HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2000, COMM - SEPTEMBER 19TH COMMUNICATION ITEM: SALE LIMITATION FOR NON-TAXABLE ITEMS h.�JING AGENDA
DATE -oo ITEEM #coccal
council mcmoizan um
•
DATE: September 14, 2000
TO: City Council
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offi r
SUBJECT: September 19`h Communication Item: Sale limitation for non-taxable items
During the Council of August 29, 2000, the City Council referred to staff the preparation of an
ordinance limiting the sale of non-taxable items in"big box" stores. In making this referral, the Council
indicated that the ordinance was not urgent, but should be available to Council prior to when such a big
box store might locate in San Luis Obispo. This timeframe was given in light of the workload"crunch"
and director vacancy in the Community Development Department.
In recent days, some Council Members have indicated an interest in scheduling this item prior to the
final meeting of this City Council. In order to accomplish this timeframe, because ordinances have both
first and second readings, the staff would need to bring the matter to the Council on November 8`h. With
Council direction, staff can meet this schedule.
However, in order to provide the Council with sufficient level of analysis, this acceleration in work will
delay some activities within the department. While the ordinance may seem simple on the surface, there
are implications that the Council should at least be made aware. For example, the Council has
previously gone on record in opposition to similar proposals at the State level, based on home-rule and
free-market considerations (such ordinances have typically been advanced by the grocery store
industry). In addition, while such rules might prevent the location in San Luis Obispo of certain
retailers not desired by City, they might also prevent other retailers that, at least in the past,have been of
interest to the Council.
In any case, staff will proceed as directed by the Council. BKOUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
5nAO ❑FIN DIR
V J.S hoojea GKCAO ❑FIRE CHIEF
5. S4br►wy k ETATTO [IPDIR
eCLERKIORKlORIO ❑POLICE CHF
❑MG-NIT TEAM��� ❑REC DIR
Cr 6 011LI E V ❑UTIL DIR
Er,=d J MGA ❑PERS DIR .�
V U• rr ICC
✓ £. W l'►�a[n'Ln Gl
V f. rl&r&ViUa
RECEIVED
SEP 1 4 2000
SLO CITY C+..ERK
memo to council non-msoble items
Ni"TIN AGENDA
���ulllllllllllllll��lp°°I���II DATE -�`�'�
ITEM #wa04L �
council memORAnUum
•
DATE: September 18,2000
TO: City Council
FROM: Ken Hampian,Assistant City Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Clarification Regarding Timing on Potential Ordinance Relating to Sale
Limitation For Non-Taxable Items
Last Thursday, September 14`h, a Communication Item from the CAO was sent to Council regarding the
preparation of an ordinance limiting the sale of non-taxable items in "big box" stores. Council is to
discuss the possibility of accelerating the consideration of such an ordinance during the Communication
Section of our September 19`h meeting.
While the earlier Communication Item suggested that it would be possible to place the fust reading of
such an ordinance on the November 8 h City Council agenda, after further staff research, this may no
longer be possible. This is because any such restriction would take the form of a text amendment to the
City's Zoning Regulations. While text amendments do not require Planning Commission review
(Section 17.70.010 of the Municipal Code), our past practice has been that proposed amendments are
treated like map amendments and are referred to the Commission for review and recommendation.
Therefore, unless consideration of this ordinance was made among our highest priorities (which is not
recommended), it will not be possible to complete the adoption of an ordinance in November.
With this in mind, an alternative course of action would be to bring a report to Council in late October or
November that provides more information about the kinds of ordinances adopted elsewhere and the
policy issues involved in such regulations. If Council affirms that such an ordinance is needed, then
staff will then proceed to draft the amendments pursuant to Council direction, complete the
environmental analysis, and schedule the necessary hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
fir ;IL D
I
i
0;
CJ PE
,...•� S ham- S
f'- IJIA-U�L�GJ+��'ei
Non Tox Follow-up
1EETING AGENDA
-p8 11C7MCornmu�i�i}it
communIcatlon
• COUNCIL 0 CDD DIR
September 13, 2000 �_�C DIR
M'APo NSEDIR
CHIEF
GI CCERKIOAIO O POLICE CHF
O 1A PAT TEAM O REC DIR
TO: Council
.0eag s �y /Jf��auN�, ❑�TiL DIR
O PERS DIR
FROM: John ENan and Dave Romero l ✓ A. o'Du1
Council Liaison Subcommittee to the Mass Transportation Committee
SUBJECT: Mass Transportation Committee
The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC), as it is currently formed, is highly structured, with
members from the following areas: Business, Cal Poly,Technical, Disabled, Student, Senior
Citizen, and one member-at-large. It is important to have a wide representation from the
community, however, it has proven difficult in the past to obtain volunteers from such specific
areas.
There are three vacancies on the MTC at this time. The Cal Poly representative has retired and
her replacement will likely be appointed to fill the seat. Efforts have been made to locate other
candidates by advertising repeatedly and by word-of-mouth, yielding no applicants. At their June
2000 meeting, the MTC voted to recommend changes to the membership structure to include
three members-at-large instead of one, eliminating two other categories. Membership changes
must be approved by the Council. It is important that the MTC have a full membership and
quickly. I would like to request that Council direct staff to review the membership requirements
and bring back recommendations to amend the MTC bylaws. The current bylaws are in the form
of an ordinance. To allow more flexibility I suggest any changes be made by resolution.
AS
Attachment
c: Austin O'Dell, Transit Manager RECEIVF_D
SEP 1 5 1000
SLO CiTY -CLERK
__ass Transportation Committee
June 14, 2000
Page 2 of 2
ACTION ITEMS:
Agenda items were heard out of order. •
A.1 Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chair.
Mr. Paul Dalian was elected to serve as Chairperson, and Jennifer Allen-Barker
was elected to serve as Vice Chairperson.
A.2 Advisory Body Recognition
The Committee discussed suggestions described in the staff report. The
Committee had no consensus on this item. However, there was no support for
group photos.
A3 Provide Feedback on Pilot Late Night Service
The Committee supported the continuance of item until next available MTC
meeting. However, members were critical of any proposal to cut service until
they were satisfied that a diligent effort was made to market and inform the public
of the current evening service. The Committee indicated that they would likely
reject any proposal of eliminating late night service until they feel comfortable
that it had been effectively promoted. One member suggested that late night
service could be modified to target certain events (e.g. Thursday nights, holidays,
other intermittently scheduled events.). Staff indicated that any discussion of
cutting service should be accompanied with proposals to enhance service if using
the cost savings dollars. •
A.4 Passenger Code of Conduct
The Committee supported the Passenger Code of Conduct as presented. The
Committee suggested that the policy be placed in public view in the buses.
AS Revised Advisory Body Handbook
The Committee recommended the following amendment to Section 2.20.020 of
the Municipal Code pertaining to membership requirements:
G. Ow Three persons from the general public.
MTC members generally supported the current Committee structure, which requires
representation of various constituencies. The MTC wanted to provide greater
opportunity for the general public who use SLO Transit to participate and to broaden
the membership base. In addition, the Committee assumed that most people who
would apply for appointment would be transit riders and did not feel that being a SLO
Transit patron needed to be stipulated in the membership requirements.
I A.6 Art on Buses
The Committee supported staffs recommendation as presented with the following
comments: (1) the logo and name of SLO Transit should be placed at a consistent
location on all buses and be user-friendly to persons with visual impairments; (2)
prohibit artwork over windows, except where currently allowed; and (3) suggest, •
'ETING AGENnA
communication - ITEM #u4=a4kg07
September 18, 2000 REVISED
TO: Council Collea ues
FROM: John Ewx%ave Romero
Council Liaison Subcommittee to the Mass Transportation Committee
SUBJECT: Mass Transportation Committee
The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC), as it is currently formed, is highly structured, with
members from the following areas: Business, Cal Poly,Technical, Disabled, Student, Senior
Citizen, and one member-at-large. It is important to have a wide representation from the
community, however, it has proven difficult in the past to obtain volunteers from such specific
areas.
There are three vacancies on the MTC at this time. The Cal Poly representative has retired and
her replacement will likely be appointed to fill the seat. Efforts have been made to locate other
candidates by advertising repeatedly and by word-of-mouth, yielding no applicants. At their June
2000 meeting, the MTC voted to recommend changes to the membership structure to add two
• members-at-large for a total membership of nine.
Membership changes must be approved by the Council. It is important that the MTC have a full
membership and quickly. We would like to request that Council direct staff to review the
membership requirements and bring back recommendations to amend the MTC bylaws. The
current bylaws are in the form of an ordinance. To allow more flexibility we suggest any
changes be made by resolution.
As XJCOU:°C!L ❑Coo N
0
)2-r.Dn0 ❑r:a_CHISF
Attachment P7.7,T:' !:_v &TW D!R
2-CLE..':UDill G ❑POLIC-c C':F •�
❑[.!,:MT TEAM ❑REC DIR
c: Austin O'Dell, Transit Manager ❑unL DIR -
=ilaFluMEf ❑PERS DIR /3
✓lass Transportation Committee
June 14, 2000
Page 2 of 2
ACTION ITEMS:
Agenda items were heard out of order. •
A.1 Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chair.
Mr. Paul Dalian was elected to serve as Chairperson, and Jennifer Allen-Barker
was elected to serve as Vice Chairperson. .
A.2 Advisory Body Recognition
The Committee discussed suggestions described in the staff report. 'The
Committee had no consensus on this item. However, there was no support for
group photos.
A3 Provide Feedback on Pilot Late Night Service
The Committee supported the continuance of item until next available MTC
meeting. However, members were critical of any proposal to cut service until
they were satisfied that a diligent effort was made to market and inform the public
of the current evening service. The Committee indicated that they would likely
reject any proposal of eliminating late night service until they feel comfortable
that it had been effectively promoted. One member suggested that late night
service could be modified to target certain events (e.g. Thursday nights, holidays,
other intermittently scheduled events.). Staff indicated that any discussion of
cutting service should be accompanied with proposals to enhance service if using
the cost savings dollars. •
A.4 Passenger Code of Conduct
The Committee supported the Passenger Code of Conduct as presented. The
Committee suggested that the policy be placed in public view in the buses.
AS Revised Advisory Body Handbook
The Committee recommended the following amendment to Section 2.20.020 of
the Municipal Code pertaining to membership requirements:
G. One Three persons from the general public.
MTC members generally supported the current Committee structure, which requires
representation of various constituencies. The MTC wanted to provide greater
opportunity for the general public who use SLO Transit to participate and to broaden
the membership base. In addition, the Committee assumed that most people who
would apply for appointment would be transit riders and did not feel that being a SLO
Transit patron needed to be stipulated in the membership requirements.
A.6 Art on Buses
The Committee supported staff's recommendation as presented with the following
comments: (1) the logo and name of SLO Transit should be placed at a consistent
location on all buses and be user-friendly to persons with visual impairments; (2)
prohibit artwork over windows, except where currently allowed; and (3) suggest.
EXHIBIT E
Project Study Report
T, ;tric (Environmental Only) Cost Estimate
District-County-Route ' 05-SLO
KP(PM)
EA
Program Code
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Orcutt Road Grade Separation Project
Limits: Within the city of San Luis Obispo along Orcutt Road between Broad Street(SR 227)and Fernwood Avenue.
Proposed Improvement(Scope) Construct a railroad grade separation of Orcutt Road at the Union Pacific Railroad
to improve safety and operations of Orcutt Road and reduce congestion.Cost estimates for the three alternatives
(overpass underpass) are included in this checklist. These costs will be refined and reduced as part of the advance
development work of the project.
Alternate Maintain existing Grade crossing
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Low-High Estimate'
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $ 6,073,000- 10,310,000
TOTAL STRUCTURE TEEMS $ 2,250,000- 1,220,000
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 8,323,000- 11,530,000
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $ 1.416,000 - 1,746,000
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 9,739,000- 13,276,000
*Low end cost is estimated for overpass alternative with minimal design speed,High end alternative is for
underpass option.
Reviewed By Director of Public Works
(Signature)
Approved By Project Manager Date
(Signature)
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO-RTE
Type of Estimate (Pre-PSR,
PSR, PR, etc.): PSR
Program Code:
kp:
EA:
PP No. :
Project Description:
Limits: ORCUTT ROAD
Proposed Improvement: ORCUTT/RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION (BRIDGE)
(Scope)
ALTERNATIVE 1 .
Overpass Alternative with Design Speed of 65 km/h
(1) RIGHT OF WAY&UTILITY $2,356,000
(2) CONSTRUCTION PHASE
ROADWAY ITEMS $8,137,000
STRUCTURE ITEMS $2,250,000
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE $10,387,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST $12,743,000
Reviewed by JAVIER ARROYO 09/08/00
Project Engineer
Approved by (408)453-5373 09/08/00
Project Manager Richard K. Tanaka (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 1 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
$0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Quantity Unit Unit Price - Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 1 -Earthwork
Imported Borrow 100,000 m3 $25 $2,500,000
Roadway Excavation 4,000 m $12 $48,000
Clearing&Grubbing 1 LS $55,000 $55,000
Demolitions 8 EA $35,000 $280,000
Develop Water Supply 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
$0
Total Earthwork $2,908,000
Section 2-Structural Section
Pavement(Roadway) 13,800 m $46 $634,800
Pavement(Frontage Rd) 3,140 m $42 $131,900
Remove Pavement 770 m;! $11 $8,500
Total Structural Section $775,200
Section 3-Drainage
Project Drainage 1 LS $150,000 $150,000
Total Drainage $150,000
•Attach sketch showing typical structural section elements of the roadway.
Include (if available) T.I., R-Value, and date when tests were performed
Sheet: 2 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
$0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Quantity Unit Unit Price Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 4-Specialty Items
Retaining Wall (North Side) 0 m $0
Retaining Wall (South Side) 390 m 2 $450 $175,500
Special Retaining Wall (Entra 200 m 2 $600 $120,000
Landscapingfirrigation 0.50 KA $100,000 $50,000
Erosion Control 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Relocate Sign 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
SWPPP 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Median Curb 1,800 m $24 $43,200
Sidewalk 3,360 m 2 $75 $252,000
Curb&Gutter 1,840 m $30 $55,200
Total Specialty Items $816,000
Section 5-Traffic Items
Lighting 1 LS $70,000 $70,000
Traffic Signals 2 EA $100,000 $200,000
Traffic Control Systems 1 LS $350,000 $350,000
Pavement Delineation 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Temporary K-rail 375 m $40 $15,000
Electroliers 24 EA $7,500 $180,000
Total Traffic Items $830,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 - 5: $5,479,000
Sheet: 3 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO-RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 6-Minor Items
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $5,479,000 X 10% $547,900
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS: $548,000
Section 7- Roadway Mobilization
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $5,479,000
Minor Items $548,000
Sum $6,027,000 X 10% $602,700
TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $603,000
Section 8- Roadway Additions
Contingencies
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $5,479,000
Minor Items $548,000
Sum $6,027,000 X 25% $1,506,750
TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS $1,507,000
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $8,137,000
(Total of Sections 1 -8)
Estimate
Prepared By: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-5373 09/08/00
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 4 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
11.STRUCTURES ITEMS #1 #2 #3
Bridge Over
Bridge Name Railroad
New
Structure Type Prestressed
Concrete
Width (m)-out to out 25
Span Length (m) 60
Total Area (m) 1,500
Footing Type (pile/spread)
Cost per Sq. Meter $1,500
Including:
Mobilization: 10%
Contingency: 25%
Other
Total Cost For Structure $2,250,000 $0
SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE
TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $2,250,000
Railroad Related Costs
COMMENTS:
Estimate Prepared By: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-5373 09/08/00
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 5 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST- CO- RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Right-of-Way estimates should consider the probable highest and best use and type and intent of Improvements at the time of
acquisition. Assume acquisition including utility relocteion occurs at the right of way certification milestone as shown In the
Funding and Scheduling Section of the PSR. For further guidance see Chapter 1,Caltrans Right of Way Procedural Handbook
Current Values Escalation Escalated
(Future Use) Rate (%/yr) Value•
Acquisition, including excess lands
and damages to remainders'•• 816,000 $0
Utility Relocation $90,000 $0
Clearance/Demolition $0
RAP $600,000 $0
R//W Services-Title and Escrow Fees $0
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WORK $0
10 Structures $850,000 $0
$0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $2,356,000 TOTAL ESCALATED $0
(CURRENT VALUE) RIGHT OF WAY
Purchase right of way Square M Unit Cost Total Cost
1) West of RR 6700 $60/sm cost 402,000
2) East of RR, Southside 4900 294,000
3) East of Laurel, northside 2000 120,000
Total 816,000
Estimate prepared by: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-5373 09/08/00
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 6 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST- CO-RTE
Type of Estimate (Pre-PSR, .
PSR, PR, etc.): PSR
Program Code:
kp:
EA:
PP No. :
Project Description:
Limits: ORCUTT ROAD
Proposed Improvement: ORCUTT/RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION (BRIDGE)
(Scope)
ALTERNATIVE 2
OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE WITH DESIGN SPEED OF 50 KPH
(1) RIGHT OF WAY&UTILITY $1,416,000
(2) CONSTRUCTION PHASE
ROADWAY ITEMS $6,073,000
STRUCTURE ITEMS $2,250,000
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE $8,323,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST $9,739,000
Reviewed by JAVIER ARROYO 9/8/200
Project Engineer
Approved by (408)453-5373 9/8/200
Project Manager Richard K.Tanaka (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 1 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
$0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Quantity Unit Unit Price . Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 1 -Earthwork
Imported Borrow 75,000 m3 $25 $1,875,000
Roadway Excavation (Orcutl 1,000 m 3 $17 $17,000
Roadway Excavation 800 m 3 $17 $13,600
Deomoliton 2 LS $75,000 $150,000
Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $35,000 $35,000
Develop Water Supply 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Total Earthwork $2,105,600
Section 2-Structural Section •
Pavement(Roadway) 7,780 m2 $46 $357,900
Pavement(Frontage Rd) 3,140 m $46 $144,400
Remove Pavement 400 m $11 $4,400
Total Structural Section $506,700
Section 3- Drainaae
Project Drainage 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Total Drainage $100,000
•Attach sketch showing typical structural section elements of the roadway.
Include (f available)T.I., R-Value, and date when tests were performed
Sheet: 2 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
$0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Quantity Unit Unit Price Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 4-Specialty Items
Retaining Wall (North side) 390 m2 $450 $175,500
Retaining Wall (South Side) 390 m $450 $175,500
Special Retaining Wall 200 m $600 $120,000
LandscapingArrigation 1.00 HA $100,000 $100,000
Erosion Control 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Environmental Mitigation 0 LS $0
Relocate Sign 0 LS $15,000 $0
SWPPP 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Median Curb 820 m $24 $19,700
Sidewalk 2,120 m $75 $159,000
Curb&Gutter 920 m $30 $27,600
Total Specialty Items $822,000
Section 5-Traffic Items
Lighting 1 LS $70,000 $70,000
Traffic Signals 2 EA $100,000 $200,000
Traffic Control Systems 1 LS $150,000 $150,000
Pavement Delineation 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Temporary K-rail 375 m $40 $15,000
Electro Liers 14 EA $7,500 $105,0.00
Total Traffic Items $555,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 - 5: $4,089,000
Sheet: 3 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 6- Minor Items
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $4,089,000 X 10% $408,900
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS: $409,000
Section 7- Roadway Mobilization
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $4,089,000
Minor Items $409,000
Sum $4,498,000 X 10% $449,800
TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $450,000
Section 8- Roadway Additions
Contingencies
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $4,089,000
Minor Items $409,000
Sum $4,498,000 X 25% $1,124,500
TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS $1,125,000
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $6,073,000
(Total of Sections 1 -8)
Estimate
Prepared By: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-5373 9/8/200
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 4 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
11.STRUCTURES ITEMS #1 #2 #3
Bridge Over
Bridge Name Railroad
New
Structure Type Prestressed
Concrete
Width (m)-out to out 25
Span Length (m) 60
Total Area (m) 1,500
Footing Type(pile/spread)
Cost per Sq. Meter $1,500
Including:
Mobilization: 10%
Contingency:25%
Other
Total Cost For Structure $2,250,000 $0
SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE
TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $2,250,000
Railroad Related Costs
COMMENTS:
Estimate Prepared By: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-5373 9/8/200
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 5 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO-RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Rightol-Way estimates should consider the probable highest and best use and type and Went of Improvements at the time of
aequlsitbn. Assume acquisition Including utility reloetaion occurs at the right of way certification milestone as shown In the
Funding and scheduling section of the PSR. For further guidance see Chapter 1,Caltrans Right of Way Procedural Handbook
Current Values Escalation Escalated
(Future Use) Rate (%/yr) Value•
Acquisition, including excess lands
and damages to remainders'"• $816,000 $0
Utility Relocation $90,000 $0
Clearance/Demolition $0
RAP $150,000 $0
R//W Services-Title and Escrow Fees $0
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WORK $60,000 $0
2 Structures($100,000 & $200,000) $300,000 $0
Wetland Mitigation•"' $0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $1,416,000 TOTAL ESCALATED $0
(CURRENT VALUE) RIGHT OF WAY
Right of Way Take SM Unit Total
1) West of RR 6700 $60/sm 402000
2) East of RR, southside 4900 $60/sm 294000
3) East of Laurel, northside 2000 $60/sm 120000
Total 816000
Estimate prepared by: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-5373 9/8/200
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 6 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
Type of Estimate (Pre-PSR,
PSR, PR, etc.): PSR
Program Code:
kp:
EA:
PP No. :
Project Description:
Limits: ORCUTT ROAD
Proposed Improvement: ORCUTT/RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION (DEPRESSED)
(Scope)
ALTERNATIVE 3
UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE with Design Speed of 35 km/h
(1) RIGHT OF WAY&UTILITY $1,746,000
(2)CONSTRUCTION PHASE
ROADWAY ITEMS $10,310,000
STRUCTURE ITEMS $1,220,000
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE $11,530,000
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE COST $13,276,000
Reviewed by JAVIER ARROYO 09/08/00
Project Engineer
Approved by (408)453-5373 09/08/00
Project Manager Richard K. Tanaka (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 1 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
$0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Quantity Unit Unit Price , Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 1 - Earthwork
Imported Borrow 0 m3 $25 $0
Roadway Excavation (Orcutt) 221,550 m $12 $2,658,600
Roadway Excavation 4,580 m $17 $77,900
(Frontage Rd)
Clearing &Grubbing 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Develop Water Supply 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Total Earthwork $2,816,500
Section 2-Structural Section'
Pavement(Roadway) 7,260 m $46 $334,000
Pavement(Frontage Rd) 2.500 m $42 $105,000
Remove Pavement 770 m $11 $8,500
Total Structural Section $447,500
Section 3-Drainaae
Project Drainage 1 LS $750,000 $750,000
(includes lift station
w/diesel powered Total Drainage $750,000
generation unit)
Attach sketch showing typical structural section elements of the roadway.
Include (if available)T.I., R-Value, and date when tests were performed
Sheet: 2 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST- CO- RTE
$0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Quantity Unit Unit Price Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 4-Specialty Items
Retaining Walls Soil Nail 0 m2 $650 $0
Retaining Walls for sidewalk 660 m $650 $429,000
RR Shoo Fly 1 LS $1,250,000 $1,250,000
Landscaping/Irrigation 1.00 HA $100,000 $100,000
Erosion Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Aesthetic Treatment 1 LS $220,000 $220,000
Relocate Sign 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
SWPPP 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Median Curb 900 m $24 $21,600
Sidewalk 2,200 m $75 $165,000
Curb&Gutter 1,100 m $30 $33,000
Total Specialty Items $2,324,000
Section 5-Traffic Items
Lighting 1 LS $70,000 $70,000
Traffic Signals 2 EA $100,000 $200,000
Traffic Control Systems 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Pavement Delineation 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Temporary K-rail 375 m $40 $15,000
Electro Liers 14 EA $7,500 $105,000
Total Traffic Items $605,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 - 5: $6,943,000
Sheet: 3 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO- RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
Unit Cost Section Cost
Section 6- Minor Items
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $6,943,000 X 10% $694,300
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS: $694,000
Section 7- Roadway Mobilization
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $6,943,000
Minor Items $694,000
Sum $7,637,000 X 10% $763,700
TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $764,000
Section 8- Roadway Additions
Contingencies
Subtotal Sections 1 -5 $6,943,000
Minor Items $694,000
Sum $7,637,000 X 25% $1,909,250
TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS $1,909,000
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10,310,000
(Total of Sections 1 -8)
Estimate
Prepared By: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-5373 09/08/00
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 4 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO-RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
II.STRUCTURES ITEMS #1 #2 #3
Tunnel
Bridge Name Structure
New
Structure Type Prestressed
Concrete
Total Area (m2) 488
Footing Type (pile/spread)
Cost per Sq. Meter $2,500
Including:
Mobilization: 10%
Contingency:25%
Other
Total Cost For Structure $1,220,000 $0
SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE $1,220,000
TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $1,220,000
Railroad Related Costs
COMMENTS:
Estimate Prepared By: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-53.73_ 09/08/00
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 5 of 6
PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
DIST-CO-RTE
0
kp: 0
EA: 0
PP No. : 0
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Right-of-Way estimates should consider the probable highest and best use and type and Intent of Improvements at the time of
acquisition. Assume acquisition Including utility reloctalon occurs at the right of way certification milestone as shown in the
Funding and Scheduling Section of the PSR. For further guidance see Chapter 1,Caltrans Right of Way Procedural Handbook
Current Values Escalation Escalated
(Future Use) Rate (%/yr) Value'
Acquisition, including excess lands
and damages to remainders"' $816,000 $0
Utility Relocation $400,000 $0
Clearance/Demolition $0
RAP $150,000 $0
R//W Services-Title and Escrow Fees $0
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WORK $80,000 $0
2 Structures($100,000 &$200,000) $300,000 $0
$0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $1,746,000 TOTAL ESCALATED $0
(CURRENT VALUE) RIGHT OF WAY
Right of Way Take SM Unit Total
1) West of RR 6700 60/sm 402000
2) East of RR,southside 4900 294000
3) East of Laurel, northside 2000 120000
Total 816000
Estimate prepared by: JAVIER ARROYO (408)453-5373 09/08/00
(Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
Sheet: 6 of 6
EXHIBIT F
Tic
Design Scoping Checklist
Proiect Information
District 05 County SLO Route Kilometer Post(Post Mile) EA
Description: The City of San Luis Obispo plans to construct a grade separation of Orcutt Road at the Union
Pacific Railroad Currently, motorists emergency service vehicles City buses, bicyclists and pedestrians
cross the railroad on Orcutt Road "at grade" and are delayed when freight or passenger trains block this
crossing The project is located entirely on City iurisdictional streets.
Project Manager Timothy Scott Bochum PE Phone#(805)781-7203
Project Engineer Wayne Peterson PE Phone#(805)781-7207
Design Functional Manager None(N/A) Phone#
Project Development Coordinator None(N/A) Phone#
Design Scoping
Instructions
Describe and identify in the following sections a general description of all improvements anticipated as
part of the project scope. Analyze the existing highway system and identify improvements necessary to
solve the transportation problem. The design improvements should be discussed in sufficient detail to
identify the project's major geometric features. Also discuss in detail any planned roadbed widths that are
less than standard widths. Address roadside improvements. Discuss any design issues that may be
controversial during development of the environmental document. Design Concept Approval must be
obtained from the Project Development Coordinator.
Orcutt Road is a designated Arterial street a Route of Regional Significance, an FAU
Route and a primary emergency access route Current traffic volumes exceed 13.700
vehicles per day (1997 counts) and are forecasted to increase to 16.500 with buildout of
the land uses anticipated in the City's General PlanThis corresponds to a 20% increase
in traffic volumes over current dgy conditions This estimated increase does not include
changes due to the comWetion of the South Street extension to Bishop Street. If the
South/Bishop Street connection that is contained in the General Plan is made beneath the
UPRR railroad the estimated volume along Orcutt Road might change.
This issue has been identified as needing further analysis as part of the traffic analysis of
the Orcutt Grade Separation project.
There are four AMTRAK passenger trains (north and southbound Coast Starlight and
north and southbound San Diegan) and an average of 3 freight trains that cross Orcutt
Road during a 24-hour period Within three years passenger rail service is expected to
• Design Scoping Checklist
Page 2 of 9
increase to include north and southbound trains connecting the Los Angeles and San
Francisco metropolitan areas.
With increase in both rail and vehicular traffic delay at the current at grade crossing will
increase along with potential for collisions traffic congestion and constrained emergency
access.
5. Analysis of Proposal
A parallel but separate project involves widening Orcutt Road to a consistent four-lanes
configuration The City Council-approved cross section for this wider street is attached
as Exhibit E and includes four travel lanes tum lanes at cross street intersections,
landscaped medians Class H bicycle lanes and "separated" sidewalks with landscaped
parkways This widened street segment will extend from Broad Street (SR 227) on the
west to the new Laurel Lane-Bullock Lane intersection on the east and be accomplished
by widening along the south side of Orcutt Road. With future development, Orcutt Road
will be widened to four lanes from Laurel Lane eastward to its intersection with Johnson
Avenue As a four-lane street Orcutt Road will provide sufficient capacity to
accommodate forecasted traffic volumes at levels of service (LOS) of "C" or better.
Proiect Screening
Attach the project location map to this checklist to show location of all design
improvements anticipated.
1. Project Description as Noted in Regional Transportation Plan: Highways &Maior
Regional Project—Off State System
2. Project Setting Within the City of San Luis Obispo
Rural or Urban Urban (City of San Luis Obispo)
Current land uses Mixed use residential. commercial
Adjacent land uses Mixed use residential, commercial
(industrial, light industry, commercial, agricultural,residential, etc.)
Existing landscaping/planting Vacant scrub brash and native material.
Design Scoping Checklist
Page 3 of 9
Figure D-1.Anticipated Traffic Operation Improvements
v
x
Congestion removed
at local street t,-
intersections due to
grade separation. ti
Duncan signalized and
coordinated. z^
Congestion at
Laurel Lane
Potential for removed due to
queue at SR posed grade separation.
227 removedIntersection
due to grade , signalized and
separation. %%idene.d to
coordinated.
Signals Ultimate lano-,
coordinated. viddis(4r
r
Description of the Transportation Problem
Orcutt Road is a designated Arterial street, a Route of Regional Significance, an FAU
Route, and a primary emergency access route. Current traffic volumes exceed 13,700
vehicles per day (1997 counts) and are forecasted to increase to 16,500 with buildout of
the City's General Plan — a 20 % increase.
There are four AMTRAK passenger trains (north and southbound Coast Starlight and
north and southbound San Diegan) and an average of 3 freight trains that cross Orcutt
Road during a 24-hour period. Within three years, passenger rail service is expected to
increase to include north and southbound trains connecting the Los Angeles and San
Francisco metropolitan areas.
With increase in both rail and vehicular traffic, delay at the current at grade crossing will
increase along with potential for collisions, traffic congestion and constrained emergency
access. Congestion currently occurs on the approach segments of Orcutt Road to the
railroad, both east and west of the tracks.
Design Scoping Checklist
Page 4 of 9
Figure D-2. Existing Traffic Deficiencies
Z
Congestion at
local street
intersections
when trains
block tracks 4
'` Laurel lane
Extreme delay at ` occurs when
railroad can back [tains block
traffic up to[tear crossing with
Broad Street(SR access to Bullock
227)and threaten Lane blocked.
operation of
intersection.
rY ,
The proiect will construct a minimum of four through travel lanes alone Orcutt Road and
a center turn lane and median. Bullock Lane will be relocated or terminated at Orcutt
Road to increase safety and improve congestion. The Railroad Recreational Bike facility
will be extended south of Orcutt Road via grade separation to provide adequate
altemative transportation through the project area. The project will signalize two
intersections - Orcutt Road at Duncan and at Laurel Lane. These new signals will be
coordinated using the City's traffic signal coordination system and will be serviced using
vehicle video detection and surveillance systems.
The project will be designed to City of San Luis Obispo standards, and the State of
Califomia "Local Assistance Proceedure Manual — Design Standard". "Traffic Manual".
"Highway Design Manual". and"Bridge Design Manual
Project Design- Alternative 1. In May 2000 the City hired Mark Thomas & Company
to prepare preliminary conceptual drawings of two alternatives for the Orcutt Grade
separation project One alternative (the project see attached Exhibit B) consists of a
roadway overpass to the Union Pacific railroad. The project includes widening of Orcutt
Road to its ultimate width which will include four through lane, a center tum lane and
median island. The intersections of Orcutt Road at Laurel Lane an Duncan will be
signalized and coordinated usingthe he City's Bitrans signal system.
In order to avoid structures on the north side of Orcutt Road, the road alignment would be
offset to the south onto adjoining vacant land. Slope banks in combination with vertical
Design Scoping Checklist
Page 5 of 9
retaining walls would be used to raise the roadway above the railroad to provide the
required 7 meter (23 feet) clearance. Bullock Lane would be realigned to connect to a
new four-way intersection at Laurel Lane or would be turned into a cul-de-sac to improve
gperations and safety. The south end of Duncan Lane would provide a four-way
intersection with Sacramento Drive, which will be extended from the south. The
maximum grade of the overpass approaches would approximate 6.0°10. This design
maintains a design speed of 65 kph (40 MPH) which is identified in the City's General
Plan as the design speed of arterial roadways. This alternative minimizes the impact on
adjoining land uses by utilizing, vacant land but requires the reconstruction and elevation
of Orcutt Road east of Laurel Lane which will require access restrictions to adjacent
parcels. This alternative requires the removal of two single family dwellings, an
automobile repair business and the culverting or significant realignment of a small creek
that crosses Orcutt Road and Bullock Lane. Due to the lengthy conform voints, this
alternative requires substantial access restructuring of business and mobile home
driveways east of Laurel Lane. The culverting of this creek could be avoided if Bullock
Lane Road is terminated south of Orcutt Road.
Due to the close proximity of the adjacent intersections of Laurel Lane and Duncan Lane
and the constraints in topography, the total cost of the project and the roadway grades of
the project will be higher than similar projects for railroada¢r de separation(this is a factor
of both the overpass and underpass alternatives). Refinement of the project cost and the
final design will be necessary during the PR/ED component of the project.
The City's Railroad Recreational Trail (RRT) would be extended through the slope banks
and under Orcutt Road to connect with Bullock Lane paralleling the east side of the
railroad. This trail extension will be accomplished through the use of a broad culvert-
type structure or by constructing an open bridge structure over the railroad.
Alternative 2: Underpass Design (see attached Exhibit C): This alternative would
extend Orcutt Road directly eastward under the railroad with a minimum clearance to the
bottom cord of the overhead structure being 5.0 meters (16 feet). The approximaterg ades
of the underpass approaches would be 8-10%. The proposed bridge structure for the
railroad would include a separated deck that would accommodate the southern extension
of the Railroad Recreational Trail (RRT) along, the east side of the railroad connecting to
Bullock Lane. It is anticipated that for this alternative, Bullock Lane would need to be
converted into a cul-de-sac south of Orcutt Road. Under this scenario, a secondary access
point for the neighborhood southeast of the project area would need to be included in the
grade separation project. Sidewalks on Orcutt Road would be elevated above the roadway
so that maximum grades allowed by ADA and the State building code can be achieved
(8.33%).
Alternative 2 would have similar property impacts as those associated with Alternative I.
In addition, this alternative would require the construction of a "shoo fly" (detour route)
for the rail line while the underpass structure is being completed. Locating a shoo fly on
the east side of the railroad could utilize railroad right-of-way adjoining the tracks but
could impact use of Bullock Lane and access to adjoining dwellings. On the north side of
` Design Scoping Checklist
Page 6 of 9
Orcutt Road a shoo fly would likely require the relocation of the southern segment of the
Railroad Recreational Trail (RRT) during construction.
Project Design- Alternative 3 (see Exhibit D). Alternative 3 for project design is similar
to Alt. #1 in that it constructs an overpass for thera�paration. The primary
distinction between these alternatives is that of design speed. Alt. #1 maintains a design
speed of 65 kph. Alt. #3 reduces the design speed to 50 kph (30 MPH) which is
substantially below design speed objectives established in the City's Circulation Element.
The project proposes a grade of 7% for both approaches and limits the impact to adjacent
properties. This alternative is the least costly of the three alternatives.
Order of magnitude cost estimates for the three alternatives described above are presented
below:
Alternative Right-of-Way' . . Constructioni Cost Total
Cost
A: Offset Overpass
(65 kph) "' $2,356,000 $10,387,000 $12,743,000
B: Underpass $1,746,000 $11,530,000`Z' $13,276,000
C: Offset Overpass $1,416,000 $8,323,000 $ 9,739,000
50 h)
Notes:
(1)Assumes the use of slope banks combined with vertical retaining walls on both sides of railroad and a
culvert-like structure to accommodate the extension of the RRT through the overpass.
(2) Includes the cost of constructing a temporary "shoo fly" along the railroad. Assumes that vertical
walls are used along the north side of Orcutt Road and walls and slope banks used along the south
side of the road.
Design Criteria
Design Speed for highway facilities within the project limit?
Freeway Highway 45 MPH Local Street
Design Period: Construction year is? 2005 Design year is? 2020
Design Capacity: Level of Service to be maintained over the design period is?
Mainline Ramp Local Street D Weaving Sections
Design Vehicle Selection?
STAA California WB-50 Bus B-40
Design Scoping Checklist
Page 7 of 9
Note*: The proiect will be designed to City of San Luis Obispo standards, and the State
of California "Local Assistance Proceedure Manual — Design Standard", "Traffic
Manual" "Highway Design Manual", and"Bridge Design Manual".
Proposed Roadbed and Structure Widths
Forecasted Average Daily Traffic Volumes 16.500 ADT
Roadbed Width Structure Width
Proposed Standard Proposed Standard
State highway
Lane Widths
Left Shoulder
Right Shoulder
Median Width
Bicycle Lane
Local Street
Lane Widths 3.3 m 3.3 in 3.3 m 3.3 in.
Left Shoulder N/A N/A N/A N/A
Right Shoulder N/A N/A N/A N/A
Median Width 4.2 in none 4.2 m none
Bicycle Lane 1.8 m 1.2 in 1.8 in. 1.2 m
Any proposed roadbed widths less than standard should be discussed with the Project
Development Coordinator to determine if the proposed non-standard feature results in a
feasible project alternative for further study during preparation of the environmental
document.
Roadway Design Scoping
Mainline Operations
Mainline Highway Widening
Existing pavement to be rehabilitated with mm overlay.
Widen existing 2 lane facility to 4 lanes. R/W acquisition for 4 lanes.
Local street structures to span n/a lanes of highway (for future requirements).
Upgrade existing facility to: 0 Controlled Access Conventional Highway
Design Scoping Checklist
Page 8 of 9
❑Expressway Standards ❑Freeway Standards
❑Vertical Clearance Deficiencies ❑Adequate Falsework Clearance
✓ Railroad Grade Separation
Ramp/Street Intersection Improvements
✓ New Signals ❑Modify Signals
❑Right Turn Lanes ✓ Widening For Localized Through Lanes
❑Merging Lanes ❑Deceleration /Acceleration Lanes
✓ Left Turn Lanes ❑> 300 Left Tum Vph (Requires Double Left Turn)
❑Interchange Spacing ❑Ramps Intersect Local Street<4 % Grade
❑Intersection Spacing ❑ Single Lane Ramps Exceeding 300 M Widened To Two Lanes
❑ Exit Ramps > 1,500 Vph Designed As Two Lane Exit
✓ Other Railroadrg_ade separation project
Operational Improvements
Truck Climbing Lane
❑ Sustained Grade Exceeding 2% And Total Rise Exceeds 15 M.
Auxiliary Lanes
❑When , 600 M Between Sucessive On-Ramps.
❑Two Lane Exit Ramps Have 400 M Auxiliary Lane.
❑Weaving <500 M between Off-Ramp and On-Ramp.
❑ Other
Right of Way Access Control
❑Existing access control extends at least 15 m beyond end of curb return, radius or taper.
❑New construction access control extends at least 30 m(urban areas) or 100 m (rural
areas)beyond end of curb returns, radius or taper.
✓ Other Direct access to Orcutt Road removed for entire length of project.
Roadside Design Scoping
highway Planting
✓ Replacement
✓ Median
❑ Mitigation
Safety
❑ Off-Freeway Access
❑ Maintenance Vehicle Pull-Out
✓ Railroad Grade Separation Project
Design Scoping Checklist
Page 9 of 9
Roadside Management
0 Slope paving
0 Gore paving
O Roadside paving
Stormwater
0 Erosion control
O Drainage
❑ Slope design
Preliminary Evaluation provided by:
.Project Engineer Wayne Peterson; City Engineer Date ._08/25/2000.
Reviewed by:
Project Manager .Timothy Scott Bochum, CARTE#1907 Date 08/25/2000