HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1998, 6 - SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS l IwYzt.1998
acEnaa nEpom h..N�.
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Director of Public WorksAVA
Prepared By: Terry Sanville,Principal TransportationPlanner 4S.
Greg Walker,Streets Supervisor
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Construction Projects
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the CAO to approve plans and specifications to install sidewalks at the locations and in the
priority order noted in Exhibit A;advertise for bids;and award the contract if the cost is less than$150,000.
DISCUSSION
A. BACKGROUND
As part of the 1997-98 budget,the City Council established the goal of installing new sidewalks with curbs
and gutters as needed. The Council provided $75,000 per year to pursue this goal under the 1911 Act
provisions of the Municipal Code. In the past these provisions have allowed the City to install sidewalks and
receive reimbursement from adj oining property owners.
However, in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 that establishes specific procedural
requirements for creating benefit assessment districts. Since this new legislation may conflict with the
structure of the 1911 Act process,the City Council directed staff to research this issue. Staffs research has
been complicated because:
• Most communities have not used the 1911 Act process in the way that San Luis Obispo has;
• The League of California Cities has not been able to provide any information;and
• The State's Attorney General is too busy to offer a legal opinion.
Due to these legal uncertainties, the City Council directed staff on June 16 to develop a City-funded
sidewalk installation program and return with recommendations for spending the $150,000 previously
earmarked for 1911 Act projects.
B. EVALUATION
1. Recommended Projects and Priorities for the Remainder of the 1997-99 Financial Planning
Period.
Attached Exhibit A identifies a total of fifty-six(56)sidewalk projects arranged in six priority groups. Cost
estimates are provided for each project,for each priority group,with a"cumulative total' also shown.
if-I
Council Agenda Report- Sidewalk Construction Projects
Page 2
Exhibit A also includes a line that represents the estimated funding limit for using the $150,000 for sidewalk
construction during the 1997-99 financial planning period ($135,000 plus $15,000 for contingencies).
Projects that fall above the line (the first 27) can be funded during this financial planning period. Projects
that fall below the line will be deferred until subsequent financial planning periods. The fust 27 projects are
shown on vicinity maps attached as Exhibit B.
In San Luis Obispo, there are approximately 386 kilometers(240 miles)of street frontage. Staff estimates
that about 57 kilometers (35 miles) or about 15% of these frontages lack sidewalks. Many of the street
frontages that lack sidewalks are:
• Arterial roadways at the periphery of the community (such as Broad Street or Orcutt Road ) where
sidewalks will be provided by planned development
• Older neighborhoods where sidewalks were not required as subdivision improvements(such as San Luis
Drive,areas east of Grand Avenue,and sections of the north Foothill area).
• Infill parcels where new development will provide sidewalks,curbs and gutters.
The remainder of the frontages lacking sidewalks are scattered throughout San Luis Obispo (see attached
Exhibit Q.
While the staff did not use any specific"scoring procedure"for identifying priority sidewalk projects,staff s
recommendations were guided by the four criteria included in City Council Resolution No. 6031 (1986
Series), attached as Exhibit D. Typically, priority projects involve frontages where pedestrian traffic is
significant,where sidewalks would provide access to nearby schools,where there is a noted safety concern,
and/or where Residential Collector or Arterial street frontages are involved.
In general,the cost of each project is individually modest but cumulatively significant. An exception to this
generalization is the Priority 4 projects that includes sidewalks along segments of Chorro Street (West to
Rougeot Streets)and South Higuera Street(south of Elks Lane adjoining the cemetery). The cost of these
two projects ($142-,472) almost equals the total amount of funds available during this financial planning
period. In addition, actual costs for these projects could vary significantly based on the specific design
solutions selected and unanticipated complications with modifying adjoining properties. Staff suggests that
these types of"larger-scale"projects be included as stand alone items within the 1999-2001 Financial Plan.
The $75,000 per year should be reserved for small-scale projects so that a variety of deficiencies can be
corrected throughout the community.
2. Future Programming of Sidewalk Projects
The Public Works staff,with consultant help,is preparing a Pedestrian Transportation Plan as called for by
the Circulation Element. Adoption of this plan or guidelines will provide the Council with an opportunity to
broaden the criteria for identifying important sidewalk projects and provide more specific direction on
setting priorities.
G��
Council Agenda Report- Sidewalk Construction Projects
Page 3
With adoption of the Plan it is staff s goal to routinely program dollars for sidewalk projects as part of each
Financial Plan adopted by the Council. Staff would use the Pedestrian Plan's criteria to identify candidate
sidewalk projects and pursue completion of the pedestrian network. With Council policy established as part
of the Plan, sidewalk projects could be routinely undertaken by the staff and not require Council action to
approve and continuously revise a particular listing.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council has budgeted $150,000 as part of the 1997-99 Financial Plan to pay for sidewalk
construction projects. Considering staff's preliminary cost estimates, recommended projects 1 through 27
could be funded during this financial planning period.
ALT--RNATIVES
The City Council may:
• Reorder the priorities as recommended by staff,
• Include new projects for initial funding and compensate by deleting others recommended by staff,or
• Provide additional funding(beyond the current$150,000 commitment)and add projects to the group that
receives funding during this financial planning period.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Recommended Sidewalk Projects,Costs and Priorities
Exhibit B: Vicinity Maps for Recommended Priority Sidewalk Projects
Exhibit C: Map Showing Street Frontages that Lack Sidewalks
Exhibit D: Resolution 6031 (1986 Series)
I:\CouncilAgendaReports\Sidewalks98
G -3
EXHIBIT "A"
LIST OF SIDEWALK LOCATIONS-PRIORITY AND ESTIMATED COSTS
—-- -
-SER- CRITE_R1A,LECEND - -
_ .
A= ARTERIAL CC= COLLECTOR- ~~ SF=SAFETY CONCERNS
COMI4IERCIAL
S= SCHOOL RC= COLLECTOR- HP=HIGH PEDESTRIAN
RESIDENTIAL USE
II DF-X- ZOGA ION ''." C'RTTE1LTOly -ES7Z lATED
MET COSTS .
PRIORITY:
,.:...._
1. 2121 HARRIS S,HP $ 47073.
2. 2129 HARRIS S,HP 4,073.
3. 220 BRANCH S,HP 3,614.
4. 236 BRANCH S,HP 3,614.
5. 268 BRANCH S,HP 3,614.
6. 2145 PRICE (BRANCH ST. SIDE) S,HP 6,452.
7. 2145 CYPRESS (BRANCH ST. SIDE) S,HP 67364.
8. 2031 CYPRESS S,HP 5,100.
9. 662 OSOS SF,HP 9,075.
10. 670 OSOS SF,HP 10,542.
11. 682 PALM (NIPOMO ST. SIDE) S, HP 11,625.
Total of Above Section: $689146
Cumulative Total: $68,146
PRIORITY-
2-12. 464 BUCHON RC 3,123.
13. 472 BUCHON RC 3,123.
14. 476 &480 BUCHON RC 1,782.
15. 496 &498 BUCHON RC 4,059.
16. 1367 HIGUERA(PEPPER ST. SIDE) S,SF 6,504.
17. 1368 HIGUERA (PEPPER ST. SIDE) S,SF 57250.
Total ojAbove Section: $ 23,841.
Cumulative Total: $919987
PRIORITY3-_-:___..w:__ _ ._--.. • ,: .
18. 601 LAWRENCE DR. SF 2,390.
19. 232 RAMONA SF,RC 2,394.
20. 240 RAMONA SF,RC 3,465.
21. 252 RAMONA SF,RC 3,465.
22. 274 RAMONA SF,RC 2,170.
23. 280-282 RAMONA SF,RC 4,520.
24. 290 RAMONA SF,RC 5,253.
25. 298 RAMONA SF,RC 2,829.
26. 316 RAMONA SF,RC 2,455.
27 2958-68-78 HIGUERA A,SF 15,893.
(Funding Limit Line @$135,000
L
5 ELLA SF 8,103
5 ELLA SF 5,603
3 ELLA SF 15,326.50e Section: $ 73,866.50
otal: $1659853
INDEX .LOCATION -t'9t1TF'R[ . ESTI L41F.D-.:::
COSTS
PRIORITY 4 --
31. CHORRO ST. PROJECT(EAST SIDE) RC, SF 15,000.
BETWEEN WEST& MURRAY
32. CHORRO STREET (EAST SIDE) BETWEEN RC 60,000.
MURRAY& ROUGEOT
33. 2890 S. HIGUERA A,SF 67,472.
Total Of Above Section: $142,472.
Cumulative Total: $3089,325
PRIORITY
34. 601 SWEENEY SF 12,601.
35. 615 GROVE SF 3,618.
36. 619 GROVE SF 3,370.50
37. 645 GROVE SF 2,851.50
38. 655 GROVE SF 2,871.
39. 2391 LAWTON SF 4,042.50
(WOODBRIDGE SIDE)
40. 280 ALMOND SF 1,683.
41. 262 ALMOND SF 1,683.
42. 234 ALMOND SF 1,683.
43. 216 ALMOND SF 1,683-
44. 208 ALMOND SF 3,975.
45. 1691 JOHNSON (BRECK ST. SIDE) SF 3,176.50-
46. 1690 FAIRVIEW(BRECK ST. SIDE) SF 6,850.
47. 1071 ORCUTT A 9,553.
48. 1049 ORCUTT A 4,758.
49. 1015 ORCUTT A 13,448.50
Total of Above Section: $779847.50
Cumulative Total T$386,173
PRIORITY 6
50. 1670 MONTEREY (PALM ST. SIDE) SF 14,104.50
51. 1656 MONTEREY (PALM ST. SIDE) SF 7,903.
52. 1625-1625 '/Z PALM SF 7,443.
53. 3490 EMPRESSA& BONETTI SIDE SF 13,711.50
54. 3469 EMPRESSA SF 3,960.
55. 213 GRANADA SF 4,059.
56. 3520 EMPLEO SF 3,494.50
Total of Above Section: $ 54,675.50
Cumulative Total: T$4401849
�o 'S�
k y .i1
�SS rJ _� T iy1le�I� .,� ���N ��� ✓'
a 4� JI�1, � y,4 a } i _II Pk � �• 1 ��+ j7/ �f, F 14� y f�{ �.
W
�'.,+, •. i�a•,"r7.,�,�k 't .!� � .r+�}���wr'��,�1�J � 1� r r t' 1 1 1,F.'
till,
lr� 4 F
d'
�J b .w i za � �+{d4�,+r G2 p�,�w��rt-"' wY ��r+H�uS�i� �• i + r..,
.�.1 nj✓'�'4 �k ^.nr y%,SR'"M'9"�> "+i t i�_li'�'J !•� 1
, JSD'�.1' r?�p.. � ?4f �`1'�•,q 1°eY.Ls4�W4 �' A T � � �>
'r' '.c �[:. � .•• .r:/,t""ks+ ".+yam.r� �, , � ka ,� .y e 11- _,
1 JI 1 /' • I I 1 - 1 1 1 1' 11 1
a
� sib
rd ♦"4 r' •:z F� kN.w,,•'v" +y..p�.�'5.,.+.sr. f''-i'''': r.,,+�..-,�..,—..,..:
X`.Ii��"�1W'w%two -•`�+•� t,,;��`�'�'y. .r-v15.'a"ta.y ,�rti '°s *�..�x 'S'� �R,
� r File• �ti ��.,Sq,� i ..r7 +.X t aiv+ � � '�� r4t .� xl - �
�.�n b��� 1>,. '��J61 • � 6" + r. t Y. s LI 1" r i� c • y"�, Y �+'
��' � � � A arJ ��'°`� �.2Sy �1 } AF e� y i l s ,=IA • t f p y
4 �' J� r evf � r w '+ M �1��. fail ��oy ♦� k �1. � e �
/ F
�}�>t� e���� / r r� Vin.a + a� e �,,,:N"+.'.�A�ELa19"' "4D'�� Y 1 � � l' ::Ik '�r'd• �:
1 4�Lf'=`r'���(���h ...� J x1'.+ �a'>•a�Y+ �iQ� FpS� � .+�19 of�.� (./
� �. �. ..� ♦: r ,:Mfr �u'R d+fx n.�.r .i,'.Y� xt.�f>(�' �f
r{
� r� r '1 - �r�l•'`�f k�r ��r i, l..t ' Ir^�+j,,Y�k J,r...,r,,,l"L`-i i1 ,.:N �"' V 3,:
"f '^4.r' S 4>�^C•: —°v i :irv"�+4. �' w`'�vr+' J,rl �. "�' ^�!}Iv -.
""•`;?ir 1Ffi }� z;,� _/1i1wS r .3 i_ �1" 'p 1" or
-
j
1 I t� ° 9` I r �.v • ..'.�
V 1-1,—
'74
1-11 . I -- 1 1 __ _1 •. 1 1. I 1- • 1 - 1 1 11
1 • 1 -I I- 1 •" 11- / 1- 1 • 1 1 I I-I- 1 1 1 •
.tA
r '
r.
'i .
31
R
1'
1
� tS
l(
G
rya l�
C �
4
y f,z
k' r
I� 1' 1 1 • • 1"•I I I 1. 1 1 •' I
.11 1 1' 1 • 1
EXHIBIT B: Vicinity Maps Showing Recommended Priority Projects
I
!
uvi a s z
_
v o
MM ; yy
—W r�
zHawthorne
I
m ;
:School
�------ ---=-------- MR CFf-----
1 I
f I
1 1
1 1
� soul._- ---` z_+ ;gin Ir — +----•SOUTFf-----
-7
v
rL O_
Mr t— Y
LI Ill OF
IL
x
Sidewalk Projects#1 through#8: provide local access to elementary school.
� 4 „
' Recreation Area
ell
! � f Elem.
' School
VA
r ,�w
Mission r • ' �y'y
Sidewalk Projects#12 through#15: local access to nearby
recreation facilities&complete network.
Sidewalk Projects 49 through#11: complete network along busy
business street to improve safety;install sidewalks in school area. / r�
`\o\
, J
Sidewalk Projects# 16: completes side street access to f Government ;
nearby commercial district.
Agency Offices ;
Sidewalk Project#27: improve safety along busy arterial
street and improve access to nearby social service
agencies.
----------------------
-L----i ]EHF11, TR16'MAUWU,-
� � r
- -----------
--� OTHILL-------------------
4
Q ,
-J--------------------- O ----
r '
r �
r �
r �
r �
r .----- EL MAR----
:hJ
� � r`
-, ITrr
Sidewalk Projects# 19 through#26:high use Residential Collector street leading to
nearby neighborhood commercial facilities.
�- s
--------------- -
\---------
-------- -----
I II
crty or sm Luis omspo
Section Lacking Sidewalk
C Section Lacking Curb/
EXHIBIT Gutter4 mgi
w
1-\PA'P-MAP\C,W-nFFICDWG
• e
EXHIBIT D
RESOEMION NO. 6031 (1986 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 11M CITY O.F.
SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING GENERAL CRITERIA AND
SITE SELECTION PRIORITIES FOR THE SIDSZ AI.K
I141PROVD IMa PROGRAM
h'EM2FAS, the City desires that its citizens have available safe,
convenient and suitably located sidewalks; and
't REAS, many areas of the City do not have such sidemlkcs; and
FII>MEAS, the City desires such areas to be improved considering needs,
hazards and the wishes of the neighborhoods,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts
the following:
GENERAL FRDGRAM CRITI ERA
a. Sides-alk program should integrate repair and construction.
b. Sideszalk program should emphasize safety, particularly safety
of children. To this effect, City staff should consult with
school authorities arra PTAs in preparing specific ccstruction
priorities.
City-initiated sidewalks should be installed only were there- is a
demonstrated pedestrian need.
d. City should respond favorably when it is petiticred for sidesalk
ir.,proveinents r mc;re than 50% of the c*,-ners of a block (those
portions already i=roved are considered a favorable vote) .
e. Sidewalk programs should consider tocography and sicmificznt trees.
f. Council nay consider scenic nature of area, desires of the
neighborhood, traffic flow and other judgement iters in its
determinations.
Resolution No. 6031 (1906 Series)
g. Staff will bring to council attention those properties where
more than 50% of the frontage of a block has been improved,
thereby meting 1911 Act criteria for completion of improvements
within a block.
SITE SaION PRIORITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS
I. In areas with safety hazards or heavy pedestrian use, especially
children.
2. Along arterial and collector streets near schools,. parks, churches,
and neighborhood cor.:nercial centers.
3. Along local streets near schools, parks, churches, and neighborhood
camrercial centers.
4. In other residential and commercial areas as necessary.
On motion of Councilman Griffin, seconded by Councilman Settle and on
the following roll ca-11 vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Griffin, Settle, Dovey and Mayor Dunin
MEs: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Rappa
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of
July 1986.
ATT"
MAYOR RON iWNIN
CI CLERK P VOGES
AP!"
City LAdministraNe e Eicer
City At rney� .
Public Works Director -
. / ✓�