CITY COUNCIL
ERRATA SHEET
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: 07/17/2024
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Agenda- Errata Sheet
Attached is additional information for your consideration at the July 17, 2024 City Council Meeting:
Agenda Item Information Provided/Corrected
9A
Revised Recommendation Action:
1. Authorize an agreement with Neill Engineers Corp for FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan engineering services in an amount not to exceed $573,079 plus a 15% contingency.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action on this item. (See attached related email.)
9B Signature line revised to reflect Bill Peake, Mayor. (See attached revised amendment.) 10A Library minutes were inadvertently left out of the packet. (See attached Library minutes.) 12A
Additional information for consideration. (See attached additional information. ) Memo to CC dated July 17, 2024 re Cedar Sunset Congress Intersection Improvement (See attached memo.)
Attachments
Halabi email 071624
Revised Contract Amendment
LAB Minutes 7-5-24
Additional Information
New Memo 07-17-24
Re: Authorize an agreement with Neill Engineers Corp for FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan engineering services in an amount not to exceed $545,871 plus a 15% contingency.
Joyce Halabi <[email protected]>
Tue 7/16/2024 9:06 AM
To:Luke Coletti <[email protected]>;Daniel Gho <[email protected]> Cc:Matthew Mogensen <[email protected]>;Bill Peake <[email protected]>;Sandra Kandell <[email protected]>
Hi Councilmember Coletti,
There was a typo in the agenda report, the total requested amount for the FY25/25 contract is $573,079 plus a 15% contingency. I will work with Sandra to issue an errata with this correction.
In FY23/24, $223,867 was expended with Neill Engineers on CIP Engineering Services. This figure does not include the project invoices that are currently in process for the last month of FY23/24.
Instead of formally carrying forward the engineering needs from prior year CIP projects into FY24/25, we annually reassess these needs. This reassessment includes both carryforward projects and newly funded projects, allowing us to develop a new contract amount for the fiscal year.
The carryforward projects are outlined below, with engineering estimates ranging from 5% to 10% of the project budget. Projects that are well underway, where the remaining engineering tasks involve construction project management and development of as-builts, are estimated at 5%. Projects where preliminary design is well underway but the final bid packages are being finalized are estimated at 10% of the project cost.
Carryforward Projects:
Phase 9
FY23/24 Street Rehabilitation
David Ave Street Rehabilitation
Outdoor Dining Extension/Sidewalk Widening
David Ave Sidewalk
Priority Storm Drain Repair at Syida Dr
New projects are typically estimated between 10% and 15%, depending on the scale of the project. Some of the smaller scale projects, where engineering needs are minimal are estimated below 10% (specifically, the last 2 projects on the list below).
New Projects:
FY24/25 Street Rehab
FY24/25 Crack & Slurry
Pedestrian Safety - Central/Fountain & Grand/Fountain
Recreation Trail Improvements – Esplanade Park
Pico Avenue & Crocker Ave Stormwater Improvement
Community Center Sewer Repairs
Joyce Halabi
Deputy Public Works Director
City of Pacific Grove
(831)648-5722 x 4201
2100 Sunset Drive, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
From: Luke Coletti <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 6:57 AM
To: Daniel Gho <[email protected]>; Joyce Halabi <[email protected]> Cc: Matthew Mogensen <[email protected]>; Bill Peake <[email protected]> Subject: Authorize an agreement with Neill Engineers Corp for FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan engineering services in an amount not to exceed $545,871 plus a 15% contingency.
Hello Dan -
I notice that this year’s (FY 24/25) authorization request for services with Neill Engineers is the exact same amount as last year’s (FY 23/24) request - $545,871 plus 15% contingency. Is that a typo? How much was spent from last year’s authorized amount? Put another way, how much is being carried forward from last year? 07/05/2023 Agenda Report:
Authorize an agreement with Neill Engineers Corp for FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan engineering services in an amount not to exceed $545,871 plus a 15% contingency.
This contract will allow the progression of the following CIP projects:
FY23/24 Street Rehabilitation
FY23/24 Crack and Slurry Seal
Street Rehabilitation on David Avenue
Phase 9 Sewer Improvements
David Avenue Sidewalks
Priority Storm Drain Improvements on Syida
Safety Improvements at Robert Down Elementary School
Design of Sidewalk Extensions for Outside Dining Uses
https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?
id=72243&mt=ALL&vl=true&get_month=7&get_year=2023&dsp=agm&seq=3919&rev=0&ag=1767&ln=15027&nseq=3914&nrev=0&ps eq=3911&prev=0#ReturnTo15027
07/17/2024 Agenda Report:
Authorize an agreement with Neill Engineers Corp for FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan engineering services in an amount not to exceed $545,871 plus a 15% contingency.
This list includes prior year project carryforwards and newly proposed CIP projects adopted in the FY24/25 Budget:
FY24/25 Street Rehabilitation
FY24/25 Crack & Slurry Seal
Pedestrian Safety - Central/Fountain & Grand/Fountain
Recreation Trail Improvements – Esplanade Park
Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Widening
Pico Avenue & Crocker Ave Stormwater Improvement
Community Center Sewer Repairs
Priority Storm Drain Repair at Syida Dr
Phase 9 Sewer Improvements
FY23/24 Street Rehabilitation
David Avenue Sidewalk
David Avenue Street Rehabilitation
https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?
id=72243&mt=ALL&vl=true&get_month=7&get_year=2024&dsp=agm&seq=5046&rev=0&ag=2005&ln=19427&nseq=5048&nrev=0&ps eq=&prev=#ReturnTo19427
Thank you.
--
Luke Coletti
Councilmember Pacific Grove
(831) 238-0714
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES CATACUTAN CONSULTING, LLC
This First Amendment to City of Pacific Grove Agreement for Professional Services Catacutan Consulting ("First Amendment") is entered into by the City of Pacific Grove. a political subdivision of the State of California ("City'') and Catacutan Consulting, LLC hereinafter called “Catacutan” and shall be effective August 1, 2024.
The City and Catacutan hereby agree to the following terms:
1. On June 10, 2024, the City and Catacutan entered into a City of Pacific Grove Agreement for Professional Services in Exhibit A to the Agreement and generally described as:
finance, budget and accounting services.
2. The Agreement provided Catacutan agrees to the following in section 2 of the agreement. “PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONTRACTOR in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $40,000.”
3. The purpose of this Agreement is revised to the following section, 2:
“PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONTRACTOR in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $100,000”
4. Except as modified by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
TN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Catacutan have executed this First Amendment as of the day and year written below.
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
By: By:
Bill Peake Jessie Catacutan
Mayor
Date: Date:
By:
Brian Pierik
City Attorney
Date:
Sunset Drive / State Route 68
Improvement Project
Frequently Asked Questions
The City of Pacifi c Grove, TAMC, and Caltrans are working to improve the Sunset Drive (State Route 68) corridor between Forest Avenue and the fi ve-way Congress Avenue/Cedar Street intersection. The purpose of the project is to improve safety for all modes of transportation with better bicycle and pedestrian connections, an enhanced crossing at 19th Street, and improvements at the Cedar Street/Congress Avenue intersection.
One potential solution being explored for the fi ve-way intersection at Sunset Drive, Cedar Street, and Congress Avenue is a roundabout. This fact sheet provides more information in response to questions that have come up frequently during community engagement activities.
How do roundabouts reduce confl icts compared to traffi c signals or stop signs? Not only do roundabouts reduce the number of
potential confl ict points compared to traditional
intersections, but they virtually eliminate dangerous
head-on and high-speed right-angle collisions that
are most likely to result in severe injury or fatality.
At traditional four-legged intersections, drivers may
enter and exit each leg with a left turn, through, or
right turn movement, resulting in 32 potential confl ict points where these paths of travel diverge, cross, or
merge.
At a roundabout, potential confl icts are limited to the entry and exit of the circulating lane at each leg,
resulting in 8 potential confl ict points. Potential confl icts occur at much shallower angles, as well, signifi cantly reducing the severity of collisions that do occur.
Do roundabouts help reduce speeding?
Won’t drivers go faster if they don’t have to come to a complete stop, like at a signal or stop sign?
Roundabouts are designed with “horizontal defl ection” that incorporates back-to-back curves to the right and left on entry and exit, rather than the straight paths allowed by a traditional intersection. These curves physically limit how fast a driver can travel without hitting a curb, potentially damaging their vehicle or getting injured— which most rational drivers will avoid. The approach, circulating, and exit angles are carefully calculated to allow a maximum speed of 25 mph for a standard passenger car. Larger vehicles must travel slower.
At a signalized intersection with a green light, an approaching driver could be traveling signifi cantly faster than the posted speed limit because there is no geometric limitation on their speed.
Source: “Roundabouts: A Safer Choice.” FHWA.
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/fi les/2022-06/fhwasa08006.pdf Roundabouts:
– Reduce overall crashes by 35%1
– Reduce injuries by 76%1
– Reduce fatalities by more than 90%2
1 NCHRP Report 572: Roundabouts in the United States. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Washington, D.C., 2007. 2 “Safety effects of Roundabout Conversions in the United States: Empirical Bayes Observational Before and After Study.” Transportation Research Board 1751, TRB, NAS, Washington, D.C., 2001.
Sunset Drive / State Route 68 Improvement Project
Frequently Asked Questions
How to people on bicycles use roundabouts?
Bicyclists have two options for navigating
roundabouts: they can merge into the vehicle lane
and use the circulating lane, or they can use a Class
I Shared Use Path and crosswalks around the outside
perimeter.
Bicyclists who choose to stay in the roadway will
merge into the vehicle lane in advance of the
roundabout, merging out of the bicycle lane when
it ends. Bicyclists should “take the lane,” riding
in the center of the shared lane with vehicles to
ensure they are visible to approaching drivers
and discourage unsafe passing. They will enter
the roundabout, yielding to drivers and bicyclists
already in the circulating lane, and then travel in
a counterclockwise direction before exiting at the
desired roadway leg.
Bicyclists who prefer not to share the road with
vehicles can instead use the Class I Shared Use
Path around the perimeter of the roundabout.
Bicycle ramps located about 100 feet from the
roundabout provide access onto and off of the
path at intersection approaches and exits. Once on the path, which is shared with pedestrians, bicyclists may travel either clockwise or counterclockwise and use marked crosswalks to cross roadway legs as required. The bicyclist can then use a ramp to exit the path on the far side of the intersection and continue in a bicycle lane or the roadway.
Can trucks and other large vehicles get through roundabouts? During the design process, checks are performed to make sure that the same trucks and large vehicles that are currently allowed to drive on Sunset Drive, Congress Avenue, and Cedar Street will still be able to navigate the intersection and make the necessary turns. These checks are part of the design process whether the intersection is a roundabout, traffi c signal, or stop sign.
Currently, “California Legal” (CA-Legal, 65 feet long)
trucks are currently allowed to travel both directions
along Sunset Drive (a Caltrans requirement). Buses
(40 feet long) are permitted to travel both directions
along both Sunset Drive and along Congress Avenue,
however, turns are tight and don’t necessarily work in
all directions. Buses making some right turns have to
encroach into the opposing lane today.
In the roundabout alternative currently being
considered, CA-Legal trucks can travel through and
make U-turns from both Sunset Drive approaches (an
improvement over the current condition, where U-turns
cannot be completed), but must use a mountable
“truck apron.” Buses can travel straight through, make
left and right turns, and make U-turns from both Sunset Drive and Congress Avenue approaches, unlike
today, without using the mountable apron.
1. Experienced riders can travel as a
vehicle
2. Novice riders use the shared use path
3. Pedestrian refuges are wide enough to
shelter bicyclists
4. Enter and exit the shared use path from
bike ramps located away from the
intersection
Sunset Drive / State Route 68 Improvement Project
Frequently Asked Questions
Are roundabouts really safer for people bicycling and walking? The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identifi ed roundabouts as a Proven Safety Countermeasure because of how effective they are at reducing crashes that result in injuries or fatalities—especially for people walking and bicycling.
Safety for people walking and bicycling is improved
in a few ways: through lower vehicle speeds, fewer
potential confl ict points, and shorter/simplifi ed
crossings.
Roundabouts are designed so that drivers cannot
physically steer a car through the intersection at
speeds faster than 15-25 mph. Lower vehicle speeds
mean drivers have more time to see a bicyclist or
pedestrian in the roadway and respond by braking,
and collisions that do occur will be less likely to cause injuries or fatalities.3
The number of potential crosswalk confl ict points is
far fewer at roundabout intersections compared to
traditional stop sign or traffi c signal intersections.
Crossings are also simplifi ed compared to traditional
intersections, which can have crossings as long as 40
to 60 feet depending on the amount of lanes and
angles of approach (one crossing on Sunset Drive
today is 55 feet long). In a roundabout, pedestrians
and bicyclists using the shared use path cross only
one lane and one direction of traffi c at a time—
about 20 feet or less—reducing their exposure to
potential confl icts.
Crossings are set back from the circulating lane
by at least one car length, which allows drivers to
yield to people walking or bicycling in the crossing
before pulling forward to assess gaps in traffi c in the circulating lane and enter the roundabout. Similarly,
drivers exiting the roundabout can pull fully out of
the circulating lane before yielding to a pedestrian
or bicyclist in the crossing, allowing others in the
circulating lane to continue.
3 Tefft BC. Impact speed and a pedestrian’s risk of severe injury or death. Accid Anal Prev. 2013 Jan; 50 871-8. doi: 10.1016/j. aap.2012.07.022. Epub 2012 Aug 27. PMID: 22935347.
When struck by a vehicle at 48 mph, a
pedestrian has about a 90% chance of
being injured and about a 75% chance
of being killed.
At 33 mph, the chance of injury is 50%
and fatality is 25%.
At 25 mph, a pedestrian has only a 25%
chance of being injured and about a
10% chance of being killed.
Source: “Roundabouts with Pedestrians & Bicycles: A Safe Choice for Everyone.” FHWA. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/ fhwasa15016.pdf
Sunset Drive / State Route 68 Improvement Project
Frequently Asked Questions
Are roundabouts more expensive than other intersection types? When comparing costs of different types of intersection “control,” both up-front construction costs and ongoing maintenance and operations costs should be considered, as well as “service life,” which is the average length of time before the facility will most likely need to be replaced or upgraded. The service life of a roundabout is approximately 25 years, more than twice the average of 10 years for a typical traffi c signal.
Stop signs are the least expensive type of intersection control. They are inexpensive both to construct and to maintain. However, the existing stop-controlled fi ve-way intersection has been identifi ed as challenging by the community—yielding/right-of-way is often unclear, and bicycle/pedestrian crossings are long and uncomfortable, creating an intersection that can be chaotic, unpredictable, and feel unsafe for some people.
Traffi c signals typically cost less than roundabouts to construct, because they tend to require less signifi cant reconfi guration of the intersection. Depending on the complexity of the signal, phasing/programming, and coordination with other nearby signals, though, traffi c signals have higher ongoing maintenance and operations costs year after year. Electrical components will also require periodic replacement at the end of their useful life, especially in a location where they are exposed to salt air.
Roundabouts have a higher up-front construction cost because they involve more reconstruction of curbs, drainage, and surrounding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Once constructed, however, maintenance costs are minimal.
Specifi c detailed cost estimates for the intersection have not been developed yet, and will vary for each control type based on context-specifi c factors including whether Cedar Street is closed, rerouted, or maintained as part of the intersection.
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor and Council members
From: Matt Mogensen, City Manager
Subject: July 17, 2024, City Council Agenda Item 12.A
Date: July 17, 2024
Agenda Item 12.A for the July 17 City Council Meeting concerns conceptual options for Cedar, Sunset & Congress Intersection Improvements. The staff report provided and the presentation provided the City Council and public were developed to provide the City Council with the relevant information needed to consider the conceptual options for the subject intersection improvements. To expand on this effort, I am providing additional information here to further assist the City Council.
The conceptual options presented are proposed to be financed primarily with a $5 million set aside that TAMC has earmarked for Pacific Grove to do safety enhancements on the 68 corridor.
The funds are from Measure X Regional funding. The options presented in the staff report are a four way stop sign project that is estimated to be below $5 million and a roundabout option that is estimated above $5 million. If the project exceeds $5M we will need to apply for grants or discuss with TAMC as there is a larger bucket of regional Measure X funding that may be used. Grants will be easier to seek and obtain if we select a roundabout for the single-build alternative.
The conceptual projects include bicycle and pedestrian amenities. Bikes can go on the road or the shared use paths. Experienced riders would probably use the roadway, but since we are connecting to the Forest Grove Elementary School, we will design the shared path as an 8 to 10 footpath that can accommodate young/inexperienced bike riders and walkers simultaneously.
The estimated costs include the new pedestrian paths.
Both proposed project alternatives include a Right of Way Relinquishment at 870 Congress. The final design has not been completed so the extent of right-of-way relinquishment may change from what is depicted on the page 105 of the Agenda Packet.
The roundabout project depicts bus large vehicle turning movements on page 106 of the Agenda Packet. The route is not a MST bus route however it may accommodate larger vehicles from time to time.
The City was allocated $1 million from TAMC to work on the engineering and planning for the safety enhancements. To date the City has expended $284,175 of these funds.
Lastly, the general safety enhancement efforts to this intersection are currently supported by TAMC and we have an agreement to that effect with them. Should the City wish to use the funds on an alternative safety enhancement project on the 68 corridor, the City would need to terminate the current agreement with TAMC and propose a new agreement specifying those proposed improvements.
I hope this additional information further assists the City Council Discussion.