Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0717 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM • i MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue McJ( park Calitornia 93021 (805) 529 -6864 '/-----?PARK, CALIFORNA C;-,y Cou cil Meetng of I 99 J / M E M O R A N D U M 7 9 i TO: The Honorable City Council C FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works Charles Abbott, City Engineer DATE: July 9, 1991 (Council Meeting 7- 17 -91) SUBJECT: Consideration of Conceptual. Design Alternatives for Charles Street OVERVIEW This presents a discussion of aesign alternatives for the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street improvements on Charles Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road. The improvement project would also inc.ludie the c- onstruction of a storm drain in Charles Street. Charles Street from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road is in need of repairs. There are a number of problems with the condition and the function of the street including 1) curbs displaced by tree roots (with the resultant gutter drainage problems); 2) substandard curbs, gutters, sidewalks and driveways; and 3) deteriorated pavement condition. The City Engineer has prepared a design (Option I) to address these problems., Prior, to proceeding with the project, it is desirable to evaluatE other design options. DISCUSSION A. Notice Pursuant to the direction of City Council, a letter was sent to all property owners and residents on Charles Street (and on adjacent streets) advising them of the intent of the City Council to consider these improvements. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit A. PAUL W LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ SCOTT MONTU,AER kCV _ TALLE =Y JR JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmem,, ,o_-almember Councilmember Charles Street July 17, 1991 Page 2 B. Project Design Options Attached as Exhibit B are several project option includes a brief description of the cross - section. C. Project Cost AnalysisJComparison design options. Each option with a street Attached as Exhibit C is a chart showing the estimated cost for each design option. Also included in this chart is information regarding power pole relocation and tree removal. D. Design Parameters The project design options (Exhibit B) have been generated by comparing and contrasting a number of design parameters. These parameters are listed and discussed as follows: 1. Street Width Preserving the present curb -to -curb street width of thirty - six feet (361) vs. widening th(, street to forty feet (401). 2. Centerline Leaving the center line of the street at the center of the right -of -way vs. shifting the centerline to the south to reduce impact upon existing improvements. 3. Overlay vs. Re- construction Design Options I, IV -A and V -A provide for a pavement overlay. Options II, III, Iv -B, V -B and VI call for the complete reconstruction of the street. Overlaying the street is less costly than reconstruction. However, reconstruction of the street provides definite benefits. Reconstruction would enable the City to lower the gutter flow line in those areas where drainage of adjacent properties is a problem. It would also allow the City to raise the street in those areas where driveway grades are a problem. Reconstruction would allow for the construction of a project consistent with present Engineering design standards. An overlay would not adequately address all of these problems. Charles Street July 17, 1991 Page 3 4. Trees Design Options I and II proposes to preserve all of the trees except the tree at the southwest corner of Bard Street and Charles Street. All of the ether Options require the removal of trees which conflict with the proposed improvements. The number of trees proposed to be removed under each option is shown in the appropriate column in Exhibit C. To preserve the trees would require the construction of several "bubbles" in the curb. That is, the curb -- and the gutter flow line -- would have to curve out and around most of the trees. This creates problems for proper street sweeping, street drainage and vehicular parking. In addition, preserving the trees will make street reconstruction more difficult. Obviously, the elevation of the existing trees is fixed. Street reconstruction presumes raising and /or lowering the street where required to improve drainage. This would require the construction of tree wells and /or raised tree planters where required. It should be pointed out that: the number of trees proposed to be removed in each Optioiru is only a minimum. During construction it may be discovered that trees or tree roots are in conflict with the prroposed improvements and must be removed. An arborist has been retained to evaluate the trees on Charles Street. A verbal summary of those findings will be provided at the Council mee,° ins$. E. Summary Option I: This Option is the least costly. It utilizes the existing pavement as much as possible with the addition of an asphalt overlay. The sidewalks, which are elevated to provide for an adequate curb face, are placed at the curb. This allows the parkway to slope down frcm the back of sidewalk to the existing elevation at the propE�rty line. Driveway transitions must be constructed onto private property to connect the driveway apron to driveways which are generally lower in elevation. All but one of the trees are preserved. Option II: This is like OptiR: n I , except that the street is reconstructed. This allows fc.:r the lowering of the sidewalk (and driveways) to facilitate surface drainage from private properties to the street. Althc ugh only one tree is proposed to be removed, as stated above, u ad i t i on a l trees may have to be removed. Charles Street July 17, 1991 Page 4 Option III: This is like Optic;n II, except that those trees (17 ea.) in conflict with the pxoposed location of the curb and gutter, would be removed OptiXIV -A:- Like Option I, thit., is an asphalt overlay project. It differs from Option I in that the street would be widened to forty feet (401). Again, the sidewalks must be elevated and placed adjacent to the curb. The widening of the street necessitates the relocation of seventeen (1.7 ea.) power poles and the removal of twenty -nine 291 tx °ees. Option IV -B: This is like Opti <:)n IV -A, except that the street is to be reconstructed. Again reconstruction allows for the lowering of the sidewalk (and dr- iveways) to facilitate surface drainage from private propertie, to the street. Option V -A: This is like Options IV -A in that it is an asphalt overlay project with a street width of forty feet (401). It differs from Option IV -A by shifting the center line of the street two feet (21) to the south. Shifting the center line in this fashion allows for a reduction in the number of power poles to be relocated from seventeen 17) down to three (3). It also allows for a reduction in the number of trees to be removed from twenty -nine ( 29 ) down to twent.+, - f r»ir ?.4) . Option V -B: This is like Option V -A, except that the street is to be reconstructed. This a. lows for the lowering of the sidewalk (and driveways) to facilita,�e surface drainage from private properties to the stx-ec, r . Option VI: This is similar to !ption II [street reconstruction with a width of thirty -six feet (361)] except that the centerline is shifted four feet 4' ) to the south. Shifting the centerline in this fashion allows for a reduction in the number of power poles to be relocated t.o three (3) and a reduction in the number of trees to be remo z!d 10 fifteen (15). F. Mitigating Measures The affect of tree removals 4ould be mitigated by planting fifteen gallon replacement tree,,41. The mitigation could be made more effective by plantinq twenty -four inch (2411) box replacement trees. Charles Street July 17, 1991 Page 5 G. Recommended Option Upon full review of the above options, staff recommends the selection of Option III. This option is summarized as follows: . the curb -to -curb street widt-h would remain at thirty six feet (36'); . the center line would not i_;e shifted; . the street would be reconstructed; and, . those trees (17 ea.) in conflict with the proposed location of the curb and gutter wou.i be removed. Note: The location of :he trees to be removed under Option III are shrpan on Exhibit D. H. Proiect Implementation The Budget for Fiscal Year 1991/92 provides for $55,000 of Community Development Block Grant monies for this project. This far exceeds the estimated coy -7t of the project. It may be necessary to discuss the fusibility of constructing the improvements in phases. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Co1.,nci1 take the following actions: o Select design Option III: o Refer this project to the Public Works Committee for a recommendation on project phasing and funding. E, 4��� v L-C7 � �Q tot ♦ k% MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue MoorF Ik, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 July 3, 1991 'F1' Subject: Charles Street Improvemen, PrDje(: ,,t Dear Property Owner and /or Residen- The City of Moorpark is dedicated t.(., .mproving and upgrading the community in every way possible. cie very significant way is through the construction of major Ca}ital Improvement Projects. The improvement of Charles Street between Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue is one of the F)jects being readied for construction. The purpose of this project is to co struct improvements to the street, sidewalks, curbs and guttfrs. The City wishes to finalize the design for these improvements. Several alternative concepts have been discussed. Thes:? alternatives include: 1) asphalt overlay vs. total street rec(: ristruction; 2) widening the street; 3) shifting the centerline; cnd 4) the possible removal of some of the street trees. At 7:00 P. M. on Wednesday, July 17, L991, the City Council will consider these design alternative: You are encouraged to attend this meeting to listen to he merits of the various options being considered and to l.ve th =� City Council the opportunity to hear your views orl < -= nat-t# r. If you have any questions or would Like to review the design alternatives prior to July 17, plea e cont�rct Kenneth Gilbert, Director of Public Work:;, at City H .7 . Si tiene preguntas de este.proyectc, a 529 -6864. Very Truly Yours, Kenneth C. Gilbert Director of Public Work: cc: City Council f,rior le llamare City Hall PAUL W LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ SCOTT MONTG( 4, R'• R ] � E TALLEY JR JOHN E wOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Counc+lmem! ':;.x;ncilmernbef Councilmember EXIA left' ' W t elf s OPTION I Overlaying the existing st.reM.!t and maintain existing street width (361- 011). Do not shirt the street center line. Save all the trees along both aides of the street. Raise the proposed sidewalk and parkw,i GO 12' 18' 2 ��— EXISTING SURFACE OPTION # I Sx. , la' Z' oZ5 OPTION II Re- construct the existing st:!eet pavement and maintain the existing street width to (3('- 0") Do not shift street center line. Save all the -.roes along both sides of the street. Do not raise the prof o:;zl sidewalk and parkway. GO — EXISTING SURFACE OPT #, OPTION III Same as option II except remote trees which are in the way of proposed curb and gutter. T tal tree removal will be 60 _ 30 12 _ 18 EXISTING SURFACE OPTION III 'Ex . e' OPTION IV - A Overlaying the existing street and widening the street to 40'- 0 ". The street will )e widened on both sides. Remove all the trees which are n the way of proposed curb and gutter. Also relocate the power poles. Total tree removal will be 25. Total power p,l.e relocation will be 17. 0' 30* i 30, 10' -20' 2 0' 10' EXISTING V SURFACE OPT ON IV -A OPTION IV - B Same as option IV - A, exce,)t re- construct the existing street pavement which will not result raising the sidewalk and parkway. EXISTING: SURFACE Go* 30' N. 20' 10'. OF ION LTI -B '30* 12' .• 2- � off, �-- EXISTING SURFACE 1 OPTION -V—A OPTION V - B Same as option V - A, except re-construct the existing street pavement which will not result in raising the sidewalk and parkway. 30, 12' 18' .• I 2 eel# Tt� axtSTnr'40 ti� •' KV 30' 22' 8' OPTION V - A Overlaying the existing street Ind widening the street to 40`- 0 ". The street will be widened on south side only. Remove all the trees which are n the way of the proposed curb and gutter. Also, relocate tie power poles on south side. Total tree removal will be 24 Z'ot:a t power pole relocation will be 3.. '30* 12' .• 2- � off, �-- EXISTING SURFACE 1 OPTION -V—A OPTION V - B Same as option V - A, except re-construct the existing street pavement which will not result in raising the sidewalk and parkway. 30, 12' 18' .• I 2 eel# Tt� axtSTnr'40 ti� •' KV 30' 22' 8' EX. ' g l OPTION VI Re- construct the street pavem <.nt and maintain street width to 36'- 011. Shift the north si:Je proposed curb and gutter in order to save north side tre,:!s. Reduce the width of south side parkway and remove south side trees which are the way of proposed curb and gutter. Thi: option will require relocating two (2) power poles located C:;n the south side of the street and between Moorpark Ave and Walnut Street. Also, one (1) telephone pole at east end of project near Spring Street. M �50' 30' ' SH;FT CROW I6. lei EXIST. � SO TH a es 4' EXTRA REQ' TO MISS EXIST r-' I EXISTING I SURFACE M CHARLES STREET a'1 CITY OF MOORPARK CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATEICOMPARSION STREET GEOTECHNICAL SIGHING & STORM CONST. CALCULATED NO OF NO OF OPTION DESIGN/ INVESTI- STRIPING CONSTRUCTION STREET DRAIN CON- MOBIL- TOTAL ESTIMATED TREE TO POLES TO BE NO. REDESIGN GATION DESIGN ADMIN. $ CONST. CONST. TINGENCY IZATION CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 8E RELOCATED COST COST OOST OBSERVATION COST COST (15X) (10X) COST COST REMOVED I $21,154* $2,000 $32,929 $287,518 $59,565 $52,062 $39,915 $439,060 $495,143 1 0 1I $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $50,672 $474,528 $59,555 $80,114 $61,421 $675,628 $738,300 1 0 1 €' $A 3a iLu $5.;, di" ' _ sib u _jt7 b8�,1b b5_ b , ,i _ ir' $i8A 11E 3. u IV -A $12,000 $4,000 $2,000 $49,878 $466,158 $59,565 $78,858 $60,458 $665,040 $732,918 29 17 IV -8 $12,000 $4 -000 $2,000 $67 -670 $653,693 $59,565 $106,989 $82,025 $902,271 $987,942 29 17 V -A $9,000 $4,000 $2,000 $39,916 $361,158 $59,565 $63,108 $48,383 $532,215 $587,131 24 3 V -8 $9,000 $4,000 $2,000 $57,708 $548,693 $59,565 $91,239 $59,950 $769,446 $842,155 15 3 VI $11,500 $4,000 $2,000 $51,666 $485,000 $59,565 $81,685 $62,625 $688,875 $758,040 15 3 • PART OF THE CURRENT DESIGN CONTRACT � 1 POSSIBLE DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION TO EXISTING TREES MAY REQUIRE MORE TREE REMOVAL. ' on . imam Q r ,� y z a w 18 +00 Amt( Wii ' 1 Eil O G) d 1 y+U V CV +VV 0TY, NES SHOWN 174 TON$ USED GRADE L— 181 Sr AA CO RATE E'B9 I E T Co No E 5. REV. E. •156; SI RD f REV C • U ADJUS- AAAMICLE 8 VALVE COVERS TO GPADE G) d 1 y+U V CV +VV �� CMil HEN i'•-• v ��� � -� t2 O A K I cults ID 1�Q4 I I v O CONSTRUCT S' CROSS GUTTER PER VENTURA CO PLerF 0ML NO. E J. REV 1258/ OCONSTRUCT SIDEWALK RAMP CASE B PER VENTURA CO. PI ATE NO. E.8. MDv REV. A O CONSTRUCT 6' AC. BEAM TYPE N vEN TURA CO. PLATE No E � 4 NEV C. 57v OY FL*WtU' 6 INSTALL TYPE -L- GUIDE NAPI;FR PER VENTURA CO. PLATE I r M0. F -E REV. C. 11 RELaATE METER ---� .N i �r pm I NaN4Aii E� 0�00'O 1000 15.7E I 10.00 ,i i i J 2t2 I'LL 6 � CITY OF MOORPARK `90IRI R_LERT CHARLES STREET PLAN AND PROFILE STREET I�PRO,EN _ •, 5 FROM STA, 16.5000 r0 pp,tj, ,r �� CMil HEN i'•-• v ��� � -� t2 O ADJUS WE TER BOX To GLACE QTY • U ADJUS- AAAMICLE 8 VALVE COVERS TO GPADE 7e. ,: ^' -. ws I IS PROTECT EXISrNG IN PLACE. 19 EXL51EM1v CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED. 931 yr © RE>A;:vttT PXVAIE WT PEa TW 3300P D "�i uwoTCC�ou..o Ill.v,c ��. CITY OF MOORPARK `90IRI R_LERT CHARLES STREET PLAN AND PROFILE STREET I�PRO,EN _ •, 5 FROM STA, 16.5000 r0 pp,tj, ,r wk p o p,TC� [.IsrIN, I I I I I t r� LMDCS to N El r > s II \ YM I I G n o Q ��- °z� Qj t �� 7 ►� +. ?t 8� xla Q () w Q 1 7 w 8 d R H 'v ,�'b l If A a+ • sh=y j11IF - -4 Zjs I iYrt ='.�i ` ++ �� +J W . I `ti h � _ � I, V,,D ! / , 1 I •r I, � � / � i tip' O �TS � T 1 � �3' " v `*'� � i'-".. 'T�+ � /\ Y ° �� " r� --1 , } 1 r I tf, r a A. { ,F . i S4 , f d� ` . - ✓ - nom- s ,,,• ....., - - - � G - - -- fir _ _ ' 15 71 �IIj, }I W A �1 Y t • `Q1— oTr L41 cry C CON3TR_><'T CROSS GUTTER PER 'VENTiiA CO. PLATE H[;., t-3, 4 v + U w f i V G I6 CONSTRUCT CURVED CURB AND GUTTER PER DETAIL -A- SHEET 12 OF S. O CCMSTRt/CT SC7E'rwLK RAMP PER VENTURA CO. PLATE N2 C-6, z.o Y Iy EXISTING CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED. lest $r WI r It TING REV. A, I.' fl ^- Iv..�. Og FURNISH AND INSTALL TYPE -l' GUIDE MARKER PER VENTURA CO LJJ O ct PLATE NO, F -I, REV. C 2 [J ® RECONSTRUCT PRNATE DRIVE 10' OUTSIDE OF R/W UNE 230 SF Z O Z J CONSTRUCTION NOTES: _ II RELOCATE METER. 3 EA 21 RECONSTRUCT 12- CURB 8 GUTTER I.0 (c) 0 OVERLAY Ez15 r, I., vnvru , - Q ADJUST METER BOX TO GRADE. S FA U y ` LL f) O GRIND EXISTINGPAVT4EY IC vh M 13 ADJUST MANHOLES AND VALVE COVERS TO GRADE w.2 rC . 2 f 3 UNDERGROUND 0.GtOUND ,[DVICC CONSTRUCT 6- cuND a i9 cIcn T. �C .:. E NO E -4, REV C- n D A Q �� O . . IS PROTECT EXISTING IN PLAC �A lE RT �- O CONSTRUCT 4_ P.C.C. S,DC WpI.R , 3 WI;{ ErN 16 CONSTRUCT LOCAL DEPRESSION N0. 2 PER IAi.CD. STD. T2 Sr - CIO- t71•a7+ HOOZ -Dee CASE E. OS CONSTRUCT DRIVE "t RUAUI P(R of N''INA MD /LCL HYP WIDTH AS SHOWN ON `TANS + 2 u �� � _ �.... - - -— t•.�.to CITY OF --- 1- - - -- CHARLES STREET �1X/GFIi — — RF1� M O O R P A R K PAN AND PROFlLE STREET IMPROVEMENTS N„ R I FROM STA 10.50 TO STA. 16.50 ���X I�TI_S Ur O h W 0 fl O m; @ f Lij l , r 00 ! CITY OF � MOORPARK I jGoYS,R pON ra,tnEn )fT I W� Li j�r�. 1 N � y J © W ,v O 18 Il A # p r 4RR�[y � I \�� i(r ROB(. ti O ) •� r ,� `• �� o Z S J CA Sf L CONSTRUCTION ` NOTES: O n Y�42 f = .ca',AY EXISTwG PAV u NT (1-11Z' - E E rAw.l TO GRADE LINE GRAr iCYN _. ? U L n 2 !-'C EXISTNG PAVEWENT TO 117 1- 6N1.1 � o ~ + BELOW PROPOSE_ [RA jE LNlE OJ CJNSTRUCT 6' CURB f 7 r Q A IB' GUTTER, TYPE NO E�, REV. C. E 2, PER vENiWa CO. PLATE c 0 t— O C.tS•PU!T I' P.C.C. SIDEWALK, 4.7' WOE PER VENTURA Cr 'l AT[ N0. E.l, PEv. E. rl, f -NYIRI d'I OPM APPRIIAl11 POR Y{NIIrRA Alp p CHARLES S - -- - - tGt -TT _PLAN A,D PROFILE STRE TDII/ R Cf (FROM STA, 5.00,00 TI.f �.t�ru �. ll...I I $0, Ai Wlqr KATtW U16TINO 41, 4 ri 3 JI ary G4FCONSTR CT w ATE DRIVE 10 OVTMX OF R/W L)W- 15040' 1 ro 0 20' iz m ter --7 1, O LLJ v 4 z 4, (D 8' CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 OVERLAY EX,Sr",3 -AIEENT It TO GRADC LINE jIX0.% 20'1 tO-1 0 -ELOCLTE ,(TEC •fAsElt.r (D GRIND EXISTING PAvLIIF.NT TO III, BELCH i'­PC SED ;PACE 1076 s. ()ADJUST WTEA PDX TO ­CE nl IONSTrUll 6' C F8 A IR' S-U—IIP, T (-C A , —R 'E' ' 'RA C). 7 1093 L' &D.&-57 11—OLES A /A- Co\i $ w O 's RI °oF Clf2VE OATTAL T T •,, R i � � V �c I a _ ia�000d• 2300 3613' 1300 �' � 70'000 1600 2�1] r6 G0 O tA arypuy Y /� - ��I I I 17 E I 10 ¢ t `'f ] T_ Yi ' � -I �v I —T g�''I -- $OYH `G „ ! • / I I I I I O I �, w u < 1 C7• �'`_ ' 4— 1r �o y •+� I � I ¢ v A�.yyq� 1 V g c 1 0 f�lcnae ;4r� ` V O 6 op. � 2 �OCDI*TR j�- O�j( ���RSxs *w—irr ��J h'v L we+�Exsn.9 k° ° a JSTRUCTION NOTES jJ °� Z ` '' GDN6naCTvml µWclq�" 7GMPCa.A1EY' v. a J oiY_. fA9[ri�TT ErIfn1s cONyTRiCfnrJ W.p " 7 Q '[BEAT Ex157WG PavE YEHi Ul /2- M*U TO GRADE LK y,pw.K' � &A6E M6NT N�y,m R < TOE TOG OE CONSTRUCT S' CROSS GUTT,, fFv VEmrURA CO, PEA OTT. S >4$ EXISTWG PAVE YEM 1 -r /2" YIHIYIIy BELOW PROPOSED GRADE L� PLATE N0 E -3, RCv_ C IGC6 SF O RECp,S7RUC7 I.STw CATCH Bd UH T oTY �1 SY O CDNSTRtA:7 SID[MALX Rags RACE LPr[ s•pw.., 3eA M. $TRUCT 6' CURB 6 GUTTER PER vEM -�-SE !PEI, VENTURA MT C-0. PLATE M0. E-6, REV A 2475E O PROTECT ERi57 URA [0. PLATE N0. F -.. REY C "" Lf O w4 N q -n - ;rrST RUCT ._ PC M1 4El OCATE ME7ER C SrDE. "w . _ w" PER vCMTLAA CO. PLATE No E -5, REV. C, 55A54- 10 EA O .QN5TRUCT LOCAL DEPRES-Slof. O ADJUST W TER &OX TO GRAD( .�. 2 PER LJI CI e➢ SiD .ro 1 Me. cAyE 4 JN$TwrCi pgIVE APPROACH PER VCIE7l.M CO. PLATE N0, E-L WIDTH AS SHOWN I> CA 17 v P�aHS x.2 O O Cp+STRUCT LOCAL DEP'RESS+ON NO.. 1 PER L CF CD I%H•i �I S �'VST YArAioLES A/q vKVE 'C.'ERS TO GRADE_ D EA O E7USTWG COPETE TO BE RENOvC E S1D_ 2Z 'or USE C 1.12 HC ^. G--vEO CITY a YOpByry 47-V F[_�"T" cx D(IC.(D Y � YCS uuB -- _ �-=l , WVl,1! \1 `S •.r �. f _T : C. '.Q R— __ -. r �.r w •c.,r r,.. wv wrt 1.�... i '°o+ f.c - _ arcowr.oco — . CITY Y O F - - -- - au M O O R P A R K .aoa.�Ea -- - -- -_