med Probablility 1=Very Low (1-9%) City of San Mateo H Active Threat EXT 05/21/ PREPARE AND Perform early and No consensus for project APPROVE PROJECT Local community pose continuous outreach to Customer TIME Low 6 months design. Complaints after MITIGATE REPORT AND FINAL objections community or advocacy Information Meetings. ENVIRONMENTAL group. DOCUMENT Impact 4 =Med Jsims@markthomas.com Probablility 3=Med (20-39%) Jimmy W. Sims (MTCo) H Active Threat R/W 05/21/14 Geology/Sesimicity Complexity and Interface TIME Low 3 months Field explorations require Change structure design design changes to structures based on Geotecnical 240 based on soil and seismic MITIGATE Design and Material STRUCTURES PS&E conditons determined during Report findings. PA&ED PS&E. Impact 2 =Low Jsims@markthomas.com Probablility 2=Low (10-19%) Jimmy W. Sims (MTCo) Early communication 180 PREPARE AND Geometric Delay of conceptual approval and coordination with APPROVE PROJECT Approval/Exceptions to nonstandard features may not be design change to design exceptions and until PA&ED could reuire Caltrans on excepted H Active Threat DESIGN 05/21/14 Requirement TIME Med 6 months MITIGATE REPORT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL approved accommondate standards acceptable proposed DOCUMENT design Impact Jsims@markthomas.com 4 =Med Probablility 3=Med (20-39%) Jimmy W. Sims (MTCo) Early communication 180 PREPARE AND Identified scope, schedule and and coordination with APPROVE PROJECT Inconsistent cost, time, scope budget not consistent with one PDT members to make H Active Threat PM 05/21/14 Communication SCOPE Med TBD AVOID REPORT AND FINAL and qualifty objectives or the other or the project as a sure there is common ENVIRONMENTAL whole understanding on these DOCUMENT key items Impact Jsims@markthomas.com 4 =Med Approved by: date WBS Item Status Date and Review Comments 6/26/2014 AL Hillsdale POC Risk Register xls 2/2

83 ATTACHMENT G PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY MAP

84 FT 101 Build Alternative Alignment D R A Los Prados Park Boothbay Park Casanova Park LEGEND Build Alternative Alignment Laurie Meadows Park /Hillsdale Bike/Ped Bridge Ar ea Ma p and Connectivity Destinations Proposed Class II Bike Lanes Existing Class I Bike/Ped Path Existing Class II Bike Lane Existing Class III Bike Route Proposed Class III Bike Route