HomeMy WebLinkAboutVulcan Table Mountain - Request to Extend Hours 04051750 El Charro Road, Pleasanton CA 94588 (Physical)
4101 Dublin Blvd, PNB #144, Suite F, Dublin CA 94568 (Mailing)
April 5, 2017
Tim Snellings
Director of Development Services
Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Pete Calarco
Deputy Director of Development Services
Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Subject: Vulcan Materials Company – Table Mountain Quarry
Request to Extend Hours – State Route 191 Curve Straightening
Dear Mr. Snelling and Mr. Calarco,
This letter is to request a temporary extension of hours related to truck loading and hauling at
Vulcan’s Table Mountain Quarry in order to provide aggregate materials during the construction of
the State Route 191 Curve Straightening Project (Project # 03-3F7604). According to CalTrans’
Project Manager, Matt Solano; “The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes
to improve safety by modifying the horizontal and vertical curves on this segment of State Route
(SR) 191 in Butte County. This project will update the roadway to current standards by increasing
the curve radii, widening the shoulders to 8 feet, and improving the vertical profile grade.
Additionally, this project will improve the clear recovery zone (CRZ) by removing obstacles and
flattening slopes close to the travelled way.” He also commented that the proposed schedule to work
24 hour shifts will benefit the traveling public by completing this project a year early.
Table Mountain’s Use Permit (Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan 04-01 and Modification of UP
96-02 for Martin Marietta Materials) contains the following condition:
7. Plant production, maintenance and road hauling shall be limited to 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; on-
site rail car loading may be done on demand. Plant production is defined herein as all mining,
processing, crushing or screening of materials, loading of materials and transport of materials off the
project site, maintenance and repair of equipment. Plant production does not include use of the office
in the evening for paper work. Upon Board of Supervisors’ approval, the hours of operation may be
modified in the event of an emergency or natural disaster, or when the public health, safety
and welfare require the products of the operation.
50 El Charro Road, Pleasanton CA 94588 (Physical)
4101 Dublin Blvd, PNB #144, Suite F, Dublin CA 94568 (Mailing)
Based on this project’s need of aggregates on a 24 hour basis, we would like to utilize this
condition’s language to request the Board of Supervisors to temporarily extend the truck loading and
hauling hours of the operation so that we can contribute to the public health, safety, and welfare of
the region.
In addition to the project’s public safety benefits, Table Mountain quarry is also the closest aggregate
source to the construction area, which reduces the total amount of miles traveled and in turn
reduces impacts on regional roadways and air emissions. The quarry is also only 7 miles south of the
project site and the haul route does not directly pass through any residential or commercial areas. If
the aggregates are supplied by an alternative source, the 24-hour trucking operations would still
remain and the sphere of impact for this project will be expanded.
Below are some additional project details that will assist the Board of Supervisors in deliberating our
request.
Projected Start Date: May 1, 2017
Request Change in Truck Loading/Hauling Hours: 24 Hours
Length of Time to Provide Aggregate: 4-6 Weeks
Total Amount of Aggregate from Table Mountain: 170,000 tons
How Many Trucks Per Night: 200 - 250
Projected Route to Job Site: Table Mountain Blvd to Hwy 191
(7 miles)
Attached you will find information on the project form CalTrans along with a map of the project
area. Please let me know if you need any additional information regarding this project or our request
for the extension of truck loading and hauling hours.
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (510) 340-8215 or via email at
torellk@vmcmail.com.
Sincerely,
Kevin Torell, AICP
Northern California Permitting Manager
Enclosures
cc: Rowland Hickel, Butte County Senior Planner
Matt Solano, Cal Trans Project Manager
Sean Harrigan, Vulcan Area Sales Manager
Sean Borck, Vulcan Area Operations Manager
03- But
Vicinity Map
But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
Table of Contents
Page Number
1. Introduction 1
2. Recommendation 2
3. Background 2-3
4. Purpose and Need 3-4
5. Alternatives 4-7
6. Considerations Requiring Discussion 7-8
7. Other Considerations as Appropriate 8-9
8. Funding/Programming 9
9. Schedule 10
10. Risks 10
11. FHWA Coordination 10
12. Project Reviews 10
13. Project Personnel 11
14. Attachments 11
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to improve safety
by modifying the horizontal and vertical curves on this segment of State Route (SR)
191 in Butte County. This project will update the roadway to current standards by
increasing the curve radii, widening the shoulders to 8 feet, and improving the
vertical profile grade. Additionally, this project will improve the clear recovery zone
(CRZ) by removing obstacles and flattening slopes close to the travelled way. The
Project Development Team (PDT) evaluated different options and two were looked at
during the circulation of the Draft Environmental Document. These two were
Alternative 1 (Alt 1) and Alternative 2 (Alt 2), which correspond to Alignments BA5
and BA4, respectively. After the public circulation period of the Draft Environmental
Document (DED), public comments were addressed and the “BA4” alternative was
selected as the “preferred” alternative.
The cost estimate, included as Attachment E, is based on 2015/2016 escalated dollars.
This project was programmed in the 2012 SHOPP, under the 20.XX.201.010 Safety
Improvements program, and is included in Butte County Association of Governments
(BCAG’s) Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) eligible for federal
funds.
Project Limits
03-But-191
PM 6.8/8.6
Number of Alternatives 4 (2 brought forward as buildable)
Current Capital Outlay
Support Estimate (Preferred
Alt 2)
$6,270,000
Current Capital Outlay
Construction Estimate
(Preferred Alt 2)
$17,511,000
Current Capital Outlay
Right-of-Way Estimate
(Preferred Alt 2)
$5,215,000
Funding Source 20.XX.201.010 (SHOPP)
Funding Year 2015/2016
Type of Facility 2-lane conventional highway
Number of Structures 0
SHOPP Project Output 140 Collisions Reduced over 20 years
Environmental Determination
or Document
Categorical Exclusion (NEPA) and Initial
Study with Negative Declaration (CEQA)
Legal Description In Butte County Near Paradise On Route 191
From 0.7 Miles North of Rattlesnake Flats Rd
to South of Airport Rd
Project Development Category 4B
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
2
2. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Project Report (PR) be approved with the preferred “BA4”
Alternative 2 and proceed to the design phase.
3. BACKGROUND
Project History
This stretch of SR 191 has been investigated several times in response to collisions
occurring along the corridor. These are predominantly single vehicle run off road
collisions, and the analysis indicates they may be significantly reduced by increasing
curve radii, widening shoulders, and improving the clear recovery area.
Consideration was given to providing a “4 foot wide soft buffer” for alerting
inattentive drivers when they have crossed the centerline and need to re-enter the
correct lane. This proposal does not fully address collisions happening along the
corridor because the issue is not of distraction, but rather of vehicles entering the
curves too fast and losing control. Therefore, this concept was not taken beyond the
preliminary planning stage.
The calculated safety index (SI) is over 200, qualifying this project as a 010 Safety
Improvements Project under the Office of Traffic Safety, Highway Safety
Improvements Program Guidelines. Previous responses to continuing collisions have
included placing additional signs, increasing the size of signs within the project
limits, placing open grade hot mix asphalt throughout, and constructing new metal
beam guardrail at the north end of the project limits.
Community Interaction
Support for this project is anticipated in the local community due to the purpose and
need, which is to decrease collisions and improve safety. A public meeting was held
at the Paradise Branch of the Butte County Library, 5922 Clark Road, Paradise,
California on February 12, 2015. The public review followed and comments were
addressed.
Existing Facility
Route 191 is a state highway in California that connects Route 70 to the town of
Paradise. It begins near Oroville, heads northward through Butte County where it
intersects Durham-Pentz Road approximately 3.5 miles going north. Durham-Pentz
Road is a turn off road to Butte College, which has around 13,000 students and is a
higher educational point for the community. Route 191 continues north until it ends
at Pearson Road approximately 11.5 miles north of Route 70, within the southern
limits of Paradise.
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
3
Paradise is a town with a population of approximately 26,218 and is spread out on a
wide ridge which rises between canyons on either side. Paradise is an incorporated
town in Butte County located 10 miles east of Chico and 85 miles north of
Sacramento. Route 191 is the major road connection for citizens of Paradise to travel
south to Route 70, which continues towards Sacramento and its surrounding cities.
4. PURPOSE AND NEED
Purpose:
The purpose of this project is to reduce the number and severity of collisions at this
location by increasing the curve radii, widening shoulders, improving the vertical
profile, and improving the clear recovery area.
Need:
This 1.8-mile segment of roadway experienced a total of 54 collisions in a recent 3-
year period (June 30, 2008 to July 1, 2011), including 24 collisions involving injuries.
The resulting total accident rate is 3.2 times higher than the statewide average for a
similar type facility.
A. Problem, Deficiencies, Justification
The problem consists of collisions along the route that were above a threshold that
required the project to be programmed. The preferred alternative will address the
purpose and need due to updating this stretch to correct both horizontal and vertical
deficiencies.
B. Regional and System Planning
Butte 191 from the southern city limits of the Town of Paradise to State Route 70 is a
2-lane rural minor arterial road with no plans for expansion. This section of roadway
serves Butte College and Paradise Skypark Airport as well as other residential and
commercial uses. It is used primarily for local and regional trips rather than for
interregional travel and is considered a route eligible for relinquishment. There are
no plans currently to relinquish the route to the Town of Paradise or the County of
Butte. They were approached but they did not have a need or want for the facility.
This option remains for these agencies if they so choose to assume ownership,
operation, and maintenance of this route at some point in the future.
It is important to note that the Town of Paradise is presently developing a “Southeast
Paradise Specific Plan,” which proposes approximately 200 new homes and some
commercial development between State Route 191 and Durham-Pentz Road. This
new development may affect circulation patterns and highway performance.
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
4
This route is a Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) route that can
accommodate both interstate and California legal trucks.
C. Traffic
The Traffic Index for 10 and 20 year projections on Butte 191 from postmile 6.8 to
8.6 is as shown in the following (2013 data):
Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
ADT
Base Year 2011 5,700
Current Year 2013 5,990
Construction Year 2016 6,410
2026 7,840
2036 9,260
Peak Hour
ADT
Base 2011 580
Current Year 2013 610
Construction Year 2016 650
2026 800
2036 940
Directional % = 55
DH Truck % = 3.0
10- Year TI = 8.0
20- Year TI = 8.5
10- Year Shoulder TI = 5.0
20- Year Shoulder TI = 5.5
Current Year ESAL = 32,778
5. ALTERNATIVES
5A. Viable Alternatives
This project has one viable alternative that meets the purpose and need that will be
brought forward to the design phase.
Preferred Alternative 2 (BA4)
This Alternative follows alignment “BA4” which starts connecting to the existing
road at the south end and also goes west of the existing alignment. It then reconnects
to the existing road before going to the east, crossing the road two more times and
eventually reconnecting to the existing road just south of Airport Road. These
crossing points on the existing roadway require additional traffic handling and
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
5
staging. This alignment impacts wetlands and possibly will require mitigation for
these impacts. Impacts to right of way properties are minimized by maximizing
slopes and minimizing cut and fill areas. There will be more impacts to property
owners on the east of the existing alignment and fewer impacts to the property owner
on the west as compared to BA5. Existing properties will continue to have their
access maintained with the new alignment. For further details of this design
alignment, see attachment A.
Engineering Features of Alternative 2:
• 12-foot lanes and 8-foot shoulders
• Designed for 60 miles per hour (MPH) vehicle speeds
• Improved clear recovery zone by removing obstacles close to the travelled
way
• Avoids impacts to a local historical feature
• Impacts a wetland with a potential habitat for plant species
• Impacts 60.5 Acres (many of the acres consist of existing oak trees requiring
mitigation)
• 225,000 cubic yards of imported fill material required
• Maintains access to existing properties from Route 191
• Install MGS
Utilities
There is a Pacific Gas and Electric overhead utility that is in conflict with the vertical
clearance requirements for alternative 2. This conflict will be studied further during
the design phase and, if necessary, will be relocated during the construction phase.
Planting and Mitigation
Highway re-planting and offsite mitigation is required for alternative 2 due to impacts
to oaks. More accurate numbers and strategies for mitigation will be coordinated
with permitting agencies and finalized during the design phase. Preliminary
environmental mitigation numbers are shown in attachment D. Impacts to visual
resources will be mitigated on site as is deemed feasible. Plant establishment and
monitoring requirements are discussed in further detail in attachment H. A final
erosion control plan will be included in the plans and a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which will control erosion and sediment discharge from
the site, will need to be submitted by the contractor and approved prior to
construction of the project. For further information on permanent and temporary
erosion control, see attachments G and H.
Excess Right of Way
Though the roadway will be realigned some of the original road will remain. Some of
the existing right of way not needed for the project will be considered excess land.
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
6
Final determination of use of this excess land will be done during the design phase.
See section 6D for further discussion on Right of Way needed for the preferred
alternative.
Bike Considerations
Alternative 2 will upgrade the facility to a possible Class III bike route because the
roadway within the project limits will be the “minimum standards for highway lanes
and shoulders” as stated in section 1003.3 of the Highway Design Manual (HDM).
This route will not be designated or signed as a bike route at this time.
Design Exceptions
Alternative 2 as is proposed meets mandatory design standards for a 60 mile per hour
design speed and therefore, no mandatory design exceptions are required. See below
for the advisory design exception needed.
Design Standards Risk Assessment
Alternative
Design Standard from
Highway Design Manual
Tables 82.1A & 82.1B
Probability of Design
Exception Approval
(None, Low,
Medium, High,)
Justification for Probability Rating
2 Index 304.1: Side slopes
4:1 or flatter High Slopes flatter than 4:1 would require
greater impacts to the environment.
5B. Rejected Alternatives
There were several other alternatives considered but rejected as shown below.
Alternative 1 (BA5)
This alternative follows alignment “BA5” which is similar to “BA4”. This alignment
starts connecting to the existing road at the south end and goes west of the existing
alignment. It then reconnects to the existing road before once again going to the west
and eventually reconnecting to the existing road just south of Airport Road. Impacts
to right of way properties are minimized by maximizing slopes and minimizing cut
and fill areas. This alternative requires more import material, but less roadway
excavation than alternative 2 as shown in attachment E and therefore, is more
expensive. Based on this increase costs, with no increased benefit, this alternative
was rejected.
Project Study Report (PSR) Alignment
The alignment proposed in the PSR was designed to follow the existing roadway as
much as possible. It was rejected once further analysis was done when the survey
data was received, showing the profile would be too steep to meet standards and
would cause unnecessary impacts to the travelling public.
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
7
Viaduct
A Viaduct option was considered but rejected due to not meeting design standards,
cost, scope, purpose, and need of the project.
No build
This alternative will leave the existing roadway in its present condition. This was
rejected due to not addressing the purpose and need of the project.
6. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION
6A. Hazardous Waste
Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) could be present in the soil. A Site Investigation (SI)
for ADL will be required in the subsequent stages. Treated Wood Waste (TWW) will
be handled in accordance with the Department of Toxics Substance Control (DTSC)
regulations which requires TWW be disposed as a hazardous waste site. See
attachment C for more information.
6B. Value Analysis
A value analysis study was not conducted because the project does not meet the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) cost threshold of $50 million or more for
roadway projects.
6C. Resource Conservation
All resources will be conserved to the maximum extent possible.
6D. Right-of-Way Issues
Alternative 2 will require additional Right of Way in order to construct the project.
Preliminary design shows that six property owners will be impacted. Excess land is
expected in areas of the old roadway alignment of SR 191. This land will be subject
to erosion control and SWPPP requirements during and post construction. Replanting
and re-grading of the old roadway alignment is proposed as a measure to restore the
land back to pre-highway conditions. Land that is not needed for construction of the
project will be evaluated for other possible uses, which include: Maintenance storage
areas, excess land for sale to prospective buyers, or land for future project use. There
is also a potential conflict with overhead utilities within the project limits. This will
be studied further in the design phase. For additional information on parcel numbers
and owners, see attachment D.
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
8
6E. Environmental Issues
The Initial Study with a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with Caltrans’ environmental procedures, as well as State and federal
environmental regulations. The Initial Study with Negative Declaration attachment B
is the appropriate document for the proposal. This project is Categorically Excluded
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
6F. Air Quality Conformity
Air quality conformity is not required.
6G. Title VI Considerations
Title VI Considerations are not applicable to this project.
6H. Noise Abatement Decision Report
The Noise Abatement Decision Report is outside of the scope of this project.
7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE
Public Hearing Process
The public hearing process will be as typical for a project like this and includes
circulation of the draft environmental document and a meeting for members of the
public.
Route Matters
This project will modify the existing alignment and will need to be evaluated through
the route adoption process as stated in Chapter 23 of the Project Development and
Procedures Manual (PDPM).
Permits
Permits to enters (PTEs) to perform survey and environmental studies were processed
for this project, and may be further needed during the upcoming design process. A
1602 Fish and Wildlife permit will be required to construct the project for both
alternatives. Alternative 2 could require more permitting requirements based on
future environmental investigations and coordination with permitting agencies.
Transportation Management Plan for Use During Construction
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be needed during construction. See
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
9
attachment F for more information.
Stage Construction
This project will require staged construction due to the working days it will take to
construct the project, which translate into multiple seasons. Preliminary staging
consists of constructing the south end of the job in one season as stage 1, and the
north end of the job in one season as stage 2. After half of the job is constructed,
traffic will be “switched over” and put on the new alignment. The staging and traffic
handling strategy will be shown on the contract plans during the design phase to be
followed by the contractor.
8. FUNDING/PROGRAMMING
This project was amended into the 2012 SHOPP and has been determined to be
eligible for federal-aid funding. The fiscal year for delivery of this project is
2016/2017. The current programmed capital amounts requested for this project are
$18,000,000 for Construction and $5,300,000 for Right of Way.
Capital Outlay Support and Project Estimates Alternative 2
Fund Source Fiscal Year Estimate
20.XX.201.010 Prior 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Future Total
Component In thousands of dollars ($1,000)
PA&ED Support 1,051 239 0 0 0 0 0 1,290
PS&E Support 0 134 874 222 0 0 0 1,230
Right-of-Way
Support 0 55 355 64 65 65 156 760
Construction
Support 0 0 0 704 1,609 690 124 3,127
Right-of-Way 0 0 0 5,215 0 0 0 5,215
Construction 0 0 0 17,511 0 0 0 17,511
Total 1,051 428 1,229 23,716 1,674 755 280 29,133
The support cost ratio is 28.2%.
For further detail, please see attached programming sheets.
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
10
9. SCHEDULE
This project is requested to be programmed for delivery in fiscal year (FY) 2016/2017
with the following schedule:
2012 SHOPP Programming Schedule
Project Milestones Scheduled Delivery Date
(Month/Day/Year)
PROGRAM PROJECT M015 09/09/2013
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 10/15/2013
BEGIN PROJ M040 10/21/2013
CIRCULATE DPR & DED EXTERNALLY M120 03/18/2015
PA & ED M200 05/08/2015
PS&E TO DOE M377 03/15/2016
PROJECT PS&E M380 06/01/2016
RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION M410 08/01/2016
READY TO LIST M460 08/20/2016
AWARD M495 02/20/2017
APPROVE CONTRACT M500 03/20/2017
CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE M600 01/01/2019
END PROJECT M800 01/01/2026
10. RISKS
The risks for alternative 2 are related to design, right of way acquisition, and
environmental impacts. These risks can possibly have an adverse impact on the
project cost and the schedule associated with the FY 15/16 delivery. A risk register
has been developed to manage these risks and signed by Caltrans Management. For
more information on the Risk Register, see attachment L.
11. FHWA COORDINATION
This project is considered to be an Assigned Project in accordance with the current
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Joint Stewardship and Oversight Agreement.
12. PROJECT REVIEWS
Multiple project field reviews have been completed by the project development team.
In addition to internal reviews by Caltrans functional units, executive staff, and
headquarters, the project has also been reviewed externally by Butte County Public
Works and Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG).
03- But - 191 – 6.8/8.6
11
13. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Name, Title Phone #
Matt Solano, Project Manager (530) 740-4805
Craig Stidham, Project Management Assistant (530) 741-5481
Stephen Wright, Design Senior (530) 741-4129
Eric Souza, Project Engineer (530) 741-5402
Suzanne Melim, Environmental Senior (530) 741 4484
Jacob Nelson, Environmental Coordinator (530) 741-4494
Kelley Nelson, Associate Biologist (530) 741-4583
Douglas Bortz, Right of Way Senior (530) 741-4419
Karen Basra, Associate Right of Way Agent (530) 741-4565
Ronald Guenther, Right of Way Engineering (530) 634-7665
Maria Mendoza, Right of Way, Estimator (530) 741-4417
Kelly Cummings, Right of Way, Estimator (530) 741-4915
Fernando Rivera, Senior Construction (530) 822-5355
Narayan Selwal, Traffic Management Plan (530) 741-5728
Bill Webster, Engineering Geologist (916) 227-1041
Maria Alicia Beyer-Salinas, Hazardous Waste (530) 741-5480
Kathleen Grady, Landscape Architect (530) 741-5323
Dan Brewer, Landscape Architect (530) 741-4115
14. ATTACHMENTS
A. Alignment BA4 Map
B. Environmental Approval
C. Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment
D. Right of Way Data Sheet
E. Cost Estimate
F. Traffic Management Plan Data Sheet
G. Storm Water Data Report
H. Landscape Architecture Assessment Sheet
I. Programming Sheet
J. Preliminary Hydraulic Report
K. Traffic Forecast
L. Risk Register
M. Draft Geotechnical Report
N. Draft Materials Report