DOCSLIB.ORG

Project Report Has Been Prepared Under the Direction of the Following Registered Civil Engineer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Project Report Has Been Prepared Under the Direction of the Following Registered Civil Engineer 04 - SM - 101 - PM 4.6/6.5 04 - SM - 84 - PM 25.3/25.7 EA #04-235360, RU: 0703 Program ID: 0414000032 December 2016 This project report has been prepared under the direction of the following registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. 12/14/2016 SCOTT C. KELSEY DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER URS CORPORATION Scott C. Kelsey C 39656 12/31/17 CIVIL 04 - SM - 101 - PM 4.6/6.5 04 - SM - 84 - PM 25.3/25.7 EA #04-235360, RU: 0703 Program ID: 0414000032 December 2016 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1 2. RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................3 3. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................3 3.1 Project History ..............................................................................................3 3.2 Community Interaction ................................................................................4 3.3 Existing Facility ............................................................................................6 3.3.1 US 101 .......................................................................................................6 3.3.2 Woodside Road (SR 84) ...........................................................................6 3.3.3 Seaport Boulevard .....................................................................................6 3.3.4 East Bayshore Road ..................................................................................7 3.3.5 Veterans Boulevard, Broadway, and Bay Road ........................................7 3.3.6 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) ................................................................7 3.3.7 Existing Structures ....................................................................................7 3.3.8 Transit Agencies........................................................................................8 4. PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................9 4.1 Problem, Deficiencies, and Justification .....................................................9 4.1.1 Project Purpose .........................................................................................9 4.1.2 Project Need ..............................................................................................9 4.1.3 Roadway Deficiencies ................................................................................9 4.1.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Deficiencies ...........................................10 4.2 Regional and System Planning ..................................................................11 4.2.1 Identify Systems ......................................................................................11 4.2.2 State Planning .........................................................................................11 4.2.3 Regional Planning ...................................................................................11 4.2.4 Local Planning ........................................................................................12 4.3 Traffic ..........................................................................................................12 4.3.1 Current and Forecasted Traffic Volumes ................................................13 4.3.2 Truck Volumes ........................................................................................14 4.3.3 Forecasted Traffic Conditions ................................................................15 4.3.4 Accident Analysis ...................................................................................15 5. ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................................................20 5.1 Identification of the Preferred Alternative ..............................................21 5.2 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................22 5.2.1 Proposed Engineering Features ...............................................................22 5.2.2 Nonstandard Mandatory and Advisory Design Features ........................25 5.2.3 Project Construction ................................................................................28 5.2.4 Interim Features ......................................................................................28 5.2.5 Maintenance Vehicle Pullouts.................................................................28 04 - SM - 101 - PM 4.6/6.5 04 - SM - 84 - PM 25.3/25.7 EA #04-235360, RU: 0703 Program ID: 0414000032 December 2016 5.2.6 HOV (Bus and Carpool) Lanes ...............................................................28 5.2.7 Ramp Metering.........................................................................................29 5.2.8 Traffic Operations System ......................................................................29 5.2.9 CHP Enforcement Areas ..........................................................................29 5.2.10 Park and Ride Facilities ........................................................................29 5.2.11 Highway Planting ..................................................................................30 5.2.12 Water Pollution and Erosion Control .....................................................30 5.2.13 Noise Barriers........................................................................................31 5.2.14 Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features ...............................................31 5.2.14a Complete Streets Policy/Design Considerations .................................33 5.2.15 Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading ..................................33 5.2.16 Cost Estimates ........................................................................................33 5.2.17 Aesthetic Treatments ..............................................................................34 5.2.18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Lighting ............................................................36 5.2.19 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance ............................36 5.3 Project Phasing ...........................................................................................36 5.4 Rejected Alternatives .................................................................................38 5.4.1 PR Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 3B - Partial Cloverleaf Interchange .............39 5.4.2 PR Alternatives 3A, 6, 6A and 6B - Roundabout Interchange ...............39 5.4.3 PR Alternatives 5 & Variations -Type L-5 Interchange & Maple Street Ramps ................................................................................................................41 5.4.4 PR Alternative 7 - Single Point Interchange ..........................................42 5.4.5 PR Alternatives 8 and 8A - Diverging Diamond ....................................42 5.4.6 PR Alternative 9 - Diamond and Partial Clover Leaf Interchange .........42 5.4.7 No-Build Alternative ...............................................................................42 5.5 ICE Assessment/Screening of Access Concepts .......................................43 5.5.1 Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) ....................................................43 6. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION .......................................43 6.1 Hazardous Waste ........................................................................................43 6.2 Value Analysis .............................................................................................44 6.3 Resource Conservation ..............................................................................45 6.4 Right-of-Way ...............................................................................................45 6.4.1 Right-of-Way Required ...........................................................................45 6.4.2 Utility and Other Owner Involvement ....................................................46 6.4.3 Railroad Involvement ..............................................................................49 6.5 Environmental ............................................................................................49 6.5.1 Wetlands and Floodplain.........................................................................50 6.5.2 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................51 6.5.3 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff .................................................51 6.5.4 Paleontology ............................................................................................52 6.5.5 Biological Resources ...............................................................................52 6.5.6 Environmental Permits ............................................................................53 6.6 Air Quality Conformity .............................................................................53 6.7 Title VI Considerations ..............................................................................53 04 - SM - 101 - PM 4.6/6.5 04 - SM - 84 - PM 25.3/25.7 EA #04-235360, RU: 0703 Program ID: 0414000032 December 2016 6.8 Noise Abatement Decision Report ............................................................54 7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE .........................................59
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AGENDA BOARD of DIRECTORS MEETING SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Bacciocco Auditorium, 2Nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2020 DON HORSLEY, CHAIR EMILY BEACH, VICE CHAIR CAROLE GROOM JULIA MATES KARYL MATSUMOTO RICO E. MEDINA CARLOS ROMERO JIM HARTNETT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AGENDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 January 9, 2020 – Thursday 5:00 pm 1) Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance 2) Swearing-in: a) Don Horsley (Board of Supervisors Representative) b) Emily Beach (Cities-at-Large Representative) c) Rico Medina (Northern Cities Representative) 3) Roll Call 4) Election of 2020 Officers MOTION 5) Public Comment For Items Not on the Agenda Public comment by each individual speaker shall be limited two (2) minutes. Items raised that require a response will be deferred for staff reply. 6) Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee 7) Consent Calendar Members of the Board may request that an item under the Consent Calendar be considered separately a) Approval of Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting of MOTION December 5, 2019 b) Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenses for MOTION November 2019 8) Report of the Chair 9) San Mateo County Transit District Liaison Report 10) Joint Powers Board Liaison Report Note: All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board. Page 1 of 3 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Meeting Agenda for January 9, 2020 11) Report of the Executive Director 12) Program a) Adoption of 2020 Legislative Program MOTION b)
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Harbor Specific Plan and Harbor View Project Draft
    4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning 4.9 Land Use and Planning This section addresses the physical aspects of land use and the regulatory planning framework that guides future development under the Inner Harbor Specific Plan Area (“Plan Area”) and, at a project level, the Harbor View project. The discussion focuses on the land use and planning implications of adoption of and development under both the Plan and the project. Presented is a summary of existing land uses in and around the Plan Area and project site, a list of applicable City of Redwood City General Plan land use policies, and an assessment of any conflicts of the proposed Specific Plan and the Harbor View project with the adopted General Plan and other applicable plans and policies pertaining to physical land use and planning consideration factors. 4.9.1 Environmental Setting The following description of existing land use conditions of the Plan Area and the Harbor View project summarize and in some cases elaborates on that which is presented in sections 3.2 and 3.6.1, respectively, in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of this EIR. Regional and Local Setting and Boundaries The City of Redwood City is located in eastern San Mateo County, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, as show in Figure 3-1 (in Chapter 3, Project Description). Redwood City sits along Highway 101, approximately five miles west of the cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto.1 . Specific Plan Area The Specific Plan Area contains approximately 99.7 acres located on the San Francisco Bay side of Highway 101, which is the southern boundary of the Plan Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Redwood City
    Port of Redwood City Critical Port Property Management Issues Port Property Management & Pricing Seminar June 25-27, 2008 Toronto, Ontario Battling Encroachment From Development Since 1850 In the 1850’s, the Port was founded along a natural channel, “Redwood Creek”, in what is today downtown Redwood City. 70 years ago the Port relocated about two miles east due to the growth of downtown and the need to deepen the channel for larger ships. The “New Port” Seemed Safe From Encroachment By 1937, well entrenched in the so-called industrial area, the Port appeared “safe” from the kind of development encroachment that surrounded it when it was in downtown during Redwood City’s pioneering days. Nearly $1 Billion In Development Built Around The Port Since 1985 Since 1985, and continuing today, major R&D and office park development has occurred on both sides of the Port. In fact, in the past 2 years both major developments were sold to new owners – for a combined $932,000 million. And the buyers of the older R&D are pledging to spend another $100 million to upgrade, bringing the total value to more than $1 BILLION DOLLARS. PortPort of of Redwood Redwood City City Pacific Shores Seaport Centre Seaport Centre: First Major High Tech Development When this project was approved by the City Council, the Port Commission fought to win these benefits: – Three acres of land donated to the Port for use as a public boat launch ramp. – 500,000 gallons per day capacity at the local wastewater plant, which today is valued at close to $700,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood City Inner Harbor Precise Plan Existing Conditions – Transportation FINAL
    Redwood City Inner Harbor Precise Plan Existing Conditions – Transportation FINAL Prepared for: MIG | Hogle-Ireland City of Redwood City February 10, 2014 SF13-0695 Redwood City Inner Harbor Precise Plan Existing Conditions – Transportation FINAL February 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Area Roadway Network ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Project Area Travel Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 Applicable Circulation Goals ............................................................................................................................. 8 2.0 Pedestrian Access and Circulation ................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 San Francisco Bay Trail ...................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Pedestrian
    [Show full text]
  • City of Redwood City
    City of Redwood City Proposal for Ferry Financial Feasibility Study & Cost-Benefit and Economic Impact Analyses October 11, 2018 Acknowledgments City of Redwood City Council Members Project Team Diane Howard, Mayor Christopher Dacumos, Management Analyst II, City of Redwood City Shelly Masur, Vice Mayor Jessica Manzi, Transportation Manager, City of Alicia C. Aguirre, Council Member Redwood City Ian Bain, Council Member Radha Mehta, Management Fellow, City of Janet Borgens, Council Member Redwood City Giselle Hale, Council Member Kristine A. Zortman, Executive Director, Port of Redwood City Diana Reddy, Council Member Kevin Connolly, Planning & Development Port of Redwood City Commission Manager, WETA Arthi Krubanandh, Transportation Planner, Ralph A. Garcia, Chair WETA Richard (Dick) Claire, Vice Chair Chad Mason, Senior Planner & Project R. Simms Duncan, Port Commissioner Manager, WETA Richard “Dick” Dodge, Port Commissioner James Connolly, Project Manager, COWI Jessica Rivas, Marine Engineer, COWI Lorianna Kastrop, Port Commissioner Ashleigh Kanat, Executive Vice President, EPS San Mateo County Transportation Jason Moody, Principal, EPS Authority Kate Traynor, Senior Associate, EPS Jennifer Williams, Analyst II, San Mateo County Lindsey Klein, Project Planner, PlaceWorks Transportation Authority Charlie Knox, Principal, PlaceWorks Peter Skinner, Director of Grants and Funding, Bill Hurrell, Vice President, CDM Smith San Mateo County Transportation Authority Piyali Chaudhuri, Project Manager, CDM Smith Peter Martin, Project Technical
    [Show full text]
  • Windy Hill Property Ventures
    610 Walnut Street Office Development Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Prepared for: Windy Hill Property Ventures January 29, 2019 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 18LJ04 Phone: 408.971.6100 Client Name: Ms. Lisa Ring 610 Walnut Street Office Development TDM Plan January 29, 2019 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Transportation Facilities and Services .......................................................................................... 4 3. Recommended TDM Measures .................................................................................................. 10 3. Parking Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 18 4. TDM Implementation and Monitoring .......................................................................................... 20 List of Tables Table 1 TDM Measures and Implementation Responsibilities .............................................................. 11 Table 2 Office Parking Demand Survey Results ................................................................................... 19 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4.2 Air Quality
    4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.2 Air Quality This section addresses the potential for air quality impacts that could result from implementation of the Inner Harbor Specific Plan, including increases in criteria air pollutants. The analysis of emissions focuses on whether implementation of the Specific Plan would cause an exceedance of State ambient air quality standards, and this section describes existing air quality, potential short-term construction related impacts, and direct and indirect operational emissions associated with development under the Specific Plan. This section analyzes and evaluates the potential impacts of development that could occur under the Specific Plan on regional and local air quality from both stationary and mobile sources of air emissions. The analysis is consistent with methodologies set forth in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. While potential effects of the environment on the project are arguably not required to be analyzed or mitigated under CEQA, this section nevertheless analyzes potential effects of the air quality environment on development that could occur under the Specific Plan as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Significance Criteria, in order to provide this supplemental information to the public and decision-makers. Mitigation measures are identified to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. This air quality analysis is closely coordinated with the analysis of potential impacts with regard to greenhouse gases and climate change, which is provided in Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy, of Draft EIR. This section also presents a project-level analysis of the Harbor View project, which is located largely within the Specific Plan Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Permittee Name: City of Redwood City
    FY 2016-2017 Annual Report Permittee Name: City of Redwood City Table of Contents Section Page Section 1 – Permittee Information ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Section 2 – Provision C.2 Municipal Operations ......................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 3 – Provision C.3 New Development and Redevelopment ....................................................................... 3-1 Section 4 – Provision C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls ......................................................................... 4-1 Section 5 – Provision C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ..................................................................... 5-1 Section 6 – Provision C.6 Construction Site Controls .................................................................................................. 6-1 Section 7 – Provision C.7 Public Information and Outreach .................................................................................... 7-1 Section 9 – Provision C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Controls ................................................................................................ 9-1 Section 10 – Provision C.10 Trash Load Reduction ................................................................................................... 10-1 Section 11 – Provision C.11 Mercury Controls ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AGENDA Congestion Management & Environmental Quality
    Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Colma Daly City East Palo Alto Foster City Half Moon Bay Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo San Mateo County South San Francisco Woodside AGENDA Congestion Management & Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee Date: Monday, April 27, 2020 Time: 3:00 p.m. On March 16, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Shelter-in-Place Order issued by the San Mateo County Health Officer effective March 17, 2020, which was expanded and extended on March 31, 2020, the statewide Shelter-in- Place Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, and the CDC’s social distancing guidelines, which discourage large public gatherings, C/CAG meetings will be conducted via remote conferencing. Members of the public may observe or participate in the meeting remotely via one of the options below: Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98391401384 Meeting ID: 983 9140 1384 Join By Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 983 9140 1384 Persons who wish to address the Congestion Management and Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee on an item to be considered at this meeting, or on items not on this agenda, are asked to submit comments in writing to [email protected] by 2:00 PM on Monday April 27, 2020. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Weekly Digest
    City Council Weekly Digest TO: MENLO PARK CITY COUNCIL Friday FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager February 28, 2014 ITEMS INCLUDED: ATTACHMENTS: Draft Environmental Impact Report - Peninsula Corridor Peninsula Traffic Congestion Electrification Project Relief Alliance Annual Report. Deputy City Clerk Appointed Menlo Park Construction News Update 02/28/2014. San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission Accepting Applications for Public Member Representative City Council Only: 13th Annual North Fair Oaks Community Festival on August 17, 2014. Council Digest – February 28, 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report - Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Caltrain has released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the planned electrification of the Caltrain corridor between San Jose and San Francisco, a major milestone in the railroad’s efforts to improve its commuter rail service. The DEIR can be viewed by the public on the Caltrain website www.caltrain.com/electrification and members of the public can submit written comments through April 29, 2014. To assure the full range of public comment, Caltrain has extended the required 45-day comment period to 60 days. Caltrain will conduct four public meeting in March and April to obtain public comments on the Draft EIR. There will be four public meetings for the public to learn about the project and comment: Tuesday, March 18th 6:00-8:00 p.m. Caltrain Offices, 2 Fl Auditorium 1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos Wednesday, April 2nd 6:00-8:00 p.m. Redwood City Library 1044 Middlefield Rd., Redwood City Monday, April 7th 6:00-8:00 p.m. San Jose Main Library 150 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Builders' Exchange Current Project List * Indicates Date / Time Change 03/12/2021
    Builders' Exchange Current Project List * Indicates Date / Time Change 03/12/2021 Bid Date Bid Time Location # of Addenda Plan # Project Name * 3/15/21 5:00 PM Redwood City 6 21-00430 Seaport Centre Levee Improvement 3/15/21 1:00 PM Pacifica 2 21-00449 Rfp Storm Drainage Master Plan - City Of Pacifica 3/15/21 5:00 PM San Jose 2 21-00502 Rfp Audio Video Systems For The Solar4america Ice Expansion Project 3/15/21 5:00 PM San Juan Bautista 0 21-00569 The Alameda Gas Station - San Juan Bautista 3/15/21 2:30 PM Santa Cruz 0 21-00572 Brommer Yard Office Remodel 3/15/21 2:00 PM East Palo Alto 3 21-00639 Rfb Street Sweeping Signage Project - City Of East Palo Alto 3/15/21 3:00 PM East Palo Alto 1 21-00646 Rfb Streetlight Placement & Upgrade Project 2021 - City Of East Palo Alto 3/15/21 12:00 PM Santa Cruz 0 21-00672 Carson Dining Expansion Project - Work Package 1: Sub Bid Packages 4.1 & 8.1 - Rebid * 3/16/21 2:00 PM Oakland 10 20-02886 Procurement Of Portable Traction Power Substations - Bart #15ek-230 * 3/16/21 1:30 PM San Lorenzo 6 21-00102 Bay Elementary School Modernization 3/16/21 2:00 PM Santa Clara County 2 21-00280 Prequalification For Rail Grinding Services - Scvta * 3/16/21 2:00 PM San Jose 8 21-00292 Dw Infrastructure Site Hardscape Mount Pleasant (Mp) High School - East Side Union High School District (Esuhsd) 3/16/21 2:00 PM Cupertino 3 21-00306 Campus Center Floor Replacement De Anza College 3/16/21 2:00 PM Pacifica 1 21-00342 Fy2020-21 & Fy 2021-22 Pavement Resurfacing Project - City Of Pacifica * 3/16/21 12:00 PM Alameda 6 21-00366
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood City CALIFORNIA
    Redwood City CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 WWW.REDWOODCITY.ORG EVENTS DECEMBER 7 Hometown Holidays Courthouse Square 10 a.m. DECEMBER 15-21 Santa at the Library (multiple times and locations) www.redwoodcity.org/departments/ library/events DECEMBER 18 MEETING THE HOUSING CHALLENGE Gabriel’s Trumpets Downtown Library City Supports Housing at all Income 6:30 p.m. Levels through Policies, Programs, DECEMBER 22 Chanukah Festival Partnerships, and Projects Courthouse Square 4 p.m. In 2019, the City Council identified three top its Housing Division into the City Manager’s policy priorities: housing, transportation, and office, where it will function as a priority children and youth. Housing has emerged as initiative. Previously, the division was part of the especially challenging, as rising housing costs, low Community Development and Transportation HOLIDAY HOURS vacancy rates, and income disparity throughout Department. The Housing Division is charged City Hall will be closed: the region threaten to displace some residents, and with creating a range of housing options through November 28 & 29 (Thanksgiving) negatively impact the quality of life of many more. policies, programs, partnership, and projects. The City’s housing leadership manager will lead December 23 - January 1 Redwood City’s vision is to build a community the City’s housing division and be responsible for (Winter Break) where people of all backgrounds and income levels supporting housing stability for residents and the can thrive. Affordable housing is an important part creation
    [Show full text]