HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2013 b1 marsh st bridge project spec no 90480council .0 agenba nepol2t Meeting D Jan .22,201 3
It..,Numbs
B 1
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Work s
Prepared By :
Michael J . McGuire, Engineer II I
SUBJECT :
MARSH STREET BRIDGE PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO . 90480
RECOMMENDATION S
1.Approve the removal and replacement of the Marsh Street Bridge as identified in
Alternative 3 of the Alternatives Study Report by Dokken Engineering, and proceed wit h
design for "Marsh Street Bridge Repair, Specification 90480".
2.Appropriate $148,642 of Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Grant funding to the projec t
account in the amounts of $15,847 to the design phase, $22,132 to the environmenta l
review phase and $110,663 to the property acquisition phase .
3.Approve the transfer of $19,258 from the CIP Completed Projects account to the projec t
account in the amounts of $2,053 to the design phase, $2,868 to the environmental revie w
phase and $14,337 to the property acquisition phase .
4.Authorize the Finance Director to amend the current contract with Dokken Engineerin g
by $594,452 .28 to include all design, environmental services and property acquisitio n
•
services for the "Marsh Street Bridge Repair, Specification No . 90480".
DISCUSSIO N
Backgroun d
The Marsh Street Bridge, near the intersection of Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets, was built i n
1909 and over the years has received occasional minor repair work by City maintenance staff .
More intense maintenance was scheduled as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan to replace heavil y
damaged bridge rails, and to patch and seal the deck . As a condition to use federal bridg e
funding for the work, a structural review was completed . The review indicated the bridg e
deterioration was too significant to be ameliorated only by maintenance and that more intensiv e
rehabilitation work and possibly replacement of key structural components would be required .A
maintenance inspection conducted by the State of California Department of Transportation i n
2008 supported this finding with the overall bridge efficiency rating dropping nearly 30 point s
since 2004, to a rating of 64 out of 100, indicating an accelerating decline .
In June 2011, the City contracted with Dokken Engineering, one of the City's pre-qualified on-
call civil engineering consultants, to begin a structural assessment of the bridge, leading to th e
preparation of an Alternatives Study Report of the Marsh Street Bridge to discuss rehabilitatio n
alternatives and compare those alternatives to complete replacement .
Historical Significanc e
• With the potential for significant reworking, or possible replacement of the bridge, research wa s
completed regarding its historical significance . There is no historical register designation for th e
Marsh Street Bridge by the City or County, but Caltrans recognizes that the bridge is significan t
in the area of engineering . The Marsh Street Bridge was designed by John B . Leonard, one of the
Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480)Page 2
•foremost reinforced concrete bridge designers in early twentieth century California . Over hi s
career, Leonard designed about 45 bridges throughout California and Nevada . While a number o f
Leonard's bridges remain in Northern and Central California, the Marsh Street Bridge is one o f
two examples in San Luis Obispo . It is also the oldest concrete girder bridge in Souther n
California and among the oldest remaining structures designed by Leonard .
Although the bridge is historical from an engineering standpoint, the architectural features of th e
bridge have been greatly compromised . As indicated in the report by Dokken Engineering, th e
concrete itself is deteriorating to a level that threatens the structural integrity of the entire bridge .
The concrete bridge railing has been damaged or portions of it completely removed due t o
damage . The original light standards were removed at an unknown date and never replaced .
The railings are the most visible portion of the structure and cannot be salvaged . The reinforcing
steel has degraded to the point where rusting has ruptured through the concrete . A portion of the
rail was also hit and had to be removed . The bridge project will replicate the styling of th e
existing railing, provide an upgrade relative to vehicle crash safety features, and will restore
lighting on the deck as originally envisioned by the designer .
The environmental review phase of the bridge replacement and procurement of the require d
permitting from state and federal regulatory agencies will include review of the new bridg e
design by the Community Development Department and will be subject to architectural review .
Recommended Alternative
In the Alternatives Study Report, Dokken Engineering evaluated three alternatives for addressin g
the condition of the Marsh Street Bridge . Alternative 1 evaluates rehabilitating the existin g
bridge structure, Alternative 2 evaluates removing and replacing the bridge deck and the to p
portion of the existing abutments and Alternative 3 evaluates complete removal of the existin g
bridge and construction of a new cast-in-place or precast concrete slab bridge supported on ne w
foundations .
Based on the findings in the study, Alternative 3 is recommended to provide the City a long ter m
solution for its investment and minimize future disruption to this busy corridor .
The estimated cost of Alternative 3 is $4,400,000 ; $3,895,320 in grant funds and $504,680 i n
City matching funds . This alternative will remove the existing bridge deck and abutments an d
replace it with a 15-foot longer bridge deck supported on tall abutments that will be supported o n
spread footings or piles . Placement of the abutments further apart will increase the hydrauli c
capacity of San Luis Obispo Creek and better protect the channel from scour during flood events .
The new bridge will increase the vehicle load capacity to current design standards, and allo w
utilities to be protected within the bridge deck shielding them from storm damage . A ne w
structure will provide an expected bridge life of 100 years and will be virtually maintenance-fre e
for many years . The architectural features of the bridge visible on Marsh Street will be replicate d
as close as possible to the original design while conforming to current codes . While this is th e
most expensive alternative, the increased channel protection, traffic safety improvements, utilit y
protection, and reduction in maintenance costs are significant benefits to the City . Therefore, the
consultant and staff recommend Alternative 3 .
•
•
Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480)Page 3
•
Other Alternative s
Alternative 1 : Rehabilitate the existing bridge structure .
While Alternative 1 has the lowest construction cost ($966,000), shortest construction time an d
lowest impacts to traffic during construction, the concrete structure will continue to deteriorat e
and require patching maintenance for the remainder of the bridge's existence . The deficient loa d
capacity of the bridge will not be improved by rehabilitation . Reinforcement of the existing
abutments may reduce the hydraulic capacity of the San Luis Obispo Creek channel under th e
bridge. Reduction of hydraulic capacity increases liability for the City because of possible
aggravation of flooding . Also, this rehabilitation can only be expected to extend the bridge lif e
for another 20 years, at which time additional rehabilitation or complete replacement would b e
required, disrupting the community again . The bridge railing will have to be completel y
replaced .
Due to these deficiencies, Dokken Engineering considers rehabilitation of the bridge a n
unsuitable solution and does not recommend this Alternative .
Alternative 2 : Remove and replace the bridge deck and the top portion of the existing abutments .
This alternative would replace the entire bridge deck with a new deck and concrete railings .
Temporary shoring would need to be installed within the creek to prevent the abutments fro m
toppling over, as the existing bridge has no deep foundations . A new bridge deck will increas e
• the vehicular load capacity to current design standards . It is estimated this alternative will cos t
$2,800,000 ; $2,478,840 in grant funds and $321,160 in City matching funds . It is estimated t o
take 4-1/2 months to construct . A new bridge deck will minimize maintenance for at least 3 0
years and increase the bridge life-expectancy from 20 years to 75 years . The new dec k
configuration would accommodate utility conduits and cables within the deck for protection an d
security.
Complex construction methods to accommodate the existing bridge abutments will caus e
construction and maintenance issues . New foundations added to the front of the abutments i n
support of the new bridge deck above will reduce the hydraulic capacity of the creek . While th e
new bridge deck would be virtually maintenance-free, regular maintenance would continue to b e
required for the existing abutments .
Cost andDuration Summa
Alternative Estimated Cost Duration Life Expectanc y
Alternative 1 $966,000 3 .5 Months 20 Year s
Alternative 2 $2,800,000 4 .5 Months 75 Year s
Alternative 3*$4,400,000 6 .5 Months 100 Years
* Recommended
The Consultant provided a duration estimate of 6 .5 months for Alternative 3 for the basi c
construction work . Past City experience indicates projects take from 1 to 2 years to complete i n
•
their entirety. This is a function of their size, staging and mitigation requirements, and include s
finishing work such as re-vegetation .
Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480)Page 4
•CONCURRENCE S
The replacement of this structure has the concurrence of the City's Cultural Heritage Committe e
(Attachment 1) and the California Department of Transportation (Attachment 2).
FISCAL IMPAC T
The 2009-11 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-249 to 3-252, and the 2011-13 Financial Plan,
Appendix B, page 3-153, identified $6,700,000 for design and construction of the Marsh Stree t
Bridge Repair project . On May 3, 2011, Council approved the reallocation of approved gran t
funds for the Chorro Street Bridge project to augment necessary environmental review wor k
required for the Marsh Street Bridge project . This action brought the total approved budget-to-
date to $550,000 for environmental review, land acquisition and design work (for a total projec t
budget of $6,950,000).
The majority of funding will come from the Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) with a
City-matching fund contribution of 11 .47% of the project costs .
Project Costs
Project Phase
Budget To -
Date
Budget
Expended
Budget
Remaining
Additional
Funds
Required
Future
Costs Tota l
Environmental Review:$
250,000 $
250,000 $
25,000 $
275,000
Design :$
250,000 $
57,900 $
192,100 $
17,900 $
210,000
Property Acquisition :$
50,000 $
50,000 $
125,000 $
175,000
Construction :$
6,100,000 $
6,100,000
Construction Management:i $
300,000 $
300,000
# Total :$ 550,000 $
57,900 ;$ 492,100
_
$
167,900
$6,400,000 '$
7,117,90 0
The City's Financial Plan identifies higher costs than currently estimated in the bridge stud y
report . The Financial Plan estimates are based on previous bridge construction costs for the Cit y
and consideration of unforeseen conditions that may occur once construction starts . Given th e
very preliminary nature of the study, prior local cost experience, the historical value of the bridg e
and the need for construction contingencies to address unforeseen conditions, staff does no t
propose any revisions to the cost projections at this time .
Project Funding Sourc e
Project Phase
Budget To-
Date
Budget
Expended
Budge t
Remaining
Adational
Fund s
Required
Futur e
Costs Tota l
General Fund $
63,085 $
6,641 $
56,444 $
19,258 $
734,080 $
816,423
Grant (HBP)$
486,915 $
51,259 $
435,656 $
148,642 $
5,665,920 $
6,301,477
Total $ 550,000 1 $
57 900 $
492,100 $
167,900 $ 6,400,000 $
7,117,900
Of the $250,000 allocated for design work, $57,900 was encumbered to Dokken Engineering fo r
the pre-design work of bridge assessment and the alternatives study . There remains $192,10 0
available in the design phase which includes preparation of plans, specifications, and
construction estimate, $250,000 for environmental services and $50,000 for property acquisition
•
•
B1-4
Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480)Page 5
•activities . Additional funds in the amount of $167,900 are required as indicated in the Projec t
Costs table above to fully fund the project phase fees by Dokken Engineering and to provide a
minimum 10% contingency amount for unforeseen design conditions that may arise .
Staff recommends approval to use and transfer $19,258 from the CIP Completed Projects
account to the project account in the amounts of $2,053 to the design phase, $2,868 to th e
environmental review phase and $14,337 to the property acquisition phase, and approve th e
appropriation of $148,642 from the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Grant funding to the projec t
account in the amounts of $15,847 to the design phase, $22,132 to the environmental revie w
phase and $110,663 to the property acquisition phase . There is approximately $20,000 availabl e
in the CIP Completed Projects account to support this recommendation .
Once additional funding required to complete design, environmental, and property acquisitio n
work is approved, staff recommends amending the current contract with Dokken Engineering b y
$594,452 .28 to include the design, environmental and property acquisition services for th e
"Marsh Street Bridge Repair, Specification No . 90480" (Attachment 3).
On-Call Civil Engineering Service s
Approximately every two years, the City conducts a competitive process and issues a Reques t
For Proposals (RFP) for certain on-call services . The City receives proposals and select s
consultants or contractors, based on specific criteria, to perform specific services . Dokken
•
Engineering is one of the City's on-call civil engineering design consultants and is therefor e
eligible to be awarded this work .
Dokken has submitted a proposal for this work (Attachment 3). Staff recommends amending th e
current contract with Dokken Engineering, in the amount of $594,452 .28 to include design ,
environmental services and property acquisition services for the Marsh Street Bridge Repai r
project .
ALTERNATIVE S
1.Select Design Alternative1.The City Council could choose to select Alternative 1 . Thi s
alternative would provide a "band-aid" fix to the bridge and is not recommended by staf f
or the design consultant . While it would address repairs to the surface of the bridge, th e
bridge would continue to deteriorate from within and would require constant maintenanc e
to extend the life of the bridge another 20 years .
2.Select Design Alternative 2.The City Council could choose to select Alternative 2 .
While this alternative would improve the vehicle load capacity to current desig n
standards and increase the life expectancy of the bridge to 75 years, it does not full y
address the lack of a sufficient foundation system for the bridge . Adding additiona l
footings for reinforcement will narrow the creek channel, thus reducing the hydrauli c
capacity under the bridge . Regular maintenance would still be required for the bridg e
abutments and shallow footings . For these reasons staff does not recommend thi s
alternative .
3.Deny or defer the project The City Council could choose to defer bridge repairs o r
replacement at this time . Under this alternative, bridge deterioration would continue .
Eventually, the bridge would become a safety hazard and unusable for both vehicular an d
•
Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480)Page 6
pedestrian traffic . This alternative is not recommended as this bridge is integral to a
significant arterial of the City's street system through the Downtown .
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFIC E
Alternatives Study Report by Dokken Engineering .
ATTACHMENT S
1.Cultural Heritage Committee September 24, 2012 Meeting Minute s
2.Caltrans Concurrence Lette r
3.Dokken Engineering Design Amendment Proposal
•
•
Attachment 1
SAN LUIS OBISP OCULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTE SSeptember 24, 201 2
ROLL CALL :
Present : Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Hemalata Dandekar, Jaime Hill ,Patti Taylor, Vice-Chair Bob Pavlik, and Chairperson Enrica Costell o
Absent :Committee Member Buzz Kalkowsk i
Staff :Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, City Civi lEngineer Michael McGuire and Recording Secretary Dawn Rudde r
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA :The agenda was accepted as presented .
MINUTES : Minutes of August 27, 2012, were approved as amended .
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS :
There were no comments made from the public .
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS :
•1 .1404 Chorro Street .ARC 76-12 ; Review of four-unit condominium project ; R-4-Hzone; Koru Trust, applicant . (Brian Leveille )
Committee Member Hill recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest becaus e
she lives in proximity of the proposed project .
Brian Leveille, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the Cultura lHeritage Committee find the proposed residential units and site improvement sconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and approve the projec tsubject to conditions based on the findings that he outlined .
Committee Member Brajkovich stated that he was in favor of the new style from th eother buildings in the area and he concurred with staffs recommendations .
Chairperson Costello commented she was not sure how well it fits in San Luis Obisp oand would like to see comparable styles relating to the proposed structure . Mr Leveill ecommented he did not believe there is a building of this mass with a comparable style i nthe proposed neighborhood .
Committee Member Dandekar commented the change with this proposed architectur eseems a little abrupt or dramatic .
•PUBLIC COMMENTS :
Carol Campbell, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern with the height and mass of th eproposed structure and road access from Morro Street to the new site .
•
B1-7
Attachment 1
Draft CHC Minute s
September 24, 201 3
Page 2
Jeff Schneideright, applicant's architect, stated the structure was designed and scaled
to relate to the San Luis Obispo Mission on Chorro Street .
Blake Urban, San Luis Obispo, was concerned with the mass of the building and that i t
will not have a favorable impact to his property .
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, clarified that the setback of the easement does not se t
at Mr . Urban's actual property line .
Trey Duffy, San Luis Obispo, is opposed to the project .
Jaime Hill (speaking as a citizen and not as a committee member), San Luis Obispo ,
stated the structure is too large for the area and for the type of architecture proposed .
Devin Gallagher, applicant, urged the committee to understand that the original vision o f
the structure was intended to feel like a chapel on the corner in context with th e
downtown and the relationship to the missio n
Astrid Gallagher, San Luis Obispo, concurred with the applicant . She pointed ou t
several details of the project's architecture .
There were no further comments made from the public .
COMMITTEE COMMENTS :
Committee Member Brajkovich supported the Mission design . He commented tha t
possibly lowering the parking structure will lessen the mass of the overall height .
Chairperson Costello disagreed with Committee Member Brajkovich's statement an d
was concerned with the style of the proposed structure .
Committee Member Dandekar is concerned with the size of the podium and believed i t
was too dominant . She commented that the mission is too far from the site to b e
connected in any way .
There was a general discussion between the Committee Members regarding the desig n
how to lessen the feel of how large the structure is by softening the podium or th e
parking structure and scaling down the size of the proposed structure .
There were no further comments made from the Committee .
On motion by Committee Member Pavlik, seconded by Committee Member Dandekar ,
alternative #1 continued item to a date with additional discussion or research in reqar d
to 3 .2 .1 quidelines with emphasis on softeninq approach of podium .
AYES :Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Taylor, and Pavli k
NOES :Chairperson Costello
•
•
•
B1-8
•
•
•
Attachment 1
Draft CHC Minute s
September 24, 201 3
Page 3
RECUSED :Committee Member Jaime Hil l
ABSENT :Committee Member Kalkowsk i
The motion passed on a 4 :1 vote .
Committee Member Hill returned to her position on the Committee .
2 .1095 Marsh Street .CHC 103-12 ; Review of Marsh Street bridge replacemen t
project ; C-D zone ; City of San Luis Obispo-Public Works Department, applicant .
(Phil Dunsmore )
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, along with Mike McGuire, City Civil Engineer, presente d
the staff report, recommending the CHC give concurrence to the complete replacemen t
of the Marsh Street Bridge based on findings and subject to conditions which h e
outlined . Staff proposed three alternatives to address the bridge safety issues :
•Repair the existing bridg e
•Replace the bridge superstructur e
•Replace the entire bridge structure, which staff supports this approach out of all 3
alternatives because it provides the greatest longevity and cost savings while stil l
respecting the historic design of the bridge structure
Mr . Dunsmore pointed out that alternatives 2 & 3 will require the City to prepare a n
environmental impact study and determination .
Committee Member Brajkovich questioned if funding is available for each of the thre e
alternatives . Mr . McGuire stated there is funding for all three alternatives because of
federal funding assistance . Mr . Brajkovich voiced support of the entire bridg e
replacement because funds were available to replace the entire structure .
There was a general discussion between Committee Members regarding the desig n
aspects of the bridge to keep in line with the Historical context of the original desig n
and/or keep the scale intact.
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
Charles Sinoli, San Luis Obispo, was concerned with lengthening the span of the bridg e
and its access while under construction . Mr. McGuire noted that access to businesse s
will not be restricted during the bridge construction project . Design will commence i n
January 2013 with construction beginning in 2015 due to the studies .
Mark Delaney, San Luis Obispo, commented that he was following this issue in regar d
to access to his business on Marsh Street during the construction project .
There were no further comments made from the public .
COMMITTEE COMMENTS :
Attachment 1
Draft CHC Minute sSeptember 24, 201 3
Page 4
There were no further comments made from the Committee .
On motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Taylor ,
findinq #3 addinq #5 quardrail rails and pedestals raised in compliance with AD A
standards amendment by Pavlik to include the environmental impact study . Committe e
Member Hill accepted the amendment.
AYES :Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Taylor, Pavlik, Hill, an d
Costell o
NOES :Non e
RECUSED :Non e
ABSENT :Committee Member Kalkowski
The motion passed on a 6 :0 vote .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION :
3.Staff
a . Agenda Forecast — Phil Dunsmore presented an agenda forecast for th e
upcoming meeting .
4.Committe e
Committee Member Hill, recommended to all Committee Members that it wa s
important all information is provided by staff to show projects on adjacen t
properties . She also commented that the opinions of the Committee Member s
should be withheld until the public comment portion of the hearing has been close d
and that prior to public comment that the CHC should focus only on technica l
questions for staff .
ADJOURNMENT :The meeting was adjourned at 7 :34 p .m .
Respectfully submitted by ,
Dawn Rudde r
Recording Secretary
B1-10
•
•
•
Attachment 2
So :GARIN SCHNEIDER- 0 5
District Local Assistance Engineer
File :05-SLO-000 0
Marsh Street over
San Luis Obispo Creek
Bridge No . 49CO29 8
From:ROBERT ZEZOFF original signed by
Senior Bridge Enginee r
Office of Special Funded Projects, Structure Loca l
Assistance & Structures Contract Managemen t
Program/Project & Resource Managemen t
Division of Engineering Service s
Subject :Type Selectio n
The City of San Luis Obispo has requested that Caltrans Structure Local Assistance review th e
following scoping documents for the above-mentioned bridge . The following documents wer e
submitted :
• Alternative Study Report by Dokken Engineering, dated September 17, 2012 .
•
The following are comments from the review :
1.Structure Local Assistance (SLA) concurs with the scope of this project and the preferre d
alternative . Although it is possible to rehabilitate this bridge, it is not prudent . The bridg e
was built in 1909 and is structurally deficient with the major items being deficient barrie r
rails, deck deterioration, spalling and cracks in the girders and exposed reinforcement, an d
a substandard load rating.
2.This bridge is eligible for inclusion in the Caltrans statewide historic bridge inventor y
update . The bridge replacement will require valid justification, but there does not appea r
to be significant historic value or aesthetic characteristics . Proposed aesthetic feature s
include ornamental lighting and open concrete architecturally aesthetic barrier rails an d
they will meet current ADA requirements .
3.The preferred alternative is a single-span prestressed cast-in-place or precast concrete sla b
bridge with seat abutments founded on pile foundations . It will be 60' long by 69' wid e
Please contact Robert Zezoff at (916) 227-9881 for any questions .
c :
Nathan Donnelly, Project Manager Dokken Engineerin g
Tammy Mar, Local Assistance Engineer District 5
Eric Bost, Senior Transportation Engineer, Local Assistance - HBRRP Coordinato r
•
Winton Emmett, Senior Transportation Engineer, Local Assistance — Area Enginee r
Jeff DeFevere, Acting Chief, Office of SFP, SLA and SC M
File
Date :November 6, 2012
DOKKEN ENGINEERING _
Transpo r tation Solutions from Concept to Construction
Attachment 3
October 24, 201 2
Mr. Michael McGuire, P .E .
Engineer III
City of San Luis Obisp o
919 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
RE : Marsh Street Bridge at San Luis Obispo Creek Amendment No .2
Environmental Clearance and Desig n
Specification No . 90480
Dear Mr. McGuire :
Thank you for the opportunity for us to submit the attached scope and cost proposal for engineerin g
services to provide environmental clearance and design for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacemen t
Project. We are pleased the City is ready to proceed into the environmental phase of the projec t
and welcome the chance to help the City through this important project .
Dokken understands the design and construction costs for this bridge will be moderate an d
relatively straightforward ; however, the bridge and the surrounding project area have a
combination of environmental resources which make the environmental process a very comple x
undertaking . I have outlined the following environmental concerns to account for the propose d
cost and our estimate of an 18 month schedule to complete the Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Approval phase of the project :
•San Luis Obispo Creek is a Waters of the United States under Army Corps of Engineer s
jurisdiction . It is also a Waters of the State under jurisdiction of the California Departmen t
of Fish and Game .
•San Luis Obispo Creek is identified as suitable habitat for the Central Valley Steelhead,a
Federally Threatened Species under protection of Section 7 of the Endangered Specie s
Act . The project area is also considered Critical Habitat for the steelhead . As part of th e
NEPA process Section 7 Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service will b e
needed .
•The project area is identified as suitable and critical habitat for the California Red-legge d
Frog, a Federally Threatened Species also protected by Section 7 . As part of the NEPA
process Section 7 Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will b e
needed .
•The Marsh Street Bridge is a historic resource eligible for inclusion in the Nationa l
Register of Historic Places and is protected under Section 106 of the National Histori c
Preservation Act. Demolition and replacement of this bridge will require extensiv e
coordination efforts with Caltrans, the State" Historic Preservation Officer, and the loca l
historic society with an interest in the resource .
•
•
110 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 200, Folsom,CA 95630-4713 •Tele:916 .858 .0642 • Fax :916 .858 .0643 •www.dokIgnWi4eering .com
DOKKEN ENGINEERIN G
Transportation Solutions from Concept to Constructio n
•
• As a historic resource, the bridge is also protected under Section 4(f) of the Federa l
Department of Transportation Act . Impacts to a historic bridge require documentatio n
proving that avoidance alternatives have been fully analyzed prior to NEPA approval .
Although these elements will require a larger effort than the typical bridge replacement, we wil l
make every effort to minimize the cost during the environmental process . However, ou r
knowledge of the process and the numerous resource agencies involved leads to the attache d
necessary services . Dokken Engineering management and environmental staff have substantia l
experience working with Caltrans and the other regulatory agencies to guide this type of projec t
through to completion . Having an in-house environmental team that can work directly with ou r
engineers allows us to reduce miscommunications and potential delays throughout th e
environmental phase .
Dokken Engineering's cost can be broken down as follows :
1 .Plans, Specifications and Estimate $ 187,814 .9 2
2 .Environmental Studies, Documentation and Permitting $ 249,391 .0 4
3 .Right-of-Way Planning, Engineering and Acquisition $ 157,7.46 .32
Total 1594,452 .21)
We plan to have the following subconsutltants (and their costs) on the project team to assist i n
delivery of the project :
•Galvin Preservation and Associates (Historical Evaluations)$ 40,700 .00
•Geocon, Inc . (Geotechnical)$ 16,000 .00
•Wallace Group (Surveying)$ 10,000 .00
•Hamner, Jewell and Associates (Right of Way)$28,500 .00
We appreciate the City's continued trust in Dokken Engineering and we remain committed t o
efficiently delivering this important project . If you have any question with provided scope and cost
proposal, please contact me at (916) 858-0642 or (916) 505-0795 .
Sincerely ,
cc :
File 1929-05 2
Attachments
Exhibit A — Amendment No . 2 Cost Proposa l
Exhibit B — Amendment No . 2 Scope of Work
DOEREN ENGINEERIN G
Nathan Donnelly, Po-:
Project Manager
B1-1 3
Page intentionally left 0
blank .
•
Goodwin, Heather
RECEIVE D
JAN 2 2 201 3
To :
Cc :
Subject
Marx, Ja n
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11 :40 AM
Grimes, Maev e
Goodwin, Heathe r
FW: Marsh Street Bridge and Dialysis Clinic access
SLO CITY CLER K
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENC E
Date Yu//s .Item#iS I
Please post this piece of correspondence on the website for tonight's meeting .
Thanks ,
Ja n
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obisp o
(805) 781-7120 or (805) 541-271 6
From :Corliss Campbell [Corliss .Campbell@davita .com]
Sent :Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11 :31 AM
To : Marx, Jan ; Smith, Kathy ; Carter, Andrew ; Carpenter, Dan ; Ashbaugh, Joh n
Cc : Jessica Smith
Subject :Marsh Street Bridge and Dialysis Clinic acces s
Dear Mayor and City Council Members :
r DaVita San Luis Obispo Dialysis Clinic is located at 1043 Marsh Street . Our Facility Administrator is Jessic a
Smith . Jessica let me know the Council has an agenda item for today's meeting regarding the potential closure of the
bridge that is adjacent to our clinic and parking lot . We'd like to be discuss the plan for the timing of this closure an d
how we will continue to have access for our patients and teammates to parking and to the clinic .
DaVita provides life sustaining treatments to both hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients daily, except Sundays ,
from approximately 3 am to 7 pm . Patients who come for hemodialysis treatments must have access to their clini c
based treatments 3 to 4 times a week to continue living . It is critical that we consider their ability to be transported t o
and from the clinic if a bridge closure does occur . This involves individual cars and commercial transport vans wit h
equipment for the handicapped . Secondarily, we need to consider parking access for the dedicated team that provide s
these treatments.
We know you will be sensitive to the needs of all of the businesses in the area of Marsh Street as consideration of thi s
bridge closure moves forward . We appreciate you including our patients and teammates in this mix of concerns .
Jessica and I plan to be present at the Council Meeting this evening so look forward to seeing you there .
You can contact me at our Templeton clinic at 805 434-3473, or Jessica at our San Luis Obispo Clinic at 805 543 -
1013 . Thank you in advance for allowing us to be a part of planning for the potential closure of the Marsh Street bridge .
iss Campbell, GF AOita Templeton Dialysi s
1310 Las Tablas Rd ., Ste 10 1
Templeton, CA 9346 5
I know many of you as I am a resident of San Luis Obispo but I am contacting you in my role as Group Facilit y
inistrator for DaVita's Dialysis Clinics in SLO County .
805 434-347 3
805 434-3246 Fa x
866 770-6436 Electronic Fa x
-DaVita, Inc .-
•
2
RECEIVE D
Goodwin,Heather ~JAN 2 2 201 3
Marx, Ja n
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11 :23 A M
To:Grimes, Maev e
Cc:Goodwin, Heathe r
Subject:FW: Agneda Item B-1
SLO CITY CLER K
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENC E
Date 1/&8//3Item#81
Pleases include this piece of agenda correspondence in the public record for tonight's meeting .
Thanks ,
Ja n
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obisp o
(805) 781-7120 or (805) 541-271 6
From :rschmidt@rain .org [rschmidt@rain .org]
Sent : Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11 :12 AM
To : Marx, Jan ; Carter, Andrew ;dcarpen@slocitv .org ;Ashbaugh, John ; Smith, Kath y
Subject : Agneda Item B-1
Dear Council Members ,
Item B-i caught my attention because of several oddities in the rationale for its recommendation –the most costly an d
.ptive of the three Marsh Street bridge alternatives studied .
So, three observations :
1 . Flow Capacity . The report urges adopting the big engineering solution (the one the engineers therefore prefer) b y
stating "Placement of the abutments further apart will increase the hydraulic capacity of San Luis Obispo Creek ."
Uh, OK, probably none of you understand this, so let me explain : That means the preferred alternative would allo w
more flood water to pass under this bridge, which has never been one of the flow constraints along this section of Sa n
Luis Creek .
Sounds good ?
Sure, except for the fact that just 200 feet downstream from there is the entry to the sub-city tunnel, which is THE flo w
constraint along all of SL Creek . Water will back up from there and flood the whole of downtown during any significan t
storm event .
So why would you want to increase the flow rate just upstream so more water can get to the tunnel entry constrain t
even faster, therefore backing up and flooding even more ?
This makes no sense, and it's hard to understand how any competent engineer could write such stuff, except as a
propagandistic way to manipulate the decision makers – YOU .
telligent flood control solution for this tunnel problem would be to SLOW the flow for a ways upstream t o
ewhat mitigate the backup of water against the immovable object of that tunnel . Your engineers propose th e
opposite of this prudent management policy .
1
2.Engineering Cost Indifference . It is curious, but thoroughly expected given the engineering egos involved, that th e
preferred alternative is the most costly of the three studied .
its MOST COSTLY in a most obvious and clearly inappropriate way :
ou can pay $4,400,000 for an "improvement" with a 100 year life expectancy, or $2,800,000 for one with a 75-year lif e
expectancy . Uh, just those numbers are shocking enough on their face . Moreso if you think it through .
Do the math : You can get the 75-year improvement for about $37,000 per year ; or you can get the 100-yea r
improvement for that, with each incremental additional year costing nearly double, or $64,000 per year for the final 2 5
years of life expectancy . Clearly, there's no benefit to spending the extra money for the 100-year project .
Does this recommendation illustrate responsible allocation of taxpayer funds? (And forget the free-money "grant "
nonsense ; every penny still comes from taxpayers .)
3.Gobbledygook . The report urges the most costly alternative because "the increased channel protection" alleged to b e
provided beneath the bridge provides "significant benefits to the City ." This is nonsense . The existing abutments can b e
armored to provide equally "significant benefits to the City ."
Since the skids have been greased for months prior to the public knowing about this, there's little doubt what you'll do ,
but I wanted to have two cents worth at this nonetheless .
Richard Schmid t
PS . Of course, it is also remarkable that a National Register eligible city facility should get such short shrift . Staff wants to
replace the bridge because, being reactionary, they still believe the biggest new project is the best one, so they hired a n
•neering
firm not noted for finding feasible ways to work with historic structures . This is another aspect of how staff
ipulates the process . Your directive to them should have been (and still should be) to find a firm that specializes i n
historic fabric as their first choice, rather than turning to a firm that comes in with the most costly alternative to totall y
obliterating historic fabric . Historic preservation seems to be something the city wants to shove down private owners '
throats, for the benefit of its tourism business, but is unwilling to honor when it comes to spending money on its ow n
historic features.
•
2