HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1998, 10 - HIGUERA STREET BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT council T1721, 1998
j agenda Pepont ImN°bi
CITY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public W ks
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: HIGUERA STREET BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
By motion,
1. Authorize staff to proceed with final construction plans for the rehabilitation of the Higuera
Street Bridge,Alternative 1.
2. Approve flexible work hours as recommended.
3. Approve and authorize the mayor to execute an amendment to the design contract with Martin
&Kane,Inc. in the amount of$ 71,600 for additional work to complete an investigative trial
project and eliminate further work on opening the creek. Appropriate$14,320 from the
unappropriatedbalance of the General Fund and$57,280 in grant revenue and move it to
400.9504.520.552 for the Higuera Street Bridge environmental and design services.
4. Approve the inclusion of bonus payments of$4000 per day up to a maximum of$60,000,to be
included in the construction contract documents.
5. Approve the inclusion of$20,000 in the proj ect budget for advertising and promotion to be
administered through the Downtown Association
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Higuera Street bridge has been inspected by the California Department of Transportation and
identified as needing replacement or rehabilitation. The project is eligible for 80% funding for
replacement or rehabilitation under the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
program.
Martin& Kane, the environmental and design consultant, began work in November of 1997 and
have completed much of the environmental work and preliminary engineering on possible
alternatives for rehabilitation. Meetings have been held with local business and property owners
and interested parties to discuss the options and impacts. A tour of the structure has also been
made by the City Council and the public.
Staff concurs with the consultant's recommended alternative for rehabilitation, strengthening the
walls and replacing the deck of the bridge. The alternative provides the greatest degree of
mitigation for the construction and the highest level of structural integrity long term for the
bridge with the minimuml amount of long term environmental impact. The project should
include a bonus for early completion and advertising funds for the downtown.
Construction on the bridge is expected to start in 1999 and cost approximately $3,200,000. An
estimated additional $530,000 will be needed to cover construction engineering, bonuses and
Council Agenda Rel —Higuera Bridge Rehabilitation
Page 2
advertising. The City's share of the construction would be $770,000, the remaining costs being
covered by the Federal rehabilitation program.
DISCUSSION
Background of the bridge project:
In late 1993, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) determined the Higuera
bridge was in need of repairs and recommended load limits for the bridge. The load limits were
established to reduce wear and tear on the bridge. A field review with Caltrans structures staff in
early 1994 resulted in a recommendation to do an initial study to see if the walls could be used in
their existing condition and only the deck rehabilitated. In August of 1994, the City Council
approved an initial study on the bridge. The study was completed and approved by Caltrans in
late 1995. The study showed the walls were not seismically stable. Staff held several public
meetings to review the initial study findings and in March of 1996 the.City Council directed staff
to pursue a rehabilitation project for the bridge.
In 1997, Martin & Kane, the environmental and design consultants for the rehabilitation project,
started work. One of their first discoveries was a high amount of deterioration in the steel beams
supporting Higuera Street. This condition means a rehabilitation of the existing deck is not
feasible. Instead., a replacement of the deck is needed as well as a rehabilitation of the walls.
Rehabilitation Design Recommendations:
Martin & Kane recommends strengthening the existing walls and replacing the deck. This is
Alternative 1 in the Advanced Planning Study. The Advance Planning Study is in the Council
reading file for information. ,The work consists of coring small holes through the rock wall from
the top and pumping concrete grout into the voids between the rocks. If necessary, grout would
also be pumped in from the interior walls to fill voids. A steel rod would be set in place in the
vertical grout hole. A new support beam will be placed at the top of the wall and a new, precast
deck secured to that.
Completion of the rehabilitation will not preclude the addition of a low flow channel being added
in the Court Street parking lot if desired. If anything, the grouting of the walls will stabilize the
rock and maki future coring easier.
Alternative 1 , including a bonus for early completion, provides the greatest degree of mitigation
for the construction and the highest level of structural integrity long term for the bridge with the
minimum amount of long term environmental impact. Staff favors Alternative 1 and the project
bonus,as the two will combine to produce a project of lesser noise, dust and vibration, and of the
least duration.
Options reviewed:
The designers looked at five main options for the bridge (see Exhibit B -Options Summary and
Exhibit C -Public Meeting Handout).
• Reinforce the existing walls and build a new deck. (Altemative 1 in the Advanced Planning
Study).
• Build new walls behind the existing walls and build a new deck. (Alternatives 2A-D)
/d—Z
Council Agenda Report-S era Bridge Rehabilitation
Page 3
• Remove existing walls and deck and replace them. (Alternative 9)
• Build new walls, deck and floor inside the existing walls and deck. (Alternative 7)
• Do one of the above for most of the bridge, diverting and opening the creek in the City
parking lot at Osos Street. (Alternative 8)
The only option which will allow for 2 lanes of traffic is Alternative 1. The only option which
seismically reinforces the existing walls is Alternative 1. Alternative 1 also has the least noise
and environmental impacts. Cost, loss of parking, and time of construction are about the same
for Alternative 1 and 2A-D.
Removing and replacing the existing bridge, building inside the existing bridge and opening the
creek in the parking lot are not considered realistic projects. The reasons are high costs, major
environmental impacts and/or increased frequency of flooding the downtown.
Stag_
The contractor will need a certain amount of space to pour the concrete deck sections and do
general staging. Staff is recommending this occur in the adjacent City owned parking lot. To a
certain degree the parking lot will be in use (approximate loss of 24 spaces) because of the need
to enter the creek area through the deck. The cost savings to the project is estimated at $50,000
to allow additional staging area in the parking lot; a loss of an additional 16 spaces. The savings
results from not having to transport the deck from the casting location to the project. The deck
can be set in place directly from casting.
The parking lot is a City owned resource, although the revenues are part of the Parking enterprise
fund. If the spaces were purchased at the normal rate charged for daily use, it would amount to
between $10,000 and $17,000 depending on the number of spaces. One access to the parking lot
is across the bridge and the use of the spaces could be considered the Parking fund contribution
to the project. Three other driveway entrances do not cross the bridge. Approximately two-
thirds of the lot will remain available for the general public.
Public Input:
A draft of the Advance Planning Study report was made available to staff in early May of this
year. A summary of the draft report was provided to the public through the press and small
group meetings with local property and business owners (see Exhibit D - memo from Crawford,
Multari and Starr.) A general public meeting was held to gather concerns other than those of the
immediate project area. From the meetings, three main concerns were identified:
• Project should go as quickly as possible -Incentives and penalties for the contractor
• Concerns about construction-noise, dust, vibrations, access, view
• Loss of business
Midization:
In the past, on selected downtown construction projects, the Contractor was provided bonus
incentives to complete the project early. This is typically done on a per day basis with a
maximum bonus. For the most recent project, the Marsh Street Reconstruction, the bonus was
approximately 2% of the construction costs. For this project, 2% would provide a $60,000
bonus. A previous construction project in this block, completed in the early `80's provided for a
Ida
Council Agenda Reph -Higuera Bridge Rehabilitation
Page 4
$3,000 a day bonus. Staff has estimated extra costs to run additional crews and equipment at
$3,500 a day. To provide incentive, staff is recommending a bonus of $4,000 a day. If the
contractor earned the entire bonus, the project would be completed 3 weeks early. Penalties for
late completion are standard for all construction projects and are based on the expected costs to
the City caused by the delay in completion.
The City and the consultant looked at the issues of noise, dust, vibrations, access and views. The
major issues of noise and vibration were greatly reduced by going to the option using small
corings to reinforce the wall rather than an option using large drilled piles to support a new deck.
Business access is being built into the project. The view is something we will continue to work
with the downtown on. There have been suggestions both to shield the construction from view
and to make it viewable.
Construction noise is inherent in any construction project and cannot be eliminated. The faster
the project is completed, the less noise the area will have to tolerate. Moving the project hours to
evening hours avoids these issues during the day but impacts residents in the area and can result
in higher labor costs. The consultant has incorporated as much under-deck work as possible to
keep the noise down. This will also increase costs. The consultant estimates leaving the deck in
place to complete some of the work will cost an estimated$50,000.
One other thing the City has done during large downtown construction projects is provide funds
for advertising and promotion for businesses. The funds are provided to the Downtown
Association which coordinates the program with its members. Since this project will affect a
major downtown street, it is appropriate to provide funds to promote the downtown during the
construction period. The City provided the downtown with $20,000 for the Marsh Street project.
The same amount is recommended for this project.
Flexible work hours:
Per City noise ordinance the allowed hours for construction work are 7 am. to 7 p.m. with no
work on Sundays or holidays. Staff recommends the contractor be allowed to work until 10 p.m.,
which is the same hour restriction as radios and loudspeakers, Monday through Saturday. This
will allow the contractor as much leeway as possible towards early completion. Staff will work
with the Downtown Association regarding the appropriate hours of work for Farmer's Market
night.
In addition to the longer hours, the consultant is recommending, for some areas, the work hours
be extended into the night. There would be approximately 10 days of this late work. The reason
for this late work is to provide public access and emergency exits for businesses and to keep
Osos Street open to vehicles and pedestrians during the day. The main entrance to the Thai
Classic restaurant is on the bridge. The emergency exits for Woodstocks, Kennedy Nautilus and
Mission Cinema are also on the bridge. Doing construction work while these businesses are
closed, prevents the project from blocking the entrance or exit. This is of primary importance
because the City must provide access to a business or risk exposure for business losses. Late
work hours will be coordinated with the affected businesses so the work occurs during their off
hours.
Council Agenda Report—1 era Bridge Rehabilitation
Page 5
Investigative trial program-Alternative 1:
If the City Council approves the approach outlined in Alternative 1, the Consultant feels strongly
that a test program should be done. The program would obtain data necessary to prepare a
detailed specification for the work. The trial would take approximately one week.
The exact conditions existing behind the face of the rock wall are not entirely known. A pit was
dug behind the wall in 1995 as part of the initial study. At that time arm sized voids between the
rocks were found. In order to determine the design of the grout to be pumped into the wall, how
frequently along the wall the grout has to be pumped, and whether all the grout can be pumped
from the top or some must be pumped from the interior as well, the consultant is requesting the
City authorize an investigative test program to occur. The results will allow the consultant to
refine the final plans and specifications for construction. Without the information gained in the
trial,the consultant may need to make revisions to the project once it is underway. Changes
during construction can be more expensive than when the work is identified in the original
contact, and it can cause delays. The trial program has the potential of saving the City $ 60,000
in drilling costs and $300,000 to 5450,000 in additional construction costs resulting from
unknown conditions. Approximately $50,000 of the costs for the trial would be finished
construction, or in other words, work that would be eliminated from the final construction
project. The trial program does not include deck replacement.
Timing:
The project is planned for construction during the summer months of 1999. There are several
clearances from State and Federal agencies which must be obtained prior to construction. These
clearances can result in delays to the start of a project. The consultant is working with the
agencies in advance of permit applications to ensure timely processing of the permits.
Staff plans to have the project to the City Council for final approval of plans and specifications in
spring of next year.
Other City Proiects:
The City is committed to coordinating construction activities so as not to return to the same area
again and again with projects. To that end,Public Works staff is working with other departments
on pending Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. The City Utilities Department
identified a sewerline replacement needed in Higuera Street and is pursuing possible installation
of fire sprinkler laterals and upgrading of water services. The sewerline to be replaced runs from
the bridge by the Thai restaurant to Morro Street. Staff is recommending the utility work be
completed with the bridge project. This will prevent a second construction project in the same
area occurring only a few years after the bridge project. Staff will work with the consultant to
combine the utility project with the bridge project as much as possible. As part of the Pavement
Management Plan, staff plans to complete the resurfacing of Higuera Street from Santa Rosa to
Morro, and Osos Street from Monterey to Higuera in conjunction with this project. Both the
watermain and traffic signals have been upgraded in recent,years. The result will be an area that
will not need construction for some time.
/V-5
Council Agenda Rel -Higuera Bridge Rehabilitation
Page 6
CONCURRENCES
Staff feels the community realizes the necessity to repair the bridge because of its deteriorated
condition. Concerns are generally directed at minimizing the impacts to the largest degree
possible.
The Utilities Department has concurred with the concept of completing their work with the
bridge project. The Downtown Association has concurred with the selection of Alternative 1 as
the appropriate choice for the rehabilitation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Higuera Street Bridge Replacement is identified in the 1997-99 Financial Plan, Appendix B
on page 115. Three million dollars has been forecast for construction in the 1999-00 budget
Based on the designers current estimates, it is not recommended that any change be made to the
budget at this time. As the design progresses, the estimate can be revised for inclusion in the
1999-00 Financial Plan. The bridge is eligible for 80% funding reimbursement of the most cost
effective alternative, through the Federal Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement
Program.
Total Cost Federal Funds City Funds
Environmental& Design Contract:
Current 531,500 425,200 106,300
Eliminate Open Creek Option -21,400 -17,120 -4,280
Trial program 93,000 74,400 18,600
Design Total: 603,100 482,480 120,620
Construction-Estimated:
Alternative 1 3,200,000 2,400,000 600,000
Construction Engineering 450,000 360,000 90,000
Early Completion Bonus 60,000 0 60,000
Advertising 20,000 0 20,000
—Construction Total: 3,730,000 2,760,000 770,000
Project Total: 4,333,100 344221480 1 89Q.)620
Budgets for Utilities Department work will be prepared as part of the budget process for
construction during 1999-00.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff does not see any viable alternates to completing a rehabilitation project(i.e. Alternative 1 or
2.) Doing any of the alternatives which reduce flow in the channel,resulting in increased
flooding, are not eligible for Federal funding. Federal funding is also set at 80%of the least
expensive option. Complete replacement would require about$5 million of City funding;
basically all of the City's General Fund reserves. The bridge in not in good enough condition to
allow it to remain as is.
/a-G
Council Agenda.Report—f era Bridge.Rehabilitation
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS-
Exhibit
TTACHM ENT5Exhibit A-Project Map
Exhibit B= Option Summary
Exhibit C Public Meeting.Handout
Exhibit 1)-Memo from Crawford; Multari & Clarks Public comments on the FEguera Street
Bridge Rehabilitation Project
Exhibit E- Consultant Agreement Amendment
Available in Council'Reading File:
Advance Planning Study
Cultural Resources Study
Natural Environment..Study
f:�wps�wrlsm&5pojearbridga�higuaaldei� alomuee S9Iwfi o.da
SANTA ROSA
IPP
W �
N
. . . . . . . OSOS
" z
. . W
. . W
z LJ
COURT Q
,cn . . . ,
OLLJ
. . . '
e
MORRO
o-
U
c
C O y O O
W ° O N 0 O to S. y .+
o _ M oOD
_
U C N C i �' W) V 0 �
r c cbp vs 3
3 a o ca
Ob
� o
3 E3 E3E3v3o3 0 >, En ° � ocd m
GO rA cn C3 ';, a c > > ami
Oa0i X .�_. i..
2 rn O U O rn c� O
to $ >
92
Gn
En
U O 0G
ayi N O ccu w U 0. cC cz O
w y
U3 &n w U cC U ° vUi U �' •G .
mo w 0 rA
i O .fl M :+ •� y w c,.., aUi O
�
en
E 0 E E E
cn U y
U 'Y "' cC Wo
krl
c ees
c U = v °' E
a c c 0 c Cd
M
Q w ° 0 � � � E
c W
.. bo cc Cl. cq
E ou o mu y
0 2Ux c Ea .E E .� o 3 � U �
" a y U U ca 0 ° y = y = 0 00 « 04 o
0 0cz
�' eg b Qui G-. � p,
bo
0 •^ .y o o � c� y � .� ¢ � C'
Q On r-
o, n o0
N Z ^+ N M rn ¢ m W
/o-9
City of San Luis Obispo
Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project
Monterey
0
e
Parxrng wood
HiGUE"
That
B I GE Classic
Firestone
O �
O
MARSH
Project Location
Public Meeting
May 26, 1998
The purpose of this meeting is to review a number of options for repairing Higuera Street. Several alternatives are
illustrated on the following pages. Some of these were deemed infeasible because of costs. or changes to the
stream "hydraulics" (flow characteristiscs). The City Council is expected to make a decision about which ap-
proach to use at their meeting on July 21.
If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please feel free to call us at 541-2622 (extension 222 --
ask for Jennifer or Mike). Also, keep in mind, that while the engineering and design work is being done,we will be
meeting with businesses, residents and property owners in the affected area to work on possible mitigations to
lessen potential impacts.
Thank you.
10 40
Z-vA;A:.i
Summary
The portion of Higuera Street from Thai Classic restaurant,crossing Osos Street,and on to Mo's BBQ,lies over San
Luis creek supported by a structure known as the Higuera Street Bridge. In 1996, a review of the structure by tl�
California Department of Transportation determined the bridge was in need of repair work. Tbis repair is needed
assure its long term safety. To date, the City has.limited the weight of trucks using the bridge and limited some
parte in the Court Street parking lot to ease the load on the bridge.
In November 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo, with the help of an outside engineering firm, began preliminary
designs and environmental studies for the eventual repair of the bridge. The firm is now completing a report that
outlines the options for repair. The City Council will decide the method of repair at the July 21¢ Council meeting.
Actual repair work is expected to take place in the summer of 1999.
Engineer's Recommended Alternative
talu.,V 17
STRENGTHEN EXISTING WALLS WITH REINFORCING BARS
Cost: $3.2 M
Time: 3 Months
New
"Superstructure"
Concrete_ -
AVi
Spreader Existing
^ ;
Beam Stone Wall
:zz.MaF.
a IIs.
Grout/fill
voids in
existing ".
stone wall = =1 Creek
.__ °� "� �',. .,sem,-•. .,; w.4. �-' I y""`�,;,G
High strength
metal reinforcing
bar
Advantages= Disadranterges f
Eliminates excavation for piles Requires specialty contractors
Two traffic lanes available during Falsework/shoring is required in
day channel
• Strengthens existing wall to
withstand seismic loads
• Drilling equipment is smaller less
disruptive than caisson drilling
equip.
Utility disruption is minimized
i
Ex�b:t c
Other Alternatives
At A vt
te"w6m, 2A
w
SUPPORT WITH NEW CONCRETE PILES OUTSIDE Same as 2A but with reinforcing bar an building side of channel
EMSTING WALLS AND OUTSIDE BUILDING LINE Cost$2.9 M
AT SPERRY BUILDING AND OLD BUS STATION Tm:3 Mordlis
Alternative 2
Cast$3.0#A
Tirm:3 MardaBuilding-A New'Superstructure"
" M
Line
New
uperstructure"
Concrete Eting Cast In
Building
Line S
Stone Wal
Spreader Place Cap
A-,
Beam Tie Back
/Anchor
A Existing Cast In
Stone Wall Place Cap Groutflill
voids as Creek as
Tie choBack
is / required
Anr
Creek
High strength Cast in
metal reinforcing Drilled Hole
'Pit Mftnirmgf- Cast in Drilled bar (CIDH)Pile
Hole(CIDH)
Pile �AdLvwnLfaqw
Elliewmats excavation fw piles at the specialty ewaracbm rewred for
:Adv=ftgei'- llisadwaiviiies b
work at buildho
Strenowns conm wan at pow"Sig dlicalt i w to
• Pit ftang sausfies rood to Pitnum isladicusarmt1retatively the Ma mins to WMtntad weesame tlatmic rescutces at the city pad-9
M , m a delicate waster mar espoweve W-Pww to MV bads let
ewswN boidnas, tromw casam dnlbrg ewo. I . Excimaw lor piles and pie cap at Only ane trallic Lore available dwuq
• All P-t ffwtwv excavation a outside only�wellic lam a awail2bie ft 192imitY Ofthe leplacut., does the day.
an buddiry Ike. dwwq Ow day. not E e=s&w Stlucture. The i g w�wall is subject bD
FatseworK is mqured in to . False�in dwaW is rmt MWBvd. ULM under Seim loads.
&are[id the bAdinp.
Majaftafe3doft atom-wag is
viaject to ftibae under searmic
leads.
Pownew sonfficarvt apact w
lustwic resowes at ft CRY
Partin LGL
A41tarnatir
e Alf"nallive- 24
Same as 2A but with I girder and pile on building side Same as 2A but with concrete pile on building side of channel
of channel Cost S32 M
east S3 2 L4 Tree:3 Months
Tam:3 Monft
Buildi
ng
Line New New'Superstructure'
"Superstructure*
I Girder
15-X
Cast In
Cpt5
L usting
Slurry FdI 7*-
Exi Stone Wall
Existing Cast In 7.-.. Law Cap
Storm. • Place Cap Concrete
Tie Back
Cast in Pier Wall"�'.
I Anchor
Drilled ./Tie Back
Anchor
Hole Pile
Creek
4. Creek
cast h
'Pit M !,Zr C-
Pit
Mining' Drilled
Cast in Hole Pile
Drilled
Hole Pile Ifdtraarages:
Dhad*
_,.;D This suzoon r.f.pe is n=e iesr=w.t The easo%sore wag is subject to
to eam,,Quake loan than alleys tailute under bads.
• LM;5dmwVdmwAk2Aand time lead deflection of I p1der Faftework is ort neqMed r re Pounitad for reffhovat of a Porton of
Merefore fasu�Ow 2A (relative Moverment bebeon ft
chanr"!4. 9m back of the smm was to glace
• PC ffiTur,sati5es IM need to deck and tme vastav lmuidb+gs) the Pier wad.
-m a delicate�mar greater ran adw aftel Olive Pateftb2l sonficam r.v=w
the—19 wkwq& . The atom wall is Subject to d=ic�at the City 0a lz
• AD Pd:mmv excayabon is outside bwm urder�beds. lot
me buldatl;W. . Pit Metam;is tedious and relatively Only we baffic lam available-ding
• Fafte it aarmwei a net wwnskk'e compared to us-V"cal Im day
requwed caisson dmbv exttmarerd.
. Orhy ane trallic Lam n available
dung ft day.
. Pawrow sgrulic&M WM=w
historic resevices at ft City pwkaV
10L
Infeasible Alternatives
.Ar(,t�ta#n►.� �� Ali[#��'eta.�i�rt� 3r
LINE DUSTING WALLS WITH SHOTCRETE SAME AS 2 EXCEPT INSIDE THE BUILDING[INE AT
of A� SPERRY BUILDING AND OLD BUS STATION
W:EASBLERio m mumu IX
New
gN7yr�y�s New
'SuperstrUtture' Lure i Stere.
Existing ::►�
Cast In6ashng '-�,•''
Stone Wad :`z6 i _wr'
.�� Place Cap g�Stone Watl '''�.
Shotcrete
Lining
Cast in
Creek .:`7 : Dn1led Creek
.:
!., Hole Pile — V..
M i
AI�E'[�tatill� � ��L''[R14I'i�1C�
SAIF AS 2 A-0 BUT WITH SMOOTH CHANNEL BOTTOM SAME AS 2A-0 SLIT WITH FISH LADDER
aroAS E 90Ti_..rm Are.r�mom.
t
p Wit_ F New• pye• Nn+Superslnxwra'
r I- �
t.ana� n'� Conoete .;, Epsen9 ,r r Cast M
cast M Spreader ::;* Stone wan � _ woe cap
S Stone wan
,. Place Cap Beam - •-. \\ re Bad
Beam .sr ria Bad GraallS �.•..� ,f AnChW
Grwa void • •: ': �<AKhw vcidas
as regrkred" Creek s^-:' mMnmd •.? Geek t R:'
Cast in
Y
sbemgdI Kqh Salf�h Smoodi Otannel `Drilled Hole
High
rertrre 9 `S"em Charmer Cast M mala ndrdorcn9 Bottom:Constr= Pile
Bottom Drilled Flote bar New Fmh Ladder
bar Pile and Poor
AlteKrtatly� 6.,: Wfernat&p, 7-
LINE
LINE OLD WALLS AND BOTTOM WITH SHOTCRETE KEEP OLD"SUPERSTRUCTURE"AND SUPPORT WITH NEW
tNFEASMLE.Aff¢ hydroa¢cacacky ONES BELOW
RI�EA E:AAWs hdrW k oA.mY
// New
...� / -SWershuduW Grout Between Slabs
Ea�rg J apport `:',• _
_`-.t Slab >;; Grotd Below
Shofaete Slab
x, _.:. '••'r, *' q...• :.-:..<:i: SupPcrt Slab
Lining .'•-.• Stwtaete Fxatirg
Unin9 .-J-a Scone Wall ..':.:
j
�+�' 1.A CCT -• ''SF+ Creek (t -
A(ie-.sna�i�ce• 8 AI#e�rnatiere
REROUTE CREEK REPLACE OLD WALLS
asE/.9m-E:Awes helarge C=M%,V 96FAS LE S -kMt v..emr mm�
cmcsM.T.
A S
:ne BYgme
'� t":::;' New J
Retaaung VSO-- :.:' '�:SConcrete J
.F '$:;::i'r.. c�':•'y�y}.: :_!TI /�bUhn2nt$ Lim:::...:
Creek
.... `� . ::•:::'.:_.�:'.�'.;"•-.� a': :•.::�s,� Creek
6 50
Exh.�b�f e
641 Higuera Street.Suite 202
Crawford San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805.541.2622
Multari & Fax 805.541.5512
Clark 424 Second Street,Suite D
Davis,CA 95616
530.753.5950
ASSOCIATES
Fax 530.753.5951
www.6mcaplans.com
E-mail:cmca@cmcaplans.com
June 15, 1998
To: Barbara Lynch,Project Manager
Ray Miller,Martin&Kane
From: Mike Multari,CMCA
Subject: Public comments on the Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project
As you will recall,we held meetings with various property owners and business owners/managers in the
vicinity of the Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project last month(in addition to the"creek walk"and
the public meeting at City Hall on May 26). We also met recently at the Anderson Hotel apartments.
The following is a re-cap of the key points raised at those meetings:
• The primary concern of almost everyone is that the project be completed as quickly as possible. Many
people are worried that the project will take longer than expected because of unforeseen circumstances.
This is probably much more important than the specific engineering alternative that is selected
• The description of Alternative 1 included a recommendation for a"test program"to see if grout
coverage can be achieved through vertical drill holes. This raised a concern among several people that
testing should be done before an alternative is selected so that problems do not arise during the actual
construction work.
• There is some skepticism among some people about the effectiveness of the proposed core drilling
process.
• SeveraLpeople suggested that the contractor be penalized if he/she fails to meet the construction
schedule,and,more importantly,the contractor should be given a significant incentive for completion
ahead of schedule.
• General concerns were raised about noise,vibration,dust/dirt,vehicular and pedestrian access,views
from business windows,and parking both on street and in the Court Street parking lot We will
continue to work with you both on ideas for mitigations. Importantly,we will need to meet with
individual businesses to address there specific needs regarding access,hours,parking,etc. This
detailed,site-by-site analysis should proceed after the specific engineering alternative is selected
• One specific concern was that the work not result in power or water loss to the businesses. This can be
very disruptive.
Some comments from specific businesses:
• Dave Schultz,Keep in Contact,wrote that the noise and vibration would"essentially put me out of
business." He also felt the City should be financially responsible for disruptions to his business. He
planning economics public policy tv4�1
also suggested that an economic impact study be performed,and thought that if the contractor has to
pay penalties because the project goes over schedule,then that money should go to the businesses.
e Don Yeackle,Rice Travel Services,said he would re-locate his business during the construction.
• Norene and Randy Coates,Uptown Espresso and Bakery,said they would be hurt particularly by loss
of parking and by impacts on the outdoor seating area. The summer is their busiest time and a loss in
revenues"could put us out of business."
• Leslie Weber,Open Air Flowers,said she is particularly vulnerable to dust because here merchandise
and office machinery are exposed to the outdoors,directly. In addition,noise,parking and access will
hurt her business which depends on"creating a pleasing environment." She also said that she needs
early morning access for flower delivery. She suggested that as details of the work and schedule
become available,we should talk with her again.
• Marilyn Allison,Cal Poly Downtown,emphasized that access to the parking lot near the business must
be retained in some manner.
• Carol Kowalski,Mo's Smokehouse BBQ,expressed a concern about access to Higuera Street from the
Court Street parking lot,retention of as much Court Street parking as possible,and ensuring that early
morning deliveries to her business could continue to take place during the construction.
• Cheryl Miller,Phillips&Associates,noted that this business relies on access to their parking lot which
must be maintained during construction.
• Dave Kostner,Cal Photo,wrote that his business is dependent on tourist traffic;parking at Court Street
is"very necessary"and pedestrian access from the parking lot to Higuera Street should be maintained.
• Jeff Lafranchi,Woodstock's Pizza,said that part of their strategy during the construction work would
be to increase deliveries;therefore,access for efficient delivery service would be particularly
important Another concern is access through their fire exits which will need to be closely coordinated
with the work schedule.
• Jane Marie Clifford,Personal Renaissance Hypnotherapy,wrote that noise is her greatest concern;she
requested let her know the details of the work schedule and she may simply close during the noisiest
part.
Joyce Vulfing,manager of the Anderson Hotel apartments,said few of her tenants were interested in
the details of the project at this time,but probably will be disturbed by night work.
• Robert Weatherford,Attorney at Law,emphasized that the"daylighting"of the creek at Court Street
should be pursued in conjunction with this project.
Other specific comments:
• Can the project be turned into an"attraction"to draw people to the area?
• The hours of Woodstock's Pizza and Kennedy Club Fitness are not easily reconciled for closure of
emergency exits.
• The configuration of the lanes at the Santa Rosa/Higuem intersection should be such that merging to
the two remaining lanes on Higuera occurs as smoothly as possible.
• Can the Anderson Hotel residents simply be re-located during the construction?
• Several people had comments/suggestions about the engineering and/or design features that have been
forwarded to Martin&Kane.
/D/SJ
45XAL6,Y Z)
Public input process:
The Downtown Business Association membership list received notice of the meetings(including the creek
walk and public meeting at City Hall)by mail. Property owners and businesses most likely to be affected
were contacted by phone. Fliers announcing the meetings were also hand-delivered to the businesses along
Hipera,Osos and Court Streets and to the Anderson Hotel residents. Three meetings were held on May
20 (property owners and businesses)at CMCA offices and one on June 1 It6(at the Anderson Hotel)—in
addition to the creek walk and public meeting at City Hall on May 26'x. Future discussions with
businesses,property owners and residents will occur during the engineering process.
iv�6
b
AMENDMENT ONE TO AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on
this day of . 1998, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City, and Martin & Kane Inc., Consulting
Engineers hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on November 4, 1997 the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for design
and environmental services for the Higuera Street Bridge; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to include additional design services
as outlined on the attached proposal and eliminate those services previously proposed for the purpose of
providing design and acquisition for opening the creek in the Court Street parking lot;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The scope of services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in the revised
work scope and Consultant proposal attached hereto.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT
By:
i A o
Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation
Exhibit E
10-/7
REVISED WORK SCOPE-Amendment One
The following lists the major elements no longer necessary and those which are new needed to complete
the design. It is understood the Consultant will have other minor work savings associated with reduced
work under the conditions outlined in the original proposal and under this amendment
A. Creek Opening Option Removal
A.1 Landscape Architecture
A.2 Parking Lot Right of Way Acquisition
TOTAL A.........................................<$21,400>
B. Test program for Alternative 1 in Advanced Planning Study
B.1 Structural Engineering
B2 Environmental&Permits
B.3 Field Survey
B.4 Field Testing
TOTALB..............................................$ 93,000
NET CHANGE.....................................$ 71,600
Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation
Exhibit E
07/06/1998 16:47 9167Pa5003 PAGE 02
DRAFT z w
July 6, 1998 Z
Ms. Barbara Lynch Y
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street CONSULTING ENoWExs
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RM�CA95M 100
916783.3838(Phone)
Subject: I-iiguera Street Bridge Replacement . ' . . 916783-5001(FU)MKANE9 .���
Test Program Proposal
Dear Barbara:
Martin and Kane, Inc.is pleased to submit this proposal for services required to complete the
Test Program. The main purpose of the test program is to verify Whether adequate grout
coverage can be achieved through the vertical holes alone, or-if horizontal grout holes will also
be required.
Related goals are:
1. To determine the best containment method for slurry.
2. To determine the best sample rate to test grout coverage.
3. To determine the grout mix design for economical flow and coverage.
4. To determine the consistency of wall construction.
5. If horizontal grouting is required, determine the most-economical spacing and the best
containment method for slurry.
The total not to exceed price for the work defined in the attached"Scope of Work"is
$92,441.00 . The attached cost proposal details Martin&Kane's:labor and direct costs. In
addition, our sub-consultants have noted specific exclusions,which have been included in the
scope of work.
The environmental process will take a minimum of 45 days.. Based on the'need to begin the
environmental determination as soon as possible, and ' verbal authorization to start the
environmental work, the environmental determination will proceed immediately. Additionally,
as described in The Morro Group's attached"Scope of Work", environmental permitting can be
simple or difficult, depending on the particular reviewer from.each agency. Anticipated permits
are described and exclusions are noted.
August Construction included 3 pile load tests @$500.00 each, for a total of$1,500.00. At this
time the tests are not necessary, but past experience has shown that we will likely need the
information later and we won't be able to go back and test just the anchorage into foundation
material.
Potential cost savings that could result from the test program are:
• A reduction in the number of horizontal holes needed by being able to grout from the top.
Horizontal holes will still be needed, but fewer are required. Their purpose will be to control
07/06/1998 16:47 9167835003 PAGE 83
DRAFT
or monitor the grout flow instead of being grout injection points. We estimate that we can
reduce the number of holes and associated cost by approximately �4($551000-+).
• The contractor will be able to accomplish grouting faster and save labor and equipment rental
costs because grouting from the street level is faster than grouting from beneath, and larger
grout delivery equipment can be used. Our estimate ofthe savings is$4,000.
• Potential for the types of construction claims inherently associated with open ended work
(because the uniformity of the wall is an unknown) can be reduced by obtaining information
necessary to define the work without supplemental work clauses. Potential claims of this
nature are difficult to estimate but could easily reach 10%to 15%of the construction tion contract
($300k to $450k).
It should be noted that anchors and grout installed during the test program are considered
finished construction and will be work that will not have to be performed under the construction
contract. This would reduce the final construction cost by about 900/a of August Construction's
costs or about$50k(mobilization is not recoverable).
One additional item,we request that the City release the amount proposed by August
Construction from retention. He has a specific exclusion concerning retention in his contract
with us.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to work with the City. We look forward to answering your
questions.
Sincerely,
Ray Miller
Senior Pmj ect Engineer
Martin &Kane, Inc.
Enclosures (6)
Page 2
ZTXktbr f;r/b-2L
07/06/1998 16:47 9167835003 PANE 04
DRAFT
Scope of.Work
Additional Services for the Test Program
Higuera Street Bridge Replacement
Br. No. 49C-408
July 6, 1998
The scope of work for the test program includes:
Set up the Test program:
Martin and Kane will Coordinate the set up of the test program with the-City, Contractor, and
Sub-consultants.
Construct and Test Anchors (Micropiles)
A detailed description of this work is included in the attached proposals by Gerald Lehmer
Associates and August Construction. In general the constiuction and testing of the anchors
(micro-piles) includes:
1. Conducting a pre-construction meeting for procedural review prior to the start of drilling.
2. Constructing three micro-piles, two 30' long bonded 7' into the foundation material, and one
37' long bonded 10' into the foundation material. The micro piles will be constructed in the
locations determined by the Martin&Kane.
3. Load testing the micro-piles to 100 kips.
4. check the grout coverage through the micro-pile holes by coring horizontal holes at the
locations determined by Martin&Kane.
Horizontal Grouting
This work is described in detail in the attached proposals by Gerald Lehmer Associates and
August Construction and includes determining the most economical grouting and sampling
pattern by:
1. Coring horizontal holes at selected locations and spacings.
2. Grouting through the cored holes.
3. Coring the grouted sections and checking grout coverage.
Check Wall Uniformity
Determine the uniformity of the waft facing stone and rubble thickness by coring 4 holes at
selected locations.
Page I
• �xlu6;f F_
07/06/1998 16:47 9167835001 _ PAGE 05
DRAFT
Field Coordination
Provide field coordination during the test. This will be a joint effort of Gerald Lehmer
Associates, and Martin& Kane,Inc.
Permitting
Permitting will be performed by the Morro Group. The work is detailed in their attached"Scope
of Work'. In general permitting consists of:
1. Prepare and submit an Environmental Determination.
2. Prepare and submit a packet to NMFS. This does not include a biological assessment or
formal consultation procedures for the test. These are not anficipated but ff required are
extensive and can be performed as negofiated
3. Prepare and submit a RWQCB 401 Water Quality Certification Waiver. A 2081 permit is not
included in this work but, f required can be prepared as negotiated
4. Prepare and submit an application for a Section 106 review.
Surveying
Surveying includes locating the installed anchors for later inclusion in the plans and preparing a
plot of their locations in an Auto-Cad drawing.
Report
Martin and Kane will prepare a report summarizing our analysis and recommendations from the
test program The report will include appropriate drawings locating the anchors(micro-piles)
and significant findings.
Page 2
Z7,L :L 1C�
07/06/1998 16:47 S167PI5003 PACE 06
La o An o b c
POO 1140 o cm v Ln o 0,,,.
• 4h �— 4h � Y
e
EA 6% eA V3 49 49 49 49 !A 49 03, 49 ft m
srnoH IqOl N CO co
cc
0 0
6Ulssaoad C.) LO
Rio v
4A w
o 8
0
ioleiado 4c
Z oaf v v Co o
W
W
E
gm
CL Q JaawbU3 a 6 4A
Wa
d' .+ U co pa(O1d - N Fo N N coo
W m g ooi 10IUa$
N O O m
is m G .°1 O N O m
_m Z J = JaBOUBW 4d of d
w E m Pafad N eo IT
N7 y
C 1olUa$
•
Q
GON 48.
'o
W Q m
0
a
-- y
C
O
T;
N
C
CD
Y c E
N 3 E
H
v
F-
._c }'t
r. as
o
m 0 J q
I.
y mE O Q N E
p L P
Q to
E
32
at m
�- Nca
Q n
Q F a
0
U
/v 23
a7/a6/1998 16:47 9167835883 PAGE 07
Cost Proposal
D R- -A-FT
Project Name: HIGUERA STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Addendum No. 1 -Test Program
San Luis Obispo, CA
Date: June 26, 1998
Total Labor $ 9.039.00
Direct Costs: (In House)
Computer(CARD) 8 hrs s io.00 $ 80.00
Transportation '$ 300.00
Lodging $ 200.00
Meals $ 50.00
Ladder rental $ 25.00
Fax 40 ea s 0.25 $ 10.00
Overnight Mail 4 ea a$moo $ 40.00
Xerox 150 ea @$0.10 $ 15.00
Subtotal $ 720.00 $ 720.00
Subconsultant Costs:
August Construction $58,500.00
Morro Group $ 7,200.00
Jerry Lehmer Associates $ 81800.00
Cannon Associates $ 600.00
Subtotal $75,100.00 , $ 75,100.00
Adminstrative Fee: (10.0%)of $75,820.00 $ 7,582.00 7,582.00
TOTAL (Not To Exceed) $ 92,441.00
Cost Pps Test Program 7.2.98-xis Page 2
�o-zy
r/�t-1C
MEETI.�� �r�,$,AGENDA
DATE_.ITEM #
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
July 16,1998 e-mail: slochamber@slochamberorg
David E. Garth, President/CEO
EVKM:.___L)
O CDD D]CHF
O FIN DIMayor Allen Settle DICity of San Luis Obispo O POUC990 Palm Street E S
DSan Luis Obispo,CA 93401 13 Dp 6
Re: Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project
Dear Mayor Settle:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce generally supports the Higuera Street Bridge
Rehabilitation Project.
After meeting with City Staff on this subject,and discussing our specific business concerns,the
Chamber agrees that the safety of that portion of the Higuera Street Bridge which runs from Thai
Classic restaurant,across Osos Street and on to Mo's BBQ is of the utmost importance. The
Chamber has outlined the following recommendations about the Rehabilitation Project:
• Throughout the duration of the Rehabilitation Project,work should be done at night.
• While the Rehabilitation Project is underway,two lanes of Higuera Street should remain open
to traffic during business hours. ,
• Because of the significant impacts to business the Rehabilitation Project will have,it should be
completed as quickly as possible,and incentives should be offered to the contractor to
encourage this.
• Creative solutions to delivery and parking problems in the Rehabilitation Project area should
be pursued. The Chamber encourages you to meet with delivery companies to discuss
possible solutions to these potential problems.
Thank you for considering our concerns. We look forward to your reasoned decision on this
matter at the July 21 Council meeting.
Sincerely,
TEN YEARS
Anita Robinson EREC,:F=�, ED
Chairman of the Board
998ACCREDITED
ICMANUR Of COMMERCE ipgr � o, e y
MEET iP,_ AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
J
FIR5TBANK
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SAFETY :: SOUNDNESS :: SERVICE
San Luis Obispo City Council SINCE 1980
RE: Meeting of July 2151 1998
Dear Council Members:
The Higuera Street bridge project is being addressed at your meeting of July 21St, 1998. First
Bank of San Luis Obispo is located at 995 Higuera Street and requests the opportunity to express
our concerns regarding certain aspects of this project.
1. Since the Higuera Street access to our facility is very critical at all times during
business hours, we wish to express our concerns in the rationale for the BRIDGE
PROJECT, and the SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT,being done
at the same time and just how this will impact that access. To that end we are
requesting that, at a minimum, 2 lanes of Higuera Street remain open during
normal business hours,Monday- Friday. If this is not feasible, we are then
requesting that the sewer.project be done before/after the bridge project.
2. Mr. John Stuart, a retired architectural instructor from Cal Poly and Mr.Arnold
Volny, a General Contractor, both board members of First Bank of San Luis
Obispo and both reside in the City of San Luis Obispo. They will be representing
the Bank's interest in these important issues and we are requesting the opportunity
for them to review the scheduling of work from the bid documents to determine
the actual level of access that will be maintained thru the construction corridor and
allow for their input to these critical concerns.
Thank you for your consideration of this request and for your cooperation.
Regards
Seese T. "'
Senior. Executive Vice President ERECDIR Chief Administrative OfficerRECEIVED
to13 F❑I.IG T I 'J 199$
CC: John Stuart and Arnold Volny .� 'p
SLO CITY COUNCIL
995 HIGUERA STREET • P.O.BOX 1249 • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406-1249 :: (805)541-6100 • FAX:(805)544-2217