06-0517_CALIF DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION_Agreement12 -ORA -5, KP 15.07/15.80
12 -ORA -74, KP 0.00/0.32
San Diego Freeway (1-5)/
Ortega Highway (SR -74)
Interchange Improvement
12-OE310K
District Agreement No. 12-527
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON / r' d V / % 1 2006, is between the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Departm nt of Transportation, referred to
herein as STATE, and
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, a body politic and a municipal
corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as CITY.
District Agreement No. 527
RECITALS
The STATE and CITY pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 130, are authorized to
enter in a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State Highways within the City of San
Juan Capistrano in the County of Orange. The parties agree and understand the Agreement is
limited to the conduct of a preliminary design study and environmental documentation and
that additional cooperative agreements between the parties will be necessary to complete the
actual construction of interchange improvements.
2. CITY desires to prepare:
i) An Environmental Analysis and Document.
ii) A Project Geometric Development
iii) Project Approval,
referred collectively to herein as "PLANNING ACTIVITIES", for State Highway
improvements consisting of upgrading the interchange at the San Diego Freeway (I-5)/Ortega
Highway (SR -74), referred to herein as "PROJECT", and is willing to fund one hundred
percent (100%) of all capital outlay and staffing costs, except for costs of STATE's quality
assurance pertaining to the PLANNING ACTIVITIES.
3. A previous Project Study Report, approved in April 2005, identified five (5) different interchange
improvement options. This Agreement proposes to conduct a further study report for the purpose
of selecting one final preferred option and to complete appropriate State/Federal environmental
impact report analysis and documentation for that preferred project option.
4. This Agreement will define the CEQA lead agency, CEQA responsible agency, and the roles and
responsibilities of the CEQA lead agency and CEQA responsible agency regarding environmental
documents, studies and reports and compliance with CEQA and NEPA.
5. It is anticipated that PROJECT funding will be made available from Federal and County grants,
developer contributions, utility companies, CITY funds and other sources.
6. STATE's funds will not be used to finance any of the capital and support costs for PROJECT.
7. This Agreement supersedes any prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to
PROJECT.
8. Design and Construction phases of PROJECT will be the subject of separate future Agreements.
9. The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to
be developed, designed, and financed.
SECTION I
CITY AGREES:
District Agreement No. 527
To fund one hundred percent (100%) of all the PLANNING ACTIVITIES costs for
PROJECT.
2. To have a Project Report (PR), including all necessary environmental documentation (ED), at
no cost to STATE, and to submit to STATE for STATE's review and concurrence at
appropriate stages of development. The PR for PROJECT shall be signed by a Civil
Engineer registered in the State of California.
To permit STATE to monitor and participate in the selection of personnel who will prepare
the PR, conduct environmental studies and obtain approval for PROJECT, provide the right
of way engineering services, and to permit STATE to oversee the performance of right of
way activities. The CITY agrees to consider any request by STATE to discontinue the
services of any personnel considered by STATE to be unqualified on the basis of credentials,
professional expertise, failure to perform in accordance with the scope of work and/or other
pertinent criteria.
4. To make written application to STATE for necessary encroachment permits authorizing entry
of CITY onto the State Highway right of way to perform surveying and other investigative
activities required for preparation of the PR and ED.
To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities within the area of
PROJECT and to protect or otherwise provide for such facilities, all in accordance with
STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of
Way". CITY hereby acknowledges receipt of STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk
Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way".
6. To be responsible, at CITY's expense, for the investigation of potential hazardous material
sites within and outside of the existing State Highway right of way that would impact
PROJECT as part of the responsibility for the ED for PROJECT. If CITY encounters
hazardous material or contamination within the existing State Highway right of way during
said investigation, CITY shall immediately notify STATE and responsible control agencies of
such discovery.
To obtain, at CITY's expense all necessary permits and/or agreements from appropriate
regulatory agencies. All mitigation, monitoring, and/or remedial action required by said
permits shall constitute parts of the cost of PROJECT.
S. All aerial photography and photogrammetric mapping shall conform to STATE's latest
standards.
9. A copy of all original survey documents resulting from surveys performed for PROJECT,
including original field notes, adjustment calculations, final results, and appropriate
intermediate documents, shall be delivered to STATE and shall become property of STATE.
For aerial mapping, survey documents to be furnished are three sets of contract prints, with
one set showing control, a complete photo index - two prints and a copy of the negative, and
the original aerial photography negative.
District Agreement No. 527
10. The parties understand and agree that STATE's oversight is defined as providing
STATE policy and procedural guidance through the PLANNING ACTIVITIES of an
PROJECT administered by CITY, this includes prompt reviews, quality assurance so
that STATE may assure that all work and products delivered conform with STATE
standard. Oversight and quality assurance do not include any PROJECT related work
deemed to be necessary to actually develop and deliver the PROECT nor does it
involve engineering validation by the verification and rechecking of any design work
performed by CITY and its consultants. All STATE work that is not direct oversight
shall be chargeable against that PROJECT as an engineering or administrative service
for which STATE will invoice its actual costs and CITY will pay or authorize STATE
to reimburse itself from available funds.
11. To provide, at no cost to STATE, survey and mapping services necessary to perpetuate
existing land net and alignment monumentation in accordance with Sections 8771 and 8765
of the Business and Professions Code; and to permanently monument the location of all
roadway alignments, realignments, and right of way acquisitions. All of the above are to be
shown on a Record of Survey filed with the County Surveyor. CITY shall deliver one copy
of any field notes, filed Corner Records, and the Record of Survey required for execution of
the above obligation, to STATE's District 12 Survey Branch.
SECTION 11
STATE AGREES:
1. At no cost to CITY, to provide quality assurance activities pertaining to PLANNING
ACTIVITIES work done by CITY including, but not limited to, investigation of potential
hazardous material sites and all right of way activities undertaken by CITY or its designee, to
provide prompt reviews and approvals, as appropriate, of submittals by CITY, and to cooperate in
timely processing of PROJECT.
2. Upon proper application by CITY, to issue, at no cost to CITY, an encroachment permit to CITY
authorizing entry onto the State highway right of way to perform survey and other investigative
activities required for preparation of the PR and ED. If CITY uses consultants rather than its own
staff to perform required work, the consultants will also be required to obtain a separate
encroachment permit. These permits will be issued at no cost upon proper application by the
consultants.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
District Agreement No. 527
I . All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation
of resources by the Legislature to STATE for the purposes of fulfilling STATE's obligations
herein. STATE, other that the duty to provide oversight and quality assurance as
defined in Section I above, has no funds allocated to finance the PLANNING
ACTIVITIES under this Agreement and CITY will have no right under any
circumstance to seek a STATE contribution of funds directly under the term of this
Agreement or indirectly as damages for some perceived and alleged breach of this
Agreement by STATE.
2. STATE will be the CEQA lead agency and CITY will be a responsible agency for
CEQA. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will be the Federal lead
agency for NEPA with STATE providing oversight for the NEPA process. CITY will
assess impacts of PROJECT on the environment and, if necessary, CITY will prepare
the ED, including the necessary associated investigative studies and technical
environmental reports, in order to meet the requirements of CEQA and NEPA. CITY
will submit to STATE for STATE's review, comment and approval the investigative
studies and technical environmental reports. The administrative draft ED, draft ED,
administrative final ED, and final ED will require both STATE's and FHWA's
review, comment and approval prior to public availability. STATE will review the
technical environmental reports and request approval of the environmental technical
reports and ED by FHWA. STATE and FHWA will be responsible for the public
hearing process. If, during preliminary engineering, preparation of the PS&E, or
PROJECT construction, new information is obtained which requires the preparation
of an additional NEPA and/or CEQA ED, this Agreement will be amended to include
completion of these tasks by CITY.
3. All phases of a PROJECT, whether done by CITY or STATE, will be developed in
accordance with all policies, procedures, practices, and standards that STATE would
normally follow and in compliance with laws, regulations, executive orders, and
permit requirements.
4. Detailed steps in the Project Delivery process are attached to this Scope of Work.
These Attachments are intended as a guide to STATE's and CITY's staff.
5. All administrative reports, studies, materials, documentation, including, but not
limited to, all administrative drafts and administrative finals of the ED and PR, relied
upon, produced, created or utilized for PROJECT will be held in confidence pursuant
to Government Code section 6254.5(e). The parties agree that said material will not
be distributed, released or shared with any other organization, person or group other
than the parties' employees, agents and their consultants whose work requires that
5
District Agreement No. 527
access without the prior written approval of the party with the authority to authorize
said release and except as required or authorized by statute or pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement.
6. The parties hereto will carry out PROJECT in accordance with the Scope of Work, attached
and made a part of the Agreement, which outlines the specific responsibilities of the parties
hereto. The attached Scope of Work may be modified in writing in the future to reflect
changes in the responsibilities of the respective parties. Such modifications shall be concurred
with by CITY's Engineering and Building Director or other official designated by CITY and
STATE's District Director for District 12 and become a part of this Agreement after
execution of the amending document by the respective officials of the parties.
The Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS) for PROJECT, approved
on 3/22/05 is by this reference, made an express part of this Agreement.
8. The basic design features (as defined in Attachment 3 of the Scope of Work for PROJECT
shall comply with those addressed in the approved PSR/PDS, unless modified as required for
environmental clearance and/or FHWA approval of PROJECT.
9. The preparation of PR and ED for PROJECT shall be performed in accordance with
STATE's standards and practices current as of the date of performance. Any exceptions to
applicable design standards shall first be approved by STATE via the processes outlined in
STATE's Highway Design Manual and appropriate memorandums and design bulletins
published by STATE. In the event that STATE proposes and /or requires a change in design
standards, implementation of new or revised design standards shall be done as part of the
work on PROJECT in accordance with STATE's current Highway Design Manual Section
82.5, "Effective Date for Implementing Revisions to Design Standards". STATE shall consult
with CITY in a timely manner regarding effect of proposed and/or required changes on
PROJECT.
10. Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM -1 category found within the existing
State highway right of way during investigative studies requiring remedy or remedial action,
as defined in Division 20, Chapter 6.8 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code, shall be the
responsibility of STATE. Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM -1 category
found within the local road right of way during investigative studies requiring the same
defined remedy or remedial action shall be the responsibility of CITY. For the purpose of this
Agreement, hazardous material or contamination of HM -1 category is defined as that level or
type of contamination which State or Federal regulatory control agencies having jurisdiction
have determined must be remediated by reason of its mere discovery, regardless of whether it
is disturbed by PROJECT or not. If CITY decides to not proceed with PROJECT, STATE
shalt sign the HM -1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within
the existing State highway right of way and CITY shall sign the HM -I manifest and pay all
costs for required remedy or remedial action within the local road right of way. If CITY and
STATE decide to proceed with PROJECT, STATE shall sign the HM -I manifest and pay all
costs for required remedy or remedial action within the existing State highway right of way,
except that if STATE determines, in its sole judgment that STATE's cost for remedy or
remedial action is increased as a result of CITY decision to proceed with PROJECT, that
additional cost identified by STATE shall be deemed a part of the costs of PROJECT. CITY
shall sign the HM -1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within
the local road right of way. STATE will exert every effort to fund the remedy or remedial
action for which STATE is responsible. In the event STATE is unable to provide funding,
6
District Agreement No. 527
CITY will have the option to either delay PROJECT until STATE is able to provide funding
or CITY may proceed with the remedy or remedial action at CITY's expense without any
subsequent reimbursement by STATE.
it. The remedy or remedial action with respect to any hazardous material or contamination of an
HM -2 category found within the existing State highway right of way during investigative
studies shall be the responsibility of CITY, at CITY's expense, if CITY decides to proceed
with PROJECT. For the purposes of this Agreement, hazardous material or contamination of
HM -2 category is defined as that level or type of contamination which said regulatory control
agencies would have allowed to remain in place if undisturbed or otherwise protected in place
should PROJECT not proceed. CITY shall sign any HM -2 storage manifest if PROJECT
proceeds and HM -2 material must be removed in lieu of being treated in place. If CITY
decides to not proceed with PROJECT, there will be no obligation to either CITY or STATE
other than CITY's duty to cover and protect HM -2 material left in place.
12. If hazardous material or contamination of either HM -1 or HM -2 category is found on new
right of way to be acquired by CITY for PROJECT, CITY, as between CITY and STATE
only, shall be responsible, at CITY's expense, for all required remedy or remedial action
and/or protection and shall guarantee STATE that said new right of way is clean prior to
transfer of title to STATE in accordance with Article 15 of Section I of this Agreement. The
generator of the hazardous material or, if none can be identified or found, the present property
owner, whether a private entity or a local public agency, or CITY, as a last resort, shall sign
the manifest.
13. Locations subject to remedy or remedial action and/or protection include utility relocation
work required for PROJECT. Costs for remedy and remedial action and/or protection shall
include, but not be limited to, the identification, treatment, protection, removal, packaging,
transportation, storage, and disposal of such material.
14. The party responsible for funding any hazardous material cleanup shall be responsible for the
development of the necessary remedy and/or remedial action plans and designs. Remedial
actions proposed by CITY on the State highway right of way shall be pre -approved by State
and shall be performed in accordance with STATE's standards and practices and those
standards mandated by the Federal and State regulatory agencies.
15. A separate Cooperative Agreement will be required to cover responsibilities and funding for
the detailed design engineering and construction phase of PROJECT.
16. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or
rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or to affect the legal liability of either
party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the development,
design, construction, operation or maintenance of State highways and public facilities
different from the standard of care imposed by law.
17. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE, under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under this Agreement. It is
understood and agreed that STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY
and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse
District Agreement No. 527
condemnation and other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything
done or omitted to be done by STATE under this Agreement.
18. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to he done by CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under this Agreement. It is
understood and agreed that CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE
and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse
condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done
or omitted to he done by CITY under this Agreement.
19. This Agreement may be terminated or provisions contained herein may be altered, changed,
or amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto.
20. Except as otherwise provided in Article 19 above, this Agreement shall terminate upon
completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract , or on 06/30/2009,
whichever is earlier in time.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
Will Kempton
Director of Transportation
rty District Director
ital Outlay
District 12
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE
District Agreement No. 527
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
By. ' ) --
Attorney
Department of Transportation
By
David M. Sv erd n
Mayor
R. Monahan
By
A omey
City of San Juan Capistrano
CERTIFIED AS TO FINANCIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
By:
-\ Accounting Adminis4ator
CERTI IED AS TO F S
By:
DistrVet Bu -467 -Manager
0
District Agreement No. 527
SCOPE OF WORK
This Scope of Work outlines the specific areas of responsibility for various project development
activities for the proposed interchange improvements at the San Diego Freeway (I-5)/Ortega Highway
(SR -74).
1.
2. CITY and STATE concur that the proposal is a Category 3 as defined in STATE's Project
Development Procedures Manual.
3. CITY will submit drafts of environmental technical reports and individual sections of the
draft environmental documents to STATE, as they are developed, for review and comment.
Traffic counts and projections to be used in the various reports shall be supplied by STATE if
available, or by CITY. Existing traffic data shall be furnished by CITY.
4. STATE will review, monitor, and approve all project development reports, studies, and plans,
and provide all necessary implementation activities up to but not including advertising of
PROJECT.
5. STATE will prepare the revised freeway agreement and obtain approval of the new public
road connection(s)from the California Transportation Commission.
C.1
10
ATTACHMENT
PLANNING PHASE ACTIVITIES
PROJECT ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITY
STATE CITY
1. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS & DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Establish Project Development Team (PDT)
X X
Approve PDT
X
Project Category Determination
X
Prepare Preliminary Environmental Assessment
X
Identify Preliminary Alternatives and Costs
X
Prepare and Submit Environmental Studies and Reports
X
Review and Approve Environmental Studies and Reports
X
Prepare and Submit Draft Environmental Document (DED)
X
Review DED in District
X
2. PROJECT GEOMETRICS DEVELOPMENT
Prepare Existing Traffic Analysis X
Prepare Future Traffic Volumes for Alternatives X
Prepare Project Geometries and Profiles X
Prepare Layouts and Estimates for Alternatives X
Prepare Operational Analysis for Alternatives X
Review and Approve Project Geometries and Operational Analysis X
3. PROJECT APPROVAL
Lead Agency for Environment Compliance Certifies ED in Accordance X
with its Procedures
Prepare Draft Project Report (DPR) X
Finalize and Submit Project Report with Certified ED for Approval X
Approve Project Report X
11
ATTACHMENT
DEFINITIONS
Ortega Highway forms the principal east -west route from the I-5 freeway to the eastern San Juan
Capistrano. The intersection of the Ortega Highway with Del Obispo Street is considered to operate
as if it is part of the Ortega Highway/ I-5 freeway interchange and is included in the Project Area.
Ortega Highway is designated SR -74 from the I-5 freeway east to its termination in Riverside County.
The existing interchange is a compact diamond (Type L-1) interchange consisting of the Ortega
Highway/I-5 separation (Bridge No. 55-0229), I-5, Ortega Highway, the associated on and off -ramps,
a concrete -lined channel, and Del Obispo Street Ortega Highway. Ortega Highway consists of two
westbound and two eastbound lanes from the I-5 freeway to Via Cordova with additional turn lanes
for the I-5 on and off -ramps.
Replaced in 1969, the Ortega Highway/I-5 separation is a two -span, cast -in-place, pre -stressed
concrete box girder structure, supported on a bent and two abutments. Based on the Bridge Inspection
Report (BIR) dated February 11,2002, the current condition of the over -crossing structure is
"Functionally Obsolete" with a Sufficiency Rating of 75.5. The BIR also identifies settlement of
sidewalk approaches, departure and approach asphalt concrete heave, and hairline cracks on the deck
of the soffit of the structure. The existing structure does not meet seismic standards; thus, seismic
retrofit of the existing structure would most likely be required. The segment of Ortega Highway cast
of the I-5 freeway northbound ramps was upgraded and widened to provide a dedicated right -turn
lane along westbound Ortega Highway from Rancho Viejo Road to the northbound I-5 freeway on-
ramp. This widening of Ortega Highway necessitated the construction of a driveway and a retaining
wall to maintain access from Los Cerritios Avenue to the historic Mission San Juan Capistrano
graveyard just north of the Ortega Highway.
Sidewalks, 1.5 m in width, are located in both directions on the bridge. A continuous sidewalk is
provided along the south side of Ortega Highway, which give connectivity to pedestrians across the
interchange. Sidewalks on the north side of Ortega Highway are provided only between Los Cerritos
Avenue and the southbound I-5 off ramp intersection across the bridge; thus requiring pedestrians to
cross Ortega Highway at both ramp intersections. No bicycle facilities or shoulders are currently
provided along Ortega Highway both across the bridge and along the approaches to the over -crossing.
This Project proposes to improve the I-5/SR 74 interchange to alleviate both existing and future
traffic congestion and delays within the interchange. Five principal Build Alternatives (Alternatives 1
through 5) have been identified for further consideration in the PSR(PDS), in addition to the No -
Build Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 are proposed as short-term operational improvements to
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current deficiencies at the interchange, if construction is
completed by 2010. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 are proposed to provide additional capacity to
accommodate projected year 2030 traffic growth.
13
Draft District Agreement No.
Mandatory Design Exception Features
Distance Between Ramo Intersection and Local Road Intersection: (Alts. 3, 4 and 5)
On the east side of the interchange under Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, the Ortega Highway/northbound
ramps intersection terminates at the existing Ortega Highway/Los Cerritos Avenue intersection. On
the west end of the interchange under Altematives 4 and 5, the existing Ortega Highway/southbound
ramps intersection terminates at the Ortega Highway/Det Obispo Street intersection. Thus, no spacing
is provided between the ramp and local road intersections. Per Highway Design Manual (HDM)
Index 504.3, the minimum required distance (curb return to curb return) between a ramp intersection
and a local road intersection for new construction or major reconstruction of interchanges is 125 m.
Standards for Superelevation: (Alternative 5)
The 80 m radius curve along the proposed southbound off -ramp (Line OH -2) between Stations
158+26.971 and 158+64.245 provides a 9% superelevation rate. Per HDM Index 202.2, the standard
superelevation rate for an 80 m radius curve is 12%.
Access Rights Opposite Ramp Terminals: (Alternatives 3,4, and 5)
The northbound off -ramp (Line OH -4) does not provide access control opposite the ramp terminal for
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. For Alternatives 4 and 5, the southbound off -ramp (Line OH -2) does not
provide access control opposite the ramp terminal. Per HDM Index 504.8, for new construction or
major reconstruction, acquisition of access rights is required on the opposite side of the local road
from ramp terminal to preclude the construction of future driveways or local roads within the ramp
intersection.
Shoulder Width: (Alternatives 1 through 5)
For Alternatives 1 through 5, the shoulder width on SR -74 varies from tabular data presented in Table
302. 1, multilane undivided conventional highways are required to have a 2.4 m right shoulder width.
Advisory Design Exception Features
Access Control at Ramp Terminal: (Alternatives 1 and 2)
At the Ortega Highway/northbound ramps intersection, the existing driveway to the businesses
located immediately east of the intersection (Station "OH" 14+00) is approximately 20 m from the
northbound off -ramp curb return (Station "OH" 13+80). Per HDM Index 504.8, access control
should extend 30 m beyond the end of the curb return.
Superelevation Transition: (Alternatives 3, 4 and 5)
For Alternative 3, 4, and 5, the superelevation runoff length for the proposed northbound off -ramp
(Line OH -4) varies from diagram and tabular data presented in figure 202.5A. Per Figure 202.5A,
multilane ramps are required to have a 90 m superelevation runoff length for a superelevation rate of
0.12 m/m. A 60 m superelevation runoff length is provided for Curves 15 and 20. Similarly, for
Alternative 5, the superelevation runoff length for the proposed southbound off -ramp (Lane OH -2)
and the proposed southbound loop on-ramp (Line OH -2L) varies from the diagram and tabular data
14
January 2002 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MANUAL Appendix 3
Form D-1
presented in Figure 202.5A. Superelevation runoff lengths of 45, 50 and 60 meters are provided for
curves 4, 5 and 21, respectively.
SgMrelevation Runoff: (Alternatives 3, 4 and 5)
For Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 the northbound off -ramp (Line OH -4) does not have two-thirds of the
superelevation runoff on the tangent and one-third within the curve for Curves 15 and 20 per HDM
Index 202.5. Similarly, for Alternative 5, the southbound off -ramp (Line OH -2) and Ortega Highway
intersection (63.16 degrees) is less than the 75 -degree minimum required angle.
Angle of Intersection: (Alternatives 4 and 5)
For Alternative 4, the interior angle between the southbound off -ramp (Line OH -2) and for
Alternative 4, the interior angle between the southbound off -ramp (Line OH -2) and Ortega Highway
intersection (63.16 degrees) is less than the 75 -degree minimum required angle.
Ramp Lane Drop Taper: (Alternatives 3, 4 and 5)
For Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, the ramp lane drop taper, past the metered limit line for the northbound
loop on-ramp (Line OH -4L), is accomplished with a 15 to 1 taper. For Alternative 5, the ramp lane
drop taper past the metered limit line for the southbound loop on-ramp (Line OH -2L) is accomplished
with a 20 to 1 taper. Per HDM Index 504.3 when ramps are metered, the recommended lane drop
taper past the metered limit line is 50 to 1. Where conditions preclude the use of a 50 to 1 taper, the
lane should be dropped using a taper of no less than 30 to 1.
Side Slope Standards: (Alternatives 3, 4 and 5)
For Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, embankment slopes at various locations along the ramps are
accomplished with a cross slope of 1:2. Per HDM Index 304. 1, embankment (fill) slopes for new
construction, widening, or where slopes are being modified, should be 1:4 or flatter.
Design Exception Fact Sheets wilt be prepared during the PRIED phase of project development.
Thus, adequate justification and approval of design exceptions for the alternative proposed for
selection, as the preferred alternative will be required prior to Project Report approval.
15
32400 PASEO ADELANTO
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 493.1171
(949) 493.1053 FAX
www,sanjuancaputrano. org
CITY
MINUTE EXTRACT
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALLEVATO
DIANE BATHGATE
WYATT HART
JOE SOTO
DAVID M. SWERDLIN
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California was held
on April 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan
Capistrano, California, Mayor Swerdlin presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hart, Bathgate, Soto, Allevato and Mayor
Swerdlin
None
EXTRACT OF: Consent Calendar Item D-6: Consideration of Cooperative Agreement
between the City and Caltrans for Project Report (PR) and an Environmental Document
(ED) for Improvements at the Ortega Highway (SR -74) and Interstate 5 (1-5) Interchange
(Parsons)
MOTION: Moved by Council Member Soto, seconded by Council Member Hart, and carried
unanimously (5-0) to approve the Cooperative Agreement between the City and Caltrans to
jointly prepare a Project Report (PR) and an Environmental Document (ED) for improvements
at the Ortega Highway (SR -74) and Interstate 5 (1-5) Interchange.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hart, Bathgate, Soto, Allevato and Mayor Swerdlin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
I, Margaret R. Monahan, City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Entry on record in my office.
Said Minutes have not been officially approved by the City Council of the City of San Juan
Capistrano, as of April 20, 2006.
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the official seal of the City of San
Juan Capistrano,TQ-Iif a thi 25"' day of April 2006.
1--171 n 11
Monahan, City Clerk
Ori in o: Mili Lim Stamation, Branch Chief, Design A, District 12, Dept of Transportation
Copy to: Nasser Abbaszadeh, Engineering & Building Director