Get documents about "Untitled - San Joaquin Council of Governments
Shared by: jianglifang
-
Stats
- views:
- 1
- posted:
- 3/20/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 190
Document Sample
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................1
2. Recommendation ........................................................................................1
3. Background.................................................................................................2
A. Project History........................................................................................2
B. Community Interaction ...........................................................................4
C. Existing Facility .....................................................................................5
4. Need and Purpose .......................................................................................9
A. Problem, Deficiencies, Justification ........................................................9
B. Regional & System Planning ................................................................13
1. Identify Systems................................................................................13
2. State Planning ...................................................................................14
3. Regional Planning .............................................................................14
4. Local Planning ..................................................................................15
5. Transit Operator Planning .................................................................16
C. Traffic ..................................................................................................16
1. Current and Forecasted Traffic ..........................................................16
2. Collision Analysis .............................................................................24
5. Alternatives ...............................................................................................25
A. Viable Alternatives ...............................................................................25
1. Proposed Engineering Features .........................................................28
2. Nonstandard Mandatory and Advisory Design Features ....................33
3. Interim Features ................................................................................34
4. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) (Bus and Carpool) Lanes ...............34
5. Ramp Metering .................................................................................34
6. California Highway Patrol (CHP) Enforcement Areas.......................34
7. Park and Ride Facilities.....................................................................34
8. Utility and Other Owner Involvement ...............................................34
9. Railroad Involvement ........................................................................35
10. Highway Planting..............................................................................36
11. Erosion Control/NPDES Storm Water...............................................37
12. Noise Barriers ...................................................................................38
13. Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features ............................................40
14. Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading................................40
15. Needed Structure Rehabilitation and Upgrading ................................41
16. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................42
17. Right-of-Way Data............................................................................43
B. Rejected Alternatives............................................................................43
6. Considerations Requiring Discussion....................................................... 44
A. Hazardous Waste ..................................................................................44
B. Value Analysis .....................................................................................47
C. Resource Conservation .........................................................................47
D. Right-of-Way Issues .............................................................................48
i
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
E. Environmental Issues............................................................................49
F. Air Quality Conformity ........................................................................50
G. Title VI Considerations.........................................................................50
H. Noise Abatement Decision Report Section............................................50
7. Other Considerations as Appropriate......................................................51
A. Public Hearing Process .........................................................................51
B. Route Matters .......................................................................................51
C. Permits .................................................................................................51
D. Cooperative Agreements.......................................................................52
E. Other Agreements.................................................................................53
F. Involvement with a Navigable Waterway..............................................53
G. Transportation Management Plan for Use during Construction .............53
H. Stage Construction................................................................................55
I. Accommodations of Oversize Loads ........................................................56
J. Graffiti Control ........................................................................................56
K. Other Appropriate Topics .....................................................................57
8. Programming ............................................................................................57
A. Programming and Funding....................................................................57
9. Reviews......................................................................................................58
10. Project Personnel ...................................................................................59
11. List of Attachments ................................................................................60
A. Preliminary Plans, Profile, and Typical Cross Sections .........................60
B. Advance Planning Study.......................................................................60
C. Draft Environmental Impact Report (Not Included in this Administrative
Draft Project Report) ......................................................................................60
D. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate Summary......................................... 60
E. Right-of-Way Data Sheet......................................................................60
F. Storm Water Data Report (Cover Sheet) ...............................................60
G. Cooperative Agreement (Not Included in this Administrative Draft
Project Report) ...............................................................................................60
H. Risk Management Plan .........................................................................60
I. Transportation Management Plan Data Sheet ...........................................60
J. Project Location and Project Vicinity Map ...............................................60
K. Life Cycle Cost Analysis ......................................................................60
ii
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
1. Introduction
The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), in cooperation with the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes to extend State
Route 4 (SR-4) West, also known as the “Crosstown Freeway”, westward from its
current termini at Fresno Avenue1 to Navy Drive in the City of Stockton and
County of San Joaquin (see Attachment J for Location Map and Vicinity Map), in
order to improve traffic operations access to the Port of Stockton (Port) and
alleviate truck traffic through the Boggs Tract neighborhood. The improvements
proposed for the SR-4 Crosstown Freeway Ramp Extension Project (Project) also
include the widening of Navy Drive just south of the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) Underpass to Fresno Avenue, striping improvements on West Charter
Way (SR-4), from Army Court to Tillie Lewis Drive, and installation of traffic
signals at the Navy Drive/Tillie Lewis Drive and West Charter Way/Tillie Lewis
Drive intersections. The post mile limits on West Charter Way and SR-4 are 14.4
to 14.8 and T14.6 to R15.7, respectively.
The Project proposes to span over the Boggs Tract neighborhood, the BNSF
railroad, and the Central California Traction Company (CCTC) spur lines. Two
structural options, Alternative 3A and 3B, have been identified as viable
alternatives for this proposed extension. Alternative 3A proposes twin viaduct
structures and Alternative 3B proposes a retaining wall system. A single bridge
structure will span over BNSF and CCTC spur lines for the alternatives. Both
alternatives maintain the same horizontal alignment and vertical profile.
For Alternative 3A, the project cost is estimated at about $120 million, which
includes $19.9 million for right-of-way and utility relocation and $100.1 million
for construction. For Alternative 3B, the project cost is estimated at about $126
million, which includes $19.9 million for right-of-way and $106.1 million for
construction. Funding will be provided by the Proposition 1B Trade Corridor
Improvement Fund (TCIF), Measure K (San Joaquin County’s one-half cent sales
tax), and Regional Transportation Impact Fees (RTIF). This project has been
assigned a Project Development Processing Category 1 because it requires
substantial new right-of-way and access control.
2. Recommendation
It is recommended that this Draft Project Report (DPR) be approved and that
authorization be granted to circulate the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) and schedule a public hearing.
1
Fresno Avenue becomes South Fresno Avenue south of the existing ramp termini. For the purpose of this
report both Fresno Avenue and South Fresno Avenue will be referred to as Fresno Avenue unless a specific
address is identified.
1
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
3. Background
A. Project History
The Crosstown Freeway serves as a vital link between the Port and
Interstate 5 (I-5). Immediately west of the I-5/Crosstown Freeway
interchange, the existing Crosstown Freeway ends at its connection to
Fresno Avenue. The current Freeway Agreement, dated 1968 between
Caltrans and San Joaquin County includes the extension of the Crosstown
Freeway southwest to intersect with West Charter Way just west of where
West Charter Way crosses the San Joaquin River. The 1968 Freeway
Agreement also provides for a future interchange at Navy Drive.
Since the beginning of construction of the existing Crosstown Freeway in
1969, the Port has experienced significant growth. The Port is currently
the largest Tier II port in California and the third largest inland port on the
West Coast. With 55 international trading partners, the Port achieved its
highest volume of cargo in 2006 and 2007, with more than 3 million tons
of cargo across the docks and an additional 2.5 million tons of fuel
delivered by pipeline in the year 2007. The BNSF railway mainline
service runs between the City of Martinez and the San Joaquin Valley
along the southern border of the Port and provides direct service to the
Port via spur lines operated by the CCTC.
With the growth in the Port, the truck traffic traveling through the area has
also increased. Approximately 4,400 trucks per day currently access the
Port through the Boggs Tract neighborhood. The existing local roadway
network was not designed to carry the level of truck traffic it currently
serves. The proposed dredging project between the Port and the San
Francisco Bay will affect truck traffic in the project area as the capacity of
the channel is increased and goods movement to the Port are increased.
Development of the Port’s proposed 1,400-acre West Complex
development on what was formerly known as Rough and Ready Island, is
also expected to increase truck volumes to and from the Port and adjacent
industrial uses to approximately 54,000 trips per day by the year 2035,
with 20,000 trips per day traveling through Boggs Tract along West
Washington Street.
The surrounding local streets and the ramp intersections at Fresno Avenue
currently experience unacceptable levels of service during peak periods,
resulting in significant delay times. Since the existing roadway network
cannot handle traffic operations of this magnitude, numerous studies have
recommended improvements within the Crosstown Freeway corridor.
2
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The Project Study Report (PSR) for Caltrans dated June 2008 proposed
two alternatives, each of which included two phases. Both alternatives
proposed extending the current terminus of the Crosstown Freeway from
Fresno Avenue to West Charter Way for ultimate connectivity along SR-
4. For this extension, Phase 1 included limits from Fresno Avenue to
Navy Drive and Phase 2 included limits from Navy Drive to West Charter
Way. Although the limits were the same for both alternatives, each
differed, based on alignment. Alternative 1 maintained the existing
Crosstown Freeway alignment and spanned the BNSF corridor in Phase 1
touching down at Navy Drive west of Tillie Lewis, whereas Alternative 2
introduced a realignment, running parallel to and north of the BNSF
corridor in Phase 2, to Navy Drive.
At the end of the PID phase prior to the PSR’s signature and approval,
SJCOG received a letter from the City of Stockton-Municipal Utilities
District (COS-MUD) regarding their review of the Draft PSR indicating
they “…vehemently object to Alternative 2 (Phase 1 and 2), which
presents a large impact to the facilities and treatment processes at the
Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF).” During follow-up
meetings held at the beginning of the Project Approval & Environmental
Document (PA&ED) phase, COS-MUD again confirmed that they are
opponents of Alternative 2 (Phase 1 and 2) due to its bisection and impacts
to the District’s oxidation ponds. The District noted the alternative would
have grave impacts to their wastewater treatment abilities. COS-MUD
also noted that they will publicly support its elimination, including their
willingness to publicly testify if necessary.
Following the release of the signed and approved PSR in June 2008,
updated preliminary traffic operations analysis for the PA&ED phase was
conducted on Alternative 1; Alternative 2 was removed from further-
consideration due to the aforementioned comments made by COS-MUD.
The preliminary analysis indicated that the project improvements known
as Phase 1 (extension of the current ramp termini of SR-4, from Fresno
Avenue to Navy Drive) offered stand-alone or “independent utility” with
respect to traffic operation improvements and addressed the project’s
purpose and need. The purpose of including Phase 2 (extension of the
Phase 1 ramp termini of SR-4, from Navy Drive to West Charter Way) in
the Project Initiation Document (PID) was to show logical termini and
ultimate connectivity, as required by NEPA and for the purpose of
maintaining Federal funding eligibility. Phase 1 is fully funded through
Proposition 1B TCIF, Measure K, and RTIF. Due to independent utility,
Federal funding is no longer being pursued for Phase 1. As a result, a
Supplemental PSR for Caltrans, dated May 2009, was prepared extracting
Phase 1 only to meet Department PID requirements for the purpose of
programming, scheduling, and establishing necessary capital and support
3
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
costs. Furthermore, the Supplemental PSR, which was signed and
approved on May 18, 2009, recommended that the PA&ED activities
continue given the revised project limits of Phase 1. From this point
onward, the PID’s Phase 1 – Alternative 1 is referred to as Alternative 1
and additional discussion is presented in Section 5B, of this Project
Report.
After further evaluation, it was determined that Alternative 1 created
significant right-of-way impacts to properties along the northern boundary
of Navy Drive with the proposed eastbound on-ramp. To reduce right-of-
way impacts and sparing additional businesses along Navy Drive while
satisfying the Project’s purpose and need, it was decided by the Project
Development Team (PDT) to develop Alternative 2 in this PR.
Alternative 2 included a realignment of Tillie Lewis Drive and the EB SR-
4 on-ramp in Alternative 1 to create a new 4-way intersection, easterly of
the existing T-intersection of Tillie Lewis Drive and Navy Drive.
Additional discussion of Alternative 2 is presented in Section 5B, Rejected
Alternatives, of this Project Report.
To further minimize right-of-way impacts, a third alternative (Alternative
3) was considered by realigning the eastbound SR-4 on-ramp at Navy
Drive directly adjacent to the previously aligned westbound SR-4 off-
ramp along the BNSF corridor. Both ramps would terminate at Navy
Drive and constitute the northern leg of this consolidated T-intersection.
In comparison, this context-sensitive solution that minimizes project right-
of-way requirements was noted to also eliminate access control concerns
between the ramps that hampered both Alternatives 1 and 2. It was
recommended at a Caltrans 503.2 meeting, held on May 5, 2009, that
Alternatives 1 and 2 be eliminated as alternatives under further
consideration for the Project Report based on cost and unacceptable social,
economic, and/or environmental impacts. Following this resolution, two
“sub-alternatives” sharing the same alignment were developed and are
further-discussed in this Project Report as Alternative 3A (viaduct) and
Alternative 3B (retaining wall).
B. Community Interaction
Public support for transportation improvements within the County is
demonstrated by the passage of San Joaquin County’s Measure K ballot.
Measure K is an initiative that re-authorized the ½ cent sales tax dedicated
to funding transportation projects within the County.
A crucial aspect of this project is recognizing that the project’s purpose,
need and resulting benefits are counterbalanced by concerns of property
values, noise, aesthetics, and construction cost and duration. To serve the
community directly in regard to this project, over fifteen stakeholder and
4
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
focus meetings were held. Meetings and participants included the Boggs
Tract Community Center, Stockton Redevelopment Agency, San Joaquin
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Catholic Archdiocese and Charities,
Navy Drive businesses, El Concilio, Port of Stockton, Washington
Elementary School, COS-MUD, Stockton Unified School District, San
Joaquin County and City of Stockton Public Works, Stockton Chamber of
Commerce, and City and County Police, Fire and Sherriff departments.
These stakeholder meetings were held to create project awareness, create a
channel for communication to voice comments, questions and concerns,
and ascertain a level of consensus for the proposed project among
neighborhood residents. Ultimately, solicitation of community
participation assisted in identifying community attitudes and priorities
towards the project and alternatives.
A public information meeting was held on October 15, 2009 that presented
Alternatives 3A and 3B for public comment and focused on the Project’s
impact to the Boggs Tract neighborhood. Although not required as part of
the CEQA guidelines, the informational meeting was conducted to foster,
encourage, and facilitate the spirit of community interaction and
involvement that has been both effective and successful in this PA&ED
phase thus far.
Upon the approval and circulation of the forthcoming DEIR, an
opportunity for a public hearing or meeting will be provided as part of the
45-day public review and comment period for the DEIR. Notification for
a public hearing or meeting will be conveyed via newspaper
advertisements in local newspapers as well as mail notifications to
residences in the project area. The offer for a public meeting will also be
included in the transmittal that will accompany each mailed copy of the
draft environmental document.
C. Existing Facility
SR-4 is an east-west roadway facility that begins in the City of Hercules,
proceeds east towards Stockton, and ultimately terminates at the SR-4/SR-
89 intersection in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (see Figure 3.1). SR-4 is
approximately 197 miles and spans through five counties (Contra Costa,
San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Calaveras, and Alpine). Dependent on its
location, SR-4 is a two-lane expressway, two-lane conventional highway,
and an accessed controlled multi-lane freeway. For this project, the
description of SR-4 will be limited to San Joaquin County. Please refer to
Attachment J1- Project Location Map for additional information.
Within San Joaquin County, SR-4 begins, from the west, as a two-lane
conventional highway and becomes West Charter Way in the City of
Stockton. West Charter Way, as SR-4, is a non-access controlled two-lane
5
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
conventional highway and provides a two-way left-turn lane in the median
between the San Joaquin River Bridge (Bridge No. 29-0050) and I-5. Prior
to this segment, the posted speed limit is 55 mph. East of Tillie Lewis
Drive; the posted speed limit is 50 mph. The design speeds associated with
these segment’s horizontal and vertical alignments are 60 mph and 55
mph, respectively. West Charter Way accommodates 12-foot wide lanes
and outside shoulders that vary between 2 to 8 feet wide. West Charter
Way continues east until the I-5/SR-4 (West Charter Way) separation.
Within this segment, there exist three signalized intersections: Fresno
Avenue, Navy Drive/South Stockton Street, and I-5. All other
intersections are stop-controlled with West Charter Way having the free
through movement. From the I-5/SR-4 (West Charter Way) separation, I-
5 and SR-4 share the same access controlled multi-lane freeway facility
and continues north for approximately 0.8 mile to the SR-4/I-5 direct
connector ramps. At this segment, SR-4 is known as the “Crosstown
Freeway”. The Crosstown Freeway, as SR-4, begins at its terminus at
Fresno Avenue, which is west of the aforementioned connector ramps,
crosses I-5, continues easterly through Downtown Stockton, and merges
with SR-99. The Crosstown Freeway is an access controlled multilane
four to six-lane freeway facility that is approximately four miles long and
accommodates 12-foot lanes, 10-foot outside shoulders, and minimum 5-
foot inside shoulders. The Crosstown Freeway is the shortest connection
between I-5 and SR-99. The freeway is meant to bypass local streets in the
City of Stockton. From the SR-4/SR-99 separation, SR-4 continues south
to Farmington Boulevard. SR-4 and SR-99 share the same access
controlled multi-lane freeway facility for approximately 1.5 miles. The
posted speed limit is 65 mph and the design speed associated with the
horizontal and vertical alignments for all freeway segments is 70 mph.
From Farmington Boulevard, SR-4 is a non-access controlled two-lane
conventional highway and proceeds easterly, away from SR-99, towards
the San Joaquin County/Calaveras County border. Please refer to
Attachment J2- Project Vicinity Map for additional information.
Fresno Avenue is a two-lane collector road with 12-foot wide lanes and
outside shoulders that vary between 5 to 18 feet wide. Fresno Avenue,
within the project limits, has a posted speed limit of 25 mph and a design
speed limit of 30 mph. This collector road serves as the connection point
for traffic on the Crosstown Freeway and I-5 to access local residences, an
elementary school, and the Port. Equally, it serves as an access point for
local businesses along Navy Drive, Tillie Lewis Drive, and West Charter
Way. Due to the ease of access and proximity to residences, local
businesses and the Port along Navy Drive and West Washington Street,
Fresno Avenue experiences high traffic volumes, including trucks, through
the Boggs Tract neighborhood.
6
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Navy Drive is a two-lane arterial road with 12-foot lanes and 5-foot wide
outside shoulders in the City of Stockton. Within the project limits, Navy
drive has a posted speed limit of 40 mph and a design speed of 45 mph.
This roadway facility begins at the Port of Stockton West facility and
terminates at West Charter Way just west of the I-5/SR-4 (Charter Way)
separation. Approximately mid-way along Navy Drive, the BNSF railroad
tracks pass over Navy Drive via an underpass structure. Many businesses
are located along Navy Drive, including the City of Stockton Municipal
Utility District.
SR-4/Fresno Ave
SR-4/SR-89
Intersection
Stockton
SR-4/Farmington Blvd
Hercules
Stockton
State Route 4
San Joaquin County
Figure 3.1 – State Route 4 Map
Tillie Lewis Drive is a two-lane local road with minimum 12-foot wide
lanes and outside shoulders of varying widths in the City of Stockton. The
posted speed limit is 35 mph and the design speed limit is 40 mph. Tillie
Lewis Drive is bounded by Navy Drive to the North and West Charter
Way to the south. The intersections are stop-controlled on Tillie Lewis
Drive. Free through movements are provided along Navy Drive and West
Charter Way.
Boggs Tract is an unincorporated area of San Joaquin County nestled on
the western edge of the City of Stockton. This area is surrounded by the
BNSF and CCTC rail lines to the south, the Port to the west and north, and
Fresno Avenue to the east. The neighborhood experiences heavy truck
traffic traveling to the Port of Stockton and SR-4.
The Port of Stockton is the furthest inland seaport in Northern California.
As mentioned previously, the Port has undergone recent expansion with
the acquisition of Rough and Ready Island from the United States Navy in
7
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
2002. Rough and Ready island is known as Port of Stockton West and
includes warehouse and railroad facilities, and Ports 14-20. The port
serves as a hub for two major railways: BNSF and CCTC. Expansion
activities included providing a two-mile direct ship-to-rail facility
encouraging the 44% increase of rail traffic to the port from 2007-2008.
Revenues generated by Port activity have exceeded $30 million in recent
years.
Existing drainage facilities include roadside ditches, underground pipes,
detention ponds, pump stations, and outfalls to major waterways. The
existing impervious area within the proposed project limits is
approximately 6.8 acres. The northern half of the Boggs Tract drains to an
interim drainage pond and emergency storm discharge line which conveys
water to the Stockton Deep Water Channel to the north. The southern half
of the Boggs Tract drains to the Mormon Slough Outfall to the east via a
City pump station located at the corner of Fresno Avenue and West Scotts
Avenue. The area located south of the BNSF railroad corridor drains
westerly to the San Joaquin River Outfall via ditches located along Navy
Drive, Tillie Lewis Drive, and West Charter Way, ultimately ending at a
City detention pond and pump station located at the western end of SR-
4/West Charter Way. For additional information regarding existing
drainage conditions, please refer to the Preliminary Drainage Report –
State Route 4 Crosstown Freeway Project, dated August 2009.
8
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
4. Need and Purpose
A. Problem, Deficiencies, Justification
Compounded with inadequate connectivity between I-5, SR-4, and the
Port of Stockton, the growth (of the Port) and adjacent industrial
businesses has led, and will continue to lead, to increased congestion and
emissions within the Boggs Tract neighborhood and adjacent roadway
facilities within the vicinity of the Port. According to the approved Final
Traffic Operations Report – State Route 4 West PA/ED, dated July 2009,
with the expansion of the Port, traffic is forecasted to increase to
unacceptable levels with a No-Build alternative. Under the No-Build
scenario, the existing facility would serve only 49% of the AM peak hour
2035 traffic demand and 63% of the PM peak hour 2035 traffic demand,
with many of the associated intersections operating at a level of service
(LOS) of E or worse.
The purpose of the project is to:
Improve the connection between Interstate 5/Crosstown Freeway,
the Port, and adjacent industrial uses,
Remove industrial truck traffic from the residential Boggs Tract
neighborhood, and
Improve local air quality.
The need of the project is:
Improved Connectivity - Currently, the connection between Interstate 5
and the Port is inadequate. The existing Crosstown Freeway connection at
Fresno Avenue was presented to the community in the mid-60s as a short-
term solution that would become unnecessary when the Crosstown
Freeway was connected directly to West Charter Way. This connection
has never been constructed. Traffic associated with the Port and adjacent
industrial uses already overloads the local roads, and it is expected to get
worse as growth projected for the Port, adjacent industrial uses, and the
region increases demand on existing local roads.
Currently, traffic between the Port and Interstate 5 typically travels on one
of two routes. By way of Fresno Avenue south to West Charter Way and
the Port of Stockton Expressway (the “southern route”), traffic passes
through four signalized intersections (approximately 4.4 miles). This route
does not have the capacity to accommodate existing demand, so it is often
congested. Vehicles experience delays at the signalized intersections.
Due to the congestion on West Charter Way, many trucks headed to the
Port travel north on Fresno Avenue to West Washington Street (the
9
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
“northern route”), which takes them about 2.3 miles through the Boggs
Tract residential neighborhood. This route passes through two signalized
intersections in Boggs Tract, a long-established residential neighborhood
in direct proximity to schools, parks and community centers. Vehicles
along this route also experience delays during afternoon peak traffic hour
at some intersections.
After completion of the project, Port and industrial traffic would be carried
directly to Navy Drive, bypassing the Boggs Tract neighborhood. Trucks
would have a more direct and shorter route (approximately 1.8 miles) to
replace the southern route. On the northern route, traffic would be able to
avoid travelling on residential streets in Boggs Tract, and could take Navy
Drive direct to Washington Street well to the west of the boundary of the
subdivision.
Additional truck traffic associated with the Port’s proposed West Complex
expansion and the proposed channel capacity increasing project between
the Port and the San Francisco Bay will only worsen the already poor
connection between Interstate 5 and the Port. The Port’s West Complex
development is predicted to increase the number of large commercial ships
at the facility from 20 to 150 large commercial ships, requiring more than
10 times the number of employees by 2025 as the Port has today.
Reduced Traffic Impacts in Boggs Tract - As noted earlier, an estimated
4,400 trucks bound for the Port and adjacent warehouse and industrial
facilities invade the residential streets in the Boggs Tract neighborhood,
primarily Fresno Avenue and West Washington Street, each day. This
traffic brings noise, air quality, visual, traffic and pedestrian safety, and
congestion impacts for the residents. These impacts will increase as traffic
through the neighborhood increases with development of the Port’s West
Complex expansion project, adjacent industrial uses, and the region in
general. Total truck traffic through the Boggs Tract neighborhood is
predicted to reach 20,000 trips per day by 2025.
Without the project, traffic flow through Boggs Tract will significantly
worsen as the Port grows and industrial and related development in the
area increases. The project would improve the traffic impacts and travel
time by carrying traffic along the Crosstown Freeway extension clear to
Navy Drive.
The project would reduce the number of trucks traveling through the
Boggs Tract neighborhood. Figure 4.1 shows that the project
improvements would result in reduced traffic along the following
roadways in Boggs Tract and adjacent areas as compared to expected
conditions without implementation of the project:
10
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
(1) 2015 Conditions
West Washington Street west of Fresno Avenue: 27 percent
(2,650) fewer daily trips
Fresno Avenue between West Washington Street and the existing
Crosstown Freeway off-ramps: 20 percent (2,650) fewer daily trips
Fresno Avenue between existing Crosstown Freeway off-ramps
and Navy Drive: 2 percent (230) fewer daily trips
Fresno Avenue between Navy Drive and West Charter Way: 37
percent (3,670) fewer daily trips
(2) 2035 Conditions
West Washington Street west of Fresno Avenue: 53 percent
(10,000) fewer daily trips
Fresno Avenue between West Washington Street and the existing
Crosstown Freeway off-ramps: 50 percent (10,200) fewer daily
trips
Fresno Avenue between existing Crosstown Freeway off-ramps
and Navy Drive: 36 percent (5,600) fewer daily trips
Fresno Avenue between Navy Drive and West Charter Way: 41
percent (4,900) fewer daily trips
For additional information regarding existing and forecasted traffic
volumes, see Tables 4.1 - Tables 4.6 in Section 4.C.1.
11
Program 723 & 400.100
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
December 2009
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
12
Figure 4.1
Existing and Projected With and Without Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes
In and Adjacent to the Boggs Tract Neighborhood
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Improved Localized Air Quality - The project is expected to reduce
Mobile Source Air Toxic emissions in the Boggs Tract neighborhood as
Port and industrial traffic use the Crosstown Freeway extension in
preference to local roads in the neighborhood. Emissions were estimated
along Fresno Avenue north of the Crosstown Freeway and along West
Washington Street east of Fresno Avenue based on the expected
reductions in vehicle miles traveled along these roadways.
With construction of the project, emissions are expected to decrease in
2015 and 2035, as shown below. These percent reductions are based on
emissions that would occur in these years if the project were not to be
constructed:
reactive organic gases: 52 percent reduction in 2015 and 32 percent
reduction in 2035
nitric oxides: 53 percent reduction in 2015 and 53 percent
reduction in 2035
carbon monoxide: 53 percent reduction in 2015 and 53 percent
reduction in 2035
particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter: 52 percent
reduction in 2015 and 52 percent reduction in 2035
particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5): 52
percent reduction in 2015 and 52 percent reduction in 2035
carbon dioxide: 53 percent reduction in 2015 and 53 percent
reduction in 2035
B. Regional & System Planning
1. Identify Systems
SR-4 is classified as a Non-Interstate Strategic Highway Network
(STRAHNET) between I-5 and SR-99. West of I-5, SR-4 is part
of the Interregional Road System (IRRS) that connects San
Joaquin County with Contra Costa County. This portion of SR-4
is also in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)
network which includes California and terminal access routes.
I-5 is part of the Eisenhower Interstate Systems. The limits of this
system extend from San Diego, California to Blaine, Washington
at the Canada/United States border.
SR-4 is not part of the United States Department of Defense’s
Rural and Single Interstate Routes in California.
13
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
2. State Planning
Caltrans long range plan to improve highway, passenger rail, and
transit improvements throughout California is administered by the
California Transportation Commission (CTC). The CTC became
responsible for the programming and allocation of funds for the
Proposition 1B (Prop 1B), Trade Corridor Improvement Fund
(TCIF) after voter approval of “The Highway Safety, Traffic
Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006” on
November 7, 2006. The approval of this Bond Act provides
funding to projects in compliance with CTC Guidelines. These
guidelines require projects to be a “Trade Corridor of National
Significance” and they must demonstrate that the project will
improve regional air quality and not cause a negative local air
quality impact. The Prop 1B TCIF Fund programmed the SR-4
Crosstown Freeway Project because it is designated as a “Trade
Corridor of National Significance” in this state with high volume
of freight movement.
The Project is identified in a 1968 Freeway Agreement approved
by the then State of California Transportation Agency, Department
of Public Works, Division of Highways and San Joaquin County.
This agreement indicates that in 1962, the California Highway
Commission adopted a resolution declaring the extension of State
Route 4 as a freeway. The 1968 agreement includes an exhibit
showing the extension of State Route 4 from its current terminus to
Navy Drive and ultimately to West Charter Way, west of the San
Joaquin River.
A transportation concept report entitled, State Route 4
Transportation Concept Report (TCR) for SR-4 prepared by
Caltrans District 10, dated February 2002, determined that the
portion of the facility within San Joaquin County will need
operational improvements from a 2-lane facility to a 5-lane facility
in order to meet Caltrans concept level of service “D” in the year
2020.
3. Regional Planning
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for San Joaquin County
was recently updated by SJCOG in May 2007. As stated, the 2007
RTP is, “the San Joaquin region’s 24-year ‘statement of priorities’
for the future transportation system.” The document outlines goals
and objectives along with performance indicators for those goals
14
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
and objectives. The eight guiding goals for the future projects are
as follows:
Improve Safety and Security
Improve System Maintenance and Operations
Promote Interagency Coordination, Public Participation,
and Citizen Involvement
Improve Quality of Life
Improve Goods Movement
Improve Mobility and Accessibility
Enhance the Environment
Maximize Cost Effectiveness
In order to address the needs that can be met through the revenues
identified in the 2007 RTP, projects are categorized as: Tier I or
Tier II. Tier I projects are those that the region intends to build
when revenue sources are identified and Tier II projects are those
that need to be built but will have to be deferred until new funding
sources materialize. The document’s short-range plan (2007-2019)
shows the extension of the Crosstown Freeway to the west as a
future 5-lane facility and Tier I project, one of high priority and
urgent investment needs.
In addition to its role in establishing the vision for the region’s
future transportation system, Tier I projects programmed in the
2007 RTP must comply with federal planning (23 CFR 450) and
air quality (40 CFR 51 and 93) regulations. The RTP must also
meet the air quality budgets set for the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) as amended under the Federal Clean Air Act.
The Project is consistent with the RTP’s statement of priorities and
conforms to air quality requirements.
4. Local Planning
The City of Stockton includes SR-4 and I-5 in its 2035 General
Plan (2007) with plans for interchange improvements and the bus
route system. The City of Stockton anticipates a large increase in
the demand for SR-4 and I-5 as the residents of Stockton continue
to be employed outside of the City and County limits. It plans on
updating the existing interchange of SR-4 and I-5 to increase the
current LOS and shows extending the Crosstown Freeway as a 4-
lane facility extending from Interstate 5 to the San Joaquin River.
The General Plan also intends to widen Navy Drive from its
existing 2-lane facility with one lane for each direction of travel to
15
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
a 4-lane facility with two lanes for each direction of travel. Since
the Project proposes to widen Navy Drive east of the BNSF
undercrossing to just east of the intersection of Tillie Lewis Drive
and Navy Drive. The improvements along Navy Drive are
consistent with the City of Stockton’s 2035 General Plan and will
alleviate any additional efforts to improve this facility in the future.
5. Transit Operator Planning
The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD) Metro Express
(Route 40) is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service in the City of
Stockton. SJRTD plans to include SR-4, between I-5 and SR-99,
as part of the expanded BRT network which will have dedicated
bus lanes and greater frequency. SR-4 west of I-5 will be part of
an Express Service route.
C. Traffic
1. Current and Forecasted Traffic
A current and forecasted traffic analysis for the Project was
prepared in the approved Final Traffic Operations Report – State
Route 4 West PA/ED dated July 2009 by Fehr & Peer
Transportation Consultants. Extensive data collection efforts for
this final traffic operations and analysis report (FTOAR) were
undertaken in May 2008 to determine existing mainline and
intersection operations from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 3:00
PM to 6:00 PM. The collected data reflected that the AM peak
hour occurs from 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM and the PM peak hour
occurs from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
To gain an understanding of existing traffic operations, Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and Peak Hour volumes at various
locations within the project study area were collected. These
results are presented in Table 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
16
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
TABLE 4.1
EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Average
Location Daily Traffic
Volume
Charter Way west of Port of Stockton Expressway 11,890
Charter Way between Port of Stockton Expressway and
12,520
Roberts Road
Charter Way between Roberts Road and Tillie Lewis Drive 15,060
Charter Way between Tillie Lewis Drive and Fresno Avenue 16,650
Charter Way between Fresno Avenue and Navy Drive 18,180
Charter Way between Navy Drive and I-5 32,630
Charter Way east of I-5 25,510
Navy Drive west of Tillie Lewis 6,040
Navy Drive between Tillie Lewis and Fresno Avenue 7,610
Navy Drive west between Fresno Avenue and Charter Way 5,230
Washington Street east of Fresno Avenue 2,060
Fresno Avenue between Washington Street and SR-4 11,210
Fresno Avenue between Navy Drive and Charter Way 9,160
1
SR-4 between Fresno and I-5 26,000
I-5 north of SR-41 140,000
I-5 south of SR-41 131,000
1
SR-4 east of I-5 78,000
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2009.
Footnotes:
1
Existing ADT volumes obtained from the 2008 Caltrans ADT database. All other ADT
data is based on traffic counts conducted in Summer 2008.
17
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
TABLE 4.2
EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
Intersection Location AM PM
SR 4 West/Fresno Avenue 810 740
SR 4 East/Fresno Avenue 630 1,260
SR 4 Westbound between El Dorado and I 5 3,560 3,400
SR 4 Eastbound between El Dorado and I 5 3,130 3,520
Charter Way (SR-4)/I 5 Southbound Off-Ramp 900 720
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Southbound On-Ramp 270 530
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Northbound Off-Ramp 420 350
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Northbound On-Ramp 590 940
I 5 Northbound between Charter Way and SR 4 5,060 6,400
I 5 Southbound between Charter Way and SR 4 5,790 4,770
I 5 Northbound between SR 4 and Fremont St 4,910 7,380
I 5 Southbound between SR 4 and Fremont St 6,350 4,620
I 5 Southbound/SR 4 Split 2,270 1,570
I 5 Southbound/SR 4 Merge 1,710 1,720
I 5 Northbound/SR 4 Split 2,090 2,100
I 5 Northbound/SR 4 Merge 1,940 3,080
SR 4 West/I 5 Split 2,960 2,930
SR 4 West/I 5 Merge 100 150
SR 4 East/I 5 Split 260 600
SR 4 East/I 5 Merge 2,890 2,930
I 5 Northbound south of I 5/Charter Way
4,890 5,810
Interchange
I 5 Southbound south of I 5/Charter Way
5,180 4,580
Interchange
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2009.
18
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The percentages of trucks using the I-5 and SR-4 mainlines was
determined as well during the peak AM and PM hours. The
resulting data reflect the following percentages, as shown in Table
4.3.
TABLE 4.3
EXISTING MAINLINE TRUCK PERCENTAGES
Peak Hour
Location
AM PM
State Route 4 Eastbound 25% 7%
State Route 4 Westbound 25% 7%
Interstate 5 Northbound 12% 7%
Interstate 5 Southbound 12% 7%
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2009.
Two models were available for use in this study, the 2007 SJCOG
RTP Model (SJCOG Model) and the City of Stockton Travel
Demand Model (City Model). The City Model was chosen as the
tool to develop the traffic projections. The City Model is a stand-
alone model that was developed in accordance with Caltrans
Travel Forecasting Guidelines and validated to year 2003
conditions to meet Caltrans and industry standards with respect to
local traffic counts and flow conditions. However, to establish a
level of consistency with SJCOG regional planning assumptions,
the land use assumptions in the City Model were adjusted to the
SJCOG Model. The use of both models is consistent with CEQA
requirements for environmental analyses and with regional
planning procedures. Based on these growth models, traffic
volumes were forecasted for the year 2035. The forecasted peak
hour traffic volumes for 2035 can be found in Table 4.4 and 4.5 for
the No Build and Project scenarios, respectively.
19
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
TABLE 4.4
2035 NO BUILD INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
Intersection Location AM PM
SR 4 West/Fresno Avenue 2,130 1,360
SR 4 East/Fresno Avenue 1,090 2,480
SR 4 Westbound between El Dorado and I 5 5,610 5,190
SR 4 Eastbound between El Dorado and I 5 4,890 5,540
Charter Way (SR-4)/I 5 Southbound Off-Ramp 1,960 1,230
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Southbound On-Ramp 600 1,500
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Northbound Off-Ramp 1,220 920
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Northbound On-Ramp 720 1,850
I 5 Northbound between Charter Way and SR 4 9,800 11,570
I 5 Southbound between Charter Way and SR 4 10,740 9,410
I 5 Northbound between SR 4 and Pershing Ave 8,180 12,330
I 5 Southbound between SR 4 and Fremont St 10,940 8,810
I 5 Southbound/SR 4 Split 3,320 2,320
I 5 Southbound/SR 4 Merge 3,130 2,920
I 5 Northbound/SR 4 Split 4,190 3,800
I 5 Northbound/SR 4 Merge 2,570 4,560
SR 4 West/I 5 Split 4,560 4,510
SR 4 West/I 5 Merge 950 500
SR 4 East/I 5 Split 480 1,360
SR 4 East/I 5 Merge 4,350 4,500
I 5 Northbound south of I 5/Charter Way
10,300 10,640
Interchange
I 5 Southbound south of I 5/Charter Way
9,380 9,680
Interchange
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2009.
20
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
TABLE 4.5
2035 PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
Intersection Location AM PM
SR 4 West/Fresno Avenue 2,210 1,490
SR 4 East/Fresno Avenue 1,090 2,580
SR 4 Westbound between El Dorado and I 5 5,640 5,210
SR 4 Eastbound between El Dorado and I 5 4,890 6,870
Charter Way (SR-4)/I 5 Southbound Off-Ramp 1,770 1,130
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Southbound On-Ramp 620 1,590
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Northbound Off-Ramp 1,280 930
Charter Way (SR 4)/I 5 Northbound On-Ramp 720 1,690
I 5 Northbound between Charter Way and SR 4 9,770 11,340
I 5 Southbound between Charter Way and SR 4 10,650 9,240
I 5 Northbound between SR 4 and Pershing Ave 8,290 12,530
I 5 Southbound between SR 4 and Fremont St 10,870 8,710
I 5 Southbound/SR 4 Split 3,280 2,320
I 5 Southbound/SR 4 Merge 3,060 2,850
I 5 Northbound/SR 4 Split 4,060 3,640
I 5 Northbound/SR 4 Merge 2,580 4,830
SR 4 West/I 5 Split 4,570 4,610
SR 4 West/I 5 Merge 1,020 760
SR 4 East/I 5 Split 470 1,460
SR 4 East/I 5 Merge 4,350 4,500
I 5 Northbound south of I 5/Charter Way
10,330 10,580
Interchange
I 5 Southbound south of I 5/Charter Way
9,500 9,700
Interchange
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2009.
Comparing the forecasted peak hourly volumes between the No
Build and Project scenarios in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, it is evident that
the volumes do not change significantly. As a result, the data
indicates that the Project will not induce greater capacity within the
region.
An intersection analysis, based on 2035 forecasted volumes, was
conducted as well. The results of this analysis can be found in
Table 4.6 below.
21
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
TABLE 4.6
DESIGN YEAR (2035) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Traffic Peak Delay (seconds/vehicle) / LOS
Intersection
Control Hour
No Build Build
1. State Route 4 West / 1 AM >50 (>50) / F (F) -
SSS
Fresno Avenue PM >50 (>50) / F (F) -
2. State Route 4 East / AM 20 / C 11 / B
Fresno Avenue / Hazelton Signal
Ave PM >80 / F 12 / B
3. Charter Way (SR 4) / 1 AM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
SSS
Army Court PM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
4. Charter Way (SR 4) / 1 AM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
SSS
Tillie Lewis Drive PM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
5. Fresno Avenue / AM >80 / F 57 / E
Signal
Charter Way (SR 4) PM >80 / F >80 / F
6. Charter Way (SR 4) / AM >80 / F >80 / F
Signal
Navy Drive PM >80 / F >80 / F
7. Charter Way (SR 4) / AM >80 / F >80 / F
Signal
I-5 Southbound Ramps PM >80 / F >80 / F
8. Charter Way (SR 4) / AM >80 / F >80 / F
Signal
I-5 Northbound Ramps PM >80 / F >80 / F
9. Fresno Avenue / Navy AM >80 / F >80 / F
Signal
Drive PM >80 / F >80 / F
10. Fresno Avenue / AM >80 / F 26 / C
Signal
Washington Street PM >80 / F >80 / F
11. Fremont Street / I-5 1 AM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
SSS
Southbound Ramps PM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
12. Pershing Avenue / I-5 1 AM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
SSS
Northbound Ramps PM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
13. Center Street / SR 4 AM >80 / F >80 / F
Signal
WB Ramps PM >80 / F >80 / F
14. El Dorado Street / SR AM >80 / F 70 / E
Signal
4 WB Ramps PM 37 / D 28 / C
15. El Dorado Street / SR AM >80 / F >80 / F
Signal
4 EB Ramps PM >80 / F >80 / F
16. Center Street / SR 4 AM >80 / F >80 / F
Signal
EB Ramps PM >80 / F >80 / F
17. Charter Way (SR 4) / AM 74 / E 10 / A
Port of Stockton Signal
Expressway PM >80 / F >80 / F
18. Charter Way (SR 4) / 1 AM >50 (>50) / F (F) 10 (26) / B (D)
SSS
Roberts Road PM >50 (>50) / F (F) >50 (>50) / F (F)
19. State Route 4 West AM - -
Signal
Off-ramp / Navy Drive PM - -
20. State Route 4 East AM - -
Signal
On-ramp / Navy Drive PM - -
19. State Route 4 West AM - 46 / D
Signal
Ramps / Navy Drive PM - 36 / D
20. Navy Drive / Tillie AM - 14 / B
Signal
Lewis Drive PM - 25 / C
Notes: Bold indicates unacceptable level of service
Results based on SimTraffic simulation of seven runs.
1. SSS = Side Street Stop. Worst movement delay and LOS reported in
parenthesis () for unsignalized intersections.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2009.
22
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The FTOAR found that the Project would neither improve nor
deteriorate the design year 2035 mainline operations compared to
the No Build Alternative. Under the No Build scenario, all of the
study intersections are anticipated to operate at unacceptable levels
of service (LOS E or worse) during the AM and/or PM peak hour
except for the Charter Way/Port of Stockton Expressway
intersection. Four of the study intersections that operate
unacceptably under the No Build scenario would improve
intersection LOS with the project with three intersections to
acceptable levels:
Fresno Avenue/Hazelton Avenue improves from LOS F to
LOS B (PM peak hour)
Fresno Avenue/Charter Way improves from LOS F to LOS E
(AM peak hour)
Fresno Avenue/Washington Street improves from LOS F to
LOS C (AM peak hour)
El Dorado Street/SR-4 Westbound Ramps improves from LOS
F to LOS E (AM peak hour)
Charter Way/Port of Stockton Expressway improves from LOS
E to LOS A (AM peak hour)
Charter Way/Roberts Road improves from LOS F to LOS D
(AM peak hour)
23
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The SR-4 design designations for the Project are as follows:
TABLE 4.7
DESIGN DESIGNATION
Design Period 2015 to 2035
AADT (Current) 26,000
AADT (2035) 40,700
DHV (2035) 4,070
D 51%
T (AM/PM) 25%/7%
TI (20 years) 13
ESAL (20 years) 19,688,740
Percentage of ADT that are Trucks 13%
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2009.
For additional information regarding the findings and analysis of
current and forecasted traffic operations, please refer to the Final
Traffic Operations Report – State Route 4 West PA/ED.
2. Collision Analysis
Caltrans staff provided accident data for SR-4 and I-5 within the
project study area. This data shows that a total of 245 accidents
were reported on SR-4 from October 1, 2004 to September 30,
2007. Of these, 84 resulted in an injury. On I-5, there were 430
accidents resulting in 126 injuries. Within the project limits, rear
end collisions accounted for nearly 36 percent of the accidents,
with speeding being the primary collision factor. There were no
accidents that resulted in a fatality during the period between 2005
and 2007.
SR-4 has lower overall accident and injury rates than the statewide
average for similar facilities in both directions of travel. Of the 18
ramps studied, six had higher total accident rates than the statewide
average, while five had higher injury rates. I-5 has a higher injury
rate than the statewide average in the northbound direction only,
but a lower overall accident rate in both directions. On I-5, ten of
24
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
the sixteen ramps had higher overall accident rates than state
average, while seven had above average injury rates.
For additional information regarding accident history within the
project study area, please refer to the Final Traffic Operations
Report – State Route 4 West PA/ED.
5. Alternatives
A. Viable Alternatives
The Project proposes to extend the Crosstown Freeway from its current
terminus at Fresno Avenue southwesterly to Navy Drive. The proposed
extension would include approximately 0.5 mile of elevated structure
spanning over the Boggs Tract neighborhood and BNSF Railway,
including Fresno Avenue, West Hazelton Avenue, South Los Angeles
Avenue, Del Norte Street, South Ventura Street and West Scotts Avenue.
At each end of the Project, the elevated structure would be supported by
embankments. The embankment areas are roughly defined as south of the
BNSF Railway to Navy Drive on the west end of the Project, and east of
Fresno Avenue to the Garfield Street Overhead on the east end.
Vehicular access beneath the elevated structure would be provided at
Fresno Avenue, South Los Angeles Avenue, South Ventura Street, and
West Scotts Avenue. Cul-de-sacs would be constructed on Del Norte
Street between West Hazelton Avenue and West Scotts Avenue and on
West Hazelton Avenue between South Los Angeles Avenue and Fresno
Avenue, preventing through access under the proposed elevated structure.
The proposed elevated structures from just west of Del Norte Street to
south side of the BNSF Railway would be viaduct structures supported by
concrete columns. The viaduct structures would vary in width from
approximately 35 to 131 feet and vary in height from approximately 44 to
55 feet above existing ground with its highest point over South Ventura
Avenue and West Scotts Avenue. A fence would be placed below the
viaduct structures to prevent pedestrian access below them. Although there
would be no sidewalks along South Ventura Street or West Scotts Avenue,
as under current conditions, pedestrians would be able to cross under the
viaduct structures at these locations by walking along the roadways.
As noted above, embankments are proposed at both ends of the elevated
structure. The southerly embankment, containing the eastbound on-ramp
and westbound off-ramp, would extend from Navy Drive to the viaduct
structures just south of the BNSF Railway. This embankment, retained by
structural walls, would vary in width from 75 to 110 feet, and in height
from approximately 0 to 44 feet above the existing ground level. The
embankment’s lowest point would be at Navy Drive and would increase in
25
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
height towards the BNSF Railway. The northerly embankment for the
eastbound and westbound mainline from just east of Fresno Avenue to the
Garfield Street Overhead would include sloped embankments and some
structural walls. It would measure approximately 170-feet wide and vary
in height from approximately 0 to 24 feet above the existing ground level
with its highest point just east of Fresno Avenue.
The proposed elevated structure would have four 12-feet wide lanes (2
lanes in each direction). A third lane providing through movement for
eastbound Crosstown Freeway traffic would be reconstructed to begin east
of Fresno Avenue and conform to the existing lane at the Garfield Street
Overhead. The proposed eastbound and westbound mainline would each
have 5-foot wide inside shoulders and 10-foot wide outside shoulders. The
proposed eastbound on-ramp and westbound off-ramp, south of the BNSF
Railway, would each have 4-foot wide inside shoulders and 8-foot wide
outside shoulders. Concrete barriers and railings would be constructed and
placed on both the inside and outside shoulders at the edge of pavement
for the entire length of the elevated structure.
Navy Drive would be slightly realigned from approximately Fresno
Avenue towards the west to the existing BNSF underpass. In the
westbound direction from Fresno Avenue, Navy Drive would be widened
from one lane to two lanes and then to three lanes approaching the new
intersection with the Crosstown Freeway. West of the Crosstown Freeway
intersection, westbound Navy Drive would gradually narrow from three
lanes to two lanes and eventually to one lane at the existing BNSF
underpass. In the eastbound direction, Navy Drive would be widened from
one lane to four lanes from the existing BNSF underpass to the new
intersection with the Crosstown Freeway. East of the Crosstown Freeway
intersection, eastbound Navy Drive would carry two lanes to Tillie Lewis
Drive. East of Tillie Lewis Drive, eastbound Navy Drive would narrow to
one lane as it approaches Fresno Avenue. Both sides of Navy Drive
between the BNSF underpass and Fresno Drive would have shoulders that
could accommodate either a Class II bicycle lane or Class III bicycle
route. Between the SR-4/Navy Drive intersection and Tillie Lewis Drive, a
two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) will be provided allowing flexibility for
driveway access in this area.
The existing T-intersection of Navy Drive/Tillie Lewis Drive would be
slightly realigned to conform to the proposed improvements along Navy
Drive and to meet traffic operational and lane queuing requirements. The
Navy Drive/Tillie Lewis Drive intersection would be signalized with one
through lane and one left-turn lane in the westbound direction; one shared
left/right-turn and one left-turn lane in the northbound direction; and one
right-turn lane and one through lane in the eastbound direction.
26
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The Project would introduce a new signalized T-intersection where the
terminus of the Crosstown Freeway extension connects with Navy Drive.
The new intersection would connect the eastbound on-ramp and
westbound off-ramp with Navy Drive. This intersection would include one
through lane and three left-turn lanes in the eastbound direction; two right-
turn lanes and one left-turn lane in the southbound direction; and two
right-turn lanes and one through lane in the westbound direction.
A new traffic signal is proposed at the currently unsignalized intersection
of Tillie Lewis Drive/West Charter Way intersection. The existing West
Charter Way TWLTL will be converted to a left-turn pocket for eastbound
traffic as it approaches Tillie Lewis Drive from approximately Army
Court to the west. Additionally, a portion of the existing TWLTL in the
westbound direction will be converted to a left-turn pocket. Other than
some minor curb-return widening as well as the aforementioned restriping
and traffic signal improvements, no other modifications are proposed at
this intersection.
Although only one geometric alignment is proposed for the extension of
the Crosstown Freeway, two structural options have been identified for the
elevated structure from just west of Del Norte Street to just east of Fresno
Avenue. The remaining portions of the Crosstown Freeway extension west
of Del Norte Street and east of Fresno Avenue are identical under both
options. These two options are called Alternatives 3A and 3B, and are
described below.
Alternative 3A
Alternative 3A proposes twin viaducts from just west of Del Norte Street
to just east of Fresno Avenue. Under Alternative 3A, the two viaducts are
each 42-feet in width and supported by concrete columns. This alternative
utilizes 39 columns in which eight columns fall within BNSF’s property.
The twin viaducts are separated by approximately 33-feet and vary in
height from approximately 24 to 55 feet above the existing ground. A
fence would be placed below the viaducts along the right-of-way boundary
to prevent pedestrian access below them. Pedestrians would be able to
cross under the viaducts at this location by using the sidewalks along
South Los Angeles Avenue. Sidewalks would be provided on the east side
of Fresno Avenue and along portions of the west side of Fresno Avenue.
For Alternative 3A geometry, see Attachment A. The Advanced Planning
Study (APS) for Alternative 3A was approved on November 30, 2009.
For Alternative 3A’s APS, see Attachment B.
27
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Alternative 3B
Alternative 3B proposes an elevated structure supported by a retained
earth system. The retained embankment, supported by two retaining walls
on the north and south faces of the elevated structure, would measure
approximately 117-feet in width and vary in height from approximately 24
to 55 feet above the existing ground, with its highest point just west of Del
Norte Street and decreasing in height towards Fresno Avenue. This
alternative utilizes 23 columns in which eight columns fall within BNSF’s
property. A fence would be placed below the elevated structure within the
right-of-way boundary to prevent public access. Although there would be
no sidewalks along South Los Angeles Avenue, as under current
conditions, pedestrians would be able to cross under the structure at this
location by walking along the roadway. Sidewalks would be provided on
the east side of Fresno Avenue and along portions of the west side of
Fresno Avenue. For Alternative 3B geometry, see Attachment A. The
Advanced Planning Study (APS) for Alternative 3B was approved on
November 30, 2009. For Alternative 3B’s APS, see Attachment B.
No-Build Alternative
Under the No-Project Alternative, the Crosstown Freeway would not be
extended to the west, and the proposed improvements would not be made
between Fresno Avenue and Navy Drive. Access between I-5 and the Port
would continue in the Boggs Tract neighborhood on Fresno Avenue
between West Washington Street and the existing Crosstown
Freeway/Fresno Avenue/West Hazelton Avenue ramps and on West
Washington Street west of Fresno Avenue. With the planned dredging, the
development of the Port’s West Complex and regional growth, traffic
through Boggs Tract would increase.
1. Proposed Engineering Features
Engineering features including horizontal and vertical alignment,
typical sections, and general geometrics of intersections are
discussed in the previous section. To follow is a brief discussion
of other engineering features that are common or unique to
Alternatives 3A and 3B.
The entire corridor in both alternatives will be access-
controlled right-of-way, with breaks at the intersecting
streets that will maintain traffic including Navy Drive,
West Scotts Avenue/South Ventura Street, South Los
Angeles Avenue, and Fresno Avenue.
28
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
In both alternatives, the on- and off-ramps at Fresno
Avenue would be removed and new on-and off-ramps
would be constructed at Navy Drive. The proposed
westbound off-ramp and eastbound on-ramp run parallel
with each other and terminate at Navy Drive,
approximately 740-feet west of the intersection of Tillie
Lewis Drive and Navy Drive. Both ramps would comprise
the northerly leg of the signalized T-intersection formed at
Navy Drive. Within this parallel segment, the Project has
evaluated and incorporated glare screens that would be
placed along the top of the concrete safety-shaped barrier
(Type 60 and 60C) which segregates the on- and off-ramps
per the recommendation stated in the Caltrans Traffic
Manual, Section 7-04.8 – Glare Screens. The placement of
the glare screens will be further refined during the PS&E
phase which will incorporate additional Caltrans
recommendations and the public’s opinion.
All three signalized intersections, and mainline
improvements in both alternatives, support STAA-Long
truck-turning templates and maneuvers.
Concrete barriers (Type 60 and Type 60C) are used in both
alternatives to separate the ramps. Concrete barriers (Type
736) are used in both alternatives on the viaduct structures
and retaining walls. Double thrie-beam barriers are used in
the median area of Alternative 3B between Del Norte Street
and Fresno Avenue
The proposed improvements noted above will generally
maintain the existing onsite drainage pattern with new
drainage facilities to accommodate the freeway extension.
The Project will add approximately 3.3 acres of additional
impervious area to the existing 6.8 acres impervious area.
Drainage improvements are proposed for the purpose of
conveying the additional runoff introduced by the freeway
extension to ensure that deficiencies of the existing
infrastructure and drainage systems will not be exacerbated
by the Project.
Drainage from the proposed improvements north of the
BNSF railroad corridor will be conveyed via drainage
culverts, roadside ditches, and down drains from the
elevated roadway. From these proposed outfalls, runoff
will be conveyed along a biofiltration swale at ground level
29
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
within Boggs Tract and then into a detention basin located
just west of Fresno Avenue. From the detention basin, flow
will be conveyed into the existing underground drainage
system along Fresno Avenue towards the existing pump
station located at the corner of Fresno Avenue and West
Scotts Avenue which eventually discharges to Mormon
Slough. Given that the peak discharge rate to Mormon
Slough is controlled by the pump station, there will be no
increase in the peak discharge rate the existing outfall.
Drainage from the proposed improvements south of the
BNSF railroad corridor will be conveyed by down drains
from the elevated roadway, similar to the northern
segment. Down drains will discharge to drain lines or
roadside ditches that will convey flow to a stormwater
treatment biofiltration swale. The biofiltration swale will be
located adjacent to the BNSF railroad corridor and will
discharge into a detention basin located in Caltrans right of
way at the northwest corner of the SR-4 westbound off-
ramp and Navy Drive. From this detention basin, flow will
be conveyed to a proposed, underground drainage line
(gravity) along Navy Drive, travelling easterly, towards
Tillie Lewis Drive. This drain line will also receive runoff
from Navy Drive; similar to existing conditions, Navy
Drive will be crowned, however curb and gutter will
replace the existing roadside ditches and swales along
either side of Navy Drive, east of Tillie Lewis Drive to just
west of the Navy Drive/SR-4 Intersection. Proposed
drainage inlets along the curb and gutters will connect to
the proposed drainage culvert running down Navy Drive
and relieve roadway drainage in this segment. Private
properties on the north side of Navy Drive in this area will
also connect to the proposed drainage line, instead of
outfalling to the roadside ditches as existing conditions
permit. A pump (lift) station is proposed at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Tillie Lewis Drive and Navy
Drive and will convey this drainage to the existing roadside
ditch located on the west side of Tillie Lewis Drive. The
pump station is proposed on a utility easement on this
property and will be owned and operated by the City of
Stockton. Gravity drainage systems along Navy Drive
(without a pump station at Tillie Lewis Drive) will be
continually pursued throughout the PA&ED process.
30
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Comparable to current conditions, drainage just west of the
Navy Drive/SR-4 Intersection, adjacent to COS-MUD, will
be intercepted by a network of curb and gutters, inlets, and
culverts that ultimately connect to the treatment plant.
East of Tillie Lewis Drive, the existing roadside ditch on
the north side of Navy Drive will remain. Operational and
unaffected by the roadway widening, the ditch will
continue to flow westerly along Navy Drive until crossing
beneath Navy Drive to the existing roadside ditch located
on the west side of Tillie Lewis Drive. The Navy Drive
roadside crossing currently consists of twin 18-inch
diameter lines that cross over the sewer line and discharge
to a roadside ditch on the west side of Tillie Lewis Drive.
The sewer line that runs east to west on the south side of
Navy Drive, transitions from a 72-inch diameter sewer line
to an 84-inch diameter sewer line at a manhole located at
the crown of Tillie Lewis Drive. The existing culverts that
cross the 84-inch diameter sewer line will be abandoned
and the headwall in the roadside ditch shall be slightly
shifted to the east. The proposed drainage culverts crossing
Navy Drive will be realigned toward the south over the 72-
inch diameter segment of the sewer line, allowing the
placement of shallow concrete box culverts to be used to
convey flow. Once the culverts cross Navy Drive and span
the 72-inch sewer line, the culverts will turn due-west
across Tillie Lewis Drive to the existing outfall location
along the existing westerly roadside ditch.
The existing roadside ditch and culverts on the west side of
Tillie Lewis Drive will also remain operational and
unaffected by the proposed project improvements and will
ultimately convey all drainage into the existing pump
station that discharges into the San Joaquin River located
adjacent to West Charter Way just east of the San Joaquin
River. Given that the peak discharge rate to the San Joaquin
River is controlled by the San Joaquin River Pump Station,
there will be no increase in the peak discharge rate to the
existing outfall. A Regional Drainage study will be
conducted to demonstrate that, with proposed detention,
there is no increase in water levels along the system of
culverts and ditches upstream of the San Joaquin River
Pump Station at Charter Way.
31
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
For additional information regarding the proposed drainage
concepts, please refer to the Preliminary Drainage Report
– State Route 4 Crosstown Freeway Project, dated August
2009.
32
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
2. Nonstandard Mandatory and Advisory Design Features
The project will be designed in accordance to the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual – Sixth Edition (HDM). The proposed
alternative has no nonstandard mandatory design features,
however, includes two nonstandard advisory design features that
are listed in Table 5.1.
TABLE 5.1
NONSTANDARD DESIGN FEATURES
Proposed Advisory Standard
HDM 202.5(1) – Superelevation
A 200-foot superelevation runoff is Transition General – A
provided between “NA” Sta. Superelevation transition should
A1 870+51.67 and Sta. 872+51.67, be designed in accordance with
and does not conform to the one- the diagram and tabular data
third/two-third runoff distribution. shown in the Figure 202.5A to
satisfy the requirements of
safety, comfort and pleasing
appearance.
HDM 202.5(2) - Superelevation
A 167-foot superelevation runoff is Transition Runoff – Two-thirds of
provided between “NA2” Sta. the superelevation runoff should
A2 886+13.09 and Sta. 887+46.43, be on the tangent and one-third
and does not conform to the one- within the curve.
third/two-third runoff distribution.
Antonette Clark, HQ Design Reviewer, reviewed the Fact Sheet
Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards on November 16, 2009,
and was in concurrence with the proposed design exceptions. Mark
Orr, Traffic Engineering Reviewer was in concurrence with the
proposed design exceptions on December 17, 2009. The Fact Sheet
Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards was approved on
December 24, 2009. For more information regarding the
nonstandard design features, please refer to the Revised Fact Sheet
Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards, dated November 2009.
33
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
3. Interim Features
There are no interim features proposed in this Project.
4. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) (Bus and Carpool) Lanes
The project proposes single-occupancy vehicle lanes only and
HOV lanes are not proposed. However, HOV lane conversion or
implementation in the future is not precluded.
5. Ramp Metering
Ramp metering at the ramps is not proposed for this project.
6. California Highway Patrol (CHP) Enforcement Areas
CHP enforcement areas are not proposed for this Project.
7. Park and Ride Facilities
Park and ride facilities are not proposed for this Project.
8. Utility and Other Owner Involvement
Coordination with utility companies began with requests for as-
built mapping and record data and was submitted to the following
utility companies:
City of Stockton – Sanitary Sewer
Pacific Gas & Electric – Gas, Electricity
Comcast – Cable Television/Communications
AT&T – Telephone/Communications
California Water Service – Water
Kinder Morgan – Petroleum
Since the proposed extension will be elevated, utility conflicts
were primarily identified with subsurface utilities and the locations
of proposed structural or footing locations for walls, embankments
and column foundations. Additional conflicts were identified with
overhead utilities and the elevated viaduct, as well as widening
improvements along local City and County streets.
Determination of liability associated with utility relocations is
primarily anticipated to be a 50%/50% split between the State and
34
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
the utility owner under preexisting freeway master agreements. In
some instances, the costs for relocation will be 100% utility owner
when the facility in question is currently within State right-of-way
under an encroachment permit. Existing municipal utilities in City
or County streets (i.e. sewer) fall under California Streets and
Highway Code and relocation costs will be 100% State.
In some instances, the Project is proposing to leave existing
utilities in place within Caltrans proposed access-controlled right-
of-way. This will result in existing and new transverse, and in
some instances, longitudinal utility encroachments within State
right-of-way. Provided the utilities are not in conflict with the
proposed roadway or structural improvements and meet Caltrans
Policy on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities within
Highway Rights of Way, an Exception to Caltrans Encroachment
Policy will be sought through the District and Division of Design
(DOD) Chief.
Notices to owners (verification) were submitted in September and
October 2009. A Draft Longitudinal Utility Encroachment
Exception (LUEE) Report was submitted to Caltrans in November
2009 and will be approved or resolved before the Final Project
Report (FPR).
9. Railroad Involvement
Proposed improvements within the railroad right-of-way, including
structural concept of the viaducts, was coordinated with both
BNSF and CCTC officials to ensure project compliance with
railroad design standards and requirements. Additional issues such
as permanent and temporary (construction) design standards, work
windows for construction staging purposes, right-of-way
acquisitions, and future BNSF projects were discussed to identify
potential issues and have been developed and considered in the
Advance Planning Study (APS)
As shown on Exhibit 4-EX-6 in the Right-of-Way Data Sheet (See
Attachment E), the district railroad liaison has concurred that a
Construction and Management (C&M) Agreement and Service
Agreement (covering Design and Construction), will be required to
clear the project. Furthermore, both temporary (construction) and
permanent (foundation) easements will be needed for right-of-way
needs to place the viaduct structures in the BNSF corridor.
35
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
10. Highway Planting
New highway and replacement planting will be required for this
project per Caltrans policy (Project Development Procedures
Manual, Chapter 29 – Landscape Architecture) and as prescribed
in the Environmental Document regarding mitigation for visual
impacts associated with project construction. All highway planting
will include a three-year Plant Establishment Period (PEP). The
estimated cost estimate for the new highway planting will exceed
$200,000; therefore, proposed highway planting will be performed
under a separate contract. Both the parent (highway) contract and
the separate highway planting contract are programmed and funded
through the same TCIF, Measure K and RTIF funds identified in
the TCIF Baseline Agreement (See Section 8, Programming, for
additional information). The separate planting contract will be
awarded within two years after the parent Highway Construction
contract is accepted.
Landscaping is proposed within the Boggs Tract Area of the
project, primarily between Fresno Avenue and Ventura Avenue.
Landscaping will be provided within Caltrans right-of-way behind
a 6-foot high chain link fence. A maintenance road (composed of
aggregate base or paved hot mix asphalt (HMA) to access the
landscaping areas, is proposed for both Alternatives 3A and 3B.
Seventy-five percent of the species composition of planted areas
shall reflect species that are native and indigenous to the Plan Area
and California, and under no circumstances will any invasive plant
species be used at this location. Use of native species promotes a
visual character of California that is being lost through
development and reliance on non-native ornamental plant species.
Native plant species can be used to create attractive spaces, high in
aesthetic quality, that are also drought-tolerant.
The irrigation system shall be a Remote Irrigation Control System
(RICS). The RICS shall utilize smart watering technologies that
evaluate existing site conditions and plant material against real-
time weather conditions, to avoid over-watering and reduce overall
water usage. In addition, the RICS shall have the capacity to
detect system abnormalities, the capability to shut off water flow to
damaged or broken equipment and the ability to alert maintenance
personnel to the specific problem and location for quick and
efficient response.
36
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Alternative 3A proposes landscaping strips located on the outside
of the viaduct structures’ footprint and adjacent to the chain link
fence, for a width of approximately 15-feet. It is assumed that no
landscaping will be located underneath the viaduct. The total
amount of landscaped area for Alternative 3A is approximately 2.9
acres. A maintenance road shall be located between the viaduct
structures, and will provide ample access to the landscaping areas
on either side of the viaduct structures.
Alternative 3B proposes a 15-foot buffer between the retaining
wall or toe of slope and chain link fence. Adjacent to the fence
would be a 5-foot wide landscaping strip and a 10-foot wide
maintenance road. Landscaping is also proposed along the
retaining wall embankment areas, between the retaining wall and
maintenance road. The total coverage of landscaped area for
Alternative 3B is approximately 3.6 acres.
Landscaping will be provided on embankment side-slopes in both
alternatives including the embankments east of Fresno Avenue
along the north and south side of SR-4. Landscaping is also
proposed in Caltrans right of way at the southeast corner of Los
Angeles Street and Hazelton Avenue in both alternatives.
Locked access gates will be provided to secure the area and
provide ingress/egress for Caltrans maintenance. Gates would be
located at the local roads (Fresno Avenue, South Los Angeles
Avenue, Ventura Avenue, and West Scotts Avenue) as well as the
cul-de-sacs at Del Norte Street and West Hazelton Avenue. From
the chain link gates at the local roads, there should be no plantings
for 40 to 50 feet, to avoid maintenance issues associated with
access and errant vehicles.
11. Erosion Control/NPDES Storm Water
The Project will comply with Caltrans Storm Water Management
Plan (SWMP). The SWMP requires the project to comply with the
Caltrans statewide National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit (MS4 Phase I and/or II). Coordination
with the Central Valley (Region 5) Regional Water Control Board
(RWCB), County of San Joaquin, and City of Stockton will
continue through the design phase to discuss storm water quality
issues and the application of the appropriate design pollution
prevention, treatment, and construction site Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for temporary and permanent controls.
37
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
All disturbed soils within the project limits will receive the
appropriate temporary and permanent erosion control measures in
accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications. Native
perennial hydroseed mix shall be applied at all locations planned
for plantings that have exposed soil and steep slopes, to prevent
soil erosion, reduce water pollution, and help preserve the existing
landscape character. Construction site temporary BMPs will be
proposed by the contractor and approved by Caltrans through a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
A Draft Storm Water Data Report (SWDR), dated August 2009,
was prepared for the PA&ED phase for this project summarizing
the actions required to comply with the NPDES permit. The final
PA&ED SWDR will be processed and included as an attachment
in the FPR. The SWDR will continue to be developed and updated
as the project proceeds into the PS&E phase.
12. Noise Barriers
The State Route 4 Crosstown Freeway Extension Project - Noise
Study Report (NSR), dated August 2009, was prepared to evaluate
noise impacts and mitigation under the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The NSR was
approved by Allam Alhabaly and Gail Miller at Caltrans Central
Region, in November 2009.
The NSR has been prepared in general conformance with the
Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway
Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit barrier Projects
(Protocol) (California Department of Transportation 2006). This
Protocol also provides Caltrans policy of implementing Title 23,
Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772). Per
this Protocol, the NSR defines single-family and multifamily home
residences, places of worship, and school outdoor areas as Activity
Category B land uses and commercial and industrial areas in the
study area as Activity Category C uses.
A field noise investigation was conducted to describe and
document existing noise conditions. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model Version
2.5 was used in this analysis to evaluate traffic noise conditions for
existing and design-year conditions.
Under design-year with the Project, substantial increases in noise
levels are predicted for Activity Category B land uses in the study
38
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
area. Therefore, significant noise impacts are predicted to occur
under CEQA. Because noise impacts are predicted to result from
implementation of the Project, consideration of noise mitigation is
required.
Noise barriers along the future Crosstown Freeway alignment were
evaluated for Activity Category B land uses to the north and south
of the Project. The analysis found that at land uses exposed to
substantial increases in noise under CEQA, a maximum of 4 dB of
noise reduction could be achieved by a barrier design with a height
of 14-feet. This is less than the 5 dB minimum noise reduction
required for noise mitigation to be considered feasible. Therefore,
noise impacts at Activity Category B land uses predicted to result
from implementation of the Project are considered significant and
unavoidable. Table 5.2 summarizes traffic noise impact
conclusions under CEQA.
TABLE 5.2
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS UNDER CEQA
Number of Activity Category B Dwelling Units
North of South of South of
CEQA Impact Crosstown Crosstown Crosstown
Freeway West of Freeway West of Freeway East of
Fresno Avenue Fresno Avenue Fresno Avenue
Exposed to
Significant
Impacts 32 10 0
Exposed to less-
than-significant
impacts with a 0 0 0
14-foot barrier as
mitigation
Exposed to
significant and
unavoidable 32 10 0
impacts
Source: Jones & Stokes Associates, 2009.
Although noise mitigation in the form of noise barriers is not
considered feasible as defined in the Protocol, other measures,
such as installation of sound-insulating windows and doors in
individual buildings, may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Typically, noise mitigation of this type is designed to provide at
least 5 dB of indoor noise reduction, but this goal may not be
39
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
achievable in all cases. Forced air ventilation systems in
individual dwelling units may be considered on a case-by-case
basis also.
Although the implementation of these measures would benefit
residents by reducing interior noise, they would not reduce
significant traffic noise impacts to a less-than-significant level, and
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
13. Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features
The Project incorporates non-motorized and pedestrian features at
Navy Drive and Fresno Avenue. The improvements at Navy Drive
include a 5-foot wide shoulder along both sides of Navy Drive,
sufficient for a Class II or III bicycle route. The improvements
along Fresno Avenue and South Los Angeles Avenue include a 5-
foot wide sidewalk along both sides of the roadway that pass
beneath the Project. A portion of a 5’ wide sidewalk along Navy
Drive, in front of the COS-MUD facility, will be replaced. Curb
ramps that are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible
and compliant, will be installed as required along the proposed
sidewalks.
14. Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading
A majority of the existing roadways within the project limits will
be removed or widened. Widening along Navy Drive, Tillie Lewis
Drive, and the local street improvements within the Boggs Tract
neighborhood will either conform to existing pavement structural
sections or be constructed to meet the appropriate TI and R values
of the preliminary geotechnical report. Further analysis of existing
pavement at these roadway locations will be required during the
PS&E phase in order to determine pavement structural section and
whether roadway rehabilitation is needed.
A preliminary geotechnical report prepared in the PSR was
revalidated for this PA&ED. For SR-4 mainline improvements
outside of the viaduct areas, an R-value of 15 was assumed since
the pavement structural section will be primarily built on new or
existing embankment sections. Both rigid and flexible pavement
sections were provided based on this R-value, as well as the
various TI values provided by the Engineer. For additional
information, see the revised Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Crosstown Connector, dated November 2009 by Parikh
Consultants Inc.
40
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
For the SR-4 freeway extension, as well as the proposed SR-
4/Navy Drive intersection, a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
was prepared and approved in November 2009 The report
determined a Rigid Pavement Design - Jointed Plain Concrete
Pavement (40-year) resulted to be the most cost effective option
for the rehabilitation program with a Total Life Cycle Analysis
Cost of $6,396,700. In comparison, a Flexible Pavement Design –
Hot Mix Asphalt w/ Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (20-Year) has a
Total Life Cycle Analysis Cost of $7,678,870. For more
information, please refer to the SR-4 Crosstown Freeway
Extension Project Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary
Memorandum, dated November 2009; an LCCA summary form is
provided in Attachment K.
15. Needed Structure Rehabilitation and Upgrading
The Project does not impact any existing structures within the
project limits; therefore, structure rehabilitation and upgrading will
not be required.
41
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
16. Cost Estimates
The estimated costs associated with Alternatives 3A and 3B are
presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. Construction costs
represented in the tables are based on the Preliminary Cost
Estimates Summary for each alternative which are included in
Attachment D. Right-of-way costs presented in the preliminary
cost estimates summary, including utility relocations, are based on
the Right-of-Way Data Sheet found in Attachment E.
TABLE 5.3
ALTERNATIVE 3A
PRELIMNARY CONSTRUCTION AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST ESTIMATE
Project Component Current Cost1
Roadway Items $ 32,327,000
Structure Items $ 67,780,000
Right-of-Way/Utilities $ 19,876,000
Total $ 119,983,000
1
Current cost is in 2009 dollars.
TABLE 5.4
ALTERNATIVE 3B
PRELIMNARY CONSTRUCTION AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST ESTIMATE
Project Component Current Cost1
Roadway Items $ 42,991,000
Structure Items $ 63,139,000
Right-of-Way/Utilities $ 19,876,000
Total $ 126,006,000
1
Current cost is in 2009 dollars.
42
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The cost estimates presented are values based on current
information which is preliminary in nature. Risks include the
fluctuating price of crude oil, steel, paving asphalt, and concrete
which can influence the estimate on large projects. Other risks
include the estimated cost of environmental mitigation which
depends on mitigation performed; the potential for contaminated
groundwater and/or soil which will be determined in the final
design phase; and the escalation rate which could increase
depending on the state of the economy.
17. Right-of-Way Data
Currently, the Project will require full and partial acquisition of 49
and 14 properties, respectively. The majority of the parcels north
of the BNSF railroad are residential homes within Boggs Tract.
South of the railroad, the impacted parcels are
commercial/industrial businesses. The project alignment was
designed to minimize impacts to all local residents and business.
Ingress and egress patterns for the local roads will be altered to
accommodate the freeway extension. Within Boggs Tract, Del
Norte Street and West Hazelton Avenue will be modified into cul-
de-sacs. On Navy Drive, many driveways will be restricted to
right-turn in and right-turn out movements due to the roadway
modifications to accommodate the SR-4 ramps terminus and
forecasted traffic volumes. Between the SR-4/Navy Drive
intersection and Tillie Lewis Drive, a two-way left turn lane
(TWLTL) will be provided allowing flexibility for driveway access
in this area. A utility easement for the proposed pump (lift)
station located on the southeast corner of Tillie Lewis Drive and
Navy Drive will be necessary. Additionally, the relocation of gas,
water, sewer, electrical, telephone, cable television, and joint
utility facilities will be necessary to accommodate the proposed
project. During construction, temporary construction easements
(TCEs) will be necessary within the BNSF railroad corridor and a
few adjacent parcels north and south of the railway. A Right-of-
Way Data Sheet, which covers both Alternatives 3A and 3B, was
prepared for this project and is included in Attachment E.
B. Rejected Alternatives
As discussed previously under Project History, two alternatives which met
the need and purpose of the Project’s supplemental PSR or PA&ED were
studied, but rejected:
Alternative 1, included in the Project’s Supplemental PSR, and
Alternative 2, a variation of Alternative 1.
43
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The following criteria were considered in developing and screening these
two alternative geometric alignments:
ability to meet the project’s purpose and need;
traffic operations;
engineering feasibility related to meeting jurisdictional standards
and safety constructability of the proposed design;
cost of construction;
impacts on BNSF railroad operations;
long-term maintenance requirements;
creation of operational or safety problems;
adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts;
previously rejected at an earlier stage such the regional planning;
and/or
a combination of reasons listed above that, when considered
together with other criteria, present a compelling reason to reject
an alternative.
Although Alternatives 1 and 2 meet the Project’s need and purpose, they
have been eliminated from further evaluation and discussion since they
have greater impacts than Alternative 3 (Project) related to prohibitive
construction costs; adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts;
and operational and safety problems.
Due to the current alignment of the Crosstown Freeway and its terminus at
Fresno Avenue, Alternatives 1 and 2 (as well as Alternative 3) included
the same alignment through Boggs Tract. These alternatives included
different alignments for the portion of the Project south of the BNSF
Railway, but with the exception of the locations and lane configurations of
the ramp intersections, the widening improvements along Navy Drive,
West Charter Way, and Tillie Lewis Drive were roughly comparable.
6. Considerations Requiring Discussion
A. Hazardous Waste
A Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was prepared by Parikh
Consultants, Inc. in November 2007 for this project during the Project
Initiation Document (PID) phase to identify the potential for the following
hazardous materials to be present within the project vicinity.
Subsequently, an update and revalidation of the Phase I ISA document
was prepared by Geocon in October 2009 and approved by Caltrans for
the PA&ED phase focusing on the new limits
44
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The ISA that was documented in November 2007 concluded the
following:
Surface soil samplings for aerially deposited lead (ADL) should be
conducted adjacent to roadways proposed for construction activities.
Asbestos and lead-containing paint (LCP) surveys should be
performed prior to demolition of residential and industrial buildings
proposed for right-of-way acquisition.
Soil sampling for pesticides, arsenic, mercury, and herbicides should
be conducted on and south of the BNSF railroad tracks that may be
impacted during the construction project.
If construction activities are proposed at current or former auto
dismantlers properties, surface soils should be sampled for metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and solvents.
Caltrans should be sensitive to remedial progress currently underway
at the Koppel Stockton Terminal facility (located at West Scotts
Avenue and Ventura Avenue).
Surface soils adjacent to the electrical transformers near the BNSF
railroad bridge over Navy Drive should be sampled for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The results of the approved Phase I ISA indicated that properties slated for
full and/or partial acquisition within the project environmental study area
(ESA), require further evaluation for potential hazardous waste that could
impact the design and construction of the project. The Project will require
right-of-way acquisition and further potential contaminated property
evaluations, to determine impact on project costs, potential responsible
party liability, and soil and groundwater material management and
remediation during construction. From a hazardous waste and associated
cost perspective, the updated ISA identified potential contaminated
properties that should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, additional
environmental inquiry (parcel owner interviews/private parcel
survey/document disclosure) and preliminary site investigations should be
performed to further evaluate potential and documented environmental
impairments within the proposed project boundaries. The following
conclusions and actions for further-testing were noted and recommended
in the updated Phase I ISA:
ADL may be present in shallow soil within the unpaved shoulders
and median in the existing SR-4 right-of-way and along the
unpaved surface street shoulders within the ESA. An ADL study
should be performed to determine lead levels in planned
excavation areas and associated soil material management and
disposal requirement.
45
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Documented groundwater contamination associated with
underground storage tank fuel releases and facility operations were
identified in the ISA update on three facilities located at and in the
vicinity of the project ESA that have the potential to impact the
groundwater in the vicinity of the planned improvement project.
Further evaluation of the groundwater quality and depth within the
project ESA was recommended and should be based on planned
construction de-watering disposal options and potential exposure
of workers to contaminated media.
Some properties proposed for full or partial acquisition are either
currently or have had a history of use for agricultural purposes and
residual agricultural chemicals may be present in soils at these
properties. Additionally, BNSF railroad tracks bisect the project
ESA. Potential accidental releases or impacts from current railroad
construction and historical operations (e.g., ballast and herbicide
weed control) may have impacted the BNSF right-of-way within
the project ESA.
Structures present on properties proposed for full acquisition may
contain asbestos-containing materials and LCP. An asbestos and
LCP survey must first be conducted at buildings proposed for
demolition as part of the improvement project to satisfy San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District requirements
(asbestos) and demolition waste disposal characterization (asbestos
and lead).
Potential petroleum hydrocarbon impacts to soil from historical
operation of the Kinder Morgan Energy petroleum pipeline should
be evaluated for construction work at this location. Kinder Morgan
Energy should be notified in advance of any planned excavation at
or near the petroleum pipeline adjacent to the railroad spur
bisecting Navy Drive or railroad right-of-way within project ESA.
The results of the site reconnaissance, historical and regulatory file
research, and prior field investigations have indicated the potential
presence of closed Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) at and near
the properties proposed for full and partial acquisition. If
encountered during construction, undocumented USTs, septic
systems and domestic/agricultural/oil wells should be properly
removed or abandoned in accordance with San Joaquin County
requirements.
Although not required, the PDT has chosen to proceed with a Phase II ISA
at specific locations to minimize potential risks and costs to the project.
46
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Site investigations will be performed along the roadway shoulders of an
existing segment of Navy Drive, and at specific industrial and railroad
properties within the project limits. Post site field investigation and
analysis, a soil and groundwater site investigation report will be prepared
to present the background information, field observations, laboratory data,
data evaluation, and conclusions.
B. Value Analysis
The PDT will conduct a formal Value Analysis (VA) Study after approval
of the DPR/DED and prior to the submittal of the FPR/FED.
C. Resource Conservation
The proposed project will improve traffic operations both to and from the
Port of Stockton, from SR-4 and I-5. As a byproduct, traffic operations
within the Boggs Tract neighborhood, are also improved. The lessening
of congestion and related traffic delay is associated with faster average
travel speeds and more efficient vehicle operation compared to No Build
conditions. Improved operations are likely to reduce emissions (air
quality) as well as vehicle energy use, whether in the form of petroleum
fuels or alternative sources of energy. It is anticipated that this project will
have a beneficial or, in worse case, a neutral effect on direct energy use.
Also related to resource conservation, air quality, and energy use, is the
SR-4 ramp profile. Reduced from 5% to 4% in the eastbound SR-4
direction, the moderated ascending slope will benefit both truck traffic
from the Port of Stockton, as well as other vehicles using the facility.
Other than asphalt concrete (AC) or JPCP on the existing SR-4 on and off-
ramps at Fresno Avenue, there are no major facilities that can be salvaged,
relocated, recycled, or reused from this project. Both AC or JPCP shall be
removed, recycled, and stockpiled for use on this project, or other State
projects. In the event that mechanically stabilized embankment (MSE)
walls are used for the retaining walls in the Project, recycled materials will
not be permitted for use in as MSE backfill. However, wherever possible,
other existing roadway items such as signs, overhead sign structure/panels,
electroliers, guardrails, and other associated hardware can be relocated,
reused, or stockpiled to be used at a later date.
Due to the import nature of this project and its proposed structures,
embankment material (including ADL) can be accepted from this and
other projects and will facilitate resource conservation. Similarly, other
reused or recycled products, such as the aforementioned recycled AC, AB,
and rubberized hot mix asphalt can be used during construction to
minimize the consumption, destruction, and disposal of nonrenewable
resources.
47
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
D. Right-of-Way Issues
The project will require both partial and full right-of-way acquisitions for
the extension of the SR-4 Crosstown Freeway. The freeway shall be
access-control right-of-way with breaks beneath the raised structure for
the local streets (Fresno Ave, South Los Angles Ave, and West Scotts
Ave/Ventura Ave), driveways (along Fresno Ave), and alleyways (Fresno
Ave) that are proposed to remain open for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle
traffic. The intersection of SR-4 and Navy Drive shall also be access-
control right-of-way meeting the minimum separation requirements for
adjacent driveways or roadways at an intersection.
Right-of-way for easements (both temporary and permanent) has been
assessed on the various properties. Permanent foundation easements in
BNSF’s right-of-way will be required for the foundations and columns
spanning the railroad tracks. Additionally, temporary construction
easements have been identified in the BNSF corridor. The rights for an
aerial easement (over BNSF) will be covered as part of their encroachment
permit to Caltrans. A construction and maintenance agreement, through
BNSF, will need to be developed and executed between BNSF and
Caltrans to address these right-of-way requirements in their corridor.
New or displaced utility easements, if required, will be a function of utility
coordination, verification, and notice to relocate, which is currently
ongoing.
Right-of-way data sheets and exhibits have been prepared based on the
scope of work described in the previous sections and the plans provided in
this project report. The right-of-way needs are the same for both
Alternatives 3A and 3B. For additional information, see Attachment E,
Right-of-Way Data Sheet.
The approved Relocation Impact Report (RIR), dated November 2009
found that the Project would result in 49 full parcel acquisitions that would
displace up to 36 single-family residential units; one duplex residential
units (a total of two residences); and six nonresidential uses (one
convenience store, two auto salvage businesses, one bulk sugar
transportation business, one truck washing company, and machine
equipment and parts business). The proposed project would also require
up to 14 partial acquisitions of other nonresidential parcels, resulting in a
loss of parking spaces and storage space for businesses. However, based
on preliminary engineering drawings, it is expected that the loss of parking
and storage at these businesses would not result in relocation of the
businesses. All relocation activities would be conducted in accordance
with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Relocation resources will be available
48
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
to all displacees without discrimination. For additional information,
please refer to the approved Relocation Impact Report, dated November
2009.
Although the project is not located in an area of high land value, due to the
nature of the improvements (raised viaduct structures), there is an inherent
opportunity and potential for future airspace leases. Specifically, in the
vicinity of the businesses located along Navy Drive, the profile for both
alternatives offers approximately 35 to 45 feet of vertical clearance
between the bridge soffit and original ground and is therefore compatible
for airspace lease areas for parking and storage. Similarly, with the
contiguous viaduct concept proposed in Alternative 3A, the areas between
Fresno Avenue, South Los Angeles Avenue, and West Scotts
Avenue/Ventura Avenue) offer significant vertical clearance on the order
of 22 to 55 feet between the viaduct soffit and existing ground. There
have been no discussions with private or public (local agency) entities and
their willingness to financially commit for added costs that may be
required. Currently – these areas are proposed to be fenced off and
accessible only by Caltrans and their maintenance workers, however, the
areas in these vicinities can easily be modified (during design or after) to
address the needs and requirements associated with future airspace leases.
E. Environmental Issues
The draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared in
accordance with Caltrans environmental procedures, as well as State and
Federal environmental regulations. The attached DEIR is the appropriate
document for the proposal and can be found in Attachment C.
The following environmental reports and technical studies have been
prepared in support of the DEIR:
Historical Resources Compliance Report/Historical Resources
Evaluation Report (HRCR/HRER)
Natural Environmental Study (NES)
Relocation Impact Report (RIR)
Visual Resources Technical Report (VRT)
Paleontological Identification Report (PIR)
Noise Study Report (NSR)
Community Impact Assessment (CIA)
Water Quality and Hydrology Report (WQR)
Air Quality Study Report (AQR)
Draft Storm Water Data Report
Draft Preliminary Drainage Report
Initial Site Assessment Phase 1 (ISA)
49
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Preliminary Geotechnical Report (PGR)
Major potential impacts from alternatives and “mitigation” measures to
reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level for the Project
are discussed in the DEIR Summary and Section 3.3, Mitigation Measures
for Significant Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act.
In some instances, impacts will remain significant and avoidable even
with implementation of the mitigation measures identified. However, all
mitigation measures committed to in the DEIR will be incorporated into
the Project. For additional information, see DEIR in Attachment C.
F. Air Quality Conformity
Each project alternative is fully compatible with the design concept and
scope described in the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as well
as the current Federal Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(FRTIP) which the regional agency has determined to conform to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality.
G. Title VI Considerations
Based on the DEIR, all considerations under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and related statutes have been included in the project.
The proposed project has no potential to cause disproportionately high and
adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations.
Transportation benefits of the proposed project would accrue to all area
residents and businesses.
Areas of improvements, in which pedestrians have full access, will be
fully ADA accessible and compliant.
Noise impacts would be distributed evenly through the project area, and
they would not be concentrated in any area of minority or low-income
residents.
H. Noise Abatement Decision Report Section
Given the Project is not federally funded; a Noise Abatement Decision
Report (NADR) is not required.
50
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
7. Other Considerations as Appropriate
A. Public Hearing Process
A public information meeting was held in October 2009 to present
Alternatives 3A and 3B for public comment. Additionally, as mentioned
previously, upon the approval of the DEIR, an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting is required and will be provided as part of the 45-day
public review and comment period for the DEIR. The public review period
and public hearing is tentatively scheduled for late January of 2010.
B. Route Matters
SR-4 is currently an access-controlled facility which ends at Fresno
Avenue. The Project will be access-controlled for the entire extension
from Fresno Avenue to Navy Drive, with breaks permitted for local roads
passing beneath the raised freeway section, including Fresno Avenue,
South Los Angeles Avenue, and West Scotts Avenue/Ventura Avenue.
A Freeway Agreement, dated July 16, 1968, for State Route 4 exists
between Caltrans, City of Stockton and San Joaquin County. This
agreement that adopts an additional portion of Route 4, declares that “the
section of State Highway Route 4 (formerly Route 75) in San Joaquin
County, Road 10-SJ-4, between Wilhoit Road and Route 99 (formerly
Route 4) to be a freeway.” This agreement also identifies three
interchanges at Fresno Avenue, Navy Drive, and Charter Way. As part
of this project and its improvements, the freeway agreement will need to
be revised (superseded or replaced), to update the limits of the route
adoption of SR-4 and eliminate the interchange at Fresno Avenue, with
Caltrans, City, and County consensus. All other Project components are in
compliance with the current Freeway Agreement, including the
interchange at Navy Drive since the Chapter 27 of the HDM (New Public
Road Connection) states “When an original Freeway Agreement is
executed to cover the route adoption, staged construction with an interim
at-grade intersection is permissible until high traffic volumes, safety, or
other factors justify construction of the interchange.”
Although parts of the existing SR-4 corridor (ramps) east of Fresno
Avenue will be removed, the existing facility will be retained and no
additional costs or proposed action associated with relinquishment is
required.
C. Permits
The Project will require the following permits as outlined in Table 7.1.
51
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
TABLE 7.1
ANTICIPATED PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED
Agency Approval or Permit
Regional Water Quality Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 303 and 402
Control Board (Central of the Clean Water Act; National Pollutant Discharge
Valley – Region 5) Elimination System Permit (MS4 Phase I and/or II) for
discharge of storm water into surface waterways under the
Clean Water Act; include contractor’s preparation of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
County of San Joaquin Encroachment permits for areas within Boggs Tract.
City of Stockton Encroachment permits for areas along Navy Drive, Fresno
Avenue, and Tillie Lewis Drive.
Burlington Northern Santa Encroachment permits for improvements in the railroad
Fe Railway corridor.
D. Cooperative Agreements
The Project Baseline Agreement, effective July 1, 2008, was made by and
between the California Transportation Commission, Caltrans, and SJCOG.
This agreement documents the inclusion of the SR-4 Crosstown Freeway
Extension within the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) based on
the project’s cost, schedule, scope, and benefits.
A matching funding commitment for the TCIF Project, Resolution #R-08-
39, was issued by SJCOG on June 26, 2008. This agreement resolved that
SJCOG commits to pay for the $96,820,000 matching requirement for the
TCIF Project, Western Extension of the Crosstown Freeway in accordance
with the TCIF Baseline Agreement and Funding Plan for this project,
including $93,820,000 in Measure K funds and $3,000,000 in Regional
Transportation Impact Fee Funds.
A Cooperative Agreement between Caltrans, SJCOG, and the City
covering the PA&ED phase was executed in June 2008. A draft
executable cooperative agreement for both right-of-way and design
(PS&E) phases has been drafted by SJCOG and Caltrans; a copy is
included in Attachment G. The Cooperative Agreement outlines the
obligations and responsibilities of Caltrans and SJCOG. A Construction
Cooperative Agreement will be drafted and executed between SJCOG and
Caltrans prior to the construction of the project.
52
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
E. Other Agreements
New or revised maintenance agreements and/or freeway maintenance
agreements will certainly be required between Caltrans, County of San
Joaquin and City of Stockton due to the extension of SR-4 and its impacts
to the existing County and City streets.
Furthermore, new agreements, including a construction and maintenance
(C&M) agreement, will be required between Caltrans and BNSF for the
improvements within the railroad corridor. Although CCTC’s spur lines
fall within BNSF’s corridor, a similar C&M agreement may be required
between Caltrans and CCTC/Port of Stockton.
Other agreements, such as freeway master agreements (utility companies)
and City/County freeway agreements (previously discussed under Route
Matters) may be required.
F. Involvement with a Navigable Waterway
There are no navigable waterways within the project limits.
G. Transportation Management Plan for Use during Construction
A request for a transportation management plan (TMP) and lane
requirement charts was made to Caltrans District 10. An approved TMP
checklist and lane closure charts were prepared by Caltrans Traffic
Management in July 2009 and a copy is included in Attachment I.
53
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The following list is a summary of the general requirements of the TMP:
Public Information Strategies
- Brochures and Mailers
- Media Resources
- Public Meetings
- Notification to Impacted Groups
- Caltrans Public Information Office
Traveler Information Strategies
- Changeable Message Signs (Portable)
- Traveler Information Systems (CHIN/Internet)
- Bicycle Community Information
Incident Management
- Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program
(COZEEP)
- Traffic Surveillance Stations
- On-site Traffic Advisor
Construction Strategies
- Delay Damage Clause
- Night Work
- Planned Lane and Ramp Closures
- Total Facility Closure
- Project Phasing
- Truck Traffic Restrictions
- Reduced Lane Widths
- Temporary Railing (Type K)
- Traffic Control Improvements
Constructions Strategies
- Contingency Plans
- Coordination with Adjacent Construction
- Double Fine Zone (Signs)
- Access to All Businesses and Residences at All Times
Demand Management
- Ramp Metering
Alternate Route Strategies
- Ramp Closures
- Street Improvements
- Freeway-to-Freeway Connector Closures
Based on the lane closure charts for the segment of SR-4 between Fresno
Avenue and I-5, between Mondays through Thursdays, the project must
provide at least one through freeway lane open in each direction for a 24-
hour period. On Fridays, one through freeway lane must be maintained in
both directions from midnight to 3:00pm. On Sundays, one through
freeway lane must be maintained in both directions from 10:00pm to
54
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
midnight. For complete closure of the facility, between Mondays through
Thursdays, closures can occur between 11:00pm to 5:00am. On Fridays,
Closures can occur between midnight to 5:00am. On Sundays, closures
can occur between 11:00pm and midnight.
H. Stage Construction
Construction of the Project is anticipated to extend over a period of
approximately three years, with construction over the BNSF railroad
anticipated for approximately one year. To minimize disruption to the
traveling public, the project is projected to be completed in three stages.
Stage 1 will consist of construction of the new SR-4 roadway from Navy
Drive to Fresno Avenue, including the elevated structure spanning BNSF.
The improvements on Navy Drive and other local streets will also be
performed during the first stage. Traffic on SR-4 and the on- and off-
ramps to Fresno Avenue at this stage will remain operational. Shifting the
roadway alignment and creating minor closures at local streets may occur
as necessary during this stage; however, the detailed impacts will be
assessed when detailed civil improvement plans are fully developed in the
PS&E phase.
Stage 2 will consist of construction of the inside lane, in both directions of
SR-4, from the limits of Stage 1 to the conform point on the existing SR-4
near the Garfield Street Overhead. This will provide one travel lane
connecting the new roadway built during Stage 1 to existing SR-4, which
will be used during the next stage of construction (Stage 3). Traffic will
be managed similarly to Stage 1, with the exception of only one lane
remaining open at the on- and off-ramps to Fresno Avenue to provide
sufficient construction area; however, the ramps will remain operational
for traffic accessing SR-4.
Stage 3 will include the construction of the remaining portion of the new
roadway, from the limits of Stage 2 to the conform point on existing SR-4.
The existing on- and off-ramps to Fresno Avenue will also be removed at
this stage. Traffic will be shifted to the new roadway built during Stage 1
and Stage 2, and a minimum of one lane in each direction on SR-4 will be
provided near the existing on- and off-ramps to Fresno Avenue. The
proposed intersection of Navy Drive and the SR-4 on- and off-ramps will
be open during this stage.
Work along West Charter Way and Tillie Lewis, including the signalized
intersection and re-striping improvements, can be conducted during any
one of the stages. The staging and traffic handling can be conducted with
temporary striping and/or channelizers since the improvements are
primarily outside of the shoulder or minor restriping improvements.
55
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
Access to adjacent businesses and neighborhoods will be maintained
during construction; if access is limited or restricted, alternative routes
with appropriate signage will be provided.
Where a bridge structure is constructed, the primary staging and
equipment storage areas are anticipated to occur within the structure
footprint and the area between the two structures. The contractor may
conservatively need an area beyond the outer edge of the structures of
approximately 25-feet. Material and equipment will not be stored on
railroad right-of-way or on City streets.
Ingress and egress to the construction area will be conducted from existing
Caltrans facilities, local surface streets, intersections, or acquired right-of-
way, or a combination of each. Contractor vehicle parking is anticipated
within the project right-of-way and temporary construction easements. At
least two construction staging or lay-down areas, within acquired right-of-
way on either side of the BNSF corridor, are anticipated.
Most of the work will be done during daylight hours, with occasional
night work to permit temporary closures for construction activities that
could interfere with freeway or local traffic or create safety hazards. Any
required traffic lane closures will be limited to non-peak travel periods.
Some short-term closures of existing ramps may be necessary during the
construction of the transitions between existing and new roadways, paving
operations, and lane striping. Advance notice will be provided of ramp or
roadway closures, and traffic will be detoured for these periods.
I. Accommodations of Oversize Loads
The proposed project enhances the connectivity between the Port and I-5,
via SR-4. Since the extension of SR-4 will be elevated, the passage for
vehicles of unrestricted height along the freeway will not be prohibited.
The westbound and eastbound ramps accommodate oversize loads as well.
Both ramps provide a 4% longitudinal cross slope, providing easier truck
movements and improve both traffic operations and air-quality.
As noted earlier, all project intersections, including SR-4/Navy Drive,
Navy Drive/Tillie Lewis Drive, and Tillie Lewis Drive/West Charter Way,
are designed for STAA-Long.
J. Graffiti Control
Graffiti removal efforts will be based upon practices specified in the
Caltrans Maintenance Manual.
56
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
K. Other Appropriate Topics
Table 7.2 summarizes documents that are forthcoming, submitted, or
pending approval that have a bearing on the approval of the Project:
TABLE 7.2
FORTHCOMING, SUBMITTED, OR PENDING APPROVAL
Document Status
Comments Received in September 2009
Draft Stormwater Data Report (PA&ED)
Re-submittal Forthcoming
Revised Draft Preliminary Drainage Report Submitted October 2009
Longitudinal Utility Encroachment Exception
Submitted November 2009
(LUEE) Report
Freeway Agreement (City and County) Forthcoming
8. Programming
A. Programming and Funding
This project is programmed and funded through a combination of the
Proposition 1B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF), Measure K
(San Joaquin County’s one-half cent sales tax), and Regional
Transportation Impact Fees (RTIF) as shown in the following table:
TABLE 8.1
PROGRAMMING AND FUNDING
Schedule RTIF Measure K TCIF Total
PA&ED 08/2009 $4,000 $4,000
R/W
10/2011 $3,000 $3,000
Support
PS&E
10/2011 $10,500 $10,500
Support
R/W Capital 10/2011 $41,600 $41,600
Construction
12/2013 $6,232 $6,000 $12,232
Support
Construction
12/2013 $3,000 $28,488 $90,820 $122,308
Capital
Total $3,000 $93,820 $96,820 $193,640
Note: (1) Dollars are in thousands, (2) Programming and funding costs correspond with the
Project’s TCIF Baseline Agreement and values were escalated to the program year.
57
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
The preliminary milestone schedule for this project is as follows:
TABLE 8.2
PRELIMINARY MILESTONES
Project Milestone Month/Year
Draft Project Report December 2009
PA&ED November 2010
Ready To List February 2013
R/W Certification January 2013
Approve Contract/Begin Construction June 2013
End Construction/Contract Acceptance June 2016
9. Reviews
Since the project is CEQA only and funded locally, FHWA review is not
required. The following table summarizes major reviews and dates of review
during the PA&ED process:
Name Review Date
Jes Padda and Caroline Reyes Design Review 1 5/5/09, 8/18/09, and 10/13/09
Ken Cozad and Antonette Clark HQ Design Review 1 5/5/09, 8/18/09, 10/13/09,
and 11/16/09
Mark Orr Traffic Engineering Review 1 5/5/09, 8/18/09, and 10/13/09
Jaime Quesada Traffic Operations Review 1 5/5/09, 8/18/09, and 10/13/09
Vu Nguyen and Jaime Quesada Traffic Operations Review 2 8/6/09
Caltrans/SJCOG Functional Unit Review 3 10/27/09
Footnotes:
1
District Design, HQ Design, Traffic Ops, and Traffic Engineering reviews during these dates
included the 503.2 Meeting, GAD, Geometric Review Meeting, and Mandatory/Advisory
Fact Sheets. HQ Design Reviewer (Antonette Clark) has offered project review concurrence
of the Advisory Fact Sheet.
2
Traffic Operations Review on this date included the approval of the FTOAR Report
3
Functional Unit review on this date included the Draft Project Report
The significant results of the reviews included approval of the FTOAR, as well as
some geometric revisions to the project that eliminated the need for mandatory
design standard exceptions.
58
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
10. Project Personnel
AGENCIES CONTACT PERSON TELEPHONE
Caltrans District 10 C. Scott Guidi, Project Manager (209) 948-7829
1976 East Charter Way/East Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Stockton, CA 95201
Caltrans District 10 Jes Padda, Design Oversight Engineer (209) 942-6028
1976 East Charter Way/East Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Stockton, CA 95201
Caltrans District 10 Caroline Reyes, Design Oversight (209) 948-3976
1976 East Charter Way/East Dr. Senior
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Stockton, CA 95201
Caltrans District 6 Gail Miller, Senior Environmental (559) 779-6612
1352 W. Olive Avenue Planner
Fresno, CA 93778-2616
Caltrans District 10 George Fernandez, Senior Right of (209) 948-3969
1976 East Charter Way/East Dr. Way Agent
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Stockton, CA 95201
San Joaquin Council of Kevin Sheridan, Project Manager (209) 468-3913
Governments
555 E. Weber Avenue
Stockton, CA 95202
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. Roy Schnabel, Structural Project (408) 296-5515
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 Manager
San Jose, CA 95126
BKF Engineers Natalina Bernardi, Civil Project (925) 396-7700
4670 Willow Drive, Suite 250 Manager
Pleasanton, CA 94588
59
10-SJ-4 PM 14.4/14.8
10-SJ-4 PM T14.6/R15.7
RU 06-241, EA 10-0S1100
Program 723 & 400.100
December 2009
11. List of Attachments
A. Preliminary Plans, Profile, and Typical Cross Sections
B. Advance Planning Study
C. Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Not Included in this Administrative Draft Project Report)
D. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate Summary
E. Right-of-Way Data Sheet
F. Storm Water Data Report (Cover Sheet)
G. Cooperative Agreement
(Not Included in this Administrative Draft Project Report)
H. Risk Management Plan
I. Transportation Management Plan Data Sheet
J. Project Location and Project Vicinity Map
K. Life Cycle Cost Analysis
60
Attachment A.
Preliminary Plans, Profile, and Typical Cross Sections
Attachment B.
Advanced Planning Study
Attachment C.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Cover Page & Signature Sheet)
State Route 4 Crosstown Freeway
Ramp Extension Project
San Joaquin County and City of Stockton
10-SJ-4-PM 14.4/14.8 and T14.6/R15.7
10-0S1100
SCH 2009062008
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Prepared by the
State of California Department of Transportation
February 2010
Attachment D.
Preliminary Project Cost Estimate Summary
Attachment E.
Right-of-Way Data Sheet
Attachment F.
Storm Water Data Report (Cover Sheet)
Long Form - Stormwater Data Report
Dist-County-Route: 10-SJ-04
Post Mile (Kilometer Post) Limits:
14.41/14.79 & T14.55/R15.67
(KP 23.19/23.80 & T23.42/R25.22)
Project Type: Freeway Extension
EA: 10-0S1100
RU:
Program Identification: HE11
Phase: PID PA/ED PS&E
Regional Water Quality Control Board: Region 5, Central Valley, Fresno Office
Is the project required to consider incorporating Treatment BMPs? Yes No
If yes, can Treatment BMPs be incorporated into the project? Yes No
If No, a Technical Data Report must be submitted to the RWQCB
At least 60 days prior to PS&E Submittal. List submittal date:
T
Total Disturbed Soil Area: 14.7 acres
Estimated Construction Start Date: June 2013 Construction Completion Date: June 2016
AF
Notification of Construction (NOC) Date to be submitted: May 2013
Notification of ADL reuse (if Yes, provide date) Yes Date: TBD No
Separate Dewatering Permit (if Yes, permit number) Yes Permit #: TBD No
R
This Report has been prepared under the direction of the following Licensed Person. The Licensed Person
attests to the technical information contained herein and the data upon which recommendations, conclusions,
and decisions are based. Professional Engineer or Landscape Architect stamp required at PS&E.
D
Gordon C. Sweet, Registered Project Engineer Date
I have reviewed the Stormwater quality design issues and find this report to be complete, current, and accurate:
Scott Guidi, Project Manager Date
Allan Shafer, Designated Maintenance Representative Date
Brad Cole, Central Region Landscape Architect Date
Marissa Nishikawa, Central Region NPDES Stormwater Coordinator Date
Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks
Project Planning and Design Guide May 2007, amended 12-16-08
District 10 Upgrade December 26, 2008
Attachment G.
Draft Cooperative Agreement
10-SJ-4-R12.6
SR 4/Crosstown Freeway Extension
EA: 0S110
District Agreement 10-356
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
This agreement, effective on ______________________________, is between the State of
California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and:
San Joaquin Council of Governments, a California Joint
Powers Authority, referred to as SJCOG.
PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 1 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
RECITALS
1. CALTRANS and SJCOG, collectively referred to as PARTNERS, are authorized to enter into
a cooperative agreement for improvements within the SHS right of way per Streets and
Highways Code sections 114 and/or 130.
2. WORK completed under this agreement contributes toward extending the existing State Route
(SR) 4 from Fresno Avenue (Post Mile 12.6) to SR 4 west of the San Joaquin River (Post Mile
15.7), referred to as PROJECT.
3. PARTNERS will cooperate to complete PS&E and Right of Way phases of PROJECT.
4. This agreement is separate from and does not modify or supersede prior Cooperative
Agreement No. 10-316.
5. Prior to this agreement, SJCOG developed the Project Initiation Document.
6. SJCOG prepared the environmental documentation for PROJECT.
7. The estimated date for COMPLETION OF WORK is August 1, 2017.
8. PARTNERS now define in this agreement the terms and conditions under which they will
accomplish WORK.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 2 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
DEFINITIONS
CALTRANS STANDARDS – CALTRANS policies and procedures, including, but not limited to,
the guidance provided in the Guide to Capital Project Delivery Workplan Standards (previously
known as WBS Guide) available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/projmgmt/guidance.htm.
CEQA – The California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code, sections
21000 et seq.) that requires State and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts
of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts, if feasible.
COMPLETION OF WORK – All PARTNERS have met all scope, cost, and schedule
commitments included in this agreement and have signed a COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
CLOSURE STATEMENT.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CLOSURE STATEMENT – A document signed by
PARTNERS that verifies the completion of all scope, cost, and schedule commitments included in
this agreement.
FHWA – Federal Highway Administration.
FHWA STANDARDS – FHWA regulations, policies and procedures, including, but not limited to,
the guidance provided at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programs.html.
FUNDING PARTNER – A partner who commits a defined dollar amount to WORK.
FUNDING SUMMARY - The table in which PARTNERS designate funding sources, types of
funds, and the project components in which the funds are to be spent. Funds listed on the FUNDING
SUMMARY are “not-to-exceed” amounts for each FUNDING PARTNER.
HM-1 – Hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require
removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not.
HM-2 – Hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require
removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law only if disturbed by PROJECT.
HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES – Management activities related to either HM-1 or HM-2
including, without limitation, any necessary manifest requirements and disposal facility designations.
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY – The partner responsible for managing the scope, cost, and
schedule of a project component to ensure the completion of that component.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 3 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
IQA – Independent Quality Assurance – Ensuring that IMPLEMENTING AGENCY’S quality
assurance activities result in WORK being developed in accordance with the applicable standards
and within an established Quality Management Plan. IQA does not include any work necessary to
actually develop or deliver WORK or any validation by verifying or rechecking work performed by
another partner.
NEPA – The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that establishes a national policy for the
environment and a process to disclose the adverse impacts of projects with a federal nexus.
PARTNERS – The term that collectively references all of the signatory agencies to this agreement.
This term only describes the relationship between these agencies to work together to achieve a
mutually beneficial goal. It is not used in the traditional legal sense in which one partner’s individual
actions legally bind the other partners.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN – A group of documents used to guide a project’s execution
and control throughout the project’s lifecycle.
PS&E (Plans, Specifications, and Estimate) – The project component that includes the activities
required to deliver the plans, specifications, and estimate for PROJECT.
R/W (Right of Way) – The project component that includes the activities required to deliver the
right of way for PROJECT.
SAFETEA-LU – The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users, signed into federal law on August 10, 2005.
SCOPE SUMMARY – The table in which PARTNERS designate their commitment to specific
scope activities within each project component as outlined by the Guide to Capital Project Delivery
Workplan Standards (previously known as WBS Guide) available at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/projmgmt/guidance.htm.
SHS – State Highway System.
SPONSOR(S) – The partner that accepts the obligation to secure financial resources to fully fund
WORK. This includes any additional funds beyond those committed in this agreement necessary to
complete the full scope of WORK defined in this agreement or settle claims.
WORK – All scope and cost commitments included in this agreement.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 4 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
RESPONSIBILITIES
9. SJCOG is SPONSOR for all WORK.
10. SJCOG is the only FUNDING PARTNER for this agreement. SJCOG’s funding commitment
is defined in the FUNDING SUMMARY.
11. CALTRANS is the CEQA lead agency for PROJECT.
12. CALTRANS is the NEPA lead agency for PROJECT.
13. SJCOG is IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for PS&E.
14. CALTRANS is IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for R/W.
SCOPE
Scope: General
15. All WORK will be performed in accordance with federal and California laws, regulations, and
standards.
All WORK will be performed in accordance with FHWA STANDARDS and CALTRANS
STANDARDS.
16. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a project component will provide a Quality Management
Plan for that component as part of the PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
17. CALTRANS will provide IQA for the portions of WORK within existing and proposed SHS
right of way. CALTRANS retains the right to reject noncompliant WORK, protect public
safety, preserve property rights, and ensure that all WORK is in the best interest of the SHS.
18. SJCOG may provide IQA for the portions of WORK outside existing and proposed SHS right
of way.
19. PARTNERS may, at their own expense, have a representative observe any scope, cost, or
schedule commitments performed by another partner. Observation does not constitute
authority over those commitments.
20. Each partner will ensure that all of their personnel participating in WORK are appropriately
qualified to perform the tasks assigned to them.
21. PARTNERS will invite each other to participate in the selection and retention of any
consultants who participate in WORK.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 5 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
22. PARTNERS will conform to sections 1720 – 1815 of the California Labor Code and all
applicable regulations and coverage determinations issued by the Director of Industrial
Relations if PROJECT work is done under contract (not completed by a partner’s own
employees) and is governed by the Labor Code’s definition of a “public work” (section
1720(a)(1)).
PARTNERS will include wage requirements in all contracts for “public work” and will require
their contractors and consultants to include prevailing wage requirements in all agreement-
funded subcontracts for “public work”.
23. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for each project component included in this agreement will be
available to help resolve WORK-related problems generated by that component for the entire
duration of PROJECT.
24. CALTRANS will issue, upon proper application, at no cost, the encroachment permits
required for WORK within SHS right of way.
Contractors and/or agents, and utility owners will not perform WORK without an
encroachment permit issued in their name.
25. If unanticipated cultural, archaeological, paleontological, or other protected resources are
discovered during WORK, all work in that area will stop until a qualified professional can
evaluate the nature and significance of the discovery and a plan is approved for its removal or
protection.
26. PARTNERS will hold all administrative draft and administrative final reports, studies,
materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created, or utilized for PROJECT in
confidence to the extent permitted by law. Where applicable, the provisions of California
Government Code section 6254.5(e) will govern the disclosure of such documents in the event
that PARTNERS share said documents with each other.
PARTNERS will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone other than
employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete WORK without the written
consent of the partner authorized to release them, unless required or authorized to do so by
law.
27. If any partner receives a public records request, pertaining to WORK under this agreement,
that partner will notify PARTNERS within five (5) working days of receipt and make
PARTNERS aware of any transferred public documents.
28. If HM-1 or HM-2 is found during WORK, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for the project
component during which it is found will immediately notify PARTNERS.
29. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within existing
SHS right of way. CALTRANS will undertake HM-1 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES with
minimum impact to PROJECT schedule.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 6 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
30. If HM-1 is found outside existing SHS right of way, responsibility for such HM-1 rests with
the owner(s) of the parcel(s) on which the HM-1 is found. SJCOG, in concert with the local
agency having land use jurisdiction over the parcel(s), will ensure that HM-1 management
activities are undertaken with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule.
31. If HM-2 is found within PROJECT limits, the public agency responsible for the advertisement,
award, and administration (AAA) of the PROJECT construction contract will be responsible
for HM-2 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
32. CALTRANS’ acquisition or acceptance of title to any property on which any HM-1 or HM-2
is found will proceed in accordance with CALTRANS’ policy on such acquisition.
33. PARTNERS will comply with all of the commitments and conditions set forth in the
environmental documentation, environmental permits, approvals, and applicable agreements as
those commitments and conditions apply to each partner’s responsibilities in this agreement.
34. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for each project component will furnish PARTNERS with
written monthly progress reports during the implementation of WORK in that component.
35. Upon COMPLETION OF WORK, ownership and title to all materials and equipment
constructed or installed as part of WORK within SHS right of way become the property of
CALTRANS.
36. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a project component will accept, reject, compromise, settle,
or litigate claims of any non-agreement parties hired to do WORK in that component.
37. PARTNERS will confer on any claim that may affect WORK or PARTNERS’ liability or
responsibility under this agreement in order to retain resolution possibilities for potential
future claims. No partner shall prejudice the rights of another partner until after PARTNERS
confer on claim.
38. PARTNERS will maintain and make available to each other all WORK-related documents,
including financial data, during the term of this agreement and retain those records for four (4)
years from the date of termination or COMPLETION OF WORK, or three (3) years from the
date of final federal voucher, whichever is later.
39. PARTNERS have the right to audit each other in accordance with generally accepted
governmental audit standards.
CALTRANS, the State auditor, FHWA, and SJCOG will have access to all WORK-related
records of each partner for audit, examination, excerpt, or transaction.
The examination of any records will take place in the offices and locations where said records
are generated and/or stored and will be accomplished during reasonable hours of operation.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 7 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
The audited partner will review the preliminary audit, findings, and recommendations, and
provide written comments within 60 calendar days of receipt.
Any audit dispute not resolved by PARTNERS is subject to dispute resolution. Any costs
arising out of the dispute resolution process will be paid within 30 calendar days of the final
audit or dispute resolution findings.
40. PARTNERS consent to service of process by mailing copies by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid. Such service becomes effective 30 calendar days after mailing. However,
nothing in this agreement affects PARTNERS' rights to serve process in any other matter
permitted by law.
41. PARTNERS will not incur costs beyond the funding commitments in this agreement. If
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY anticipates that funding for WORK will be insufficient to
complete WORK, SPONSOR(S) will seek out additional funds and PARTNERS will amend
this agreement.
42. If WORK stops for any reason, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY will place all facilities impacted
by WORK in a safe and operable condition acceptable to CALTRANS.
43. If WORK stops for any reason, PARTNERS are still obligated to implement all applicable
commitments and conditions included in the PROJECT environmental documentation,
permits, agreements, or approvals that are in effect at the time that WORK stops, as they apply
to each partner’s responsibilities in this agreement, in order to keep PROJECT in
environmental compliance until WORK resumes.
44. Each partner accepts responsibility to complete the activities that they selected on the SCOPE
SUMMARY. Activities marked with “N/A” on the SCOPE SUMMARY are not included in
the scope of this agreement.
Scope: Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E)
45. SJCOG will ensure that the engineering firm preparing the plans, specifications, and estimate
will not be employed by or under contract to the PROJECT construction contractor.
SJCOG will not employ the engineering firm preparing the plans, specifications, and estimate
for construction management of PROJECT.
However, SJCOG may retain the engineering firm during CONSTRUCTION to check shop
drawings, do soil foundation tests, test construction materials, and perform construction surveys.
46. SJCOG will identify and locate all utility facilities within PROJECT area as part of PS&E
responsibilities. All utility facilities not relocated or removed in advance of construction will
be identified on the plans, specifications, and estimate for PROJECT.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 8 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
47. SJCOG will make all necessary arrangements with utility owners for the timely
accommodation, protection, relocation, or removal of any existing utility facilities that conflict
with construction of PROJECT or that violate CALTRANS’ encroachment policy.
48. The responsibility to advertise, open bids, award, and approve the construction contract will be
handled outside the commitments of this agreement. However, SJCOG and CALTRANS
acknowledge, and have agreed, that when AAA is necessary, CALTRANS will perform those
duties which include activity 3.265.
49. SJCOG acknowledges that activities 3.255.05, 3.255.20 and 3.260 will be performed by
CALTRANS. In order for CALTRANS to perform AAA in the future, the PS&E package must
be reviewed and approved by CALTRANS District and HQ Office Engineers prior to
advertisement, which includes all the duties listed in the SCOPE SUMMARY under activities
3.255.05, 3.255.20 and 3.260.
SJCOG will ensure that the consultant who prepared the PS&E package will remain available
to address all comments generated during the performance of activities 3.255.05, 3.255.20 and
3.260.
50. SJCOG will coordinate the following resource agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals:
Waste Discharge (NPDES) Permit and Other Permits.
51. SJCOG will obtain the following resource agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals:
Waste Discharge (NPDES) Permit and Other Permits.
52. SJCOG will implement the following resource agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals:
Waste Discharge (NPDES) Permit and Other Permits.
53. SJCOG agrees to furnish STATE a complete as-awarded set of electronically signed plans,
including addenda within sixty (60) calendar days of the proposed Award date. Each plan
sheet shall have the Design Engineer’s electronic signature and Professional Engineer’s seal.
Within sixty (60) calendar days after the Construction Contract Acceptance (CCA) date to
furnish STATE with a complete set of electronic “As-built” plans, including addenda, (with
the Resident Engineer’s name printed on each plan sheet, and signature on the title sheet)
including any changes authorized by STATE. All plans must be submitted in Microstation .dgn
format, version 7.0 or later. In addition, a second file of said plans and addenda in .TIF
format must be submitted. All plans must be submitted on a CD ROM and be in compliance
with the STATE’s current CADD Users Manual, Section 4.3, Plans Preparation Manual,
Section 2.3 and, Construction Manual, Section 5-104.
Scope: Right of Way (R/W)
54. CALTRANS will provide a land surveyor licensed in the State of California to be responsible
for surveying and right of way engineering. All survey and right of way engineering
documents shall bear the professional seal, certificate number, registration classification,
expiration date of certificate, and signature of the responsible surveyor.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 9 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
55. SJCOG will provide CALTRANS-approved verification of its arrangements for the protection,
relocation, or removal of all conflicting facilities and that such work will be completed prior to
construction contract award or as otherwise stated in the PROJECT plans, specifications, and
estimate. This verification must include references to all required SHS encroachment permits.
56. CALTRANS will utilize a qualified CALTRANS-approved public agency or consultant in all
right of way activities. Right of way consultant contracts will be administered by a qualified
right of way person.
57. CALTRANS will provide a Right of Way Certification to CALTRANS prior to PROJECT
advertisement.
58. All right of way conveyances must be completed prior to COMPLETION OF WORK.
CALTRANS’ acceptance of right of way title is subject to review of an Updated Preliminary
Title Report provided by SJCOG verifying that the title is free of all encumbrances and liens.
Upon acceptance, SJCOG will provide CALTRANS with a Policy of Title Insurance in
CALTRANS’ name.
59. SJCOG and CALTRANS acknowledge, and agree, that SJCOG will perform RW acquisition,
Relocation Assistance, and Clearance activities for up to 55 parcels, as shown on Exhibit A.
Caltrans will perform RW acquisition, Relocation Assistance, and Clearance activities for the
remaining parcels needed to construct PROJECT.
60. The California Transportation Commission will hear Resolutions of Necessity.
COST
Cost: General
61. SPONSOR(S) will secure funds for all WORK including any additional funds beyond the
FUNDING PARTNERS’ existing commitments in this agreement. Any change to the funding
commitments outlined in this agreement requires an amendment to this agreement.
62. The cost of any awards, judgments, or settlements generated by WORK is a WORK cost.
63. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, will pay all costs for HM MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES related to HM-1 found within existing SHS right of way.
64. SJCOG, independent of PROJECT, will pay, or cause to be paid, all costs for HM
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to any HM-1 found within PROJECT limits and
outside of existing SHS right of way.
65. HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES costs related to HM-2 are a PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION cost.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 10 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
66. The cost of coordinating, obtaining, complying with, implementing, and if necessary renewing
and amending resource agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals is a WORK cost.
67. The cost to comply with and implement the commitments set forth in the environmental
documentation is a WORK cost.
68. The cost to ensure that PROJECT remains in environmental compliance is a WORK cost.
69. The cost of any legal challenges to the CEQA or NEPA environmental process or
documentation is a WORK cost.
70. Independent of WORK costs, CALTRANS will fund the cost of its own IQA for WORK done
within existing or proposed future SHS right of way.
71. Independent of WORK costs, SJCOG will fund the cost of its own IQA for WORK done
outside existing or proposed future SHS right of way.
72. Fines, interest, or penalties levied against any partner will be paid, independent of WORK
costs, by the partner whose actions or lack of action caused the levy. That partner will
indemnify and defend all other partners.
73. The cost to place PROJECT right of way in a safe and operable condition and meet all
environmental commitments is a WORK cost.
74. Because IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is responsible for managing the scope, cost, and
schedule of a project component, if there are insufficient funds available in this agreement to
place the right of way in a safe and operable condition, the appropriate IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY accepts responsibility to fund these activities until such time as PARTNERS amend
this agreement.
That IMPLEMENTING AGENCY may request reimbursement for these costs during the
amendment process.
75. If there are insufficient funds in this agreement to implement applicable commitments and
conditions included in the PROJECT environmental documentation, permits, agreements,
and/or approvals that are in effect at a time that WORK stops, the partner implementing the
commitments or conditions accepts responsibility to fund these activities until such time as
PARTNERS amend this agreement.
That partner may request reimbursement for these costs during the amendment process.
76. PARTNERS will pay invoices within 30 calendar days of receipt of invoice.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 11 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
77. FUNDING PARTNERS accept responsibility to provide the funds identified on the
FUNDING SUMMARY.
78. SPONSOR(S) accepts responsibility to ensure full funding for the identified scope of work.
Cost: Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E)
79. The cost to positively identify and locate, protect, relocate, or remove any utility facilities
whether inside or outside SHS right of way will be determined in accordance with federal and
California laws and regulations, and CALTRANS’ policies, procedures, standards, practices,
and applicable agreements including, but not limited to, Freeway Master Contracts.
80. The following partners will submit invoices for PS&E:
• CALTRANS will invoice SJCOG
81. PARTNERS will exchange funds for actual costs.
82. PARTNERS will exchange funds for actual costs.
CALTRANS will not invoice SJCOG for an initial deposit upon execution of this agreement.
CALTRANS will submit to SJCOG invoices on a monthly basis. Invoices will capture actual
expenditures from the prior month. Detailed supporting information will be provided with
each invoice. In the event CALTRANS is not able to maintain monthly invoice submittals,
CALTRANS will not invoice more than two consecutive months’ actual expenditures on any
given invoice.
SJCOG will electronically transfer (wire) funds to CALTRANS within three (3) to five (5)
working days of receipt of invoice. SJCOG’s transfer of funds will not be construed as
acceptance of said charges.
If SJCOG does not transfer the money within three (3) to five (5) working days, CALTRANS
may require SJCOG to make all subsequent payments as deposits in advance of WORK.
SJCOG will notify CALTRANS of a disputed invoice in writing no later than 30 days of
receipt of the detailed supporting information.
Upon receipt of a claim, CALTRANS has seven (7) working days to contest said claim. Upon
resolution, CALTRANS will make the appropriate credit or debit to SJCOG, reflected on the
next invoice.
After PARTNERS agree that all Scope activities are complete, CALTRANS will submit a
final accounting for all WORK costs. Based on the final accounting, PARTNERS will refund
or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of this agreement.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 12 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
SCHEDULE
83. PARTNERS will manage the schedule for WORK through the work plan included in the
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
84. This agreement will be understood in accordance with and governed by the Constitution and
laws of the State of California. This agreement will be enforceable in the State of California.
Any legal action arising from this agreement will be filed and maintained in the Superior Court
of the county in which the CALTRANS district office signatory to this agreement resides.
85. All obligations of CALTRANS under the terms of this agreement are subject to the
appropriation of resources by the Legislature, the State Budget Act authority, and the
allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission.
86. Any PARTNER who performs IQA does so for its own benefit, further, that PARTNER
cannot be assigned liability due to its IQA activities.
87. Neither SJCOG nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS under or
in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this
agreement.
It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless
SJCOG and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name,
kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse
condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done
or omitted to be done by CALTRANS under this agreement.
88. Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury,
damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SJCOG
under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon SJCOG under
this agreement.
It is understood and agreed that SJCOG will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless
CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every
name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual,
inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by SJCOG under this agreement.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 13 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
89. This agreement is not intended to create a third party beneficiary or define duties, obligations,
or rights in parties not signatory to this agreement. This agreement is not intended to affect the
legal liability of PARTNERS by imposing any standard of care for completing WORK
different from the standards imposed by law.
90. PARTNERS will not assign or attempt to assign agreement obligations to parties not signatory
to this agreement.
91. Any ambiguity contained in this agreement will not be interpreted against PARTNERS.
PARTNERS waive the provisions of California Civil Code section 1654.
92. A waiver of a partner’s performance under this agreement will not constitute a continuous
waiver of any other provision. An amendment made to any article or section of this agreement
does not constitute an amendment to or negate all other articles or sections of this agreement.
93. A delay or omission to exercise a right or power due to a default does not negate the use of that
right or power in the future when deemed necessary.
94. If any partner defaults in their agreement obligations, the non-defaulting partner(s) will request
in writing that the default be remedied within 30 calendar days. If the defaulting partner fails
to do so, the non-defaulting partner(s) may initiate dispute resolution.
95. PARTNERS will first attempt to resolve agreement disputes at the PROJECT team level. If
they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CALTRANS district director and the executive
officer of SJCOG will attempt to negotiate a resolution. If no resolution is reached,
PARTNERS’ legal counsel will initiate mediation. PARTNERS agree to participate in
mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs.
Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTNERS from full and timely
performance of WORK in accordance with the terms of this agreement. However, if any
partner stops WORK, the other partner(s) may seek equitable relief to ensure that WORK
continues.
Except for equitable relief, no partner may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or 45
calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first.
Any civil complaints will be filed in the Superior Court of the county in which the
CALTRANS district office signatory to this agreement resides. The prevailing partner will be
entitled to an award of all costs, fees, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees as a
result of litigating a dispute under this agreement or to enforce the provisions of this article
including equitable relief.
96. PARTNERS maintain the ability to pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a
previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 14 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
97. If any provisions in this agreement are deemed to be, or are in fact, illegal, inoperative, or
unenforceable, those provisions do not render any or all other agreement provisions invalid,
inoperative, or unenforceable, and those provisions will be automatically severed from this
agreement.
98. This agreement is intended to be PARTNERS' final expression and supersedes all prior oral
understanding or writings pertaining to WORK.
99. If during performance of WORK additional activities or environmental documentation is
necessary to keep PROJECT in environmental compliance, PARTNERS will amend this
agreement to include completion of those additional tasks.
100. PARTNERS will execute a formal written amendment if there are any changes to the
commitments made in this agreement.
101. This agreement will terminate upon COMPLETION OF WORK or upon 30 calendar days’
written notification to terminate and acceptance between PARTNERS, whichever occurs first.
However, all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment,
legal challenge, and ownership articles will remain in effect until terminated or modified in
writing by mutual agreement.
102. The following documents are attached to, and made an express part of this agreement: SCOPE
SUMMARY, FUNDING SUMMARY.
103. Signatories may execute this agreement through individual signature pages provided that each
signature is an original. This agreement is not fully executed until all original signatures are
attached.
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 15 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
CONTACT INFORMATION
The information provided below indicates the primary contact data for each partner to this
agreement. PARTNERS will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes.
These changes do not require an amendment to this agreement.
The primary agreement contact person for CALTRANS is:
Scott Guidi, Project Manager
1976 E. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Stockton, California 95205
Office Phone: (209) 948-7829
Mobile Phone: (209) 275-7636
Fax Number: (209) 948-7666
Email: scott_guidi@dot.ca.gov
The primary agreement contact person for SJCOG is:
Kevin Sheridan, Project Manager
555 E. Weber Ave
Stockton, California 95202
Office Phone: (209) 468-3913
Email: sheridan@sjcog.org
PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 16 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
SIGNATURES
PARTNERS declare that:
1. Each partner is an authorized legal entity under California state law.
2. Each partner has the authority to enter into this agreement.
3. The people signing this agreement have the authority to do so on behalf of their public
agencies.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By: By:______________________________
Ross A. Chittenden Andrew T. Chesley
District Director Executive Director
CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: Attest:____________________________
Steve Dial
Deputy Executive Director/
By: Chief Financial Officer
Tom Harbour
District Budget Manager
PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 17 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
SCOPE SUMMARY
CALTRANS
SJCOG
N/A
4 5 6 7 8 Description
Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) - 185,
3 X X
230, 235, 240, 250, 255, 260, 265
Prepare Base Maps and Plan Sheets for PS&E
185 X
Development
230 Prepare Draft Plans, Specifications, and Estimates X X
05 Draft Roadway Plans X
10 Draft Highway Planting Plans X
15 Draft Traffic Plans X
20 Transportation Management Plan X
25 Draft Utility Plans X
30 Draft Drainage Plans X
35 Draft Specifications X
Draft Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Quantities and
40 X
Estimates
Structures Draft Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
55 X
Incorporation
Updated Project Information for Plans, Specifications,
60 X
and Estimates Package
Permits During Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
65 X X
Development
05 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit (404) X
10 U.S. Forest Service Permit(s) X
15 U.S. Coast Guard Permit X
20 Department of Fish and Game 1600 Agreement(s) X
25 Coastal Zone Development Permit X
30 Local Agency Concurrence/Permit X
35 Waste Discharge (NPDES) Permit X
40 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approval X
45 Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Permit X
50 Updated Environmental Commitments Record X
95 Other Permits X
70 Railroad Agreements X
75 Agreement for Material Sites X
80 Executed Maintenance Agreement X
85 MOU From Tribal Employment Rights Office X
90 NEPA Delegation X
99 Other Draft Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Products X
Mitigate Environmental Impacts and Clean Up Hazardous
235 X
Waste
240 Draft Structures Plans, Specifications, and Estimates X
Final Structures Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
250 X
Package
Circulate, Review, and Prepare Final District Plans,
255 X X
Specifications, and Estimates Package
PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 18 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
CALTRANS
SJCOG
N/A
4 5 6 7 8 Description
Circulated and Reviewed Draft District Plans,
05 X
Specifications, and Estimates Package
10 Updated Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Package X
15 Environmental Re-Evaluation X
Final District Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
20 X
Package
25 Geotechnical Information Handout X
30 Materials Information Handout X
35 Construction Staking Package and Control X
40 Resident Engineer's Pending File X
45 NEPA Delegation X
Secured Lease for Resident Engineer Office Space or
50 X
Trailer
260 Contract Bid Documents Ready to List X
265 Awarded and Approved Construction Contract X
4 Right of Way (R/W) - 195, 200, 220, 225, 245, 300 X X
195 Right of Way Property Management and Excess Land X
200 Utility Relocation X
220 Right of Way Engineering X
Obtain Right of Way Interests for Project Right of Way
225 X X
Certification
50 Parcel and Project Documentation X X
55 Right of Way Interests X X
05 Right of Way Appraisals X
10 Right of Way Acquisition X X
15 Right of Way Relocation Assistance X X
20 Right of Way Clearance X X
25 Right of Way Condemnation X
245 Post Right of Way Certification Work X X
50 Parcel and Project Documentation X
55 Close Out Right of Way Interests X X
05 Right of Way Appraisals X
10 Right of Way Acquisition X X
15 Right of Way Relocation Assistance X X
20 Right of Way Clearance X X
25 Right of Way Condemnation X
300 Final Right of Way Engineering X
PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 19 of 23
10-SJ-4-R12.6
SR 4/Crosstown Freeway Extension
EA: 0S110
District Agreement 10-356
FUNDING SUMMARY
Subtotal
Funding Funding R/W R/W Subtotal Subtotal
Fund Type PS&E Funds
Source Partner Capital Support Support Capital
Type
LOCAL SJCOG Measure $10,500,000.00 $41,600,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $13,500,000.00 $41,600,000.00 $55,100,000.00
Subtotals by Component $10,500,000.00 $41,600,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $13,500,000.00 $41,600,000.00 $55,100,000.00
PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 20 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
EXHIBIT A
Acquisition
Assessor's Parcel Number Existing Use
(Full/Partial)
145-070-16 F Residential
145-070-17 F Residential
145-070-18 F Residential
145-070-19 F Residential
145-070-20 F Residential
145-070-21 F Residential
145-080-31 P Undeveloped
145-090-05 P Undeveloped
145-090-06 F Residential
145-090-14 F Residential
145-090-15 P Undeveloped
145-090-16 F Residential
145-090-17 F Residential
145-090-18 F Residential
145-090-19 F Residential
145-090-20 F Residential
145-090-21 F Residential
145-090-22 F Residential
145-090-23 P Residential
145-090-24 F Residential
145-090-25 F Residential
145-090-26 P Undeveloped
145-090-28 P Residential
PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 21 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
Acquisition
Assessor's Parcel Number Existing Use
(Full/Partial)
145-090-32 F Residential
145-090-33 F Residential
145-090-34 F Residential
145-090-35 F Residential
145-090-36 F Residential
145-090-37 F Residential
145-090-38 F Undeveloped
145-090-39 P Residential
145-090-45 F Industrial
145-090-48 P Undeveloped
145-140-08 F Residential
145-140-09 F Residential
145-140-10 F Residential
145-140-11 F Residential
145-140-12 F Residential
145-140-13 F Residential
145-140-14 F Residential
145-140-15 F Residential
145-140-16 F Residential
145-140-17 F Residential
145-140-18 F Residential
145-140-19 F Residential
145-140-20 F Residential
145-140-22 F Residential
145-140-39 F Residential
PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 22 of 23
District Agreement 10-356
Acquisition
Assessor's Parcel Number Existing Use
(Full/Partial)
145-140-40 F Residential
145-150-01 F Residential
145-150-02 F Residential
145-150-03 F Residential
145-150-04 F Residential
145-150-05 F Residential
145-150-06 F Residential
PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 23 of 23
Attachment H.
Risk Management Plan
Project Risk Register
STATE ROUTE 4 CROSSTOWN FREEWAY
Project Name: EXTENSION PROJECT Project Manager: SCOTT GUIDI Updated:
DIST- EA 10-0S1100 Co - Rte - PM: 10-SJ-4 PM 14.41/14.79 and T14.55/R15.67 Telephone: (209) 948-7829 10/26/09
1
Date Risk Response Actions w/
ITEM
Threat /
ID # Status
Opport-unity
Category Risk Discription Root Causes Primary Objective Overall Risk Rating Risk Owner Risk Trigger Strategy
Pros & Cons
Identified
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) i) (k) (l) (m) (n)
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
3=Med (20-39%)
2094683813 Communicate impacts
Public Outreach - community Potential opposition to property
4 10-0S1100-04 Active Threat PM 01/02/08 TIME Med PA/ED MITIGATE to community operations
acceptance impacts an acquisitions
2094034340 and land use.
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
2094683813 Coordination and Public
Public Outreach - Political outreach with public
5 10-0S1100-05 Active Threat PM 01/02/08 Impact to local official district. TIME Med PA/ED MITIGATE
acceptance officials and local
2094034340 advocacy groups
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
3=Med (20-39%)
Provide proper
2094683813 environmental
Heavy impact to surrounding
6 10-0S1100-06 Active Threat ENV 01/02/08 Environmental Impacts COST Med PA/ED MITIGATE documentation, ISA.
area, may encounter Haz Mat.
2094034340 Conduct follow-up
testing in PA&ED.
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
3=Med (20-39%)
Track recent escalation
2094683813 costs and include in the
Increase in material costs to programming costs.
7 10-0S1100-07 Active Threat ORG 01/02/08 Construction Cost COST Low PS&E MITIGATE
due market forces. Recent bids have been
2094034340 competitive and are
decreasing capitol costs.
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
2 =Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
Construction & Aerial 3=Med (20-39%)
Easements, Construction &
Maintenance Agreements, and 2094683813
Permits required from BNSF Coordination with BNSF
11 10-0S1100-11 Active Threat R/W 01/02/08 a Service Contract, which is TIME Low PS&E MITIGATE
Railroad RR.
required for engineering review 2094034340
and flagging by BNSF RR will
be required. Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
2 =Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
1=Very Low (1-9%) Coordination with City
and County should take
2094683813 place early and often. To
15 10-0S1100-15 Active Threat R/W 10/14/08 Right of Way Freeway Agreement approval TIME Low PA/ED & R/W MITIGATE faciliate, copies of the
2094034340 GAD and Draft PR will
be circulated to the City
Impact and County.
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
3=Med (20-39%)
Condemnation proceedings or 2094683813
Coordination and early
17 10-0S1100-17 Active Threat R/W 10/14/08 Right of Way Certification eminent domain - obtaining TIME High PA/ED & R/W MITIGATE
identification of takes.
resolution of necessity 2094034340
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
8 =High
Notes:
1. Retired Items/Numbers have been removed by the PDT and this RMP was approved on 11/18/09 by:
Caltrans, SJCOG, and BKF 11/29/2009
07 SR4 Cross Town Extension - RMP 112909.xls
1/4
Project Risk Register
STATE ROUTE 4 CROSSTOWN FREEWAY
Project Name: EXTENSION PROJECT Project Manager: SCOTT GUIDI Updated:
DIST- EA 10-0S1100 Co - Rte - PM: 10-SJ-4 PM 14.41/14.79 and T14.55/R15.67 Telephone: (209) 948-7829 10/26/09
1
Date Risk Response Actions w/
ITEM
Threat /
ID # Status
Opport-unity
Category Risk Discription Root Causes Primary Objective Overall Risk Rating Risk Owner Risk Trigger Strategy
Pros & Cons
Identified
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) i) (k) (l) (m) (n)
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
1=Very Low (1-9%)
2094683813
Changes in R/W acquisition
19 10-0S1100-19 Active Threat R/W 10/14/08 Right of Way Certification TIME Low PA/ED & R/W MITIGATE Coordination
law, regulation, and/or policy
2094034340
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
2 =Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG) Early assessment of
3=Med (20-39%)
If the City of Stockton and/or drainage issues and
the Port of Stockton cannot 2094683813 mitigating design.
accept the Preliminary Drainage
22 10-0S1100-22 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Drainage Concept SCOPE Med PA/ED MITIGATE
State’s drainage, an entire Memo has been
new strategy will need to be 2094034340 provided and comments
developed. solicited of the City and
Impact County.
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG) Early assessment of
3=Med (20-39%)
An upgrade of the existing drainage issues and
pump is assumed. If significant 2094683813 mitigating design.
redesign is Preliminary Drainage
23 10-0S1100-23 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Drainage Concept SCOPE Low PA/ED MITIGATE
needed, there will be a Memo has been
substantial increase in resource 2094034340 provided and comments
hours. solicited of the City and
Impact County.
sheridan@sjcog.org
2 =Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
3=Med (20-39%)
Early assessment of
2094683813 drainage issues and
Sufficient R/W for drainage mitigating design.
25 10-0S1100-25 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Drainage Concept COST Med PA/ED MITIGATE
storage systems Current R/W strategy
2094034340 offers adequate storage
and some surplus.
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
3=Med (20-39%)
Groundwater and geotechnical 2094683813 Early assessment of
26 10-0S1100-26 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Drainage Concept characteristics with respect to SCOPE Med PA/ED MITIGATE drainage issues and
drainage storage system 2094034340 mitigating design.
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
2094683813
Non-Incorporation of Aesthetic
28 10-0S1100-28 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Aesthetics of Structure COST Low PA/ED and PS&E MITIGATE Early Coordination
Components
2094034340
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
2 =Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
1=Very Low (1-9%)
2094683813 Geotechnical and
Geotechnical characteristics
29 10-0S1100-29 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Foundation Design SCOPE Low PA/ED MITIGATE Foundations Report and
and structural concept
2094034340 early testing.
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
5 =Very High
Notes:
1. Retired Items/Numbers have been removed by the PDT and this RMP was approved on 11/18/09 by:
Caltrans, SJCOG, and BKF 11/29/2009
07 SR4 Cross Town Extension - RMP 112909.xls
2/4
Project Risk Register
STATE ROUTE 4 CROSSTOWN FREEWAY
Project Name: EXTENSION PROJECT Project Manager: SCOTT GUIDI Updated:
DIST- EA 10-0S1100 Co - Rte - PM: 10-SJ-4 PM 14.41/14.79 and T14.55/R15.67 Telephone: (209) 948-7829 10/26/09
1
Date Risk Response Actions w/
ITEM
Threat /
ID # Status
Opport-unity
Category Risk Discription Root Causes Primary Objective Overall Risk Rating Risk Owner Risk Trigger Strategy
Pros & Cons
Identified
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) i) (k) (l) (m) (n)
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
2094683813
Inadequate ED or public Follow CEQA
31 10-0S1100-31 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Lawsuit on ED SCOPE Med PA/ED AVOID
comment requirements
2094034340
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
2094683813
Postponement of ED Follow CEQA
32 10-0S1100-32 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Lawsuit or public comment TIME Low PA/ED AVOID
certification & PR Execution requirements
2094034340
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
2 =Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
3=Med (20-39%)
2094683813 Consider alternative
Groundwater Table and design approaches and
34 10-0S1100-34 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Existing Conditions SCOPE Med PA/ED MITIGATE
Contamination conduct early testing to
2094034340 substantiate risks.
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
Early coordination and
2094683813 review with Jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Approvals for Preliminary Drainage
36 10-0S1100-36 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Permitting SCOPE Low PA/ED MITIGATE
Stormwater Memo provided to City,
2094034340 County and Port for
comment.
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
1 =Very Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
2094683813
CT staffing; ability to conduct Coordination and
37 10-0S1100-37 Active Threat DESIGN 10/14/08 Manpower and Priority TIME Med PA/ED AVOID
review submittals schedule
2094034340
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
2094683813
Schedule creep and TCIF Maintain or beat PA&ED
43 10-0S1100-44 Active Threat CON 39981 Loss of TCIF Funding TIME High PA/ED MITIGATE
program funding shortfalls TCIF Baseline Schedule
2094034340
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
16 =Very High
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
Utility due-dilligence,
2094683813 verification, positive ID,
Utility verification and approval Utility conflicts and relocation
44 10-0S1100-45 Active Threat ENV 39981 COST Low PA/ED MITIGATE and preparation of
of utility exceptions requirements
2094034340 high/low risk/exception
reports
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
2 =Low
Notes:
1. Retired Items/Numbers have been removed by the PDT and this RMP was approved on 11/18/09 by:
Caltrans, SJCOG, and BKF 11/29/2009
07 SR4 Cross Town Extension - RMP 112909.xls
3/4
Project Risk Register
STATE ROUTE 4 CROSSTOWN FREEWAY
Project Name: EXTENSION PROJECT Project Manager: SCOTT GUIDI Updated:
DIST- EA 10-0S1100 Co - Rte - PM: 10-SJ-4 PM 14.41/14.79 and T14.55/R15.67 Telephone: (209) 948-7829 10/26/09
1
Date Risk Response Actions w/
ITEM
Threat /
ID # Status
Opport-unity
Category Risk Discription Root Causes Primary Objective Overall Risk Rating Risk Owner Risk Trigger Strategy
Pros & Cons
Identified
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) i) (k) (l) (m) (n)
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG) Coordinate geometric
3=Med (20-39%)
design/exceptions early
2094683813 via GAD, 503.2 and
Approval of non-standard
45 10-0S1100-46 Active Threat ENV 39981 Denial of requested exceptions TIME Low PA/ED MITIGATE Geometric Review
features
2094034340 Meetings, and early-
circulation of non-
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org standard Fact sheets.
2 =Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG) Conduct due-dilligence
3=Med (20-39%)
with owner, City, and
2094683813 Caltrans to identify
Relocation of specialized Unavailable local site
46 10-0S1100-47 Active Threat R/W 40044 COST Low PA/ED MITIGATE viable alternative site
businesses and parcels alternatives for RAP
2094034340 relocation opportunities
and accurately identify
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org costs.
2 =Low
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
3=Med (20-39%)
Design, R/W, and Drainage 2094683813
Public/City Comments related Await comments from
47 10-0S1100-48 Active Threat R/W 40044 Changes associated with COST Med PA/ED ACCEPT
to sidewalks on Navy DPR/DED circulation.
sidewalks on Navy Drive. 2094034340
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
4 =Med
Probablility
Kevin Sheridan (SJCOG)
2=Low (10-19%)
Conduct VA Study in
2094683813
Schedule delay for VA Study PA&ED if required.
48 10-0S1100-49 Active Threat ENV 40091 VA Requirements TIME Low PA/ED MITIGATE
during PA&ED Being scheduled prior to
2094034340
PS&E
Impact
sheridan@sjcog.org
2 =Low
Notes:
1. Retired Items/Numbers have been removed by the PDT and this RMP was approved on 11/18/09 by:
Caltrans, SJCOG, and BKF 11/29/2009
07 SR4 Cross Town Extension - RMP 112909.xls
4/4
Attachment I.
Transportation Management Plan Data Sheet
Attachment J.
Project Location and Project Vicinity Map
BOGGS TRACT
NEIGHBORHOOD
SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREA
STOCKTON
Figure J.2 – Project Vicinity Map
Figure J.1 – Project Location Map
Attachment K.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS FORM
SR 4 CROSSTOWN FREEWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):
Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement
Pavement Design Life: 40 Years
Initial Construction Costs: $ 4,272,072.50
Initial Project Support Costs: $ 2,007,874.08
Future Maintenance &
Rehabilitation Costs**: $ 114,373.42
TOTAL AGENCY COSTS: $ 6,394,320.00
USER COSTS: $ 2,380.00
TOTAL LIFE-CYCLE COSTS: $ 6,396,700.00
** Includes both future maintenance, construction and project support costs.
Alternative 2:
Hot Mixed Asphalt w/ RAC (Option 1)
Pavement Design Life: 20 Years
Initial Construction Costs: $ 4,686,576.58
Initial Project Support Costs: $ 2,202,690.99
Future Maintenance &
Rehabilitation Costs**: $ 784,142.43
TOTAL AGENCY COSTS: $ 7,673,410.00
USER COSTS: $ 5,460.00
TOTAL LIFE-CYCLE COSTS: $ 7,678,870.00
** Includes both future maintenance, construction and project support costs.
Reason that this is not Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 has the lower agency cost and overall life-cycle cost.
\\bkf-pl\vol4\Eng08\087052\4.0 Project Control\4.3 Reports\033 - Life Cycle Cost Analysis\05 - October 2009 LCCA\LCCA Analysis Form\SR 4 Crosstowm LCCA Form HMA(Opt 1)-JPCP.xls
