The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/20/1996, C-9 - SANTA ROSA BRIDGE DESIGN SERVICES council j acEnba RepoRt 9 CITY OF SAN LUIS OB ISP O FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Diiectortgf Public Wq Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Santa Rosa Bridge Design Services CAO RECONIlMTNDATION Approve the request for proposals and authorize staff to distribute the request. Authorize the CAO to award the contract if the negotiated cost for consultant services is within the project budget. DISCUSSION The Santa Rosa Street bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek is one of several bridges identified by the State of California Department of Transportation as deficient. The City has been working to replace these older bridges and has completed the replacement of the Nipomo Street and Elks Lane bridge in recent years. The Santa Rosa Street bridge was identified because of the narrowness of the bridge and the undermining occurring at the foundations. As with the other bridges, 80% of the design and construction for this bridge will be funded through the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation program. Earlier this year the City completed environmental studies and submitted them to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval. The FHWA has given the project an environmental categorical exclusion. In July,staff applied for and received authorization to begin detailed design work for the replacement of the bridge. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department assisted in the development of the environmental document. FISCAL EMPACT The '93295 Financial Plan (page E-6) and the '95-'97 Financial Plan Supplement (page E-4) identify a total of $ 65,000 ($52,000 Federal grant funds & $13,000 City General Funds) for design work. A total of$13,500 has been spent to date on environmental work leaving a budget of$51,500 to support this portion of the project. Attachments RFP is available in the Council Office for review &U��Vfpcsdv.= i 1 I I h I I - - z � r. Project Location or i iORa^ •� `goy /� �? g I s�� r�Ru oRCVfi I . � TMIR iMY 1 J Q 3 �I��IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIII��IIIIII O f Santa Rosa Street Bridge IIII T Santins OBISp O Replacement Project /?.V- I P;tEE IN AGENDA DATE tr'44- ITEM # RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CBr934054�44� OUNCIL ❑ CDDDIR�CM: rschmldt P%du V��ACAO ❑ FIRECHIEF !. August 20, 1996 4 TTORNEY O PW DIA I. eCLErwoRIG 11POLICE 0AP Re: Aug. 20 Agenda, Miscellaneous Items ❑ MGMtTEAM D REC DIR 1 ❑ R' AO FILE ❑ UTIL DIR To the City Council: ❑ aEes DIRI Looking through your agenda packet, I am appalled at the lack of information staff provides you and how the agenda packets have been dumbed down (or should it be Dunned down) so that you couldn't possibly understand what you are doing based on the information provided. I am also appalled at the overwhelmingly propagandistic nature of the "information" being provided. Further, be it said that if other information is being provided to you to supplement the scanty stuff in you packet, the public doesn't have access to that information, and thus the public is being shut out -- by Dunn and company -- of having any meaningful role in understanding the business that is carried out in the public's name. Finally, I am amazed at the ease with which the current administration has bamboozled the five of you into dismantling San Luis Obispo as we have known it, with nary a word of caution that such is actually what you are up to. When I looked at the current agenda, I was dizzy with the number of major changes you are talking about approving as if they were routine weekly business. I BELIEVE IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE MOST RECKLESSLY OUT OF CONTROL COUNCIL I HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN 26 YEARS OF LOCAL RESIDENCY. EVEN THE RAMPANTLY PRO-GROWTH DUNIN/RAPPA COUNCIL WOULD HAVE BLUSHED TO DO WHAT YOU DO WEEKLY, AND THE INFAMOUS COOPER COUNCIL NEVER WOULD HAVE TRIED. You have accomplished this all the while believing that the public is wholly behind what you do: you are very mistaken, for the public is angry beyond belief, but feels helpless because you have closed your wagons around the pro-growth/pro-business aristocratic politician "managers" who now run the city and have made it so difficult for the real public to have a hearing of their concerns that most have simply given up. That no one is willing to run against the incumbents is not a sign of approval, it is an indication of total revulsion and disgust and a surrender to defeatism due to the pointlessness of even attempting to speak in opposition. Such sentiments are not confined to persons like myself -- I still make an effort to speak truth to you, after all -- but are the common property of thousands of others far less sophisticated in city affairs than we are. A few more specific comments on agenda items: L: AUG 2 '1719( CITY ri__Rr C-2. Annexation on South Broad. It seems we have one annexation after another these days. Why, other than to enable certain land speculators realize huge profits off their speculations? What public good is served by this? Of course, there's no map in the packet, so who knows what you're talking about? The open space is so poorly defined I can't figure out what's being dedicated, or where. Surely this will result in a situation that is wholly unenforceable, yet certain incumbents will be able to campaign on having acquired an open space dedication in return for annexation, and how we then need more annexations to accomplish more of the same. C-3. Carwashes on every corner in the CN zone. Bravo. We really need this. Wholly consistent with the Dunn program of erasing every difference between San Luis Obispo and West Covina or Santa Maria in the interests of promoting business. What's next? Drive-through restaurants? C-9 Santa Rosa Street Bridge. No indication of the effects on the creek, or the large trees near the bridge. Would be nice to know more. Do you understand the environmental effects? The public sure cannot understand based on the staff report. Since engineering's been trying to get rid of these trees for years, one suspects the worst. 2 Selling fire house. This is where "running government like a business" gets us -- a totally amoral approach in which long-term city assets are regarded simply as real estate to be disposed of to the highest bidder. Has the city considered adaptive reuse of the firehouse while retaining city ownership? Might this not be better in the long run than trying to dispose of the property during a real estate slump? Could the city ever repurchase such property for less than what it will get by selling it now? What about the city's fiduciary obligation to its own history? I have written to you before -- though, per usual, one might as well not waste one's time.-- about the unique structural nature of the engine house, with its radiating truss roof structure -- a structure so unusual that many of the old-time structural engineering faculty at Cal Poly would make field trips to the site just to show it to students. The engine house space is remarkable. Take out the engines, and it could be a museum, playhouse, or whatever. Does the city not have interest in using its surplus resources to further the cultural life of the city? (Remember, the Dunn crew was dragged kicking and screaming into not quickly demolishing the library, now the SLO City Playhouse.) Are all city assets merely entry lines on some twerp's ledger sheet, and nothing more? You're nuts if you sell this building. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt`__ - Av, 20 - C5c