San Luis Obispo City Council
June 21, 2022

Council Agenda Report - Pavement Management Plan

FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Impact for the recommended program is as follows:

Current
Funding
Proposed
Funding Increase
Global Maintenance (Excludes Staffing Costs)
Street Resealing 270,000 458,000 188,000
Downtown Street Repair 150,000 150,000
Pothole response 10,000 20,000 10,000
Grind and Pave-out 50,000 90,000 40,000
Crack Sealing 10,000 10,000
Curb and Gutter Repair 16,500 20,000 3,500
Total Global Maintenance 346,500 748,000 401,500
Major Maintenance
Designated “Area” 825,000 1,000,000 175,000
Arterials not in “Area” 500,000 500,000
Testing and evaluation 10,000 10,000
Total Major Maintenance 825,000 1,510,000 685,000
Program Management
Inspection and data entry 10,000 10,000
Staffing for Program Management 62,000 62,000
Total Program Management 10,000 72,000 62,000
TOTAL $ 1,181,500 $2,330,000 $1,148,500

CONCURRENCES
The Director of the Community Development Department has issued a Notice of Exemption under CEQA. The concept on Area Maintenance has been discussed with the Utility Department and the divisions of the Public Works Department. The concept has received support from all.

ALTERNATIVES
Reject Pavement Management Plan submittal and direct staff to make changes. Council should provide direction as to areas requiring additional study and information.

Attachments
1998 Pavement Management Plan
Resolution

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 4
Pavement Management - The Basics
History of Pavement Management - San Luis Obispo
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT-DESIGN ELEMENTS 6
Pavement is a Valuable Asset
The Design Life of Pavement
How Pavements Age and Are Rated
Pavement Condition-The Public View
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE 9
What is a Pavement Management Software Program?
How Staff Chose the New Software?
How did we install the new system?
How Does MicroPaver Work?
ANALYSIS-HOW DOES THE CITY’S SYSTEM STAND UP? 12
System Description
Street Condition Analysis
Effects of Good Design Standards
Effects of inadequate design standards, i.e. bus route impacts The Street Sealing Program
Summary of Current Condition
Total Value of Deficiency
Funding levels for Pavement Management
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 20
Policy Recommendations
Pavement Condition Level
Roadway Design Criteria
Implementation Plan
Program Components

RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS 28
Recommended Funding for Global Maintenance
Recommended Funding for Major Maintenance
Recommended Funding for Program Management
Recommended Staffing for Program Management
Funding Summary
FINANCING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 33

APPENDIX
A Procedures followed to create the 1997 pavement inventory B 1997-8 Cal-Trans Partnership Paving Program
C Five Year City Wide Work Program - with $1,500,000 major maintenance and $500,000 global maintenance programs
D Bus Route Impacts to Surface Condition
E Existing Pavement Deficiency
F Condition - Central Business District - $150,000 per year G Annual Work Plan of integrating all Pavement Management Programs H Budget to raise overall PCI
I Pavement Maintenance Areas Plan
J One Year Work Program - with $4,000,000 combined major maintenance and global maintenance

Pavement Management Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July of 1995, the City Council adopted an objective to complete a new Pavement Management Plan which would replace the previous Plan adopted in 1987. City staff has diligently pursued completion of this objective and this Plan represents a culmination of those efforts.

The street system of the City of San Luis Obispo is important: it is the City’s single most valuable asset; it offers an immediate impression to visitors and residents about the quality of life here in San Luis Obispo. Protecting and enhancing this asset is the fundamental task of a good pavement management program, and a manifestation of good City government.

The heart of a program is a computer software program which can analyze the conditions of various street segments via special algorithms and then makes maintenance recommendations according to the available budget. The City purchased MicroPaver, a program originally written by the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain military bases.

This program is made available to the public via the American Public Works Department and the University of Illinois. It is continually updated and maintained by the Corps and is in use throughout the United States and worldwide.

Every street in the City was broken into multiple segments for data analysis; field inspected and input into the program. Analysis shows a current value of the City’s street system at $43 Million with a potential total value of $60 Million. With a deficiency of nearly $17 Million to correct, the pavement management program question becomes: “Is it possible to achieve total value, and if not, what is the best strategy to keep the system from deteriorating further and if possible, to improve the system?” It is the opinion of this Plan that, given the financial status of cities in California, it is not possible to fund a program with an objective to achieve 100% of the potential street system value. Therefore this Plan recommends a comprehensive program which will, over a period of about ten years, raise the value of the system to approximately 80% of its potential value. A street system with this value will have a much better appearance, experience less complaints and provide a smoother ride for the public.

This Plan incorporates many of the elements of the 1987 Plan but takes a more pro-active role in maintaining the street system - particularly in the Downtown. New techniques for pavement management have emerged since 1987 and many are still in the research stage.

This Plan encourages the selective use of appropriate new technologies that will make pavement management even more cost effective and efficient.

Is this Pavement Management Plan perfect? The answer is no. Just as the 1987 Plan was based on an a just emerging pavement management software program, this Plan assumes that local road conditions (and therefore maintenance strategies) follow a certain degradation curve. The actual curve can only be determined with successive road segment data collected over time and input to software. Design recommendations are likewise based upon vehicle and truck counts currently available and projected for the future.

Pavement Management Plan

Finally, the life extending capabilities of various design and maintenance strategies are based on nationwide averages.

Due to all these variables, this Plan recommends that a full street system analysis be prepared as a part of each two year budget preparation. This will serve a two fold purpose: a) the data input allows the software model to better predict the condition and therefore needs of the street system; and b) it keeps the Council aware of the importance of the street system and better helps the Council decide the degree of funding needed.

Total program recommended funding levels are nearly twice those of the current program, increasing from $1.2 million annually today for sealing and overlay, to $2.3 million to fully achieve the pavement management objectives recommended in this Plan. This Plan also includes a recommendation for a new staff position to administer the program, maintain the software and prepare plans and specifications for the needed maintenance projects. In effect this creates an “advocate for pavement” on staff much like those that exist now for sewer, water, parks, etc.

Why does this Plan recommend higher costs than the previous one? A number of issues all contribute the answer.
· The previous system was designed to fully seal only 80% of the entire roadway system versus the planned 95% level recommended in this Plan.
· The previous plan had no proactive approach to 5% of the system representing the Downtown.
· The length of the City’s roadway system has increased by 16% since 1987 (about

1.5% per year) and while adjustments were provided for increasing material costs, no adjustments were made for roadway system increases.
· Estimates of the dollar amount required to “catch up” on major maintenance were probably low in the 1987 Plan.
· Roads that were only 10 years old then are 20 years old today and thus further deteriorated and the maintenance strategies are far different, more effective and more expensive.
· Funding was not consistently provided for the major maintenance identified in the 1987 Plan.

Totaling all factors together creates a geometric funding deficiency rather than a simple arithmetic function. This Plan will help avoid these problems by providing a clearer, more quantifiable measure of pavement condition and return the streets to a more favorable condition found 10 years ago.

Analysis of the current maintenance program and funding levels shows the existing street system in a gradual decline. A program that just maintains the status quo requires an annual increase in budget of about $200,000.

The new “Area” program. A major component of this Plan is described as the “area” program. Citizens often complain that government agencies waste taxpayer dollars by paving a street one year and then ripping it up the following year with a sewer or water

Pavement Management Plan

line project. This Plan proposes that all underground work necessary within the designated “area” would be completed in one year. The following year would be devoted to paving projects. And after that, no projects would occur in that area for another six years unless an emergency arises.

Nationwide, pavement traditionally has received a fairly low priority for funding until such time as the public really starts to complain. A good pavement management plan prevents numerous complaints while keeping the public aware that the system is actively being managed. By adopting and implementing this, the 1998 Pavement Management Plan, the City of San Luis Obispo can expect a significant improvement to its street system. It provides a pro-active approach to long range planning, decreasing neighborhood disruption and maintaining the commercial viability of the Downtown. It will serve the needs of the community well into the next century.

Pavement Management Plan

INTRODUCTION
Pavement Management - The Basics
Pavement management is the process and methodology of controlling the condition of the traveled roadway surface; preserving its appearance, usefulness, safety and longevity.

Good pavement management accomplishes these goals in an effective and efficient manner. A comprehensive pavement management program includes three major elements:
a) on-going or Global Maintenance; b) rehabilitation or Major Maintenance; and c) inspection, monitoring, data input or Program Administration. Without one of the three elements pavement management can survive, but at the cost of effectiveness and efficiency.

Global maintenance is intended: to extend the life of roadways which exist in a good condition, and to maintain all other streets in a safe and operational condition until such time as major maintenance can take place. This form of maintenance includes street sweeping, crack sealing, and surface sealing. The City has conducted, for a number of years, a successful surface sealing program including chip seals, cape seals and microsurfacing.

Major maintenance involves an engineered design to rehabilitate a given roadway segment and, in essence, return it to the condition of a brand new surface. Roadway overlays and reconstruction are examples of this type of maintenance.

Program administration requires a significant effort because the street system is most often a city’s most valuable asset. The software to evaluate and make recommendations is complicated; the data necessary is extensive; and knowledge of pavement design and experience in the field is necessary to make effective and efficient decisions.

History of Pavement Management in the City
Prior to 1987, the Public Works Department managed the City’s pavement by conducting an annual field review. The review was conducted by the Department Head and the Street Superintendent. The review was conducted over a two to four week period by driving each of the city’s streets, and recording the needs of the pavement on a map. The result was an annual work program, constrained by the budget, to correct observed deficiencies by improving the pavement by overlay or reconstruction and to extend existing pavement life by application of a chip seal.

In 1987, the City adopted a Pavement Management Plan that used a proprietary software program to rate street conditions and recommend maintenance. This system was installed and managed by staff at the Corporation Yard. The program identified a large city-wide deficiency in street conditions. As a result, the City Council approved additional funding for a major maintenance program which was projected to cure the deficiency within a ten year period. Additionally, a global maintenance program was approved with a goal to extend the life expectancy of the existing city street system.

In 1993, the City experienced a budget shortfall and addressed the shortage of funds by a combination of staffing reductions and cutting back on programs. At the time, three

Pavement Management Plan

different positions at the Corporation Yard were responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Pavement Maintenance program. Two of the positions were eliminated, and the person in the third position retired and his position was not filled. In addition funds for major maintenance were reduced. Thus due to significant problems at the time, two of the key areas for a pavement management program - major maintenance and program administration - were negatively affected and streets scheduled for major maintenance were delayed.

In 1995, the condition of Marsh Street was determined to be extraordinarily deteriorating.

With the opening of significant improvements in the downtown, the Council directed the expenditure of over a year’s worth of major maintenance funding be used to provide significant improvements to Marsh Street, including beautification and drainage improvements. Other streets scheduled for this type of maintenance were further delayed.

During the City Council budget deliberations in the spring of 1995, staff proposed and the Council concurred with the need for a new pavement management system. However, the Council rejected the request to hire a consultant to prepare the pavement management plan and directed that the plan be prepared using only staff resources. The plan was to be prepared within the existing workload and a budget of $15,000 was allocated. Because of multiple other projects and Council goals, staff preparation of this comprehensive report took longer than originally anticipated. This report is the conclusion of much staff time and effort.

Pavement Management Plan

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT - DESIGN ELEMENTS
Pavement is a Valuable Asset
The surfaced or paved area within the city is both a large and valuable asset.

Approximately 1/8th of the surface area within the city limits is currently covered with street pavement, not including the area paved and used for parkways, sidewalks, parking lots or private streets and driveways. The replacement value of just this public street pavement is approximately $60 million dollars. Managing the City’s largest asset in an effective and efficient manner is incumbent upon staff, and expected by the City’s citizens.

Due to the significant asset value, an effective management program must contain key policies adopted by the local elected officials. It is important that all policy makers have a basic understanding of pavement design and its aging process before giving direction to implement a pavement management plan.

The Design Life of Pavement
The design life of pavement is a policy area that directly affects initial construction cost, and secondarily affects on-going maintenance costs. In theory, the design life is time from initial construction until it is time to remove and reconstruct the roadway section again.

The standard pavement design life in the United States is 20 years. However, different design periods are possible as a standard design life in Europe is 50 years. The European view is more costly initially but requires significantly less maintenance over the life of the pavement.

Extended life expectancy can be obtained by either designing pavement with different parameters or by using different materials. In an effort to learn from the Europeans, the United States sent experts to study their designs with the goal of returning with new knowledge on how to build better and longer lasting roads. The result of that research effort is a new pavement design called Superpave. Many states have adopted it while others, including California, are still analyzing the design parameters and doing testing.

Another example of roads with long design lives can be found here in San Luis Obispo in the existing network of concrete streets. While they may have ride or appearance problems, they are still structurally sound and viable streets.

Because the pavement has been designed for a 20 year life, and because there would never be enough funds to totally replace the entire street network every 20 years, pavement management programs have been developed with an emphasis on design life extension.

Thus a key policy and accompanying component of a pavement management plan is a strategy on how best to achieve extension of pavement life.

How Pavements Age and Are Rated
Most pavements placed today are asphalt. Asphalt is a combination of small rock, sand and asphaltic emulsions which act as a binder for the other material. All asphalt roads are considered a flexible design; meaning that the road will flex under loading but rebound to its original shape after the load has passed. It is the asphalt binder that provides the flexibility. However, asphalt is subject to oxidation by sun light and as such loses its ability to bind the structural parts of the pavement and yet remain flexible. If not repaired

Pavement Management Plan

or maintained, the pavement becomes rigid and is no longer able to sustain the loads. The pavement cracks and breaks and then must be removed and replaced.

The asphaltic emulsions also provide a watertight seal at the surface of the pavement.

This keeps water from penetrating through the pavement to the soil which supports it.

Dry soil has the strength to support a flexible pavement while wet soil does not; leading again to structural failure. Thus it is important that a good surface seal be maintained to keep water intrusion to a minimum.

All pavements age in a non-linear way. If all things are equal, the condition of a new pavement remains in an excellent condition for several years while oxidation slowly takes place. Then, gradually, the condition begins to deteriorate as either the soil looses strength or the pavement becomes rigid. At some point, the rate of deterioration plunges steeply. This leads to a street in poor condition and rapidly increasing maintenance costs.

Finally, the condition of the road stabilizes in a very poor condition.

Pavements in varying states of repair and ride were evaluated and a standard methodology of measurement, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was established to provide a basis for comparison and recommendation of maintenance strategies. A high PCI is a road in good to excellent condition, while a low PCI is a road in poor condition.

The figure below shows a typical degradation curve for an asphalt roadway over a period of time. The goal of a good pavement management program is to maintain an average PCI of the street system as high as possible.

Typical Street Degradation Curve
Obviously, a key question that must be asked is: “At what point is it no longer economical to try to maintain or extend the pavement life?” The point where the pavement condition begins to rapidly deteriorate is called the critical point or pci and the most common critical PCI is 50. Pavement management programs recommend maintenance strategies that extend pavement life for streets above the critical point. For those below the critical point, strategies are recommended which keep the streets in a safe condition until such time as the road can be reconstructed. Figure 1 shows the critical point in relation to the degradation curve and time.

Pavement Management Plan

Good pavement management means the cost to maintain the pavement in a good or excellent condition is relatively low, as long as the work is done before the condition begins rapid deterioration. Once the pavement has begun to deteriorate rapidly the cost to restore the pavement to excellent condition increases rapidly to the point where it may not make economic sense to spend money doing routine maintenance. Most experts in pavement management recommend that priority be placed on spending money to keep streets maintained above the critical point.

If the condition of the pavement is above the critical point, global maintenance should be performed frequently enough to keep it there. As pavements fall further towards the critical point, forms of major maintenance such as overlays and spot repairs are appropriate forms of maintenance to extend pavement life. Pavements that fall slightly below the critical point can sometimes be restored with a combination of overlay and reconstruction but when pavement falls further, complete reconstruction is necessary.

Reconstruction is the most costly solution to pavement problems.

The decision to allow a deteriorated pavement to remain must be made considering potential risks. It may be rough, but it cannot have structural problems such that vehicles using it are placed in an unsafe condition. Factors that must be considered include the number of vehicles per day, the type of vehicles (emergency, trucks, motorcycles and bikes, etc.). These factors tend to favor programs which place priority on maintenance, including reconstruction, on arterial and collector roads. Finally, all pavement management programs need an element that assures that the needs of pedestrians crossing the street are met, regardless of the condition of the street.

Pavement Condition - The Public View
Some streets in the community will need to be maintained for more than just transportation purposes. They serve to provide identity. An example of this was the decision to spend significant resources on the rehabilitation of Marsh Street in the downtown. Visitors entering the community receive their first impressions as they observe the condition of the streets. Pavement condition is also a statement of the governing body’s performance. A well maintained, attractive street system is an indicator of good government.

The public only intuitively knows the PCI of the City’s street system. They know and appreciate smooth streets and a fast response to a service request (such as a pothole repair). Citizens take pride in well maintained streets and recognize that streets that provide access to the community for our residents and visitors and streets in the principal business areas have different needs. These streets should be maintained to a higher standard and may have differing design standards such as decorative stamped concrete, pavers, colored materials etc. Policies which recognize these differing standards of expectations should be part of a good pavement management program.

Pavement Management Plan

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
What is a Pavement Management Software Program?
Pavement management programs can consist of basic maintenance operations directed from a very simple file card system to a highly complex combination of maintenance strategies tied to computerized databases. The heart of most modern programs is a software program that contains the streets database and, on the basis of input inspection data, makes recommendations of various maintenance strategies.

The primary purpose of the software is to provide the pavement manager a reliable basis for making economical decisions, resulting in the best pavement the budget will allow.

Typically the database will provide information about the kind, quantity and quality of the pavement. The system of paved areas is broken into various sized segments that are unique in character. The pavement type, history, and condition is recorded. The information is used to identify needed maintenance. If money is not a limiting factor, the project strategy is not difficult. Since budgets are a reality, the manager must use the most economical alternative maintenance strategy in order to extend the pavement life and maintain the surface at an acceptable condition.

The software is designed to identify a work plan that will optimize expenditures. It does this by providing a consistent method of pavement evaluation and comparing the results with time. Any performed maintenance effort on the pavement is input. Periodically pavements are re-inspected to document the rate at which it ages. Some systems include a method of forecasting the rate of expected deterioration based upon the history of similar pavements in the system. The system tells the engineer whether the overall system is getting better, poorer or staying the same. A well managed system will tell the pavements’ owner, the City, whether more or less funding should be allocated for maintenance and will tell the engineer the effectiveness of the maintenance systems being used.

One feature that many newer software programs have is GIS interaction. This allows the manager to see the data in a geographical relationship. It helps in developing a plan of operation in order to perform a more logical maintenance program.

The implementation of a sophisticated software program is a large project. Every street in the system must be investigated to identify the history of the current surface. Following this, the street must be inspected using a systematic approach to make the results meaningful. Lastly, a good record must be made of the history and inspection. With all of the data gathered, the final and relatively important activity is an evaluation of the report and the development of a work plan and related budget. This process involves a series of trial runs to find what alternative work plans will result in the most improvement to the system within the budget allowed. Initially, the first evaluations are made for the purpose of identifying the amount of the deficiency and are the beginning point for evaluation and eventual recommendation.

Pavement Management Plan

How Staff Chose the New Software
Prior to beginning this project, staff met and discussed goals for a management system.

Desirable features were discussed and agreed upon. The system had to be simple, result in consistent inspection results, be supported by a credible organization and relatively easy to use. It needed to work on the City’s chosen computer hardware both now and in the future, and provide flexible reports indicating pavement conditions. It had to produce budget-planning documents that allowed the use of materials we now use and ones we may like to consider for use in the future. Annual updates must be easily made and Cal Poly students should be easily trained to inspect and input the data. Last of all the program costs and costs to inspect and install the data needed to fit within the budget established by the Council. Staff reviewed comparison reports prepared for the Federal Highway Administrations LTAP program.

Staff attended programs put on by the Institute of Transportation Studies at Berkeley and examined samples of many of the better programs. Based on all information gathered, staff made the decision to purchase MicroPaver. This program has been under continual development by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers since the 1970’s and is supported by the University of Illinois and the American Public Works Association. The program was originally developed to assist the military in the maintenance of its bases. It will continue to be updated and supported, as the government has a strong desire to maintain the program since it has proven to be an effective tool for maintenance of military bases and commercial airports. Nations around the world have also adopted it for use in their countries. The program is designed to run on desktop computers under Windows NT or

95. It is also designed to link directly with ARCVIEW, the City’s chosen GIS software.

In addition, it has a very simple inspection system that is easy to use and results in consistent evaluations. Also modules are currently being designed to assist maintenance programming in other areas including storm drains, sidewalks and buildings.

How did we install the new system?
Once MicroPaver was ordered, two staff members spent a week at the University of Illinois learning how to operate it. Upon returning to San Luis Obispo, staff began the process of installing the software and the database. The first project was to identify the current pavement inventory and its condition. To do this, the entire inventory used in the prior system was reviewed and checked against historical plans. Next, the pavement areas were mapped utilizing AutoCad and the City’s base map system. This provided an accurate plotting of the location and area of each segment of pavement. The segment areas were further divided on the AutoCad maps to create sample areas for inspection.

Crews of student interns were trained in defect identification and measurement following procedures established by the Corps of Engineers. The interns inspected the sample areas identified on the drawings. It is important that the sample area be well defined, because the real power of the program results when the same sample area is reviewed over time and the rate of aging and deterioration of the pavement is established.

Pavement Management Plan

After the pavements were inspected, the resulting data was entered into the computer and a pavement condition index, PCI, was established for each segment of roadway. The PCI is a very important index in pavement management: the higher the PCI, the better the pavement’s condition and less funding is necessary for rehabilitation; the lower the PCI, the worse the ride, the condition, the public approval etc., and significantly more funding is necessary for rehabilitation.

How Does MicroPaver Work?
MicroPaver bases its recommendations upon the data input and the Pavement Condition Index or PCI. The PCI is a number ranging from 0-100. A perfect street would have a rating of 100. A PCI is calculated from inspection information and is assigned to each street segment. The street segments are assigned to a family of streets having similar characteristics. i.e. they were built of similar material, concrete or asphalt. The PCI for each street segment was then plotted against pavement age on a chart for each family.

The program uses the data to define the degradation curve for each family of pavement.

This curve projects the condition of each pavement in future years. It can also be used to estimate the current condition of similar pavement that was not inspected.

Based upon the PCI and the available budget, MicroPaver assigns work on a priority basis as follows:

1. Global Maintenance - Stop Gap Work. This work, which would be performed by City Crews, is assigned to those streets below the critical point in order to make the streets safe for vehicular traffic and includes repair of potholes, and grind and pave operations.

2. Global Maintenance - Preventative Maintenance. Streets, above the critical point, are next identified which will benefit from a maintenance program to extend street life.

This is generally done via a street sealing program and is usually performed under contract.

3. Major Maintenance - Structural Repair. Resources are next allocated for roads above the critical point but with areas of structural failure. Repairs performed extend roadway life and make the road eligible for the more cost beneficial form of global maintenance.

4. Major Maintenance - Overlays and Reconstruction. All remaining resources are directed to those streets in the worst condition. Once this work has taken place the PCI is essentially 100 and the street is eligible for ongoing preventative maintenance.

MicroPaver places emphasis on preserving and extending pavement life. It only recommends work that is cost-effective - even for streets in the worst condition. It works on the premise that once a street deteriorates to a low point the cost of rehabilitation does not increase with time.

Pavement Management Plan

ANALYSIS OF THE CITY’S STREET SYSTEM
System Description
The City has 187 KM (116 miles) of streets. As previously mentioned, the paved area of City surface is over 1/8th of the City’s total incorporated area. The streets have been built over a period of many years, and the materials used for pavement is a variety of concrete and/or asphalt over the native ground or imported base material. Streets are commonly classified by the surface material or wearing surface. The existing street surfaces are classified as shown in the following chart.

Street Surface Material
Original Asphalt Pavement AC
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement AAC
Concrete Pavement PCC
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt APC
Oiled or gravel street1 GR
Streets are also classified by use. While the City’s Circulation Element has a number of classifications, for the purposes of pavement management, streets will be classified as Central Business District, Arterial, Collector, or Local.

The following table describes the existing street system by both street classification and pavement type.

Street Rank
Percent of total
Pavement Area
Central Business District 5%
Arterial 23%
Collector 14%
Local 58%
Pavement Type 1
Asphalt Pavement 45%
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement 42%
Concrete Pavement 1%
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt 9%

1 Un-paved streets represent 3% of all streets

Pavement Management Plan

Total replacement value of the pavement alone is estimated to be $60 million. The value of the street system curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage systems, street trees, street lights, traffic signs and controls should be added to this figure to obtain a true overall street system valuation.

Street Condition Analysis
The existing city street
pavement system was
inspected and the data
input into MicroPaver.

A total of 187 centerline
kilometers of pavement
were inspected. The
current condition can be
seen on the bar chart.

Over 70% of the area of
pavement inspected was
good or better. Unfortunately some of the pavement was of lesser quality.

This graph shows how the pavement
has been aging over the past 10
years and where it might be in five
years. Using current data and
projecting back to 1987,
MicroPaver indicates that a PCI of
80 was most likely the City average
at that time. The graph shows that
the City has not sufficiently funded
its road surface maintenance
program to stop the system from
further deterioration. A decision will
be necessary to either provide more
funding or adopt a policy
acknowledging a lesser street system if the City continues to follow the current maintenance program.

Condition Distribution Graph (% Area): 1997
Condition
Percent
Area
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 % Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent
% Very Poor % Fair % Very Good
Pavement Condition Curve
Beginning 1987 and Projected to 2001
Years
Avg
Condition
0 20
40 60
80 100
Jul 1987 Jul 1989 Jul 1991 Jul 1993 Jul 1995 Jul 1997 Jul 1999 Jul 2001 January 1998

Pavement Management Plan

This bar chart shows how the
pavement will appear in 10
years, if no further
maintenance is done. As seen,
the only 50%of the area
remains in the good and very
good categories.

The charts below show the current average PCI for various pavement types in San Luis Obispo and the percentage of total street area of each material.

Pavement Type Ave. PCI Ave. Age % Area
Asphalt (AC) 80 22 45
Overlaid Asphalt(AAC) 67 18 42
Overlaid Concrete(APC) 47 22 9
Concrete(PCC) 33 63 1
Street Classification Ave. PCI Ave. Age % Area
All Streets -- Average 70 20 100
Downtown 48 23 5
Arterial 59 17 23
Collector 63 19 14
Local 77 22 58
The concrete streets in the city are old. They are either in the downtown area and its environs or are former state highways. Many were overlaid with asphalt around 1970.

These streets have an average PCI rating of 47. The overlaid streets are now only in slightly better condition than those streets which were not overlaid. Downtown streets Condition Distribution Graph (% Area): 2007
20020071/ 1/ 2007
Condition
Percent
Area
0 10
20 30
40 % Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent
% Very Poor % Fair % Very Good

Pavement Management Plan

rate just below the critical PCI level, primarily due to the fact that Marsh Street was recently overlaid and has a much higher rating which helps to raise the overall average.

The local streets are in the best average condition. One reason for this high rating is that these streets are among the newest. Recently constructed streets, those built since the 70’s, were built to an adopted city standard based on engineering design standards. Older streets were also built to a standard but not as high a standard as that used today.

One of the key indicators of the adequacy of the pavement maintenance budget is an estimate of what it would cost to address all of the deficiencies found during the inspection. The current deficiency at this time is $16.6 million or about 28% of its total value. If the entire deficiency was addressed in the first year of a maintenance program (a big undertaking!), the ongoing expenditure needed for global maintenance to maintain the street system in excellent condition would be $500,000 per year.

Effects of Good Design Standards
As discussed above, newer
streets designed and built to
engineered standards have
proven to last longer. This
graph shows the relationship of
pavement age to pavement
condition for asphalt pavement
constructed during the past 20
plus years. This pavement was
designed to current standards
and much of it was maintained
with the various seal programs.

The obvious thing to note is that
the pavement average condition is good. The exceptions, which fall well below the critical point, are generally paveouts along major streets that also serve as bus routes.

Effects of inadequate design standards i.e. bus route impacts Bus routes impact pavement life. The information on bus routes is illuminating, and until this study was conducted, the effects of buses were only known subjectively. When looked at separately, the streets that are used for bus routes have a 20 year rating of 45. Those that are not used for bus routes have a 20 year rating of 61.

Asphalt Pavement Constructed in
Last 20 Years
0 50
100
0 5 10 15 20
Years
PCI

Pavement Management Plan

The two charts below show the difference in the aging of streets on and off the bus routes.

From looking at these charts, it is evident that bus traffic does result in pavement wearing out faster.

The Street Sealing Program
Observation of the charts to the right shows the
condition of various pavements sealed over the
last eight years and those that have not. The
sealing program was established as a part of the
1987 pavement management plan and its
success is evident by comparing the two charts.

The original goal was to seal 80% of the entire
street surface area within a ten year period (or
8%/year), choosing very large areas within the
City to yearly receive the seal coat maintenance.

The plan assumed that 2% of the streets would
be overlaid or reconstructed each year and therefore not require sealing.

For the first five years, the City performed a “chip seal” project on selected streets. In the last three years, the City has employed the use of
a “cape seal” for one and “Micro-Surface seals”
for the latest two. Several construction problems,
risk management issues and public frustration
issues were eliminated with the Micro Surface
seal.

While the current program (FY 97-99) is funded
to seal 8% of the street per year, the average
actually accomplished over the last nine years has
been 7.2% of the street area. The program has
fallen short of its ten year goal for two reasons: a) the total street system has grown in the Pavement Aging on Bus Route
Streets
Years
PCI
0 20
40 60
80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pavement Aging on Arterial and
Collector Streets that are not Bus
Routes
Years
PCI
0 20
40 60
80 100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Streets Not Sealed
in last 8 years. PCI=62
Condition
Percent
Area
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 % Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent
% Very Poor % Fair % Very Good
Condition of Streets Sealed in
last 8 years. Ave PCI=67
Condition
Percent
Area
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 % Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent
% Very Poor % Fair % Very Good

Pavement Management Plan

last nine years and this growth has not been factored into the program; and b) the original goal should have been 12% per year because the effective “life” of a seal coat is eight years.

Summary of Current Condition
Total Value of Deficiency. In summary, the
analysis from MicroPaver shows that the
pavement system is still in good condition but
that it is and has been deteriorating.

Continuing on the present course will lead to
the need for expensive repairs in the future.

The 1987 plan showed the need for $2.5
million ($3.2 million in 1997 dollars) in
rehabilitation. The current plan shows the
need for $16.6 million. However, these two
numbers cannot be directly compared because
the 1987 plan was intended to return the pavement condition to 1980-81 levels; an unknown PCI level. (As mentioned earlier, MicroPaver projected a 1987 PCI level of 80 but there are too many variables to likewise project a 1980 PCI level.) The number generated by the current plan, in essence, returns all streets to as near a PCI of 100 as is practical, and then assumes that only ongoing global maintenance would be necessary.

The accompanying chart describes the deficiency level against desired PCI level. The higher the desired level of PCI, the greater the deficiency and the greater funding necessary to achieve that desire. For example, an expenditure of $4 million dollars today would raise the overall condition of the pavement to 80.

Funding levels for Pavement Management
As previously discussed, past funding levels have not been sufficient to stop a slow overall degradation of the City’s street system. Various funding levels were analyzed for their effect on street system quality.

The following three charts model the relationship between overall pavement value and age. Value is used rather than PCI because, like a junk car, the value may go to zero but the roadway (or car) is still barely usable. The charts assume that the pavement will depreciate to little or no value over 20 years following a straight line. The initial value was determined by MicroPaver to be approximately $60 million. At the point where the model shows a depreciation of $16 million (our current condition) an application of a global maintenance and a capital improvement effort is applied (i.e. the beginning of a new pavement management program). Applying an increased global maintenance effort does not improve the value of the system but does stop system depreciation. Capital improvement (i.e. major maintenance) is required to add value to the overall system. All funding levels analyzed are based on a program of street sealing (global maintenance) and overlay/reconstruction (major maintenance).

Budget
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
97 86 84 80 72 71 70
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Budget

Pavement Management Plan

Figure No. 1 shows that a funding level of $1.3 Million (an increase of $200,000 over current program) is necessary to stop further degradation. This, in essence, would maintain the current level of citizen complaints and public perception of the City’s road system condition. Funding level: $500,000 sealing and $800,000 overlay/reconstruction.

Figure No. 2 shows that a program with $1.5 Million (an increase of about $400,000) will very slowly rehabilitate the system with a major improvement in overall conditions far into the future. Funding level: $500,000 sealing and $1,000,000 overlay/reconstruction. $0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
13579
111315171921
Years
Straight Line depreciation at %5 Value without Capital Expenditures Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 1
$1.3 Million Program
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
13579
111315171921
Years
Straight Line depreciation at %5 Value without Capital Expenditures Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 2
$1.5 Million Program

Pavement Management Plan

Figure No. 3, with a funding level of $2 Million (an increase of about $900,000 over current program), shows a fairly significant improvement in overall quality of the City’s system within a relatively short period of ten years and is the basis for recommendations made in the following section. However, even with this level of funding, the overall value of the street system will only rise to 80% of its total potential value (approximately equivalent to a PCI of 80). It is unrealistic, given current funding levels for cities in the State of California, to propose pavement management programs which will achieve full potential value. A good pavement management program, recognizes realities and sets a policy for attaining a reasonable street system that will reduce the number of citizen complaints and increase the perception that the City has and maintains a good and smooth street system. Funding level: $458,000 sealing and $1,500,000 overlay/reconstruction.

Figure 3
$2.0 Million Program
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Years
Straight Line depreciation at %5
Value without Capital Expenditures
Current Value with Capital Expenditures

Pavement Management Plan

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
This Plan recommends an enlarged street sealing program, significant additional funding major maintenance, and a new program focusing on maintenance in the downtown in addition to enhancing other existing maintenance programs such as crack sealing and concrete repair. In order to assure successful implementation, a new staff position to provide the necessary engineering and project management is also recommended.

What happens in ten years if we pursue the recommended program and expend $2.3 million per year on pavement maintenance? Given all constraints remain constant, the City’s overall PCI will rise to 80 from 70. However, constraints do not always remain constant and as such this Plan requires a City Council biannual reevaluation. If that evaluation finds that the pavement condition is meeting expectations and predicts a lessor level of needed expenditures the budget could be reduced. Considering all of the variables involved with pavement aging and emerging pavement maintenance technologies there is no assurance that the recommended program levels of funding will remain constant and is in fact the best reason to perform the periodic review recommended in this Plan.

Following are recommended Policies, and where appropriate, associated Programs to allow implementation.

Policy Recommendations
Pavement Condition Level
Policy 1.1 Achieve and maintain a PCI of 80 for all City streets.

Currently all streets have an average PCI of 70. The public, staff and the Council feel this level to be unacceptable. Staff reviewed PCI levels of 80, 90 and 100.

Staff chose a PCI level of 80 due to budget considerations, and the fact that newer asphalt streets have an average of 80. Examples of streets with a PCI=80 include:

Tank Farm Road from Poinsettia to the Railroad, Grand Avenue from McCollum to CalPoly, and Chorro Street from Palm to Monterey. This level of service will be better than the current, but there will still be streets in poor condition. There will be fewer complaints from citizens and likewise fewer streets below the critical point than there are today.

Policy 1.2 Review and re-evaluate PCI level every ten years.

It takes time to make significant changes in pavement condition. The changes proposed in this document are intended to gradually raise the overall PCI level over a period of 8 - 10 years. It is important that this program be reviewed by the policy body for its success, and to determine if it is time to set a higher standard.

The higher PCI could be achieved much quicker; for example with a one year expenditure of $4 million the overall PCI could be raised by 10 points to an overall average of 80. The type of expenditure: major maintenance versus global maintenance can be seen in Appendix H. With this level of capital funding an ongoing maintenance level of approximately $1.3 million is required to maintain that PCI level.

Pavement Management Plan

Roadway Design Criteria
Policy 2.1 Set roadway design life expectancy at 20 years for all streets, other than new local streets in subdivisions which should be designed for 50 years.

The design of major underground infrastructure (sewer, water and storm drain) assumes a 50 year life. Therefore, it is likely that a pavement designed for 50 years could provide good service life. The predominant cause of early structural failure is trench cuts for utilities. In older streets, with older infrastructure systems, many street cuts are necessary in order to provide reliable utility service. In these areas, maintaining a design life of 20 years is appropriate. Requiring subdivisions to design streets for a 50 year life would have an effect on the cost of housing. While the cost of the pavement would increase about 25%, the overall cost of the subdivision infrastructure improvements would increase by about 4%. The exact impact on housing costs probably would not be noticed.

Policy 2.2 Set the Traffic Index (TI) at 8.5 for arterial and collector streets; at 7 for bus routes on local streets; 6.5 for local streets with a life expectancy of 50 years; and 5.5 for all remaining local streets.

The design of pavement is based on a TI. This number is based on the expected number of heavy vehicles to travel the street in the design life. Due to the damage caused by buses, staff recommends a TI=8.5 for areas of arterials and collectors and TI=7 for areas of local streets used by buses. Pavement inspections, as well as the graphs of bus impacts, have documented that the current design standard is not adequate to withstand the extra loads created by bus traffic. Without bus traffic, a review of what this number should be indicates that a TI=8 should be used for arterial and collector streets. However, since bus routes are always subject to change, and arterials and collectors are the primary streets used by buses, it is fair to assume that eventually the street may be used by the bus system and a little extra design effort will pay off in the future.

Local streets are also affected by bus traffic, but the need to design every street for that need is unrealistic. Therefore a TI=5.5 is recommended for local streets. All referenced values are based on a life of 20 years. For local streets designed for a 50 year life, the TI will be increased to TI=6.5. This will yield a 150% increase in useful life with only a construction cost increase of 25%.

Policy 2.2 Soil Strength (R ) will be assumed to be 5 unless documented otherwise.

Soil strength is measured in the lab and a number ( the R value) that represents the soil strength is established. In San Luis Obispo, where poor soils are common, this number can be as low as 5 ( the lowest possible). Staff recommends that all pavement be designed based on an assumed value of 5. The roadway designer may have soil samples tested for actual value and the measured R value may then be used in the calculation of the pavement design.

Pavement Management Plan

Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of new technologies and materials in pavement design Most likely pavement materials will continue to be asphalt. However, there are many new designs of asphalt mixes being developed with the goal to reduce cost and increase life. “Superpave” and other similar alternatives should be examined.

In addition the cost and benefit of concrete pavement should be monitored, particularly where longer life is desired. Various methods of preparing the subsoil and ways of placing the pavement are being explored, and the staff should be encouraged to investigate and recommend new systems where they are cost effective.

Implementation Plan
Policy 3.1 Provide a comprehensive street maintenance program that is least disruptive to business, residents and industry
Program 3.1.1 Divide the City (except the Downtown) into eight designated “areas”; each of which will receive all City maintenance efforts no more than two years within an eight year period.

The city will be divided into eight areas (see Appendix I), following the pattern of the past eight years of surface sealing. Maintenance of all facilities in the area will be coordinated and carried out within a one or two year time period. This Plan will involve utility agencies and the City’s Utilities and Public Works Departments.

The goal of this program will be to identify and provide complete maintenance of the area, budget allowing. The process will be programmed in a two-year budget, with planning in the first 6 months and implementation of each of the parts over the following 18 months. Utility work and major maintenance of streets would occur during year one, and global street maintenance (the sealing program) would occur during year two. During any one-year budget, two different areas will be in process so that the entire city can be covered in an eight year time period.

Program 3.1.2 Create a specific action plan for the Downtown area to assure quality streets and minimal disruption of activities.

The downtown, a ninth specific maintenance area, is a unique area that should have a regular program of maintenance. A series of small projects may have much less impact than a few large ones. Projects should be designed and planned to minimize the time they take. Projects should be scheduled to work in the downtown during hours which least impact the majority of the businesses and residents. The timing and planning of all projects needs to be closely coordinated with the BIA.

The design of projects in the downtown should be open to new concepts and materials. Pavers, stamped asphalt and/or concrete, and other materials should be investigated for use in the Downtown. Pavement maintenance should be coordinated with major projects proposed by utilities and others. The Utilities Department Infrastructure Plan should be considered as projects are planned.

Pavement Management Plan

In order to be least disruptive these projects would be performed by City staff.

For example one morning the City street paving crew may grind the existing asphalt off the street in one block.. The following morning the same crew would return, prepare and seal any cracks and lay a thin layer of asphalt. The next morning the crew would adjust manholes and valve box covers and by the end of the week re-stripe the street. The projects would be designed to be accomplished in the morning hours, prior to noon. Visitors and adjacent businesses would for the most part of the day not be impacted. It would be visible but would have minimal impact on parking and access.

This proposed program is much more pro-active than the “downtown” program associated with the current pavement management program. The current program urges restraint in all projects to avoid disrupting business in the Downtown.

Unfortunately, this appears to have been taken too literally: except for the Marsh Street Reconstruction Project, little has been done in the Downtown as the current street conditions attest. This program assumes a close relationship with the BIA for well coordinated, quick, “in and out” projects that will keep the downtown streets smooth and attractive.

Policy 3.2 Give priority to a) arterial streets; b) collector streets; and finally, c) local streets in areas scheduled for program implementation.

Program 3.2.1 Identify the streets by classification and schedule rehabilitation work appropriately.

The City’s MicroPaver program will identify streets of higher usage and therefore those that will benefit the greatest from rehabilitation efforts.

Program Components
Policy 4.1 Create a comprehensive Global Maintenance component which emphasizes extending pavement life and maintaining a safe riding surface.

Program 4.1.1 Provide every street within the eight major areas a seal treatment once every eight years
The street sealing program provides the best cost/benefit for increasing pavement life, and the new micro-surfacing treatment has eliminated past problems with citizen acceptance. The beneficial life of a good sealing process is eight years, after which it has little affect on pavement quality. In order to receive maximum beneficial use of the seal coat, it must be reapplied at the end of its useful life or every eight years.

This program continues the successful sealing program started in the 1987 pavement management program, which also divided the city into eight geographical divisions, with a plan to seal the streets in one of these areas each year. There were two reasons for this policy: one, the City had a goal of sealing every street every eight years to extend pavement life; and two, it was much more efficient for both the contractor and City staff to work in one area thus keeping

Pavement Management Plan

cost down. The concept has proven to be successful. The contract costs have been reasonable and the work has been relatively easy to manage.

Although the concept was good, actual implementation (i.e. only returning once every eight years) has been problematic. The amount of funding was insufficient to provide the once every eight year cycle; twenty six additional kilometers (16 miles) of streets to be sealed were discovered when all data was returned from MicroPaver; and staff turnover made program coordination and implementation difficult. Cross training and consistent use of the software package should eliminate these problems.

Program 4.1.2 Implement an effective pothole response program This is considered a “stop gap” or preventive maintenance procedure. Pothole repair prevents water intrusion into the supporting soil, and assures that the roadway surface remains in as safe a condition as possible until such time as the road can receive major maintenance. Potholes are the result of unique failures of the pavement resulting in a hole. The life of the pavement is only marginally extended and the condition of the pavement is only slightly improved. The City staff will repair “potholes” in normal working situations and on normal working days within 24 hours of notice.

Program 4.1.3 Implement a Grind and Paveout repair program This is a process of removing irregularities in the pavement’s profile using a grinding machine. After the surface is smoothed, a thin coat of asphalt is applied to hide the grind marks, make the surface uniform and provide some small extension of the pavement’s life. This is a life extending process that results in a good finished pavement appearance. Recent applications have been to address bicycle and pedestrian safety issues, although larger projects are equally possible as evidenced by the recent Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road paving project performed by City staff.

This process is also appropriate for concrete streets that have been overlaid with asphalt. The crew grinds off the old asphalt and lays a new layer on the concrete.

This process should be repeated as soon as it becomes apparent that the old asphalt has begun to de-laminate from the concrete. Seal coating the asphalt surface may delay this but it will normally be necessary every 20 years. The City of San Francisco has been following this kind of program and found it successful.

Many pavements display a failure called “alligator pavement” prior to forming potholes. The name reflects the appearance that is similar to the design of an alligator’s hide. Removing the alligatored pavement, prior to complete failure via grinding or the more traditional dig-out methods, and replacing the failed asphalt with new asphalt material is a proactive procedure that will extend the life of the pavement.

Pavement Management Plan

Program 4.1.4 Implement a crack sealing program
Older pavements become brittle and crack and, if not addressed, allow water through the pavement to the supporting soil. Cracks should be sealed in the fall prior to rain and prior to any seal program. Cracks to be sealed are those too large to be sealed by the global sealing program. Ideally, the City should have a program that inspects and seals cracks every three years. The inspection program used by MicroPaver is an appropriate tool to use to identify streets needing to be crack sealed. If streets are inspected every three years, the data can be used to prepare a work plan to first address those streets that will be sealed in the area of the seal coat program and then those streets that are outside of that area.

Program 4.1.5 Provide a comprehensive curb and gutter repair and replacement program.

This continues and expands the current successful program. The edge of City street pavements are protected by a containment system of concrete curbs and gutters. Where drainage is concentrated, and must cross the surface of the street, cross gutters are installed. These features are important to the life of the pavement. They carry water away from the pavement and protect the edges from raveling. They are maintained by City crews and by adjacent property owners.

Well maintained concrete curbs, gutters, and cross gutters will extend the life of the pavement.

Policy 4.2 Create a comprehensive Major Maintenance component to rehabilitate poor quality streets to an excellent condition.

Program 4.2.1 Implement engineered design solutions to all streets possible within the selected area for rehabilitation.

This work will be engineered and inspected by staff or consultants, depending on overall workload, and will be contracted to the private sector for construction.

Engineered design means a design based upon data collected about the existing structural section, such that an individual solution is created which most cost effectively applies to what funding is available. By focusing all work in one specific area, the City should be able to receive somewhat better contract prices.

This program allocates approximately 2/3rd of funding for major maintenance for use in the scheduled maintenance area. Major maintenance is much more expensive than Global Maintenance, because the roadway is in much worse condition. Upon completion of this effort, the pavement should return to a PCI level of 100.

Program 4.2.2 Implement engineered design solutions to major arterials, which are not part of the scheduled area for improvements, if deemed necessary.

This program allocates approximately 1/3rd of funding for major maintenance to be used to rehabilitate the major arterial streets in the city as long as needed. These streets are just too important to the well being of the city to be forced to await

Pavement Management Plan

treatment for eight years. All design, inspection and contracting features of program 4.2.1 apply to this program also.

Policy 4.3 Implement a pavement management administration component to guarantee the preservation an enhancement of the quality and life of the City’s roadway system.

Program 4.3.1 Inspect the street system annually and input data to MicroPaver.

Annually the staff will conduct inspections of pavement and provide the Council with a summary report of the condition. The inspections will be conducted following MicroPaver procedures, and the condition report will be made available through the program. Streets inspected during the annual inspection will be those streets within the next year’s area for maintenance. Also included will be any downtown, arterial, or collector street that had not been inspected in the last three year or had received a PCI of less than 60 at its last inspection. Streets overlaid, reconstructed or newly constructed in the last 6 years would not be inspected until they were 6 years old.

The Pavement Management Plan shall be linked to the City’s GIS. The data file shall be updated annually, so that others wishing to use it as a part of a GIS application may do so.

The condition of the pavement shall be reported every two years at the time of the preparation of the two year budget.

Program 4.3.2 Continually update MicroPaver with data from City staff global maintenance efforts.

Monthly the staff should update the database to reflect the maintenance work conducted.

Program 4.3.3 Inspect and update signs and delineation in each scheduled work area.

The same crews that are responsible for maintaining the pavement must also maintain the signs and delineation. These features shall be reviewed annually and appropriately maintained. During the area maintenance program, all signs that do not meet standards for reflectivity or standard design shall be removed and replaced. Delineation shall be restored on all streets surfaced. Material for striping, such as thermo-plastic, shall meet longevity standards. Delineation in the downtown may need to meet other needs. With the increased vehicle and pedestrian activity, and more frequent sealing program, painted stripes may be more economical. Staff should investigate which is the appropriate material.

Program 4.3.4 Prepare and enforce regulations on trench cuts in City streets to preserve pavement design life.

Trenches in any street have the effect of severely reducing its life expectancy.

Trenches are made in streets to allow the installation of utilities. Water, sewer, gas, and many wire utilities use underground systems within the street. These

Pavement Management Plan

utilities are normally installed at the time of original development of subdivisions and street extensions.

Unfortunately additional utility structures must be installed and existing ones must be repaired or replaced. When this happens, the pavement of the street is cut and repaired after the installation. Repairs are done carefully but due to the nature of the material used, the pavement is never as competent as was the original structure. Eventually the fill in the trench settles, causing the pavement to drop and cracks open up along the edge of the trench. The street becomes rough and the surface is opened to water penetration, which aggravates the problem by reducing the strength of the supporting soil.

Studies done by other agencies indicate that trenches reduce the effective life of the pavement. At least two agencies in California, Sacramento and Los Angeles, have adopted policies and regulations implementing an aggressive program consisting of fees, standards and inspections, to protect their streets from damage caused by utility cuts. This program will research these programs and their success, if any, and formulate new regulations for enforcement in San Luis Obispo as appropriate.

Existing regulations should remain in place which limit the ability to trench City streets which have been overlaid/reconstructed within the last five years or which have been sealed within the last three years. These regulations are waived in the case of an emergency but act to force utilities to do long range planning or design their infrastructure in a differing way (such as a bore and jack project as opposed to open trench). All trench projects which occur before the year designated for major maintenance should be required to seal one half the street width (or 4m width whichever is less) for the length of the trenching project. This will add expense to the utility performing the trench operation but will relieve the taxpayer from the extra expense of underwriting the cost to repair a failed roadway later on.

Pavement Management Plan

RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS
Due to various factors, the funding originally set aside for the 1987 pavement management program is insufficient to meet today’s needs. Each of the policies and their respective programs are tailored to improve the quality of the City’s street system and none are inexpensive. The recommendations made herein were made with the full comprehension that unlimited funding is not an option. Therefore, program costs were analyzed to optimize what was felt to be a reasonable pavement management program.

Recommended Funding for Global Maintenance
Street Sealing Program: Proposed Budget $458,000
Existing Budget $270,000
Increase in Budget $188,000
This program should be considered the foundation of a good pavement management system. If funding becomes critical, the Global Maintenance - Street Sealing Program should be the City’s highest priority. Surface sealing all the streets in 1/8th (95% / 8 = 11.875%) of the city in each year will cost an estimated $500,000 per year. This number includes both the seal coat and the preparation for the seal coat. The seal coat is of limited benefit if placed on pavement that has structural and base problems. These need to be fixed first.

The current program level is insufficient to meet this program objective. Currently city staff are employed to prepare the surface area designated for the sealing program. This will no longer be possible due to other priorities set by this pavement management program and the size of area anticipated herein. Therefore, additional resources (i.e. contract services) will be needed to adequately prepare the streets for surface sealing. This may result in increased scope of work for the sealing contractor or may be bid as a separate contract.

The last street sealing program (FY 96-97) sealed 8.0% of the street surface area with a budget of $270,000. In order to seal the needed 12% area a total of $405,000 is required ($270,000 x 12 / 8). The remaining $95,000 consists of surface preparation services ($70,000) and contingencies ($25,000). If the full funding recommended for major maintenance is implemented, the area for sealing can be reduced to 10.8% (from 11.875%) or roughly 11% because roads newly overlaid or reconstructed do not need to be sealed. Thus the appropriate funding for sealing would be reduced to $458,000.

Downtown Street Program: Proposed Budget $150,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $150,000
An annual budget of $150,000 is proposed to allow staff to perform regular maintenance of pavement in the City’s downtown area of the city. This work would be primarily to grind and pave at this time because the existing pavement is

Pavement Management Plan

in such poor condition. The amount of funding is based upon analysis by MicroPaver to maintain the streets in this area without further deterioration (see appendix F). This is a new program that places an emphasis on maintaining the quality of the streets in the Downtown area. With time no longer spent preparing street surface areas for the sealing program, City staff will perform this program.

Pothole Response Program: Proposed Budget $20,000
Existing Budget $10,000
Increase in Budget $10,000
This is an expansion of the current program whereby City staff will take a more aggressive and pro-active approach to finding and filling potholes.

Grind and Paveout Program: Proposed Budget $90,000
Existing Budget $50,000
Increase in Budget $40,000
This program currently exists as simply the asphalt line item in the streets budget.

This program represents a new emphasis on how to accomplish maintenance in a timely and effective manner. The program will be used to repair poor pavement problems that cannot be included in the current Major Maintenance Program. City staff will perform this program.

Crack Sealing Program: Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $10,000
This is in essence a new program, as very little crack sealing currently takes place.

City staff will perform this task in the fall of each year - just prior to the rainy season. This work extends pavement life by preventing water from penetrating cracks. Workload issues will need to be addressed as this program is implemented.

Curb and Gutter Repair Program:

Proposed Budget $20,000
Existing Budget $16,500
Increase in Budget $ 3,500
This program, performed by City staff, represents an expanded curb and gutter program, due to the need to repair and replace as much curb, gutter and sidewalk as possible in the identified street seal area each year. Current funding: $16,500 ($12,000 base + $4,500 mid-year adjustment).

Pavement Management Plan

Recommended Funding for Major Maintenance
A substantial increase in funding for this type of maintenance is needed in order to have an effect on the City’s overall average pavement condition.

Major Maintenance for all streets in designated “area” (Program 4.2.1):

Proposed Budget $1,000,000
Existing Budget $ 825,000
Increase in Budget $ 175,000
This recommended spending level, when combined with the recommendation for non-designated area, represents a near two-fold increase in the allocation for major maintenance. This type of maintenance is needed if streets in poor condition are ever to become acceptable to the public again.

Major Maintenance for Arterials in non-designated area (Program 4.2.2):

Proposed Budget $500,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $500,000
Because the City cannot ignore the major arterial streets that serve the public on a daily basis, funds are required to repair and rehabilitate streets. Should the occasion arise when no such streets are identified, the funding should be transferred to the area program for that year.

Major Maintenance - testing and evaluation:

Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $10,000
To make the most cost effective use of City funds, structural testing of existing pavements should be done by consultants who specialize in this field.

Recommended Funding for Program Management
Inspect and input data: Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $10,000
Increase in Budget $0
This represents no change to the existing capital improvement program budget and will allow Cal Poly interns to continue to be used to gather and input the necessary data.

Update Data of City operations: No budget change
City staff will be trained on how to input data from the daily work that they perform. Data will most likely be input weekly.

Pavement Management Plan

Inspect and update signs, etc.: No budget change
City staff will simply concentrate their current city-wide efforts into the design area when needed.

Trench cut regulations: No budget change
City staff will research the effectiveness of other cities regulations and prepare for Council adoption an effective regulation.

Recommended Staffing for Program Management
Add one new staff position: Proposed Budget $62,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $62,000
From a staffing perspective, the existing pavement management program has floundered due to a combination of budget and staffing cut backs. The preparation of this Plan took over two years to prepare, simply because there were too many competing demands on existing staff resources. The recommended program substantially expands the width and breadth over the existing program.

Traditionally paving projects receive the lowest of priority; not due to a disdain for this type of project; but rather competing projects which demand higher priority.

Significant workload analysis of current staff output shows that each engineer is able to design and produce for construction bidding approximately $1,000,000 worth of projects per year. Currently there is no staff person available to either design existing paving projects, nor keep the existing pavement management plan current.

A new staff (Civil Engineer) position is therefore recommended. Since this program recommends a new emphasis on preservation of the City’s most valuable asset, some staffing must be made available for that purpose. The increase recommended in Major Maintenance justifies a new engineer position for design purposes (about .6 position). This person could also provide the staffing to keep existing funding levels of Major Maintenance on schedule by being assigned to the pavement management program. Given the tasks of additionally managing the hiring of student interns for data collection and input, running yearly program recommendations and hiring consultants for pavement testing, yields the need for an additional 500 hours per year or about a ¼ position. Thus to fully implement the recommended pavement management program, a new full time engineering position is recommended at a cost of approximately $ 62,000 per year.

Pavement Management Plan

Funding Summary
Current
Funding
Proposed
Funding Increase
Global Maintenance (Excludes Staffing Costs)
Street Resealing 270,000 458,000 188,000
Downtown Street Repair 150,000 150,000
Pothole response 10,000 20,000 10,000
Grind and Pave-out 50,000 90,000 40,000
Crack Sealing 10,000 10,000
Curb and Gutter Repair 16,500 20,000 3,500
Total Global Maintenance 346,500 748,000 401,500
Major Maintenance
Designated “Area” 825,000 1,000,000 175,000
Arterials not in “Area” 500,000 500,000
Testing and evaluation 10,000 10,000
Total Major Maintenance 825,000 1,510,000 685,000
Program Management
Inspection and data entry 10,000 10,000
Staffing for Program Management 62,000 62,000
Total Program Management 10,000 72,000 62,000
TOTAL $ 1,181,500 $2,330,000 $1,148,500

Pavement Management Plan

FINANCING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
This Plan includes recommendations for a comprehensive Program which includes a significant increase in funding levels in order to achieve a street system that is no longer in a state of decline and in fact a state of gradual betterment that the City can be proud of.

The City of San Luis Obispo has traditionally funded all streets’ program from the General Fund and no change is recommended or anticipated as a part of this document.

The General Fund is comprised of many elements, one of which is the state gas tax, a tax collected in order to fund local road programs. However, the amount of state gas tax available to the City is substantially less than the City is currently spending on pavement management and should, therefore, not be looked upon to help serve the additional needs created by this program’s recommendations.

There are many demands on a City to fund various programs. Unfortunately, street maintenance is not able to be supported by an “enterprise” fund (such as water systems are supported by a water fund, etc.) and therefore must compete with all other needs for valuable general fund resources. It therefore becomes the province of the governing body to determine what programs get prioritization and therefore funding.

As described earlier, the street system represents the City’s single largest capital investment with a potential value of $60 million. Through deterioration, this asset has depreciated to about $43 million and unless additional resources are allocated this deterioration and accompanying citizen complaints will continue. As seen earlier, a $200,000 increase in program funding is necessary just to keep the system at its current level. Any funding beyond that will make incremental improvements to the overall street condition. This program recommends program funding levels that will make a significant improvement to the street condition over a ten year period.

Is there any help on the horizon for additional funding for pavement management? The answer is probably not. Currently, due to a good economy, the general fund has additional resources that should be allocated toward increased levels of funding support for pavement management. However, the cumulative effects of Proposition 13, 62 and 218 have made it virtually impossible to raise taxes or form special road improvement districts to raise funds for the specific purpose of better road maintenance.

Additionally, the State of California, in order to balance its own budget a few years ago, took funds traditionally designated for cities and diverted them to the State’s General Fund. When that General Fund was once again in good fiscal health, the State did not return those funds to the cities but either gave extra funds to other State programs or provided a tax cut to the citizens of the State.

Currently, SLOCOG, the regional council of governments is researching the possibility of asking the citizens to vote for a sales tax increase which would be designated for road projects and maintenance. This may offer a ray of hope for additional pavement management funding and that effort should be encouraged and supported.

Street cut fees are another potential source of revenue for pavement management; but would be so insignificant that they should not be considered as contributing help to the City’s general fund. For example, the City of Sacramento, which recently became the first

Pavement Management Plan

city to implement a comprehensive street cut fee, expects to receive yearly fee revenues of between $40,000 and $60,000. For a city the size of San Luis Obispo the yearly fees would probably be in the $3,000 to $4,000 range. The emphasis on a comprehensive street cut program is street preservation and not necessarily fee collection.

What’s the bottom line? Preserving the street system at its current level will require additional resources from the City’s General Fund. Improving the street system will require yet more resources from the City’s General Fund. This Plan recommends that the City begin immediately with a substantial increase in funding and therefore a significant beginning in roadway improvement. During periods of tight financial times, full funding may not be possible. With biannual reviews of the program, and knowledge of the effects of funding levels, financial decisions in the future will made on firm ground - knowing the impacts to the street system of each funding decision.

I/CAR/PMP Pavement Report

APPENDIX

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 1
Appendix A
Procedures followed to create the 1997 pavement inventory I. The City purchased the Micro Paver program from the University of Illinois. Two employees attended a week long class to learn how to implement the program.

II. Following the directions in the manuals staff prepared forms for inventorying the streets and recording pavement inspections.

III. Parameters were established regarding how the street system would be segmented and ranked:

A. Streets would be divided into segments based on the age of pavement and the volume of traffic.

1. Portions of a street built in different years would be in different segments.

2. Portions of a street with differing traffic volumes would be in different segments.

B. Streets would be assigned a rank based on common usage. This was to recognize two things, streets with a higher rank generally have higher traffic volumes, and streets with a higher rank receive more scrutiny from the public. Rankings were as follows:

1. A-Downtown streets,

2. B-Arterial streets,

3. C-collector streets,

4. D-industrial local streets, and

5. E-local streets.

IV. Mapping parameters:

A. Streets that run in an easterly direction are mapped through intersections with streets of equal rank that go in a northerly direction.

B. Streets that were a higher rank are mapped through the intersection of a street of a lower rank.

V. Naming parameters:

A. Streets are named using their given name shortened to 4 characters.

Names beginning with Spanish prefixes such as Santa and La had the prefix shortened to ‘S’, ‘L’, or as appropriate.

B. Street segments are labeled by naming the cross street at the westerly or northerly end of the segment first and the other end second. Again the

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 2
cross street names were shortened to 4 characters. Where possible the names that were repetitive were reviewed so that the reader would recognize the street by the abbreviated name. Example High Street is ‘High” and Highland is ‘Hlan’.

VI. The inventory created in 1987 was reviewed and was used as the basis for a new inventory.

VII. The history of each street was researched by a student intern. The data sheets from 1987 were reviewed and the construction plans viewed. In addition the index was searched to identify whether the street had been worked on since the last inventory was completed.

VIII. The student intern reviewed the data and determined where the street should be segmented based on the parameters listed above.

IX. The inventory sheet was sent to the Auto Cad operator who mapped the pavement of the street based on the information given on the inventory sheet. The AutoCad operator calculated the length and area of the pavement. Sample units, sized at 232 Sq. Meters, were mapped and a copy of the map for each street printed. The printed map was provided to a team of two students to perform field inspections.

X. Field inspections were carried out by a two person team. The inspections followed the criteria defined in the inspection manuals provided for MicroPaver. Inspectors recorded the condition of the pavement and verified the dimensional information that had been gathered in the office.

XI. A student entered the Inventory and Inspection data in the computer data base.

XII. The data base was exported to the 955 Morro file service using the MicroPaver Import and Export program. The export file was named using the date and initials of the person exporting the file. This was done to provide the data for others to use while the files were being updated and to provide a method of data protection because the data files in the export file could not be corrupted by anyone using the data base and they were backed up daily on that file server.

Anyone wishing to enter data or to use the file was instructed to import to their “C” drive the most recent export file. Only one person could be adding information to the file at any given time.

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 3
Appendix B
Project-1997-98 Program Estimated Cost
0 0
California, NCL to Taft $220,000
Chorro, Marsh to Pismo $40,000
Johnson, Laurel to Southwood $135,000
Laurel, Johnson to Southwood $135,000
Southwood, Sinsheimer to Laurel $55,000
Santa Barbara, leff to Broad $110,000
Santa Rosa, Peach to Palm $90,000
Broad, Murray to 101 $110,000
Total $895,000
These projects were submitted to CalTrans last June for Cycle 9 of the State Partnership program. The project list may be amended and changed prior to June 1998 or the beginning of construction which ever occurs first.

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 4
Appendix C
5 Year Work Program-$1.5 Million
per Year
Plan
Year
Branch Section Maintenance 7/1/98 7/1/99 7/1/00 7/1/01 7/1/02 AlHi FelMNEND Major M&R >= Critical 0 15,850 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Almd CentMiss Major M&R >= Critical 0 16,196 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Alri FlorEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,725 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Alta NEndCaza Major M&R >= Critical 0 8,414 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Andr MontEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,002 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SLDCone Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,477 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Atas GallOcea Major M&R >= Critical 0 26,213 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Augu BishGerd Major M&R >= Critical 26,131 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
GerdLaur Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 45,684 0
W/oLaur Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 24,063
Auto LOVREnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 20,139 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Aval OceaOcea Major M&R >= Critical 0 20,111 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bahi AlriSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 4,304 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BBee HighSand Major M&R >= Critical 0 7,463 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SandSout Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,492 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bent MeinMurr Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,352 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bish John264E Major M&R >= Critical 5,629 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BlCt EndBlue Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3,516 0 0
Bond HathKent Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,015 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BoxW WEndWave Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 6,158 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bran BeebBroa Major M&R >= Critical 0 62,985 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 5
Bres WEndSerD Major M&R >= Critical 1,560 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bria WoodEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 12,229 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Broa 101Mont Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 68,165 0
HighSout Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 46,919 0
MarsHigh Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 179,687 0
MeinMurr Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 14,721
MontMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 75,367 0
Murr101 Major M&R >= Critical 52,916 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Buch JohnSPRR Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,725 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OsosSRos Major M&R >= Critical 10,333 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bull 467S686S Major M&R >= Critical 7,148 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
686S847S Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,268 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
847SWill Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,066 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BVis NEndLoom Major M&R >= Critical 22,561 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cali FootTaft Major M&R >= Critical 66,841 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
CapW SacrEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,377 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Carm HiguMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8,871 0 0
Cata LaEnEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,844 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Caud BroaVict Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,984 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Caza SanLAlis Major M&R >= Critical 23,536 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cent BroaLinc Major M&R >= Critical 24,889 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cerr CuesFerr Major M&R >= Critical 0 18,936 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
JeffCues Major M&R >= Critical 0 15,300 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
PatrJeff Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,655 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Chan MitcLawr Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,288 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Chor HiguMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 6
0 0 0 40,086 0
MarsPism Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 29,769 0
MontHigu Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8,396
Chur BroaSBar Major M&R >= Critical 0 23,926 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NipoBroa Major M&R >= Critical 10,659 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
CJoa LOVRNend Major M&R >= Critical 21,182 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Clov PtriRanc Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,985 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cone CazaEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,288 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Coup WestDart Major M&R >= Critical 22,718 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Crai NendPatr Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,267 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
PatrJeff Major M&R >= Critical 0 11,112 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cypr BranHigh Major M&R >= Critical 0 17,173 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Daly AlHiPatr Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,045 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Dese WEndCasa Major M&R >= Critical 8,381 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
DNor Ramo145w Major M&R >= Critical 0 8,722 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Donn WEndJeff Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,537 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
DSur RamoLEnt Major M&R >= Critical 21,841 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Edge HarmSotw Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,059 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SotwSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,287 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ElCe SanLCorr Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,675 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Elle NendMban Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,788 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ElmC RamoEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 1,501 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
FelM HlanPatr Major M&R >= Critical 0 17,432 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Felt CuesFerr Major M&R >= Critical 0 11,682 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ferr CRomFoot Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 12,856
NlanChor Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3,697 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 7
Fixl WendLizz Major M&R >= Critical 4,188 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Flet BoulLeon Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,659 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Flor ElPaLaur Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 121,587
KnolCarl Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 24,904
SpriKnol Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 23,484 0
SydnElPa Major M&R >= Critical 12,062 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Foot FerrSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 343,781
LCerPatr Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 40,386
Fran BroaVict Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,055 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Fred LongGran Major M&R >= Critical 41,320 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gall OceaAtas Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 26,507 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gard HiguPism Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 31,949 0
Gerd NEndAugu Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,716 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gran LoomMinS Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 46,880
LoomMonN Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 44,710
SlacMcCo Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 38,098
Greg JohnEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,693 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Grov PhilMont Major M&R >= Critical 21,799 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WilsPhil Major M&R >= Critical 0 18,833 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hath CarpCali Major M&R >= Critical 0 28,534 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hays Gran70He Major M&R >= Critical 0 22,798 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hend LoomSlac Major M&R >= Critical 35,683 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Henr GeorElla Major M&R >= Critical 0 2,301 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
IrisGeor Major M&R >= Critical 5,529 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Herm LEntLune Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,767 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
High CyprSBar Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 8
0 0 0 0 122,931
Higu HindMeiE Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 7,370 0 0
MarsNipo Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 287,561 0 0
MeisPraE Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 32,142 0
NipoSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 361,847 0
SC/LVacE Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 12,174
VachSubr Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8,444
HilS NEndLinc Major M&R >= Critical 0 11,363 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hlan FerrSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 10,617
NChoFerr Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 68,348
PatrEPat Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 12,135 0
WEndPatr Major M&R >= Critical 0 38,219 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hutt SandHigh Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,315 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Iris JohnFixl Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,558 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Isla BroaToro Major M&R >= Critical 62,521 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
JayC WEndCrai Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,653 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Jeff DalyMarl Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,430 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Jenn SwazRach Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,482 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
John BishLaur Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 182,132
Kent HathBond Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,822 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
King SandBran Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,175 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Kntw SouwSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 16,447 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lake BalbOcea Major M&R >= Critical 0 8,269 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Laur JohnSout Major M&R >= Critical 50,281 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LawD TangOrcu Major M&R >= Critical 0 8,571 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LeeA NEndTanD Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,447 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 9
Leff NipoOsos Major M&R >= Critical 0 32,642 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OsosSRos Major M&R >= Critical 12,026 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LEnt SEndCata Major M&R >= Critical 0 11,466 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lima MadFHuas Major M&R >= Critical 0 20,402 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Linc BroaChor Major M&R >= Critical 6,955 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ChorWes Major M&R >= Critical 48,490 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
HillBroa Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,364 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lizz JohnWild Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 18,339
LLom EndLCerr Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,403 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Long HathSlac Major M&R >= Critical 12,014 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Loom BVisSMig Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 11,978 0
SMigSYne Major M&R >= Critical 11,685 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LOVR 101LVerd Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 16,667
LRob OakrEend Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,012 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lune LaEnVerd Major M&R >= Critical 0 30,800 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WEndLaEn Major M&R >= Critical 5,269 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mado LOVRPere Major M&R >= Critical 13,720 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OceaPO Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 66,152
PODali Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 32,844
MarC NEndOcea Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,127 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Marg SHigEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 40,101 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Marl PatrJeff Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,070 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mars JohnCali Major M&R >= Critical 25,954 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SLCKNipo Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 62,501 0 0
McCl GranBVis Major M&R >= Critical 36,151 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
McMi NEndMori Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 4,172 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 10
0 0 0 0 0
Mein BroaChor Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,749 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mill CaliGrov Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 62,363
OsosSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 78,027
Mitc MeadBroa Major M&R >= Critical 32,554 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mnta LemoElle Major M&R >= Critical 10,382 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LincSCrk Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,941 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SRosLemo Major M&R >= Critical 12,693 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mont NipoBroa Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 16,115 0 0
Pepp101 Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 143,902 0
SRosToro Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 19,905 0 0
Montr PasaSkyl Major M&R >= Critical 0 24,645 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Morr MarsPism Major M&R >= Critical 6,673 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
MontMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 61,201 0
PalmMont Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 18,258 0 0
PismUpha Major M&R >= Critical 0 29,028 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
MouV HillLinc Major M&R >= Critical 0 25,624 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Murr BroaSRos Major M&R >= Critical 27,537 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Nipo HiguMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 47,289 0 0
MarsBuch Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 34,685 0 0
PalmHigu Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 91,470 0
Oakr HlanNend Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,681 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ocea MadoPinc Major M&R >= Critical 0 18,911 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Olea NEndIron Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,503 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Oran HathBond Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,850 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Osos 101Waln Major M&R >= Critical 2,528 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 11
ChurSPRR Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 19,913
MillHigu Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 39,309 0 0
Paci BroaSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 57,684 0 0
JohnPepp Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,769 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Palm NipoSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 453,565 0 0
Pasa MiraSkyl Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,276 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Peac NipoBro Major M&R >= Critical 20,637 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ToroPepp Major M&R >= Critical 20,479 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Penn BuchEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 4,842 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pepp MarsPaci Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,500 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pere MadoGarc Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,806 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Phil CaliPark Major M&R >= Critical 0 23,654 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pism HiguNipo Major M&R >= Critical 50,445 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NipoOsos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 59,751
Prad SLCkHigC Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 14,037
SLCkHigN Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4,822
Pric HighBran Major M&R >= Critical 16,669 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
RacC RachEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,983 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rafa RamoSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,172 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ramo LEntTass Major M&R >= Critical 243,274 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ranc ClovWest Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,250 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NEndClov Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,258 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rock PerkBroa Major M&R >= Critical 45,089 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rose LaurSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 16,512 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rosi FootCRom Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,142 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SaCa DelCHele Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,624 0 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 12
0 0 0 0 0
Sacr CapiIndu Major M&R >= Critical 0 32,721 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sand BeebBroa Major M&R >= Critical 0 60,853 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SBar LeffBroa Major M&R >= Critical 60,187 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SJos WEndLEnt Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,751 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sklk WoodSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 11,712 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Skyl MiraPasa Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,869 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
MontMira Major M&R >= Critical 0 15,878 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Slac LongGran Major M&R >= Critical 42,496 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Smit WEndJohn Major M&R >= Critical 0 7,231 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SnDr HeleAugu Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 10,390 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sout FernKent Major M&R >= Critical 4,758 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
KentJohn Major M&R >= Critical 7,817 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SinsLaur Major M&R >= Critical 22,783 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WoodFern Major M&R >= Critical 4,493 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SRos HiguMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 87,773 0 0
PalmHigu Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 156,691 0 0
PeacPalm Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 89,102 0
PismSPRR Major M&R >= Critical 0 33,610 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WalnPeac Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 86,469 0 0
Staf CaliKent Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,664 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
KentEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 16,752 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Swee RockBroa Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 11,854 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
TanD JohnSyca Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,189 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
KentJohn Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,159 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SycaEdge Major M&R >= Critical 0 34,418 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 13
TFRd HiguEC/L Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 31,843 0
PoinSPRR Major M&R >= Critical 48,957 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
TngC NEndTanD Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,467 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Toro MontSLCK Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 106,075 0
PhilWaln Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 15,158 0
TwiR WEndEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 23,341 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Upha HighChor Major M&R >= Critical 22,134 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Vena ChorLinc Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,737 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Verd LuneEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,650 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Vice PeriCayu Major M&R >= Critical 0 27,954 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wild LizzSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 19,655 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wils GrovPark Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,925 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wmon PatrWJef Major M&R >= Critical 0 16,694 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WNew NewpCora Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,330 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wodb BroaVict Major M&R >= Critical 0 7,364 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Total Sum of Major Above Critical Funded 1,499,50
8 1,499,78
6 108,365 0 0
Total Sum of Major Under Critical Funded 0 0 1,391,25
8 1,497,96
2 1,497,943
Appendix C
Five year work plan

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 14
Appendix D
Bus Route Impacts to Surface Condition
Bus Routes

Surface Material
Rank AAC AC APC PCC
Downtown
Streets
% of Area Used by
Buses

66.6% 0.0% 86.1
%

0.0%
% of Length used by
Buses

55.4% 0.0% 82.2
%

0.0%
Arterial Streets % of Area Used by
Buses

77.7% 15.3% 100.
0%
100.0
%
% of Length used by
Buses

75.6% 97.0% 100.
0%
100.0
%
Collector Streets % of Area Used by
Buses

22.6% 45.1% 51.7
%

0.0%
% of Length used by
Buses

27.9% 45.4% 53.8
%

0.0%
Local Streets % of Area Used by
Buses

1.9% 3.9% 17.9
%

0.0%
% of Length used by
Buses

1.8% 3.4% 17.9
%

0.0%
AC Asphalt Pavement.

AAC Asphalt Pavement that has been overlaid.

PCC Concrete Pavement.

APC Concrete Pavement that has been overlaid with asphalt.

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 15
Appendix E
Existing Pavement Deficiency
Family Existing PCI PCI in 10 years Current Deficiency
Central Business
District Streets
48 35 $1,900,000
Arterial and
Collector Streets
60 44 $7,700,000
Local Streets (Not
resurfaced)
80 64 $3,600,000
Local Streets
(Already resurfaced)
68 52 $3,400,000
Streets used for Bus
Routes (Included in
above families)
56 43 $7,600,000
Total Deficiency 70 55 $16,600,000

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 16
Appendix F
Condition -Cent ral Business
Dist rict-$150,000 pe r year
Year
Avg
Condition
0 20
40 60
80 100
0 1 2 3 4

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 17
Appendix G
Annual Work Plan
First Year Second Budget Year Third Budget Year
Activity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Inventory and Inspection
Planning Program
Preparing Plans for Infra Damage
Preparing Plans for M&R Program
Preparing Plans for MicroSurface
Repairing Damaged Infrastructure
Construction of M&R Program
Constructing Microsurface Project
Utility Project design
Utility Project construction
This schedule requires strong continuous
oversight. Utility projects may need more
lead time to be accomplishable within this
schedule.

Filled Boxes indicate work program for an area of
the city. Unfilled Boxes indicate work program
activities occurring in another work area at the
same time.

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 18
Appendix H
Budgets required in one year to raise overall pavement condition. 0 2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
18000000
97 86 84 80 72 71 70
PCI
Budget
Major above Critical
Major below Critical
Seal
Preventive
Stop Gap

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 19
Appendix I
Appendix I

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 20
Appendix J
One Year - $4 Million Program
Sum of Funded Work
Street Limits Major M&R >= Critical Micro Surface
Abbo GranHend 0 5,738
AlHi FelMNEND 0 6,891
Alic MargNEnd 0 1,316
Alis NEndCaza 0 1,692
Almd CentMiss 0 5,026
Alph BroaEEnd 7,070 0
Alri FlorEEnd 0 6,402
Alta NEndCaza 0 3,230
Anac WEndPatr 0 4,184
Andr ConeEEnd 0 2,717
MontEEnd 0 1,740
SLDCone 0 3,872
Aral EEndBroo 0 3,243
Ashm WEndWave 0 3,699
Atas GallOcea 0 10,471
Augu BishGerd 26,131 0
GerdLaur 28,264 0
Auto LOVREnd 0 8,756
Aval OceaOcea 0 5,792
Bahi AlriSEnd 0 1,871
Balb OceaCora 0 10,722
Band CorrSEnd 0 1,633
Bara NEndSout 0 3,936
BBee HighSand 0 2,660
SandSout 0 4,187
Bent MeinMurr 0 5,071
Binn EllaSEnd 0 1,487
Bish AuguJohn 0 4,142
BushAugu 0 7,264
John264E 5,295 0
BlCt EndBlue 0 1,012
Blue WBCtRock 0 4,041
Bond HathKent 0 4,866
KentLong 0 2,430
Bone EmplSuel 0 5,447
Boro AtasMado 0 1,531
Boug PoinHoll 0 7,032
Boul SylvSEnd 0 11,900
BoxW WEndWave 0 2,975
Boys ChorSRos 0 9,304

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 21
Bran BeebBroa 0 20,066
Bres WEndSerD 0 525
Bria WoodEEnd 12,229 0
Brid BeeBEEnd 0 5,687
Broa MeinMurr 0 3,729
Murr101 52,916 0
Brok SouSWEnd 0 2,119
Broo TankSawl 0 5,297
Buch JohnSPRR 0 1,488
OsosSRos 10,333 0
SRosJohn 0 6,820
Bull 467S686S 7,148 0
686S847S 0 1,288
847SWill 0 2,637
Will445S 0 2,760
Bush FlorSEnd 0 4,875
BVis NEndLoom 22,561 0
CaJa NEndSend 0 3,980
Cali FootTaft 66,841 0
MontSLDr 0 5,550
TaftPhil 0 12,915
CaLu MargCaJa 0 6,417
CaMa NEndSend 0 3,784
Came MargNEnd 0 1,533
Capi CastEEnd 0 8,039
CapW SacrEnd 0 5,381
Cari NEndMari 0 1,640
Carl FlorEEnd 0 1,928
Carp FootHath 0 2,116
Casi DiabEnd 0 2,223
Cast NEndPref 0 5,546
Cata LaEnEnd 0 1,862
Caud BroaVict 0 2,602
WEndMead 0 755
Cava GallGall 0 9,471
Caza SanLAlis 0 6,778
Ceci AuguEnd 0 3,467
Cent BroaLinc 24,889 0
CerC CerrEnd 0 1,293
Cerr CuesFerr 0 5,877
JeffCues 0 6,652
LosCRosi 0 4,872
PatrJeff 0 4,633
RosiPatr 0 1,866
Chan MitcLawr 0 1,690
Chor FootWest 0 9,064
MontHigu 0 2,418
PalmMont 0 2,165

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 22
PismBuch 0 3,463
WestLinc 0 16,560
Chri CraiWarr 0 3,202
Chup WEndLPra 0 7,842
Chur BroaSBar 0 8,050
NipoBroa 10,659 0
OsosEEnd 0 2,243
Cima WoodEEnd 0 1,671
CJoa LOVRNend 22,520 0
Clov PtriRanc 0 1,732
RancSkyl 0 5,061
Coli NEndFlor 0 3,433
Colu PoinEEnd 0 3,220
Cone CazaEEnd 0 4,254
Cord FramEnd 0 7,831
Corl GallGulf 0 8,618
Coro FlorEnd 0 2,552
Corr Corr 0 4,347
SendWood 0 5,639
Cort PrefNEnd 0 3,314
Coup WestDart 22,718 0
Crai NendPatr 0 2,290
PatrJeff 0 4,831
Cres TanDTanD 0 7,344
Cuca NEndRoya 0 3,294
Cues FootHlan 0 9,070
Cumb WoodEEnd 0 1,603
Cycl WEndHoll 0 3,602
Cypr BranHigh 0 5,195
Dahl PoinEEnd 0 2,619
Dali MadoEnd 0 3,614
Daly AlHiPatr 0 1,533
Dart CuesCoup 0 2,593
DeAn DelRSEnd 0 2,695
DelR CordDiab 0 3,906
DescPref 0 4,414
DiabPort 0 6,853
PortDesc 0 985
Desc DelRLOVR 0 5,444
LOVRVist 0 7,164
Dese WEndCasa 8,381 0
Diab CityDelR 0 3,079
DelRLOVR 0 5,633
LOVRVist 0 4,405
DMar WEndRamo 0 6,701
DNor 145WLEnt 0 2,976
Ramo145w 0 3,792
Donn WEndJeff 0 1,973

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 23
Drak OceaBalb 0 6,997
DSur RamoLEnt 21,841 0
Dunc NEndOrcu 0 4,494
ECeC NEndElCe 0 3,178
Edge HarmSotw 0 1,198
SotwSEnd 0 3,192
ElCa NEndFlor 0 2,630
ElCe SanLCorr 5,535 0
ElCr ElCeEnd 0 7,432
Elle MbanSEnd 0 1,451
NendMban 0 3,118
ElmC RamoEEnd 0 653
ElPa ElCeEnd 0 2,499
ElTi NEndMado 0 4,836
EMer MadoSEnd 0 11,408
Empl BoneGran 0 3,909
Empr BonePrad 0 4,239
Enci NEndElCe 0 1,905
Escu VistSEnd 0 1,846
Este NEndMarg 0 2,238
Expo SouSCorr 0 8,766
FaiW NEndRoya 0 3,375
RoyaPart 0 1,591
FelM HlanPatr 0 7,579
Felt CuesFerr 0 5,079
TassCues 0 1,372
Fern SoutOrcu 38,654 0
Fixl WendLizz 4,188 0
Flet BoulLeon 0 2,461
FloA BishSanC 0 2,188
BushBish 0 2,750
Flor CarlElCa 0 2,785
SydnElPa 12,779 0
Foot WC/LLCer 0 6,080
Fram MiraEnd 0 6,376
Fran BroaVict 0 2,294
Fred HathLong 0 7,537
LongGran 41,320 0
Fullr EndSunf 0 7,546
Gail CaudSEnd 0 1,538
Gall OceaAtas 0 11,525
Gana CorrSEnd 0 1,633
Gard BuchUpha 0 11,200
Gerd NEndAugu 0 2,260
Gold PoinSEnd 0 2,258
Grav GarfAbbo 0 2,526
Greg JohnEEnd 0 1,385
Gret AuguSydn 10,451 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 24
Grna EmplSuel 0 7,084
SHigEmpl 0 4,965
Grov PhilMont 21,799 0
WilsPhil 0 5,424
Gulf LakeAtas 0 6,115
Harm SequEdge 0 5,529
Hath CarpCali 0 8,632
LongCarp 0 8,889
Hays Gran70He 0 6,897
Hend GarfAbbo 0 2,541
LoomSlac 0 10,277
Henr GeorElla 0 774
IrisGeor 5,529 0
Herm LEntLune 0 5,355
HigF HiguGran 0 4,631
High HiguCypr 0 7,696
SPRRSBar 0 1,776
Higu SC/LVacE 0 2,265
VachSubr 0 2,139
HilS LincSEnd 0 7,939
NEndLinc 0 4,940
Hlan PatrEPat 7,840 0
PatrPatr 0 4,620
WEndPatr 0 12,508
HolW BougTaFa 0 8,868
Howa WEndPhil 0 2,134
Huas MadFCayu 0 9,242
Humb BroaVict 0 2,888
Hutt BranSand 0 2,407
SandHigh 0 2,393
Iris JohnFixl 0 2,409
Iron BrooWave 0 6,408
Isla BroaToro 0 18,006
Jali DelRSEnd 0 2,695
Jami NEndTanW 0 1,690
JayC WEndCrai 0 4,197
Jeff CRomHlan 0 8,194
DalyMarl 0 1,880
FootCRom 0 1,047
MarlWmon 0 1,846
Jenn SwazRach 0 1,322
John BishLaur 0 41,175
LaurSout 64,093 0
SoutOrcu 0 14,640
Kent HathBond 0 3,981
King BranSouS 0 1,304
HighSand 0 2,361
SandBran 0 2,434

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 25
SouSSEnd 0 4,873
Kntw SouwSEnd 0 4,737
LaCi NEndJohn 0 3,078
Lade WoodSEnd 0 2,752
Lagu LOVRVist 0 8,593
Lake BalbOcea 0 3,037
LaLu DelREnd 0 2,695
Laur FlorJohn 0 2,145
JohnSout 50,281 0
LaVi LaguVisL 0 1,700
LawC LawnEEnd 0 1,606
LawD TangOrcu 0 3,672
Lawr WEndMead 0 1,913
LCan CRomTolo 0 5,077
LCerr NEndFoot 0 8,215
LeeA NEndTanD 0 2,443
Leff OsosSRos 12,026 0
LEnt CataFoot 0 7,692
SEndCata 0 4,842
Leon SanCFlet 0 1,817
SanCSEnd 0 2,693
Lily PoinEnd 0 2,227
Lima MadFHuas 0 8,041
Linc BroaChor 7,347 0
ChorWes 48,490 0
HillBroa 0 1,970
Liri MargNEnd 0 1,328
Lizz JohnWild 0 4,381
LLom EndLCerr 0 1,808
Lobe WEndHoll 0 4,222
Long HathSlac 13,152 0
Loom SMigSYne 11,404 0
LOVR 101LVerd 0 4,800
DescPerf 0 10,260
LosVerdes 0 3,660
MadoEC/L 0 2,406
OceaRoya 0 9,880
PerfOcea 0 28,318
RoyaMado 0 14,625
WC/LDesc 0 28,490
LPie EndExpo 0 1,010
LPra MariSHig 0 6,431
LRob OakrEend 0 2,209
Lune LaEnVerd 0 13,391
VerdEEnd 0 3,901
WEndLaEn 5,269 0
LVin JohnEEnd 0 3,292
Mado C/LLOVR 0 7,520

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 26
DaliElMe 0 10,970
ElMe101 0 27,720
LOVRPere 13,300 0
OceaPO 51,928 0
PereOcea 0 17,500
PODali 0 6,704
Madr CorrSEnd 0 1,572
MarC NEndOcea 0 1,794
Marg SHigEnd 0 17,435
Mari LPraLPra 0 10,233
Marl PatrJeff 0 5,332
Mars JohnCali 31,273 0
SLCKNipo 0 18,000
SRosJohn 0 20,064
MarW NEndLVin 0 1,586
McCl GranBVis 36,151 0
McMi NEndMori 0 1,814
Mead SouMitc 0 10,358
Mein BroaChor 0 4,352
ChorSRos 0 4,398
Migu NOENViEs 0 2,585
Mira PasoSkyl 0 4,028
MirD FramEnd 0 7,300
MisL BroaSEnd 0 2,756
Miss BroaChor 0 5,112
ChorLinc 0 4,985
Mitc MeadBroa 32,554 0
Mnta LemoElle 10,382 0
LincSCrk 0 1,714
SRosLemo 12,693 0
Mont ChorSRos 0 16,560
ToroPepp 0 9,225
Montr PasaSkyl 0 7,098
Morr PismMars 7,828 0
UphaPism 0 11,000
MouV HillLinc 0 7,752
MrGl TaFaFull 0 6,857
Murr BroaSRos 27,537 0
Newp WNewEEnd 0 8,476
Oakr HlanNend 0 5,465
Oakw KentEEnd 0 1,340
Ocea MadoPinc 0 8,222
Olea NEndIron 0 1,523
Oliv SRosLemo 0 3,430
Oran HathBond 0 3,511
Osos 101Waln 2,397 0
ChurSPRR 0 3,705
PaciChur 0 15,216

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 27
Paci JohnPepp 0 3,956
Palo RamoSerr 0 5,711
Part QuaiQuai 0 9,417
Pasa MiraSkyl 0 6,117
MrosMira 0 5,075
PatC PatrEEnd 0 2,595
Patr DalyHigh 0 4,191
HighFoot 32,184 0
TwinPatr 0 4,877
Peac ChorOsos 18,743 0
SRosToro 0 3,442
ToroPepp 20,479 0
Penn BuchEEnd 4,842 0
Pepp MarsPaci 0 1,328
PhilMars 0 13,141
Pere MadoGarc 0 6,437
Perk RockBroa 0 1,763
Phil CaliPark 0 7,156
JohnPepp 0 2,531
Pine MadFOcea 0 6,309
Pism HiguNipo 50,445 0
OsosSRos 0 3,485
SRosJohn 0 7,709
Poin BougTaFa 0 6,825
LilySnap 0 13,658
TaFaLily 0 17,411
Popp MrGlEAEN 0 2,678
Port 211EDelR 0 3,428
Capi211E 0 1,392
Prad HiguEC/L 0 18,817
Pref HedlLOVR 0 16,116
WEndHedl 0 15,261
Pric HighBran 16,669 0
Prkr HighSouS 0 5,733
QuaC NEndQuai 0 1,396
Quai PartRoyW 0 6,154
Rafa RamoSEnd 0 5,292
Ramo DSurLEnt 0 5,702
ElmVerd 0 1,670
LEntTass 246,568 0
PaloBroa 0 5,712
TassElm 0 1,771
VerdPalo 0 4,565
Ranc ClovWest 0 3,798
NEndClov 0 1,376
Reba WEENAugu 0 1,902
Rica NOENSacr 0 5,044
Robe NOENViEs 0 2,335

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 28
Rock PerkBroa 45,089 0
StonPerk 0 1,843
RosC PoinEnd 0 2,780
Rose LaurSEnd 0 4,755
Rosi CRomNend 0 1,388
FootCRom 0 1,366
Roug WEndEEnd 0 3,515
RoyC NEndRoya 0 1,998
RoyW FairLOVR 0 20,000
LOVRGall 0 5,415
RubiFair 0 2,323
Rubi NEndRoya 0 4,030
SaCa DelCHele 0 2,880
FlorLeon 0 2,223
HeleAugu 0 4,271
LeonDelC 0 2,255
WEndFlor 0 1,561
Sacr CapiIndu 0 12,897
NEndCapi 0 5,680
SanA DescPref 0 4,293
SanC DescEEnd 0 4,171
Sand BeebBroa 0 22,354
Sant HeleSaCa 0 4,372
SawC BrooEEnd 0 1,794
SBar LeffBroa 46,867 0
Seaw PineOcea 0 4,162
Send WoodEEnd 0 1,603
Sequ HarmSouW 0 762
SerD SerHBroa 0 10,180
SerH WEndSerD 0 3,542
SieW EllaNBis 0 4,463
NBisBish 0 4,043
SJos WEndLEnt 0 3,425
Sklk WoodSEnd 11,712 0
Skyl MiraPasa 0 3,890
MontMira 0 4,573
Slac LongGran 41,476 0
SLDr CaliJohn 0 20,130
SLuc CRonTolo 0 4,833
Smit WEndJohn 0 2,850
Snde CorrSEnd 0 2,597
Sonr VistWEnd 0 1,781
SouS WEndHigu 0 4,119
Sout FernKent 5,023 0
JohnSyca 0 4,275
KentJohn 8,029 0
LaurWood 0 3,907
SinsLaur 22,783 0

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 29
WoodFern 4,891 0
SRos PismSPRR 35,304 0
Staf CaliKent 0 4,799
KentEEnd 0 4,943
Sten NendMurr 0 4,761
Ston WRocBroa 0 6,719
Stor HighBran 0 4,802
Suel BoneGran 0 5,096
Sunf FullPoin 0 7,895
Swee RockBroa 0 3,679
Sydn FlorEEnd 0 2,306
GretAugu 0 1,203
HeleGret 0 4,023
JohnFlor 0 4,471
TanD JohnSyca 0 3,428
KentJohn 0 4,091
SycaEdge 0 13,749
Tass FootRamo 0 3,029
RamoSEnd 0 6,565
ToloFoot 0 7,068
TFRd BroadPoins 0 9,614
PoinSPRR 50,301 0
SPRROrcutt 0 23,112
TngC NEndTanD 0 1,423
Tolo SLucTass 0 4,185
Toro PhilWaln 0 2,701
SLCKLeff 50,870 0
Tuli EndSunf 0 3,317
Turn WilNEnd 0 946
TwiR WEndEEnd 0 10,148
Upha ChorMorr 0 2,969
HighChor 22,134 0
Vall MiraEnd 0 2,471
Vega VisBVisA 0 2,497
Vena ChorLinc 0 4,244
Verd LuneEEnd 0 4,373
Vice PeriCayu 0 9,676
Vict WoodFran 0 4,798
ViEs NOENSacr 0 6,025
VisA VisCDesc 0 4,050
VisB DescSEnd 0 1,479
DiabDesc 0 8,456
VisC DescSEnd 0 2,519
VisBDesc 0 7,366
VisL LaViWEnd 0 12,627
Vist VistSEnd 0 1,530
Waln SRosToro 0 3,626
Ward SandHigh 0 2,464

Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 30
Warr JeffPatr 0 4,656
Wave TankSAsh 0 8,617
Wild LizzSEnd 19,655 0
Will BullEnd 0 2,939
Wils GrovPark 0 4,321
Wist SunfEnd 0 2,889
Wmon PatrWJef 0 6,854
WNew NewpCora 0 5,712
Wodb BroaVict 0 3,202
CorrLade 0 11,752
LadeLawt 0 7,342
WoSd NEndSend 43,902 0
Yarr PoinEnd 0 2,428
Zaca WEndSHig 0 7,239
Grand Total 1,733,961 2,265,806

council.

A acEnOa RepoRt
Meeting Dat e
10-6-09
hem Number

C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM : Jay D . Walter, Director of Public Workq
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Enginee r
SUBJECT: 2009 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Receive a report from Margot Yapp of Nichols Consulting Engineers on its peer review o f the City's Pavement Management Plan .

2. Adjust the priorities and goals established in the original Pavement Management Plan to reflect higher priorities for arterial streets and increase the amount of visual confirmation o f arterial street condition, where concerns are the greatest .

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
After 10 years of implementing strategies from the adopted 1998 Pavement Management Plan , the City Council requested that a peer review be performed by a pavement management professional to provide feedback on the program and make recommendations for improvements .

The findings from the City's consultant, Margot Yapp of Nichols Consulting Engineers, indicat e that the basic program is still sound regarding standards in the industry for pavemen t management, however, a couple of adjustments are recommended . Specifically, the Consultant recommends increasing the priority for arterial street repairs and switching to a mor e understandable measurement to show progress .

DISCUSSION
Background
In 1998 the City Council took action to approve a Pavement Management Plan (PMP.) The City had used pavement management strategies in the past; however, this more formal document, along with associated software, modernized the City's strategies for managing pavemen t maintenance. As part of the program, the Council set a long-term goal of a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 80 . The Pavement Condition Index is a rating scale of 1-100 used to reflect th e condition of the pavement with 100 being the best rating.

When the program was started in 1998, the City's streets were rated to have an average PCI o f around 70. As of the most recent evaluation, the PCI remains at about the same level, havin g peaked two years ago at 75 . When considering only arterials and collector streets, the PCI at the start of the program in 1998 was 61 . The most recent evaluation indicates a PCI of 72 for these streets, with a peak two years ago of about 77 . It should be noted that during the 2005-07 budget

2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 2
cycle, neighborhood paving was suspended and work focused only on arterials, which coul d have led to the slight decline . Citywide, the percentage of streets with a PCI less than 40 ha s decreased overall by 5% since 1998, equating to a 4% decrease for local streets and an 11 % decrease for arterials and collectors . This indicates that the projects implemented during the last 10 years have reduced the number of poor streets.

Pavement Managemen t
The fundamental principle of modem pavement management is that it is less costly in the lon g run to maintain streets than it is to reconstruct them . Once a section of pavement has deteriorate d to the point where it has to be rebuilt to function properly, the only real option is reconstruction .

If a street is still in good or fair condition, maintenance treatments can be applied to extend th e life of the pavement that are less costly than reconstruction . The other benefit to extendin g pavement life is that these maintenance treatments are generally less disruptive to the community than reconstruction.

Common pavement management strategies typically prioritize maintenance of the good and fai r streets ahead of repairing poor streets. While this approach has proven to save money in the lon g run, the downside is that it is counter-intuitive to the public . They see that the worst streets are not being repaired, yet sealing or overlays are being placed on "good" streets. The City has been fortunate in that for most of the years the program has been in place, sufficient funds have been made available to complete a substantial amount of work, including some on the poor streets , minimizing inquiries from citizens.

As part of the original PMP, the City was divided into areas to facilitate planning . The City currently has nine pavement areas : eight neighborhoods and the downtown. The eight neighborhoods are rotated through on an annual basis, and the downtown is worked on as neede d and as funding is available . See Attachment 1 for the City's pavement area map. Pavement maintenance is performed this way so that other work (especially underground utility and curb and gutter projects) can be done prior to the sealing or overlay . This predictable planning and construction method reduces the likelihood that new pavement will be cut to complete anothe r City project a short time later.

Status of the Current Progra m
The City has now been operating under these basic principles since 1998. In the summer of 2008, CIP projects for sealing and paving were completed in Area 1 to start off the second rotation since plan adoption . Area 2 sealing and overlay work planned for this year has just bee n completed. As the second rotation begins, staff is seeing fewer streets that need reconstructio n and the increased ability to use a relatively inexpensive microsurfacing seal on more streets .

The rotation program has also brought a much higher level of coordination with Cit y underground utility projects. Prior to the adoption of the PMP, it was unknown where pavin g was to occur until the streets were field reviewed, so it was not possible to plan work very far i n advance. The pavement area rotation approach allows advanced planning to program and complete underground work prior to paving or sealing a street . Trench cuts are a leading contributor to reductions in pavement life.

2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 3
The City's Street Maintenance program (performed by City crews) also benefits from th e rotation approach because it gives it a clear timeline and defined area to complete work. Staff can complete high quality spot repairs and crack sealing in advance of work in a particular area .

The maintenance staff also knows which streets in the area might be skipped due to their advanced deterioration so that more substantial repairs can be performed to extend street life an d reduce complaints. The Street Supervisor reports that in recent years, pothole reports have gone from about 15 per day to about 2 per week . This is a direct result of the City's investment in equipment that allows staff to make better repairs at recurring sites, rather than just filling the hole with patch material. This level of maintenance work, done in concert with an aggressive contract maintenance program, allows the City to keep its maintenance staffing levels low whil e maintaining a high level of service .

A recent article in the Tribune surveying cities throughout the county indicated the City of Sa n Luis Obispo has the largest percentage of streets in good condition. The PMP has worked as intended to reduce the backlog of streets needing reconstruction and, when funded to adequat e levels, to raise the PCI. Pavement deterioration is continual (with or without maintenance) an d while the City has not made significant gains in the PCI, it has maintained the road condition s and made some strong improvements on arterial and collector streets .

The Consultant has confirmed that a structured program, like the City uses, is still th e recommended approach for long term stewardship of city streets . The question now is, should some refinements be made to better serve the community .

Peer Review by the Consultant
Review Approach
Over the last year, two members of the City Council have asked questions about paving priorities and strategies for maintenance . During the 2009-11 Financial Plan process staff suggested that a peer review be completed of the City's Pavement Management plan and methodology for annual street selections. The Council agreed with this approach that will help either confirm or alter th e pavement maintenance program to assure the City is spending its funds in the most cost effectiv e way.

Staff hired a consultant who specializes in pavement management to complete a peer review .

The Consultant brings a depth of experience in paving and can share experiences of other communities with the Council . (Attachment 2 Consultant's resume) The scope of work was not a highly detailed review of all the processes and data the staff uses, but rather was intended t o confirm that the City is on the right track, or if not, to recommend adjustments . The resulting report did not define a set of detailed recommendations, but rather provided guidance towar d improvements. (Attachment 3 Consultant's report) Staff has used this guidance to build detailed recommendations for Council's consideration .

Council Interviews
It was important for staff to be certain of what the Council concerns were regarding pavemen t management. To that end, staff and the Consultant met individually with two members who ha d expressed concerns at meetings to discuss the issue in more detail . The consultant also reviewe d the existing Plan and interviewed the PMP Manager in the Engineering Division . 736Page 511 of 542 -3
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 4
The interviews with the Council members were very enlightening and some common themes emerged. In broad terms, the concerns centered around a need to place a high priority on arterial and collector streets which carry higher numbers of vehicles, and possibly have a higher standar d of maintenance compared to residential (local) streets. Complimentary to that, is a leaning toward a lesser standard for local streets, and possibly a longer rotation cycle . The basic question is, of course, is the City spending its money wisely and with regard to overall priorities .

The other ancillary concerns expressed by Council members during the interviews were :

1. The term "Poor" as used by the pavement management program is not really poor and w e are over doing the maintenance treatment.

2. Well maintained streets contribute to higher speeds.

3. Reducing road maintenance funds would free up funding for other things the City wants to do, including alternative transportation, flood protection, roadway improvements such as realignments, signalization, widening, or pedestrian improvements, and open spac e acquisition.

4. The area rotation program does not prioritize streets citywide so streets in the current are a get treatment before streets with greater need in other areas of the City .

5. Microsurfacing may be the appropriate treatment for maintaining a street, but it does no t remove the bumps and provide a smooth ride .

6. Rough areas and trenches do not get a quick enough response .

7. Utility lines in pavement areas should get priority so that streets are not left without a new surface for extended periods after their neighbors have been surfaced just because a utility project is planned in the near future .

Some of these concerns are tied to the basic policy concern of priority, while others are staf f operational issues. On a very positive note, during these discussions, neither Council membe r remembered receiving complaints about street conditions in recent years .

Staff Interview
The Consultant also interviewed the staff person who completes regular analysis of the pavement conditions and makes the initial recommendations for work . In general, field information o f roadway conditions is collected every year . In the past this was done with student interns in th e field and is considered the "manual" method . More recently, staff has hired a team capable of a mobile review where photographs are taken and analyzed and pavement deflection is measured .

The mobile process can also evaluate the entire City, instead of a limited sample . The information from the field review is entered into a computer program. Pavement maintenance schemes are developed using primarily two pieces of information, 1) what is the availabl e budget, and 2) what are the street pavement conditions.

The program evaluates the street condition for the current area as well as arterial and collectors citywide. The arterials and collectors comprise approximately 30% of the street system . Using initial recommendations in the PMP adopted by the Council 11 years ago, staff allocates 25% o f the funding for arterial and collector streets and the remaining funding for repair and sealing o f all other streets. The only exception to this was the two years where all funding went to arterials and collectors. After taking the available budget into consideration, the program recommends a maintenance treatment, be it microsurfacing, overlays or complete reconstruction, for each street .

The program uses the basic philosophy that whole system pavement preservation is the goal.

2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 5
This list receives a further field review by the Street Supervisor to confirm the analysis. Minor adjustments are made at this point to correct any anomalies from the field review and to identif y work that is better suited to the City's maintenance staff rather than contract construction .

Analysis
After completing the review of the PMP and conducting the interviews, the Consultant prepare d a general review of the program, summarized the comments heard and suggested som e refinements to the program .

1. Arterial Streets
The Consultant recommended that the arterial streets receive attention first after a review of th e network condition. This would change the current approach from that of a fixed percentage of funding to a fluctuating funding amount, depending upon the condition level set for the arteria l streets. Funds available after addressing arterial streets would be used in the neighborhoo d rotation areas. This is in line with the comments of both Council members. The consultant als o indicates that funding levels have not kept up with the rising costs of asphalt . The City needs t o make regular adjustments to the funding levels, and make sure it is maximizing the use o f available grants. Based on the consultant's research, the City appears to fall in the middle rang e of typical spending by cities of similar sizes.

2. Measurement ofStreet Quality
A broader policy concern raised by the Consultant is the issue of how staff measures the qualit y of the streets and shows progress. Staff has been using the PCI since the original PMP to gauge the street condition, but the Consultant suggests looking at something that has more meaning to the Council and the public, such as a reduction in the number of failed streets .

3. Data Calibration
Lastly, the Consultant suggests a new process to calibrate data received each year so tha t comparisons of the PCI from year to year have greater consistency . This will require additional staff hours.

Summary
The biggest issue for the program appears to be one of prioritizing where the money goes. The increase over the last 10 years of nearly 10 points in the PCI for arterials and collectors whe n compared to an overall network PCI holding steady, would indicate the 25% funding approach was adequate to keep the arterials reasonably well maintained . However, at least two of th e Council members do not perceive that the City has a quality arterial network, and the Consultant indicates the prioritization of these streets is lower compared with how other agencies set priorities .

A secondary issue is that of providing a more meaningful term than "PCI" to demonstrate goal s and progress to the community. In this year's Tribune's article on county street condition, th e article used the terms "good" and "bad" to refer to street conditions. It reported 74% of the City's streets in good condition and 2% in bad condition. These classifications are likely based on PCI, but are presented in lay terms for the public. The use of the PCI can assist staff and the softwar e in prioritizing, but staff supports the idea of moving to a lay person translation of that information for purposes of reporting and goal setting .

2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 6
Recommendation - Tiered System and Data Collection & Evaluation Taking the Consultant's comments, and looking at these two key items together, staff recommends that the condition goal for arterials be set higher than for local streets and that staf f have greater leeway than the original 25% split, to assign funds to arterial roadways. Staff is recommending collectors be handled in the context of the pavement areas, but receive a highe r priority for area funding than local streets. This would be combined with a more understandable rating system. The following is an example of a tiered system the Council could endorse, using simpler language and modified priorities. It should be noted that some of the downtown streets are arterials and so would fall under the higher priority.

Priority Street Type Goal Annual or Area Rotatio n
1 st Priority Arterials Good > 90% Bad = 0% Citywide Annual Review 2nd Priority Downtown Good > 80% Bad = 0% Citywide Annual Review 3`d Priority Collectors Good > 80% Bad < 5% Paving Area Revie w 4th Priority Local Good > 70% Bad < 7% Paving Area Review This set of priorities would then be the basis of funding requests during the Financial Plan process. As always, the level of funding is at Council's discretion . The funding request from staff will include what the expected progress or lack of progress will be based on the various fundin g levels.

The last element of the consultant's recommendation was in regards to better control of the data collection. Staff is still evaluating the best approach to collecting field data . Each method introduces human element to the evaluation. While the automated system appears to bump th e PCI about 3 points over manual evaluation, the manual evaluation covers only a portion of the network and is carried out by interns. Intern staff are not necessarily the same people from yea r to year, so consistency is not guaranteed through this process either . To balance the Consultant' s suggestion for improving consistency with other workload, the recommended approach is an increase in visual confirmation of arterial street condition, where concerns of condition are the greatest, and rely on the automated system for the remainder of the network. In this way, staff will balance the need to verify field information with the need to deliver other constructio n projects with the available staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adjustments in the Pavement Management Plan do not in and of themselves have a fiscal impact .

The Council controls, through the Financial Plan process, the amount of funding that will b e allocated to paving each year . However, it should be noted that decisions made regarding pavement maintenance can have long term affects. If for example, the City should decide to only repair the worst streets, there would be consequences to the condition of the network in the long term that could be costly to rectify . This has happened to other agencies. The approach needs to be balanced and thoughtful to ensure to the largest degree possible that the City is spending its available paving dollars in a way that will be responsible in the long term . It is for this reaso n that staff is not recommending significant changes, but rather modest changes to address weak areas in the current approach .

2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page7
Consistent Capital Improvement Program funding for street maintenance has allowed the City t o keep maintenance staffing levels fairly constant in the face of growing street miles . The City primarily uses general fund money for street maintenance, but augments this funding with State grants as they become available .

ALTERNATIVES

1. Shift away from the area approach for local streets to a Citywide approach . City staff strongly supports the area rotation concept . It has presented some challenges to the Utilit y Department regarding priorities, but has reduced street cuts on newly paved streets. Engineering staff remain in close communication with Utility staff to coordinate work . In the event there is an urgent need for pipeline work, engineering makes every effort to shift priorities to accommodate the need.

Sealing work needs to be performed on a regular basis to keep streets performing as intended .

The area rotation assists staff by regularly sending them back to the same area to keep it up . To select seals locations on a citywide basis will create additional work and it will be much more difficult to prioritize needs because of the number of streets that will have to be looked at .

2. Extend the rotation cycle . The apparent effect of extending the rotation cycle would be to reduce the funding level needed . In reality, the network needs a certain level of funding each year to keep it maintained regardless of whether it is reviewed as a whole or in 8 or 12 areas .

Letting it fall into disrepair by prematurely reducing funding will lead to more costly maintenance in the future, or a continual degradation in the quality of the City's streets.

Rotation cycles are largely tied to the lifespan of the sealing product . The goal is to reapply a seal as the old one ceases to function . Staff has been using a newer product in the last couple o f years that appears to last longer. Staff is not opposed to the extension of the cycle length, but believes more information and time is needed on the newer product before making this change .

Staff will continue to monitor the performance of the material .

3. Make no changes to the current program. The program as originally envisioned an d implemented has kept streets well maintained, reduced the number of poor streets in the City and improved the condition of the arterial and collector portion of the system . Staff could continue under this direction. Doing so would not address concerns that have been raised .

4. Complete an in-depth review and update of the PMP . If the Council does not feel that minor adjustments are adequate to address the concerns about the pavement management program, a more detailed review and update could be completed . This could be done by staff at some time in the future, or a specialist could be hired to complete the work. Staff expects that such an effort (if completed by a consultant) would cost about $25,000 . If staff is asked to complete the revision, then other CIP projects would likely have to be deferred .

ATTACHMENTS
1 . Pavement Area Map
86-'7-

2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 8

2. Margot Yapp Nichols Consulting Engineers — Consultant Resum e

3. Peer Review Report by Nichols Consulting Engineers

AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFIC E
1998 Pavement Management Plan
t:\counal agenda reports\puouc works carrzu09\streets-signais'pmp remew\9u-O-ua pmp ru.,ea. ;H. .o

ATTACHMENT #1

MAP OF CITY PAVEMENT AREAS

ATTACHMENT 2
NI H S CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Ch td .

Masters in Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, 200 5 M .S. in Civil Engineering, Oregon State University, 1987 B .S . in Civil & Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, 1985 Professional Registrations California, Oregon
Professional Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineers American Public Works Associatio n
Transportation Research Board Committees Al T50 (Asset Management) TRB Subcommittee A2B01 (1) Local Agency Pavement Managemen t Co-Chair, Pavement Preservation Technical Group on Pavement Managemen t Strategic Highway Research Program II - Technical Coordinating Committee for Reliability Summary Experience
Ms. Yapp has over 20 years of experience in the area of transportation engineering specializing i n pavement design, asset/pavement management and research for roads, highways and airfields .

She has also implemented many Pavement Management Systems for cities, counties and airport s in California, Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas . She has taught workshops on pavemen t management systems for the National Highway Institute/Federal Highway Administration . She is also involved in the evaluation and design of airfield pavements for civilian and military airports .

Ms. Yapp is currently the Project Manager for the California Statewide Needs Assessments project where she is responsible for collecting all pavement and non-pavement data fro m every county and city (536 agencies) in the entire state of California. She is also responsible for developing a methodology to analyze the data, data analysis and determining the fundin g shortfall required to maintain all of the city and county streets throughout California. These results will be used by the Legislature and the Governor in assessing future transportatio n needs.

Ms. Yapp is also nationally recognized as an expert in assessing damage caused by utility trenching in the public right-of-way . She has performed these studies for a number of agencie s throughout the United States including Seattle, Philadelphia, Salem, Santa Clara County and Chico .

Representative Projects
Asset/Pavement Manaqement Systems
NCE's proposed Project Manager, Ms. Yapp, has worked with pavement management software since 1987 . She has worked with over 100 agencies in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii an d Nevada to implement PMS, from condition surveys to setting up budget parameters to preparin g final reports to making presentations to City Councils for cities (Mission Viejo, Tustin, Fullerton, Seal Beach, Torrance, Chula Vista, Vista, Corona, Highland, San Dimas, San Francisco, Sa n Jose, Oakland, Fremont), counties (Orange, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Marin, Stanislaus , Margot T. Yapp, P.E .

Principal/Project Manager
Education
"Bringing the State-of-the-Art to the Standard of Practice"

ATTACHMENT 2
Margot Yapp

Mendocino, Lake, Mariposa and Monterey) and federal (US Forest Service, Presidio of Sa n Francisco, Barbers Point NAS)agencies . She has Beninvolved in all aspects of PM S implementation, from collecting field data, performing condition surve s, performing analyses, preparing reports, preenn results to decision makers, and managing projects . Th types of PM S software include MTC's StmmSaeRU icoPAVER,dTIMS,Cartgraphan the Hansen Enterpris e system.

Currently she works with both regional and local agencies to use their PMS data for developin g work plans and also to project long-term needs for sales taxorbn measures. She has used PMS data to develop performance prediction models, to monitor performance of projects constructed with new pavement materials such as crumb rubber, and to develop new specifications . She recentl y completed along-term rgion@pavement needs forid|3 cities in Orange County for the Orange County Transportation Authority .

Airfield Pavement Management
Ms. Yapp wa Project Manager for the implementation of a PMS at San Francisco Internationa l Airport. The project involved all data collection activities, analyses and the preparation of budge t reports and maintenance and rehabilitation recommendations . Both &rsidean landside pavement s were included. Additionally, the project included the development of specific progra m enhancements for the airport, including the use of CADD maps and a project-level pavemen t analysis program that used mechanistic methods for overlay design as well as determination o f allowable loads using falling weight deflectometer testing .

Other airpor in|ue Ren -ahe|memaon|Aro% J hn Wan |memaon|Amod Bamem Point NAS, an 192 general aviaon airfields in the State of California . Omded data collection and data entry efforts, and asm«e in reedevelopment of maintenance and rehabilitation strategies an d generated reports for individual airfields .

She provided week-long training sessions on the PMS to San Francisco International Airport , Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Houston Intercontinental Airport staff .

Training
Ms. Yapp wa the Principal Instructor for the Federal Highway Administration for a three-day cours e on Pavement Management Systems . This course was taught to over 20 state highway agencies in the United States ; has also taught two-day workshops onpavement management systemsf r local agencies and T2 Centers. These courses include the basic principles of a PMS as well a s more advanced components . Elements of the course include inventory, condition assessments , budget needs, implementation, and presenting results to decision makers . She has also trained numerous local and federal agencies in the use and operations of PMS at both the technical an d non-technical levels. She recently completed development of a1-acourse for the FHWA entitled "Pavement Management – Characteristics of an Effective Program" (NHI Course 131116) .

She has taught "Pavement Distress Identification" for the National Highway Institute. She was also apart-time »duerat San tJose State University where she teaches a graduate course in pavemen t evaluation and design and pavement management systems. She currently presents courses o n pavement performance and utility cuts as part of the University of Wisconsin's Department o f Engineering Professional Educaon .

Bringing the State merle the Standard of Practice

ATTACHMENT 2
Margot Yapp

Pavement Desig n
Ms. Yapp has been involved in the pavement designs for runways, taxiways and aprons for airfield s as well as roads and highways . Pavement designs typically include the use of nondestructive testing devices such as the Dynaflect and Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) . Roadway design s have been performed for local, state and federal agencies in New Mexico, California, Oregon , Washington and Alaska. Airfield experiences include the pavement designs at Barber's Point NAS, McCarran International Airport at Las Vegas, San Jose International Airport in California, Fresn o ANG, and Castle AFB.

She is familiar with Caltrans, AASHTO and mechanistic design procedures, as well as those of th e Asphalt Institute, the Federal Aviation Administration and the U .S. Corps of Engineers . Mechanistic designs have typically been employed in cases where non-standard vehicles, such as missil e carriers, have loads that are unusually high or where unconventional subgrade base or surface course materials are needed.

Sample projects include cities such as Los Gatos, Livermore, Hayward, Oakland and Campbell .

Selected Publications Report s
"Non-Pavement Needs Assessment", with Rita Leahy and Adriana Vargas, for the Metropolita n Transportation Commission, September 2007.
"Countywide Assessment of Existing & Future Pavement Needs", with LiQun Ke, for the Orang e County Transportation Authority, 2006 .
"Development of Performance Measures for Allocation of Transportation Funds", for th e Metropolitan Transportation Commission, February 2006.
"Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement Performance of Seattle Streets", presented at the Roa d Builder's Clinic, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, March 2000 .
"Development of Performance Prediction Models for Dry-No Freeze and Dry-Freeze Zones Usin g LTPP Data", with Kevin Senn, D . Frith and L. Scofield, Proceedings, 8th International Conferenc e on Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, WA, 1977.
"Institutional Issues : What They Are, How to Work Around Them and Keep Going," submitted fo r publication to the Third International Conference on Managing Pavements, San Antonio, Texas, 1994, sponsored by the Transportation Research Board .

Review of Relationships between Modified Asphalt Properties and Pavement Performance, with J.C. Coplantz and F.N . Finn, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1991 .

HP-GPC and Asphalt Characterization : Literature Review, with A.Z. Durrani and F .N. Finn, Strategi c Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1990 .

Review of State and Industry Reports on Asphalt Properties and Relationship to Pavemen t Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice

ATTACHMENT 2
Margot Yapp

Performance, with A.Z. Durrani and F .N. Finn, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington , DC, 1990.

Asphalt Properties & Relationship to Pavement Performance, with Fred N . Finn, J . Coplantz & A. Durrani, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1990 .

The Effects of Emulsion Variability on Seal Coats - Final Report, with J .F. Shook & W.L. Shook, FHWA-PA-89-30 and 89-12, Washington, DC, June 1990 . "Existing Methods for the Structural Design of Aggregate Road Surfaces on Forest Roads", with J . Steward and W.G. Whitcomb, Fifth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads, Transportation Research Record 1291 Vol. 2, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1991 .

Aggregate Surfacing Design Guide, with W.G . Whitcomb, M . Myers, USFS Region 6, Portland , Oregon, February 1990.
"Development of an Improved Overlay Design Procedure for Alaska," with R .G. Hicks and B.

Connor, Transportation Research Record 1207, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC , 1988 .

Compendium of Demonstration Projects for USDA Forest Service Project on Alternate Surfacings - Wood and Bark Chips in the Siuslaw National Forest, with R .G. Hicks, Transportation Research Record 85-2, Transportation Research Institute, Oregon State University, July 1985 .

Potential Problems With the Use of Open-Graded Emulsified Asphalt Mixes, with R .S. Frey and R .G . Hicks, Transportation Research Record 83-22, Transportation Research Institute, Orego n State University, July 1983 .

Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice

ATTACHMENT 3
NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Chtd .

Engineering and Environmental Service s
501 Canal Blvd., Suite I • Point Richmond, CA 94804 . 510.215.3620 • FAX 510 .215.2898 September 14, 2009
File: 156.03 .20
Ms. Barbara Lynch
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Department of Public Works
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Subject: Peer Review of Pavement Management Plan & Summary of Interviews with City Council
Dear Barbara:

As discussed, this letter report constitutes Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd . (NCE)'s peer review of the City's Pavement Management Plan (PMP) as well as the results of our interviews with Council Member Andrew Carter, Mayor Dave Romero and the City's PMP Manager, Daniel Van Beveren .

Review of Pavement Management Pla n
NCE first reviewed the City's "Pavement Management Plan" that was adopted by the Council in April 1998 . Generally, the PMP is well thought out, and incorporates the elements that are expected of many pavement management plans . The City uses the MicroPAVE R program, which is well-known and widely used by many cities and counties in the United States. It is also endorsed by the American Public Works Association as well as other federa l agencies. Within California, some 80 cities or counties use the program .

More specifically, the PMP included :
• Thorough and detailed summary of pavements, their value, how the y perform/deteriorate over time as well as the public's perceptions. • A description of the MicroPAVER program, and the results of the analyses presented i.e. inventory data, pavement conditions, and future projections . • Impacts of different treatment methods e .g. seals vs. overlays • Impacts of different funding levels
• A summary of policy recommendations e .g. condition goals, design criteria, implementation and funding levels .

There was one specific observation that should be noted; the PMP identified arterials to hav e the lowest average PCI in 1998 (59 for arterials, compared to 63 for collectors and 77 fo r local streets). This is unusual since most cities actually have arterials and collectors in bette r Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice

ATTACHMENT 3
September 2, 2009
File # 156.03 .20
Ms . Barbara Lynch

condition than their local streets. The PMP also indicates that some streets in the City wil l need to be maintained for reasons other than pavement condition i .e. identity, sense of community etc. However, from the funding recommendations in the report, only about 22% ($500,000) of the annual funding is directed towards arterials specifically .

Most pavement preservation policies will aim to preserve good roads first as this is the mos t cost-effective strategy in the long run . However, this is usually tempered by the fact tha t arterials usually have a higher priority than local streets and are selected for treatment first .

Finally, change is a constant, and the PMP indicates that the results and recommendations are based on assumptions that may change, and if so, those changes should be considered in th e future.

Interviews
Three interviews were conducted in the morning of August 2 5th, 2009. The interviewees were Mayor Dave Romero, Council Member Andrew Carter and the City's PMP Manager, Danie l Van Beveren.

In general, the concerns from Council Member Carter are summarized as follows:
• Too much money is spent on local streets and not enough on arterials . • The PCI is not the best performance measure of improvement . The perception is that "we're spending a lot of money for not much improvement in the PCI " • There are other higher priorities e .g. safety (signals, cross walks), traffic congestion, capacity improvements (primarily intersections)
• A modal shift in projects e .g. more pedestrian or bicycle projects Mayor Romero's concerns are summarized as follows:
• Current emphasis in only on neighborhoods, and not on arterials. This should b e corrected so that arterials have a higher priority . A secondary emphasis should be on collectors and bus/truck routes. The neighborhood program should be reduced in size . • Smoothness is a priority, so overlays may be more appropriate than seals in areas where there are roughness problems.
• More flexibility in the 8 year program to include other treatments as appropriate . • Trench repairs are inadequate – better restoration practices should be considered .

Both are willing to "extend" the eight year cycle to longer cycles, if funding constraints exist.

PMP Manager Van Beveren's comments are summarized as follows:
• The 8 year program works – it's effective in coordinating with utilities and save s money in construction
• Generally follow plan with 2/3 of budget going to local streets .

Bringing the State ofthe Art to the Standard ofPractice

ATTACHMENT 3
September 2, 2009
File # 156.03 .2 0
Ms . Barbara Lynch

• Data collection – The City recently changed data collection methods (automate d instead of walking surveys) and there appears to be significant jump in the PCI .

Currently, staff is working to calibrate the two methods before reporting the update d PCI to Council.
• In the 2005-07 period, the CIP committee suspended the 8 year plan so lost ground. • Have considered new treatments and materials over the past 10 years, some of which have performed better than others.
• Construction costs are adjusted annually, but the funding is only adjusted by CP I which has not kept up with construction .
• Future concerns include :
o More money is needed
o Future cross slope issues will result in more money required fo r reconstruction, and seals alone are insufficient.
o 8 year rotation is idealistic because there is not enough funding o Sees PCI goal of 80 as a simplistic measure but not sure of other more effective measures
o More time – when he began, his position devoted 60% of his time to pavement management; today, his responsibilities have changed and he does not have the time necessary to fulfill all the requirements, such as calibration .

Conclusions
First and foremost, a policy change to put a higher priority on arterials is justified an d needed. This is the standard of practice for most cities . Currently, the PMP recommends a funding level of $500,000 annually for arterials; however, since the total funding is not th e same every year, staff has typically ensured that the percentage of funding for arterials is th e same.

NCE recommends that the City consider the entire network as a whole, and perform the budgetary analyses to determine the priorities. Due to changes in the past 10 years, it is entirely possible that the priorities in 2009 may no longer be the same . For example, arterials may require $1 million in 2010, but only $750,000 in 2011 . This analysis should b e performed on the entire network, without regard to the eight neighborhoods, to determine th e most optimal solution. Once the required funding for the arterials are determined, furthe r analyses may be performed on the local streets in the eight neighborhoods .

While the PMP as laid out in 1998 was a good document, things have changed . One of the more drastic changes is the cost of construction . As an example, Caltrans Asphalt Price Index shows more than a five-fold fold increase between 1997 and 2007, yet the City's fundin g levels have not changed significantly . While price increases in the City may not be as drasti c as the statewide averages, nonetheless, the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) may no t the best use for projecting future funding needs. These adjustments have not been made to the PMP over the last ten years. A detailed overview is needed, with the ability to make changes annually or biennially, rather than once every 10 years .

Bringing the State ofthe Art to the Standard ofPractice

ATTACHMENT 3
September 2, 2009
File # 156 .03.20
Ms . Barbara Lynch

The goal of a PCI of 80 for the City should be revisited to see if it still fits the Council's or public's priorities. It is also not unusual to have different goals for different classes of road s i .e. most arterials are held to a higher standard than local streets. If City policy is to aim for higher standards, then consequently higher funding levels are also required .

Other performance measures are needed to determine if progress is being made on the cit y streets. The PCI is an insensitive measure at the network level ; other agencies have used measures that resonate more with the public, such as reducing the percentage of failed streets .

As a general rule of thumb, most cities should not have more than 5% of their total network area in the failed category . Again, different thresholds may be used for different functiona l classes e.g. 0% for arterials, 5% for residentials etc .

Inclusion of a funding analysis should be included in future updates of the PMP . This should consider different funding sources, and whether the City is maximizing its efforts in state and federal grants. In terms of funding levels, we examined a range of cities that are the approximately the size of San Luis Obispo i .e. with pavement networks ranging from 100 to 135 centerline miles. This included cities such as Santa Cruz, Lompoc, South Lake Tahoe, Lawndale, Cerritos, Los Banos, Tustin, San Dimas, Eureka, Manhattan Beach, Desert Hot Springs and Lathrop . The funding levels for each of these cities came from a statewide survey performed by NCE in summer 2008 . The funding levels ranged from $500,000/yea r to $4.5 million/year. While funding levels depend on the condition of the network (i.e. good streets cost less), nonetheless, this gives us a general range . San Luis Obispo, with funding levels of approximately $2.3 million/year, is the middle of this range .

Last but not least, a more formal QA program is needed to assure that the data collected i s accurate. The informal QA program in place consists of an intern doing spot checks . Some elements that should be in included in a revised QA program include a calibration procedur e between the walking surveys and the new automated procedure, requiring the vendor to document their QC, ensuring adequate training for new city staff, spot checks that cover a range of functional classes and pavement conditions .

Finally, it was a pleasure to be of assistance on this review . Please give me a call to discus s when you get a chance. I look forward to hearing from you soon .

Sincerely,
NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD .

Margot Yapp, P .E.

Vice President/Principal
Bringing the State ofthe Art to the Standard ofPractice

PCI 2022 Street PCI
Excellent ≤100
Good ≤90
Fair ≤70
Poor ≤50
Failed ≤30
Bike Path PCI
Excellent ≤100
Good ≤90
Fair ≤70
Poor ≤50
Failed ≤30
Paving Zones
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9

MADONNA
GRAND
BROAD
SOUTH

SANTA ROSA

SANTA BARBARA

MONTEREY

HIGUERA
MARSH
LAUREL

JOHNSON

CALIFORNIA

FOOTHILL

DALIDIO
OSOS
NIPOMO
CHORRO

LOS OSOS VALLEY

TANK FARM

HIGHLAND
ORCUTT

SAN LUIS

BUCKLEY

MADONNA

MADONNA
Sewer
Water
*UTILITY PROJECTS FALL WITHIN THE 2-YEAR ROAD CUT
MORATORIUM FOR THE INDICATED YEAR OF AREA SEALING.

DELAY THESE STREETS 2 YEARS.

UTILITY PROJECT CONFLICTS*
AREA 6 (2022)
AREA 7 (2022)
AREA 9 (2022)
AREA 8 (2024)
AREA 1 (2024)
AREA 2 (2026)
AREA 3 (2026)

NEIGHBORHOOD BASE REPAIR

AND ROADWAY SEALING
1 HIGUERA (2021)
2 MARSH (2021)
3 JOHNSON/PHILLIPS/PEPPER (2021)
4 NIPOMO (2021)
5 MONTEREY/JOHNSON/GRAND (2023)
6 SANTA BARBARA (2023)
7 JOHNSON (2023)
8 HIGUERA/MADONNA (2023)
9 ORCUTT (2023)
10 TANK FARM (2025)
11 TANK FARM/ORCUTT (2025)
12 HIGUERA/PRADO (2027)
13 LOVR/FROOM/MADONNA (2027)

ARTERIAL ROADWAY NO L EGEN D BASE REPAIR AND SEALING
1,2

CALIFOR CALI
3 4
5 6

JOHNSON JOHNSON
7 N
NA ON D MA AN N DO MA NA 8
9 10 ARM
11 12
LOS OS LLEOS VALLEY LOS OSOS VALLEY 13L

Appendix F P a g e | 1

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
Developing maintenance strategies for and agency’s pavement can extend the life of these surfaces by several years by slowing the pavement aging process. Maintenance procedures protect pavement from the adverse effects of water and to some extent vehicle traffic.

Maintenance strategies that protect pavement and impede aging include crack sealing, slurry seals, digouts (patch paving) and cape seals. As with all maintenance procedures, there are tradeoffs between appearance, effectiveness and cost, but correcting surface layer problems promptly, before the pavement degrades significantly, is the key to longlasting pavement.

Crack Sealing
Crack sealing is the first line of defense against
premature pavement aging because it prevents
surface water from getting beneath the asphalt
concrete layer into the aggregate bases where
structural damage occurs. This procedure
involves routing small cracks, cleaning and
sealing with a hot, flexible rubberized material
that bonds to the crack and moves with the
pavement. Cracking sealing can be applied
with or without other procedures to maximize
pavement life.

Slurry Seals
A slurry seal is an emulsion of oil and aggregate, but it has a much higher concentration of aggregate than a seal coat and is more durable. In addition to filling in cracks and depressions and creating a uniform, dense mat, it provides a weather-tight surface with improved skid resistance that is effective in
high traffic areas. A typical slurry seal lasts
between three and five years.

There are three types of slurry seals depending
on the coarseness of the largest aggregate.

Type I slurry seal has aggregates less than 1/8
of an inch, Type II has aggregates less than 1/4
of an inch, and Type III has aggregates less
than 5/16 of an inch. The most commonly used
slurry seals for residential streets are Type I or
Type II.

Appendix F P a g e | 2
Digouts
Digouts are small areas of deteriorated pavement that are removed by cold planning or cutting with a special saw and replaced with new asphalt concrete that is installed in at least two lifts (two layers). The digout depth depends on the street type and construction.

Cape Seals
Cape seals are used on residential and
collector streets to maintain pavement that
may need a more expensive overlay when
sufficient funds are not available.

Cape seals consist of a chip seal
overcoated with a slurry seal. The chip
seal consists of small angular rock (chips)
approximately 1/4 inch to 3/8 inch
maximum size that are embedded into a
thick application of asphalt emulsion. Most
chip seals incorporate polymer-modified
binders and are placed over low to
moderate alligator cracks and block
cracks. Depending on the type distress or
defect covered by the chip seal, small
areas of disbanding or failure may occur
that will require patching.

Because cape sealed surfaces are fairly coarse when compared to new paving, they may not be acceptable to some Agencies.

INTERIM PAVEMENT HOLDING PROCEDURES
When pavements have extensive cracking and are beyond their design life, interim holding measures, including skin patches and thin overlays, are used as a stop gap prior to major rehabilitation. Skin patches are thin lifts of fine asphalt concrete placed over deteriorated areas. Thin overlays consist of an asphalt concrete layer with 3/8-inch aggregate that generally is 3/4 to 1-inch-thick.

Appendix F P a g e | 3

PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROCEDURES
For asphalt pavement that has reached the end of its service life, there several options that can restore existing pavement quality or add additional structure support. Some of the more common rehabilitation procedures include conventional overlays; pulverization and resurfacing; asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) overlays; mill and fill (removal and replacement); and reconstruction.

Conventional Overlays
Conventional overlays generally consist of
surface preparation, such as crack filling, base
repairs and leveling courses, varying
thicknesses of asphalt concrete and
pavement fabric.

Pavement fabric can be used both as a water
inhibiting membrane and to retard reflective
cracking; however, it is not acceptable at
intersections with heavy truck breaking, on
steep grades (generally over 8 percent) and in
areas where subsurface water might be trapped.

Asphalt concrete thickness is established by the structural requirement obtained through a deflection analysis (see pavement investigations section) and reflective cracking criteria. Reflective cracking criteria require the thickness of the overlay to be a minimum of half the thickness of the existing bonded layers. Pavement fabric can account for 0.10 ft of the reflective cracking criteria if the structural requirements from the deflection analysis are met.

If well constructed and designed to meet structural and reflection cracking criteria, conventional overlays have an expected service life of between 7 and 13 years.

Pulverization and Resurfacing
Pulverization and resurfacing is an
intermediate step between overlays and
reconstruction. The procedure involves
regarding the surface flush with facilities,
such as ramps, curbs and gutters, and
recycling the existing concrete into an
aggregate base to increase the pavement
structure. This method strengthens the
existing base, improves a road’s cross
section and profile and eliminates the stress

Appendix F P a g e | 4
history and cracking of the old asphalt concrete pavement. This rehabilitation procedure also eliminates bumps, humps and rutting
Pulverization and resurfacing has a life expectancy of between 13 and 18 years. The life expectancy is slightly less than full reconstruction because some residual deficiencies in thickness or quality of the unaffected layers may still exist. Testing is necessary to determine if pulverization is a viable alternative (see pavement investigation section). This testing includes measuring the existing structural section and testing the native soil for bearing capacity (R-value).

RHMA Overlays
RHMA is the short for rubberized hot mix asphalt. This mix combines crumb rubber with traditional asphalt binders to produce a more flexible paving material than conventional dense graded hot mix asphalt (HMA). Caltrans has developed design criteria for using this material based on accelerated performance testing. Basically, 1 inch of RHMA is equal to 2 inches of HMA and is applicable for both structural and reflective cracking.

RHMA costs approximately 1.75 times as much as conventional asphalt and provides a similar service life to that of conventional hot mix asphalt, or 7 to 13 years.

RHMA does come with limitations. Generally, it is used only when vertical constraints such as curb and gutter restrict the thickness of an overlay. RHMA also has more open surface than conventional hot mix asphalt and is more difficult to obtain a high quality finished product.

Mill and Fill (Asphalt Concrete Removal and Replacement) On some thick asphalt concrete
pavements, the most economical
rehabilitation approach is to remove some
of the existing asphalt concrete surface.

The replacement material can be either
conventional HMA or RHMA, depending
on the design criteria. If the underlying
base is sufficient to support anticipated
loading, the asphalt layer can be removed
and replaced. In some cases, due to
drainage or other physical constraints,
additional asphalt concrete cannot be
placed.

This procedure extends pavement life and creates a smooth ride by eliminating the effects of tire ruts and any asphalt movement that occurred over the years. Depending on existing conditions, this procedure has life of between 15 and 20 years.

Appendix F P a g e | 5
Reconstruction
When pavement has severe cross-section
deficiencies or requires significant structural
strengthening, reconstruction may be the only
alternative. Generally, existing pavement materials
are recycled and incorporated into the new
pavement structure. Structural section material
alternatives include treated soils, full depth asphalt
concrete, recycled materials and Portland cement
concrete.

Item 8a
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1021
For Agenda of: 6/21/2022
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT: APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COUNCIL POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES MANUAL AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE

AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO CITY COUNCIL

MEETING START TIME

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending its Council Policies and Procedures Manual,” regarding Council meeting start time; and

2. Introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 2.04 (Council Meeting) to modify Regular Meeting times.”

DISCUSSION
At the May 24, 2022 Special City Council meeting, Council discussed the increasing number of ceremonial items on the agenda and how that was impacting the length of Council meetings. City Council proposed changing to an earlier start time of five-thirty p.m. (5:30 p.m.) for regular Council meetings. The proposed change will allow for the ceremonial items on the agenda to be heard at the earlier time with the goal of having business items starting at 6:00 p.m.

Implementation of the earlier start time for regular meeting requires modifications to the Council Policies and Procedures Manual, by Resolution (Attachment A), and the Municipal Code Section 2.04.040, by Ordinance (Attachment B). The proposed amendments will allow for the holding of a regular business meetings starting at 5:30 p.m. on the first and third Tuesday of every month or at such other time and date as may be designated on the agenda, provided that it is noticed in the same time and manner as required by State law for the posting of regular meetings. If approved, the 5:30 p.m. start time would go into effect at the August 16, 2022 City Council meeting.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On September 1, 2015, the City Council changed the start time from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Item 6a
Policy Context
San Luis Obispo Charter Section 502 requires that the Council shall provide, by Ordinance, the time and place of holding its meeting. The time and date for regular City Council meetings is codified by Ordinance in Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code and by Resolution in Council Policies and Procedures Manual Section 1.1.2.1 (Regular Meeting), thereby requiring the attached Draft Ordinance and Resolution to be adopted.

Public Engagement
No public engagement was done for this item. Public comment can be provided to the City Council through written correspondence prior to the meeting and through public testimony at the meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2022-23
Funding Identified: Yes/No
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Total $ $ $ $
There is no new fiscal impact associated with the recommendation. Council meetings are already planned for in the Financial Plan.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to change to the earlier start time. This is not recommended as it would require the City to limit the number of ceremonial items that could be on an agenda.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution Amending Council Policies and Procedures related to start times B - Draft Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Chapter 2.04 (Council Meeting)

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ITS COUNCIL POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES MANUAL
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a certain manual entitled “Council Policies and Procedures” to define and ensure the proper conduct of the City’s business by the City Council and in compliance with State law and the City’s Charter and Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Council periodically revises its Council Policies and Procedures Manual to ensure clarity, consistency with State law, and conformity with the City Charter and Ordinances.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 1.1.2.1 – Regular Meetings – of the Council Policies and Procedures Manual is hereby amended, effective immediately following the enactment of Ordinance No. XXXX (2022 Series), to read as follows:

1.1.2.1 The regular business of the council shall be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at the hour of six five-thirty p.m. (5:30 p.m.) or at such other time or date as may be designated on the agenda giving notice of the business meeting and posted at the same time and in the same manner as required by State law. Regular closed session meeting of the council shall be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at the hour of five four-thirty p.m. (4:30 p.m.) or at such other time as may be designated on the same agenda giving notice of the business meeting. In the event that a regular meeting of the council falls on a legal holiday, then the regular meeting shall be held at the same place and time on the next succeeding working day.

SECTION 2. Staff is directed to review the Council Policies and Procedures Manual for typographical and clerical errors and to correct any such errors prior to final publication.

SECTION 3. A copy of the Council Policies and Procedures Manual shall be maintained on file in the Office of the City Clerk, shall be distributed to all Council Members and department heads, and shall be available to the public online and during reasonable business hours.

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 4. Resolution Number 11318 (2022 Series) is hereby amended and superseded to the extent inconsistent herewith.

Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2022. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.04 (COUNCIL MEETING) TO MODIFY

REGULAR MEETING TIMES
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo Charter Section 502 requires that the Council shall provide by ordinance for the time and place of holding its meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend its regular meeting schedule (that was formerly established by Ordinance 1623 {2015 Series}) to allow for the holding of regular business meetings at five-thirty p.m. (5:30 p.m.) or at such earlier or other time as may be designated on the same agenda giving notice of the regular business meeting and posted at the same time and in the same manner as the regular business meeting notice.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 2.04.010 of Chapter 2.04 (Council Meetings) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended and re-enacted in full to read as follows:

2.04.010 Time – Place
The regular business of the council shall be held at the City Hall, 990 Palm, in the city, on the first and third Tuesday of each month at the hour of five-thirty p.m. (5:30 p.m.) or at such other time or date as may be designated on the agenda giving notice of the business meeting and posted at the same time and in the same manner as required by State law. Regular closed session meetings of the council shall be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at the hour of four-thirty p.m. (4:30 p.m.) or at such other time as may be designated on the same agenda giving notice of the business meeting. In the even that a regular meeting of the council falls on a legal holiday, then the regular meeting shall be held at the same place and time of the next succeeding working day.

SECTION 2. Ordinance No. 1623 (2015 Series) is hereby superseded to the extent inconsistent herewith.

SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The New Times, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.

Ordinance No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
O ______
INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____, 2022, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2022, on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
_______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk