HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/2011, B 2 - DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION council Mrefi4 Dw
j ac cnoa ncpont Ivlarch_1.5,201.1_
lam Numb r
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Works DirectIV�
Prepared By: Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Reject all bids for the Downtown Maintenance and Beautification Project, Specification No.
90979.
2. Direct staff to reduce the scope of the base project by revising the bid documents allowing fora
project to be awarded within the available project budget.
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve the plans and specifications and rebid the project for
January 2012 construction.
DISCUSSION
Background
One of the Council's "Other Important Objectives" in the 2009-11 Financial Plan is expanding
Downtown maintenance and beautification efforts. The intent was to "enhance the maintenance
and beautification of the Downtown through reprioritization of projects, new partnerships, clearer
standards and design guidelines, and improved internal and external communications."
Specifically, beautification efforts were to be focused on downtown signage, solid waste
collection, tree maintenance, news rack management, and other enhancements of existing City
infrastructure.
The final workscope for this construction project was developed over the past one and a half years,
starting with two walking-tours conducted with staff and downtown stakeholders during the fall of
2009 followed by two public meetings held with Council in February and June of 2010.
The first walking tour was held in September of 2009 and included city staff from Public Works,
Community Development, Administration, and Finance. Staff walked, observed and discussed a
wide range of issues including Mission style sidewalks, tree grates, tree supports, bicycle racks,
trash cans, sign posts, light posts, signal posts, utility boxes, news racks, tree removals, among
others items. As part of this review, Staff observed areas where the City's current standards and
guidelines were working, and which ones needed to be revised or newly developed.
To receive valuable input from other Downtown stakeholders, a second walk was scheduled in
October of 2009 that included Deborah Cash from the Downtown Association, Dave Garth from
the Chamber of Commerce and graphics designer and prior Downtown Association President (and
member of the team that developed the "Downtown Concept Plan") Pierre Rademaker. The same
list of maintenance and aesthetic improvements was discussed and observed in the Downtown.
B2-1
Downtown Maintenance anu deatiflcation Page 2
At the February 23, 2010 Council meeting, staff provided an update on the progress of the
Downtown "Objective" and asked Council for direction and input on the desired improvements to
be made. Council's direction to staff was to first focus improvements on Higuera particularly the
completion of the block containing the Wineman Hotel (Higuera Street, from Morro to Chorro)
and then to provide Council with options for other possible improvements in the downtown. Refer
to Attachment 1 for the Council Agenda Report of February 23, 2010, for more information.
On June 15, 2010, staff returned to Council with various options for improvements in the downtown.
Council authorized staff to move forward with preparation of construction documents to include
improvements on three blocks of the downtown area; Higuera Street from Morro Street down to
Broad Street generally completing these blocks by installing Mission sidewalk in areas where it
does not currently exist, removing and replacing two trees, upgrading existing tree wells and
grates, installing pedestrian lighting, updating trash receptacles, upgrading sign posts to new
standards, and painting traffic/light poles. Refer to Attachment 2 for the Council Agenda Report of
June 15, 2010, for more information.
Downtown Involvement
During the summer of 2010, as staff began the design phase of the project, notices where mailed to
building and business owners within the project area. The notice included a description of the
work scope approved by Council and the construction project. These same notices were hand
delivered to businesses while staff went door to door collecting information on store hours,
basement information and data relating to seasonal business "highs" and"lows."
The Downtown Association was updated on the progress of the design at their regular monthly
Board meetings through the City's Downtown liaison and/or the Project Manager in Public Works.
As the detailed design progressed and a better understanding of construction impacts was
developed, several focus meetings were held with the Downtown Association Board and a
subsequent ad hoc review committee. These meetings were held specifically to review and address
construction impacts and business concerns. Items discussed included timing of the construction
during the year, daily construction work hours, visual impacts due to the construction and amounts
of sidewalk that would be under construction at any given time. From this meeting several items
where identified by Downtown merchants that could help lessen impacts to the downtown, and
several of these were incorporated into the project.
1. Daily construction hours from 2 AM to 10 AM. Construction would not occur during the
majority of the typical business day. These work hours would allow the contractor to work
during a period of time with less pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Construction would not be
impacted by early shut downs due to Farmers market or other events.
2. Construct improvements in small phases. There was concern that downtown patrons would be
"scared off' upon seeing three blocks of Higuera Street torn up. To mitigate this, the contractor
would be required to complete work in a small section or phase before moving on to another
phase. This would limit the active construction zone to approximately 80 lineal feet along one
side of Higuera at any one time. The length.of the project is approximately 1000 lineal feet.
Working smaller phases would minimize the visual impacts of the construction making it
appear to be a smaller project than it really is.
3. Remove equipment from worksite at the end of each work day. The City has arranged for a
staging area just outside of the downtown core for contractor's equipment. No equipment will
B2-2
Downtown Maintenance anu Beatification Page 3
remain on site after the work day, again lessening the visual impacts during the daytime
business hours.
4. Seasonal timing. Even withthe early morning work hours of 2 AM to 10 AM and smaller
work areas, the committee expressed concern over doing the project during their periods of
prime business activity which could heavily impact seasonal sales. They expressed the concern
that, in an already fragile economy, any impacts to these busier times could be disastrous for
the businesses. Given that the project timeline was for Spring/Summer construction, the
Downtown Association formally requested that the project be delayed until January of 2012.
(See Attachment 3 for Downtown Association letter dated December 14, 2010).
In the past, the Downtown Association has indicated that they prefer construction in downtown to
occur between January 1 and May 31 during their slower time of year. Given the nature of this
project and high need for interaction with the business community, and the available staff
resources to put toward the project design, it was not possible for the project to be designed, bid
and awarded in time for construction to start in January of this year.
Although this project is seemingly simple in scope —just a sidewalk project - it involves many
complicated components not typically encountered in a "run of the mill" sidewalk project. For
example, the project involves working around 25 or more existing, and in many cases huge, trees
many of which required custom tree wells that had to be designed and coordinated with the
foundry. The project involves removal of trees which requires approval from the tree committee.
The project is located in a busy downtown retail district fronting approximately 70 businesses that
need to remain open during normal business hours. This required special meetings with the
Downtown Association and extra time to develop special mitigations to lessen impacts. Time was
spent researching records for possible basements, two of which were found within the project area
and required hiring of a contractor to pot hole and do investigative work. Due to the special nature
of the basement an outside structural engineer was hired to assist in the design and cost estimating
of the basement. (The basement at 858 Higuera is still under design and for that reason was not
included in this bid). The project also included a newly adopted standard trash receptacle for
downtown which required working closely with the manufacturer to formalize a design before
bidding. Staff was not able to complete the construction documents until the end of January which
translated into a construction start date of mid-April 2011, at the earliest.
LED Lighting Update
Within the last several years, there has been considerable discussion about incorporating the use of
LEDs as a light source for the City's Pedestrian and street lights. While an energy saving light
source over the long term, the higher cost of LED fixtures has been a barrier to implementation.
Staff has worked with PG&E to calculate the Return on Investment (ROI) period for converting
the existing light fixtures, and it averages about 10-14 years before the City realizes the savings
from reduced energy use. Recently, City staff has been approached with the idea that the new
Downtown Pedestrian light fixtures needed for the Downtown project be purchased with LED
light sources, suggesting that the cost would be comparable to the HID light source in the
specifications. Staff is open to the possible use of a different light source in the Downtown
fixtures.
The current Downtown Pedestrian Lighting standard calls for a product that is manufactured by
Lumec Corp. The Council accepted that standard for use after a long evaluation process. Lumec is
currently working on an LED light source for their fixtures, as well as another HID light source
B2-3
Downtown Maintenance an.-deatification Page 4
that uses the same energy as an LED. Staff realizes that there are several manufacturers that are
willing to provide an LED light source for the Downtown Pedestrian lights in the form of a
completely new post top head and globe, but they would not precisely match the Lumec standard.
If Council decides to re-scope and rebid the project, staff believes that it will provide the
opportunity for the current manufacturer to provide a light source that will save the City money
over time, and be identical to the Council approved light standards. If that does not occur, staff
will present to the Council the most closely matching substitutes light sources that will be more
energy efficient.
Bid Results
The City Manager approved the plans and specifications for the Downtown Maintenance and
Beautification project on February 3, 2011. The project was advertised on February 5, 2011 and
four bids were received on February 23, 2011. For this project the low bidder was determined by
the lowest Total Bid (Base Bid plus all alternates) received. In this case, Vinciguerra Construction
of Jackson, California submitted the lowest Total Bid of $898,009 including all alternates and a
Base Bid of$667,700. Vinciguerra Construction's Base Bid is approximately 15% or$87,700 over
the Engineer's Estimate of$580,000. Refer to Attachment 4 for the Bid Summary.
The Base Bid scope of work included all of the elements approved by Council at its June 15, 2010,
meeting with the exception of the news racks. At the Council's request several bid alternates were
also included in the bid. These included additional trash cans along Higuera at a cost of $20,000;
additional pole painting along Higuera at a cost of$27,500, and the inclusion of conduits and pull
boxes to each tree along the three blocks to accommodate future tree lighting at a cost of$230,000.
Staff had anticipated higher costs than usual because of the stiff requirements imposed in the
contract for working downtown; however, bids still came in unexpectedly high. Some unit costs
came in near the Estimate, but others were significantly over. Staff attributes the high cost largely
to the difficulties of working downtown, requiring night work, limited work areas; and tightly
controlled daily cleanup and access requirements. The number of alternatives may also have
driven unit prices up, as contractors were left uncertain as to the actual scope of work that would
finally be awarded, and needed to be prepared to manage a project of significant scope.
Bid Options for Council to Consider
In deciding how the project should be re-scoped for future bidding, the Council could direct staff
to focus on the following:
1. Revise the project to be a Lighting Only project. Within the three-block project site, adding
Downtown pedestrian lights per the adopted plan and conduit for future tree lighting would
cost approximately $470,000 total.
2. .Revise the project to make low impact improvements only. The scope of work would
upgrade signs and sign posts, bike racks, trash cans and street light pole painting from Broad
to Morro for a cost of approximately $100,000 total. If the area to be upgraded was from
Nipomo to Santa Rosa it would cost approximately $200,000 total. This option would not
include sidewalk replacement.
3. Revise the project to make Safety/maintenance improvements only. The scope of work
would include two large tree removals, custom grates for all oversized tree wells, limited
sidewalk work to accommodate the custom tree grates and address drainage and tripping
B2-4
Downtown Maintenance anv Beatification Page 5
issues from raised and bulging, sidewalks, and the sidewalk-over-basement work at 858
Higuera for a cost of approximately $250,000 total.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends rejecting all bids, modifying the bid documents in order to down size the project
to a 2-block length (Morro to Garden) and rebidding the project for a January 2012 construction
schedule. If the City were to move forward with the current bid, the project budget would need to
be augmented with approximately $135,000 in additional funding to cover the base project costs
and contingences. Given the demand for capital investment in city-owned assets, it is a policy
decision whether to dedicate an additional $135,000 to this project. Staff believes once a
comparative analysis of potential uses of the added funding this project requires is completed, it
will be determined that there are projects with greater needs than this project. Staff does not
recommend adding more funds to the budget for this project as bid. Instead, if Council wishes to
continue pursuing the project, staff recommends revising the bid alternates to allow the option of
awarding a project of a lesser scope. Staff is recommending shifting of the improvements between
Broad and Garden from the Base Bid to a bid alternate. At the time the project is awarded the City
could move forward with a down scaled two-block project or award a larger three-block project if
bids allowed the alternative to be added.
Construction Timing
Revising the scope of the project and rebidding in the fall will allow construction to start in
January 2012, after the holiday season, with construction likely to finish in April, depending on the
weather conditions.
The advantages of a winter/spring 2012 construction project include:
I. Fewer impacts to downtown businesses by doing the work during the less busy winter season
and not impacting their traditional busy summer season; however impacts could also increase
due to weather related issues as discussed below.
2. Possible lower bid prices as contractors rebid the project during their traditionally slower
winter period.
3. Allows business owners that have indicated a desire to install bulb outs more time for them to
submit their projects for approval and coordinate the work around the City's project.
The only advantage to moving forward with a summer/fall 2011 construction schedule is favorable
weather, which would allow the contractor to progress with fewer weather delays. However, this
would be offset by the pressure on the contractor to keep the job site accessible and clean along
with an increased volume of pedestrians and events during the summer months, all of which create
an inefficient operation causing the project to last much longer.
CONCURRENCES
The Downtown Association has expressed support for this project in the past, and as stated in the
discussion, its board has recommended that the City delay the project until January 2012.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project comes from a combination of maintenance and upgrade Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) projects approved for the Downtown as part of the 2009-11 Financial
B2-5
Downtown Maintenance anu Beatification % Page 6
Plan. While the funding was originally approved for individual projects, Council's direction was
to combine the budgets and approach the work as one project. There is currently $20,419
remaining in the design phase and $597,004 remaining in the construction phase of the project
accounts. The current estimated project costs are shown below:
Available Design Budget: $20,419
Estimated Design Phase Costs:
Printing, Adv&Misc $1,000
Basement Design Allowance $8,000
Total Design Costs: $9,000
Remaining Design Balance $11,419
Available Construction Phase Balance: $597,004
Available Budget for Construction $608,423
Archaeological monitoring $7,500
Available for Construciton Contract&Contingencies $600,923
Construction Contract $546,294
Contingencies @ 10% $54,629
Total Construction Costs $600,923
As shown above, in order to stay within the remaining available project budget, a project must be
awarded for no more than $546,294 and still allow for a reasonable contingency of 10%. Staff will
revise the bid documents and craft a new project scope based on the current bids received that will
allow a project to be awarded within this amount.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Move forward with current low bid. Direct staff to move forward with awarding a
contract to Vinciguerra Construction for the Base Bid and augment the project budget
with $135,000 in order to cover project costs and start construction this spring.
2. Pursue a different work scope. Council could direct staff reject bids and pursue a
different work scope than what was approved by Council at their June 15, 2010. Several
examples of re-scoping are discussed earlier in the report.
3. Cancel project. Direct staff to reject bids and restore funding to the original project
budgets to support maintenance and minor upgrades in the Downtown.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Agenda Report—February 23, 2010
2. Council Agenda Report—June 15,.2010
3. Downtown Association letter of December 14, 2010
4. Bid Summary
ocouncil agenda reports\public works cai1201 I\cip\90979 downtown maintenance-beautification\car dt beautification reject-rebid.doc
B2-6
ATTACHMENT 1
Council M'°`o"` February 23,2010
j acenaa RepoRt �N
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Robert Horch,Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION UPDATE
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Receive an update on the progress of the Council's "Other Important Objective" for
Downtown Maintenance and Beautification.
2. Give direction to staff on the desired approach to making physical improvements at locations
in the Downtown.
DISCUSSION
Background
One of the Council's "Other Important Objectives" in the 2009-11 Financial Plan is expanding
Downtown maintenance and beautification efforts. (See Attachment l)The intent was to enhance
the maintenance and beautification of the Downtown through reprioritization of projects, new
partnerships, clearer standards and design guidelines, and improved internal and external
communications. Specifically Downtown signage, solid waste collection, tree maintenance, news
rack management, street furniture and other enhancements of existing City infrastructure were to
be considered and reviewed. To a great extent, this objective was inspired by current Chamber of
Commerce CEO Dave Garth, who made a presentation on maintenance conditions in the
Downtown to the Council during goal setting for the 2009-11 Financial Plan. In addition, to
improve continuity and communication, the City's Parking Manager was designated as the
"Downtown Champion"as part of this Other Important Council Objective.
The action plan for this objective consists of three areas: reviewing existing design guidelines or
standards; funding Downtown improvements; and enhancing communication through the use of
the new Downtown Champion. To accomplish this action plan staff scheduled walking tours to
observe some of the issues that were originally identified and to brainstorm how to effectively
use allocated funding to address these issues.
This report updates Council on what has been done,thus far,presents alternatives on the scope of
this Other Important Council Objective, and gives Council the opportunity to provide direction to
staff on how to proceed from this point on.
Value of Investing in the Downtown with these improvements
Staff recognizes the importance of investing in improvements for the Downtown. It serves as a
major tourist attraction and "community center", with Thursday Night Promotions activities, a
concentration of retail stores, restaurants, and cultural activities. The age of the Downtown
B2-7
ATTACHMENT 1
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Update Page 2
infrastructure also makes it a logical candidate for improvement, as some of the sidewalks and
other features are more than fifty years old, alongside some features that are less than a year old.
With a consistent and regular program of improvements, Council can ensure that the Downtown
Will "look"fresher as the years go by.
What's been done so far?
Walking Tours of Downtown by Staff and Stakeholder Representatives
The first walking tour occurred in September 2009 and included staff from Public Works,
Community Development, Administration, and Finance. Staff walked, observed and discussed a
wide range of issues including Mission style sidewalks, tree grates, tree supports, bicycle racks,
trash cans, sign posts, light posts, signal posts, utility boxes, news racks, tree removals, city-
owned planters near sidewalks, and parking lots. Staff observed areas where our current
standards and guidelines were working, and which ones needed to be revised or newly
developed. Staff followed up this walk with a series of meetings to discuss scheduled projects
and to determine if we could improve some areas within currently allocated budgets.
To provide valuable input from other Downtown stakeholders, a second walk was scheduled in
October that included Deborah Cash from the Downtown Association, Dave Garth from the
Chamber of Commerce and graphics designer and prior Downtown Association President (and
member of the team that developed the "Downtown Concept Plan") Pierre Rademaker. The
same list of maintenance and aesthetic improvements was discussed and observed in the
Downtown. The main areas of concern that came from this walk were news racks, trash cans,
and sign posts. Deborah Cash additionally recommended that the City should look into
providing public art on traffic control boxes like she had observed in the City of Ventura. Staff
has been interested in some concept of public art for the Downtown since the "Trout about
Town"project ended several years ago.
Architectural Review Commission
The Director of Public Works, the Downtown Champion, and Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, met
with the City's Architectural Review Commission on December 7, 2009 to provide them with an
update of Downtown Beautification efforts.
Review of Existing Standards
One of the first items in the action plan for this objective was to make an inventory of the
existing standards for the Downtown. Community Development did an inventory of downtown
standards to determine where either updates or new standards needed to be prepared. The list of
new standards needed was narrowed down to news racks and trash/recycling cans. Community
Development staff will present a preview of selected standards for the ARC's consideration in
March 2010. Having the standards fully clarified will provide staff with the guidelines they need
to ensure that consistency'in application takes place in the future.
Wineman Hotel Improvements
With the recent renovation to the Wineman Hotel, associated improvements were made to the
public right-of-way including Mission-style sidewalks, bulb-outs, benches and pedestrian lights.
These recent upgrades provided a good opportunity to use the block as a demonstration block for
B2-8
ATTACHMENT 1
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Update Page 3
additional street furniture enhancements. To this end, City staff has ordered a consolidated news
rack enclosure and two trash cans to install in this block to provide further examples of types of
street finniture that the City may want to consider as new standards depending on the reaction to
them once they are installed. The value of these installations now is to make visible
improvements that can be used for evaluating how the standards look together,and make it easier
to make a decision than only imagining what they would look like.,
Public Works Maintenance Improvements
Public Works maintenance staff recently completed the repainting of traffic signal poles in the
downtown. It had been several years since this work was last done. Constant application and
subsequent removal of stickers caused the poles to lose their paint and take on a patchwork
appearance. This work is separate from the street light painting which is needed where poles are
rusting and faded.
A tree removal and sidewalk replacement project was also recently completed. According to the
Downtown Urban Forest Management Plan, this project removed trees that were determined to
be in decline or have the potential for major limb failure. The sidewalk was then replaced with
new Mission Style sidewalk, a new tree planted, and new tree grates and tree guards installed.
Parking Lot Improvements
Parking staff decided to begin some minor but effective beautification efforts using the current
Parking operating budget. Significant landscaping improvements have been made adjacent to
several City parking lots. Parking staff worked with other Public Works staff to find two water
leaks that were causing a lack of water to plant materials in two parking lots. These water leaks
were fixed within our existing budget in one case, the other one was fixed by a contractor who
had caused the leak. Parking staff removed dead plant material, amended the soil, and replanted
several landscape beds in parking Lot 2 on Broad Street and Lots 3 and 11 near Monterey Street.
The labor and costs were kept within the current Parking operations budget and the beds are
refreshed and aesthetically pleasing once again.
Parking Staff is obtaining estimates for repairing masonry work for damaged planters in all
Downtown parking lots. Once those bids are in, staff will determine whether the work can be
done within the current budget and if not, figure out how to fund the work.
Where to from here?
As noted in the objective, the Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce have
envisioned implementation of this objective a bit differently. The Downtown Association has
supported moving forward with the improvements where they could make the most impact or are
most needed, for example, to complete a block of nearly finished Mission Sidewalk, or place
lights in areas where it is dark.The Chamber of Commerce has approached the objective with the
idea of, one block at a time, bringing everything in that block up to standard. Direction from the
Council is needed so that staff can move forward to implement the approved strategy from a
series of alternative strategies including those supported by the Downtown Association or
Chamber as well as others outlined below.
81 -3
B2-9
ATTACHMENT 1
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Update Page 4
1. Implement a block by block approach to the improvements but start with a
demonstration block. This would involve bringing the infrastructure (sidewalk, lights, tree
wells, etc.) up to standard on a selected block or blocks. Council would need to decide which
block would receive this treatment, and then staff would go back and create a project or projects
reallocating the available funding. One of the advantages to this approach is that there would be a
greater visual impact once the improvements were made. A disadvantage to this approach would
be that only a relatively small area of the Downtown would be improved in the next two years.
On the other hand, ongoing funding is anticipated in future years; and a clear idea of the benefits
of making improvements these types of improvements is likely to help sustain support for doing
SO.
2. Sprinkle the improvements throughout the Downtown. This approach would involve
deciding which infrastructure elements were to be improved, and then creating a project to
replace all of them in the Downtown. The advantage to this approach is that if Council has a
particular item that they feel very strongly about (such as news racks), then a project can be
created that would replace all of them in the Downtown. One disadvantage is that once the
improvements are in place, it may not be as apparent to the observer that much work was done.
3. Combine the first two approaches. This approach could involve focused improvements to
one block in particular as well as throughout Downtown. One way to accomplish it would be to
utilize the improvements on the Wineman block as the "block" application, and decide several
other specific items that will significantly improve the aesthetics in the Downtown to replace
throughout Downtown. The question for the Council will be selecting the items) that would be
prioritized as having the most impact so staff could then implement these improvements.
However the task of identifying specific items to replace may be made easier by the fact that
there are four items (news racks, trash cans, tree wells, and sign posts) that were identified in
both the walking tours and original Council write up for the objective as needing urgent
attention. It is staffs recommendation that these items be given special consideration for
funding. Examples of news racks and trash cans were installed adjacent to the recently completed
Wineman project to give Council an idea of what could be done.
1. News racks
News racks were identified in the original Council report as an aesthetic issue because of how
poorly maintained they were by the publication owners who place them downtown. Many of the
installed news racks were observed to be broken, marked by graffiti, and layered with stickers
and advertisements. The installations within the right-of-way were also problematic with some
bolted down to the sidewalk, some chained to other racks, and some free-standing. Beyond
aesthetics, safety concerns were also noted with the installations of news racks. In several
locations the placement of the news racks were impeding pedestrian access or placed in areas that
competed with other street furniture like benchesandbicycle racks. Staff has researched the idea
of creating a news rack ordinance for the Downtown that would allow publications to be
distributed from a consistent style container. The City Attorney has found several other cities that
have adopted a similar ordinance, installed uniform containers at specifically allowed locations
and then via a permit allowed the publications to be distributed at those specified locations. This
practice is a permissible as it sets standards for the "time, place and manner" of distribution of
b �—�
B2-10
ATTACHMENT 1
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Update Page 5
publications without regard to the content of publications. An alternative is to set time, place and
manner standards about the distribution of publications in containers selected by the publishers..
This might centralize the distribution locations and could establish a standard for installing the
containers,but it would not have a significant impact on the aesthetic issues.
2. Trash Cans
Another item identified in the original Council report and on the walking tours were our current
trash cans. Our current trash cans meet a dual purpose of collecting trash and recycling.
Formerly the City tried using two separated receptacles for trash and recycling,but found that the
trash and recycling became comingled and was all just thrown away. The City Utilities
Department worked together with our trash franchisee to develop the current trash can with its
combination recycle top and area for trash below. This design has worked well functionally, but
aesthetically is not very attractive or complementary to other street f imiture. Staff has worked
with the manufacturer of the Downtown Memorial Benches to come up with a complementary
version,which is installed near the Wineman Hotel on Higuera Street.
3. Oversize Tree Wells
Another item that was identified during the walking tours and highlighted in Dave Garth's
presentation to Council was the oversize tree wells ,that have been created during attempts to
repair sidewalk around some of the more mature trees''in the Downtown. These installations have
resulted in large open dirt areas that are difficult to maintain. A potential fix is to use the new tree i
grate standards alongside the large trees to cover the dirt area and still allow water to soak into
the soil.
4. Signpost including light posts)
Another often mentioned problem was the combination of the old "P"posts and assorted square
galvanized punch posts throughout the Downtown. These posts primarily have regulatory and
informational signage on them. The "P" posts are not straight, are difficult to maintain and the
new standard is for forest green square punch posts.
Downtown Association Recommendation
The Downtown Association Executive Board had an opportunity to discuss their ideas on
Downtown beautification issues with the Downtown Champion at their monthly meetings. The
Board's position initially was to not concentrate improvements in a demonstration block, rather
spread the benefits throughout the Downtown. At the January 2010 meeting the Board voted to
recommend that the City set lighting for trees and poles as the highest priority for Downtown
improvements. The reasoning was that it would help stimulate a nighttime economy and provide
for increased safety. Another suggestion was that the City conduct a nighttime walking tour since
the previous walks were during the daytime.
Staff has in the past responded to the request to supply power to the light poles in the Downtown.
The City's practice in the past has been to not allow street light power to be used for other
purposes because the lighting is paid for on a flat rate rather than being metered and paid for by
the amount used. Lighting circuits will also require metered services which will add to clutter
downtown.
B2-11
ATTACHMENT 1
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Update Page 6
Supplying light to the base of the trees presents several challenges,but years ago, PG&E allowed
the City to install a few outlets at the tops of street lights and connect tree lighting during the
holidays. PG&E felt this would take a minimal amount of power. Getting a lighting circuit to
each tree will require installing underground conduit to each tree. This could be done when
pedestrian level lighting circuits are installed to reduce costs. The other challenge for such an
installation is the growth of the tree. If the outlet is placed at the base of the tree, it will be subject
to damage, such as that experienced by the sidewalk, as the root system and trunk grow. Damage
could be significant enough to break the wiring loose, creating a potential danger because of the
"hot"wire. If the City opts to pursue this option, careful planning will be needed to minimize the
challenges and make arrangements with PG&E to separately meter and pay for the power.
FISCAL IMPACT
The table below is what has been programmed for the current and next fiscal years. The 2009-11
Financial Plan, page B-78, provides a total of$863,000 over the two year period to support this
objective, in addition to staff time for standard review and other downtown support activities.
Projects related to the downtown are currently identified as separate projects and funded that
way. Staff can implement the projects for either of the alternatives presented, although,funding is
limited and it may not be possible to achieve a full block of improvements depending upon the
site chosen. The Council could also take the available funding and decide that one of the items,
for example street lighting or sidewalk upgrades, were the most important and apply more
funding to that item from the objective's total funding.
One thing that has come out of the review efforts with both staff and outside parties is that small
items such as news racks,sign posts, and trash receptacles are not funded for replacement. Given
the very challenging fiscal circumstances facing the City, we recommend prioritizing desired
improvements like these within existing funding levels.
Because the funds programmed are from several sources, not all would be available for the
improvements selected. For example, the utility line replacement projects, $151,000 in total,
could not be re-programmed for a General Fund use. Also, the parking lot projects, $122,000 in
total, could not be re-programmed either based on previous City Policy. The remaining amount
of$590,000 is still a significant amount for improvements in the Downtown, and could be used
as the Council best sees fit to proceed.
� r- 6�0
B2-12
ATTACHMENT
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Update Page 7
Cost SUMMMT
Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Informational Signage 25,000 50,000
Pedestrian Light Installation 70,000
Mission Sidewalk Installation 25,000 25,000
Downtown Urban Forest Plan 25,000 25,000
Warden Bridge Deck Rehabilitation 45,000
Street Light Pole Repainting 50,000 50,000
Parking Lot Resurfacing 122,000
Street Resurfacing 200,000
Utility Line Replacement 151,000
Total $0 $0 $643,000 1 $220,000
Funding Sources
Operating Programs Capital huprovement Plan
2009710 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
General Fund 370,000 220,000
Parking Fund 122,000
Water Fund 65,000
Sewer Fund 86,000
Total so $0 $643,000
CONCURRENCES
The Downtown Association has been consulted and is in favor of making improvements in the
Downtown. The Chamber of Commerce has also been actively involved in these discussions and
is in favor of making improvements in the Downtown. Both organizations believe that improving
the Downtown experience will have a positive impact on the City's economy in the long term.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Make no further investment in improvements for the Downtown. Staff believes that there
is sufficient energy and motivation for this Objective to be achieved, and that deferral will
only lead to amore rum-down look in the Downtown.
2. Select other improvements or another approach to address the needs to improve the
Downtown. Council members or other interested members of the community may have
other ideas about how this objective should be tackled. Staff could be directed to explore
those ideas and brought back to the Council or the new approach could be adopted by the
Council.
ATTACHMENT
Other Important Council Objective—Downtown Maintenance and Beautification
�t T
B2-13
• ATTACHMENT 1
DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION ATTACHMENT
OBJECTIVE
Expand Downtown beautification efforts to include enhanced maintenance and cleanliness,a review and upgrade
of standards and phased physical improvements.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Workscope
This work program is intended to enhance the maintenance and beautification of,the Downtown.through a.
reprioritization of proiects,me*partnerships, clearer standards and design guidelines, and improved inertial and
external communication. More specific program components include improvements in signage, solid waste
collection, tree maintenance, news rack management, street furniture,and.other enhancements of existing City
infrastructure in the Downtown. In addition, it is recommended to assure more consistency in actual
implementation of improvements and better communication internally and externally with stakeholders that.one
staff member be assigned as the Downtown"champion".
Background
The Downtown.is generally considered the center of the City. It is an attraction for tourists and an important part
of community life. It also plays a significant role from an economic perspective,by supporting sales tax:revenues
in its role as a regional shopping draw, and enhancing'our transient occupancy tax revenues as a result of
{ ) prolonged tourist stays. In addition, the Downtown's many restaurants, movie theatres, and historical offerings
provide a hub for social.and cultural activity and gatherings.
Existing Situation.and Work Completed
The City Council approved Major City Goals for the Downtown in the 1999-0I and 2007-09 Financial Plans.
Work in past years has included street resurfacing, installation of pedestrian lights, new Mission Style sidewalks,
and other minor improvements.
During the last two years,work has continued on the goal of improving the downtown. Utility line replacements
and street reconstruction work occurred. Stairs in the Mission Plaza were replaced and tile repairs were made to
sections of Mission Style.sidewalk. New trees were planted with a new style of tree grate to replace trees. that
were removed. A block of pedestrian level lighting was installed on Higuera'Street to showcase the newly
adopted light standard Staff resources were devoted to keeping the Downtown cleaned up through more frequent
sidewalk scrubbing as well as a one-half time temporary employee cleaning up each morning.
Staff.has also worked with the Downtown Association to complete their Strategic Plan and evaluation of
alternative organizational forms. The Downtown Association has also become independent from the City to
allow it greater freedom to achieve its goals. Tourism and special event promotion is also ongoing,to attract
tourists to the City.
The Police Department continues to support the efforts of the Downtown Association with safety and criminal
issues. In the parking program, maintenance of surface lots and structures occurred. Work continues towards
i Provide bicycle parking options downtown as well as more marketing of parking options.
B2-14
i
w
DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION ATTACHMENT
One of the largest work efforts for both staff and the Council was the review and adoption of the building height
regulations. Staff continues to work with development to implement the Downtown Physical Concept Plan and
encourage housing in the Downtown.
WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS
The maintenance projects are:not anticipated to require specialized review and should proceed readily. Paving
and utility line work is often disruptive and will require the cooperation of the Downtown Association to proceed
smoothly and get the message out. Staff will complete project specific outreach for these projects.
Design standards, solid waste issues and informational signage are expected to generate considerable interest
from the business community and wan-ant outreach efforts to include the Downtown Association and the
Chamber of Commerce, along with specifically interested businesses and members of the Architectural Review
Committee. Staff anticipates workshops and regular meetings to encourage community involvement in any
changes to the current standards and guidelines.
STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholders for this goal are the residents of the City, downtown businesses, the Downtown Association, City
Advisory Bodies,and visitors to downtown including: tourists,shoppers,and parking customers,both automobile
and bicycle.
While the various stakeholders are interested in what the City does,staff has met with representatives of both the
Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce to determine what role they can play in promoting this
objective. Staff will involve both these groups to discuss implementation options, covering both costs and
sequencing,to be presented to the City Council. Both groups have expressed particular interests as follows:
1.The Downtown Association.
The Downtown Association recognizes.that these are tough times and that the basics,such as sidewalk scrubbing,
daily trash and graffiti cleanup,and tree maintenance are key maintenance activities for the City to continue. The
Association is very interested in working with the City on a donor program for pedestrian lighting as this the
Chamber of Commerce. In addition .to collaborating with the City on design guidelines, the Downtown
Association will assist the City in identifying the areas that need the most maintenance to better focus our
resources. To supplement the City's efforts, the Downtown Association work with the City Arborist as the
"Downtown Foresters"where they help with small tree care will continue. Finally, independent of the City,the
Association will continue with other independent support services,such as private security and events to promote
the health and vitality of the downtown..
,2.The Chamber Commerce.
The Chamber of Commerce has identified key ways it will support the implementation of this objective. On
example is the Chamber's strong desire to developing uniformity in street furniture. The Chamber has suggested
that upgrading an entire block with the newly approved standards, could be a good way to "kick start" such a
beautification effort. The Chamber intends to educate business owners on such things as cleaning, solid waste
management, and maintenance of decorative pots. Improvement on these items not only benefits the Downtown
but also translates into improvements in water quality in line with the City's Stormwater Management program.
The Chamber has also volunteered to take the lead in an outreach effort to news rack owners to encourage their
support of a consolidated news rack approach. _
B2-15
• ATTACHMENT 1
OTHER IMPORTANTOBJECTIVES
DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION ATTACHMENT
ACTION PLAN
1.Review of Existing Design Guidelines.
The work program proposes to start with a review of the documents that guide the appearance of the downtown.
That effort will involve not only City staff but members of the community and City advisory bodies. From this
initial review will follow a proposal of how to get to where the City wants to be for the appearance of the
Downtown and what that effort is likely to cost. One notable area that will be reviewed is news rack clutter. A
consistent news rack design and possible locations for consolidation will be developed for the Council to review,
and if appropriate, a trial installation funded. There have also been some indications that proper management of
trash and recyclables is also a maintenance issue downtown. The specific concerns.about those solid waste
issues will be identified so that staff has a.clear understanding of the concerns and can then develop a way to
address them.
2.Maintenance Work.
Maintenance work, such as sidewalk repairs, Mission Sidewalk installation, tree well upgrade and planting,
repainting of light poles and replacement of others with updated standards, is also recommended for finding in
the 2009-11 budget.. The tree well and lighting standards are recent adoptions, so changes to these standards are
not anticipated. Ongoing sidewalk scrubbing and general trash and graffiti removal will also continue.
3.Communications Enhancements and Downtown Champion
Staff has discussed possible options to ensure the Downtown Association and local businesses continue to have a
positive flow of information to,and from,the City. There are a variety of ways that communication occurs now.
For construction projects, engineering staff complete outreach to the Downtown Association and businesses. To
schedule construction projects and get the word out, engineering staff has spoken at Downtown breakfasts and
attended Board meetings as well as providing simple email updates to be included in the Downtown Association
newsletter. Maintenance issues are called directly in to the Public Works Corporation Yard so that response time
is reduced to the minimum. The maintenance staff person downtown on a regular basis is a familiar face and can
be contacted directly. Questions or requests for City resources outside the current agreement are handled by the
Economic Development Manager and reviewed with affected departments. This gives the Downtown
Association a single point of contact when they wish to adjust previously agreed upon services. The Economic
Development Manager also regularly attends Board meetings and.can serve to bring back any concerns to the
departments.
Generally,these strategies appear to be providing the needed links for information and communications with the
Downtown Association. However, staff-proposes designating the Public Works Department Parking Services
Manager as the principal staff contact for the City for Downtown oriented communications and activities. With
the focus of this program and their physical location in the Marsh Street Garage,this person will be available as a
conduit to the City when concerns arise or information is needed, and to help ensure consistent standards are
followed when repairs or upgrades are undertaken.
-W- RUM.
1. Assemble all current downtown design guidelines and standards. 8/09
c
2. Working with the Architectural Review Commission,review the current guidelines and standards and 3/10
revise or confirm the public improvement design strategy for the downtown including street furniture,
trash and recycling containers,and regulatory signage,for Council consideration.
-10
B2-16
DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION ATTACHMENT
NEEL"=
3. Develop costs,spending options,and sequencing options to bring the downtown up to the new 4/10
standards.
4. Develop a design and identify possible locations fora centralizcd news rack enclosure to 3/10
accommodate a range of different papers in a consolidated and uniform manner,for Council
consideration,and possible fimding approval.
5. Install a block of pedestrian level lighting and fill in portions of Mission Style Sidewalk 6/1.1
6. Develop a coordinated program for the City informational and directional signage and recommend 12/10
implementation plan.
J
7. Identify solid waste issues with the Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce and develop a 6/11
work plan to address them.
8. Provide sidewalk scrubbing service and daily cleanup maintenance work Ongoing
9. Implement the Downtown Tree Management Plan Ongoing
10.Complete Warden Bridge resurfacing project 4/10
11.Complete downtown street and parking lot resurfacing projects 4/11
12.Complete water and sewerline replacements 4/11
13.Complete painting of existing street light poles 6/11.
KEY WORK PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS
Facility maintenance costs are based on recent bids and account for funding currently anticipated to be available
to complete the work. Anticipation of seasonal work has framed the year in which certain work will be
accomplished,rather than the year of actual funding. Delivery of the work program'assumes that staff reductions
are not so severe as to hamper delivery of the various tasks.
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS
In coordination with the Parking Services Manager,Community Development will take the lead in reviewing and
updating design standards and guidelines. Public Works will also assist where the standards relate to
construction details. Public Works will take the lead on the facility maintenance work needed to complete the
goal. Utilities will be a partner in this area where it relates to their pipe systems. The Utilities Department will
take the lead for solid waste issues working with the Downtown Association and the Chamber. Administration
�1-! I
B247
ATTACHMENT 1
DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION ATTACHMENT
will take the lead on the implementation of an informational sign program in coordination with the Promotional
Committee and assistance from Public Works for installation efforts.
FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL
Cost Summary
Operatinj Programs, Capital lm pcut plan
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Informational Signage 25,000 50,000
Pedestrian Light Installation 70,000
Mission Sidewalk Installation 25,000 25,000
Downtown Urban Forest Plan 25,000 25,000
Warden Bridge Deck Rehabilitation 45,000
Street Light Pole Repainting 50,000 50,000
Parking Lot Resurfacing 122,000
Street Resurfacing 200,000
Utility Line Replacement . 151,000
Total $0 $0 $643,000 1 $220,000
Funding Sources
Operating Programs Capital Imp rovement Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010.11
General Fund 370,000 220,000
Parking Fund 122,000
Water Fund 65,000
Sewer Fuad 86,000
Total $0 $0 $643,000 $220,000
GENERAL FUND REVENUE POTENTIAL
A healthy,vital,and attractive Downtown may result in stronger sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenues.
OUTC014IE—FINAL WORK PRODUCT
A robust, attractive, and healthy Downtown is vital to its continued success as the retail, social, and visitor hub
for San Luis Obispo. The on-going maintenance activities by the City are a key component to keeping the
Downtown clean and therefore healthy. Not only does it enhance the Downtown to visitors but.it continues to
position it as the place to be for our residents.
31 - 1a
B2-18
ATTACHMENT 2
council M�
j acEn6a Repoizt �Numb" rd3
CITYOF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Works Direct"
Betsy Kiser, Director of Parks and Recr��- ���yyy�ea�y',���n�fj�
Prepared By: Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer
Shannon Bates,Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve work scope Option 1 which includes completing improvements on three blocks of
Higuera Street from Morro to Broad and direct staff to proceed with preparation of
construction documents.
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve the plans and specifications for advertising and
award the construction contract if bids are within the approved budget of$640,000.
3. As recommended by the Capital Improvement Plan Committee, approve funding in the
amount of$34,000 for the downtown utility box public art project.
DISCUSSION
Background
One of the Council's"Other Important Objectives" in the 2009-11 Financial Plan is expanding
Downtown maintenance and beautification efforts. The intent was to enhance the maintenance
and beautification of the Downtown through reprioritization of projects, new partnerships,
clearer standards and design guidelines, and improved internal and external communications.
Specifically, beautification efforts will be focused on downtown signage, solid waste
collection, tree maintenance, news rack management, and other enhancements of existing City
infrastructure.
At the February 23, 2010 Council meeting, staff provided an update on the progress of the
Downtown "Objective" and asked Council for direction and input on the desired
improvements to be made. The Council report is available for review in the Council Reading
File. To summarize,three approaches were suggested by Staff.
1 Implement a block-by-block approach by bringing selected blocks up to standards.
2 Sprinkle improvements throughout the downtown area.
3 Combination of approaches 1 and 2.
For the most part, Council's direction to staff was to first focus improvements on Higuera
particularly the completion of the block containing the Wineman Hotel (Higuera Street, from
Morro to Chorro). If additional funds were available, staff would then provide Council a
"shopping list"of other possible improvements in the downtown.
R .-19
ATTACHMENT 2
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Page 2
Work Scope Options
As shown in the Fiscal Impact section there is approximately $640,000 currently available
from various projects that can be used to support improvements to the Downtown**. Using
this $640,000 target, various work scope scenarios were put together which generally included
"completion" of one or more blocks in the downtown by in-filling areas without Mission
sidewalk, removing and replacing trees as called for in the Urban Management Plan,
upgrading existing tree grates, installing pedestrian lighting, updating trash receptacles and
news racks to new standards, upgrading sign posts to new standards, and painting traffic/light
poles within the block the standard dark green. In addition to completing a block or blocks,
several of the work scopes also included various combinations of improvements outside of the
completed block such as, street light/traffic pole painting, replacement of news racks in the
downtown, upgrading sign posts in the downtown, replacing all the trash cans in the
downtown and providing an allowance for a contingency fund.
**Note: For the purpose of this report and project, the "downtown" is the area bounded by
Santa Rosa, Palm, Nipomo and Marsh. This area is most consistent with the Downtown
Pedestrian Lighting District and the core area of the Mission Sidewalk District.
Four work scope options are provided based on a budget of$640,000. Attachment 1 provides
fora visual overview of the work that could be completed under each option.The work scopes
and costs are only estimates at this time and final details and costs will be refined once the
Council provides guidance on the preferred work scope. Consistent with Council's prior
direction, all four concepts focus on Higuera Street. All options include completion of the
block containing the Wineman Hotel. The four options are summarized as follows:
tion 1 - Completes three consecutive blocks on Higuera Street from Morro to Broad. No
other miscellaneous improvements are identified out side of these three blocks. This option
provides for a contingency of$40,000.
Option 2 — Completes two blocks of Higuera from Morro to Garden. This option provides
further attention to Higuera Street by also upgrading of all sign posts, replacement of all trash
cans and painting of all street light and traffic poles along a six block stretch of Higuera from
Santa Rosa to Nipomo. It also includes replacement of all news racks in the downtown and
provides for a$15,000 contingency.
Option 3 — Also completes two blocks on Higuera from Monro to Garden as in Option 2.
Rather than focusing additional improvement on the six block stretch of Higuera, additional
improvements are spread throughout downtown by upgrading all of the sign posts and all of
the news racks in the downtown. This option provides for a$50,000 contingency.
tion 4 — Completes one block on Higuera from Morro to Chorro. The remaining
improvements include all news racks, trash cans, sign post upgrades in the downtown as well
as inspection and painting of ten light poles. This.option provides for a$60,000 contingency.
Staff recommends Option 1 as it most closely meets Council's direction to complete blocks on
Higuera. Completing these three blocks, as opposed to spreading the improvements throughout
b3 _a
B2-20
ATTACHMENT
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Page 3
downtown, will allow a more focused evaluation of the completed product, including news
racks and trash cans, and allow modifications and adjustments to be made before moving
forward with more improvements. This option, as well as Options 2 and 3, will provide much
needed lighting in the block of Chorro to Garden - one of the "darkest" streets in downtown
and will result in three consecutive completed blocks of lighting not to mention three
consecutive blocks of Mission sidewalk.
The matrix shown below summarizes the four work scopes. Council may choose the
recommended Option 1 or any of the other "packaged" work scopes or Council may select
other combinations. To help with this, approximate estimates are given for each item for use
by Council in the event Council chooses to swap items or include items (increase the budget)
or eliminate items(reduce the budget) from the work scope.
so- . :34>.x
Hi era-Morro to Chorro(W ineman)_ _ $ 200,000 X X X X
Hi era-Chorro to Garden $ 200,000 X X X
e Hi -era-Garden to Broad $ 200,000 X
Higuera-Osos to Morro $ 200,000
w' News Racks-Replace all in DT-22f $ 130,000 X X X
Sign Post Upgrade (Hi era Only) X
r
Sign Post Upgrade-Replace all in DT-200t $ 70,000 X _ X
Street/Traffic Light Pole Painting(Higuera Only) X
:t Street Light Inspection&Painting 10 Poles $ 50,000 X
Trash Receptacles (Hi uera Only) X
Trash Receptacles-Replace all in DT-77t $ 140,000 X
Contingency/Seed Money/Matching Funds $40K $15K $50K $60K
n �JEstimated Construcion Time(Heavy Construction)
6 mos. 4 mos 4 mos 2 mos
Matrix Notes:
1. Completing these two blocks will result in 3 consecutive completed blocks of pedestrian lights
2. There is overlap in costs between the"block"items and the"miscellaneous"items because some
of the miscellaneous items,such as news racks and poles,etc,are included in both the block cost
and in the miscellaneous cost.
- The News Rack and Trash Receptacle estimates are based on the cost of the items used in
Wineman Hotel demonstration block.
-Location and number of news racks is based on placing the new rack in same general location
as existing. The total number of news racks and the location may change as a news rack
ordinance is developed and adopted.
3. Construction impacts including time of year, daily work hours, etc., will be discussed and
coordinated with the Downtown Association and affected business once the scope of the final
project has been determined by Council.
Contingency Fund.
Staff recommends setting aside a portion of the budget for a contingency fund that can be used
for various reasons; such as, absorbing design or construction costs of "unknowns"
encountered in the project, and/or be available as matching funds. The concept of matching
funds has been used to a small degree in the past few years to leverage City funds with private
property owners to obtain additional improvements at a reduced cost. Property owners
involved with building improvements frequently express an interest in doing more frontage
improvements than are actually required,if the City is Willing to provide some funding toward
the work. In a couple of instances, the City has paid for the installation of curb and gutter, with
B3 -,3
B2-21
ATTACHMENT 2
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Page 4
the property owner paying for the sidewalk. Sidewalk repair budgets have been significantly
reduced and staff has been unable to leverage these changes recently. Another potential use of
contingency funds could be to purchase and install trash cans or paint some of the street light
poles, above and beyond the approved work scope project. The funding could also be used for
the originally proposed Warden Bridge resurfacing. This surface has become uneven and
pedestrian traffic would benefit from its replacement.
Other Work Efforts Affecting the Downtown Projects
Final approval for news rack and trash receptacle standards is underway with the Architectural
Review Committee. Staff will also meet with Pierre Rademaker for feedback on the new
standards prior to final approval. Additionally, the City Attorney's office is working on a
news rack ordinance so that the City can eliminate the individual news rack clusters in favor of
a larger unit available through the City.A draft ordinance is currently circulating for review by
staff. Once internal review is completed it will be circulated for review by external
stakeholders.
Public Art
In January, Council approved several public art projects for funding through the 2009-11
Financial Plan. However, $145,500 remained unallocated from thepublic art fund. At that
time, staff presented several ideas for future use of these funds 1 >'E };
including a utility box public art project that would be tied to the
Downtown Beautification and Enhancement Goal. The proposed
project would enhance 15-17 old and unattractive utility/traffic
control boxes at various high visibility intersections in the ;€
Downtown core. Over the past several months, staff has
consulted with the Downtown Association (DA) to design a
program that could use public art as a strategy to convert these a
"eye sores" into a form of public art while adding to the
beautification efforts taking place in Downtown. Similar {
programs exist in Palo Alto, San Diego, Vista, and El Cajon to
name a few (see Attachment 2 for examples of proposed ;
program). The approximate $2,000 per box would include an
artist stipend and supply voucher as well as cleaning, prepping,
and applying an anti-graffiti top coat. Staff and the DA have begun the conceptual work on a
program entitled "BoxArt". A "BoxArt" Festival that would precede the Savor Centra! Coast
Festival in the Fall would culminate the event with selected artists painting their assigned box in
a festival type atmosphere(similar to the i madonnari festival).
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the Downtown projects comes from a combination of maintenance and upgrade
Capital Improvement Plan projects approved for the Downtown as part of the 2009-11
Financial Plan. While the funding was originally approved for individual projects, Council has
expressed an interest in developing a revised workscope incorporating some of the original
elements along with new ones (i.e. news racks, trash receptacle and sign post upgrades). The
following table summarizes the original allocations and expenses incurred to date with a total
B2-22
ATTACHMENT 2
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Page 5
budget available for this project. As shown below there is $640,000 available to support this
work in the Downtown.
Cost Summary
Capital Improvement Plan
Downtown Projects Spee-No. 2009-10 2010-11
Mission Style Sidewalks 90739 100,000 100,000
Downtown Paving 90942 200,000
Downtown Urban Forest Plan 90759 25,000 25,000
Street Light Paint-Downtown 90944 50,000 50,000
Warden Bridge Deck Rehabilitation 90946 45,000
Pedestrian Light Installation 70,000
Demonstration Equipment&Lighting Expenses (25,000)
Total $395,0001 $245,000 1 640,000
Public Art Fundin 2009-11 GFJ In-Lieu Fund
JUdity Box Pro (Downtown) 01 34,000 1 $34,000
CONCURRENCES
Downtown Improvements. The Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce are in
favor of making improvements in the Downtown. Both organizations believe that improving
the Downtown experience will have a positive impact on the City's economy in the long term.
Staff will be meeting with both organizations prior to the Council meeting to give them an
over view of the work scope options/staff recommendation and to gain their feedback. Once
the scope of work has been determined, both organizations will be contacted for input on how
to lessen impacts and to coordinate construction timelines.
Public Art. The proposed project was developed and recommended by the CIP Review
Committee and subsequently supported by the ArtsObispo Art in Public Places Committee.
Additionally, the Downtown Association has been an avid supporter and would be
significantly involved in the execution of the project(see Attachment 3).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Select another work scope option. Rather than approving staffs recommendation of
Option 1., Council may choose one of the other "prepackaged" options or direct staff to
modify one of these options.
2. Select other improvements or another approach to address the needs to improve the
Downtown. Council members or other interested members of the community may have
other ideas about how this objective should be tackled. Staff could be directed to explore
those ideas and bring an alternative concept back to the Council.
3. Direct funds to another Public Art project. Deny the public art project and redistribute
funds to another public art project or recommend other locations for public art.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work scope Exhibits
ID
B2-23
ATTACHMENT 2
Downtown Maintenance and Beatification Page 6
2. Examples of utility box public art programs
3. Letter from the Downtown Association regarding public art
COUNCIL READING FILE
Council Agenda Report—February 23, 2010
M,mmd1a gendareportsipublicwoftur�2OlMdpL9M79dovrtombeaufificaton4yWntena�X=dtbmufiffmgmwwk=po.dm
B2-24
odsigo S|nj (NOUVON3WWO0310 � N011dO
jo f4|o NOI VQII OV38 9 30NVN31N|W4 NMOINMOO
mmo E
2 | I7
SANTA m#7 SANT ok
!
ƒ
cac
§ \
ƒ e 2 k ° 2
-
« 20 s
$ w
1 !
f f ƒ §
1�91-@-or MOmo7 0
\
\
w
/amW
0m � F
� Ivo £
0 _5 2
\ ¥ \ ° D /
)
� e .
Q ao os /
�
CL :ƒ /
GARDEN ST.
N.BROAD ST. /
S JQ W
BROAD s
/
$)/ $kggt \ k !
. § {
``a�
; . 9�§:ml {
/ 0 _) $
UZ
71 ` \
o\§z22 __os
E6§ _tea ■ � e moos
o55 27$ S
LIN=IwHnVIIV B2-25
o smo sln1 u ,s z NuildO
Jo Ulo `i NOUVOIJunV38 V 30NVN31NIVV4 NMOlNMOa
�,• �_ SANT k ROSA
g w71 2
w y v c O &LU0
0 a. o � ;Z o
® MORRO ST. Ir
O d �-
0
LU On
r O1- z .
w (6W 'To-
! � _ waov
J
' UOQW
jrnJ �u0 Jfnz
fwm ;�
J N Q io.uar.
�QN7 a
W 0 M
x
z
o
o r,
CHO ST. '9.
O CHORRO S00
.
.0
�1^^�
L.l.
ON.BROAD ST.
G
Q�
w BROAD ST.
LU
2
$ _ N
m p z LLI _
w in j GARDEN
Cq��Zm
11
19FRU° . a v NIST. NIPOMO ST.
z co S2 a
CWfliQ°�L�Oz 51$
11N3WHOViiV
B2-26
S|go S|nj uys E NO■ldO
JO &ID = NOS VQII Av38 9 30NVN31N1 W NMOINMOQ
[
SANTA S»ST SANT k ROSA
E ! ! k §
{ \ / \ / / z § B
QLU 3zu $
f eRRos 2 0 00: %§ )It $
k 22s 2k§
# _ f[T _
!
! / / k L `
| ! f7 | §
z
! Roza
§ m�)
e ¢ mo i ®
- ` Sww6
§ lu
« § t; ` Q
3
CL
> | \ k
2 ■
� |
� aom I
0 L \\
� 7omo ST.
¥mot
� ^
k X02
I _.
LU
. § | | w ) k
" �9 � leas § q )
, B)!j
9
£ .
z) ' §k§22§ ■ e ao ST. mmMO sT
k§ a} ZH
B2-27
oc siao sin1 uX-,.. V NOudO
aPC�Q JO /l.10 r N0I1d01=1un X39 V 30NVN31NIVY4 NMOMMOa
l
$ � SANTA ROSA ST. I OSA
g �
}}
II 11 9 11 II Q
N W
O =
a �
MORRO ST. OSOS ST.
aYourt. OHW
MORROS
t. Ivrtrt.
i•
w rn F
a z LU
0
D
CHORR T.
O �
4--j�
CL
Z
OO O
O 0000
n
N.BROAD ST. x ° I-a
U Z
h
Z g
OWW(9
Upy
trUZUJ $
CHORRO S o a w a
WM
0 00 0000
it O BROAD ST.
OgI��fe$pgGp-C-pp- �Y� tn�a
Da0 N n rp C9 A'q'f01, un,
m
w" W" a oui
3 jaZ y ~
Zo' J
Q° 00 O p` z -J¢< < w i
II K Q 2 {pG {p8 2 IL
7Ono
a'
tllE�f''LU t JI E U�c4vi.4ti x
G 3:W W� x F / . '• NIPOMO ST. NIPOMO ST.
WW°HZ Z
Ofo:aazm U
B2-28
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Utility Box oa
San Diejzo El CgjLon
II; R
Vista Palo Alto
.I
t k
J
y �<
ATTACHMENT .1-
F0
-
2 June 2010
To: Shannon Bates,City of SLO Recreation Manager
FA;J& Public Art Coordinator
San Luis-Oinispa From: Deborah Cash,Executive Director
Downtown SLO Downtown Association
Assuc ation
Re: Artist Painted Utility Boxes
PO Box 1402
San Luis Obispo As you know,the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association.Design Committee
Cal fo?nla 93406 became interested in a public art project viewed in Ventura,CA last year when
Phone 805-541-0286 members attended a California Downtown Association conference there. The
Fax 805-781-2647
www.downtownslo.com project,Think Outside the Box,is sponsored by the City of Ventura with the
purpose of transforming that city's utility boxes into valued works of art.
According to their project literature,"Not only will this program improve the
curb appeal of one of California's most enchanting historic cities but also give
artists and sponsors alike an opportunity to add their unique perspective to the
City's public art collection.
In February,2010,you joined members of the Design Committee on a field trip
to Ventura to meet with the city principals involved in the creation and
coordination of Think Outside the Box. Our group was warmly greeted by
representatives from the City's public art program and downtown organizers. We
were given a tour of the program throughout their downtown area—we glimpsed
as well other features that showcase that community's dedication to public art and
downtown enhancements.
Afterward,during a lunch meeting, we learned about how their program was
implemented,paid for,launched,maintained...basically the recipe for how it's
done was provided to us. Needless to say,the excitement generated by this
visually fun and artistically valuable project was infectious and our group was
even more encouraged to learn that you had already looked into this type of
program for Downtown SLO and that funding might be available in the City's
Public Art budget.
Over the past few months,we have met and together worked out a plan that
would in some ways replicate what Ventura has done with its utility boxes,in
essence,our own boxes would be painted by local artists using a variety of
artistic styles and subjects. The committee has named the project"BoxArt"and
this name would be used in the `day of activities"BoxArt Festival"and"Walk
BoxArt"map. Our goal is that on Saturday, September 25,2010, all selected
artists would be painting their boxes in the Downtown area,with the Downtown
Association providing a central location for map distribution,refreshments,
entertainment and information about the project. The date was selected to ensure
the art is complete prior to Sunset Magazine's Savor event the following week
S 3�
B2-30
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT 3
The Design committee and the Board of Directors have a long history of
supporting public art in Downtown,including the Chinatown mural art on the
parking structure, artist painted banners,Cat and the Fiddle,jurying Downtown
art projects,Trout About Downtown and participating in Art in Public Places. We
consider ourselves partners with the City in this respect and have had a good
working relationship on all these projects.Having a new project to look forward
to is exciting and one the committee is willing to provide staff and volunteer
resources,marketing,promotions and event planning towards. We believe we
have worked out a tight but`do-able' timeline that will ensure the project's quick
delivery during good weather and prior to our organization shifting gears for the
holiday season.
Shannon,thanks so much for your interest,support and extra work. We sincerely
hope the City Council will give this project a green light and turn Downtown's
unsightly and `graffiti-tempting' blank utility boxes into fun surprises at every
turn. Paraphrasing from the Ventura project brochure,"the program promises to
bring vibrant color and vitality to Downtown SLO's urban landscape."
Especially in times when people need a little`lift' here and there during the day,
this type of project would deliver cheer and beauty well beyond its investment.
Thanks to everyone involved—in advance—for supporting this exciting and
`paintbrush ready' project.
P 3-13
82-31
ATTACHMENT
14 December 2010
To: Jay Walter,Public Works Director
City of San Luis Obispo
From: Deborah Cash, Executive Director
SLO Downtown Association
Re: Downtown Beautification and Maintenance Project
The Downtown Association Board of Directors in November directed that an ad hoc
committee be formed for the purpose of meeting with city engineer Bridget Fraser to
discuss the preferred timing of construction for the proposed Downtown Beautification
and Maintenance Project.
On December 1, a group of 11 persons, including three board members, discussed the
project with Fraser and project manager Wade Horton for over an hour including
anticipated effects of the project at different times of the year and hours of the day. The
session was very helpful and informative in illustrating the scope of work, insofar as it
has been developed,the expectations and those things that could cause delays, and the
desire to accommodate business hours and access. At the end of the discussion,the
group, whose names and business affiliations are listed below, unanimously agreed upon
a recommendation to forward to the board.
At its regular meeting today,the Board of Directors voted to support the
committee's recommendation,which is:
1. Begin project construction in January 2012.
■ A start date of January 2012 will allow the project to be finished before the
summer, whereas a project that begins this March or later this year could extend
into the period of prime business activity and heavily impact seasonal sales.
° A later start date will give businesses that wish to install bulb outs—at least two
persons at the table indicated an interest in pursuing widening their sidewalks for
outdoor dining—more time for planning, obtaining permits and coordinating
concurrent construction.
° Further, a January 2012 start date would give businesses and the City more time
to work together to develop a plan for delivering wire to the conduit or raising
fiinds to have the lights go active once the project is completed. Everyone also
agreed that lighting should be a major component of the project.
■ Finally, as it appears the initial timeline has now slipped, and could slip further, it
makes most sense to move the date to 2012 and allow the process to move
forward under less pressure.
2. A second, though less desirable, option would be to begin the project this year
in March as anticipated with an end date that does not extend into the summer.
B2-32
i 1
ATTACHMENT 3
There would be some periods within this time that would also need to be construction-
free such as spring break, Mothers Day, Memorial Day weekend and Cal Poly
graduation. This could result in a truncated project.
The group also unanimously supported the idea that construction could occur from 2 AM
— 10 PM daily. Everyone agreed that the most important element of any construction
date chosen is that plenty of advance notice be given so that businesses can be prepared
and plan ahead.
It should be noted the discussion addressed that a later start date could possibly put the
project at risk of being indefinitely postponed. While funding has been approved for the
project, such funding could be reconsidered particularly in light of the City's current
budget that will be closely scrutinized during the upcoming two-year budget planning
sessions. The point was made that serious thought should be given to the long-term
benefit the project could bring for the overall good of Downtown businesses.
The Downtown Association looks forward to working with the City for a successful
outcome on the project that will have the least impacts during the construction period and
the greatest benefit afterward.
Attendees included:
Ron Meier,board member Mothers Tavern(Chairs TNP)
Therese Cron,board member Copeland's Properties (Promotions Committee)
Tres Feltman,board member Hands Gallery (Chairs Economic Activity)
Kristine Tardiff SLO City County Library
Craig Smith CRSA Architecture
Beau Cram The Sock Drawer
Karen English ROMP
Bill Hales Mothers Tavern
Julie Towery Property owner Contessa S..
Brett Butterfield Creeky Tiki
Deborah Cash Downtown Association
cc: SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors
Ad Hoc Committee members
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer
Wade Horton, construction manger, City of SLO
Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager
B2-33
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: BID SUNL__AY SHEET
ProjecDowntown Maintenance&Beautification Spec.No.: 90979 Bid Opening: 23-Feb-I 1
a uma
Bridget Fraser
Estimated follow-up dates: Award: Request for bonds/ins: Pre-job:
Engineer's Estimate Vinciguerra Construction John Madonna Construction Co.Inc.
BD:)ITEM&DESCRIPTION Pismo Beach, CA 93448 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
Base Bid
I OSHA Compliance LS 1 1000.00 $1,000.00 10000.00 _ $10,000.00 1100.00 $1,100.00
2 Traffic Control Plan LS 1 2500.00 $2.500.00 20000.00 - $20,000.00 50775.00 $50,775.00
3 Changeable Message/Arrow Sign EA 1 10000.00 $10.000.00 5000.00 $5.000.00 12050.00 $12,050.00
4 Water Pollution Control Plan LS 1 2500.00 $2,500.00 2500.00 $1500.00 7100.00 $7,100.00
5 Remove Tree&Roots EA 2 2500.00 $5,000.00 700.00 $1,400.00 2300.00 $4,600.00
6 Salvage U-shaped Bike Racks EA 7 50.00 $350.00 50.00 $350.00 80.50 $563.50
7 Salvage Trash Receptacles EA 13 200.00 $2,600.00 100.00 $1,300.00 160.00 $2,080.00
8 Remove.Sign Posts EA 14 50.00 $700.00 50.00 $700.00 91.50 $1,281.00
9 Remove Parking Meter Posts EA 33 50.00 $1,650.00 25.00 $825.00 129.00 $4,257.00
10 Remove Street Light Pale EA 3 500.00 $1,500.00 500.00 $1.500.00 525.00 $1,575.00
11 JAbandon Storm Drain at Higuera/Chorm SWC LS 1 500.00 $500.00 500.00 $500.00 _ 3300.00 $3,300.00
12 Abandon Storm Drain at Higuera/Broad SEC LS 1 500.00 $50000 500.00 $500.00 3300.00 $3300.00
13 Abandon Hose Connection LS 3 200.00 $600.00 500.00 $1.500.00 1260.00 $3,780.00
14 Mission-Style Sidewalk SOFT 9437 20.00 $188.740.00 22.00 $207,614.00 19.25 $181,662.25
15 Mission-Style Sidewalk at Basement(STA SOFT 285 25.00 $7,125.00 30.00 $8550:00 31.50 $8.977.50
16 Mission-Style Curb.&Gutter LF 1065 55.00 $58,575.00 65.00 $69225.001 130.20 .$138,663.00
17 Concrete Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 3410) LS 1 3000.00 $3,000.00 1000.00 $1,000.00 7650.001 $7,650.00
18 Cast Iron Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 3415) EA 15 100.00 $1,500.00 350.00 $5250.00 540.00 $8,100.00
19 Install City Water Meter Box-(City furnished) EA 18 50.00 $900.00 200.00 $3,600.00 105.50 $1,899.00
20(N)City Sewer Cleanout well EA 11 300.00 $3.300.00 250.00 $2,750.00 150.00 $1,650.00
21 (N)City Fire Valve well EA 6 300.00 $1,800.00 250.00 $1,500.00 225.00 $1350.00
22(N)City Pull Box(Light.Traffic) EA 13 300,001 $3.900.00 300.00 $3,900.00 605.00 $7,865.00
23 Detectable Warning-(New Curb Returns) SF 1001 30.00 $3.000.001 25.00 $2,500.00 44.00 $4,400.00
24 Detectable Warning-Remove&Replace SF 255 50.00 $12,750.00 40.00 $10.200.00 48.001 $12.240.00
25(N)Sign Posts/Signs EA 1 C 400.00 $4.000.00 525.001 S5,250.00 580.00 $5,800.00
26(N)Parking Meter Posts EA 32 30.00 $960.00 500.00 $16,000.00 250.00 $8,000.00
271(N)Pedestrian Barricade&.Sidms EA 1 2300.00 $2,300.00 2500.00 $2,500.00 4500.00 $4,500.00
28(M Tree Grate/Fmme-Type A EA 14 1800.00 $25.200.00 1750.00 $24,500.00 1400.00 $19,600.00
29(I)Tree Grate/FrSme-Type B EA 3 2000.00 $6,000.00 1250.00 $3.750.00 1410.00 $4230.00
30(N)Tree Gratc/Fmme-Type.0 EA I 2200.00 $2.200.0( 1800.00 $1,800.00 2300.00 - $2.300.00
31 IN)Tree Gmte/Frame-Type-D EA 4 1800.00 $3,600.00 1250.00 $2,500.00 1525.00 $3,050.00
32(N)Tree Gmte/Frame-Type E EA 31 3500.00 $10,500.00 3000.00 $9,000.00 3150.001 $9,450.00
33(N)Tree Grate/Fmme-Type F EA 11 4200.00 $4,200.00 3500.00 $3.500.00 4000.001 $4,000.00
34(N)Tree Gmte/Frame-Type G EA 11 3200.00 $3200.00 .2300.00 $2,300.00 2950.00 $2.950.00
35 24'Box Tree(Ficus) EA 41 1500.00 $6,000.00 1000.00 $4,000.00 275.00 $1,100.00
36(N)Tree Guard EA 4 1500.00 $6,000.00 -1000.00 $4,000.00 220.00 $880.00
37 Reset(E)Peak Bike Racks EA 1 100.00 $100.00 250.00 $250.00 325.00 $325.00
38(N)U-shaped Bike Racks EA 7 500.00 $3.500.00 1000.00 57.000.00 1123.00 $7,861.00
39 Reset(E)Benches EA 5 100.00 $500.00 300.00 $1,500.00 240.00 $1200.00
40(N)Tmsh Receptacles EA 13 2000.00 $26,000.00 2500.00 $32,500.00 2250.00 $29250.00
Remount LED enhanced Cmss-walk
41 1 4000.00 $4,000.00 10000.00 $10,000.00 4300.00 $4,300.00
42 Curb Painting(various colors) LF 400 2.50 $1,000.00 7.00 $2.800.00 1.10 $440.00
43 Paint/Stam(E)Utility Box(various sizes) EA 70 50.001 $3,500.00 100.00 $7,000.00 49.50 $3,465.00
44 Paint Sign Post at Bulb-out EA 1 400.00 $400.00 1000.00 $1,000.00 220.00 $220.00
45 Pole Painting Type A EA I 2500.00 $2,500.00 2750.00 $2,750.00 2200.00 $2200.00
46 Pole Painting Type B EA 7 3000.00 $21.000.00 2750.001 $19250.00 3000.00 $21,000.00
47,(N)Signs on Traffic/Light Poles EA 3 300.00 $900.00 185.00 $555.00 200.00 $600.00
48(N)Double-Globe Pedestrian Light Standard EA 2 10000.00 $20.000.00 8500.00 $17,000.00 8635.00 $17270.00
49(1)Pedestrian Light Standard EAH 8500.00 $85,000.00 7100.00 $71,000.00 7080.00 $70,800.00
50(N)PGE Connection Box EA 4 500.001 $2,000.00 1000.00 $4,000.00 990.00 $3,960.00
51 (N)3"Service Line LF 30 20.00 $600.00 175.00 $5.250.00 70.00 $2,100.00
52 Street Light Conduit(below street pave out LF 39 15.00 $5,850.00 72.00 $28,080.00 55.00 $21,450.00
53 Street Light Conduit(in new trench) ILF 300 50.00 $15,000.00 55.001 $16,500.00 140.25 $42,075.00
Total Base Bi $580,000.00 1 $667,699.0011 $764494.25
B2-34
ATTACHMENT 4
_. ngineees Estimate incigue.. _onstruction John Madonna Construction Co.Inc.
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION Pismo Beach, CA 93448 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
Additive Bid Alternates
A.Tree Well Modifications
ALL Tree Grate&Frame Type A EA 1 2000.00 $2.000.00 1750.00 $1,750.00 1400.00 $1.400.00
A 1.2 Mission Sidewalk SF 163 25.00 $4,075.00 - - 25.00 54,075.00 19.60 $3,194.80
A2.1 Tree Grate&Frame Type B EA 1 2500.00 $2,500.00 1250.00 $1250.00 1120.00 $1,120.00
A2.2 Mission Sidewalk SF 29 25.00 $725.00 75.00 $2,175.00 19.60 $568.40
A3.1 Tree Grate&Frame Type B EA 1 2500.00 $2500.00 1250.00 $1,250.00 1120.00 $1.120.00
A3.2 Mission Sidewalk SF 18 25.00 $450.00 75.00 $1,350.00 19.60 $352.80
$12,250.00 $11;850.00 57,756.00
B.Additional Pole Painting along Higuere
BI Pole Painting Type EA 6 2500.00 515,000.00 2750.00 $16,500.00 2300.00 $13,800.00
2 lPolePaintingType B EA 1 3000.00 $3.000.00 2750.00 $2.750.00 3000.00 $3,000.00
B3 Pole Painting Type C EA 3 2500.00 $7,500.00 2750.00 $8.250.00 1130.00 $3,390.00
$25,500.00 $27500.00 $20,190.00
C.Additional Trash Cans on Higuera
CI Additional Trash Can Installations EA 10 2000.00 $20,000.00 2000.00 $20,000.00 2210.00 $22,100.00
D.Tree Lighting Conduit-Broad to Garden
DI.I Tree Lighting Detail(in new Sidewalk) EA 10 500.00 55:000.00 1500.00 $15700.00 1450.00 $14,500.00
D12 ITree Lighting Detail(in existing Sidewalk) EA 2 1000.00 $2,000.00 2000.00 1$4,000.00 2125.00 54;250.00
D1.3 Tree Lighting Conduit(in New Trench) LF 80 50.00 54.000.00 200.00 516.000.00 220.00 $17,600.00
D 1.4 Tree Lighting Conduit(below street pave out LF 390 15.00 $5,850.00 50.00 $19,500.00 121.50 547,385.00
D1.5 3"Service Line LF 20 5.00 $100.00 125.00 $2,500.00 131.00 52,620.00
D1.6 Pull Box(for Future Meter) EA 1 300.00 $300.00 600.00 $600.00 500.00 $500.00
$17,250.00 _ $57,600.00 586,855.00
E.Tree Lighting Conduit-Garden to Chorro
EIA Tree Lighting Detail(in new Sidewalk) EA 7 500.00 $3,500.00 1500.00 $10,500.00 1450.00 $10,150.00
EI.2 Tree Lighting Detail(in existing Sidewalk) E-A 2 1000.00 $2,000.00 2000.00 54,000.00 2125.00 $4250.00
E1.3 Tree Lighting Conduit(in New Trench) LF 130 50.00 56.500.00 225.00 $29250.00 219.00 $28,470.00
E1.4 Tree Lighting Conduit(below street pave out LF 70 15.00 $1.050.00 _32.00 $2240.00 121.00 $8,470.00
E1.5 Tree Lighting Conduit(included in street light LF 230 5.00 $1.150.00 6.00 - - $1.380.00 5.60 $1288.00
EI.6 3"Service Line LF 20 10.00 $200.00 125.001 $2,500.00 128.001 $2,560.00
E1.7 Pull Box(for Future Meter) EA 2 300.00 $600.00 20.00 $40.00 500.001 $1.000.00
$15,000.00 - $49,910.00 $56,188.0
F.Tree Lighting Conduit- North side
I'L l Tree Lighting Detail(in new Sidewalk) EA 7 500.00 $3500.00 1290.00 $9,030.00 1450.00 $10,150.00
FI.2 Tree Lighting Detail(in existing Sidewalk) EA 0 1000.00 $0.0 - 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
F1.3 Tree Lighting Conduit(in New Trench) LF 0 50.00 50.0 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
FIA Tree lighting Conduit(below street pave out LF 24 15.00 S360.001 31.45 $754.80 122.00 $2;928.00
FI.S Tree Lighting Conduit(included in street light LF 31 5.00 $1.550.00 7.00 $2,170.00 5.60 $1.736.00
F1.6 3"Service Line LF 51 10.00 $50.00 125.00 $625.00 128.00 5640.00
F1.7 Pull Box(Future Meter) EA 1 300.00 $300.00 600.00 5600.00 50o.001 $500.00
$5,760.00 $13,179.80 $15,954.00
G.Tree Lighting Conduit- Southside Chorro
Gl.l Tree lighting Detail(in new SW) EA 4 500.00 $2,000.00 1500.00 56;000.00 1450.00 55,800.00
G12 Tree Lighting Detail(in existing SW) EA 4 1000.00 $4,000.00 2000.00 58.000.00 2125.00 $8,500.00
G1.3 Tree Lighting Conduit(in New Trench) LF 320 50.00 $16.000.00 85.00 $27200.00 87.35 $27,952.00
01.4 Tree Lighting Conduit(below street pave out - LF 0 15.00 $0.0 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
G 1.5 Tree Lighting Conduit(included in street light LF 1791 5.00 $895.00 5.00 $895.00 5.60 51,002.40
GI.6 3"Service Line LF 51 10.00 $50.00 115.00 $575.00 129.00 $645.00
G 1.7 Pull --Box(Future.Meter) EA 1 300.00 $300.00 600.00 $600.00 500.00 $500.00
$23,245.0 543,270.00 $41,399.40
IL Bike Rack Upgrade
HI Up ade U-shaped Bike Racks to Peak Racks EA 7 500.001 $3500. 1000.00 $7,000.00 1900.00 $13;300.00
TOTAL BID $702505.00 5898,008.80 $1,031,336.65
Listed Subs Pro Coatings American Coatings
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Lompoc,CA 93436
Oeste Electric Woeste Electric
ismo Beach.CA 93448 Pismo Beach,CA 93448
J Fisher Cosat
rmyo Igmnde,CA
B2-35
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: BID SUM,_ RY SHEET
ProjeCDowutown Maintenance&Beautification
s uuta Bridget Fraser
Estimated follow-up dates: Award:
Maine Construction Co..Inc. Brough Construction
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION San Luis Obispo. CA 93406 ArmyoGrande, CA 93420
NIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
Base Bid $0.00
1 OSHA Compliance LS 1 5000.00 $5,000.00 2500.00 $2,500.00
2 Traffic Control Plan LS I 20000.00 $20,000.00 30000.00 $30,000.00
3 Changeable.Message/Armw Sign EA 1 10000.00 $10,000.00 7000.00 $7,000.00
4 Water Pollution Control Plan LS 1 10000.00 $10.000.00 1500.00 51,500.00
5 Remove Tice&.Roots EA 2 5000.00 $10.000.00 1300.00 $2,600.00
6 Salvage U-shaped Bike Racks EA 7 300.00 $2,100.00 65.00 $455.00
7 Salvage Trash Receptacles EA 13 400.00 $5:200.00 90.00 $1,170.00
8 Remove Silm Posts FA 14 300.00 $4,200.00 80.00 $1,120.00
9 Remove Parking Meter Posts EA 33 100.00 $3,300.00 75.00 $2,475.00
10 Remove Street Light Pale EA 3 1100.00 $3,300.001 750.00 52,250.00
I 1 Abandon Storm Drain at Higuem/Chorm SWC LS 1 2500.00 $2,500.00 100.00 $100.00
12 Abandon Storm Drain at Higuem/Bmad SEC LS 1 2500.00 $2,500.00 100.00 $100.00
13 Abandon Bose Connection LS 3 400.00 $100.00 100.00 $300.00
14 Mission-Style Sidewalk SOFT 9437 40.00 $377.480.00 28.00 $264:236.00
15 Mission-Style Sidewalk at Basement(STA SQFT 285 50.00 $14,250.00 35.00 $9,975.00
16 Mission-Style Curb&Gutter LF 1065 70.00 $74,550.00 128.00 $136320.00
17 Concrete Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 3410) LS 11 5000.00 $5.000.00 4500.00 $4.500.00
18 Cast Imn Sidewalk Underdmin(STD 3415) EA 151 500.00 $7,500.00 400.00 $6,000.00
19 1 Install City Water Meter Box-(City fumished) EA 181 200.00 $3,600.00 100.00 $1,800.00
201(N)City Sewer Cleanout well EA 111 400.00 $4,400.00 125.00 $1.375.00
21 (N)City Fire Valve well EA 61 300.00 $1,800.00 125.00 $750.00
22(N)City Pull Box(Light Traffic) EA 131 400.00 $5.200.00 670.00 $8,710.00
23 Detectable Warning-(New Curb Returns) _ SF 1001 50.00 $5.000.00 60.00 56.000.00
24 Detectable Warning-Remove&Replace SF 255 60.00 $15.300.00 112.001 $28.560.00
25(N)Sign Posts/Signs EA 1 C 550.00 $5,500.001 630.001 $6300.00
26(N)Parking Meter Posts EA 32 150.00 $4.800.001 100.00 $3200.00
27(N)Pedestrian Barricade&Silms EA 1 800.00 $800.00 600.00 $600.00
28(N)Tree Grate/Frame-Type A EA 14 1500.00 $21,000.00 2225.00 $31,150.00
29(N)Tree Gmtc/Fmme-Type B EA 3 1400.00 $4,200.00 1130.00 $3390.00
30(N)Tree Gmte/Frame-Type C EA 1 1900.00 $1,900.00 1640.00 $1,640.00
31 (N)Tree Gmte/Fmme-Type D EA 2 1200.00 $2,400.00 1115.00 $2230.00
32(N)Tree Grate/Frame-Type E EA 3 3000.00 $9,000.00 3030.00 59,090.00
33(N)Tree.Gmte/Fmme-Type.F EA 1 3400.00 $3,400.00 4770.00 $4,770.00
34(N)Tree Grate/Frame-Type G EA 1 2500.00 $2,500.001 2280.00 $2,280.00
35 24'Box Tree(Ficus) EA 4 800.00 - $3200.00 600.00 $2,400.00
36(N)Tree Guard EA 4 1000.00 $4,000.00 670.00 $2,680.00
37 Reset(E)Peak Bike Racks EA I 200.00 $200.00 100.00 - $100.00
38(N)U-shaped Bike Racks - EA 7 500.00 53,500.00 300.00 $2,100.00
39 Reset(E)Benchcs EA 5 300.00 $1,500.00 100.00 $500.00
40(N)Trash Receptacles EA 13 2000.00 $26.000.00 2265.00 $29,445.00
Remount LED enhanced Cross-walk
41 / cole 1 4300.00 $4,300.00 4730.00 $4,730.00
42 Curb Painting(various colors) LF 400 4.00 $1.600.00 1.50 $600.00
43 Pnint/Stain(E)Utility Boz(various sizes) EA 70 90.00 $6.300.00 100.00 $7,000.00
44 Paint Sign Post at Bulb-out EA 11 770.00 $770.00 950.00 $950.00
45 Pole Painting Type A EA 1 2600.00 $2.600.00 2900.00 $2.900.00
46 Pole Painting Type 6 EA 7 2600.00 $18.200.00 2900.00 $20,300.00
47(N)Signs on Traffic/Light Poles EA 3 250.00 $750.00 225.00 $675.00
48(N)Double-Globe Pedestrian Light Standard EA 2 8700.00 $17,400.00 9500.00 $19,000.00
49(N)Pedestrian Light Standard EA 1 C 7000.00 $70,000.00 7800.00 $78,000.00
50(I)PGE Connection Box EA 4 1000.00 $4.000.00 1100.00 54,400.00
51 (N)3"Service Line LF 30 180.00 $5,400.00 195.00 $5,850.00
52 Street Light Conduit(below street pave out ILF 1 39 72.00 $28.080.00 78.00 530,420.00
53 Street Light Conduit(in new trench) LF 300 55.00 $16,500.00 125.00 $37,500.00
Total Base Bicil I S963,180.001 1 $833,996.00
B2-36
ATTACHMENT 4
aino Construction Co.,Inc. rough- ..ruction
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 ArroyoGmnde. CA 93420
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No, _ ITEM UNIT QUAN PRJCE PRICE PRICE PRICE
.Additive Bid Alternates
A.Tree Well Modifications
1.I Tree Grate&Flame Type A EA 1 1500.00 $1,500.001 3225.00 $3225.00
A 1.2 Mission Sidewalk SF 163 50.00 $8,150.00 50.00 58,150.00
A2.1 Tree Grate&Frame Type B EA 1 1500.00 $1,500.00 2130.00 $2;130.00
A2.2 Mission Sidewalk SF 29 50.00 $1.450.00 50.00 $1,450.00
3.1- Tree Grate&Frame Type B EA 1 1500.00 $1,500.00 2130.00 $2,130.00
A3.2 Mission Sidewalk SF 18 50.00 $900.00 50.00 $900.00
$15,000.00 $17,985.00
B.Additional Pole Painting along Hi era
BI Pole Painting Type A EA 6 2600.00 $15.600.00 3900.00 $23.400.00
B2 Pole Painting Type B EA 1 2600.00 $2.600.00 3900.00 $3,900.00
B3 Pole Painting Type C EA 3 2600.00 $7,800.00 3900.00 $11,700:00
$26,000.00 $39,000.00
C.Additional Trash Cans on Higuera
CI Additional Trash Can Installations EA 10 2000.00 $20,000.00 3222.00 $32220.00
D.Tree Lighting Conduit-Broad to Garden
Dl.l Tree Lighting Detail(in new Sidewalk) EA 10 1350.00 $13,500.00 1800.00 $18,000.00
D1.2 Tree Lighting Detail(in existing Sidewalk) EA 2 2000.00 $4.000.00 2500.00 $5,000.00
D1.3 Tree Lighting Conduit(in New Trench) LF 80 210.00 $16,800.00 350.00 $28,000.00
DIA Tree Lighting Conduit(below street pave out LF 390 34.00 $13,260.00 40.00 $15.600.00
DI.S 3"Service Line LF 20 125.00 $2500.00 140.00 $2,800.00
D1.6 Pull Box(for Form Meter) EA 1 500.00 $500.00 550.00 $550.00
$50,560.00 $69,950.00
E.Tree Lighting Conduit-Garden to Chorro
ELI Tree Lighting Detail(in new Sidewalk) EA 7 1350.00 $9.450.00 2000.00 $14.000.00
Ell Tree Lighting Detail(in existing Sidewalk) EA 2 2000.00 $4,000.00 2500.00 $5.000.00
E1.3 Tree Lighting Conduit(in New Trench) LF 130 210.00 $27,300.00 325.00 $42,250.00
EIA Tree Lighting Conduit(below street pave out LF 70 34.00 $2,380.00 50.00 $3,500.00
E1.5 Tree Lighting Conduit(included in street light LF 1 2301 6.00 $1,380.00 10.00 $2,300.00
E1.6 - 3"Service Line LF 20 125.00 $2,500.00 150.00 $3.000.00
EI.7 Pull Box(for Future Meter) EA - '' 500.00 $1.000.00 600.00 $1200.00
S4&010.00 $71,250.00
F.Tree Lighting Conduit- North side
Fl.I Tree Lighting Detail(in new Sidewalk) EA 1350.00 $9,450.00 2000.00 $14,000.00
F1.2 Tree Lighting Detail(in existing Sidewalk) EA _ 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
1.3 Tree Lighting.Conduit(in New Trench) LF 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
F1.4 Tree Lighting Conduit(below street pave out LF 24 34.00 $816.00 50.00 $1,200.00
FI.S Tree Lighting Conduit(included in street light LF 310 6.00 $1,860.00 10.00 $3,100.00
FI-6 3"Service Line LF 5 125.00 $625.00 150.00 $750.00
F1.7 Pull.Box(Future Meter) EA 1 500.00 $500.00 550.00 $550.00
$13,251.00 $19,600.00
G.Tree Lighting Conduit- Southside Chorro
GLI Tree Lighting Detail(in new SW) EA 4 1350.00 $5,400.00 2000.00 $8,000.00
GI.2 Tree Lighting Detail(in existing SW) EA 4 2000.00 $8,000.00 3000.00 $12.000.00
G1.3 Tree Lighting Conduit(in New Trench) LF 3201 85.00 $27200.00 100.00 $32,000.00
GIA Tree Lighting Conduit(below street pave out LF 01 0.00 50.00 0.00 $0.00
G 1.5 Tree Lighting Conduit(included in street light LF 179 6.00 $1,074.001 10.00 $1,790.00
G1.6 3"Service Line LF 5 125.00 $625.00 1 150.00 $750.00
G1.7 Pull.Box(Future Meter) EA 1 500.00 $500.00 550.00 $550.00
$42,799.00 $55,090.00
H.Bike Rack Upgrade _
Hl Upgmade U-shaped Bike Racks to Peak Racks EA 7 - 100.00 $700.00. 300.00 $2,100.00
TOTAL BID $1,079,500.00 $1,141,191.0.0
Pro Coatings American Coating
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Lompoc,CA 93436
Oeste Electric oeste Electric
Pismo Beach,CA 93448 ismo Beach.CA 93448
F Garda&sons
ayucos,CA
B2-37
RECEIVED
From: Brett Cross[SMTP:BRETTCROSS@YAHOO.COM] MAR 15.2011
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:24:42 PM
To: Richard A. Schmidt; Smith, Kathy; Council, S1oCity SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Re: Sidewalks: safety fixes before vanity redos downtown
Auto forwarded by a Rule
My friend's mother fell on the sidewalk right next to her house(Oceanaire St). and
suffered facial lacerations and a very bloody nose ( I thought it was broken). Let's be very
honest the City isn't doing its job in going out and maintaining our infrastructure. The
City use to go out in the neighborhoods and identify hazardous sidewalks along with
overgrown landscaping protruding into the sidewalk area. That no longer seems to be
occurring and the City is relying on the community to bring matters to their attention.
There are a lot of folks who are wondering what are "we" paying "them" for. Oh, the
City came out and ground down the tripping hazard on the sidewalk a few days later.
Sincerely, bard oo •
RED FILE o couxca. aCWOM
o arrymm n FIT=
Brett Cross MEETING AGENDA G AMCM o Fm cmv
DATES ITEM #� a o 13POLICECW
c Fie o FARSS8RMM
o msum o vranm
From: Richard A. Schmidt <rschmidt@calpoly.edu> ° stnCrnrNs a owlxm
CnymaR
To: Kathy Smith <ksmith@slocity.org> o
Sent:Tue, March 15, 2011 11:26:59 AM
Subject: Re: Sidewalks: safety fixes before vanity redos downtown
Thanks Kathy. In the case of where I fell, it is city property—city park with city sidewalk in it, the
only sidewalk for Murray. I don't see how the city can have a legal leg to stand on if it uses funds
for vanity projects rather than safety projects.
As for the rest of the story, your staff are completely indifferent. Last July they dug up sidewalk on
Foothill, both sides, by the railroad for some sort of project. That's an area where 5,000-10,000
pedestrians per day pass. The sidewalk was not replaced. Some of the void was filled with sand. I
have asked repeatedly for some sort of hard pavement fix—no dice. So, all winter thousands of
people had to trapse through mud and sand; the sand is all over the nearby sidewalk making it
slick and slippery when dry; there is a 2"vertical trip and fall at the edge of the old sidewalk. On
the north side of Foothill by the rr there's a sharp peice of metal sticking out of the sidewalk where
a sign was removed, waiting for somebody to trip over it and be seriously cut(these are all over
town). On the south side mid-block between Calif and Casa is a hole in the sidewalk, half the
width of the sidewalk,where there was once a tree; this trip and fall has been there for some 20
years!!!
This isn't a matter of lack of funds. It's a matter of city negligence.
The council needs to decide who they serve: the people, or the special interest pressure groups
led by the chamber. I still ask: why does the business community always expect(and get)
handouts from the rest of us? If they really think vanity sidewalks are a good investment, why
don't they invest in them themselves through an assessment district?When "funds are short,"
why do THEY always get them, and residents get the short end of the stick?Good government
isn't about special interest handouts; it's about fairness to all, and above all serving residents with
basic needs, like SAFE sidewalks.
Richard
PS. Let me ask you a serious question: If the city behaves this way, why should residents
"reinvest" in higher sales tax?The city is killing renewal of Measure Y by what it does, and
doesn't, invest in.
—Original Message—
From: "Kathy Smith"<ksmith cDslocitv.org>
To: "Richard A. Schmidt"<rschmidt(cDcaloolv.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10`29:09 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalks: safety fixes before vanity redos downtown
Richard,
Really sorry about your fall. I actually experienced a similar one about 8 months ago,falling
directly forward on poorly maintained pavement on private property. Pretty scarey and painful in
the aftermath- my vanity(black eye& scraped face, knees, etc. )was injured as well!
We need adequate funds for CPI in SLO throughout the city. Realistically, the majority of those
funds come from sales tax. It's a tough call on where to invest . . . but, we're looking at all sides.
believe me!
Hope you're doing OK?
Peace-Kathy
From:Richard A. Schmidt frschmidta-calaolv.edul
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:08 AM
To: Marx, Jan;Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Carter, Andrew; Lichtig, Katie
Subject: Sidewalks: safety fixes before vanity redos downtown
Re Agenda Item 2, "Downtown Maintenance and Beautification"
Dear City Council,
Last week I tripped and fell on ill-maintained city sidewalk on the Murray Street median. I fell
forward flat on my face, injuring my neck, barking my hand, cutting my face, badly bruising my
nose,filling my mouth with herbicide-laden dirt, and breaking my new eyeglasses. I've had a
headache ever since, have been on pain drugs, and will probably at the least have to undergo
physical therapy as a result of this fall. This fall would not have happened if the city maintained its
neighborhood sidewalks.
I have lived in the neighborhood for 39 years, and in all that time the city has done essentially
nothing to maintain this sidewalk. I walk this route every workday, so I'm familiar with its hazards,
still I was tripped by one.What of the stranger walking in the dark?What of the frail senior with
poor balance?What of the enthusiastic child running?The city has been asked repeatedly to fix
these and other sidewalk problems. Your staff are quite aware of them.
Instead of tending to sidewalk life safety in neighborhoods, the city has embarked on a huge$1.5
million ESTHETIC sidewalk replacement program to make downtown and Monterey Street
business interests happy, yet the city ignores trip and fall sidewalks that endanger citizens
throughout city neighborhoods. Shouldn't you tend to sidewalk life safety before such spendthrift
j
outlays for vanity alone?
I'm asking that you deal with city-wide pedestrian sidewalk safety issues like those on Murray
right now, before you spend any more money on vanity sidewalks in the business districts. You've
got more than$600,000 allocated but not yet spent for"mission sidewalks"downtown, so you
have plenty of sidewalk funds. Once you fulfill your duty to protect your residents' sidewalk safety,
if there's anything left over, then is the time to consider vanities like"mission sidewalks," not
before.
I have walked the entire length of the proposed "mission sidewalk"construction area downtown,
and found only a few fairly minor trip and falls which can be repaired for very little cash outlay.
Most of the sidewalk is in good condition, much of it practically new. Much is also already
"missionized."Why is the city spending more than $600,000 on vanity sidewalks there when it
has so many sidewalk safety problems in neighborhoods? Is it not the city's general plan policy to
encourage safe sidewalks to promote walking as an alternative to driving? If so, how do
dangerous sidewalks promote this goal?
The neighborhood sidewalk safety problems strike me as a disgrace in a city that's so smugly
spendthrift with money for vanity sidewalk projects. If new missionized sidewalks along Higuera
are really so important to businesses there, why don't they form an assessment district to invest
in this pro-business vanity instead of stealing funds that are needed elsewhere in the city for
safety?
I'M ASKING THE COUNCIL TO FIX NEIGHBORHOOD SIDEWALK PROBLEMS LIKE THESE
BEFORE SPENDING ANOTHER PENNY ON VANITY PROJECTS DOWNTOWN.
Richard Schmidt
RED FILE
From: John D. Grady, CFP [mailto:jgradyslo@earthlink.net] — MEETING AGENDA
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Council ALL DATES_ �� ITEM # Aa-
Subject: Downtown Maintenance&Beautification
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I have reviewed the Agenda Report and staff recommendations regarding the
Downtown Maintenance and Beautification project. Given our city's current projected
budget deficit and our ongoing financial constraints, I agree with staffs
recommendation that all current bids for this project be rejected.
I believe we have many more pressing maintenance issues that need addressed prior to
allocating our city's limited resources to a downtown beautification project. This project
should be deferred until such time as our city's financial situation markedly improves.
I favor the third staff alternative- cancel the project and allocate resources only to
maintenance and safety related issues and minor upgrades downtown.
Thank you.
Regards, hardemall.
o CDD DIR
John Grady o WYMOR aFrrDIR
AWCMME
525 Marsh Street o TT RRM as Pat IR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 a °��D&G o PGLICE 3R�ECDIII
a TRIBUNE a UTILDIR
a NEprTUM o HRDIR
a SLGCm NERS a CoUNCII.
a CITY MGR
a CLBRR
RECEIVE[
MAR 14 2011
SLO CITY CLERK
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # 5,^'-
8 March 2011
- To: Mayor Jan Marx and City Council members
Fro eborah Cash, Executive Director
San Luis Obispo SILO Downtown Association
Downtown
/Association Re: Downtown Beautification Project
PO sox 1402 The Downtown Association Board of Directors, at its meeting today, voted to
San Luis Obispo support the City staff recommendation for the Downtown Beautification Project
California 93406 to reject all bids and direct staff to reduce scope of project within the project
Phone 805-541.0286 budget, and to rebid the project for a 2012 construction date. The Board's motion
Fax 805-781-2647
www.downiownsio.com also included a slight modification to the staff recommendation that the project
include installation of conduit and pull boxes at the base of the street trees in
the project area to accommodate future tree lighting.
Throughout this process, the Downtown Association has expressed that the
inclusion of lighting should be a key component of any beautification effort in
order to provide a safe and secure evening atmosphere in Downtown and assist in
the efforts to bring more vibrancy and foot traffic to Downtown in the early
evening hours. This project offers the perfect opportunity to move forward with
this concept particularly in that coming back at a later date to do so would mean
tearing up the sidewalks again.
Finally, it was noted that there may are some individual businesses in the project
area wishing to participate in providing lighting and other amenities that could
easily tie in to the project. The proposed later date would allow the parties time to
coordinate these efforts. The Downtown Association had previously requested
waiting until 2012 both to (a) accommodate any concurrent projects and (b) to
respond to requests from members on Higuera Street to avoid summertime
construction impacts.
The Downtown Association appreciates the effort and support of Council and
staff in investing in the city's central business district and looks forward to a
viable project that will keep Downtown attractive and viable.
Cc: Downtown Association Board of Directors
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Jay Walter, Public Works
Bridget Fraser, Public Works hard copr, emaill0
Robert Horch, Downtown Champion a COUNCIL, aCDD DM
a CrrYMm a FITDIR
a AMCM a FMCIM
o A1IDRM a PWDM
a CIFJt=00 a MUCECEIEF
RECEIVE® a aPARSSBBECDIR
nu
mm BLRiE o ITIt1.DIR
a MV TOM a HR DM
a 9LOCCtYNEWS o COUNCIL
MAR 10 111 a cmrMcm
o CLERIC
SLO CITY CLERK