HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2012-07-23 #N AGENDA STAFF REPORT i =
''�C'4C ORNP:,r•
DATE: July 23, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Sean P. Crumby, Assistant City Manager/Public Works
SUBJECT: MAIN STREET LIGHTING PROJECT NO. ST1203
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council adopt:
1. The Main Street Lighting Study Project No. ST1110 dated July 3, 2012;
and
2. Resolution No. 6299 approving Amendment No. 1 to the contract with
Fehr and Peers for an additional $21,500 to prepare construction plans,
specifications and cost estimates for Project No. ST1203
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
On November 14, 2011, the City Council awarded a professional services
agreement (PSA) with Fehr and Peers to analyze the lighting on Main Street from
Ocean Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway, and prepare a lighting study. The
study included a lighting analysis and feasibility study conducted for Main Street
within downtown Seal Beach. This lighting study is focused on achieving the
City's overall objectives of enhanced aesthetics, better lighting and successful
integration with the streetscape beautification process. The attached memo
presents an inventory of the existing street lighting conditions, an overview of
Southern California Edison's (SCE) energy rates, and recommendations for the
new downtown lighting system.
In the preparation of the report, a public meeting was held on February 29, 2012
to gain public input. The results of the meeting indicated public interest regarding
decorative lights, functions of the new lights, energy savings, and electricity
outlets.
Based upon the meeting, Fehr and Peers consulted with numerous agencies,
including Southern California Edison, and surrounding local agencies and
contractors to prepare the attached comprehensive report.
Agenda Item N
The report summarizes numerous alternatives based upon input from the
community, SCE, contractors and local agencies. The report recommends the
City to remove all the existing light poles and install 35 new lights similar to the
light poles on the Pier. The estimated cost is $650,000 which includes, but not
limited to, purchasing the new lights, removal of all light poles, undergrounding
the conduit for the new light poles, installation of new light poles, and minimal
sidewalk and street paving.
The budgeted amount in the FY2011/12 budget was $150,000. This project was
added to the budget during the budget season at the request of the community.
At that time, $150,000 was allocated in the budget as that was the funding
available in the parking in-lieu account, and staff did not have an available and
accurate project cost estimate. Given that the lighting analysis and feasibility
study was not yet completed. The new budget of $688,000 for FY 2012/13 is
based upon the lighting analysis and feasibility study, light poles selected in the
community meeting, and the desired functionality.
Staff has reviewed the report and concurs with its findings, conclusions and
recommendations. This agenda item is seeking Council approval of the attached
study dated July 3, 2012 by Fehr and Peers, and to amend the contract to add an
additional $21,500 to prepare full construction bid documents.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no Environmental Impact related to this item.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
No legal analysis is required for this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
In the approved FY 2012/13 Budget, $688,000 is allocated for this Project No.
ST1203 Main Street Lighting Improvement. This item is for professional design
services to prepare construction bid documents for $21,500 with Fehr and Peers.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt:
1. The Main Street Lighting Study Project No. ST1110 dated July 3, 2012;
and
2. Resolution No. 6299 approving Amendment No. 1 to the contract with
Fehr and Peers for an additional $21,500 to prepare construction plans,
specifications and cost estimates.
Page 2
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
" R, �; ''
Sean P. Crumb-y, P.E. / ii Ingram, Cii anager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works
Prepared by: Michael Ho, City Engineer
Attachments:
A. Resolution No. 6299
B. Main Street Lighting Analysis and Feasability Study
•
Page 3
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6299
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE CONTRACT WITH FERH AND PEERS FOR AN
ADDITIONAL $21,500 FOR THE MAIN ST. LIGHTING PROJECT
NO. ST1203
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011 City Council meeting Council awarded a
contract agreement for the Main Street Lighting Project ST1110 with Fehr and
Peers for$29,925.
WHEREAS, this agenda item is requesting a contract amendment to add
additional scope of services. The services include preparing design plans,
specifications, cost estimates for construction bid documents.
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby amends the agreement with Fehr and
Peers for an additional$21,500 and direct the City Manager to execute.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to
execute the amendment on behalf of the City.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 23rd day of July , 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6299 on file
in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach
City Council at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of July , 2012.
City Clerk
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
between
EA( .40•„
fcV# 16:0
'y
kook., %
I-
=to
•II'��'�'0°.6)
27
\ r
City of Seal Beach
211 - 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Fehr & Peers
160 W. Santa Clara, Suite 675
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 278-1700
THIS AMENDMENT is made as of July 23,2012, by and between the City of Seal
Beach, a California charter city ("City"), and Fehr and Peers ("Consultant").
1 of 3
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011, the City Council approved a
professional services agreement ("Agreement") under which Consultant provided a
lighting study; and
B. WHEREAS, the parties would like to amend the Agreement so that
Consultant can prepare construction plans, specifications and cost estimate services for
the additional cost of$21,500.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the
mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree
• as follows:
1. Section 3 (Consultant's Compensation) of the Agreement is hereby
amended to increase consultant's compensation by $21,000 to read as follows:
"3.0 Consultant's Compensation.
City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the
fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for Services but in no event will the City
pay more than $51,425. Any additional work authorized by the City
pursuant to Section 1.4 will be compensated in accordance with the fee
schedule set forth in Exhibit B."
2. Except as amended herein, the terms and provisions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.
3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to attach to the Agreement this
Amendment as Exhibit C thereto and the attached proposal dated July 11, 2012 as
Exhibit D thereto after this Amendment has been fully executed by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized
representatives, have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.
2 of 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONSULTANT:
By: By:,; ' ' eAd
Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
Name: Tu..;? yvtvr ,
Attest:
Title: -Prmcip<,Q
By:
Linda Devine, City Clerk
Name:
Approved as to Form:
Title:
By:
Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney
3 of 3
FEHR ' PEERS
SCOPE OF WORK
Main Street, Street Lighting PS&E
Seal Beach, CA
The following scope of work outlines the anticipated work effort to prepare design plans,
specifications, and probable estimate of construction costs for the design of a new decorative street
lighting system on downtown Main Street, in Seal Beach, CA. This scope provides for plan submittals
at the 90%, 100%,and Final stages and attendance at public meetings.
Our understanding is that the design will be based on the feasibility study and lighting analysis
conducted by Fehr & Peers in early 2012. A decorative pole and fixture will be used for this design,
and will resemble the assembly installed on the Pier.
Below outlines the tasks for this scope of work to achieve a successful project:
Task 1—Data Collection and Utility Coordination
Under Task 1, Fehr & Peers will request the street lighting as-builts from the City of Seal Beach and
from Southern California Edison. This information will be used to obtain the existing service
connection points and existing load information. We will also request updated site plans from the
Architect.
This proposal assumes that Fehr& Peers will be provided with a complete topographic survey of the
intersection, including curb ramps, underground and aboveground utilities, street trees,and sidewalk.
We will perform a site visit to verify elements within the existing as-builts and the topographic survey,
and incorporate any differences into the proposed plans.
Task 2—Street Lighting Design:90%Submittal
Using the topo survey, the as-built information, and the landscape architect's plans, we will prepare
90% design. Our 90% design will consist of placing the street lights in the field to ensure adequate
spacing and illumination is achieved,while not conflicting with existing street trees or street furniture.
We will also schedule and meet with Southern California Edison during this visit, to ensure service
points are identified early on.
The design plans will be prepared in the City's format using the City's (and Caltrans) design standards.
We will prepare and submit a final photometric analysis for the street,following the recommendations
160 W.Santa Clara St.,Suite 675, San Jose,CA 95113 (408)278-1700 fax(408)278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
Michael Ho, City of Seal Beach FE H R' ' P E E RS
July 11, 2012
outlined in the lighting feasibility study. We will also prepare and submit draft technical specifications
and the construction cost estimate with our 90%submittal.
Once 90% drawings are prepared, we will prepare and submit an application to SCE to confirm service
points for the proposed load. We have assumed that SCE design fees, if any, will be paid for by the
City.
Deliverables: Cover Sheet
General Notes/Legend
Street Lighting Plan (1 sheet)
Street Lighting Details
Photometric Analyses
Draft technical special provisions
Engineer's estimate of construction costs
Task 3—Street Lighting Design:100%Submittal
Fehr & Peers will respond to comments received on the 90% submittal and modify the plans,
technical specifications, and engineers estimate accordingly for the 100% submittal. We will prepare
and submit written responses to the comments received on the 90% submittal and will schedule a
phone call with City staff to review these comments.
Deliverables: Cover Sheet
General Notes/Legend
Street Lighting Plan
Street Lighting Details
Photometric Analyses
Draft technical special provisions
Engineer's estimate of construction costs
Task 4—Street Lighting Design:Final Submittal
Fehr & Peers will collect and respond to comments received on the 100% submittal and modify the
plans accordingly for the Final submittal. We will prepare and submit written responses to the
comments received on the 100%submittal.
All final plans will be plotted on reproducible vellum, signed by a registered engineer and will be
provided in electronic (AutoCAD)format.
Deliverables: One set of full-size project plans on reproducible mylar
One reproducible set of technical special provisions
2 ' Page
Main Street—Street Lighting PS&E Proposal
Michael Ho, City of Seal Beach FE H R'S' P E E R S
July 11, 2012
Engineer's estimate of construction costs
Written response to 100%submittal comments
Electronic files
Task 5—Design Support During Bidding and Construction
Fehr & Peer will provide assistance to the City during the bid and construction phase of the project.
Bid assistance will include answering Bidder requests for information, reviewing submittals,
responding to contractor RFI's, and attendance at one field meeting. After construction is complete,
we would assist the City in preparing record drawings based on contractor and City markups.
Task 6—City Council Meetings
Fehr& Peer will attend and present at two (2) city council or public meetings during this project.
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
Main Street, Street Lighting PS&E
Seal Beach,CA
Fehr & Peers understands the City would like to start construction on this project in early 2013 and
will work with the City to ensure all scheduling needs are met.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
90%drawings will be prepared within four(4)weeks of project kick-off. Subsequent submittals will be
submitted within three (3)weeks of receipt of City comments.
PROPOSED DESIGN FEE
Fehr& Peers' has $5,000 remaining in the budget from the Street Lighting Feasibility Study which will
be applied to the PS&E budget. Including the $5,000, our requested additional services fee to
prepare the PS&E is $16,500.
ADDITIONAL SERVICE
Any additional work requested that is not within the outlined scope of work would be performed on a
time-and-materials basis based on our hourly rates at the time and billed as additional services. Our
current billing rates are attached for your information.Additional services will only be performed after
receipt of a written approval to proceed.
3IPage
Main Street—Street Lighting PS&E Proposal
Michael Ho, City of Seal Beach FEHR '' PEERS
July 11, 2012
If the above scope of services and fee are acceptable to you, please provide a contract amendment at
your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Langenfeld at (925) 930-
7100.
We look forward to continuing our work with the City of Seal Beach.
Sincerely, ACCEPTED BY:
FEHR & PEERS Signature
I
Name
Title
Lisa Langenfeld, PE
Senior Transportation Engineer Company
Date
400"-. —
Rob Rees, PE
Principal
WC11-2881
Wage
Main Street–Street Lighting PS&E Proposal
MAIN STREET LIGHTING ANALYSIS
AND FEASABILITY STUDY
FEHR4 PEERS
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 3,2012
To: Michael Ho, City of Seal Beach
From: Lisa Langenfeld and Steve Brown, Fehr& Peers
Subject: Main Street Lighting Analysis and Feasibility Study
WC11-2880
The purpose of this memorandum is to document a lighting analysis and feasibility study
conducted for Main Street within downtown Seal Beach. This lighting study is focused on
achieving the City's overall objectives of enhanced aesthetics, better lighting and successful
integration with the streetscape beautification process.
This memo presents an inventory of the existing street lighting conditions, an overview of
Southern California Edison's (SCE) energy rates, and recommendations for the new downtown
lighting system.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This study focuses on Main Street in downtown Seal Beach, from the northern end at the Pacific
Coast Highway(Highway 1), to the southern end at Ocean Avenue. The entire corridor is 3 block
lengths,approximately 1,950 feet.
Downtown Main Street is blanketed with a range of trees, including many ficus trees. Through a
streetscape study currently being conducted by RMA Architects, additional trees are planned
within the downtown, and all non-ficus trees will be replaced with ficus trees.
Lighting Inventory
Fehr&Peers analysis of existing lighting conditions was developed based on a project site visit by
our staff, input from City Staff and RMA Architects, and the development of a model to better
understand lighting levels.
Main Street lighting is currently provided by the following street lights:
e Nineteen 150 watt high pressure sodium (HPS) luminaires, mounted at approximately 28
feet above finished grade on a mast arm of 8 feet. These 150-watt luminaires provide the
majority of the existing street lighting along Main Street.
Michael Ho
7/3/2012
jt
Page 2 of 7
o Two decorative, pedestrian-style post-top dual acorn luminaires of unknown wattage and
unknown light type, mounted on decorative poles. A field visit to the site verified that the
northern of these two lights is non-operational. Through the first community meeting,
we learned that these lights were placed by a City resident/business owner in the hopes
of the City installing more decorative, pedestrian style luminaires.
o One post-top decorative colonial luminaire of unknown wattage and unknown light type.
This light was located at the corner of Electric Avenue and Main Street.
o Four 200 watt HPS luminaires mounted on 15-foot luminaire arms on the traffic signal
poles, at approximately 34' above finished grade. These lights are located at the
intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway.
Model Development
t
Using the lighting calculation software AGI32, the existing `
lighting levels were calculated within the street and sidewalk `1
on Main Street. When compared with nationally '
recommended lighting criteria, the results indicate average
lighting levels within the street, but below-average lighting
levels within the sidewalk. The amount of existing light from v'.kir.'►!��r ,
the lighting model development shows relatively even light I'j'=�. �/to -` ''AN,;v.
coverage within the downtown. s, iJ
From our conversations with City staff and our own visits to . ' "
VI�IY��P I
downtown Seal Beach, we know the lighting levels are £t .
significantly impacted by the existing ficus tree canopy; thus ! k :,t' D ,',
a nighttime lighting analysis was also conducted to calibrates , ' ,
the lighting model and better understand existing lighting t
levels. (Pictured at right — an existing luminaire and its
proximity to the existing tree canopy). ��„
Nighttime Field Review
Nighttime illumination readings were taken on December 15, 2011, after dusk, between the hours
of 7pm and 9pm, during a waning gibbous moon. Night readings were taken using an Extech
Light Meter,with the unit of measurement in foot-candles.
Nighttime light readings were taken at 25-foot cross sections on Main Street,with readings taken
at the centerline of the roadway, travel lane and sidewalk. These measurements were chosen to
identify the amount of light the typical street user(autos or pedestrian) experiences.
At existing mid-block crosswalks, readings were taken at locations where pedestrian visibility is
critical, including the center of sidewalk, at the lip of gutter (the point where the pedestrian is
stepping out into the street),in the center of the travel lane,and in the center of the street.
Michael Ho
7/3/2012
/k°
Page 3 of 7
The existing illumination readings indicate that the majority of the light coming from the existing
cobra-head light fixtures is dissipated or blocked by the existing tree canopy, confirming the
concerns of the downtown business owners and residents. The nighttime readings within the
sidewalk were higher than average, which can be attributed to spillover light from downtown
shops and buildings,as well as holiday lights strung within the trees(pictured below).
)t�s
. , t s r9 F
1 r-f
x� r
i r.
The existing illumination readings also indicate uneven light distribution along Main Street,
consisting of areas with high levels of concentrated lighting, and areas with much lower lighting
levels ("bright spots and dark spots").
ILLUMINATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Through this project,the goal is to develop a lighting system that will achieve warm, uniform, and
plentiful lighting within the downtown, contributing to a safe,vibrant and inviting gathering space
for residents and visitors.
To achieve this, target lighting levels were set for the new lighting system. These target lighting
levels were taken from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
Recommended Practice RP-8-00, which provides recommendations and guidelines for lighting of
street segments and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Illumination needs to be sufficient for both the street segment and the sidewalk. For the street
segment, the recommended average illumination level is 0.6 foot-candles, with a recommended
uniformity of 4.0. The sidewalk recommended average illumination is 0.5 foot-candles, with a
recommended uniformity of 4.0. The uniformity of a corridor portrays how uniform or'even' the
lighting is along that street. A higher number(10) indicates less uniformity, and is an indication of
Michael Ho
7/3/2012
4
Page 4 of 7
the street having "bright spots and dark spots". A lower uniformity number indicates very evenly
spread lighting.
Per our meeting with the public and City Council Staff in , _
late February,the City provided direction to Fehr& Peers ..!..i..,;\,' �� •' :j•-••1-:
to perform the proposed analysis using a lighting fixture rw �t� ` .-
and pole resembling the current lighting assembly rt ' s '•:
installed on the Pier (pictured at right). Our proposed s xY " ``� •
analysis type pole, 4 ,. ,,�, . --'
lighting anal sis included a variation of this a of ole,
modeled with various light types. - ','-''''44,:.-..,.3,i. . r 1
To achieve the recommended illumination levels noted r s 5 lz .
above, this could be achieved by using 16-foot ' '' _ .`t'h , c$t t"; '
decorative poles with dual-luminaires, with the street V ' ',. '- '' 4 `
side luminaire at 100 watts and the sidewalk side = � - -
luminaire at 70 watts. An average of 100 to 120-foot ti �' .'
pole spacing would be needed to meet recommended ?'
illumination criteria. Lights would be provided on both '' 1
sides of the street, and would be staggered. . V t. ,v
Approximately 35 dual-luminiare light poles would be ,:' V
needed within the downtown to achieve recommended
lighting levels.
COST COMPARISON
For this project, Fehr & Peers prepared a cost analysis considering the various types of street
lights on the various Edison energy rates. This cost analysis is presented in Appendix A, and
contains the capital costs, energy and service charges, and maintenance fees for the various
scenarios.
Capital Costs
Capital costs for this project include the necessary design, construction and implementation of
the street lighting system.
The capital costs for the Edison owned LS]. street light poles were provided by Edison. The costs
for the street lights on the Edison LS2 and LS3 rates were derived from recent bid results received
on projects, as well as cost information provided by southern California street lighting
manufacturers. The only difference between the LS2 and LS3 costs includes furnishing and
installing service meter pedestals as part of Edison's LS3 rate schedule (to meter the amount of
energy used per street light).
Michael Ho
7/3/2012
.k°
Page 5 of 7
The capital costs are included within Appendix A. While these costs are based on recent bid
results, it should be noted that actual construction costs may change slightly from the costs
presented.
Energy and Service Charges
The cobra-head style street lights that currently line downtown Main Street are powered through
Southern California Edison's (SCE) LS1 rate. Edison offers three different rate options for outdoor
street lighting—LS1, LS2 and LS3.
The LS1 rate is an unmetered, Edison-owned and Edison-maintained option. Under this rate, the
City's fees include energy usage and service charges, of which maintenance is included. To be on
the Edison LS1 rate, the pole and fixture styles must come from the Edison pre-approved list. At
this time, Edison does not allow for any decorative LED luminaires on their LS1 rate.
The Edison LS2 rate is an unmetered City-owned and City-maintained rate option. The LS2 rate
includes energy and service charges, but maintenance is not included. The City would need to
have an independent contractor or City department maintain their street lights. On the LS2 rate
schedule, the City could choose whichever pole and luminaire style they would prefer.
The Edison LS3 rate, the last of the outdoor street lighting tariffs, is a metered, City-owned and
City-maintained rate option. The LS3 rate includes a meter charge and energy charge based on
actual used energy per month per meter. The LS3 rate would require the City to install a meter
pedestal to identify the kilowatt per hour usage of the lighting fixtures. This rate would allow the
City the flexibility to install outlet plugs on the street fighting poles. This rate option would also
allow the City to choose whichever pole and luminaire style they prefer. If the City decides to use
LED luminaires, the LS3 option would allow the City to "dim" the light fixtures. This would result
in even more energy savings for the City.
Fehr& Peers calculated the overall annual charges for each Edison rate structure, based on using
either high pressure sodium or LED luminaires. This information is presented in Appendix A.
Maintenance Charges
On the LS1 rate schedule, annual maintenance costs are built into the overall Edison energy and
service charges,therefore annual maintenances charges are zero on the LS]. rate.
If the City switches to an LS2 or LS3 rate schedule, they will need to hire an outside contractor to
maintain their street lights. This maintenance would include replacing a street light luminaire or
pole if damaged or faulty, repairs to any failed wires, and other maintenance as needed.
It should be noted that most pole and luminaire manufacturers provide a seven (7) year warranty
on the entire street lighting assembly (including the pole and fixture). This warranty would cover
Michael Ho
7/3/2012
Page 6 of 7
• complete replacement of the fixture and pole for any defects (minus labor fees). This would
potentially release the City of any maintenance requirements during the entire 7 year period.
Maintenance cost estimates for the various types of lights and rates are included in Appendix A.
Maintenance rates were obtained from two Southern California contractors to provide the City
with cost estimates they could expect for various services if they choose to switch to an LS2 or LS3
rate. These are included as Appendix C and D.
Other Considerations
From our first public meeting with the City, we learned that the City and public are interested in
incorporating the following characteristics in their new street lighting system:
o LED Street Lighting Technology
o Decorative poles and dual-head luminaires, similar to the fixtures installed on the Pier
• Dimming functionality
o Outlet plugs on the street light poles
If the City wishes to use decorative poles and luminaires, in combination with a LED light source,
they will need to switch to an LS2 or LS3 rate. SCE does not currently offer decorative LED street
lighting on their LS1 rate schedule.
If the City wishes to remain on the LS1 rate schedule, they can choose decorative, more
pedestrian friendly poles from Edison's pre-determined list, but the light source of the luminaire
would have to be high pressure sodium.
Dimming functionality would apply for LED luminaires,and would provide the City with the option
to run the fixtures at a reduced wattage output for a period of hours during the night. Dimming
would also allow the City to increase lighting levels for popular downtown evening events (as
suggested by one resident). Dimming functionality would further reduce the energy consumption
listed in the cost comparison schedule; dimming is only available on the LS3 rate schedule.
Many of the business owners at the public meeting expressed interest in having outlet plugs
designed into the pole. Outlet plugs can be accommodated on the new street light poles, but
only on SCE'S LS3 rate schedule, which would meter the amount of energy used from the outlet
source.
Cost Analysis
For this cost analysis,additional assumptions were made, including:
Michael Ho
7/3/2012
Page 7 of 7
• The total number of street lights was assumed at 35, per our analysis. This assumes 35
street light poles, each pole containing one 100 watt street light (for the street side) and
one 70 watt street light(for the sidewalk side).
• For the LS1 rate schedule, high pressure sodium (HPS) luminaires were represented.
Decorative LED's are currently not available through SCE on the LS1 rate schedule.
• For the LS2 and LS3 rate schedules, both high pressure sodium and LED lights were
represented based on input received at the first community meeting held at City Hall on
February 29th, 2012.
• For the LS3 rate schedule, two centrally located meter pedestals would be needed to
accommodate the new street lighting loads.
• Construction costs for the Edison LS1 rate were obtained from Edison. Construction costs
for the LS2 and LS3 rates were based on recent bid estimates and pricing information
from southern California street lighting manufacturers. These estimates are subject to
change.
• Maintenance costs were assumed at a lump sum value per year for the 7 year period.
This value assumes a conservative estimate to replace one street light pole assembly per
year. Additional rate information is also provided within the appendix.
Looking at total expected costs over a 7-year period, the least expensive option is the High
Pressure Sodium (HPS) luminaires installed on a City-owned and maintained pole, on
Edison's metered LS3 rate. This cost for this assembly over the 7 year period would be
approximately $593,430. The highest cost is the HPS luminaires installed on an Edison-
owned and maintained pole, on Edison's unmetered LS1 rate. The cost for this assembly
over the 7 year period would be approximately$651,942.
Appendix A: Street Lighting Cost Comparison
Appendix B: Edison Energy Rate Schedule Comparisons
Appendix C: Maintenance rates from Asplundh Construction Corporation
Appendix D: Maintenance rates from Foddrill Construction
0V- N O O O � � O M O O O N 0
O p .i O 1,4 j O N O t�O t N
0 44 43 �O 41 {p
b'4 b4 M i01. b4 b4 b4 W W 4%b4 4% b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 V4
CO rn 01 0 inn O In 0 �O• 0
' ' ' ' m 0 ' r4 0 ' 0 0 . CO O
.- Oi V1 N Vi N N N .4 N
B
a)
Y
44 V.I.4% V. 4"1" W .R b4 44 1"b4 d,d.1"
CO CO 0 N 0 4- O 0 0
' l0 ' ' Co 0 ' t•-t 0 ' 0 0 . CO 0
ID 0
` Oi tri N Vi N N N .--1 N
a c
Y rn
C
M.1"b4 .A b°.b4 b4 b4..A M 1:4 bA b4 b4 M 'c
— 0
CO m 0 N 0 •f 0 0 0 V
' t0 ' ' M 0 ' .1 0 ' 0 0 ' g p ae
...
01 to N tf1 N N N ri N .-I
to tC
CI a)
Y .D
7
1"M e!4 1,4 1"b4 1" b4 d. 1"44 b4 b4 44.R V
— c
CO m 0 N O Cr 0 O O
ni' t0 ' ' m 00 . r4 0 ' O 00 ' g O 0 N
'tf 01 to N LK N N N .i N V T
■_
a m N
Y
GI as °
v O1 0
b4 b4 b4 44 b4 b4 b4 b4 44 14 44 64 W b4 b4 —_ •C O
— Q @ N
.s4
0 V O C, 0 LI 0 0 i l0 i I n 0 i O O ' CO 0 u. D co
m 01 o N V1 N N N .i N 0
o
s.
L a)
to U J E
a L c
to W
W 49.1" A 44 4 b l 4 d 4 4 l4 tn o N
c
a)
co m0 tn0 In0 �°• O ° v Ln .-
N ' '.0 ' ' m 0 ' r I 0 ' 0 0 I CO O y N
`
GC Lr N V1 N N N . N a) X J
W C w
O
pt C
Y C tC
.R tit-44 .R 44 44 .i4 44 b4 w b4 b4 .A 44 bh 0 'C N
_ –J
13 —
CD ' ' m 0 ' in 0 "' 0 �oQ o VI Cl
�") 1 Oi to Ni. V1 Ni ' N N ' . N C y m
it.CD O .L.. u
Y m E u
'v .
b 4 44 v.b4 w 4 4 44 44 4 4 44 4 b4 . 0 N
— c F'
0 00 '.0 00 ' 00 01 00 r�-t ' 00 0 ' O O •O N
0 Ni Oi to LC n V1 M N O . O >`
C OOP VI1 tUn LLn tltII 0 O u w
O Y V c
in
2 U w
A 444444 V. 44 4 4 444444 b 4 b4 b4 b A b4.f 4 N a) C
a
E o v
V
U v a) a1 N k to j
# V V V a) y
N c k
'^ a) to m Y m Y d
O tit a) a) in a) V N a) V to a) u N v O 3 C
U O IA V o to c O to C O to c o N C a ° .N
O) U '° too U 13 c U V c U -o c U V c w CD y
ta� c c a.0 a >.E' a >. a >, a >,) � E ,i
a+ m � � °iu � DI
na0 Tuo+� � J
U J g
w c c c c E ° o
hW ") CU T a,
Y rn c
X u a W a. I:1 o In (II co
w y
C d y = 2 io is c
Y Y .
av� J n 3 `3 n UQa
k
k k k
O N N «0 58 n'f O �'1 O N N •- �„`x b b ry co co h
.1 T ■of Op Sri: IY1 to 40 N h b s.< - 1 O O .y tb CO n
p���'i M n _ ;(�f'O ti N N O N .�= O O C tti td of
V, yCr¢, O y Vim•^ H h M
2-..2 oryj ONE $ O O 0
�O M.
Q vi pj �-r �C N N N N N H•-i.-i •
A e. as it o.•
?'.wwso. w in in.vs in w MA ww to.wCO
'R�,y, Or .•1 OD 7:.'.'Oi OMi O O Or •-4 0o `,,�ci ;.W'N N N O O n
Fi+Q1 N
f o v
"u'c00 .M-1M Ch,1':: m0f 00mto :r,,, 3�f°n Vol c 0000 .a
ID m � Vanr ,� 0000n
�< 'f..'Ci .�, C:
•1. Y':-^yF 74 :.
EA
"n•e cc:wwin. `iii Q w w w www 7 aw w w w w w
• ' • ti.-i 00 "::x•''.M 01 .-•I a0 1:.„7'5,,,..„...N N N N
wr, CO .-1 •ACU. M V 00 .i Q4 4.c M V d;
atp,.c',b 01 :et,•c:to ao to co -.:s-m�+cl yo 10 n n
aL, O nt-'0: y..L.,p
.€w.'fir w,•-' '. :rW .,\\
t i
a, ww +ww ww $:. ww N
• 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 •'0 0 0 0 0
N b p v q 00 q V CO e.;00 eo 10 00 00 00
v •.' ni m tO ....,'E,B'• 000060 E o; Oi 01 al of O■
w w n rv. w n n a n n a o,w. •b-1 Pi .b-1 .b-1 m
to C ni +i ^ in:O1 1 m N ri rn .. 7 &
A L' R L' V 0
•
L
c V . c V
V'
Q C
www w w w w w w • Q �' www tO.w101.
b to 'o o O o w- in M in in
W 00 b 0) N N N N Cl .••1 H .-1 N
En •.i co ' 07
ry H N q ryp
., L M M N , - . - M U j .�-1 .aa 1 H N
l0 V1 N U >~•. N U >. in '.S
is tO .-•i J 01'C J w C .'A •w"L
O to to C V C C v g C •+p C
F. O O 0 •Z•O 0 .t O N O.
O O W to 2 W "to 2 W .U..z-
0•S' , lv
�Oi-
t- I-- Or`
',ww ww 4"4" €— ',;•w w w w w
€
. 0 •
O CU
01" ..01 ..e•.}
t L • 2 L V L
M M U C U C C
O O W 0•
" tOrl tOrl E •� o, u Ervry rvry .'E Etn in to to
yo o "Z \01 M '� \.•-i .-i .-1 .-1 .0 .1 .-1 .•1 N
0 o w O-ao of w a,v v v v . t'•'6 71.; .ai .ai
v o o to E v1 E. 7 w
c 01 •c m .V E
o v o a c.�
p.w.
a!
W W U
M W
N
J
N C O O O
n O ... .ti `
N
'1' is. N
C a0 E E m m m m ! : : ; .,VC.J. woo n —c (.7 Z ' f: ;.0 N V1 V1 ut 111 to'V M b M td M N to M to M t0 CL C Ott p a0 N 7 . 0 N Q
w• a o o t E .c E
c 0 0 0 - E E - E
d N A 0
-C
U
in
�w.. N rq N 1 1 0 0 0- 1 CO 0 1 1
a J J = = J J = = J J = _
t-r cu• J
RI ID gi c44
3 ; ; 3 ; ; .;
° ° 8 ° °c � ° 8 o o o• m
C L Of
U N
N• 01 W
W C O
m .
W N
4L
e d N 0 "1
Z m W
W
0. n
1
Q N
Proposal
SAFETY FIRST...NO ONE GETS HURT! Date: 4/24/2012
11075 Knott Ave.,Suite A
Cypress,CA 90630
714.893.2405 Fax 714.893.2409
dsmith26@asplundh.com
Proposal Submitted to: Job Location:
Fehr&Peers Seal Beach
Attn:Lisa M.Langenfeld Various locations
Maintain existing lights
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
Item# Qty Description Unit Unit Price Line Total
1 EA Remove and disposal of damaged standard and secure site 1 $ 998.00
2 EA Provide labor and equipment to pick up,transport and install new 1 $ 1,856.00
replacement standard w/fixture.
3 EA Provide labor and equipment to replace lamp or P.E.cell 1 $ 321.00
4 EA Provide labor and equipment to replace fixture 1 $ 325.00
5 EA Remove and replace foundation if needed 1 $ 1,566.00
Unit prices above are based on replacing single units,if more units
are required on the same move-in, pricing could be reduced.
Excludes: Striping,and signing,any concrete,asphalt removal,replacement of sidewalk or street.
Bond's,permits,or fee's which may be required by any agency involved In this project.
WE have also enclosed unit pricing for man power and equipment if adittional work is needed.
If you have any questions please contact Danny Smith(714/231-7338)
Note:The proposal may be withdrawn by Asplundh if not accepted within 30 days.
Southern calif.Gas Co.
COMMERCIAL DATA FOR MASTER AGREEMENT FOR ELECTICAL
UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD
SUB-TRANSMISSION&DISTRIBUTION,
CONSTRUCTION,MAINTENANCE,REPAIR AND RELOCATION WORK
ELECTRIC OVERHEAD.WORK* .
•
CLASSIFICATION EFFECTIVE DATE STRAIGHT TIME DOUBLE TIME
General Foreman 611/2011-5/31/12 $116.40 $192.51
Foreman 6/12011-5/31/12 $108.59 $178.35
•
Jnm.Lineman 6/12011-5/31/12 $100.82 $164.22
Groundman 6/12011-5/31/12 $71.85 $110.59
Apprentice 1st Step 611/2011-6/31/12 $71.05 $109.09
Apprentice 2nd Step 6/1/2011-5/31/12 $74.65 $115.87
Apprentice 3rd Step 6/12011-5/31/12 $78.27 $122.66
Apprentice 4th Step _ 6/12011-5/31/12 $81.87 $129.42
Apprentice 5th Step 6/1/2011 -5/31/12 $85.47 $136.18
Apprentice 6th Step 6/1/2011 -5/31/12 $89.07 $142.99
Apprentice 7th Step 6/12011-5/31/12 $92.70 $149.75
Operator 6/1/2011-5/31/12 $85.38 $136.00
ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND WORK* .
CLASSIFICATION EFFECTIVE DATE STRAIGHT TIME DOUBLE TIME
General Foreman 6/12011-5/31/12 $116.40 $192.51
Foreman 6/1/2011-5/31/12 $108.59 $178.35
Jnm.Lineman 6/1/2011 -5/31/12 $100.82 $164.22
Groundman 6/1/2011 -5/31/12 $71.85 $110.59
Apprentice 1st Step 6112011-5/31/12 $71.05 $109.09
Apprentice 2nd Step 6/12011-5/31/12 $74.65 $115.87
Apprentice 3rd Step 61/2011 -5/31/12 $78.27 $122.66
Apprentice 4th Step 6/1/2011 -5/31/12 $81.87 $129.42
Apprentice 5th Step 6112011-5131/12 $85.47 $136.18
Apprentice 6th Step 611/2011-5/31/12 $89.07 $142.99
Apprentice 7th Step 6/1/2011 -5/31/12 $92.70 $149.75
Operator 6/1/2011-5/31/12 $85.38 $136.00
CONTRACTOR OWNED EQUIPMENT RATE SHEET,
EQUIPMENT RATES •
EQUIPMENT TYPE IDENTIFICATION HOURLY
NUMBER RATE
Air Compressor 1 $10.00
Arrow Board 2 $5.18
Boom Truck 12-15T 3 $27.50
Boom Truck 30T 4 $35.00
Squirt Boom,40' 5 $22.50
Bucket Truck 55' 6 $37.00
Bucket Truck 65' 7 $64.00
Splice Van 8 $21.00
Flat Bed W/Rack 9 $18.50
Hvy Line Truck 10 $60.00
Line Truck 11 $40.00
Mini-Boom 12 $28.00
Pickup • 13 $12.00
Pole/Material Trailer 14 $4.12
3 in 1 Dolly 15 $24.00
Reel Dolly 16 $3.65
Reel Truck 17 $32.00
Puller 18 $16.50
Tensioner 19 $7.65
Asplundh Construction Corp. -Confidential 4/24/2012 Page 1
FODDRILL CONSTRUCTION CORP.
PO BOX 826 CHINO CA 91710
Office: (909)591-4095 Fax: (909)628-4912
Todd rillconesbca lobal.com
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PRICES for STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
ATTENTION: LISA M LANGENFELD, PE-SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
Construction Costs GN6v020.12
Item# Description ;;;;U hit Cost
1 Install Foundation w/Anchor Bolts-30"X30"X48"(with Rebar$850.00) 11616130:,
2 Prepare Pole-Knockdown-Removal-Relocate ii:2$250}00'1
,; •=
3 Install Pole/Contractor Crane Y
•r $3.10.00:
4 Cap Pole '•c;'$1.50:.00
5 Splice Wires ,$80.00
6 Remove Pole with Contractor Crane(Add disposal cost, if any) a $25000
7 Remove and Replace Foundation w/Anchor Bolts- (with Rebar$1,045.00) .,..,$85.0?00
8 Remove Base '? $460100
9 Install Hand Hole(Pull Box)-Furnished
10 Saw Cut-location 30"X30" ram
t`�
11 Repair Conduit ;Nag:Od:.
12A Lane Closure-Type A- (State HWY 45+speed limit) 660 00.
12B Lane Closure-Type B-(Avenues less then 45 speed limit) • w$,480,;00:
12C Lane Closure-Type C-(Residential) tow,r$23tow, 1
13 Oversize Concrete Greater Than 30"x30"-Square Feet : r $13:00s
14 Remove Concrete-Greater than 30"X30"-Square Feet
15 Special Hourly Contractor Rate-Leadman • 4-$70:00`
16 Special Hourly Contractor Rate-Helper l $60'00;
•
17 Pick Up Dirt Pile(s) $80:00
18 Remove&Replace Luminaire-Minimum (4) .='$200:00
19 Bucket Truck Rental- Hourly with 2 man crew ' $23000*
Total Amount •
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
between
-�FSEAL6;
��\�GpRP0Rg1F�q�y,
i*1 kipkr, \-1*••,
`.FR _ .
4k,CouNfi %-gr
City of Seal Beach
211 - 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Fehr & Peers
160 W. Santa Clara, Suite 675
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 278-1700
THIS AMENDMENT is made as of July 23,2012, by and between the City of Seal
Beach, a California charter city ("City"), and Fehr and Peers ("Consultant").
1 of 3
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011, the City Council approved a
professional services agreement ("Agreement") under which Consultant provided a
lighting study; and
B. WHEREAS, the parties would like to amend the Agreement so that
Consultant can prepare construction plans, specifications and cost estimate services for
the additional cost of$21,500.
• AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the
mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree
• as follows:
1. Section 3 (Consultant's Compensation) of the Agreement is hereby
amended to increase consultant's compensation by $21,000 to read as follows:
"3.0 Consultant's Compensation.
City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the
fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for Services but in no event will the City
pay more than $51,425. Any additional work authorized by the City
pursuant to Section 1.4 will be compensated in accordance with the fee
schedule set forth in Exhibit B."
2. Except as amended herein, the terms and provisions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.
3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to attach to the Agreement this
Amendment as Exhibit C thereto and the attached proposal dated July 11, 2012 as
Exhibit D thereto after this Amendment has been fully executed by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized
representatives, have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.
2 of 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONSULTANT:
By: By: _! ' eld
Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
Name: V
Attest:
Title: -PrlAci <.Q
By:
Linda Devine, City Clerk
Name:
Approved as to Form:
Title:
By:
Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney
3 of 3