Pavement Management Plan
By Eric Eldridge
City Engineer
• Meeting Date: January 24, 2025
Background
• On April 20 , 2021 , City Council adopted the 2021 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) which included
a projected 5-year (5-step) Pavement Plan
• In 2022 the Paving Project was comprised of:
• All of Year 1 , some of year 2, some of year 3, some of year 4 and 5 of the adopted 5-year Pavement Plan . • Other street segments added during the budget development process to prevent further deterioration and address community outreach received .
OB
'sMC
2022 Paving Project Areas
a ALTERNATE 5
BASE BID ZONE 3 ALTERNATE 6
�� ALTERNATE 8 SHEETS 55-56
SOLAR WAY ZONE ZONE4
ALTERNATE 2 SHEETS 115-118 SLEETS 19-39 ALTERNATE 4 SHEETS 57-58 ZONE
BLUFF TRAIL i01 BASE BID ALTERNATE 1&I-A ALTERNATE 7 SHEETS 49-54 — SHEET542-43 � MATTIEROAD CITY HALL PARKING WADSWORTH AVENUE "`--- —I _ ' SHEETS 3-13 SHEETS 40•41 SHEETS 59-70 I} R — _ hME3 WAY �
ALTERNATE 3 ` 01
SPYGLASS DRIVE Y°
SHEETS 44-46 G' �o yK}� P ALTERNATE 9 Cf �+ n f BASE BID VENTANA DRIVE&JAMES WAY'— BASE
PACIFIC OL�EI'-LfV OCEAN BOULEVARD SH ETS 115PRICE -18 Mom' SHRE 1 RAMPS 8 SIDEWALK SHEETS 14,120-130
• Largest paving project the City has undertaken with approximately one-third (33% ) of the streets in Pismo Beach being paved • $ 14 million invested
TY OF
• Over two years to complete
A/SR08�Q`�
Pavement
eme -nTig
•
Why have a pavement management plan ?
• Framework for future paving projects
• Effective tool for budgeting
• Maintain an inventory
• Maintain a record
• Maintenance and Rehabilitation
• Pavement Condition Index ( PCI)
• A professional inspector manually examines the pavement for damage • The inspector scores the pavement based on the type and severity of damage
• The PCI is calculated using the inspector's observations Y OF
A�s�'O B�P`�
Pavement
Managemeffb
0 '
Pavement Management Plan Identified
• 38 centerline miles of City maintained road
• Residential Roads — 22 miles
• Collector Roads — 10 miles
• (Longview, Shell Beach Road, Ocean Blvd, etc.)
• Arterial Roads — 6 miles
• (Mattie, Price, Hinds, Price Canyon Road, James, etc.) MEL i ' ,
Residenil
nil
r .
Collector
Lr
Y OF
A�SR'O B���2
Pavement
Managemeh-4
ML
• The Pavement Condition Index ( PCI ) is a Number between 0 and 100 that measures the condition of a road section . • Used to assess the severity of pavement damage, such as cracking and potholes
• The City's overall average PCI is 67
CategoryCondition . .
Condition PCIRange Square Feet % Of Total Excellent 100-911 433,390 5.9%
Good 90-71 3,3 5,335 45- %
Fair 70-51 2,027,2 7-4°lam
Poor 50-31 1,478,361 0-0%
voa Failed 30-0 57,140 0-8%
Pavement Typical Treatments
Treatment Category Typical Treatment
Light Maintenance
Slurry Seal or M-1cro-Surface
Fog Seal or Scrub Seal
bi p Seal, Cape Seal
}heavy M a Into n art ce Slurry Seal or Micro-Surface with Digouts Thin Maintenance Overlay (TMO)
Light Rehabilitation * Overlay ( A and under) orThln M111 and Fill Ove day (greater than ') o r Th i ck M 111 and F i Heavy Rehabilitation
Cold-In-Place Fe cycl'ing
Full Depth Reclamation
F u Iver-ze and Resurfacing
Reconstruct * FaII Section Reconstruction
TY OF
ASR'O B���2
Pavement Typical Treatments
Treatment Arterial Collector Residential rack Oal ($$1LFN 1 -59 1 - 7 r 1 - 7 Light Maintenance 5-7 4-57 4-57
Heavy Maintenance 1 . 9 17- 6 17-66
Light Rehab $60.05 $56.52 $52.99
Heavy Rehab $91 .85 $84.78 $84.78 Reconstruct truct 9- 1 1 7. 17 .09 TY OF
A�SR'O B���2
Pavement Condition Break Points Vs
BreakpointsPCI . over -
11 I
1 1 LIGHT MAINTENANCE
IL
II III
Non-Cosa ' L'
. I HEAVY LIGHT:,
MAINTENANCE REHA@ '-
0 IV
• 40 t 1
EAVY REH I
_V_
20 IL
� RECGNSTRLJCT F � �
1 �3
mnuirthiail Years
Total System by Functional Class by PCI
1000,000 79% Fair to Excellent
■ Arterial
, 007000 i Collector
1000x000 21% Poor
m Residential
U-
Cr
11 00,000
1 ,97%
CD
a
130007000 IIA7%
5, 7% _72%
00,000
0. %p -1 - 0.00% 0.00%
100-91 90-81 0-71 1 - 1 0- 1 0-31 0- 1 0-11 10-0 PI Flange
Current Pavement Conditions Index
__..a..,
1 Feature Legend
Category I-Very Good
�,.�`��•` � � Category II-Good(Nan-Load) • Category III-Good(Load)
et Palis BS`•\ Category IV-Poor
r� Category V-Very Poor
�• mP�
.•A
r
.ti
r
i !
•\ � j YY
�F'3! �• i! lYY1_i
Judkinf
Pismo lac
i
G�TY o
0 0.5 -- _ -
s�'0 BgP
Shell Beach Drainage Improvements
us IDliCA 1 NB Priority Project Name Total Cost DSty,CA,6B Baeker Ave $689,000
SHELL BEACH ROD
E X 2-18'RCP
Ex SOX Esparto Ave 1,105,000 EX 6'x2'RCB ` /� /�
PR STORM DRAIN, - Priority1 fan#a Fe Ave $1,006,000 D ¢ (Q4"OR LARGER)
W ¢ Q 4 W
E%OUTLET SOX o a a 7 Placentia Ave $711,000 a astalc Ave $812,000
Priority '1 Total $4,323,000
I
PEARL ST
i EX 36"RCP
I II I I
I
I I
I � '
i f I I
I I
I
I I I
I I I I
S
I I
q I I I G
I I
I
I _
W I
o a -
.�I 24"RCP -:II ; I,�. 1
w� STUBOUT t -- ll-
^ WATER ST GRAPHIC SCAL E
T p'-.' (IN FEET)
206 0 200
PRIORITY PRIORITY 100 �[];l
PR STORM DRAIN 'F.�r EX 37 HDPE (26"OR LARGER) 1 =MU
PRIORITY
* c P LEGEND
PRIORITY EX SW CMP-�� 1! ----- SUBSURFACE DRAIN IE PRIORI Y .L
1A STORM DRAIN
_ EX 41'CMF MANHOLE
Y!' I EX 18"HDPE � DRAINAGE INLET(EXCEPT WHERE NOTED) EX 18'CMP
t ;P EXISTINGDRAINAGE
-' - EX 24"HDPE � PROPOSED❑RAINAGE—PRIORITYI d
�EX 24"RC � PROPOSED DRAINAGE—PRIORITY 2 r "?" PROPOSED DRAINAGE—PRIORITY 3
L�TY of EX 4$"RCP —� DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION Ngt.D� NOTED GROUNDWATER SEEP,PONDING,OR `} SUMP PUMP DISCHARGE
`EX 18"RGP
MAJOR CONTOUR
08 AERIAL IMAGERY'2023NOAANGS AERIAL IMAGERY FOR SITU! OI'YALAWARENESS,CENTRAL CALIFORNIA MINOR CONTOUR CONTOUR DATA:2016 FEMA LIDAR,REGION 9,CALIFORNIA
Pismo Downtown Drainage Im r_ ovements
f - ---=--------- US a `. ) GRAPHIC SCALE Main St - $500 K --
—�
ti----------------� ss POP
US101SB —
13"R R1'CP � � � - � '��� � IN FEET) °° • Dolliver - $500 K
NEW MANHOLE ( I ————----- �I
&30"CULVERT
PIPF. 111
_ Cypress - $500K
_ PRICE �� } V 2°a •
RIB
-3°"HOPE
Total = $1,500,000
Lu
,a, t -' FF
1 y
Cry,. y _.; •� I a j I� / �'-9 - 1 T ` �ai�, Id
1 � -
!:
IBUTARYAREA
Y
1 I
r am.. \ '� O P I 7 d - - •, �.. I I I EW INLETS.MANI-ULE. •lr�. � l C ,Id.. ' ;,. cc I - 1` I S"CULVERT FIPE AND , SS I ❑ I�i. 11RGE•SCAL1,TRASH �\ �.r�i }r ,� :.l '. �. I d i _Z ...� _ + -l.I i �APTURE DEVICE ��Z . 'T .d;:• - .. �� TRIBUT,RY AREA CYPRE555T�,r�— s-----
-�_— � �N=W INLET,tB'CULVERT
EXISTING TASH t ; -- 1 / — I F PE AND LARGE SCALE T 1ASH CAPTURE DEVICE
CAPTURE DEVICE -4 -
t ++a a NE WIN ETS.MANHOIF9,19' e
CL}L,V T PiPE AND IA RGFSCAIT `'
\\\\
TRASH :APTUREDEVI CIF ¢ 7
TRIAL. hRY AREA / _ - Z Q 1
LEGEND
N ¢ � r
AREA TRIBUTARY TO POSSIRLF LOCATION , x, Y FOR LAROESCALE TRASH CAPTURE DEV ICE --——— \ ,. __ °o - _ _ i Q Lu
POSSIBLE LOCATION FOR SMALL-SCALE 1 5 -- - .�✓ - - - -�
TRASH CAPTURE DEVICE
——— POSSIBLE FUTURE STORM DRAIN{NOT �;.,� '•tiyR+'�4 L,. fri- —�• IRS ��. \'(YO ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT) Schaaf&Wheeler �r.� _ ` + ,p�.ax!•+ �'.' Sg G F EXISTING DRAINAGE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS FIGURE 4-1
rt DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION
—:30°— MAJOR CONTOUR
PISMO BEACH DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
.p - -
O ——— MINOR CONTOUR DOWNTOWN DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AERIAL IMAGERY-2°23 NOAA NGS AERIAL IMAGERY FOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.CENTRAL CALIFORNIA JANUARY 20,2025 CONTOUR DATA 20t9 FEMA LIDAR,REGION°CAIIFORNIA
0 Pismo Heights Drainage Improvementc
Zz • Tulare / Visalia - $250 K o_w e
WO +
Ni ado
yN
¢ • San Luis / Bello $100K
u W WQZN
QZ 7000E �
x(7¢ECQ _ To
tal ota = $350.,000
s3s Schaaf S'rWheeler •15.1
V 3
I)ZO W �•i .,,�,;, S J CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS ° o= ?09�'f FIGURE 5-3
y w �'1' �� PISMO BEACH DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN o a ya LOWER HEIGHTS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS r LONOVIEWAVEz —•� �ir,_ JANUARY20,2025
Pz
�-- MERGED ST 30 F w
�¢ jST
_
w —�NO
� c
N�wsaoRM DRAIN CAT HPnsN
o� 1
3 w ��
y �L_
—_ AS
BELLO ST CULVERT PIPE
I TULAflE ST� -•�i/�/ � 6 �.,.
NEW MANHOLES
g 1N-CULVERTFIPE
FXISTINGCULV RT�
gn F` Q
g - + u i� Q US 101 N6 (TO FUNOCT ON AS ODaLET 00%IN 6 ' � 3
TAFT ST
3 US 101 SIB
3 �— BAIERSFIELO ST
SEE'DOWNTOWN DRAINAGE
z IMPROVEMENTS"FIGURE
FRESNO ST _-4
w
3 PRICE ST .
�— STRATFORD 3T — GiiAPHIC SCAIE � _ •��'^ � - ,T IEM�AE ST (IN FEET,
Y 0
G A 00 D 0 0 0
- �-- WADSWORTH ST ,y f
�WtSP
AERIAL IMAGFPV—o NOAA NGSAER VE9e5 E5S.CENTRALCALIF RNIA OODU DIVA,REGIONS,GAiIFORNIA
Council Goals
-ANNE-- -MWA
• Protect Existing City.1s Roadway Assets
• Consistent Maintenance
• Maintain roads that are already in good condition
• Maximize Value
• Cost effective treatments
• Economies of scale
• Stagger Maintenance Areas
• Incorporate Heavy Rehab and Reconstruction
• Balance maintenance vs rehab/reconstruction
• The PMP should be updated every S years
• Monitor the treatments
• Track effectiveness
• To maintain the existing roadway system at its's current overall PCI the City will need to spend an estimate average of $1.7 million annually in OF light maintenance.
As�'O BP`�
Policy Questions
Ohm- -MWA
The City is estimated to generate $4M annually in Sales Tax } Revenue.
• Does the Council want to allocate a certain amount of money to "maintenance paving" to protect your existing
investments?
• If so, how much?
• Support update to the PMP
• Do we create a plan to address the drainage issues over the next 10 years as part of the PMP?
• Do we allocate a certain amount to improve sidewalks (within City's responsibility area ) beyond minimum require by law? • Do we allocate a portion to parks and other infrastructure YO improvements?