HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2000, 6 - HIGUERA STREET BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 93-67 councit 4,2000
j ac En as mpoM
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael D.McCluskey,Director of Public Works Pi��
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: HIGUERA STREET BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 93-67
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve plans and specifications for. "Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project,
SpecificationNo. 93-67."
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the CAO to award the contract if the lowest
responsible bid is within the Engineer's Estimate.
DISCUSSION
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.
On July 28, 1998 the City Council reviewed the alternatives available for rehabilitation and
selected the most viable. The consultants had looked at several options to address the condition
of the bridge. The City Council selected the reinforcement of the existing walls and the
replacement of the deck. This option has the least environmental impacts and is less costly than
complete replacement of the whole structure.
On September 21, 1999 the City Council reviewed alternative designs for the remodeling of the
Court Street Parking lot and the addition of bulbouts along the street. The Council adopted the
new parking lot circulation plan which resulted in the loss of 12 spaces and included the removal
of two of the driveways on Higuera Street and the removal of the Osos Street driveway. Internal
circulation will replace the driveways,reducing traffic on the adjacent streets. Council approved
a long section of expanded sidewalk on the parking lot frontage and comer bulbouts on the other
three comers of Higuera and Osos. The Community Development Department prepared, and
Council approved a policy for use of widened sidewalks by businesses. The bridge project
incorporates two alternatives for widening additional sidewalks. The first extends the widened
sidewalk along the frontage of the Firestone Building and the Thai Classic Restaurant. The
second extends the sidewalk along the frontage of Mo's Smokehouse BBQ and Louisa's. These
alternatives are contingent upon a request from those business and property owners whose
frontage would be affected. Staff has just received a request from the property owners of Mo's
Smokehouse BBQ and Louisa's for widened sidewalks and so will plan to include that in the
construction.
6-1
Council Agenda Report—Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project
Page 2
The project will also include the installation of fire sprinkler laterals needed for properties
between Santa Rosa and Morro Streets, the replacement of a sewerline and the resurfacing of
Osos between Monterey and Higuera and Higuera Street between Santa Rosa and Morro.
On February 29, 2000,the City Council authorized the expenditure of$20,000 for promotion and
advertising during the construction. The Downtown Association will hire and manage the
promotional campaign.
Timing:
The Council and members of the public have expressed concern regarding the start of work for
this project To date, all the regulating agencies have verbally assured us that there are no
problems anticipated on our permits and it is just a matter of time. Staff will plan to advertise
this project on April 8, 2000 if we have clear assurance from the regulating agencies issuing
permits that we will have the permits in hand before the end of April. This would allow us to
complete the bidding during the month of April,making the permits available during the bidding
period. Construction would be able to start the beginning of June. If we are unable to get the
necessary clearances prior to the end of April, Engineering staff will recommend that the project
be held until January 2001 for advertising. Construction would then take place in the summer of
2001. The advertising and promotional campaign would also be put on hold, to take place
concurrent with the construction in 2001.
CONCURRENCES
The City Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 14, 2000. The Federal
Highway Administration signed an environmental categorical exemption for the project on February
14,2000.
FISCAL IMPACT
The bridge project is identified in the 1999-01 Financial Plan, Appendix B, page 204. The
sewerline replacement is identified on page 100 of the Financial Plan for completion in budget
year 1999-00 as part of Wastewater Collection System Improvements. The fire sprinkler .
program is identified on page 84 and is funded through the Water Distribution System
Improvements. The street reconstruction is funded by the Pavement Maintenance account This
is not part of the Capital Program, but is rather in the operation budgets for paving downtown
using City staff. The available funding in this account has taken into consideration the ongoing
needs and commitments of the Streets Maintenance Division. The construction funds for the
bridge are in the second year of the budget, available July 1, 2000. The first payment for
construction would take place after July 1 so there is no need to advance the funds.
This project is funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The program pays 80% of eligible costs. Eligible
costs include those related to the rehabilitation of the bridge. All enhancements to the area, such
as decorative crosswalks and extra costs for Mission sidewalk over standard gray are not eligible
and will be at the City's Cost
6-2
Council Agenda Report—Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project
Page 3
The project will be reimbursing the parking fund for lost revenue from parking meters. The
project will also be paying for the reconfiguration of the Parking lot since the bridge project and
sidewalk widening, General Fund projects, are driving the reconfiguration.
The original budget for the bridge project did not include funds for the sidewalk widening,
approved by the Council in September, the reconfiguration of the Court Street parking lot or the
reimbursement of the parking fund for lost revenue. These items have surfaced since the budget
was completed. The bridge construction estimate from the consultants indicates the bridge itself
will be less expensive than anticipated which has allowed us to cover the additional costs within
the budget. The project was anticipated to cost close to $3.6 million and is now estimated at$2.5
million. The difference comes largely in the Federally funded portion of the project, with the
City portion remaining close to the same. If the bids come in higher than estimated, staff will
have to return to the City Council to request additional funding.
Construction Costs Funding
Engineer's Federal
Construction Contingencies Estimate City Funds Funds
Bridge 1 7L $2,000,000 $260,000 $2,260,000 $1,000,000 $1,400,000
Parking Lot $50,000 $7,500 $57,500
Parking $50,000 $50,000
Revenue
Bridge
Sub-Total $2,100,000 $267,500 $27367,500 $1,000,000 $1,400,000
Street
Reconstruction $73,000 $7,000 $80,000 $100,000
General Fund
Sub-Total $2,173,000 $274,500 $2,447,500 $1,100,000
Sewermain $70,000 $7,000 $77,000 $690,000
Fire Services $18,000 $3,000 $21,000 $580,000
TOTAL $2,261,000 $284,500 $2,545,500 $2,370,000 $1,400,000
1. Contingencies include$60,000 early completion bonus
2. Includes street repaving over the bridge,sidewalk widening and crosswalks
3. Federal funds equates to 800/a of eligible costs
4. $3,100,000 in grant funds budgeted,Estimated$1,400,000 of cost is eligible
The budget for the project also includes $450,000 for Construction Management. The
Consultants are putting together final estimates of that cost which we will bring to City Council
for approval in an upcoming meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Plans and Specifications are available in the Council office for review.
g:1 c u n prapm1SVXWgft%9367 Wgu %Mff mMr519367 a&.ftc
6-3
ME I JG AGENDA
_ DATET=ITEM #i Aik =
March 28, 2000
ACon
noUNCIL 0 CDD DIR
ABTAOMEMORANDUM MCA 0 FIN DIA
0'ACAO �FJRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY _, DIR
p•CLERKIORIO ❑POLICE CHF
To: John Dunn, City Administrative OfficOM GMT T 0 REC DIR
I n!E 0 UTIL DIR
From: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director 0 PERS DIR 1
Subject: Council Member Romero - Court Street Lo
We have reviewed Council Member Romero's alternative to the plan prepared by
staff. His plan proposes:
• Circulation between the Court Street lot and the center strip lot to compensate for
the loss of the Higuera exit for the center strip.
• The strip lot along Osos becomes a two way lot, closed at both ends with a single
driveway access at its current location on Osos Street and remains isolated from
the other two strips.
Council Member Romero has made several points in his memorandum with which
staff agrees:
• The modification will take place at the end of the job, probably in November.
(Construction is scheduled for suspension from 11/23 to 1/3)
• The staff plan will cost in the vicinity of $50,000 ("...several tens of thousands of
dollars.")
• Council Member Romero's plan does leave relatively poor access for the strip lot
along Osos.
The September 2155 agenda report provided the following information (two
reconfiguration layouts were offered at that meeting):
• The two layouts provide internal circulation that currently does not exist.
• The layouts address a concern about "congestion' at the Osos Street driveway
expressed by Council Member Ewan. Currently, drivers must use Higuera,
Monterey and Osos streets to circulate into the next parking bay, as each section
is separate. During Farmer's Market, this is particularly awkward.
• Both layouts include bringing the lot into conformance with requirements for
numbers of disabled parking spaces.
• These two layouts provide 107 or 110 parking spaces (97 meter, 9 HC, 1 loading
/ 100 meter, 9 HC, 1 loading) respectively. The existing parking lot provides 119
parking spaces (114 meter, 4 HC, 1 loading.) This results in a net decrease in
overall parking spaces of 12 or 9 respectively. Either layout will greatly improve
the circulation for the lot, particularly during Farmer's Market.
• Staff recommended the first layout option, although five more spaces were lost
02 over 9), because of better flow patterns. RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
• Either proposed layout for the parking lot allows the City to provide street setback
on the south westerly side of Osos Street.
At their September 21' meeting, the Council voted 4:1 to reconfigure the parking lot
using the first option (12 spaces lost.) The plan incorporated in the Higuera Bridge
project reflects the Council's direction.
Staff sees the following "downsides" to Council Member Romero's proposal:
• It retains and increases the "dead end" problem we now have in the strip lot along
Osos by creating the same situation at the south end that we have on the north
end. This is currently an item of complaint from the public because it means
backing out of the lot if no space is available.
• It does not bring the lot up to the current ADA standard for accessible (disabled)
spaces.
• It does not provide full circulation within the parking lot. It will still be necessary
for drivers to circulate on the adjacent streets.
• It does not really address Thursday Night congestion problems on Osos discussed
at the Council meeting. The heavy in and out traffic at the driveway will continue
to congest Osos even with a wider driveway.
On the plus side:
• It is cheaper costing perhaps 55,000 to $10,000.
• It provides more metered spaces, 110 to the 97 proposed by staff. (Note: There
will be fewer accessible spaces, 4 to the 9 proposed by staff.
• It appears it will still allow the setback of Osos to occur.
We may need to remove an additional space at the end of the strip lot along Osos to
allow backing out of the end space at Higuera without going over the sidewalk.
One issue that seems pertinent is the "temporary" nature of the Court Street parking
lot. The lot has remained in a less than perfect condition for many, many years on
the theory that redevelopment was just around the corner. In the late 1980's a
project was proposed for the site that did not succeed. Now another project is
proposed for the site, and while everyone is hopeful, success is not guaranteed. Staff
recommends that the original Council decision be upheld and the circulation problems
addressed. If the project planned for Court street is successful, the lot will be used
for only a short time. If the planned project does not prove to be viable, we will have
a much improved lot for long term use, until a replacement facility is completed.
Council Member Romero's plan will work, allowing the closure of the driveways along
Higuera as planned. It is not, however, a decision for staff to make. Staff's approach
has been guided by direction received from the City Council at the September 21'
meeting.
g:%-current projwtslbridges0367 hipueralstaff reports\dfr pkp memo.doc
gffnNG Ar.FN A
mem012� nbU111 DATE 2- 4-00 ITEEf�
March 30, 2000
EEMAO
O CDD DIR
TO: Council Colleagues ❑FIN DIR❑FI$E CHIEFY 0 PO ICFROM: Dave Romero IR
rORIQ ❑POLICE CHFENF ❑UTIL DIR
SUBJECT: Higuera Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project ❑PERS DIR
Agenda Item#6, April 4, 2000
I have reviewed the minutes and listened to the tape of the meeting of 9/21/99 when this item
was previously discussed and have ascertained that the City Council did not adopt the new
parking lot circulation plan as stated in the staff report. In my view, Council gave no direction
regarding details of the parking lot circulation.
Staff has estimated $50,000 (+ $7,500 for contingencies) for refurbishment of the lot at the end
of the I-Iiguera Street bridge project. This will result in the loss of 13 spaces and will in all
probability take place near the Christmas season. We are uncertain when the Copeland project
might move ahead, however, it is anticipated that all parking lot improvements will be removed
for project construction within the next couple of years. Therefore, if the staff recommendation
is followed we would expend up to $57,500 for"improved circulation" for as short as a one or
two-year period, in addition to losing 13 spaces in the lot.
I have attached a copy of the minutes of the Council meeting, together with my memo of 3/23/00
suggesting an alternative layout, which will result in the loss of only two parking spaces. My
proposal will provide circulation for 2/3 of the lot and will improve driveway access for the
remaining 1/3. It should cost less than $1,000 (and some small amount to repair parking lot
improvements disturbed by the contractor's temporary driveway construction in the lot).
DR:ss
Attachments .
/parking lot
ERECE:IVED"i!
3. HIGUERA STREET AND OSOS STREET WIDENED SIDEWALKS.
Civil Engineer Lynch provided the staff report. It was also reported that staff had recently
met with members of the Downtown Association Parking Committee who had concerns
about the staff recommendation. A compromise solution was discussed and, as a result,
staff presented a modified recommendation.
Public Comment
Joe Delucia, property owner(Thai Classic restaurant, adjacent hair salon and artist
workshop),argued that he had not been consulted on the compromise solution and the
result would essentially cut his property out of the project. He emphasized that he wants to
be involved and will contribute money to the project. He said he could endorse the loss of
seven parking spaces, but only if it is an equitable arrangement.
Mike Spangler urged the preservation of parking in the downtown and the protection of the
Parking Enterprise Fund. He suggested a condition which would have property owners,
including the City, contribute to the Parking Fund for any metered spaces lost(for any use:
widening, red curbing, etc.). He said he supports the four bulb-outs,the widening at
Firestone Grill (with a loss of 5-7 spaces),and no widening on Higuera.
Tom Swem. Downtown Association Parking Committee, provided background for the
modifications proposed. He reported that the Association wants to be a part of the
development of the policy about how to address loss of parking and have input any time
parking is in jeopardy.
End of public testimony.
Council discussion followed.
Vice Mayor Romero objected to closure of two driveways to Higuera Street serving the
Court Street parking lot,since this would result in the loss of about fifteen parking spaces
within the lot.
ACTION: Moved by Schwartz/Ewan to direct staff to engineer the deck of the bridge
to Include a widened sidewalk along Higuera from Osos to the edge of Mo's
allowing for a driveway access only at Court Street,the four corner bulbouts, partial
street widening on Osos as recommended by staff,and further,to recommend to
the Downtown Association that they come back to the Council with a draft policy
regarding in-lieu payment by property owners for metered spaces lost and
regulations for the use of the sidewalk within 60 days; motion carried 4:1 (Romero).
Note. The Council deferred approval of widened sidewalks in front of any restaurants until
after review of the draft policy. Engineering staff Indicated that widened sidewalks could be
Incorporated into the project by change order.
mcmomnaum
March 23, 2000
TO: John Dunn
FROM: Dave Romero
SUBJECT: Court Street Parking Lot
At the City Council meeting of 9/21/99 I voted against the Council action to close off two of the
driveways to Higuera Street with the construction of the Ifiguera Street bridge project. My
reasoning at the time was that we could quite likely lose a dozen parking spaces with such an
action. Staff assured us that the loss of parking would be minimal.
We have now received a staff memo of 3/16/00, together with proposed parking lot changes, and
sure enough, we will lose twelve parking spaces with the modification. In actuality we will lose
13 because I believe one of the parking spaces shown is unworkable. In order to achieve the
reconfiguration staff has proposed to eliminate the sidewalk running down the middle of the lot.
This sidewalk allows users parked adjacent to it to walk easily to Monterey or I iguera without
interference with parking lot traffic. The modification to the parking lot will take place after the
contractor has finished the bridge contract, in all likelihood around Thanksgiving or later, and
will require complete closure of the lot while the reconstruction is carried out. The construction
time is at the start of the rainy season and the Christmas parking rush,probably the worst time of
the year to do this work.
I have attached a plan that I feel is superior to the staff plan. It involves the removal of four
parking spaces between the middle aisle and Court Street aisle. We will be able to gain back two
of the spaces, thus resulting in a loss of only two spaces (see attachment). The modification
shown on my plan takes place within the contractor work area, would not interfere with the
remainder of the parking lot and could be accomplished at minimal cost. I believe the staff plan
would cost several tens of thousands of dollars.
The net gain in parking spaces achieved with the new parking structure was at a cost of over
$30,000 each. The staff plan will eliminate 13 existing spaces and entails considerable
contractor costs. It represents something in the neighborhood of$400,000 in capital.expense. If
the Copeland project proceeds as planned they will be breaking ground on this site within the
next couple of years, therefore all City expenditures on this site will be lost in a short time.
The plan I have submitted does leave Osos Street access relatively poor for the annex area along
Osos Street, which does present some congestion at the driveway. I suggest that the driveway be
widened approximately four feet to the north and that the driveway be marked for entrance and
exit, thus relieving some of the congestion. Because of the savings in construction costs and
public inconvenience I believe we can live with this congested driveway for a couple more years.
The reconfiguration of this parking lot is a critical item with me, and if the parking lot plan goes
forward as submitted by staff, I may vote against the entire project.
Attachment
c: City Council
Ken Hampian
council mcmoizan6um
March 16,2000 —r v i S a Ir iI Gia r/:h d 7y�P 3 Z v
TO: City Council Pr'"����"� 261/7`j `�/ ' 'a'Q//� • T�
/S
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Of e
G� /Z
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Higuera Street Bridge Project—Court Street Parking Lot
At the last council meeting, Councilmember Romero was very concerned about the parking lot
portion of the project regarding two issues: a)number of spaces lost and b)that the parking lot be
available in time for the Christmas holiday shopping season.
Number of Spaces Lost
At the September 21, 1999 City Council meeting the Council voted 4-1 to efidorse the attached
design, which reduces the number of parking spaces in the lot from 118 t 116. That plan has
been incorporated into the plans for the project in accordance with Council erection. Barbara
Lynch is trying to see if she can squeeze in one.more space and Tim Bochum may have
identified a better circulation plan. We will have both of these issues resolved prior to Council
action to approve plans and specifications. But the bottom line is that the number of lost parking
spaces will not be substantially different than those discussed at the 9-21-99 meeting.
Parking lot be open in time for holiday season shopping
As a part of the discussion of the project needs, about one-third of the existing Court Street
parking lot will be used for construction staging by the contractor. This means that about 70
parking spaces will remain available at all times for general use by the public. However,near the
end of the project, the contractor will have to move off the site; close the parking lot and rebuild
it. During this time all parking spaces will be lost. Unfortunately, this "near the end of the
project" will be occurring near the time of beginning of the holiday shopping season. If it looks
like this may occur, staff will most likely negotiate with the contractor a contract time extension
to allow the total closure to occur on or about January 2, 2001. However, in an effort to preclude
that possibility, staff had already put a "completion bonus" into the contract. The bonus only
applies if the entire project is complete by November 1, 2000.
I:Higuera bridge memo to CC.doc RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 2000
SLO ClrY COUNCIL_
13381S ` 83nOIH
•q V/
4
� r - O
�J O
I T
� 0
C7
(n T
I �
d-
�
. F-
d
w O d
N F- N
sp
o
Z
CD
C
w C
4
I O
r
f""M .
13381S k3?331NON
EXHIBIT
i
1338iS V/J3nDIH
v
9'..,
LLJ
. �! iii F ♦ ;♦
\ \
6II W \\\
II H \
\ \2\
We
Q \
�•of LL
H ® :m:
.i /:
a
Q \
40
r I,
co a
1332JiS lJ3 A1NOW
MLAG AGENDA
DATE 4-41"o o ITEM # (a council mEmoizanbuum
April 3, 2000 EMOUNCIL ❑Cen rM
RCAO ❑FII U.I.
TO: City Council 5;-ACAO ❑F�^-E U
MTrORNEY Q'PW DIR'
OtLERK10RIG ❑POLICE CHF
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REG DIR
L°l ❑UTIL DIR
R.LYwI� Q KNI DIR
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Higuera Street Bridge Project—Agenda Item #6
I've reviewed Councilman Romero's memo of March 30, 2000 and the staff report and the
Council minutes to try to find the source of misunderstanding. Although I wasn't at the meeting,
it appears that a number of items came into play.
Regarding the number of parking spaces lost in a Lot 6 reconfiguration.
The staff report of April 2l't clearly states thafthe staff recommended reconfiguration will result
in the loss of 12 parking spaces (last paragraph, pg. 3-2). Councilman Romero's memo of March
23`d (regarding the April 2151 meeting) states his belief that staff did not make the parking loss
issue clear and that "staff assured us that the loss of parking would be minimal". In his next
paragraph, he states, "sure enough, we will lose twelve parking spaces....". Thus it appears that
some of the misunderstanding comes from perhaps an unclear verbal dialog of the number of
spaces to be lost in Lot 6 at the Council meeting itself.
Council action vs. CAO recommendation.
The CAO recommendation had three parts.
1. The first would remove 7 parking spaces at the intersection of Higuera and Osos and
provide for the installation of a widened sidewalk. By reviewing Exhibit B (pg. 3-10) the
total of 7 spaces was derived by the loss of 5 spaces in front of Firestone, the loss of one
space in front.of Mid-State Bank, and the loss of one space in front of Woodstock's.
Exhibit B also shows an alternative that shows only a loss of one space in front of
Firestone which involves the installation of just the bulb-out. Although the CAO
recommendations were separated into three separate actions, the Council took action on
all three in one single statement. The portion of the Council action that addressed the
first CAO recommendation was "direct staff to engineer ...... the four corner
bulbouts....9'. This, in essence, was the alternative shown on Exhibit B, and resulted in
the loss of three parking spaces rather than the proposed seven (one in front of Firestone
rather than five).
2. The second CAO recommendation modified the striping of Lot 6 and partial widening of
Osos Street. The Council action was "direct staff to engineer the,........ partial widening
of Osos". Thus it would appear that no action was taken by the Council on the restriping
issue specifically as stated by Councilman Romero.
3. The third CAO recommendation was to remove one loading zone space between Osos
and Court Streets with accompanying sidewalk widening in that area and remove two
parking spaces between Court and Morro Streets with accompanying sidewalk widening
RECEIVED
APR - 3 2000
01 n r iTv r%1 COV
in that area. The Council action was "direct staff to .engineer ..... a widened sidewalk
along Higuera from Osos to the edge of Mo's allowing for a driveway access only at
Court Street". The effect of this action was to direct that the two existing driveways
between Osos and Court Streets be closed and the one loading zone space be removed.
The misunderstanding between Councilman Romero and staff comes from this last action. For
in closing of the two driveways to Higuera Street, the restriping of some or all of Lot 6 became
mandatory. Staff assumed that the Council action to widen the sidewalk and eliminate the
loading zone consistent with its recommendation found in the Summary section of the April 215`
agenda report on page 3-7, wherein the discussion states "Widen (the sidewalk) — remove
loading zone (only with circulation changes in the parking lot as recommended)". By choosing
to widen the sidewalk and eliminate the loading zone, the Council had chosen to have the
parking lot restriped. Thus, the parking lot was designed with a loss of twelve parking spaces as
identified in the staff report and in compliance with the criteria found on page 3-7 of the staff
report.
In reviewing all the above, it appears that no specific Council direction was given to close the
driveway to Lot 6 from Osos Street and that no specific action was given on what to do with the
striping plan of Lot 6. However, staff was asking for direction on those key issues and no
direction was given by formal Council action. The Council did, although indirectly, give staff
direction on the restriping issue. From the conversations of Council members and guidance from
page 3-7 of the staff report, staff proceeded to design the project as they thought they had been
directed.
The Council will need to address these two issues again at their meeting of April 4`h
Attachments
Page 3-2 September 21, 2000 Agenda Report
Page 3-7 September 21, 2000 Agenda Report
Council Agenda Report-Sidewalk Widening
Page 2
DISCUSSION /
At its April 6, 1999, meeting, the City Council directed staff to pursue the idea of widened
sidewalks along Higuera Street in the vicinity of Osos Street. The purpose of the sidewalks
would be primarily to allow for outdoor dining and the establishment of other desired amenities
such as public art and landscaping in planters. Much discussion took place regarding the number
of parking spaces to be lost in front of privately owned businesses and the number of parking
spaces to be lost in a reconfigured Lot 6 (Court Street) parking lot. While the City Council
adopted the concept of widened sidewalks, it also directed staff to pursue, more definitively, the
desires of the various private property owners and the impacts, pros and cons of reconfiguring
Lot 6.
Recommendations
Staff has followed up on Council's direction and recommendations are discussed below.
1 Higuera Sidewalks- Santa Rosa to Osos_
Staff wrote.to all property owners identified in the earlier staff report and twice asked for written
feedback as to their desires. Three of the four property owners responded in writing;,and.one
verbal response was received. In addition, staff also requested feedback from property owners
farther alongHiguera Street towards Morro Street, in case widening along the Lot 6 parking lot
frontage was approved. Based.on verbal comments from the affected property owners, the'April
6m.staff report proposed-widening for the length of the Higuera bridge on:both sides of the street:
T7us resulted in the:loss of 16 parking spaces. With the most recent information •ecerved.from
the pioperty�owners.in this,stretch,that number has decreased to 7 parking spaces for;tlus section .
y 7,:
;.of Higuera Street.:,Five..of the spaces are in front,
of the Firestone building and one'"ear$ onal
Woodstock" and First Bank. (See Exhibit B)
Lot 6(Court Street) &Osos Street Setback:
Two different layouts of Lot 6 have been developed as shown in Exhibits C-1 and C=2: The two
layouts provide internal circulation that currently does not exist. They.also. address a.ooagem..
about"congestion" of the Osos Street driveway expressed by Council Member Ewan.Qirrently,
drivers must use Higuera, Monterey and Osos streets to circulate into the next parking bay, .as
each section is separate. During Farmer's Market, this is particularly awkward. ' Staff is
proposing closing the Osos Street driveway and two of the three driveways on Higuera and
providing connection between the parking bays inside the lot. Both options include bringing the
lot into conformance with requirements for numbers of disabled parking spaces.
These two layouts provide 107 or 110 parking.spaces respectively. The existing parking lot
provides 119 parking spaces. This results in a net decrease in overall parking spaces of 12 or 9
respectively. Either layout will greatly improve the circulation for the lot, particularly during
4
Farmer's Market, and allows the opportunity to widen sidewalks on the Higuera frontage. r
Although five more spaces are lost, staff is recommending C-1 over C-2 because of better flow j
patterns.
3-2
Council Agenda Report-Sidewalk Widening
Page 7
-----------------
advisory subcommittee. It is staffs intention to report back to the Council on the effectiveness of
the program in a year from the completion of the project
Finally, although not a formal recommendation, the subcommittee does not support the proposed
circulation changes to Lot 6 as presented above. While staff'acknowledges that parking spaces
are lost if internal circulation is improved, leaving the lot "as is" maintains the existing
circulation problems Councilman Ewan asked be addressed. It also basically precludes
meaningful widening of the sidewalk along the Lot 6 frontage. If the sidewalk along the Lot 6
frontage is not widened, staff'is not recommending the widening along Mo's or Louisa's, as the
result would be unconnected blips in the existing sidewalk line.
Sidewalk Widenin -Summa Of A11 In ut And Recommendations
Thai Classic/DeI ucia '
No widening Same as owner
2 spaces are ok-if
Parking fund is
Firestone/Billingsley Widen—Remove 5 spaces Same as owner Co ensated
Same as owner-if
Parking fund is
Woodstocks/Rossi No written response. co ensated
Widen — Remove No widening
Verbal response-Remove 1 space
�+ 1 ace
First Bank/Wilson Widen—Remove 1 are
Mo's BB / lino Same as owner No widenin
Widen=Remove 1 ace Same as ownef
Louisa's/Bucket of Blood Widen=Remove 1 space Same as owner NO widenin
LLC No widening
Lot 6(Court Street) ;
' Widen remove No widening .
loading zone(only'
'with circulation.
changes in the
Parg lot as.
recommended
FISCAL DUFACT
As discussed in the April 6th agenda report, the bridge construction is funded through the Federal
Highway Administration Bridge Rehabilitation program. The program reimburses the City for
80% of costs. (See Exhibit F) The program will not reimburse costs for improvements to the
site. Improvements would include:
• extra cost of Mission Style Sidewalk over standard gray;
• differential cost, if any, between 8 feet of sidewalk and 12 feet of paving versus 14 feet of
sidewalk and 6 feet of paving in areas over the bridge; and
• bulbouts and widened sidewalk on the southeasterly side of the street along the Firestone
building and on the northwesterly side of the street along the Mo's BBQ Q and Louisa's
3-T