HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-16 City Council (43)CWy of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE: December 16, 1996 CMR:509:96
SUBJECT:Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project
(CIP 19310): Interim Bike Path Connection
REQUEST
In order to proceed further with the subject project, it is necessary to (1) incorporate an
interim bike path connection across m~ additional portion of the property that belongs to
the Palo Alto Unified School District (District); (2) reach agreement on the conditions of
a temporary easement agreement between the City and the District, for the interim bike
path; and (3) commit to incur estimated additional costs of $34,000 of City funds. The
purpose of this staff report is to seek Cotmcil direction regarding these actions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions with respect to the
Embarcadero Pedestrialv’Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project:
Approve the proposed interim bike path concept illustrated in Attachment 1, along
with the understanding that additional funding, in an estimated amount of $34,000,
may need to be authorized when the construction contract is awarded,
Approve, in concept, the conditions set forth in Attaclmaent 2, as a basis for
preparation of an easement agreement between the City and the School District,
and
o Confirm the Council’s intent that the use of the interim path through the School
District property is an interim measure and that it is the City’s intent to pursue
alternative funding sources for the construction of the proposed new Embarcadero
Road bridge.
CMR:509:96 Page 1 of 6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 12, Promote Bicycle
Usage, and would provide an important missing link in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master
Plan.
Implementation of this interim bike path, like the ped/bike path project itself and other
ped/bike projects, continues to incrementally add to the regularly required need for
maintenance within the Public Works budget. In addition, maintenance of some of the
project components, particularly chain link fencing, may require services that are not
available within the current staffing, and may need to be done through contract services,
for which funding is not available in the Public Works Department’s budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The City of Palo Alto is proceeding with development of a project to construct a
pedestrian/bike path. along the west side of the CalTrain tracks, from Churchill Avenue
to the southerly end of the CalTrain parking lot at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station.
The design of the project was fully completed in spring 1996, with the intent to construct
the project during the summer and fall period of this year. However, the bidding process
resulted in bids that were well over (50 percent plus) the engineers’ estimate and the
available funding. After considering several alternatives, including the possibility of
canceling the whole project, it became evident that the only item of sufficient cost
consequence to make a substantial difference was the deletion of the Embarcadero Road
pedestrim~bike bridge from the project. While this is clearly not a preferred solution, it
is a workable interim approach.
Therefore, Council approved an approach that restructures the project into two stages (see
Attachment 4, CMR:362:96, August 5, 1996). The first stage will include construction
of the pedestrian/bike path, essentially as proposed (e.g. lighting, steel fencing, etc.), but
with the deletion of the proposed new Embarcadero Road bridge. The second stage will
involve pursuing sources for sufficient funds to build the proposed bridge structure. The
construction of the path would proceed in the summer of 1997, while the construction of
the bridge would proceed when funding is secured.
While there are currently no funding source oppommities for this bridge project, historical
precedent strongly suggests that there will be new and renewed funding programs at the
federal, state and local levels. When such opportunities materialize, the bridge project
CMR:509:96 Page 2 of 6
would likely be highly competitive since the design is complete, the cost is established,
and the environmental review is approved. Securing funding for the bridge may occur
within a one to two year time frame, but could take as long as five years or more.
Between the time that the path is completed and the new bridge is constructed, there is
a need to find an interim solution for crossing Embarcadero Road. Two options have been
explored. One is to use the existing CalTrain bridge and the other is to use a connection
through the Palo Alto High School site, between the path and the pedestrian traffic signal
crossing at Embarcadero Road.
City staffhas pursued the possibility of using the existing CalTrain bridge on an interim
basis, but has not been able to resolve fundamental safety and service issues associated
with the periodic, high intensity use of this area as a train station for events at Stanford.
The other option, the interim use of a connection through the Palo High School site, has
also been investigated and appears to be a possible solution, subject to the City and the.
School District reaching agreement on a proposal that would involve the temporary use
of some School District property.
Proposed Interim Solution
The proposal is to close the main path on each side of Embarcadero Road, at the existing
railroad bridge and provide a connection across Embarcadero Road via the existing
pedestrian traffic signal. The connection on the north would utilize the existing Old
Embarcadero Road, and on the south, an existing roadway on the school site. Attachment
1 illustrates this concept.
A ten foot bike path would be provided along an existing driveway on the Palo Alto High
School Campus. A six foot chain link fence would be constructed along the bike path,
separating it from the vehicular travel lanes. Two-way vehicular traffic would be
maintained with two 10 foot travel lanes. The space that the path would occupy is
presently used for parking. The resultant loss of eleven parking spaces would be offset
by providing, at City expense, a new parking surface area for eleven vehicles at a location
agreeable to the District.
The City would be responsible for constructing the interim path to an acceptable standard,
as well as maintaining the fence and path during the period of use. The City would agree
to erect appropriate signing to direct people between the new path and the pedestrian
traffic signal at Embarcadero Road, and not into the school campus. The City would also
agree to connect the existing lights along this short segment of the driveway into a City
CMR:509:96 Page 3 of 6
electric meter, and operate the lights in conjunction with the lighting to be provided with
the new path.
Conditions for Agreement
City staff has had several discussions with School District staff regarding the terms and
conditions, under which the School District would consider granting the necessary
easement to the City for the portion of their land required for this interim use. Exhibit 2
is a statement of the conditions that, if approved by Council, would be presented to the
School District Board for their approval. If both entities agree to these conditions, the
formal easement document will be prepared accordingly for later action by both entities.
The cost related consequences of this proposed interim path are estimated at $53,000;
$35,000 to construct the interim path and other path related items and an additional
$18,000 to construct an area for replacement parking. Based upon the bid prices received
in June 1996, and m "aking appropriate adjustments for the deletion of the new bridge and
other items, there should be a sum of $19,000 remaining from the existing project budget
that would be available for use toward the costs ($53,000) associated with the interim
path. This. leaves an estimated shortfall of $34,000. If the City proceeds with this interim
path, additional City funds will be required.
No budget change authorization is being requested at the present time. Rather, staff
believes it would be better to proceed with the design modification and then re-bid the
project, to determine whether the additional funding is required. Staffis hopeful that a
favorable bidding climate may exist, so that the existing budget might be sufficient to
cover all or a portion of the estimated shortfall. However, it is important to clearly
understand that an additional funding request may be forthcoming, if Council approves the
recommendations included in tltis staffreport. If additional funding is required, a Budget
Amendment Ordinance will come to the Council in conjunction with the award of a
construction contract.
Alternatives
Staffhas had discussions with the Peninsula Commute Joint Powers Board, regarding an
alternate temporary solution of using the existing CalTrain bridge for an interim path
between the two ends of the new path. While such an approach might be workable with
respect to normal through train traffic, we have not been able to resolve fundamental
safety and service issues associated with the periodic use of this area as a train station for
events at Stanford.
CMR:509:96 Page 4 of 6
Other alternatives include canceling the entire bike path project, or using City funds to pay
for the new bridge so that it could be constructed along with the path. Staff does not
recommend either one. The former would result in the continuation of an existing
important need going unresolved, and foregoing $459,510 of state and federal funds that
have already been approved for this project and are, as yet, unspent. The latter would
require additional City funds of $300,000 to $350,000. Staffis reasonably confident that
federal and/or state funding source oppommities will materialize in the future, which
would cover much, albeit not all, of the cost of the new bridge. Generally, some level of
local matching funds (10 to 20 percent) is required.
Comments from the Palo Alt0 Bicycle Advisory. Committee (PABAC)
PABAC, at its regular meeting on December 10, 1996, reviewed and commented upon
the proposed interim path concept. In general, the Committee expressed serious concerns
with the proposed interim path concept and a strong preference for the alternative of using
the existing CalTrain bridge, on an interim basis. A memo reflecting PABAC’s position
is included as Attachment 3. Staff agrees that the use of the existing CalTrain bridge is
a better alternative for users of the path. However, after substantial discussions with staff
representatives of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, they did not support this
interim use of the existing bridge.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost related consequences of this proposed interim path are estimated at $53,000;
$35,000 to construct the interim path mad other path related items, and an additional
$18,000 to construct an area for replacement parking. It is estimated that existing
approved funding is sufficient to cover $19,000 of this additional cost. If the City
proceeds with this interim path, estimated additional City funds in the amount of $34,000
are required.
The total funds currently available for this project are $716,770, of which $183,503 is for
design services and $533,267 is for construction, contingencies and testing. Project
funding is from a variety offimding sources including: state TDA funds ($195,510), state
TSM funds ($46,000), federal CMAQ funds ($320,000), Holiday Inn mitigation fees
($37,000), and the City’s Street Improvement Fund ($118,260). The City’s level of
financial participation, wNch is $118,260 or 17 percent of the total project budget, could
increase to an estimated amount of $152,260 or 20 percent of the total budget.
Implementation of the interim bike path will increase mah~tenance requirements for which
the Public Works Department is not currently staffed, and for which funds are not
available. Staffwill include those unfimded needs in the proposed 1997-98 budget.
CMR:509:96 Page 5 of 6
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A Negative Declaration (94-EIA-16) was previously approved by Council.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If Council approves the staff recornmendation, the following steps will be taken:
5.
6.
7.
Present conditions to the School District Board for approval.
Issue a change order to the consultant to revise the design plans and specifications
to delete the new bridge and incorporate interim path.
Prepare and present formal easement agreement to City Council and School District
Board for approval.
Bid the revised project in March 1997.
Return to Council for award of a construction contract.
Start construction in May 1997.
Complete construction in December 1997.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Concept plan for interim bike path connection
2.Conditions for agreement between City mad District
3.Comments from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
4.Staffreport CMR:362:96, August 5, 1996
Prepared By: Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
Department Head Review:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
City Manager Approval:
FLEMING
~y Manager
cc: Palo Alto Unified School District
CMR:509:96 Page 6 of 6
ATTACH IENT 2
Conditions under which tentative approval of a temporar)’ exclusive easement will be recommended
bvPAUSDStaff. Enclosures for December 17 Board meeting must be submitted in Draft form no later than
Friday, December 6. Response from Citv to these conditions must be submitted to PAUSD not later than noon.
December 5.
i.The temporary exclusive easement for a pedestrian bike path along the existing drive;ray would be io= a
maximum of 5 years. The ten-n for which the easement would be granted may be ex.~ended at the D._~ ......
discre tion.
2.At City’s cost, replacement parking in the amount of __ spaces would be provided by the City at a location
different from the area now desio~nated as a fire lane.
At City’s cost, a chain link fence would be installed along the driveway to separate the path from the vehicular
travel lanes. Two-way traffic would be maintained with two 10-foot travel lanes. The City would be
responsible for constructing the interim path to an acceptable standard as well as maintaining the fence and
path during the period of use.
4~The City would erect appropriate signing that would direct people between the new path and the.pedestrian
traffic sign~, and not into the school campus.
The City would connect the existing lights along this segment of the roadway into a City electric meter and
consult with PAUSD regarding future lighting schedules.
Within (30) days after conclusion of use, the City shah remove all fencing and signage, repair asphalt, restore
speed humps and reconnect lighting to District’s satisfaction.
Insurance Clause to be included in any grant of easement:
’: During the period that the easement is in force and until such time as the fencing is removed and the
pathway is restored, City shall keep in force, at City’s expense, and City shall cause District to be named as
’additional insured’ thereunder, liability insurance for coverage up to $5,000,000 per person and $5,000,000 per
accident, and property damage of $1,000,000 combined single limit. The City’s insurance shall be prLmaD" and
any coverage maintained by the District shall be excess to the coverage required to be provided by the City
and not contributive to City’s insurance. Copies of said certificate with endorsement shall be deposited with
the District and the City shall obtain the written agreement of insurers to notify the District in writing 30 days
prior to any termination or non-renewal of insurance. City may satisfy such insurance requirements by
endorsement to existing policies. Should the City choose not to purchase insurance, coverage wLll be provided
by either the City’s sold-insuring for the required amounts or the City’s entering into a pooling program with
applicable coverage. Coverage in excess of the City’s $1,000,000 seLf-insured retention may be provided by the
City’s participation with the ACCEL Joint Powers Agreement. Coverage by ACCEL must be approved by said
board of directors. City shall inform District within (30) days of any change relating to specific lines of
coverage.
8.Indemnification Clause to be include in any grant of easement:
"City shal! indemnidy, defend and hold Palo Alto Unified School District harmless from any liability or
expense including attorney fees and other costs of defense, on account of suits, verdicts, judo~menks, costs or
claims of any nature or kind arising out of, in or any way connected with operations on, possession, use,
management, improvement, alteration or control of the bike path easement including but not li.mited to
condition of bike path surface and lighting of the easement."
9. Othercosts G’q., , , c k 6~ ~ ~- ,X,~, n..~Cz "~, ,.ff - e...K cza.Q ~;
City shall reimburse district for incidentM costs’associated with processing the easement grant, including but
not necessarily limited to attorney fees and leg~ publication of the resolution of intent in the newspaper.
11/26/96
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
B ~~tTTACHMENT 3
DATE:December 11, 1996
TO:Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT:Embarcadero Bridge and Bike Path Project - Interim Bike Path
Connection
At their December 10, 1996 meeting, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
discussed the proposed interim bike path connection via the Palo Alto High School
Campus.
The committee expressed concerns about the proposed double fenced path,
including
-le.ngth of the detour
-its narrowness
-likely bike/pedestrian conflicts
-lack of escape possibilities in case of personal attack
Furthermore, there are many access points aside from the path to the campus, so
the fencing would not serve the stated purpose of preventing unauthorized
persons from entering the Pale Alto High School campus.
By a unanimous vote, PABAC adopted the following motion:
PABAC recommends that the City not investigate the interim path
through the Palo Alto High School campus, as it is a clearly inferior
alternative, but rather, that staff explore with all vigor an interim path
via the Caltrain Joint Powers Board platform area.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter
Ellen Fletcher
Chair
ATTACHMENSF 4
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE: August 5, 1996 CMR:362:96
SUBJECT:Embarcadero Pedestrian/bike Bridge and Bike Path Project (CIP
19310): Rejection of Bids
REQUEST
The design work for the Embarcadero Pedestrian!Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project has
been fully completed and bids for the project were received on Jtme 4, 1996. The purpose
of this report is to request that Cotmcil reject all of the bids received (because the bids are
substantially higher than the Engineer’s Estimate and the available project fimds) and
endorse a proposed strategy for proceeding with the project in a two stage approach.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions with respect to the
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project:
1.Reject all of the bids received for construction;
Approve the following two-stage approach: Stage 1 - delete the proposed new
bridge, bid the project again in the winter, and construct the path portion of the
project next spring; mad Stage 2 - pursue funding for, and implementation of, the
proposed new bridge portion of the project; and
Confirm the Cotmcil’s intent that the use of the existhag railroad bridge is an interim
measure and that it is the hatent of the City to pursue alternative funding sources for
the construction of the proposed new bridge.
CMR:362:96 Page 1 of 11
P.OLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 12: Promote bicycle
usage, and would provide an important missing link in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master
Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to provide an important missing link in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master Plan,
Council approved a CIP to construct a new bike path and pedestrian!bike bridge on tlie
west side of the CalTrain railroad tracks from. Churchill Avenue to the Palo
Alto/University Avenue CalTrain Station. Design of the project was completed and bids
were received on June 4, 1996. Four bids were received with the low base bid of
$808,150, which is $280,467 over the Engineer’s Estimate of $527,683.
Based on conversations with the contractors mad the engineering design~ consultant, it was
found that the bids were higher than expected due in part to the constraints of the work
site, the complex nature of the project (requiring a high percentage of subcontractors),
bridge design issues related to the appearance of the structure, and the proximity of the
new bridge to the existing railroad bridge. In addition, the timing of the bidding at the
start of a very busy construction season may have had an effect.
Due to the excessive difference in the low bid mid Engineer’s Estimate, as well as the
resulting budget shortfall, staff recommends rejecting all of the bids. Staff further
recommends that the project be bid again in the winter to take advantage of a potentially
more competitive bidding enviromnent. Staff proposes to restructure the project into two
stages. Stage 1 would delete the proposed new bridge but include other major components
of the proposed project. The existing railroad bridge would temporarily serve, for an
interim period ofthne, as a substitute for the new bridge. Stage 2 would include pursuing
additional funding for the new bridge, with construction to follow at such time that
funding was secured.
Staff considered tluee alternatives to rescope the project. The first alternative involves
awarding the current project, which would require a $327,468 General Fund Budget
Amendment Ordinance. The second-alteruative involves canceling the project, which
would result in the continuation of an existing important need that would go unresolved
and continue to surface in the future. The third alternative involves bidding the project
and combining it with the Ahna Street Bicycle Bridge and Path Project. The scopes of
work of the two projects are different enough to cause more administrative costs, and the
combined project would still require substantial additional funding.
CMR:362:96 Page 2 of ! 1
Power Engineerfiag, the low bidder for this project, has offered a design/build proposal to
complete the entire project for a lmnp stun of $662,000, with the proviso that a steel truss
bridge be substituted for the proposed concrete girder bridge. This would require a
General Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $181,833. However, the
Attorney’s Office has determined that this proposal is legally non-responsive. Because
the proposal is legally non-responsive and a steel truss bridge would be visually
incongruous with the character of the surroundings, staff does not recommend this option.
FISCAL IMPACT
No additional funds are required or requested for this current recormnended Council
action. There is, however, the outstanding intent of the City to pursue the eventua!
construction of a new bridge. While outside ftmding sources will be pursued, it may be
necessary to consider some additional City ftmding if, for example, funding grants require
some local match and!or funding grant(s) are not quite suNcient to cover the total cost.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A Negative Declaration (94-EIA-16) was approved by Council on August 1, 1994.
Changes to the scope of work resulting from Council approval of staff’ s recommendation
(i.e., to delete the bridge) will not h~crease the potential enviromnental impact of the
project. Therefore, no change to the Negative Declaration will be required.
Prepared By:Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engfi~eer
Department Head Review:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Plato-ring
and Cormnunity Enviromnent
City Manager Approval:
FLEMING
City Manager
CMR:362:96 Page 3 of 11
SUBJECT:Embarcadero Pedestrian/bike Bridge And Bike Path Project (CIP
19310): Rejection of Bids
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffrecommends that Cotmcil take the follovAng actions with respect to the Embarcadero
Pedestrian!Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project:
1.Reject all bids received for construction; and
o Approve the following two-stage approach: Stage 1 - delete the proposed new
bridge, bid the project again in the winter, and construct the path portion of the
project next sp~ag; mad Stage 2 - pursue funding for, ~nd implementation of, the
proposed new bridge portion of the project; and
o Confwm that it is the City’s understanding that the use of the existing railroad
bridge is an inteNn measure and that it is the intent of the City to pursue alternative
funding sources for the construction of the proposed new bridge.
BACKGROUND
Palo Alto has developed a project to construct a bike path along the west side of the
CalTrain tracks, from Churchill Avenue to a point just north of Encina Avenue, as
proposed in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master Plan.
A feasibility study, completed ha February 1993, concluded that (1) a bike path through
this area was feasible, but would be complex because it would involve the interests of
several entities including Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Stanford University,
Palo Alto Unified School District, Sprint, Wiltel, and MCI; and (2) it would be more
costly than originally anticipated.
Since that time, the work has proceeded tlu-ough the various stages of design, and the
necessary ageements have been negotiated with all of the affected entities. The scope
of the project has evolved and changed, as a result of review and comments by the
Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, Palo Alto Unified
CMR:362:96 Page 4 of 11
School District, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, MCI, Sprint, and Wiltel. The
progress that has transpired with the submittal, review, and approval of the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation’s proposed new facilities has also altered the scope of the project.
The design of the project was fi~lty completed in spring 1996, with the intent to construct
the project during the smmner and fall period of this year.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 12: Promote bicycle
usage, and would provide an important missing lhN in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master
Plan.
DISCUSSION
Bidding Process
An advance letter indicating that bid documents would be available beginning April 30,
1996 was mailed to 14 contractors (Attaclunent 1) on April 25, 1996. A similar Fact
Sheet was faxed to 39 contractors (Attaclunent 2) on May 8, 1996. Plans and
specifications were mailed to 16 general circulation exchanges on April 29, 1996. The
project was advertised in the San Jose Mercury, Palo Alto Weekly and Berkeley Post (a
newspaper for Disadvantaged Businesses Enterprises) on May 1, May 3, mad May 19,
respectively. A pre-bid meeting was held on May 13, 1996 to discuss the project with
prospective bidders. Plansand specifications were picked up or mailed to 21 contractors
prior to bid opening on June 4, 1996. An additional letter was sent on May 24, 1996 to
each of the 21 contractors holding plans mad specifications, reminding them that bids were
due on Jmae 4. The biddh~g period was five weeks, which ",’,’as m~ adequate period of time
for this size and type of project.
The bids were opened on June 4, 1996. Bids were received from four contractors, as
listed on the attached bid sulmnary sheet (Attaclnnent 3). The low base bid of $808,150
is $280,467, or 53 percent, over the Engineer’s estimate of $527,683. The four bids
received ranged from a high of $848,888 to a low of $808,150.
The enNneering desiN~ consultant (H2vKt, Inc.) was asked to explain the difference
between the construction bids and the Engineer’s Estimate. In addition, staff contacted
two of the contractors after the bid opening, to learn more about the reasons for the
substantial variation between the Engineer’s Estimate and the bid prices. The following
reasons appear to have contributed to the high bids:
CMR:362:96 Page 5 of i I
The constrained site, which makes access, storage and work areas vel-y restricted,
affects the unit costs for such major items as excavation, asphalt path, fencing, and
lighting, as wel! as the precast girders for the bridge.
The complex nature of the project, which involves a relatively large dollar
percentage of specialty work (e.g. precast girders, lighting, and fencing) that is
normally done by subcontractors, results in a disproportionately lower percentage
of the work remaining for the lead contractor.
Bridge design issues related to the appearance of the structure (e.g. colored
concrete, railings, light fixtures and test panels) appear to have resulted in
substantially higher trait costs for several bridge related items.
The need to construct the new pedestrian/bike bridge immediately adjacent to the
existing bridge appears to have been a factor in higher unit costs for some items.
The design consultant indicates that these factors were taken into account wlzile preparing
the Engineer’s Estimate, but, obviously, the contractors’ perspectives regarding the
complexity of this job were somewhat different thar~ the consultant’s perspective, as
reflected in the substantial difference between the Engineer’s Estimate and all four of the
bids received for this project.
The design consultant has also indicated that the bidding climate in winter months is
generally more favorable, and the bids could be lower by as much as $I00,000.
Conversations with contractors who bid on this project do not confmn tkis prospect. Staff
is proceeding on the assmnption that little or no sa@~gs will be realized by bidding the job
in the winter period; and, if in fact there are such savings, they will be viewed as an
unanticipated benefit.
Public Works Department staff also looked into the general bidding enviromnent,
examining similar local area projects that were bid this spring. For example, a bicycle
bridge project for the City of Campbell received bids that were 45 percent above the
Engineer’s Estimate, while roadway bridges at the Marsh Road!Route 101 interchange
and the Willow Road~oute 101 interchange were 25 percent and 60 percent above the
Engineer’s Estimate, respectively. The bids received on these projects, as well as for Palo
Alto’s Alma Street Bike Bridge Project and the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Project,
may have been high partly due to the fact that they were all bid around the start of the
peak construction season, and that there is currently more demand for this type of
construction than in past years, due to the improving economy.
CMR:362:96 Page 6 of 11
Due to the large difference in the low bid and the Engineer’s Estimate, as well as the
resulting budget shortfall, staff recolmnends rejecting all of the bids. Staff further
recommends that the project be bid again in the winter to take advantage of a potentially
more competitive bidding en’~@o~vnent. Prior to biddh~g agah~, staff will revise the project
scope to try and reduce costs to fit within the existing budget. Following is a more
detailed discussion of the measures that are required to modify the project scope.
Proposed Modified Two-Stage Approach
In order to reduce the scope of work to fit the currently available funds, consideration was
given to several possible measures, individually and collectively. Such possible measures
include: (1) deletion of the path lighting tluoughout the project, (2) substitution of chain
link fencing for the proposed steel fencing Coetween path mad railroad tracks), (3) deletion
of a complete segment of the path, (4) replacement of the proposed precast prestressed
concrete girder bridge with a lower-cost prefabricated steel truss bridge, and (5) deletion
of several smaller items that, after analysis, did not contribute much toward significant
cost reduction. None of these measures alone, or in conjunction with others, was
sufficient to reduce tl{e cost of the project to match existing available funds.
Upon further evaluation and consideration, it becmne evident that the only item of
sufficient cost consequence.to make a substantial difference is the deletion of the
pedestrian/bike bridge from the project. While this is clearly not a preferred solution, it
is a workable interim approach.
Therefore, staff proposes to restructure this project into two stages as follows:
Stage 1 would include the construction of the pedestriaw~bike path, essentially as
proposed (e.g. li~th~g, steel fencing, etc.), with the existing railroad bridge
serving, for an interim period of time, as a substitute for the proposed new
bridge. The construction of the path portion would proceed early next year,
and staff believes it will then fit within the existing available funding.
The original feasibilit2,, study had suggested that the existing railroad bridge could indeed
be used. Staff has had discussions with staff representatives from the Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board (CalTrain), and they were receptive to the possible use of the existing
structure, if it is m~ inteNn measure, ~vith the clear m~derstanding that it is the intent of the
City to pursue alternative funding sources for the eventual construction of the proposed
new bridge. If this approach is followed, modifications to the fencing and some
modifications to the existing CalTrain platform area will need to be incorporated into the
CMR:362:96 Page 7 of i i
design plans and specifications. The impact that such modifications (fencing and
platform) will have on the total cost of the project is still under review.
Stage 2: would include pursuing funding sources for sufficient funds to build the
proposed bridge structure. The construction of the new bridge would
proceed when sufficient funding has been secured.
While there are currently no ftmdh~g source opportm-tities for this bridge project, historical
precedent strongly suggests that there will be nexv and renewed funding pro~ams at the
federal, state and local levels. At such time that such opportunities materialize, this
project would likely be highly competitive since the desig-n is complete, the cost is
established, and the enviromnental review is approved. Securing funding for the bridge
may occur within a one to two year time frame, but could take as long as five years or
more.
Additional Change.s in the Scope of Work for Stage 1
The deletion of the proposed new bridge from Stage 1 will subs{m~tially reduce the project.
costs. In addition, staff would expect some reduction in mobilization costs as ~vell.
(Mobilization costs are costs associated with a contractor setting up on a job site, such as
setting up an office, phone lines, etc. The mnotmt of these costs depend on the size of the
project). Staff is also hopefu! that there might be some reduction in overall costs by
bidding the project again in the winter months, as well as some reduction due to the
simplification of the project by deletion of the bridge. The total net effect of such
reductions is not yet fully determined.
Offsetting such reductions will be the additional costs associated with modifications to the
fencing for the existing railroad bridge and modifications to the existing CalTrain platform
area which will need to be incorporated into the project. The impact that such
modifications (fencing and platform) will have on the total cost of the project is still under
review.
As a back-up strate~,, staff expects to include two fiwther potential cost reduction
measures into the rebidding process. One measure is to identify the landscaping and
irrigation as a revocable item that could be deleted from the project. The second measure
is to include a provision for the possibility of the City purchasing and providing the light
standards to the contractor. While the cost of the light standards would still be charged
to the project budget, there is some indication that the City mi~t be able to purchase them
at a substantial savfl~gs. Such deletion/change would be made only if the actual bid costs
still exceed the budget and/or substantial savfl~gs would result; and in any event, only with
the concurrence of Council at the time of the award of contract.
CMR:362:96 Page 8 of 11
An additional back-up strate~, would be to consider the possibility of requesting
additional State TDA funds for this project, when the City submits its ammal request in
January 1997. While it is reasonably likely that some additional ftmding could be secured,
the City has already indicated its intent to apply for TDA funds in January 1997 for the
construction phase of the renovation of the Wilkie Way PedestriarvqBike Bridge. A
decision regarding which project(s) to include in the JanuarT 1997 application can best
be made then, based upon available information.
ALTERNATIVES
Tt~ee alternatives, for Council consideration, are as follows:
Alternative 1: Award the cnrrent contract
The first alternative is to award the contract to the low bidder. The total cost of the
contract could be reduced by $43,845 by deletflag Item No. 9, which provides for
dae replacement of a section of existing chain li~fi< fence with access control fence,
and was bid as a revocable item. The Cotmcil would nee6 to approve funding from
the General Fund via a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $327,468, in order to
cover the budget shortfall. Construction of the project would begin witlfin 30 days
and completed by May, 1997. Under this alternative, staffwould need to return
to the Counci! on Au~tst 12, 1996 with a Budget Amendment Ordinance approval
request and a contract award to the low bidder, Power En~eering. The contractor
has ageed to extend his bid until that date.
Alternative 2: Cancel the project
A second alternative is to cancel the project completely. Approval of this
alternative would result in the continuation of an existing important need that will
go muesolved. It would also forego $ 459,510 of State mad Federal funds that have
already been approved for this project and are as yet unspent. These State and
Federal funds caamot be used for an3’ other project in Palo Alto.
Alternative 3; Rebid the project and combine with the Ahna Bridge CIP
Tt~is alternative is to rebid the project, combining it with the Alma Street Bicycle
Bridge and Path Project. While the scopes of the projects may seem similar, they
do have significant differences. The grant funding and subsequent reporting
requirements for each project are si~aificantly different and would add more
administrative costs to the projects than might be realized by savings in
construction costs. In addition, the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge and Path Project
is smaller in scope than the Embarcadero Road PedestriardBike Bridge and Bike
Path Project, mad could conceivably attract smaller contractors than those who
CMR:362:96 Page 9 of 11
xvould be tu3-able to bid o13_ a combh3-ed Ahna!Embarcadero bid package. Under this
alternative, the total cost of the combined project would still require significant
additional funding.
Another option is a Desi~Build Proposal from Power Engineering Contractors. In a
letter to the City (July 9, 1996), Power Engineering Contractors, who was the low bidder
on this project, proposed to build basically the sane bikeway facility, utilizing a steel truss
bridge on a pile foundation in lieu of the current plamed prestressed concrete girder
bridge. Power EnNneering indicates they would do the entire project (design!build)
througj-I completion, with the alternate bridge design, for $662,000 ($618,000 if
landscaping and irrigation are deleted). This would require Cotmcil approval of additional
funding in the amount of $181,833, as compared to the $327,468 referenced in Alternative
1. Staff does not reco~rnnend this option for t~vo reasons. First, the Attorney’s Office has
determined that tl~is proposal is legally non-responsive. Second, the desi~m~ of the new
proposed concrete girder bridge is the result of a design review process that recognized,
and was sensitive to, the prominent location of the new bridge on Embarcadero Road, as
well as its pro "ximity to the existing railroad bridge. While a steel truss bridge would serve
the same function foi- the pedestrial~oicycle path, the visual appearance would be
incongruent with the character of the surroundings and inappropriate for the prominent
visual gateway presently along Embarcadero Road.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total funds cm-rently available for this project are $716,770, ofwh.ich $183,503 is for
design and inspection and $533,267 is for construction, contingencies and testing.
Project funding is from a variety of funding sources including: State TDA funds
($195,510), State TSM funds ($46,000), Federal CMAQ funds ($320,000), Holiday Im’t
mitigation fees ($37,000), and the City’s Street Improvement Fund ($118,260). No
additional funds are required or requested for this current recommended Council action.
There is, however, the outstanding intent of the City to pursue the eventual construction
of a new bridge. While outside funding sources will be pursued, it may be necessary to
consider some additional City funding, if, for example, funding grants require some local
match and!or funding grant(s) are not quite sufficient to cover the total cost.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A Negative Declaration (94-EIA-16) was approved by Council on August 1, 1994.
Changes to the scope of work resulting from Council approval of staff’ s recommendation
(i.e., to delete the bridge) will not increase the potential enviromnental impact of the
project. Therefore, no change to the Negative Declaration will be required.
CMR:362:96 Page 10 of 11
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If Council approves the staffrecolmnendation, the following steps will be taken:
1.Revise the desLma plans mad specifications to delete the new bridge and incorporate
modifications associated with the use of the existing bridge.
2.Bid the revised project in January 1997.
3.Return to Council for award of a construction contract.
4.Start construction in March 1997.
5.Complete construction in November 1997.
ATTACHMENTS
1.April 25, 1996 notice that project would be going to bid
¯ 2.May 6, 1996 notice that bid documents were available
3.Bid Summary Sheet
Joint Powers Board (Tom Davids)
Caltrans (Robert Wu)
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Co~mnittee
Stanford University (Julia Fremon, Leonie Batkin)
Palo Alto Unified School District (Rosemarie Bednar)
Sprint (Douglas Freemma)
MCI (Ken Bailey)
World Corn (Jeff Rinartz)
HMH, Inc. (Steve Sherman)
Anderson Pacific
Power Engineering
RGW
PdvI Harris
CMR:362:96 Page 11 of 11