The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - August 1, 2012 I-01AGENDA ITEM Zoo ' &% CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION im AGENDA TITLE: Designatethe Overhead Grade Separation and Embankment Design as the Exclusive Alternative for the Harney Lane Grade Separation Project MEETING DATE: August 1,2012 PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDEDACTION: Designate the overhead grade separation and embankment design as the exclusive alternative for the Harney Lane grade separation project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the June 17, 2009 City Council meeting, a resolution was adopted establishing the Harney Lane grade separation as the City's preferred projectfor the Measure K Railroad Grade Separation Program. On August 10, 2010, a feasibility study report was completed by Mark Thomas & Company (MT&C) that established four alternative designs for the Harney Lane grade separation. In November 2011, the San Joaquin Council of Governments Board designated $12,100,000 in funding for this project in the 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). In March 2012, the California Transportation Commission approved the funding program in the RTIP. On October 5, 2011, City Council approved a professional services agreement with MT&C to prepare environmental, right-of-way and construction documents for the Harney Lane grade separation. At the March 17, 2012 Shirtsleeve meeting, MT&C presented four alternatives design concepts to the Council. The first alternative, the exclusive alternative, is an overhead structure with side embankments. Alternative 2 is an overhead structure with mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls on both sides of the roadway; Alternative 3 is an undercrossing with retaining walls; and Alternative 4 is an undercrossing with side slopes. Environmental review of the project must comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Under CEQA, the project is statutorily exempt and no environmental review is required. Under NEPA, the environmental review can be processed underthe Categorical Exemption criteria if the Council selects the project alternative at this time. Federal guidelines require that all alternatives be reviewed at a comparable level. In the case of the grade separation project, the differences in the environmental impacts for each alternative are insignificant. For example, the number of lanes and traffic operations are the same and, therefore, the air quality impacts will be the same for each alternative. Also, the area of disturbance is the same for each alternative and, therefore, the natural environment impacts will be the same. Finally, each alternative has associated visual and noise impacts that can all be mitigated to less than significant levels. Staff is requesting Council to designate the overhead grade separation with embankment design as the exclusive alternative for this project. Justifications for this action are provided below. Cost comparisons, sketches, typical cross section, and approximate right-of-way requirements for the four alternatives are presented in Exhibit 1. APPROVED: i X_,l Konr t Bartlam, City Manager K:\WP\PROJECTS\STREETS\HarneyGradeSeparation\CCPreferred Alternative- HarneyGrade.Sep.doc 7/24/2012 Designate the Overhead Grade Separation and Embankment Design as the Exclusive Alternative for the Harney Lane Grade Separation Project August 1, 2012 Page 2 Project Cost — The estimated cost for the overhead design of $18,060,000 is the least expensive of the four alternatives, and the cost is within the project budget of $20,339,000. The other three alternatives are not affordable in the foreseeable future. Utility Relocation — The Kinder Morgan fuel line and AT&T's fiber optic cables existing along the railroad tracks must be relocated for an undercrossing. The cost of these relocations is a significant project expense and will add several months to the project schedule. Overhead wire utility relocations are comparable for each alternative and are paid by the individual utility companies. Noise — The embankment design will shield existing and future residents from train noise. Also, the grade separated crossing will eliminate the requirement for trains to sound horns as the cross the intersection. Maintenance— The undercrossing alternatives, because they require a storm drainage pump station, have the relative greatest maintenance cost. Not only will the pump station require maintenance but, also, UPR requires the steel undercrossing structure to be made of steel and the City is required to maintain the structure. Land/Right-of-Way Requirements — The overhead with side embankments alternative requires the greatest area of right-of-way to be acquired at 5.67 acres but it is $7.6 million less expensive than the next higher cost alternative, overhead with retaining walls. The right-of-way required for the other alternatives ranges from 3.38 acres (overhead with retaining walls) to 4.06 acres (underpass with retaining walls) to 4.83 acres (underpass with slopes). The greater right-of-way requirement for the underpass alternatives is due to the right-of-way required to re-route Harney Lane around the construction area. Exhibit 2 includes diagrams presenting the right-of-way requirements for each alternative. 6. Time and Coordination — Construction of the overhead alternative requires less time and the construction phasing is most easily coordinated. Overall, an overhead crossing takes six to 10 months less to construct than an undercrossing. The following provides several examples of this: 6.1. The undercrossing alternative requires Harney Lane and the railroad to be re-routed around the construction area. This adds approximately five months to the construction schedule and significant cost to the project. 6.2. At the new railroad crossing of re-routed Harney Lane new crossing protection is required. This is subject to the Public Utility Commission and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) approval processes and adds six months project design period and significant additional cost. 6.3. The existing Kinder Morgan fuel and AT&T fiber optic lines will have to be replaced by the affected utility that is separate from the project schedule. 6.4. The undercrossing alternative requires a structure supporting the railroad that is compliant with UPR requirements. Approximately six months is added to the design phase associated with UPR review and approvals and three months to the construction phase for this type of construction. Harney Lane Open to Traffic — The overhead with embankments alternative allows Harney Lane to stay open during of construction without incurring significant added cost. The overhead alternative will be constructed in two segments, utilizing the existing roadway during the construction of the first segment then detouring traffic to the new overhead structure while completing construction of the second segment. Mark Thomas & Company and City staff had one-on-one meetings with each of the affected property owners along the grade separation project boundaries. Staff also held an open workshop public meeting on July 17, 2012. Approximately 20 persons attended this public meeting. Invitations were mailed to 1,287 stakeholders and notices of the meeting were published in the Lodi News Sentinel. A copy of the public meeting report is provided as Exhibit 2. K:\WP\PROJECTS\STREETS\HarneyGradeSeparation\C0Preferred Alternative- Harney GradeSep.doc 7/24/2012 Designate the Overhead Grade Separation and Embankment Design as the Exclusive Alternative for the Harney Lane Grade Separation Project August 1, 2012 Page 3 Staff received concerns and comments at these meetings and has strived to comply with each of the issues raised. The issues and resolutions worked out with the various stakeholders are summarized below. It should be expected that additional issues will arise as the project moves closer to construction. Source Issues Resolution Modified access, driveway and access, laydown and work areas circulation plan Varner Household Traffic noise and landscape Sound wall and landscape boulders improvements Costa Family Farms Packing house operations, Full signalized intersection and orchard operations, access and driveway access on Harney Lane property acquisition Tsutsumi Vineyard Vineyard operations and property Full take of property probable acquisition Reynolds Ranch Retail operations impacted by Harney Lane to remain open to road closure traffic Homeowner Screening views of backyard Construct masonry block wall from overhead behind sidewalk Public Works staff concurs with these points and requests City Council to approve the overhead with side slopes grade separation alternative. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. �A I Ja F. Wally Wdelin Public Works Director Prepared by Chris Boyer, Assistant Engineer FWS/CB/pmf Attachments K:\WPIPROJECTS\STREETS%HameyGradeSeparation%CCPreferred ALmative- Harney Grade Sep.doc 7/24/2012 HARNEY LANE/UPRR GRADE SEPARATION 445�041� e�ti1444 �' ��1S1o4� �4��',� mss v�e� ae�4 ,5�, �4P Abe{Q Roadway Items $ 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 Structure Items $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 Retaining Walls $ - $ 5,000,000 Sound Walls $ 246,000 $ 223,000 Railroad/Detour Items $ 300,000 $ 1,400,000 Mobilization (10%) $ 1,005,000 $ 1,613,000 Contingency 25% $ 2,512,000 $ 4,031,000 Construction Subtotal $ 13563,000 $ 21,767,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,600,000 $ Right of Way $ 1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 Utility Relocation $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Environmental Fees/Permits $ 300,000 $ 200,000 Capital Cost Subtotal $ 2,100 000 $ 1500,000` 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 250,000 Environmental/Design $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 Construction Mgmt $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Construction Staking $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Project Development Subtotal $ 3,230,000 $ 3230 000 Grand Total 1 $ 18,893,000 1 $ 26,497,000 11 Exhibit 1 1 7/19/2012 $ 6,400,000 $ 6,200,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,200,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 800,000 $ 240,000 $ 220,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 1,644,000 $ 1,532,000 $ 4,110,000 $ 3,830,000 $ 22,194 000 $ 20`682 000; $ 1,100,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 2,800 000 $ 3,400,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 3,580,000 $ 3,580 000 $ 28,574,000 JFi-7 27,662,000 Exhibit 1 1 7/19/2012 Aut�rlatN�#1-� Jt�MtTt(" �: �,.� � ,�Z Marx •ntaar,�;, , ��• r x..f IL 1 L � ' � - __ ' ��• _— .,.ter I � WWII rAly: =V f 4,20M MaEk tuaw+s { O'k olz o59-tt 77 emx mzaAlr- i Ex PROP P/W VAR EaAr 2- AW RAISED Im IAN G91WCrE I W11GiETE BARRIER SWIER IH %%u 4Vi USE BALL p�A�y� `RAI LRDAD AO�355 AND/CR VETT A A UTI LILY ooRRIDOt NDr TO SCALE t �: oss-t�-tit e,�sr 12.5T.AG -Farr%ml AVtJ: 0-36-130-24 WW. V-I*AC- MIX- W-?Z.Ar, IC -T "I I >L -Farr%ml AVtJ: 0-36-130-24 WW. V-I*AC- Draft Public Information Meeting Summary Report Tuesday, July 17,2012 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street Lodi, California Prepared by Judith Buethe Communications Exhibit 2 Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report General Information about This Document Whatisin this document? This document is a summary report of a Public Information Meeting for the Harney Lane Grade Separation Project, Lodi, California. This document describes what occurred at the meeting. Whatshouldyou do? ♦ Please read this summary report. ♦ If you have any concerns about the summary report or questions about the proposed project, please contact Judith Buethe, (209) 464-8707, Ext. 101; Judith buethecommunications.com or P.O. Box 773, Lodi, CA 95201-0773. 2 1 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Table of Contents CoverSheet........................................................................................... 1 General Information about This Document...................................................... 2 Tableof Contents.................................................................................... 3 Chapter1: Introduction.......................................................................... 4 1.1 A Public Information Meeting Was Held ................................................... 4 1.2 Announcements of the Public Information Meeting ....................................... 4 1.3 Purpose and Goals of the Public Information Meeting .................................... 5 1.4 Format of the Public Information Meeting .................................................. 5 1.5 Summary of Concerns Expressed............................................................ 5 Chapter2: Meeting Proceedings............................................................... 6 2.1 Welcome......................................................................................... 6 2.2 Displays and Exhibits.......................................................................... 7 Station 1: Welcome Boards and Sign -in Tables ........................................ 7 Station2: Exhibits.......................................................................... 7 Station 3: Comment Station.............................................................. 7 2.3 Personnel on Hand............................................................................. 7 2.3.1 City of Lodi Staff................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Consultants........................................................................... 7 2.3.3. Elected Officials and Other Agencies ............................................ g Chapter 3: Presentation with Questions and Answers .................................... 9 Public Questions and Comments......................................................... 9 Chapter4: Public Input.......................................................................... to 4.1 Written Comment Received at the Public Information Meeting ......................... 10 4. 1.1 Listing of Comment Sheets and Correspondence Received at the Public Meeting............................................................................... 10 Chapter 5: Outcome of the Public Information Meeting .................................. 11 APPENDICES AppendixA: Handouts............................................................................ 12 Agenda................................................................................................. 12 CommentSheet....................................................................................... 13 Sign -in Sheet.......................................................................................... 14 AppendixB: Exhibit Materials.................................................................. 15 WelcomeSign........................................................................................ 15 DisplayMaps......................................................................................... 16 3 1 P a g e Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Appendix C: Notices and Letters............................................................... 19 PostcardInvitation................................................................................... 19 Ad...................................................................................................... 20 PressRelease.......................................................................................... 21 Appendix D: Photographs at the Meeting ..................................................... 22 Appendix E: Public Comments.................................................................. 24 Appendix F: Meeting Sign -in Sheets............................................................ 25 Appendix G: PowerPoint Presentation........................................................ 28 4 1 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1: A Public Information Meeting Was Held The City of Lodi Department of Public Works held a Public Information Meeting for the Harney Lane Grade Separation Project at the following date, time, and place: Tuesday, July 17,2012 6:00 p.m. — 8:30 p.m. Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street Lodi, Calif. The City of Lodi held the meeting to present the Harney Lane Grade Separation Project alternatives and the estimated costs of each alternative being considered. This Public Information Meeting was an opportunity to provide comments or concerns about the project at a public meeting. 1.2: Announcements of the Public Information Meeting The project team planned and implemented the Public Information Meeting to invite members of the public, businesses, agencies, and other potentially interested parties to learn more about the project and to discuss individual concerns with representatives from the City of Lodi Public Works Department, along with other specialists in engineering and planning. The meeting was publicized through ajumbo postcard invitation that was sent by first-class U.S. mail to a mailing list of approximately 1,286 property owners, residents, and stakeholders such as local, state, and federal agencies; emergency responders; civic and community groups, the Lodi District Chamber of Commerce and other business groups; environmental groups; and other potentially interested individuals and organizations. A news release was sent to print and broadcast media (mainstream and alternative) that serve the project area. The news releases were sent to the following mainstream and alternative media outlets: TheRecord, Lodi News -Sentinel, Citadel Broadcasting, Clear Channel, San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Lodi District Chamber of Commerce, Asian -Pacific Chamber of Commerce, African-American Chamber of Commerce, KANM/KBUL, KAT Country 103, KCBC-770 AM, KCIV-99.9 FM; KCSO Telemundo 33, KCSS-FM, KHKK 104.1 The Hawk, KHOP, KJAX 1280, KJSN, KVFX, KKME, KQOD, KMRQ, KOSO, KRVR, KUYL, KVIN, San Joaquin Farm Bureau News,Builders Exchange, Business Council, Inc., and San Joaquin Partnership. 51 Page Harney lane Grade Separation Project Public information Meeting Summary Report. 1.3: Purpose and Goals of the Public Information Meeting The purpose of the Public Information Meeting was to provide an opportunity for the community to review the Hai-ney Lane Grade Separation Project, learn about the proposed alternatives for consideration and construction, and provide individual comments or concerns about the project and the plans. 1.4: Format of the Public Information Meeting Thirty people signed attendance sheets at the Public Information Meeting -21 members of the public and nine project team members. The meeting was held in the Carnegie Forum, where the City Council meetings are routinely held. At the door, the Public Outreach representative welcomed attendees, explained the evening's format, asked attendees to sign in, and distributed a comment sheet and a print program to each. The Public Outreach staff also introduced attendees to technical members of the project team and answered questions of a general nature. The meeting was conducted as an open house/map showing with a presentation, followed by a question -and -answer session. This interactive format provided an opportunity for individual members of the public to ask questions of and direct comments to members of the project team— or to ask questions and make comments in a group setting. Attendees were encouraged to submit written comments. Project team members were available throughout the evening to explain the displays, answer questions, and receive public input. A brief presentation was made at 6:20 p.m. After housekeeping remarks by Judith Buethe, Public Outreach Coordinator, Rob Himes, P.E., Principal, Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. addressed the group with a PowerPoint presentation, providing project background, progress, alternatives being considered, cost, and schedule. Mr. Himes' presentation was followed by a question -and - answer period. [A copy of the PowerPoint presentation can be found in Appendix G.] 1.5: Summary of Concerns Expressed The overall feedback from attendees about the breadth and depth of the information provided and the accessibility of project team members was positive. One comment sheet was received at the meeting. A list of dominant concerns or comments given at the meeting can be found in Chapter 4, "Outcome of the Public Information Meeting." 61 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Chapter 2: Meeting Proceedings 2.1: Welcome The room set-up at the Public Information Meeting was developed according to the layout shown below: I larney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Tuesday, July 17,2012 Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street Lodi, California I M e d B 0 x Display Boards Projection Screen J Projection Screen J11 - A,_ _"A'_ )" 7 1 Page ./A J11 - A,_ _"A'_ )" 7 1 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report 2.2: Displays and Exhibits The informational display boards, exhibits and maps at the Public Information Meeting are explained below. (Reduced copies of the informational display boards and graphics are included in Appendix B.) Station 1: Welcome Board and Sign -in Tables A welcome board greeted attendees as they entered the meeting room. Attendees were asked to sign in to maintain an attendance record and to ensure that all interested parties would be added to the project mailing list. [See Appendix for the attendee list.] The Public Outreach representative gave each attendee a print program with the logos of the City of Lodi, San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), and Measure K. The print program welcomed attendees to the public meeting, stated the evening's agenda, and provided the project purpose and project description, funding, a project map, and information on how attendees could comment and stay involved. The print program provided contact information for future questions, concerns, or comments. The print program also included information on two pertinent upcoming meetings —a Lodi City Council Shirtsleeve Session and a hearing before the Lodi City Council. [See Appendix A.] Comment sheets provided space for comments and/or concerns and asked attendees if they wished to be added to mailing lists for the projects. The Public Outreach representative explained the format of the meeting and encouraged attendees to ask questions of and make comments to the project team members who were present. Station 2: Displays and Exhibits Maps of the construction alternatives were displayed across the front of the City Council chambers. Station 3: Comment Station A receptacle at the Welcome table was provided for comment sheets. One written comment sheet was submitted during the Public Information Meeting. [See Appendix E.] 2.3: Personnel on Hand The following personnel set up and conducted the meeting and were available to answer questions from the public. Working at the direction of City of Lodi personnel, the persons in charge of the meeting were Rob Himes, P.E., Principal, Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.; Phillip Vulliet, P.E., Project Manager, Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.; and Judith Buethe, Judith Buethe Communications. 2.3.1: City of Lodi Staff Chris Boyer, P.E., Assistant Engineer Wally Sandelin, P.E., Public Works Director Charlie Swimley, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director 2.3.4: Consultants Murk Thomas & Company, Inc. Rob Himes, P.E., Principal Phillip Vulliet, P.E., Project Manager 81 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Judith Buethe Communications Judith Buethe, Owner Loreen Huey, Administrative Assistant 2.3.5: Elected Officials and Other Agencies Lodi City Council Phil Katzakian San Joaquin Council d Governments Donald Mascardo San Joaquin County Jeffrey Levers, Public Works Department 91 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report. Chapter 3: Presentation At 6:20 p.m., after introductions and housekeeping remarks by Judith Buethe, Public Outreach Coordinator, Rob Himes, Principal, Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. gave a PowerPoint presentation that included the project development process, purpose and goals of the meeting, existing conditions at the sight, the proposed project, project constraints alternatives —overand under, alternatives being considered, a set of criteria for evaluating whether to build an underpass or overhead structure, what experts say about underpasses vs. overhead structures, visual impacts of the alternatives, cost, and the remaining project schedule. [See Appendix G for a copy of the full PowerPoint presentation.] Following is a list of the subsequent questions and comments by members of the audience. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 1. What is theprojected number of lanes west d Hutchins Street? 2. Whyfour lanesfrom Hutchins Street to Lower Sacramento Road? 3. Could we cut trucks outfrom using the road? 4. Whatkind d separation do you anticipate building between the overpass andpedestrian sidewalk? 5. Areyou concerned someone couldfall into the roadway? 6. Willsidewalks be built on both sides of the structure orjust one? 7. I'm still not understanding why there is no bypass road being considered with theAlternative One overheadproposal. 8. Do you have any to -scale cross-section drawings of how big this thing isprojected to be? 9. Arguments for the overhead alternative because of cost advantages arepersuasive, butyour diagrams are not to scale. 10. I would like more detail to get a better appreciation for what it will look like. 11. Who made the decision to go under when Kettleman was built? 12. On an overpass, how will water runoff be collected and sent toponds? 13. From digging to opening, how long will construction last? 14. How much of a shorter time if the whole road were to be closed? a. 1.5 years. 15. Graffiti problems are everywhere. How accessible are the walls on the back side to allow cleaning? 16. Do costs include access roads to the metal company? 17. What is the estimated traffic count on Maggio Circle? 18. Whatsort of roads do youproject building at the base of the embankmentfor maintenance and safety? 19. How much area is on both sides of the railroad? 20. How can theproject keep campers or transientsfrom lingering under the structure? [End of question -and -answer period] 101 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Chapter 4: Public Input Public input was received in three ways: 1) written comments received at the Public Information Meeting, 2) oral comments received by the project team staff members, and 3) questions, comments, and concerns expressed during the question -and -answer session. 3.1: Written Comments Received at the Public Information Meeting 3.1.1: Listing of Comment Sheets and Correspondence Received at the Public Information Meeting Jack Dunn 2232 Newbury Lodi, CA (209) 334-6754 Jack.sheila@mac.com Clear, consist, well run meeting. A copy of the original written comment sheet received at the meeting is included in Appendix E. 111 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Chapter 5: Outcome of the Public Information Meeting The overall feedback about the breadth, depth, and usefulness of the information provided at the Public Information Meeting was very positive. Dominant concerns, questions, or comments expressed by attendees were the following: • Number of lanes planned for the grade separation structure. • Safety • Sidewalks • Desire for to -scale cross-section drawings. • Water runoff • Length of construction; other construction impacts • Maintenance; potential graffiti • Access roads to Valley Iron Works • Potential impacts on Maggio Circle • Breadth of area directly impacted by the proposed structure 121Page Meeting �Ellila Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Appendices For Your Calendar 7:00 a.m. -8:008.10. Tuesday, July 24.2012 Sbirtsleeve Session Lodi City council Carnegie Form 7:00 p.m. Wednesday August I, 2012 Public HearingduringCityCmmcil Meeting Lodi city Council Carnegie Fonuu For More Information Judith Buethe Publicoutresch Coordinator Harney Lane Grade Separation Project P.O. Box 773. Stockton, CA 95201-0773 Hodine: (209)464-4350 Hottiae@buethecoinsum cations.corn Mankywa for mterrdliM this ewnhig3 Public h1(unnmiar Meering. N ct ProteMap w N W E 4 F. Harney Lane E.Haroeylame is Project Background Harney Lane is a two-lane, east -west rnban collector near the City of L.odi's southern city limit. Harney Lace intersects the Union Pacific Railroad MRR) approximately'/. mile west of State Rome 99. Trafc on Harney Lane is expected to increase as the City continues to grow. Keeping the existing at -grade railroad crossing m Haney Lane would pun sigttiflcaut traDic congestion on Harney lane. the surrounding intersections, and the State Route 9941aruey Lane Laterchange. The City's General Llan includes a railroad grade separation at the UPRR crossing. Project Alternatives Tvo types ofproject alternatives are being considered—m underpass below the UPRR tracks and an overhead about the UPRR tracks. The grade separation will ultimately have four laces. Welcometo the Public Information Meeting Tuesday,luly 17,2012 600p.m.-730p.m. Camegle Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi VJW!�;�—ra�ti Tonight'sAgenda July 17.2012 6:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Open House—Exhibits slid Hefrealinents 6:30 li ra Wekome, lanednclions, Agenda oreniew Judith littetbe A,6Jtc 0"W-1, Cawdnmtor Protect overview Philip Vulliet. P.E.. Project Manager Afntk Th -'—A QHNHoustCemmeals Audieuce Open House Cuntlnues Uu111 7:30 p.m. 131 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Comment Sheet 141 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Comment Sheet Name (Please print): Date: Mailing address: Resident, Business, Organization, etc.: _ Phone: _ Email:_ Comments: ProjectHothne: (209) 464-8707, ext. 101 or toll-free (877) 464-4350 Fanail: Hotliae@bttetheconmmnunications.com Write: Public Outreach Coordinator Harney Lane Grade Separation Project P.O.Box 773 Stockton, CA 95201-0773 141 Page Ln N =- as rb 3 N ' Grade Project Date: Tuesday, July 17,2012 Please Print Your Name Organization, if any Address, City and Zi E-mail Phone 3 m Gl m CL m m m v d 4 0 3 O ep n v C A 7 O 3 d O CD 7 tD O 0O to C 3 3 w a 0 a Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report W�#z& to the Public Meeting 161 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Public Meeting Postcard Invitation YouAre Cordially Invited to a Publiclnformation Meeting 'I'nesday, July 77,2012 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. CaniegieFotwn 305 West Pine Street, Lodi. Calif. �y of to i, /1 U`� O YEl SV,i �lFOP Project Background Harneey Lane is a hvalene, east-aeslurban collectornear the CityofLodi's southam city limit. Harney Lane intersects die UnionPacido Pailxtad (UPRR-) approximately'/4milewestofStateRoute99. TrafconHrmeyLaneis expected to incrilm as the C by eondmsea to grow. K"pW the existing at•grade railroadcroWng on Harney Lane would cause significant traf8 congestion out Harney Lane. the surrounding intersections, andilie State Route 9941amey Lane tutmtangs. The City's Nueva] Plea imlu*sa railroad grade separation at the UPRRcrossing. Project Attainaftes TWotypes ofprojectalternativesarebeing considered,antmlMassbea wthe UPRR Tracks and an overhead'above the UPRR tracks. Tlie grade separation will tiitiinately have four lanes. What Will Happen edits Pehile tnt&rmrtlon Most!"$? At the public meeting on July 17, the project mauager for the design team will present the project alternatives and the estimated costs of each alternative being considered. The Project Manager will also discuss how the construction may be staged to have the least hapact on surrounding properties, businesses. and the traveling public. biswbers of the public wi I I have an opportunity to ask gtmfioits and make coULMW3 ontheproject. Public Outreach Coordinator Harney bane Grate Separation Project P.O. Box 773 Stockton. CA 95201-077 For Your Calendar At the Shlrraleew Sessionon July 24.2012, the Lodi City Council will review the alternatives and theresults of tiepubhc information IiLeeting and receive thedesigu team's reconunteuded alternative. At die City Council meeting on August I, 20112, the City Council will review the aterns Lives, receive public comments, and select the altetuadye for tie PWI-t. For More lnformatlon Call the Hotline at (209) 464.4350, Ext. 101, ore-ruail Hotline@buethecomartmications.com. You are also welcome to mail your written comments and inquiries about the project to Public Outreach Coordinator, Harney Lane Specific Plan, P.O. Box 773. Stockton, CA 95201-0773. Project Map {r * a r e etw.a� r.tmmat+• Project area of ( 171 Page Published in the Lodi News -Sentinel on Thursday, July5,2012 Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Tuesday, July 17,2012 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street Lodi, California Project Background Harney Lane is a two-lane, Cast-westurban collector near the City of Lodi's southern city limit. Harney Lane intersects the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) approximately % mile west of State Route 99. Traffic on Harney Lane is expected to increase as the City continues to grow. Keeping the existing at -grade railroad crossing on Harney Lane would cause significant traffic congestion on Harney Lane, the surrounding intersections, and the State Route 99/Harney Lane Interchange. The City's General Plan includes a railroad grade separation at the UPRR crossing. Project Alternatives Two types of project alternatives are being considered—an underpass below the UPRR Tracks and an overhead above the UPRR tracks. The grade separation will ultimately have four lanes. What Will Happen at the Public Information Meeting? At the public meeting on July 17,2012, the project manager for the design team will present the project alternatives and the estimated costs of each alternative being considered. The Project Manager will also discuss how the construction may be staged to have the least impact on surrounding properties, businesses, and the traveling public. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments on the project. For Your Calendar At a Shirtsleeve Session on July 24, 2012, the Lodi City Council will review the alternatives and the results of the public information inecti ng and receive the design team's preferred alternative. At the City Council meeting on August 1,2012, the City Council will review the alternatives, receive public comments, and select the alternative for the project. For More Information Call the Hotline at (209) 464-4350, Ext. 101, or e -snail HotlineCa bttethecommttnicatiotis.coni. You are also welcome to mail your written comments and inquiries about the project to Public Outreach Coordinator, Harney Lane Grade Separation Project, RO. Box 773, Stockton, CA 95201-0773. �.t OF t V� X11 0� Harney lane M'iasux,F FOR 181 Page Press Release Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report CONTACT: Judith Buethe FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: (209) 464-8707, Ext. 101 July 5,2012 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JULY 17 FOR HARNEY LANE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT (Lodi, CaH)-4Aenbm of the public are invited to a public information meeting on Tuesday, July 17,2012, to learn about and comment on the Harney Lane Grade Separation Project. The meeting will be held from 6:00 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. At the public information meeting on July 17, the project manager for the design team will present the project alternatives and the estimated costs of each alternative being considered. The project manager will also discuss how the construction may be staged to have the least impact on surrounding properties, businesses, and the traveling public. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments on the project. Project Background and Alternatives Harney Lane is a two-lane, east -west urban collector near the City of Lodi's southern city limit. Harney Lane intersects the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) approximately '/a mile west of State Route 99. Traffic on Harney Lane is expected to increase as the City continues to grow. Keeping the existing at -grade railroad crossing on Harney Lane would cause significant traffic congestion on Harney Lane, the surrounding intersections, and the State Route 99/Harney Lane Interchange. The City's General Plan includes a railroad grade separation at the UPRR crossing. Two types of project alternatives are being considered—an underpass below the UPRR tracks and an overhead above the UPRR tracks. The grade separation will ultimately have four lanes. For Calendars At a Shirtsleeve Session at 7:00 a.m. on July 24,2012, the Lodi City Council will review the project alternatives and the results of the public information meeting and receive the design team's preferred alternative. At the City Council meeting on August 1, 2012, the City Council will review the alternatives, receive public comments, and select the alternative for the project. For More Information Hotline: (209) 464-4350, Ext. 101 Email: Hotlimftethecanmmications . can 191 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Appendix D: Photographs at the Meeting 201 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report 211 Page Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report E Sep Comment Sheet dame (Please print): Date: 7-17 1 Bailing address: tesident, Business, Organization, etc.: 'hone: —4& .1c 'F Email: .t a �-�f .3�t e,i �a @ Wiac . cow :omments: �Qa-akt e vx,pa,o� � ^•(' Project Hotline: (209) 464-8707, ext. 101 or toll-free (877) 464-4350 Email: Hotline@buethecommmunications.com Write: Public Outreach Coordinator Harney Lane Grade Separation Project P.O. Box 773 Stockton, CA 95201-0773 221 Page Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Your Nante Organization, ff any Address, City and Zip Email Phone �A� a �oc •Z 473 e - Q -Sc - . Glv\ p\vary. `sZA /\a-: N c-/- okva,�l,c�—. '�p4-8\s-30N?' �X/ . (OG -�Q &C1444 oF1 lrc.-. W4, /Z E ,S Cx va s.0 d� %012 t/��S�i �,N KV - ala i Com'�� S'�ScLG� �2li(r U w�1/�sc�vG�lzs ^t� t6�✓j �O1/N tv /�.0 5 t d,'iiy/ osG. � G' a/, ,6yo�•r��a7/t�ei:n,�t3', cotes ?i 'i °i^�avZg kkLo IAOAN GWt_S Z Tri n^I L F -r 1 a 4 °t c- n/- hol.<.sT' La►v� J ��'°� j P m�� y, 3 3 Y- 3 D naakyaajoramwd&& Gradw wrma%bAvicla. CQ 3. Harnev Line Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Please Print Your Name Organization, if —y Address, City and Zi Email Phone i�fm ?IleA, 239�u/lie G'r. lv�i 51� e�6�9s2yaC.4--nom�lm 31�Hd'J46 c.4Q+LA aS66 Ila IO Cr,d'L6d, PC �et4/; (-S,Jfe, tj ef /,p Debm MLAI)oUr4 C,tc.te rcL e3yG cu>tr.�+ (03 923 48 GRkC� CDST✓9 /3)(ov N• V ST �,i9N� AOL) I 95RY 12 �co�ds e lo�ihp�`� co ✓^ �TQ3'oZS5- 2- 97� 3 -)- A&O ufy C/'4- ,'4,L o I t' Ca �s ay v Z_ 3 3 -lP7s 3�FF1��Y G�vERs SAI. saA�rc�ru co. Jle..�evs �Js�cay.a� q�3-7fo31 6� 1 vtz ,Z�S i`?NL 60?Al f' (0I<(C( 2LiZCAAV -312Qli11' ,- -3 ;7 9 � 3 d Tkankvoafor aaeadre. Grad= vorsaasWmela. rbz 01 a a U4 0 rD 4 N V1 Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Please Print Yon Name Oxgani nation, if an Address,and Zi Email Phone %/,? X r15 /�� P.r C 0, L Zo-eesn 0 6 W"W"s /yl % C, _ � rnankgorjoraaeneutg. GmdaspNw ea&Iwcic OC Harney Lane Grade Separation Project Public Information Meeting Summary Report Appendix G: PowerPoint Presentation 261 Page HARNEY LANEIUPRR GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT City Council Presentation August 1,, 2012 nf - w"Wo4A Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 0fr.Impg IIKe v i . T ��•� J it HARN EY LANE � 0fr.Impg IIKe Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Jroiect D •1's wre FeasibilityEnvironmental StudyM Studies Design Construction Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting Auizust 1, 2012 Jroiect D •1's Uwe FeasibilityEnvironmental StudyM Studies Design Construction Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Feasibility Study Public Meeting Jevelor Environmental Studies wre Design Construction Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Jevelor Feasibility Environmental Study Studies Public City Council Meeting :1 Shirtsleeve Session wre Design Construction Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 61 wre Feasibility Environmental Study Studies Design Public City Council City Council Meeting :1 Shirtsleeve:1 Selects Session Alternative Construction Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 61 wre Feasibility Environmental Design Construction Study Studies Public City Council City Council Finalize Meeting :1 Shirtsleeve:1 Selects :1Environmental Session Alternative Process Existing Conditions • At Grade Crossing w/UPRR Tracks • 161000 Vehicles (Including 95 Buses) Per Day • 39 Trains Per Day • Almost 2 Hours Delay • Train Blows Whistle Approaching Crossing • No Pedestrian or Bike Facilities Proposed Project • Approved in the City's General Plan and Discussed in the Harney Lane Specific Plan • Four Lane Expressway • With Grade Separation — No Whistle Blowing • Free -Flowing Traffic • Improved Emergency Response • Remove Conflict (Safer) • Accommodates Pedestrians and Bicycles Harney Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Prnipct C • 1 X71-iRliy�.�+•_ If 1 I I - j -- LL I gERIC C Harney Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Proipct C 0 reTa "'I'm 0 qk _' s r �. l , g Harney Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Prnipct C • 41 qk _' s rP� �. l � g Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Project Ca A 4 ifi �- LL IL i � e l � r Harney Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Prnipct C .jj A ifi 1 1f j ^s- LL 0�1 .. �W4 �k i l , g Harney Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Prnipct C 0 LL it IL WV Iq l � g ` I -.f �. • Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 0 9 4 �z 1'Allr �k � I ' e l � g . I _ Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 0 0, V Grade Separations Overhead — Roadway OVER railroad tracks Alternatives Considered Overhead Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Harney Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 0 0 r.", . "Oj 'i WIM I 0 W_ 1k .i t ILL iii s: r zz. •I n' )!i Ali! -.' ... - _ � - W -��-� — -= -- — — — —_ Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 0ITt0 11 - . • Ki =p �. 01- AML ��,, "_i� • r. I� �r 11 �� ''�. . _"_ - '•.�;, ', �� :� I - - �� W - Harney Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1, 2012 Y Z, FF `Qe 46.1 Alternatives Considered Underpass Alternatives Alternative 3 Alternative 4 CITY OF LODI - HARNEY LANEIUPRR EXHIBIT _ ALTERNATIVE 3 UNDERPASS (RETAINING WALLS) no■ari ixoaer r rorrraxr, ixr. Underpass Alternative (Retaining Walls) WAX CITY OF LODI - HARNEY LANEIUPRR EXHIBIT _ ALTERNATIVE 4 UNDERPASS (CUT SLOPSS) 64M not ■arr ixorler r rorrraxr, ixr. Underpass Alternative (Cut Slope) cw SLOPES Wim. ""Throw Away" Costs Construction Duration UPRR Involvement R/W Acquisition Construction Cost Long -Term Maintenance Utility Impacts Noise Impacts Visual Impacts 0 0 0 SAME +/- 0 0 0 v v SAME +/- 0 Best r Mitigated Worst What Experts Say (From their Standards) California Department of Transportation "Railroads should be carried over (roadways) only when there is no other reasonable alternative': (HDM 208.9) Union Pacific Railroad "The most effective method of reducing interference to Railroad operations for construction of a Grade Separation Projects is to use an (Overcrossing) and avoid an (Undercrossing)': (UPRR Guide 4.1) ""Throw Away" Costs Construction Duration UPRR Involvement R/W Acquisition Construction Cost Long -Term Maintenance Utility Impacts Noise Impacts Visual Impacts 0 0 0 SAME O O v v SAME +/- 0 Best r Mitigated Worst T Noise Impacts I Overhead Noise Impacts �pp�� SovND WALT, } �oISE Underpass Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1. 2012 Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meetin.R August 1. 2012 r i r .mum. i Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meeting August 1. 2012 .,F ••,:,•�`:-•--.... `rte--�= r _. -.. �1.. Dvprhpad Visual Impacts 70 EXISTING STRUCTURE\ B'SOUNDWALL RAN C=9TING FG M FENCE 17+46.59 LOCATION 1 13 RRYCIPLtE-- >; MULBEI �44 75" 2 HARNEYLKNE ;v -v Jp -31 7 rk l� Visual Impacts qs` EXISTING STZU8GTURE RAN EX'6TINO -ED r FENCE W SOUNDWALL 2d I---- . - - - _y - - 19+24.12 LOCATION 2 E3 7L MULBERRY .7* 6 Tr HARNEY UNE N. 7-� q Visual Impacts I m m Q d I E7a8TfNG FENCE rF. 06 20+61.23 LOCATION 3 • I +it h� � .. �; ter_ . - y MULBERRY GiF3CLE _ -'�►R 'r • •r,'cJ�� " jr/L, -�Y f' 3 . i� • ��" .� . 'dY � �'- i•? 4i � _� � ' y�''r - •Y�•T5 . ".� _ i _., - r} �� 9'Y u5. _� ��_ . i•y''.i•- '4- �,+i'� .9f �.� � .}�i .� � _ _ , i.:dS`•y!� .�i �N _�i.L A --.+y, t_ '.1 ti-' 'Sd _ _ �i.-'.. "i• .7I •,'Y.� .. Visual Impacts EXISTING STRUCTU RNV EXIS-nNG ED FENCE 22+50.76 LOCATION 4 13 tAULBEIRRY G ZtE 7511� C2 Tr T7 FHMARNEY E -7 v 77 - Y Trill, - -, 1m; Harnev Lane/UPRR Grade Separation — Council Meetin.R August 1, 2012 11MI�1lI��IQI�1�!l�� r .�::o��l� q[t��lll11�► f siT''�' ��11111IIIIIIlii11111111�1['lillll!'``-� ��`:��,� ��• 9.��Ililllllillllllli11111Ililli�;i�`��I611116i; � �; ��®�.�'�° ,A��: �► . ;�1l1i11111i 1111111111111�11l�IIIII!i' � �f lillll�� ` ��'ll�il111111illlli��i.":.:�li�lllllllllllllllllllllilllllllll�\�l!1!111 �®iIII��iQ��lllllllll�ifl�� /•: �lilllllilll:111lllllllllill�ill��!!I�R.'��I'1�I��1��.�r' �;� �� Illllllillllll#IIIIIIMIIii�i:..�� ilillllll11111l1111111111111111i1�i��'' `'_ ��l1119�� 1111111111111iallll�il��l�I �1i1� 11�1111111�111111111111�1111� "I�_1��1l a vvaii nein Overhead Hiiernauve gl $18,800,000 Alternative nZ $26,500,000 Underpass Alternative #3 $28,500,000 i Alternative #4 $27,700,000 Remaining Project Schedule • Council Decision on Preferred Alternative (August 1, 2012) • Environmental Studies Finalized (November 2012) • Right -of -Way Appraisals &Acquisitions (January 2013 -October 2013) • Engineering &Permitting Completed (December 2013) 0 Construction Start (2014) Any Questions? Bridge Abutment al r ,�