Laserfiche WebLink
Observations: <br /> <br />The consultant has provided five alternatives for addressing his charge of resolving the <br />flood plain violation. However two other elements should be considered in <br />recommending the preferred alternative. Alternatives 4 & 5 would both replace the <br />existing 72 inch concrete culvert which has open joints that are permitting soil loss from <br />the base of the road and shoulder areas. A second consideration is that alternative 4 <br />would remove the 100 year flood from overtopping Ermine Boulevard while alternative 5 <br />would not eliminate this condition. Both of these options merit with a decision based on <br />financial considerations. Although Alternative 3 is the least costly presented it does not <br />address the cost which will eventually need to be incurred in replacing the existing <br />culvert. Alternative 1 & 2 are the most costly and fail to rectify either of these auxiliary <br />issues. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Staff recommends that either alternative 4 or 5 be recommended for implementation. <br />Staff should be directed to prepare plans and specifications for the selected alternative. <br />Funding for this project would be from the Storm Water Utility. <br /> <br />Action: <br /> <br />Motion to recommend to City Council that Alternative 4 or 5 be implemented and that <br />staff should be directed to prepare plans and specifications for the selected alternative. <br />Funding for this project would be from the Storm Water Utility. <br /> <br />Reviewed By: <br />Public Works Director/Principal Engineer <br />Public Works Superintendent/Fire Chief <br />Finance Officer <br />Assistant Community Development Director <br />Street Supervisor <br /> <br />PW: 04/18/06 <br /> <br />38 <br /> <br /> <br />