R 3306
- .;-, ~ .._~
RESOLUTION NO. 3306 .
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING ITS INTEREST IN
OBTAINING TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT
ACTIVITIES (TEA) FUNDS ALLOCATED TO THE ~ITY FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PEDESTRIAN PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande desires to seek certain Transportation
Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds made available to the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) through the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act;
WHEREAS, SLOCOG requires all project requests be approved by the governing board
and submitted to SLOCOG by June 26, 1998;
WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande is requesting that $950,000 in TEA funds
be programmed for the projects as prioritized and adopted by the City Council on June 9,
1998, and as described in the attached funding applications; and, .
WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande hereby appoints the Mayor as the official
representative authorized to sign the TEA applications.
. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
does hereby request that $950,000 in TEA funds be programmed for use by the City of
Arroyo Grande for historic preservation and pedestrian projects.
On motion of Council Member Runels, seconded by Council Member Lady , and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Runels,Lady, Tolley, and Mayor Dougall
NOES: None
ABSENT:Council Member Fuller
A.K. "
ATTEST:
a,
IS, CITY CLERK
..
Resolution No. 3306
Page 2
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
'tbL.H~
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I, NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution
No. 3306 is a true, full and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Arroyo Grande City Council on the 23rd day of June 1998.
WITNESS my hand and the Sealofthe City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 29th day of
. June, . 1998.
~~a.~
NANCY A. VIS, CITY CLERK .
Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Application Form
GENERAL INFORMATION
FY 9R/99 Year Proposed
Proposal has sites in more than one RTPA.
X Proposal is entirely within the RTPA
_Proposal is statewide or multi-regional in scope, & has no
geographic 'home'.
TEA PROJECT NAME: . Rridgp. Stmp.t Rridgp. Dp.ck Rp.hRbilifRfinn Projp.ct
PROJECT APPLICANT (Public Agency - Address - Zip - Phone)
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Department
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 473-5440
Insert Figures in current year dollars.
TEA FUNDS REQUESTED
NON-FEDERAL TEA MATCH
$ 449 ~80
$ 105940
ADMINISTERING AGENCY (Address -Phone)
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-4219
TOTAL TEA PROJECT COST $ 555 no
IX ] TEA is a stand-alone project.
[ ] TEA is part of a larger project. $ Total Project Cost
Proposed transportation enhancement activity will be scored in one of the following divisions. Fill out and include the page indicated:
[ ]
1. Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right of Way
(Page 4a.)
[ ] 3. Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values (Page 4c.)
~]
2. Historic/Archaeological (Page 4b.)
[ ] 4. Water Pollution Due to Highway Runoff. (Page 4d.)
Transportation Enhancement Activity Project
Representative (Name, tille, phone)
Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 473-5440 Fax: (805) 473-5443
Person with day-to-day responsibility for project (if different
From project representative) (Name, title, phone)
Jill Peterson, Associate Consultant Engineer
c/o City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 544-4011 Fax: (805) 544-4294
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (not to exceed 60 words)
Describe the project's location, size, etc. (not the justification or benefits).
The National Register of Historic Places-eligible Bridge Street Bridge is located in the historic Village Area of Arroyo Grande. The
bridge structure was partially rehabilifated in 1990. This project will complete the total rehabilitation of the bridge by bringing the
deck and the abutments up to a standard load limit of H-20 (20 tons).
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FOR TEA PROJECT (check proposed type and status).
Type: _Environmental Assessment _Categorical Exclusion
Status: ---X-Not Started _Complete
_Environmenlallmpact Statement
_In Progress - Anticipated Completion Date:
Name of Lead Agency for environmental document Tn hI=! r1AtArminArI
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO ADDRESS
SCREENING CRITERIA
If any of the applicable screening criteria below are not me~ the proposal will not be ranked or evaluated any further A "no"
answer to any of the followina auestions immediatelv disaualifies the oroDosal: .
a. DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
[><JYes
IXJ Function
[ ]No
[ ] Proximity
[ ] Impact
1. Does the project fit the TEA program?
Briefly explain. direc~ rela~onship to transportati?~ system. (Ho~ does the proposed activity enhance tha transportation .
system?) ThiS project will complete the rehebllltetlon of en eXisting, National Register of Historic Places-eligible roedway bridge.
b. OVER AND ABOVE A NORMAL PROJECT . IXJVes . []No
(Ifth~ activity is ~entioned in an ~nvironmental ~ocum"mt as ~ r,:quired mitigation, or Wtha activity is required by
permitting agencies to proceed with another proJect, thiS activity IS not over and above a "normal" project)
c. WHICH CATEGORY OR CATEGORIES ENCOMPASS THE TEA? (May be more than one.)
_1. P.rovision of facilities for pedestrians and ..1L.6. Rehabililation and operation of historic transportation
bicycles. buildings, structures or facilities (including historic
railroad facilities and canals.) .
_2. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or
historic siles.
_7.
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including
the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or .
bicycle trails).
_3. Scenic or historic highway programs.
_4. Landscaping and other scenic beautiflcation.
_8. Control and removal of outdoor advertising.
_9. Archaeological planning and research.
_10. Mitigation.ofwater pollution due to highway runoff.
2. Is the project consistent (or "not inconsistent") wilh federal, state, region'al or local land use and regional transportation
plans, goals and policies? [\11 [
Please describe the plans used in evaluating consistency: ^JYes] No
-1L5. Historic preservation.
City of Arroyo Grande General Plen/Circulation Element and SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan.
3. Is the project financially viable? [X] Yes [ ] No
(The governing body will be required to submil a resolution to this effect W the project is selected by the Regional
Transportation Planning Agency.)
The project is included as 13 capital improvement project in the City of Arroyo Grande's Preliminary FY 1998/99 budget
which provides for the non-federal TEA match.
4. Is this project well-deflned, well-justifled, and ready-to-go In the year proposed?
Please describe any evidence supporting this statement
A preliminary rehabilitation assessment has been performed by a structurat engineer in order to properly scope the project.
In eddition, the project is included as a capital improvement project in tha City of Arroyo Granda's Preliminary FY 1998/99
budgat which provides for the non-faderal TEA match.
TXI Ves
[ ]No
5. Does the project improve air quality or does iI have a neutral air quality Impact?
Please describe any evidence supporting this statement
This project does not propose widaning of tha existing bridge and will, therefore, not generate additional traffic.
IX] Ves
[ ]No
6. Is the project as proposed In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act?
What evidence is there to support this claim? (Please describe)
This project proposes the raplacement of the existing non-standard bridge deck and abutments whIch are areas not
applicable to tha Americans with Disabilitias Act.
[ ]yes
[ ]No
IXINIA
7. For archaeology and historic preservation projects, Is the proposal In compliance with the Secretary of the Interio(s
Standards and Guidelines for Archeological and Historic Preservation? ,,/1 [ ]
Please describe any evidence available to support this claim. ~J Yes No .
[ ]N1A
The United States Department of the Interior's letter dated December 27, 1985, which determines the Bridge Street
bridge eligible fortha National RegIster of Historic Placas as a Historic Truss Bridge In CalifornIa (EO. 11593)
Page 2
Include this page In each application
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO ADDRESS
SCORING .CRITERIA
1. Realonal and Community Enhancement (Maximum 50 points)
Please explain the activity's primary effects - its intent and purpose - on the following elements:
a.. How does the project improve overallquality-of-life, community, andlor environment? (Mmdmum 10 points)
The rehabilitation of the Bridge Street bridge, as opposed to replacement, will only enhance the historic atmosphere of the
Village of Arroyo Grande, the communily's main activity center. The hisloric preservation of slructures and faciifties in the
Village area has continued to be a priority for the City Councii, the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association, the
South County Historical Society, and the cftizens bf Arroyo Grande.
b. Describe how the activity increases access to activity centers, such as businesses, schools, recreational areas and
shopping areas. Does the proposed project connect transportation modes, or does the activity have other multi-modal
aspects? Does the project reinforce or complement the regional transportation system, or fill a deficiency in the system?
(Maximum 8 points) .
Bridge Street is the direct roadway link from the City's southern entrance into the hisloric Village area of Arroyo Grande.
The Village is the "downlown" of the City and is the City's main activfty center thatincludes uses such as City Hall, parks,
walking traiis, shopping, and restaurants. The rehabilitation of the Bridge Street bridge rehabiiitetion will incretml the load
limit to such that will ellow for bus, truck, and recreational vehicle access. This project enhances the transportation syslem
leading to the Village especially when it becomes a regional destination during festivals and holiday celebrations.
c. Describe how activity implements goals in the regional transportation plan, or other adopted tederal, state, or local plans.
(Maximum 8 points
SLOCOG 1994 RTP, Chapter 5, OBJ3, 3: "Assist local jurisdictions in securing maximum, local. regional, slate and federal
funding for infrastructure improvements through all appropriate means".
Arroyo Grande Circulation Element, 1986: "The policies and plan proposals of the cireulation etement should: Promote the
efficient transport of goods and the safe and effective movement of all segments of the population; Make efficient use of
existing transportation faciifties (the rehabiiitation of the Bridge Street bridge Is less costly than total replacement.)"; Policy B
states "Maintain roadways in good condition"; Policy E states "Provide for truck, emergency vehicle and resort traffic".
d. Piease explain the degree to which the project increases availabirlly or awareness of historic, community, visual or natural
resources. (Maximum 8 points)
The act of preserving the Bridge Street bridge will only increase the avaiiability and awareness of an important historic
resouree designated as eligible by the State for the National Register of Historic Places. The preservation,of this historic
truss bridge makes avaiiable to the public a visual resouree of past engineering/areMectural applications.
e. Please describe evidence of degree of regional or community support and summarize that support below.
(Maximum 8 points)
In 1990, the Cfty of Arroyo Grande committed funding towards the rehabiiitation of the existing bridge structure. The City
continues to show fts commitment to the project as ft has been included as a capftal improvement project in the City's
Preliminary FY 1998/99 budget which provides for the non-federal TEA match.
./. It the project encompasses more than one of the activity-specific divisions, explain. (Projects can.score In only one of the
activity-specific divisions below) (Maximum 8 points)
The rehabiiitation of the historic Bridge Street bridge encompasses the Historic/Archeological Division as the project provides
for the preservation of a historic structure; ft also encompasses the Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Division
as the project will preserve a rare and unique structure.
2. Cost EffectlvenesslReasonable Cost (Maximum 10 points)
What Is the anticipated life ofthe facility or product resulting from this project in years? 50+ years
What is the total capttal ouUay of the project? $ 555220 .
Please indicate how reasonable or cost effective the project is on the following scale:
IXI Highly Cost EffecllveNery Reasonable Costs [ ] Reasonable CostslModerately Cost Effective
[ ] Less Than Reasonable CostsILow Cost Effectiveness [ ] Not Cost Effective/Costs Are Not Reasonable
Show any information, calculations, examples or compansons that explain your selection above. Attached additional information.
A preliminary anaiysis performed by e sfructural engineer estimates fhe cost e new bridge between $830,000 and $900,000 and
fhe cosf of rehabilitation between $410,000 and $470,000 (See attached letter dated May 30, 1997, from Fred H. Schott & Assoc).
3. Prolect Need (Maximum 5 points)
Are the enhancements proposed threatened, or will an opportunity be lost if the project is not funded?
Please explain the specific threats or opportunities lost
The Cily of Arroyo Grande does not have the financial resources to fully fund large bridge projects unless accomplishad through
grants. Tharafore, the opportunily to complete, the rehabilitation oftha bridgawill ba lost ifgrent funding is not securad.
IX! Yes
[ ] No
4. Actlvltv-SDeclflc Enhancement Divisions (Maximum 40 points) Project can score in only Q!!ll of the following activity-
specific dMsions. In which category should this proposal be evaluated? Select only Q!!ll:
[ ] 1. Bicycle, Pedestrtan, Abandoned Rail Right otWay
IX! 2. Histone/Archaeological
[ ] 3. Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values
[ ] 4. Water Pollution Due to Highway Runoff
Please answer questions for the selected division. Only Include the Division page In the application.
Page 3
Include this page In each application
Division 2
2. Historic/Archaeological Proposals:
a. Specify the current recognition of historical or archaeological significance. Please specify whether the recognition is
federal, slate, local, .or some other measure of significance. (Maximum 20 points)
..lLNational Register of Historic Places-Eligible (Date 12/27/85\ _State Historical Landmark (No.--1
_State Points of Historical Interest (No.--1
_Regional Archaeological Information Ctr (No.--1
_Cal~ornla Register of Historical Resources
_Local Landmarks Program
The Keeper of the National Register has determined the National Register eligibilily for the Bridge Street truss bridge in
Affoyo Grande, California per E:. O. 11593, Determination of Eligibilily Notification forms, dated December 24. 1985,
JanaUlY: 8, 19.86, and January 13, 1986. The bridge is a Category "2" (Determined Eligible) in the encoding system used
for the Historic Bridge Inventory.
b. To what degree will the proposal enhance, preserve, or protect a historic or archeological resource? Please specify
high, medium, or low and explain your answer. (Maximum 20 points)
This proposal will preserve a historic resource to a high degree. Under standard bridge funding programs, ft is
Caltrans' normal policy to perform total replacement over rehabilitation when a bridge, such as the Bridge Street
bridge, is of nonstandard dimensions unless ft can be proven that rehabilftetion will result in a substantial cost
savings over replacement. The policy does not take into consideration any historic significance of the facilily.
The Bridge Street bridge is a unique facility in that tha City upgraded the bridge structure (except for the deck)
to an H-20 or standard loading in 1990. Because of the unique situation of partial rehabllftation already accomplished
and its historical significance, the City desires to continue the preservation of/his historical structure. The use of
Transportation Enhancement Activities. (TEA) funds will ellow for this preservation. .
Page 4b
Include only one Page 41n each application
ASSURANCES
CommttmentlPrior Commttment
Has the project appflcant or administering agency certified that tt is willing and able to maintain and operate the project?
[ lves [ ] No
Please describe the best evidence of the certification available. If none is available, when can one be provided?
The City of Arroyo Grande has certified that it is willing and able to maintain and oparata tha projact by completing and
signing this application, and by Raso/ution passed at the June 9, 1998, City Council meeting.
Project applicant possesses legal authority to nominate transportation enhancement acliYny and to finance, acquire, and construct the
proposed project and by formal action (e.g., resolution) the applicant agency's governing bode authorizes the nomination of the
transportation enhancement actiYny, including ali understanding and assurances contained therein, and authorizes the person Identified
as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection wnh the nomination and to provide sch additional Information as may
be required.
Project applicant wili maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, rehabilttated, or restored for the life of the rewnant
facility(ies) or actiYny. With the approval of the California Department of Transportation, the applicant or no successors in interest in the
property may transfer the responsibiiity to maintain and operate the property.
Project applicant wili give the California Department of Transportation's representative access to and the right to examine ali records,
books, papers, or documents related to the transportation enhancement activity.
Project applicant wili cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable ,time after receipt of notification from the State that
funds have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration and that the project wili be carried to completion with reasonable
diligence.
Project applicant wili comply where applicable with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Americans with Disabiiities Act, the Secretary of the Interio(s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation, and any other federal, state, andlor local laws, rules andlor regulations.
I certify that the information contained in this transportation enhancement activity application, inclUding required attachments, is accurate
and that I have read and understand the important information and agree to the assurances on this form.
Signed
Date
(TEA Applicanfs Authorized Representative as shown in Resolution)
. Printed (Name and Trtle)
Page 5
Include this page In each application
COST ESTIMATE FORMAT
DETAIL
Preliminary Engineering
Right-of-Way (Acquisition/Utility Relocation) - in'cludes capital and support costs
Construction Contract lIems $ 423,080
Agency-Furnished Materials $ 0
Subtotal $ 423,080
Contingencies $ 46 800
Construction Contract Total $ 469,880
Construction Engineering
Total Construction
Total Project
$ 40,340
$ 0
$ 45 000
$ 514,880
$ 555,220
Item Description
1 Soils investigation work
2 Lead based paint mitigation
3 . Demolition and disposal of deck
4 New deck cladding of substructure
ITEM ESTIMATE.
Unit Quantity
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
Unit Price
$ 10,000
$ 13,080
$50,000 .
$350,000
PHASES:
SUMMARY
A +
Federal
Funds
=
C
TEA
Cost
B
Match
Funds
Preliminary Engineering
Right of Way
Construction
Total Cost
$ 32,643
$ 0
$416.637
$449,280
$ 40,340
$ 0
$514.880
$555,220
$ 7,697
$ 0
$ 98.243
$105,940
Source(s) of Match: General Fund = $1.040: Urban SHA = $49.500: Utilitv Users Tax = $14.750:
Construction Tax = $40.650
.. Enter costs in '0' column only when proposed TEA is part of a larger project, rather than a
stand-alone TEA project. .
.
Preliminary Engineering
Right of Way
Construction
Total Cost
CASH FLOW CHART
FY 96/97 FY 97/98
$ 1,040 $ 2,500
$ 0 $ 0
$ 0 $ 0
$ 1,040 $ 2,500
FY 98/99
$ 36,800
$ 0
$ 514.880
$ 551,680
COST ESTIMATE CHECKLIST
To discuss cost implications of Title 23 Federal-aid requirements: Contact Caltrans District.
If Right of Way phase is involved: Contact Caltrans District
If another agency will be administering the project: Include its charge for administering.
If proposed TEA Is directly related to the State Highway: Obtain signature:'
District _ recommends that match be provide from the State Highway Account.
District Director:
n/a
Date
If proposed TEA Is landscaping on the State Highway right of way: Obtain signatures:
District _ recommends that maintenance be provided by Caltrans 4 years after planting
District Landscape Architect:
Date
n/a
Amount
$ 10,000
$ 13,080
$ 50,000
$350,000
o
Total
Cost ..
District Maintenance: n/a
Date
Headquarter Maintenance: n/a
Date
FRED ~. SCHOTT ~ ASSOCIATES
CIVlcAND STRUCTURAl ENGINEERINIl.LAND PLANNING AND BUILDING DESIGN
May 30, 199'7
John L. Wallace, public Works Director
city of Arroyo Grande
Post Office Box 550
Arroyo Grande CA 93421
Subject: Bridge Street Bridge in Arroyo Grande, California
Dear Mr. wallace:
Per your request we have investigated the relative costs between an
existing bridge upgrade.to HS 20 vertical load and code required
seismic capacity versus a new bridge with the same capacities.
. .
The existing bridge has very poor quality concrete in the deck,
central pier and abutments. We would expect to clad the existing pier
and abutments and install new grade beams and drilled pieis to provide
the strength and long term durability to support ehe required vertical
and seismic loads. We would also expect to remove the existing
concrete deck (which has grown from an 8n thick slab to 12~. inches of
concrete plus 2~ inches of asphaltic concrete) and replace it with a
new concrete deck on corrugated metal decking or precast slab panels
with a topping slab. With this alternative the only demolition cost
would be removal and disposal of the existing concrete deck.
Relative to a new bridge,studies of alternative designs would have to
be made for a 130 ft. clear span versus the present 100 ft. clear span
with an additional 30 ft. span at the south end. We would expect the
130 ft. clear span to be less costly than the solution with an
interior pier. The probable solution would likely be a standard box
girder bridge. In the case of a' new bridge we would expect some
substantial demolition and disposal costs since it would be necessary
to remove'and dispose of the original bridge superstructure, the
supplemental superstructure added in 1985, the central pier and both
abutments. ..
200 Suburban Road, Suite A. San Luis Obispo. California 93401 .
PHONE: (805) 544-1216 . FAX: (805) 544-2004 . IN SANTA MARIA: (80S) 9~3433
John L. Wallace
Page 2
In both cases there probably will be some added costs relative to lead
based paint on the bridge and in the soil under the bridge. There is
also a potential major question relative to foundation type and
corresponding costs. The quality of soil and depth to bedrock
upstream at the swinging bridge is very good and would allow an
excellent and relatively low cost foundation system if they were to
exist at this site. We understand that the soil conditions westerly
are totally different with extensive amounts of junk fill which was
probably placed to help stabilize the creek banks. These conditions
would require a much more costly foundation system. Needless to say
one of the first items of business is to have some soil borings done.
Based upon those borings a full. blown soils investigation with
samples, lab tests, etc. may be warranted or required by the funding
agency or agencies. Th~ costs of soils investigation work will depend
upon what is found in the borings and by the requirements of the
funding party or parties. If soils similar to the swinging bridge are
encountered and there are no specific requirements by the funding
agency or agencies, the cost could be as low as $2000 while the cost
could be as high as 10,000 if the soils vary widely, borin~ are
required at the center pier and a full blown report satisfying
Caltrans Standards is required.
Based upon recent bid prices for similar bridges we would expect the
construction cost of a new bridge to run in the order of $700,000 to
$750,000 not including demolition or design costs. Design costs would
be in the order of $40,000 and demolition would probably be in the
order of $80,000 to $100,000.
,
Our estimate of construction costs for the bridge retrofit is in the
order of $300,000 to $350,00 with demolition and disposal of the
existing bridge deck in the order of $40,000 to $50,000. Design' costs
would be significantly greater for the retrofit solution because it
would require fitting and attaChing the cladding, grade beams and
foundation system to and around all of the existing construction and
it would require design relative to the concrete deck.removal without
damaging the support system. We would expect the design fees for the
retrofit alternative to be in the order of $60,000.
SUMMARY OF EXPECTED COSTS
Soils investigation work
Lead based paint mitigation
$ 2,000 to $ 10,000
?
NEW BRIDGE
Demolition and disposal
New Construction
Design
TOTALS
$ 80,000 to $100,000
$700,000 to $750,000
S 40.000
$820~000 to $890,000
RETROFIT
Demolition and disposal of deck
New deck cladding of substructure
and supplemental foundations
D~ign .
TOTALS
$ 40,000 to $ 50,000
$300,000 to $350,000
S 60.000
$400,000 to $460,000
John L, Wallace
page 3
We hope'that this discussion and these figures satisfy your present
requirements. If you have any questions in this matter please do not
h~Ritate to contact us.
Sincerely,
f{d/f/~<Jr
Fred H. Schott
FHS :nab
~
FAX to Jill Petersen a~
John L, Wallace and Associates
(9714530.L1:R)
Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Application Form
GENERAL INFORMATION
FY 99/90 Year Proposed
Proposal has sttes in more than one RTPA
----2L-Proposal is entirely within the RTPA
_Proposal is statewide or multi-regional in scope, & has no
. geographic 'home'.
TEA pROJECT NAME: Creekside Path Pedestrian Proiect - Phase t
PROJECT APPLICANT (Public Agency - Address - Zip - Phone)
City of Arroyo Grande - Public Worl<s Department
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 473-5440
Insert Figures In current year dollars. .
TEA FUNDS REQUESTED
NON-FEDERAL TEA MATCH
. $ 250 000
$ 62 500
TOTAL TEA PROJECT COST $ 312500
[ hEA is a stand-alone project.
[X] TEA is part of a larger project. $ 397.200 Total Project Cost
ADMINISTERING AGENCY (Address -Phone)
San lJ.Jis Obispo Council of Governments
1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .
(805) 781-4219
Proposed transportation enh~ncement activity will be scored in !!ill! of the following dMsions. Fill out and include the page indicated:
[xl
1. Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned RaD Right of Way
(Page 4a.) .
[ ] 3. Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values (Page 4c.)
[ ]
2. Historic/Archaeological (Page 4b.)
[ ] 4. Water Pollution Due to Highway Runoff. (Page 4d.)
Transportation Enhancement Activtty Project
Representative (Name, title, phone)
Don Spagnoto, Director of Public Worl<s/Cfty Engineer
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 473-5440 Fax: (805) 473-5443
Person with day-to-day responsibility for project (ff different
From project representative) (Name, title, phone)
Jill Peterson, Associate Consuftant Engineer
cia City of AITOYO Grande .
P.O. Box 550
AITOYo Grande, CA 93421
(805) 544-4011 Fax: (805) 544-4294
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (not to exceed.60 words)
Describe the project's location, size, etc. (not the justification or benefits).
Phase t of this project allows for the reconstruction of eXisting non-standard access points. The existing eccess points
(e.g., stairways and ramps) that tead down to the pathways that run elong Arroyo Grande Creek are .nol constructed to current
design standards and have deteriorated to such a point that in some areas that they could be dangerous for public access.
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FOR TEA PROJECT (check proposed type and status).
Type: Environmental Assessment
Status: Not Started
~Categorical Exclusion
~Complete
_Environmental Impact Statement
_In Progress - Anticipated Completion Date:
Name of Lead Agency for environmental document Cilv of Arrovo Grande
Page 1
Include this page In each application
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO ADDRESS
SCREENING CRITERIA
It any at the applicable screening criteria below are not met, the proposal will not be ranked or evaluated any further. A 'no'
answer to anv of the followlnQ Questions immediatelv diSQualifies the orooosal:
a. DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
1XI Yes
[X] Function
[ ]No
[ ] Proximity
[ ] Impact
1. Does the project fit the TEA program?
c. WHICH CATEGORY OR CATEGORIES ENCOMPASS THE TEA? (May be more than one.)
-L 1. Provision at facilities for pedestrians and _6. Rehabilftation and operation of historic transportation
bicycles. buildings, structures or facilities (including historic
railroad facilities and canals.)
_2. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or
historic sites.
_3. Scenic or historic highway programs.
_4. Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
_7. Preservation at abandoned railway corridors (including
the conversion and use theieot for pedestrian or
bicycle trails).
_8. ,Control and removal of outdoor advertising.
_5. Historic preservation.
_9. Archaeological planning and research. ,
_10. Mitigation 'of water pollution due to highway runoff.
2. Is the project consistent (or 'not inconsistent") with federal, state, regional or local land use and regional transportation
plans, goals and policies?' ]'
Please describe the plans used in evaluating consistency: [X Yes [ ] No
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan/Circulation Element; SLOCOG Regional Transportetion Plan; Arroyo Grande
Creekside Path Schematic Plan; and Arroyo Grande Creek and Tally Ho Creeks Greenbelt System.
3. Is the project financially viable? [XJves [ ] No
(The governing body will be required to submft a resolution to this effect if the project is selected by the Regional
Transportation Planning Agency.)
A portion of this projecl is elready included as a capilal improvement project in the Cfty of Arroyo Grande's Preliminary
FY 1998/99 budget and could be proposed in the FY 1999/00 budget which wiff provide for the non-federal TEA match.
4. Is this project well-defined, well-justified, and ready-to-go In the year proposed? [X-Jves [ ] No
Please describe any evidence supporting this statement
The City Council adopted a master plan for the area entitled the Arroyo Grande Creekside Path Schematic Pian on '
January 27, 1998. The plan depicts several projects within the creekside area that can either be buift together or
in segments according to funding and staffing availability.
5. ,Does the project Improve air quarlly or does ft have a neutral air qualfty impact?
Please describe any evidence supporting this statement
This project only provides pedestrian facilities which does not craate impacts on airquaffty.
IXJves
[ ]No
6. Is the project as proposed In compliance with the American wIlh Disablrrlies Act?
What evidence Is there to support this claim? (Please describe)
All components of the project will meet current building codes which Includes the Americans wfth Disabilities Ac!. '
IX] Yes
[ ]No
[ ]N1A
7. For archaeology and historic preservation projects, Is the proposal In compliance wIlh the SecretaI)' of the Interlo(s
Standards and Guidelines for Archeological and Historic Preservation? [ ] [ ]
Please describe any evidence available to support this claim. Yes No
IX] NIA
Page 2
Include this page In each application
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO ADDRESS
SCORING CRITERIA
1. Realanal and Communltv Enhancement (Maximum 50 points)
Please explain the activity's primary effects - its intent and purpose - on the following elements:
a. How does theprojectimprove overall quality-of-lIfe, community, andlor environment? (Maximum 10 points)
The project wi/! enhance the creek and promote a jJedestrian-friendly atmosphere In and around Arroyo Grande Creek.
The project will allow people to stroll from site to site, or sit and enjoy the creekside riparian environment. . While being
enhanced as a series of significant public spaces, the creek can be retained and restored to a valuable natural resource.
b. Describe how the activity increases access to activity centers, such as businesses, schools, recreational areas and
shoppirig areas. Does the proposed project connect transportation modes, or does the activity have other multi-modal
aspects? Does the project reinforce or complement the regional transportation system, or fill a deficiency in the system?
(Maximum 8 points)
The project will increase access to public assets which surround the Arroyo Grande Creek. Examples of the sites which
can be enhanced and connected to one another include the many historic buildings on East Branch Street (Including City
Hall), the swinging pedestrian bridge, the newly renovated Heritage House museum, Kiwanis Park, Bridge Slreet, and many
other sites that tnclude restaurants and shops. This project' enhances the transportation system by creating pedestrian
facilities where none exist or are non-standard that access an area that becomes a regional dastination during fastivals and
holiday celebrations. In addition, this project creates the first "link" in the Lopez Lake to the Pacific Ocean trail as depicted
in the Arroyo Grande Creek and Tally Ho Creeks Greenbelt System.
c. Describe how activity implements goals in the regional transportation plan, or other adopted federal, state, or local plans.
(Maximum 8 points .
SLOCOG 1994 RTP, Chapter 9, 08J1, 18: Provide regional discretionary funding for each jurisdiction to develop design
guidelines/standards emphasizing intermodal access; 082J: Encourage the use of altemative forms of transportation;
08J3, 3a: Access ways such as pedestrian paths linking development to adjacent land uses should be included In design
standards; 08J5: Encourage the development and implementation of community design standards that reduce the need
for automobile usage and encourage alternative transportation options.
Arroyo Grande Circulation Element, 1986: "The policies and plan proposals of the circulation element should: "Protect
environmental quality and promote the wise and equitable use of economic and natural resources"; Goal B: "Promote
alternative travel modes, including transit, pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems"; Goal E: "Design and Implement
the circulation system to protect natural features, conserve energy, and avoid air and noise pollution".
d. Please explain the degree to which the project increases availability or awareness of historic, community, visual or natural
resources. (Maximum 8 points)
The project preserves a natural resource, the Arroyo Grande Creek, to a high degree. The project wi/! not only a
make a facility available to be used and enjoyed by the community as a whole, but will also preserve the surrounding
natural environment. .
e. Please describe evidence of degree of regional or community support and summarize that support below.
(Maximum 8 points)
This project has a high degree of community support as demonstrated through the .Creekslde Pedestrian Path working
group meetings with the City, the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association, and the South County Historical
Society. The City's commitment to the project Is further proven by including the project In the City's Preliminary FY 1998199
capital Improvement program which provides for the non-federal TEA match.
f. If the project encompasses more than one of the activity-specific divisions, explain. (Projects can score In only one of the
activity-specific divisions below) (Maximum 8 points)
This project encompasses the Bicyc/e, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right of Way Division of TEA.
2. Cost Effectiveness/Reasonable Cost (Maximum 10 points)
What is the anticipated life of the facility or product resulting from this project in years? ~ years
What is the total capital ouUay of the project? $ 397.200 .
Please Indicate how reasonable or cost effective the project Is on the following scale:
[ ] Highly Cost EffectiveNery Reasonable Costs [ ] Reasonable CostsIModerately Cost Effective
[ ] Less Than Reasonable Costs/Low Cost Effectiveness [ ] Not Cost Effective/Costs Are Not Reasonable
Show any Information, calculations, examples or comparisons that explain your selection .above. Attached additional Information.
A preliminary cost estimate has been prepared for Phase I of the. project (see attached 'Cost Estimate Format?
3. Prolect Need (Maximum 5 points)
Are the enhancements proposed threatened, or will an opportunity be lost if the project Is not funded? [ ] Yes
Please explain the specific threats or opportunities lost.
r 1
L J No
The City of Arroyo Grande does not heve the financial resources to fully fund these types of projects unless accomplished
through grants. Therefore, the opportunity to construct the Creekside Pedestrian Path will be lost if grant funding is not secured.
4. Actlvltv-SDeclflc Enhancement Divisions (Maximum 40 points) Project can score in only one of the following activity-
specific divisions. In which category should this proposal be evaluated? Select only l!Ill!:
[ ]
[ ]
1. Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right of Way
[ ]
[ ]
3. Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values
4. Water Pollution Due to Highway Runoff
.
2. Historic/Archaeological
Please answer questions for the selected division. Only Include the Division page In the application.
~\
Page 3
Include this page In each application
Division 1
1. Bicycle, Pedestrian or Abandoned Rail Right-of-Way Proposals:
a. What is the need for the proposed facility? Please specify high, medium, or low and explain your answer. For
example, Is there a shortage of pedestrian or bicycle facilities available? Is there a missing link In connecting the
Intermodal system; how Important is it? How necessary are new facilities serving the system? (Maximum 20 points)
The need for this phase of the project is extremely high. The existing access points (e.g., steirways and ramps)
that lead dpwn to the pathways that run along Anoyo Grande Craek ara not constructad to current design
standards and have deteriorated to such a point that In some areas that they could ba dangerous for public access.
Tha access points are undeniably nacessary in order to serve the pedestrian path system.
b. How well does the proposal meet or address the opportunities andlor needs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
(Maximum 20 points) . '
The Arroyo Grande Creek area Is currently being used by the community and there is a great need to provide
safe pedestrian faci/fties for those already and those who wish to anjoy the area. The project provides a most
unique opportunity for the community by creating safe, exclusive pedastrian faci/ities in a natural, unspoiled
environment.
Page 4a
Include only one Page 41n each application
ASSURANCES
CommitmentlPrior Comm"ment
Has the project applicant or administering agency certified that" is willing and able to maintain and operate the project?
[ ] Ves [ ] No
Please describe the best evidence of the certification available. If none is available, when can one be provided?
The Cay of Arroyo Grande has certified thaf a is willing and able to maintain and operate the project by completing and
signing this application, and by Resolution passed at the June 9, 1998, City Council meeting.
Project applicant possesses legal authority to nominate transportation enhancement activity and to finance, acquire, and construct the
proposed project, and by formal action (e.g., resolution) the applicant agency's governing bode authorizes the nomination of the
transportation enhancement activity, Including all understanding and assurances contained therein, and authorizes the person identified
as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection ~h the nomination and to provide sch additional information ss may
be required.
Project applicant will maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, rehabil"ated, or restored for the life of the resullant
facility(ies) or activity. W"h the approval of the Caritornia Department of Transportation, the applicant or "s successors in interest in the
property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property.
Project applicant will give the Caritornia Department of Transportation's representative access to and the right to examine all records,
books, papers, or documents related to the transportation enhancement activity.
Project applicant will cause work on the project to be commenced ~hln a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the State that
funds have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration and that the project will be carried to completion ~h reasonable
diligence.
Project applicant wlll comply where applicable ~h provisions of the California Environmental Qual"y Act, the Na.tional Environmental
Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Ac~ the Secretary of the Interio~s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation, and any other federal, state, andlor local laws, rules andlor regulations.
I certify that the information contained in this transportation enhancement activity application, Including required attachments, is accurate
and that I have read and understand the important information arid agree to the assurances on this form.
Signed
Date
(TEA Applicanfs Authorized Representative as shown in Resolution)
Printed (Name and Trtle)
Page 5
Include thIs page In each application
COST ESTIMATE FORMAT
DETAIL
Preliminary Engineering
Right-of-Way (Acquisition/Utility Relocation) - includes capital and support costs
Construction Contract Items . $ 250,000
Agency-Fumished Materials $ 0
Subtotal $ 250,000
Contingencies $ 25.000
Construction Contract Total $ 275,000
Construction Engineering
Total Construction
Total Project
$ 18.750
$ 293,750
Item Description
1 Clear & Grub/Demolition
2 Mobilization
3 Earthwork
4 Site Work & Miscellaneous
ITEM ESTiMATE
Unit . Quantity
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
PHASES:
SUMMARY
A +
Federal
Funds
B
Match
Funds
Preliminary Engineering
Right of Way
Construction
Total Cost
$ 15,000
$ 0
$ 235.000
$ 250,000
$ 3,750
$ 0
$ 58.750
$ 62,500
$18,750
$ 0
$312,500
Unit Price
$ 19,000
$ 6,300
$ 12,100
$212,600
Amount
$ 19,000
$ 6,300
$ 12,100
$212,600
= C 0
TEA Total
Cost Cost-
$ 18,750 $ 40,050
$ 0 $ 0
$ 293.750 $ 357.150
$ 312,500 $ 397,200
Source{s) of Match: General Fund/Utilitv Users Tax: Park Develooment Funds
- Enter costs in '0' column only when proposed TEA is part of a larger project, rather than a
stand-alone TEA project.
.
Preliminary Engineering
Right of Way
Construction
Total Cost
CASH FLOW CHART
FY 97/98 FY 98/99
$ 16,940 $ 4,360
$ 0 $ 0
$ 0 $ 63.400
$ 16,940 $ 67,760
FY 99/00
$ 18,750
$ 0
$ 293.750
$ 312,500
COST ESTIMATE CHECKLIST
To discuss cost implications of Title 23 Federal-aid requirements: Contact Caltrans District.
If Right of Way phase is involved: Contact Caltrans District
If another agency will be administering the project: Include its charge for administering.
If proposed TEA is directly related to the State Highway: Obtain signature:
District _ recommends that match be provide from the State Highway Account.
District Director:
n/a
Date
If proposed TEA is landscaping on the State Highway right of way: Obtain signatures:
District _ recommends that maintenance be provided by Caltrans 4 years after planting
District Landscape Architect:
n/a
District Maintenance: n/a
Headquarter Maintenance: n/a
Date
Date
Date
.
'~".""-
~.................=::t ......v~t:::~\1
D@
:I:
~
~
0::.-4
u~
~Cf.l
0<
z:I:
<~
~
o
~.
~
; II -.--ll II II .
'---==.. .-....
19~ms lJOLlS
..~
c:
"'c -
~_o
iii.-V
~, - ...
~~ -
"O~t/}
v'C,..
c.tlu
3Sc:
Q);::: ~
zuco
fO
~
B-..
o
{]
- ~
~ >=
~o ~i
3'>:
..,3
~o ~t;
~""
3C:
,,0
oz~
~=
E"g
:.-v.
~~
<1<1 <l ~ 4 <14 4<1 <I <l
~
~
ID
~ ICJ
~. 110
~-.-J GJ
II@ j}
I/@' . rr-J1
o
r-'-l
@
l ~_
I
L
I
@
>-"
co'-'
..-.....
?:
~
e-
o.
~~
"-
;1
.. .
r
~
3
o
~
~
~
;:~.
~;;I
~~
~..
-"
~>
~~
.-
l[J-Ur
C
lCJI
~
v v -
="C ~
_o~
l)-C -
e ~(I)
iii-;::~
'043'0
{) 1:
if.~tQ
dC:~
EOec
1:0- c
:>0-
r ~ - '" [_I
,
Creekside Pedestrian Path
Phase II
Sketches:
Bluff top path with creek overlook
Bluff top promenade
Pathway from promenade to East Branch Street
Amphitheater entry plaza
Creekside amphitheater
Bluff Top Path with Creek Overlook
New bluff lOp pall) will) ruslic guardrail. Table for picnics and bench overlooking
creek. Museum garden and new trees aiong path. High dividing fence has been
replaced will) a low pickel fence. Deck with railing and benches overlooks creek.
Historic School House relocaled to park like selling along new promenade.
9
~\
L
.
,
,
Create Bluff TOp promenade
Pedestrian promenade on bluff overlooking creek. Addition of brick paving on both
sides of existing concrete aggregate path. New trees and tree grates. Benches facing
both directions for a restful atmosphere.
7
"J
fr,:j
-I
J ';-1111\\';-1\' fnJI1l Pn>11H'llcllIe 10
L-ISI 11r;1I1d1 SIre'c'l
,--
;\;("\\' IH'(!l'striilll Wi::Ik.\\'ilY l"()lllHTts
UPI >t'r IT('' '~,-~i( It. pI" )111(:11;-1( It- \\'itll EdSI
1....rilllCll Sin 'vI. (:, .It It.-n:lt' Ll:~gi'Cg;llt'
,);11/1 f(nlllS ;'I.\is Illnlllglllxlr~illg Illl.
;'\t'\\' InTS ill InlllHllllS (r,'llll<' \'jc\\'
f)[" Ilisr()ric tHlil(ling.-:-;
\
\
8
..
Amphitheatre Entry Plaza
,\mpl'ill'ealr<~ entry with brick paving. Bulb out will, two planters that contain seatwalls.
Overhead signage arcllway supported by columns. one column serving as a IIcket booth.
Stone on planter and coiumns 10 malch stone relaining walls of creekside path.
10
'-
'-
j j
c \ ~
,~~
. i
- 1i',1
'f I)
\' \
~r'
"" 0 j
5ic~' . . ./
=? /.~-
'1.1)'\ I
\/<~
-
---:.
"\1' , ""
.
I
(
/
r I
Creekside .\mpI1itileatre
.\mplli111ealf(~ willl raised stage. New palll':'vay. New conifers frame amphitheatre
sealing. wi 111 wooel SorelY railing along theatre steps. Slone risers on theatre seating
lies in willl tile Slone retaining walls along tile creekside palh.
11
,
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
.FUNDING FOR BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE DECK
AUGUST 13, 1996
DATE:
RECOMMENDATION: .
Staff recommends the Council direct staff' to submit.a Request.for Authorization to Calt:rans for.
preliminary engineering and field review for the rehabilitation of the Bridge Street bri!ige deck.
FUNDING: .. '.
The Federal Highway Bridge Replacement arid Rehabilitation (HBRR) program will provide 80
percent of the total project cost with a a local match .of 20 percent. . The total cost of the project can
be determined when the project is further defined during pr"limin~ry engineerlng.
Preliminary engineering can be accomplished in FY 1997198 if the local matcbis included in the
bu~get, or in FY 1996197 if funds becomes available through cost savings of other capital projects.
Preliminary engineering costs are estimated to be 510,000 (80"10 reimburSable). . .
DISCUSSION:
. Annually, each 10ca1 agency is allowed two bridge Replacement projects and two Miscellaneous'
projects (rehabilitation, seismic retrofit, or bridge painting) on any bridge regardless of functional
classification under the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRR) program.
Replacement and rehabilitation projects funded under the HBRR program receive 80 percent .
reimbursement from Federal funds and has a required local match of20 perCent.
The.Bridge Street bridge deck will not be replaced nor will the bridge deck receive an asphalt overlay ..
as part of the Bridge, Nelson and Short Streets capital improvememproject schedU1ed to' begin in
October 19Q6. ..
The Bridge Street bridge received an upgrade in May of 1990 to briI!g the bridge ~ up to
standard load limits. However,!he bridge'~ did not receive an upgrade and sti!l carries a 3-ton
load limit. This propl)Secl project would upgrade the bridge deck, thereby bringing the entire Bridge
Street bridge up to a standard H-20 (20-ton) load limit. .
During City and Caltrans staff conversations, it has been determined that the Bridge Street bridge is
eligible for either replacement or rehabilitation funding. CaItrans staff also stated that from strictly
an engineering standpoint, total bridge replacement usually proves more feasible than rehabilitation.
If the City desires to replace only the bridge deck and not the entire bridge structure, the City would
need to ensure rehabilitation is a better alternative than replacement For example, the City would
need to submit documentation that the steel structure has been updated to current standards and that
only the bridge deck itselfhas a weight limit of3 tons, that the Bridge Street bridge is of historical
significance to the City, or sinular rationale.
The Request for Authorization should be submitted now so that the City may receive Federal
reimbursement for preliminary engineering. . The City cannot request reimbursement for any work
accomplished prior to an Authorization to Proceed from CaItrans.
The issue of proceeding with preliminary engineering this fiscal year or next fiscal year will be
presented to the Council following Caltrans' approval of the City's Request for Authorization. It is
anticipated such approval from Caltrans will take five to six months.
jep:232.9697(19)lbridgest.rpt
- !
LPP 95-07
Reengineering, Attachment 3. Field Review
Exhibit FR-A(2)
Page 2
8. PROPOSEOFUNDING:
Federal Pro9ram HRRR
(NameIT otal$IFed $)
Matching funds breakdown
T olaI Costs $
$
$
561.600.00
4'l'l ?AO Fed$
Fed $
Reimb. Ratio 80\
Reimb, Ratio
2!!....- %
_%
_%
N:> x
local
State
Other
Yes
112.320
State Highway Funds?
Source
State CMAOIRSTP (TSM) Match Eligible Yes
(attach Minimum Information she'et, if yes)
Is this project underfunded (Fed $) UNKNOWN AT. Yes
THIS TIME
N:> x
Partial
N:>
9. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
Age<<;y
PE . Environ Process x
Design
R/W All Work x
OONSreGN Contract
. 00NSTRUCTl0N Contract
fMINlENANCE
WiU Caltrans be requested to review PS &E?
Consultant state
x
x
x
Yes _ N:> x (Req'd for NHS projects)
10. SCHEDUlES:
Remarks
PROP06ED ADVERTlSEMENT DAle .:Januax-v 1998
.Very pre1iminax-y advertisement date; project not yet fully defined.
11.PROJECT~~ .
local Entity Title.~~RAN~PURT'IC WORKS
CAL TRANS (District) .. ()
("If St Hwy. Title
or NHS)
12. USTOFAlTAa-tMENTS (Include all appropriate attachments for NHS projects, see ( ) notes for
minimum required attachments for non NHSprojects)
Phone No. (~n~''i...._..nl'
Date
August 29. 1996
Date
-~
N/A Prelimin8l}' Environmental study Form (NEPA)
(Required - could be completed independent of field review) ..
N I A . Field Review Attendance Roster or Contacts Roster
N/A . VicInity map (Required for construction-type projects)
IF APPLICABLE (the following items should be completed, as appropriate, depen<fmg on the type
01 work involve</): .
x
Roadway Data Sheets
Typical Roadway Geometric Section(s)
Major Structure Data Sheet (Req'd for HBRR) .
Railroad Grade Crossing Data Sheet
Airport Data Sheet (if within 3 kilometers)
Sketch of Each Proposed Alternate Improvement
Signal Warrants
. . Collision Diagram
Protection of.
Wetlands.statement
CMAOIRSTP State-
TSM Match Sheet