HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-13; City Council; 13771; FINDINGS OF SPECIAL DEFICIENCIES THAT EXIST AT THE RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD BRIDGE OVER SAN MARCOS CREEKm 0 ,,’.
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
I
AB# 14 3‘3 /
CITY MGR. DEPT. ENG
CITY ATTY BRIDGE OVER SAN MARCOS CREEK MTG. 8/13/96
DEPT. HD, TITLE FINDINGS OF SPECIAL DEFICIENCIES
THAT U(IST AT THE RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. Ih -3 3‘; making findings of “Special” Deficiencies for t
Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge over San Marcos Creek.
c-
ITEM EXPLANATION:
%%
0 E L%
9
2
z
t P
Y
-I
0 z 3 0 0
-
I
Rancho Santa Fe Road is classified as a prime arterial roadway (126 foot right-of-\
Circulation Element of the General Plan. The existing Rancho Santa Fe Road
San Marcos Creek was replaced (rebuilt) by Caltrans in 1978. This bridge is approximi
wide and does not have sufficient width to accommodate the six (6) lanes of traffic re
bridge and road are not consistent with geometric standards necessary to widen the ro
arterial standards.
In 1988, a hydraulic report was prepared by a private engineering firm and reviewed by C
other private engineering firms. The report concluded that the existing bridge woull
submerged by a 100 year storm event occurring in San Marcos Creek.
Rancho Santa Fe Road serves as an essential regional transportation link for north cour has been estimated that only 20 percent of the traffic using this road is generated in
Carlsbad.
The cost to replace the existing bridge with a new bridge and complete other necess; pime arterial standards is estimated at $1 1,000,000. The bridge itself is estimated at $
Included in the $11,000,000 are the roadway approaches to connect back into the existir
to construct improvements to Melrose Drive, Corintia Street, La Costa Meadows
Questhaven Road necessitated by the new alignment proposed for Rancho Santa Fe F
In order to qualify for federal funding to replace an existing bridge under the Highu
Rehabilitation and Replacement Program (HBRR) under normal conditions, the bridge
received a sufficiency rating (SR) from Caltrans below 50. The existing Rancho Sant
Bridge over San Marcos Creek currently has an SR of 89.7, well above the maximum ra
Within the HBRR Program, however, there is a Special Bridge Program that allows a loca select a “special” noneligible bridge for replacement from their inventory. This is tt
through which the Carlsbad Engineering Department is proposing to obtain federal
replace the subject bridge.
In this process, federal funding would be 80 percent with the other 20 percent requ
provided by the local agency. To qualify for this Special Bridge Program, the legislative t
local agency must adopt a resolution that makes findings that the bridge has somc
deficiency that is of extreme importance to the local agency. Additionally, the specific spe
project must be a higher priority than any of the ten most deficient bridge replacement MI
their jurisdiction. Fortunately, Carlsbad currently does not have any deficient brid,
jurisdiction. Therefore, the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge over San Marcos
selection criteria and is proposed for special consideration,
prime arterial roadway to provide the necessary capacity. The physical location of
I
I
1
0 0
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 1 ?, '7 3 1
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Local Agency (Carlsbad) funding responsibility for this project would be 20% of million (or actual costs) with the Federal portion being 80%. Wlth the current construction of this project being $11,000,000, the City's estimated portion would be
This project is located within Community Facilities District Number 2. Local funds to
portion are anticipated to be funded from the proposed Community Facilities District
from fees collected under agreements with developers for road improvements req
Growth Management Plan and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zones 11 an
Once completed, there would be increased operation and maintenance expenses rt project over that of the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge and roadway. Ho
increased expenses are considered a beneficial trade off when compared to the incr
and improved capacity of the new roadway.
PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY STATUS
Construction of the proposed project will be part of the effort to upgrade Rancho Santa full prime arterial roadway to handle the growth in traffic generated by curren development in Carlsbad, as well as surrounding communities, that utilizes or will utili,
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map.
2. Resolution No. '1 k - :g 3 $' making findings of special deficiencies for the exi
Santa Fe Road Bridge over San Marcos Creek.
3. 1995-96 HBRR Program - Operating Procedures and Guidelines.
^-.-.-_
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD SEGMENl
TO BE CONSTRUCTED
SAN MARCOS
DETOUR TO
EXISTING ROAD
DRAW BY SCOTT EVANS, CARLSBAD ENGINEERING OEPT.
1. * a 0 1.
' 11 RESOLUTION NO. 96-279
2
3
4
5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS OF SPECIAL
DEFICIENCIES FOR THE EXISTING RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
BRIDGE OVER SAN MARCOS CREEK.
WHEREAS, Rancho Santa Fe Road is identified as a prime arterial road
6 ' Circulation Element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan; and
7 WHEREAS, the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge over San Marco!
8 undersized to serve as a prime arterial roadway; and,
9 WHEREAS, a hydraulic reports, reviewed by the City Engineer, has identific
10
during a 100 year storm event and a 50 year storm event; and 1 1
existing Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge over San Marcos Creek would be totally 1
12 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined that the Submerged conditi
13
16
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determine( 15
the public; and, 14
existing bridge is unacceptable for a prime arterial roadway and the health, safety, an(
other deficient bridge within the City of Carlsbad. 20
of the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge over San Marcos Creek is a higher prior 19
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carisbad has determined that the r 18
the City Council and have to be corrected; and 17
above-described conditions constitute special deficiencies which are of extreme iml
21
California, as follows: 22
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City c
25
2. That the Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge over San Marcos Creek is to be 24
1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 23
soon as practically possible.
26 Ill
27
Ill 28
Ill
0 0 i.
1 4. The elly €nglneer Is aulkarized {e make every e#aA la mcure UgRR
2
3
replace said existing bridge.
4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carisbad C
5 held on the 13th day of August , 1996 by the following vote, to wit:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
AYES: Council Members Lewis,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: /7
(SEAL)
e 1995-96 HBRR PROG RBI Exhibil
OPERATING PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
These operating procedures and guidelines for the 1995-96 HBRR Program have bccn revif
by the City/County/Statc HBRR Advisory Committee. These procedures are very similar to 1 procedures used for the 1994-95 HBRR Program. The program will be administered as io110
1. Each local agency will be allowed two bridge Replacement projects and two mixella projects. Each local agency will be allowed one or two bonus projects for selectin1 replacing one or two projects with a Bridge Deficiency Rating (BDR) grcater than 10
each six-month period (et-Mar & Apr-Sept) in which they have no over-extended pro
(Overextended projects are those where it has been over three years since funds reserved for construction or PE was obligated by an FNM-76 and construction funds not been obligated.) An agency may elect to substitute up to two Seismic Retrofit pr' for two of the allowed replacement projects.
Miscellaneous projects are either rehabilitation, scismic retrofit. or painting projects.
A -1 - shall be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete (SD/FO: have a sufficiency rating (SR) below 50, and be selected from bridges shown on the att
list of federally eligible bridges (EBL).
local agency may also selcct one additional Bonus Replacement or Miscelaneous projl
Am m shall be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete (SDEO have a sufficiency rating (SR) below 80, and be selected from bridges shown on the att SDEO list.
.. .
ASeismic Remfi candidate may be any local agency bridge with seismic deficiencies I
one-lane, timber, or flat-slab bridges.
ABridW Painting candidate may be any local agency steel bridge with a paint code off
3 five or equivalent.
2. Bridge replacement project candidates must be selected from the ten most deficient brid
an individual agency's inventory on the EBL. Bridges with an average daily traffic I less than 200 which do not have a legislative "Resolution of Need" as required 1 California Transportation Commission (CTC) Resolution will not be considered one agency's ten most deficient bridges. Also "historically significant bridges" may be t
from being considered part of an agency.'s ten most deficient bridges if so requested local agency. Bridges with a "Historical Significance Code" of four.or five are not t for this exemption.
3. The amount of eligible work wiIl be determined on a project-by-project basis. All
deficiencies of a bridge must be addressed in any rehabilitation project However, exceptions may be approved by local agencies for some deficiencies when adec
project will be funded as part of the rehabilitation and not funded as a separate, con( seismic retrofit project. Any major structural deficiencies which caw a bridge to be must be corrected on any project Steel sections which are seriously corroded IT repaired of replaced before cleaning and painting. Required repairs will be included
justified. Any seismic upErading work that is perfonned in conjunction with a ~bbi
1 December 1 E
4
4.
5.
6.
7.
-9 8-
1
9.
0 0
participating itcms for projcct funding. Thc bridgc must havc enough uscful scrviu remaining to justify the cost of the projccL If structural repairs are a significant porlic the project costs, the project will be consided a rchabiliution project Cost compar
will be required to demonstrate that rehabilitation is more cost effective than replaccmcnl
Bridges selected as seismic ~mfit candidates by he local a&cncy will tx wiew~
fieid rtxiew the selected bridges with thc local agency and reammend fundi?
dctermine if they warrant fu~er analysis. If warranted, Structures Local Assistance
preiimiary engineering as indicated by the field review 10 the Office of I-od Pro1
(OLP). Local agencies will be required to present their proposed retrofit design at a Ca
Seismic Retrofit Strategy Meeting for concurrence that the design is necessary, effectiv economical before proceeding with the final plans, specifications and estimates (PSSrE:
Replacement and rehabilitation projects funded from the HBRR Program will have a
rate of 20.0 percent local agency, 80.0 percent federal funds. Seismic retrofit projxi paint projects will be funded by HBRR funds transferred to the federal SI .Transportation Program (STP) with an 1 1.47 percent local agency match. The max participating project cost for a paint project shall be $4.0 million.
The JAW Water CmssinC Promam will continue for local agencies. Two million dollzu be available for Low Water Crossing projects this year. Projects on "on-system'' or system" routes are eligible. See the attached funding criteria for further details. Projec
be funded with a match rate of 20 percent local, 80 percent federal funds. The deadli submitting projects to HQ OLP through the District Local Assistance Engineer (DM consideration is February 1,1996.
The Rail Replacement Promam will aIso continue as last year with a total of $5.0 r authorized for the program. The funding criteria are anached and remain basically the with the deadine for submitting applications to HQ OW through the DM February 1,1996. The funding will be through STP with a match of 88.53 percent 1 and 11.47 percent local.
The Swid Bridge Promam is approved for continuation during the 1995-96 fiscal Any local agency which has no more than one overextended HBRR project in our 1
status will be eligible to select a "special" noneligible bridge from their invent0 replacement or rehabilitation These bridge projects will be funded by HBRR
ninsferred to the STP program, so they will not be required to meet federal HBRR f~ eligibility requirements. However, the local agency funding match will be 20 I local/80 percent federal. These bridge replacement or rehabilitauon project candidates need to have some special deficiency which is of extreme importance to the local ager which is not adequate to make the bridge eligible for the desired HBRR funding. I: selection and funding criteria are attached.
hjects selected should be scheduled to have right of way certified and construction obligated within three years of their nowlcation of reservation or approval of preliminary engineering (PE) obligation of funds, unless a specific extension is que! the local agency and approved by OLP. OLP will consult with the HBRR A( Committee for input on these extensions as needed. Funding for projects in the l!
Fiscal Year wiIl be on a first-come, first-served basis.
Federal participation for bridge approach roadway shall be limited to the minimum ne
to make the facility operable, but not to exceed 60 meters and 120 meters at each at for on- and off-system projects respectfully.
2 December It
0 0
Fedcral participation for PE costs on HBRR projccts. cxccpl scismic retrofit, shall be li
to $75,000 or 25 percent of the estimated construction cost. whichever is gr
unusual environmenlal and/or hydraulic problems.
Any proposed HBRR project with an estirnaled construction cost in excess of $8.0 n
must be reviewed and approved by OLP prior to obligating funds. OLP may consul the HBRR Advisory Committee for input prior to approval of any project with a cost i than $8.0 million. The contingency provisions for HBRR projects shall continue I percent of the approved engineer’s estimalc wilh a minimum contingency of $5,00
project.
The local agency must provide adequate staffing to adminikt the construction conum HBRR projects. Fedenl qylations in Section 635.105 of Title 23 CFR require rhe Highway Agency to ensure that local agency administered projects wive ad. supervision and inspection. Where the local agency elects to use consultan
construction engineering services, the local agency shall provide a full-time employer the engineer in responsible charge of the project The engineer in charge may be a
annuitant or other experienced engineer on a full-time, limited-term appointment as service employee of the local agency. The engineer in chqe may be working on mol one projecL during the course of hidher empioyment A consulting engineer with a
term retainer contract to act as city engineer may be considered as an employee of the c city or county is allowed to perform engineering services for other cities and counties.
Local agencies will certify that they have complied with all state and federal procedure completion of the project and will be monitored through process reviews conducted
State.
Exceptions may be grand with prior written approval from OLP duc 10 clwly idcnl
1
3 December 1
HI3 @ PROGRAM SPECIAL IJRIDG @ 'ROJECTS
1. ~~cal agencies will be limited to selecting one Special Bridge projcct per agency for (he 1; the btermodal Surface Transportation Eflicjcncy Act (ISTEA).
2. The specid bridge projects will be funded by HBRR funds transferred to the STP pro1 Therefore, these projects an: no[ quircd to appcar on the federal Eligible Bridge List (EBL
3. The local agency funding match ratio will be 20 pcrcenl: local, 80 percent federal.
4. Specid bridge project candidam ar~ bridges which have "special" deficiencies which a extreme importance to the local agency but are not eligible for the desired HBRR funding.
5. Therefore. these projects will rcquirc thc legislative body of the local agency IO ad- resolution which imds that the specific special bridge project is a higher priority project tha of the ten most deficient bridge replacement candidates in their jurisdiction.
6. The candidates selected must be reviewed and approved by the District Local hi: Engineer in consultation with FHWA
7. The local agency must E~EL a replacement candidate from their list of ER most def bridges, if they have any, prior to selecting their Special Bridge project candidate ( in the
fiscal year).
8. A local agency will not be efigible to select a special bridge candidate if they have more tha overextended HBRR project
3
7 December 11
4 e 0
Ih-
1. Local agency, per HBRR guidclines, identifies their desired bridge projects an through thc District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) informs the Headquarters Officc of Local Programs (OLP) Area Enginecr of their project selection.
2. If local agency wishes Structures Local Assistance (SLA) to participate in thei field review, they should contact SLA directly. SLA will participate in the fie11 review if requested to do so by the local agency d then only if staff resource:
are available.
3. After the field review, local agency submits a "Request for Authorization" fon
through the DLAE to the OLP Area Engineer. Copies of this request form will
be transmitted by DL& to SLA for information. This request form must be complete to the extent necessary to determine program compliance (scope, cos data. type selection and field review form, etc.).
4. If SLA has concerndquestions regarding the proposal (e&, cost, type selection), SLA will contact the local agency directly in an attempt to resolve these questiodconcerns. The results of that attempt will be submitted to OLP
If SLA does not provide comments' to OLP within ten working days, OLP will assume SLA has no comment regarding the agency's request.
5. lss~es that cannot be resolved by the OLP kea Engineer will be referred to thc HBRR Program Manager in OLP, who will =view the issue with SLA and make the final decision for the project
6. OLP Area Engineer initiates FN"76 and obligates the funds.
7. OLP Area Engineer through DLAE will notify local agency of "Authorization
to Proceed" with Preliminary Engineering (PE) and funds reserved for subsequent phases (right of way [W], construction). Copies will be forwarded by OLP Area Engineer to SLA for information.
1
8. Local agency proceeds with PE.
9. SLA will not review local agency plans, specifications, and estimates (pS&E) unless requested by the local agency and then only if staff resources are available. Reviews will consist of a one-time cursory review with comments
and/or recommendations provided. Local agencies will be responsible for the PS&E and SLA will not approve their submittals.
10. Local agency is responsible for submitting "Request for Authorization" througl DLAE to OW Area Engineers for subsequent phases of work (R/W, construction).
1 December 18, 195
0 0
11 - OD AM Englnecr &mu& DLA€ will notify ld agency 01 'AutJlot;aim to Proceed" and funds programmed for subsequent phases (WW, construclion). Copies will be forwarded by OLP Arm Engineer to SLA for information.
12. Where subsequent "Request for Authorization" or revised funding documents
exceed funds previously programmcd for project andor limits established in th HBRR GuideIines. the OLP Area Engineers may send a copy to SLA for their .comments and assistance in determining the appropriateness of the additional costs. This will normally occur only on complex projects.
13. Issues that cannot be resolved by the OLP Area Engineer will be referred to the HBRR Program Manager in OLP, who will review the issues and make the fin; decision for the project.
1
2 December 18, 199