HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2002, C2 - WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 2001-02, SPECIFICATION NO. 90229 Councit z ov
j ac En as Report 1�" c cr
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P 0
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Sergio Reyes Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Waterline Replacement Project 2001-02, Specification No. 90229
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve plans and specifications for"Waterline Replacement Project 2001-02."
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids for"Waterline Replacement Project 2001-02."
3. Authorize CAO to award contract if lowest responsible bid is within the engineer's estimate.
DISCUSSION:
Replacement of water distribution pipes, mainlines and related infrastructure is an ongoing program
to replace aging and deteriorating infrastructure. This program has three objectives: 1. Ensure
reliable water service. 2. Reduce the need for emergency repairs. 3. Enhance available fire flows.
A study of portions of the City's water distribution system has been completed and system
improvements have been identified. The following list of waterlines will be included in this
project:
Cerro Romauldo—Cuesta to Ferrini Rafael—Luneta to Ramona
Cerro Romauldo—Santa Lucia to N. Tassajara S. Tassajara—Luneta to Ramona
N. Tassajara—Tolosa to Cerro Romauldo Almond—Mission to Center
Pismo—Santa Rosa to Johnson
All the water line projects except the Pismo project are in Pavement Area 7 and will be completed
prior to the paving program scheduled for that area in accordance with Council policy.
CONCURRENCES:
The Community Development Department has granted a Notice of Exemption.
FISCAL IMPACT
This project was budgeted for in the 2001-03 Financial Plan, Appendix B, page 115. Currently,
the Water Distribution Improvements account has a balance of$1,759,869.61.
Estimated Construction Cost
Engineer's Estimate $725,000
Contingencies (10%) $ 72,500
Material Testing $ 3,560
Total $801,060
Funds Available $1,759,869
ATTACENIENTS:
Vicinity Map
Project Specifications and Drawings are available in the Council Office for review
9:\- t pmieculwateffl(r-29 waerlirc 2001-021_docam ICAR90229.doc
ca- �
-
_ NT 1
ya -7� f35� o � TRU KED
9 ('
y IGHLAN
MOUN�P
WES M �O z ply VIEW
)ALY o00 \� CAL .
POLY
LAND z _ HIGH N
2REN y �, 9n C'
TOLOSA
DONNA ? � FELTON �! SqN v ~, Co
103
CRAIG
a 5 z ��, eoYJ, fir �p�t f �Py SLA
C) CK p
MAULDO `" <^y '9
vS`t,
ALBERT
FOOTHILLz CpPT L
9<TCOLLUM
DESEREf O��s IK ONO r
DE AM�pNA W W RAMONA 401KINECKE 9 FR RI K � FREDERICKS L
NA LUNETA ' o 0 0 o N z STAFFORD ? L
EfA z O z
SQ' SER p MURRAY "' MURRAY TAFT SON
�U W L
WEST
N
.MISSION BAN
VENAE P
� MONT-
o O
PHILLIPS 2 Q
CENTALBAN ER 9
° � O OC
9O vl w QEA�t'� �
O
oP O
PROJECT SITES D s9
Cr
S III
O
SPO �O O P
20
���iallol��llp ��I�Ip►I��II ���� cn-of
san this oBispo VICINITY MAP
Public works Department WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 90229
955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 n
n -a
Consent Item—C6 (Dalidio E11t)
Submitted by: Dam Reynolds, 3974 Sunrose Lane, SLO 93401
Contentious Issues:
1) Page C6-20: "The focus of the analysis will be the roadway system ..." This is
not a good start to the analysis in my opinion. Surely if the City is serious about
encouraging mixed mode travel, then all aspects of the transportation system
should be considered equally?
2) Page C6-20: Why is only PM peak being analyzed? Should include midday and
Sat. peak to capture high retail and restaurant traffic.
3) Page C6-20: Too few intersections are included in the study. Additional
intersections should include:
a. South Higuera/South Street
b. South Higuera/Tank Farm Road
c. Unsignalized driveways along Madonna Road (MacDonald's and Ralphs)
d. Driveways along LOVR near dealerships and gas stations, Calle Joaquin,
Home Depot driveways
4) Page C6-21: "Reductions for pass-by trips to the retail uses and internalization
among the uses will be applied (e.g. pedestrian or linked vehicle trips between
office, retail, and hotel uses)". What standards will these reductions be based on?
Is the office part of this development, I thought this was just the retail and hotel?
5) Page C6-22: "The addition of project traffic ... etc". As written this scope item
does not seem to provide much benefit. There is no follow-through on the action.
6) Page C6-22: Use of SYNCHRO software. No matter what software is used in the
analysis there must be proof that the consultant has calibrated and validated
against real world conditions. Need more detail on how this will be done.
7) Page C6-22: "A description of existing transit, bicycle, etc ..." One line is given
to discuss analysis of existing transit, pedestrian, and bike conditions. Surely
there is more that can be done.
a. Transit, bike, pedestrian counts?
b. Analysis of accident rates involving mixed modes in the study area?
c. Level of Service applied to bikes and pedestrians?
d. Study distance shoppers will walk rather than drive?
8) Page C6-23: "Potential impacts to transit, bicycle etc ..." In order to measure
impacts you need to know in detail the base conditions. Thus, item 7 above needs
to be more quantitative and increased in scope.
9) Page C6-25: Discussion on use of CORSIM for site access analysis. CORSIM is
a good tool to use, however, I see no mention of how the model will be calibrated
and validated. Also, CORSIM is a stochastic model that requires multiple runs
with different random seed numbers to achieve a statistically significant result.
There is no mention of whether multiple runs will be performed in order to
achieve statistical significance.