HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/1996, 1 - HIGUERA ST. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 93-67 �11����� ►�ulllllllllU� ll�lll city of San 1%.46 OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 2 of 11
DISCUSSION:
Pmiect History: The State Department of Transportation, Caltrans, inspects the City's bridges routinely.
The inspection identifies maintenance needs and in some cases a priority for replacement. Caltrans first
inspected this bridge in May 1993. Prior to that Caltrans was unaware of its existence. The City was
notified of Caltrans findings in November 1993. The report stated that the City should consider
replacement or rehabilitation in the near future. It also stated the bridge should be posted for load limits.
The City held a public hearing in March 1994 for load limits and the bridge was posted in April. City
staff and representatives from the Structures division of Caltrans field reviewed the bridge in March 1994.
The result was a consensus that the walls looked to be in excellent condition and maybe the deck was the
only problem. In June 1994, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) allocated funds for a more i
detailed review of the bridge, particularly the walls, to determine if the bridge could be rehabilitated. That
study was completed in March 1995. Caltrans approved the study in October 1995. Staff was preparing
to pursue the project at that point, but resources were diverted to manage the Marsh Street reconstruction
project. We are now pursuing the project again and have held three public meetings. Tonight we are
requesting the Council to give direction on the project, before we continue.
Bridge Facts: The existing bridge deck was built in approximately 1910. Some of the steel girders
pre-date the current deck, were placed for a wood deck bridge of unknown age. The deck was built on
rock rubble walls of an unknown age.
The results of Caltrans' report indicate the bridge deck is too weak to support modem traffic such as buses
and trucks. This is mostly a result of the fact that the steel girders are not connected to the concrete deck.
Instead of sharing the load across the bridge, the load is supported where it is applied. Unlike the adjacent
buildings and sidewalks which support much lighter structures and person weights which do not change
greatly with time, modem truck loading is very heavy and is much more than the designers of our current
bridge anticipated. The bridge inspector from Caltrans was unable to inspect the steel girders to make a
more detailed inspection of those and recommends we do so before proceeding with any rehabilitation
which utilizes them. Caltrans inspection does not include a detailed review of the support structure, in
our case the rubble walls.
A consultant was hired after funds were made available for additional review. The back of the rubble wall
was exposed as part of that study. It was found that while the walls do not show signs of wear or fatigue,
neither are they reinforced nor the rocks connected in any way. It appears that the rocks were stacked
in place and the creek side was grouted to keep water from migrating out of the channel. The consultant
determined the walls were not capable of withstanding seismic loading. New supports could be built
behind or through the existing walls, leaving them in place to serve as the drainage channel with a new
or retrofitted deck placed above.
Results of Public Inaut Meetings: In February 1996 staff held three public meetings. Staff felt it was
important to meet with the public to get a better feel for the concerns and issues in place because of the
extent of this project. Staff met first with business owners in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
I
l���u�►►�IIIII��P��Q�I� City of San L.JS oBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 3 of 11
The first meeting with business owners yielded the following concerns and ideas:
o Concern about unexpected delays extending the project length, possibly because utility companies
were not coordinated
o Would like to see a better method of notification of public hearings and City activities
o Do all the bridge work from the inside
o Do more detailed engineering in advance of going to Council
o Stage construction in the lot next to the buildings at the comer of Morro and Higuera (Game
Gallery)
o Use County lot for public parking
o City pays to remodel - relocate front doors
o Compensate or mitigate business losses some how
o Coordinate utility upgrades to avoid going into the street again
o Do night•work
o Don't do night work
o Ensure access to the bank parking lot
o Provide a temporary bridge
o Develop public interest in the project andiby:
Allow traffic through
Allow peds through
Provide focus on the area
Provide free parking in the area
o Minimize the use of the City lot for construction staging
o Prefer a slower, less disruptive project to one of a shorter duration which is more disruptive
The second meeting, held with the property owners, resulted in the following concerns and ideas:
o Affect of construction on adjacent buildings and who is responsible
O Compensation for income losses
O Access to County fueling site
O Use of old Arco station lot at Marsh and Osos
o Continue meetings between City/Designers and the Property owners
o Agree with slower approach on project
The last public meeting staff held was a "town hall" meeting with a general invitation to all interested
parties. Some of the business and property owners came to this meeting as well and reiterated their
concerns. The key issues raised were:
o That there be no impacts whatsoever to the businesses and that the City hire a consultant to do an
exhaustive study of all the possible options to providing a new or rehabilitated structure to insure
that no possibility is overlooked - From Mr. and Mrs. Shultz business owners at the corner of
Higuera and Osos
a Open the creek in court Street
o Need to have at least two lanes open to keep the area alive - Mr. Spangler
o Pursue the interior work option assuming the hydraulics can be addressed - Mr. Rossi property
owner along Higuera Street
o Use fiber reinforcing inside as an alternate construction method
o Consider the loss of tax revenue in considering the cost /- 3
�l�l ►��IIIIII1�p° �lll city of San Lw s OBI SPO
Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 4 of 11
o Lower the channel to make room for new interior walls and ceiling
o Keep Court street lot accessible
o Pursue a long term solution for the entire culvert length
o Construct an overflow channel on an alternate route to reduce flow in the channel and allow room
for interior walls and ceiling
o Drill reinforcement through the walls
o Put a slick coating on the walls to compensate for reducing the channel sizewhen placing new
interior walls and ceiling
o Study the hydraulics to see if the channel would be affected by reducing the inside
Should the Creek be Opened at Court Street?
With construction options discussed below come: the potential for opening the creek in this area (Exhibit
A&A-1) with some funding assistance. This idea follows from the Downtown Conceptual Plan developed
several years ago and recently discussed at a Council meeting. This would provide a green belt in an area
where there is currently very 'little. Preliminary discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
indicates they would react positively to an effort to open the creek and provide a more natural
environment. Staff has proposed using the back side of the existing bridge wall to form one of the new
channel walls to reduce the costs. It will probably require the removal of two large trees; however, several
new trees could be planted to offset the loss. One benefit is the permanent reduction in the length of the
bridge for future generations to repair. The effects of this on flooding will have to be studied to ensure
this will not aggravate existing problems in the downtown.
The total cost estimated to open the creek as shown in the exhibits is $1,100,000. This does not include
the cost of any bridge work. A portion of the cost to open the creek could be covered by the Federal
grant. Since relocating the creek is in some cases more expensive than bridge work, we will pay more
than 20% of the cost when doing that. Using the federal money available for bridge replacement in this
area will offset the cost to the City to do this work. If we did the creek work as a City project we would
have to pay the full $1,100,000 ourselves. By doing the project in conjunction with the bridge work we
can end up not having to pay anything beyond what we would for bridge work or the full $1,100,000,
depending on the option.
Pmoect Options:
Staff sees three main options, (1) doing minor repairs, (2) replacing the existing structure completely or
(3) rehabilitating it. Completely replacing the bridge or doing very minor repairs are fairly clear cut
options. Staff has summarized some of the key points for options below. The options can be mixed and
matched to allow different approaches in different areas.
1) Minor repairs
Total cost of the repairs - $600,000 Length of Construction - 4 months
No Federal Participation
I
I
lll��� ►ii�IiIIIIIIII ���Ill city of Sank-.AIS OBISpo
ni;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 5 of 11
Doing minor repairs would include cleaning reinforcement and patching the concrete deck, cleaning and
coating the steel girders. While it would cause little disruption to businesses, the needs of the structure
would only be addressed to the point of slowing the deterioration of the bridge. The long term viability
of the bridge would not be addressed. We would continue to have truck and bus limitations on the bridge.
More repairs would be needed periodically as other portions of the bridge deteriorate. .
2) Complete replacement
Total cost of the Construction - $2,600,000 Length of Construction - 10 months
Cost to the City - $550,000
Total Cost of Construction for Bridge Replacement with Creek Opening - $2,600,000
Cost to the City for Bridge Replacement with Creek Opening - $550,000
With this option we will get the highest cost to benefit ratio for the dollars spent, not considering the
concerns of the downtown and possible loss of revenue. We will be able to have truck and bus load limits
removed from the deck. New walls and deck will last 80 years or more and be built to withstand the
forces of an earthquake. Complete replacement will also generate the most noise and reduce street parking
and traffic considerably during the construction.
3) Relurbilitation is the only option which addresses both the needs of the bridge and the potential for
minimizing disruption to the downtown. Staff feels with this option the main concerns regarding parking,
traffic lanes, and noise in general can be reduced. All the rehabilitation options allow for truck and bus
traffic to resume.
Within each rehabilitation option is a choice to either replace or repair the deck. The full replacement
would cause more disruption but result in a deck that could be expected to last 80 years. Replacement
also has the potential to raise the roof of the culvert, thereby allowing wall repair to occur on the inside.
Rehabilitation of the deck entails drilling holes through the deck in several places along each of the one
hundred plus steel girders, welding studs to it and filling the holes. There will still be the need to remove
some of the deck which is too severely damaged. The girders will need to be cleaned and recoated. This
still leaves the City with the need for periodic maintenance of the repairs and a shorter life because the
steel girders and most of the old concrete remain. Until a thorough examination of the steel girders
supporting the deck is completed, the life expectancy is an unknown. Staff has estimated it at 25 years.
3a) Deck Replacement/Repair Only - no work on the walls:
Total Cost of the Construction - $650,000 Length of Construction - 4 months
Cost to the City - $ 650,000 (No Federal Funding)
Total Cost of Construction for Deck Replacement/Repair with Creek Opening - $1,500,000
Cost to the City for Bridge Replacement with Creek Opening - $1,500,000 (No Federal Funding)
By replacing the deck only, the City eliminates the work involved in working with the walls. The walls
do appear to be in good condition and capable of carrying the direct traffic loads. .This option does leave
us with the potential for damage in an earthquake. A new deck will give us a long life for the bridge
I
�11� ►�►►��ulll{IIIIlp�1°�►JJ�III city or San 1uls OBISPO
AMUZO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 6 of 11
pending an earthquake. In addition to there being no federal funding for this option, federal funding
would not be available for the next ten years should the structure be damaged, such as in a natural
disaster, because the City has done major work to the structure. The work would not affect the capacity
of the channel.
This option would allow us to eliminate the presence of a drilling rig installing new bridge supports and
the resulting disruption, assuming repairs can not be made to the walls from the inside. The work to
replace the deck can be done in increments, 10 to 20 feet, so the entire area is not under construction at
once.
3b) Deck Replacement/Repair with new column type supports:
Total Cost of the Construction - $3,120,000 Length of Construction - 6 months
Cost to the City - $ 1,000,000
Total Cost of Construction for Deck and Columns with Creek Opening - $3,140,000
Cost to the City for Deck and Columns with Creek Opening - $1,020,000
If the deck is replaced, this option will provide the City with essentially a new bridge. The difference
between this and a complete replacement (Option 2) is that the existing walls remain in place. The walls
still have the potential for collapse in an earthquake. The deck would remain, supported on new
foundations. We would have to go in and remove the walls in the event of a collapse and build new walls
at that time. The work would not affect the capacity of the channel. The cost of wall repair may be
eligible for FEMA reimbursement should the area be declared a disaster area.
Providing new supports for the bridge, drilled from the top, will involve noise. The work would be done
in increments to reduce the area being disturbed. Two lanes of traffic could be open with parking
available on one side of the street most of the time.
Staff feels that this option provides the best overall solution to the City's current problem. While some
disruption does occur, it could be managed successfully. Federal funding would be available and thus the
general fund would not be solely supporting the project. The City's liability exposure would be greatly
diminished but not totally eliminated. Because the rubble walls would collapse during an earthquake,
liability would result should the earthquake occur simultaneously with a major winter flood storm. As
the odds of this occurring are remote, this seems an acceptable risk. This decision to open the creek is
strictly at the option of the Council.
3c) Deck Repair with wall reinforcement completed from the inside:
Total Cost of the Construction - $ 1,900,000 Length of Construction - 6 months
Cost to the City - $ 1,900,000 (No Federal Funding )
Total Cost of Construction for Inside Walls with Creek Opening - $2,300,000
Cost to the City for Inside Walls with Creek Opening - $2,300,000 (No Federal Funding)
This option assumes that the deck would only be repaired and the channel would be encroached on by
the interior walls which would aggravate downtown flooding. The deck life would be limited; however,
the walls should have a fairly long life.
I�u►�►ti►iuulllllllll�I° ��U�1� city of San tins OBISpo
NIONCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 7 of 11
This option most closely meets the desires of the local business people because of the limits to the noise
and street work. Two lanes of traffic could be open with parking available on one side of the street most
of the time.
Preliminary hydraulic studies of the channel indicate this option will result in additional flooding of the
downtown during heavy storms. For this reason staff has shown this option as not being eligible for
federal funding. If we go ahead with this option, the City may be responsible for additional flood damage
experienced downtown. The option needs further study by the designers before we could show for certain
that it would not aggravate flooding problems and we could proceed with such an option under the federal
funding program.
Staff feels this is the best solution for the least impact to the surface of the street. It is possible that with
additional research on new deck designs that sufficient additional hydraulic capacity could be created to
offset the losses incurred by strengthening of the walls. Should all of the above fall into place, it is
additionally possible that federal funding could become available and dramatically lower the City's
contribution. Thus the additional research discussed is apart of the CAO recommendation. Should this
effort not be successful, the combination of higher flood frequency of the downtown and greater cost make
this option less desirable.
3d) Complete Rehabilitation or Replacement for Higuera and Osos Crossings only, expand sidewalks
over other portions of the deck (Exhibit B):
Total Cost of the Construction - $ 850,000 Length of Construction - 4 months
Cost to the City - $ 250,000
Total Cost of Construction for Higuera/Osos with Creek Opening - $1,900,000
Cost to the City for Higuera/Osos with Creek Opening - $1,600,000 (Federal Funding for the two
repaired sections only)
This option effectively reduces the portions of the bridge needing to meet truck and bus loading
requirements. There will be sidewalk work occurring which can be disruptive although it goes fairly
quickly. Two lanes of traffic could be open with parking available on one side of the street most of the
time. There would be a permanent loss of 8 street parking spaces along Higuera Street. The existing
walls under new sidewalk areas could collapse in an earthquake. The two bridges, crossing Osos and
crossing Higuera would remain standing. We would expect the federal funding to be 80% of the cost to
do the work on the two crossings only. This reduces their contribution to about $600,000.
Staff feels this option could best meet the intent of the Downtown Concept Plan: "to make the City more
pedestrian friendly." Minimal parking would be removed and with loss of the side friction parking creates,
the two lanes of traffic would most likely carry the projected traffic volumes. Specific design issues at
the intersection of Osos and Higuera would need to be addressed to assure adequate turning movements.
Timin : Staff has made some rough estimates for the timing of the project. Assuming a project is
undertaken, staff estimates .the environmental process completed in late 1997, design work occurring
during 1998 and construction starting in May of 1999. Construction of any project involving work in the
i
l��H���►►►>uII111�IluII��11 city or san tins oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 8 of 11
creek is limited to the months between May and October. If a project is selected which requires virtually
no environmental work, such as a deck only replacement, work could start in late 1997. However, one
thing to consider is that the construction of the Santa Rosa Street bridge would have only just finished
a month before. In consideration of the downtown, and in recognition of the holiday season, we would
probably want to wait until 1998.
Response and Resewrh to public comments mceived to date;
o Utility Coordination - Staff will begin coordination with utility companies immediately after the
Council gives direction as to whether a project is to be pursued or not.
o Build everything on the inside - Staff did some preliminary study on the potential for flooding if
walls are built inside the channel. It appears such activities will reduce the flow carrying
capabilities of the channel. If that is not the case, there are some techniques by which this can be
accomplished.
o Do more investigation before going to Council- To do more detailed investigation of options at this
time would be to put the financial burden for such an investigation entirely on the City. Even if
such work is done, the environmental work could completely nullify the option selected and we
would have wasted our money. A general guideline for project selection will allow us to move
through the environmental process and do detailed project selection at 80% federal expense.
o Don't mess with the parking - Staff will look at staging areas and sites with potential for temporary
parking during design. At that time, needs for staging and parking will be better defined. Access
to existing lots will be available and staff will try to limit staging to the immediate area of work
as much as possible. Depending upon the project chosen, different equipment and staging needs
exist.
o Remodel businesses to move entrances - It is feasible to remodel businesses. There will be
associated costs which the grant program will not participate in. If the entrances/exits are not moved
access will be required as part of the construction contract.
o Night work - The issues raised regarding night work hinge mainly on the fact that some businesses
don't close until 2:00 A.M. while others open at 5:30 A.M. leaving a very short work day.
o Provide a temporary bridge - Doing any bridge removal and replacement in increments will function
effectively as a temporary bridge to go over the work area and be much more cost effective.
o Develop public interest - Staff will have to rely on the local businesses and the BIA to develop
concepts to interest the public in the project. Any thing that needs to be provided by the Contractor
for the project would be incorporated in the construction.documents.
o Slower and less disntptive preferred to fast - The project will be staged to be a slower, less
disruptive project.
o Affects on adjacent stntctures - Staff assured property owners at the meetings that the work will be
done so as not to compromise their structures. Any damage done would be the responsibility of the
contractor or designer.
o Keep people involved - Staff will continue to involve the business and property owners at various
stages of the project.
o Open the creek - The option of opening the creek has been explored by staff. It needs some
additional review to be finalized. This can be done by the design engineer.
o Provide nvo lanes of traffic - Staff feels two lanes of traffic can be kept open.
o Lower the channel bottom - It is not considered feasible to lower the channel bottom. A downhill
flow has to be maintained and the flowline must join the existing at the .end of the bridge. �_
�l��n�►�u►�Illll��p��u►q��N city of San LAIS osIspo
M-ia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 9 of 11
o Pursue long term sohftion for the i+;hole culvert - Staff does not feel that the remainder of the
undercity culvert should be addressed in conjunction with this project. It would become an
overwhelming project and, of the remaining culvert, some of it has different load requirements and
most is built completely different.
o Bypass some of the water- Building a bypass is considered prohibitively expensive, environmentally
untouchable and it moves the disruption to someone else's front door.
Risk Management:
The City is now in the position of having been notified that the Higuera bridge is in need of repair or
replacement in the near future. The costs for this project are high; however, they must be weighed against
the potential liability of the City doing nothing. With a minor repair project, liability would remain high
and additional work would always be needed, and the roadway would not be considered safe for heavy
loading. A new bridge would eliminate our liability as it relates to the structural integrity of the bridge.
Of the rehabilitation options, only a deck replacement with a complete system of wall reinforcement, with
no change in the flow carrying capabilities will eliminate our liability. The remaining rehabilitation
options produce liability concerns, either because we have retained an aging deck or we have a set of
rubble walls which can collapse into the creek bringing the adjacent street with it.
CONCLUSION:
This is a very complex project. Under most ordinary circumstances, the "best" project for the long term
best interest of the City would be to build a new structure. However, these are not ordinary circumstances
as California (and San Luis Obispo) is still recovering from the recent recession and disruption to traffic
on Higuera Street (the City's main commercial thoroughfare) is a major concern. Obviously, the kind of
disruption caused by a new bridge project would be unacceptable. Likewise, we can not hide from the
liabilities imposed by the existing conditions and do nothing. Thus, rehabilitation options provide the
proper forum for decision making.
Of the four rehabilitation options discussed, staff favors Option 3b. This option provides a structurally
and seismically safe bridge, has a relatively short construction period, requires no Army Corps of
Engineers permits, is eligible for Federal funding and acknowledges some risk (a major earthquake
occurring simultaneously with a major flood). Other rehabilitation options increase City liability (Option
3a); increase City costs (Option 3c); or change the fundamental "look and fee" of Higuera Street (Option
3d).
There has been much discussion regarding a rehabilitation project which can be accomplished wholly from
within the structure. Besides the complex issue of asking for and receiving an Army Corps of Engineers
permit, the key issue is: Can the walls and bridge deck be sufficiently strengthened to meet traffic load
requirements and without causing increased flooding to the downtown. Preliminary research by
Engineering indicates the answer is "no". We believe that additional study by the future design engineer
will further support that findin„ but have recommended that the issue be further studied so as to put the
issue to rest.
q
�11► �►►��IIIIIII�p ���IN MY Of San luiS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 10 of 11
Staff is taking no position on 'opening of creek" in the Court Street parking lot. The Downtown Concept
Plan initiates the concept of such an idea and recent Council action concerning the future of the area
mentions an increase in open space, but there is no definite Council policy to guide staff as to a best
recommendation. Therefore, within the CAO recommendation is additional study of the opening, since
that knowledge will be needed regardless of Council action on Court Street. Council could delay this
research for later (when the Downtown Concept Plan is implemented); eliminate the need for it entirely
(amend the D.C.P.); or proceed as recommended. As described earlier, opening of the creek can be
accomplished with any option, could be a pleasant addition to the downtown, and is in reality not an
engineering decision.
Finally, depending upon public input, the Council could mix and match most of the solutions presented
and in essence Option 3d is one such mix. This option mixes a rehabilitation, Option 3b, at specific road
crossing areas with a refined minor repair, Option 1, to achieve an overall project. Each series of options
either include or exclude "opening of the creek".
What's next:
Council will take public input tonight. Some of that will probably the same as was presented to staff at
other public meetings. We would hope that out of the meeting tonight, Council would outline the
"preferred project" as they see it, for example "rehabilitation with a creek opening" and give guidance as
to a tentative construction start date. Staff would then proceed to retain consultants to complete necessary
environmental studies and design. Once we enter the design stage, a more thorough examination of the
options associated with the chosen project can be made, including hydraulic studies and interior work.
Staff would report back to Council at any major decision making including contact with BIA and notifying
interested parties.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are two distinct problems identified with this bridge. One is the lack of strength in the deck to
carry heavy loads and the second is the inability for the walls to withstand an earthquake. The bridge is
eligible for federal funding for either rehabilitating or reconstruction, providing that it is brought up to
legal loads and seismic strength and the flow carrying capability of the culvert is not decreased. Any
project which meets the basic criteria for funding will be eligible, however any option selected other than
the least expensive would have to be funded to a larger degree by the City. Federal funding would only
be 80% of the least expensive project. Caltrans will compare the cost to rehabilitate the bridge with the
cost to replace it. Generally, it is cheaper to replace a bridge than to rehabilitate it. Our estimates
indicate that this is true for this structure as well. Caltrans will therefore base the funding on the cost for
complete replacement. All costs shown include environmental work, design, construction and construction
Engineering and all these costs are eligible for reimbursement.
An additional impact is the issue of reimbursement, raised at the public meetings, for business losses.
Traditionally, the City has allocated funds to be used for promotions to offset the construction activity and
not funded individual business losses. Funds for promotions, etc. are not eligible for reimbursement by
the federal grant program, nor are the costs to do remodeling.
�n
111 ►�i��lllllllllll° ����III MY Of san suis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
page 11 of 11
As with any construction project downtown, there is the potential for lost sales tax revenue.
The Santa Rosa Street bridge is currently budgeted and will need specific Council action in order to
proceed to construction in mid 1997 at an estimated total cost of $450,000 for construction only (City
share= $90,000, Federal share = $360,000). It is currently budgeted for FY 1997-98 in our four year CEP
budget. The Higuera project would then follow the next year at a cost to the City of between $200,000
and $2,000,000 with the federal contribution estimated at $ 2,100,000. No budget provisions have been
made for this yet. Staff cannot recommend that both projects proceed simultaneously.
CONCURRENCE:
The general public consensus heard by staff at the public meetings was, if we must do something, it is
best to rehabilitate the existing bridge. This option has the potential to provide the least disruption to the
businesses while still addressing the structural integrity of the bridge.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City will need to do some work on the bridge in the near future. If there is a long term interest in
opening the creek on this end of town, now is the time to do it before money is spent on repairs.
ATTACHMENTS:
Summary Matrix
Exhibit A & AA - Conceptual Creek Opening at Court Street
Exhibit B - Conceptual Plan to replace street crossings only g:%#%b,id9 V=dirW.q,
I
ƒ C
� 5
_
\
` e /
] 2 a Z i a t ±
. m � = a
\ $ ƒ § z eq _ - . Cd K
$
° / k
_ / e §
} )
a/ n .8
- cq CN m
e § /
- aaa
2810 2
3 ƒ @
$ % k
o § ±
\ ems
CD
\ /
6-1
/j o
uj
m - k k 0 0 0 0
\ CD _
k0 .
/-/�
W �
• o
z
OSOS ST /
I
I
l
i
I ,
I i
i
i,
MORRO ST . EXHIBIT " A"
/-�3
0
a
z
y
9
N
In
P
\ � m
I
\ X
\
LU
\ r
r Qt
I
6
m L
m
� O
� � Z
c
a
x
w
o W
N
� t
L �
i
MORRO ST.
MERIDIAN
f 0
i COUNTRY GIFTS Z
A F CAL PHOTO m
i LOUISA'S -{
C U)
i FTI r MO'S SMOKEHOUSE
BBQ
i —4
i
J
i
a
i
i
�1
f � �
OSOS ST.
Jt a
LEGEND
i
® BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
i ® SIDEWALK BULBOUT
i
EXHIBIT "B"
i REPAIR AND REPLACE
a OSOS & HIGUERA STREET
CROSSINGS ONLY
i
t—