Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6669 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6669) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/19/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study and Design Contract with ... Title: Approve the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Report and Direct Staff to Pursue Replacement of the Boardwalk, Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Number C17163750 in the Amount of $439,992 with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. to Provide Design and Environmental Services and Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Capital Improvement Program Project PE-14018 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends Council: 1. Approve the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study (Attachment A) and direct staff to pursue replacement of the Boardwalk; 2. Approve and Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Contract Number C17163750 with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (Attachment B) in the amount of $439,992 for design and environmental services, including $399,993 for basic services and $39,999 for additional services for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project, Capital Improvement Program project PE-14018; and 3. Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget for the Capital Improvement Fund by: a. Increasing the Capital Improvement Program Appropriation for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project (PE-14018) by $40,000; and b. Decreasing the Infrastructure Reserve by $40,000. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The Baylands Nature Center Boardwalk (Boardwalk) is one of the more popular trails within the City’s Baylands Nature Preserve. This 850-foot long, four-foot wide Boardwalk extends into the Baylands Nature Preserve and connects to the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center (Interpretive Center). On March 10, 2014, the Boardwalk was closed due to structural damage and safety concerns. In May 2015, the City hired Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA) to perform structural inspections and assess the current condition of the Boardwalk; provide options for short-term repairs, rehabilitation and replacement; assess upgrading the structure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and prepare the Boardwalk Feasibility Study Report (Feasibility Study). Staff and BCA presented the preliminary findings and options for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement at a community meeting on September 30, 2015. There was general agreement on the following items:  The Boardwalk should be repaired immediately to provide partial accessibility given the lengthy time necessary to complete the permitting process for major repairs and/or replacement;  Both Boardwalk rehabilitation and replacement options should consider sea-level rise;  Raising the Boardwalk height to prevent flooding may detract from the Baylands experience, part of which is being close to and part of the marshland environment;  Determining the appropriate Boardwalk height should be a balance between public opinion, regulatory requirements, and structural design; and  Consider composite decking (recycled material) if possible. Staff and BCA subsequently met with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) on October 27, 2015 and March 22, 2016 to present the findings and Boardwalk repair, rehabilitation, and replacement options. The PRC was in favor of Boardwalk replacement due to the longer design life and ADA compliance and code-mandated requirements. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 3 Feasibility Study The Feasibility Study key findings are: 1. Overall, the existing Boardwalk is structurally unsound; however, the condition of the structure varies over its length. (A 200-foot segment between the Interpretive Center and first overlook platform is now open to the public due to minor repairs completed in 2015.) 2. The existing Boardwalk does not meet current ADA code requirements, including code-compliant slopes, handrails, guardrails, cross slopes, smooth walking surfaces, passing spaces and resting areas. 3. The Boardwalk is in an environmentally sensitive area where nesting birds and several endangered species including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Ridgway’s Rail (formerly California Clapper Rail) reside. The Boardwalk design and construction shall incorporate minimizing direct impacts to the sensitive environment. 4. The Boardwalk construction will require extensive agency coordination, and time and effort to obtain the following:  United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 federal Clean Water Act permit  California Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality permit  United States Fish and Wildlife Service consultation  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission permit 5. The Feasibility Study identified tides, storm surges, and sea-level rise effects in the vicinity of the Boardwalk. Based on the 2012 National Research Council’s sea-level rise projections, the existing Boardwalk would be flooded in a 100-year storm event (1% chance of flooding) under current conditions, whereas it is anticipated to be flooded in a 10-year storm event (10% chance of flooding) by 2030. Increasing the proposed Boardwalk height from its current average height of 9.5 feet could address the potential sea-level rise impacts. Feasible Boardwalk rehabilitation and replacement options are as follows: 1. Rehabilitation Options City of Palo Alto Page 4 Rehabilitation Option 1 consists of a longitudinal timber deck plank and timber beams supported on timber piles/posts with a design life of 25 to 50 years. Rehabilitation Option 2 is similar but supported by steel screw anchors located outboard, moved away from the existing drainage channel below the Boardwalk, with a design life of 30 to 60 years. Summary:  Improvements will be along the entire length of the existing Boardwalk, use some of the existing structure, and include partial ADA upgrades such as railing and deck repairs;  Alignment and configuration remain the same, and width will remain 4 feet;  Rehabilitation Option 2 has a longer design life;  Permitting process and design duration is approximately 1-2 years;  Construction cost range is $860,000 to $1,050,000 (includes construction contingency) for Options 1 and 2 respectively; and  Construction duration is 1-2 years, depending on permit requirements. 2. Replacement Options Replacement Option 1 matches the existing structural frame using longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber beams. Replacement Option 2 consists of smaller size, transverse timber decking on a platform of longitudinal stringers supported by transverse timber beams. Replacement Option 2 is easier to construct by using smaller size deck boards which are easier to transport, handle and replace. Summary:  Options include complete replacement with ADA upgrades;  Permanent steel screw anchors or treated timber piles are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint;  Alignment and configuration remain the same, while width is increased to 5 feet;  Design life is 50-75 years;  Permitting process and design duration is approximately 1-2 years;  Construction cost range is $890,000 to $1,140,000; and City of Palo Alto Page 5  Construction duration is 1 to 2 years, depending on permitting requirements. Refer to the Feasibility Study’s Executive Summary in Attachment A for a Comparative Matrix of the Options. The Feasibility Study conclusions are as follows: 1. Rehabilitation options have higher anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and width, and lower design life expectancies than the replacement options. 2. Replacement options are feasible. Replacement Option 1 mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type and Replacement Option 2 utilizes smaller deck boards that will be slightly easier to transport and construct. 3. Permanent steel screw anchors or timber piles with treated timber elements are proposed for the foundation structure. The repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have negative impacts on the design life. Therefore, the foundation structure should be further investigated during the design phase. 4. A new Boardwalk has the potential for the longest design life expectancy, 50-75 years. A study of the tidal inundation and sea-level rise indicates the deck height needs to be raised to reduce flooding. Staff recommends: (1) approval of the Feasibility Study (Attachment A) and direction to pursue replacement; and (2) approval of a design services contract (Attachment B) with BCA for design and environmental review and permitting of a replacement Boardwalk. The primary difference between replacement options 1 and 2, as described in the Feasibility Study, is the orientation of the boardwalk deck planks and supporting beams. These options will be evaluated further during the design process, with the eventual design based on consideration of technical information and input from the community and PRC. Design Contract The BCA contract scope of services includes: 1. Design of a new Boardwalk with similar alignment and configuration as the existing Boardwalk; City of Palo Alto Page 6 2. Development of 15%, 35%, 65% and 100% plans, specifications and estimates; 3. Consideration of the design life, potential environmental impacts, costs and timeline (design, permitting, and project completion); 4. Design review and environmental assessment (including obtaining agency permits); 5. Obtain community, board and commission input; 6. Evaluation of structural constraints, design criteria and structure types; 7. Evaluation of constructability and staging; 8. Evaluation of geotechnical constraints and foundation type recommendations; 9. Evaluation of sea-level rise and hydraulic constraints and recommendations; 10. Evaluation of ADA compliance requirements; and 11. Inclusion of architectural and aesthetic treatments compatible with the Baylands Master Plan. The BCA contract provides environmental review and design services through the design phase but does not include construction administration services. Upon completion of the design phase, staff will return to Council with a contract amendment to provide bid and construction administration services during the project’s bidding and construction phases. Construction administration services include responding to contractor questions and participating in project management meetings with City staff and contractor representatives. Project Coordination and Outreach Three separate CIP projects include: Baylands Boardwalk Improvements (PE- 14018), Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Exhibit Improvements (AC-14001), and Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements (PE-15029). All three projects are being managed by Public Works and Community Services to ensure design decisions are coordinated and discussed with the public. Request for Proposal (RFP) Process On May 4, 2016, the City released an RFP (No. 163750) for the Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Project. The RFP requested proposals from qualified firms to provide professional services for design services, environmental clearance, and construction administration for the Baylands Boardwalk City of Palo Alto Page 7 Replacement Project. Table 1 provides a summary of the solicitation process. Table 1. Solicitation Process Summary Evaluation of Proposals A total of 33 vendors downloaded the RFP and one proposal was received. An evaluation committee consisting of Public Works Engineering Services Division staff reviewed the proposal. BCA was invited to participate in an interview on June 3, 2016. The evaluation committee carefully reviewed the firm's qualifications and submittals. The RFP criteria used to evaluate the firm included: quality of the proposals; quality, performance and effectiveness of solutions; experience with projects of similar scope and complexity; cost; financial stability; ability to perform required services within the project schedule; prior record performance; and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The evaluation committee recommends BCA as the designer due to their understanding of project goals and needs, experience and in-depth knowledge working on projects with similar scope and complexity, and BCA’s environmental subconsultants’ (David J. Powers and H.T. Harvey & Associates) experience with the environmental clearance and permitting processes essential for successful project execution and timely completion. David J. Powers and H.T. Harvey & Proposal Description/Number Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Project RFP /Number 163750 Proposed Length of Project Approximately 24 months (without bid and construction administration.) Total Days to Respond to Proposal 22 Pre-proposal Meeting Date May 10, 2016 Number of Company Attendees at Pre-proposal Meeting 5 Number of Proposals Received: 1 Company Name Location (City, State) Selected for oral interview? Proposal Amount 1. Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA) San Jose, CA Yes $399,993 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Associates have extensive knowledge of the Palo Alto Baylands and regulatory requirements. Both firms are working with the City to obtain environmental clearance and regulatory permits for the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements Project, PE-15029 and the Adobe Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project, PE-11011. Timeline Upon receiving Council’s direction, staff will direct BCA to begin the design and technical studies for the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental assessment. Staff will prepare a CEQA environmental assessment for public circulation in summer 2017. Tentative Project Timeline  Enter into design contract (FY 2017) September 2016  Begin schematic design October 2016  Complete 35% design June 2017  Submit applications/reports for agency permits spring 2017  Circulate environmental document summer 2017  Complete 100% design and construction bid documents summer 2018  Amend BCA contract for bid and construction Administration services summer 2018  Obtain agency permits fall 2018*  Bid project summer 2019  Boardwalk construction phase September 2019  End of construction January 2020** * The tentative project timeline above assumes approximately 18 months for agency environmental and permitting review. If project permits are received in a shorter time period, construction could begin in 2018 rather than 2019. ** To avoid nesting birds in the Baylands, the construction window is limited to five months from September 1 through January 31. This schedule assumes that construction can be completed in this timeframe. The construction duration will be assessed during the design process. Resource Impact In Fiscal Year 2017, the City Council approved and adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements project (PE- City of Palo Alto Page 9 14018) in the amount of $422,191, including $400,000 in new funding and $22,191 in reappropriations. In Fiscal Year 2019, construction funding in the amount of $1,000,000 is planned. The following table compares the budgeted funding for the projcet with projected actuals. Project Costs Prior Year Actuals (est.) FY 2017 Adopted Budget Recom- mende d Adjust- ment FY 2017 Amende d Budget FY 2019 CIP Plan Projected Project Total Design $110,73 4 $422,19 1 $40,000 $462,191 $572,925 Constructio n $1,000,00 0 $1,000,00 0 Total: $1,572,92 5 Staff requests Council amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Fund by increasing the Capital Improvement Program appropriation for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements project (PE-14018) by $40,000 and decreasing the Infrastructure Reserve Fund by $40,000 to provide sufficient funding to award the design contract and pay for miscellaneous expenses such as testing, printing services and plan review fees. Policy Implications Approval of the Feasibility Study and the design services contract is consistent with City policies. Environmental Review Award of the design contract is not a project under CEQA. CEQA review will be carried out prior to the issuance of a construction contract. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, a draft Initial Study and environmental assessment will be prepared and circulated. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is anticipated for this project, and the project will not result in significant impacts. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 10  Attachment A: Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Report (PDF)  Attachment B: Biggs Cardosa Associates Contract (PDF) City of Palo Alto Public Works Department BAYLANDS BOARDWALK Feasibility Study Report Final March 2016 Attachment A BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 865 The Alameda (408) 296 5515 San Jose, CA 95126 3133 fax (408) 296 8114 City of Palo Alto Public Works Department BAYLANDS BOARDWALK Feasibility Study Report March 2016 ANTHONY P. NOTARO, PE TABLE OF CONTENTS Organization: The Feasibility Study is organized as follows: Chapter 1. Executive Summary Chapter 2. Introduction Chapter 3. Existing Structure and Constraints Chapter 4. Repair Options Chapter 5. Rehabilitation Options Chapter 6. Replacement Options Chapter 7. Recommendation/Conclusion Attachment A. Summary Plan of Structural Assessment Report Findings Attachment B. Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center Attachment C. Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation Attachment D. Baylands Boardwalk As)Built Structure Plans Attachment E. Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Cost 1 1 Chapter 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose: The Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Project has the following stated primary objectives: 1. Perform structural assessment of the existing boardwalk structure. 2. Determine how to best repair, rehabilitate and/or replace the existing boardwalk to meet functional, structural, environmental and code requirements for short'term and long'term improvements. 3. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near'term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long'term improvements. 4. Rehabilitation options will review the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long'term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. 5. Replacement options will review the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long'term use by the public. Structural Assessment: The existing boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. A detailed two'day structural inspection of the 850 foot long and 4 feet wide boardwalk was performed. Field notes, photographs and observations were collected and compiled into a summary report titled “Structural Evaluation of Baylands Boardwalk 2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303.” The overall condition of the boardwalk is structurally unsound. However, the condition of the structure varies over its length. In general, the southernmost portion of the boardwalk adjacent to the Nature Center, including the first overlook platform, is in fair to satisfactory condition. The majority of the more severe deterioration is concentrated in the segment of the boardwalk on either side of the PG&E lines and catwalk. The conditions of the remaining portions of the structure varied between poor and satisfactory condition. Feasibility Study: The Feasibility Study included a site inspection with City staff, review of available record documents, a public information meeting, a meeting with the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, and participation in an Interagency Coordination Meeting with various environmental/ regulatory agencies with jurisdiction on the project (USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, and BCDC). Chapter 3 – Existing Structure & Constraints of the report includes a detailed discussion of the structural assessment performed, existing environmental conditions, subsurface conditions, hydraulic conditions including sea level rise, and access and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) constraints of the project. Chapter 4 – Repair Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near'term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long'term improvements. Chapter 5 – Rehabilitation Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long'term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. Chapter 6 – Replacement Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long'term use by the public. The following table summarizes the structural feasibility of the Rehabilitation Options and Replacement Options. The Repair Option is not included in the table since City staff has completed minor repairs to the 200 feet segment between the Nature Center and first overlook platform of the boardwalk and reopened this portion of the boardwalk to the public based on the draft feasibility study recommendations. .    &U L W H U L D  5( + $ % , / , 7 $ 7 , 2 1  2 3 7 , 2 1 6  5( 3 / $ & ( 0 ( 1 7  2 3 7 , 2 1 6  5H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    5H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    5H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    5H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    6W U X F W X U H  7 \ S L F D O  6H F W L R Q  6X S H U V W U X F W X U H  7 \ S H  /R Q J L W X G L Q D O  7 L P E H U  ' H F N  3 O D Q N  0 D W F K  H [ L V W L Q J  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    /R Q J L W X G L Q D O  7 L P E H U  ' H F N  3 O D Q N  7U D Q V Y H U V H  7 L P E H U  ' H F N L Q J  R Q  / R Q J L W X G L Q D O  7 L P E H U  VW U L Q J H U V  6X E V W U X F W X U H  7 \ S H  7LP E H U  E H D P V  E H Q W  F D S V  V X S S R U W H G  R Q  W L P E H U  SLO H V  S R V W V  0 D W F K  H [ L V W L Q J   7LP E H U  E H D P V  V X S S R U W H G  R Q  V W H H O  V F U H Z  D Q F K R U V  OR F D W H G  R X W E R D U G  R I  W K H  E R D U G Z D O N  G H F N L Q J  W R  L P S U R Y H  GH V L J Q  O L I H   7LP E H U  E H D P V  V X S S R U W H G  R Q  V W H H O  V F U H Z  D Q F K R U V  R U  WLP E H U  S L O H V  S R V W V  O R F D W H G R X W E R D U G  R I  W K H  E R D U G Z D O N  GH F N L Q J  W R  L P S U R Y H  G H V L J Q  O L I H   6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    %R D U G Z D O N  : L G W K  DQ G  / H Q J W K   I H H W  Z L G H   [      I H H W  O R Q J  P D W F K  H [ L V W L Q J  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q     I H H W  Z L G H  D Q G      I H H W  O R Q J  D V V X P H G  V X E M H F W  W R  UH J X O D W R U \  D J H Q F \  D S S U R Y D O  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    &R Q V W U X F W D E L O L W \  8V H  H [ L V W L Q J  E R D U G Z D O N  D V  D  W H P S R U D U \  Z R U N  S O D W I R U P   3UR Y L G H  H T X L S P H Q W  D F F H V V  Y L D  W H P S R U D U \  P D U V K  P D W V  DU R X Q G  Q D W X U H  F H Q W H U   6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    8V H  H [ L V W L Q J  E R D U G Z D O N  D V  D  W H P S R U D U \  Z R U N  S O D W I R U P   3U R Y L G H  H T X L S P H Q W  D F F H V V  Y L D  W H P S R U D U \  P D U V K  P D W V  DUR X Q G  Q D W X U H  F H Q W H U   6OL J K W O \  L P S U R Y H G  F R Q V W U X F W D E L O L W \  R Y H U  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2S W L R Q    G X H  W R  V P D O O H U  G H F N  H O H P H Q W V  Z K L F K  D U H  H D V L H U  WR  W U D Q V S R U W   K D Q G O H  D Q G  U H S O D F H   (Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  &R P S O L D Q F H  3H U P L W V  D Q W L F L S D W H G  W R  E H  U H T X L U H G  I U R P   8 6 $ & (   5: 4 & %   & ' ) :   8 6 ) : 6   % & ' &  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    3H U P L W V  D Q W L F L S D W H G  W R  E H  U H T X L U H G  I U R P   8 6 $ & (   5: 4 & %   & ' ) :   8 6 ) : 6   % & ' &  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    *H R W H F K Q L F D O  ,V V X H V  0D W F K H V  H [ L V W L Q J  V W U X F W X U D O  V \ V W H P  W R  D F F R P P R G D W H  DQ W L F L S D W H G  O R Q J  W H U P  P D U V K  V H W W O H P H Q W  D Q G  F R U U R V L R Q  LV V X H V     )OH [ L E O H  V W U X F W X U D O  V \ V W H P  W R  D F F R P P R G D W H  D Q W L F L S D W H G  OR Q J  W H U P  P D U V K  V H W W O H P H Q W    3 U R S R V H G  V K D O O R Z  V W H H O  KH O L F D O  D Q F K R U  I R X Q G D W L R Q  V \ V W H P V  O R F D W H G  R X W E R D U G  R I  WK H  H [ L V W L Q J  E R D U G Z D O N  G H F N L Q J  I R U  Y H U W L F D O  V X S S R U W  D Q G  WR  L P S U R Y H  G H V L J Q  O L I H   )OH [ L E O H  V W U X F W X U D O  V \ V W H P  W R  D F F R P P R G D W H  D Q W L F L S D W H G  OR Q J  W H U P  P D U V K  V H W W O H P H Q W    3 U R S R V H G  V K D O O R Z  SLO H  D Q F K R U  I R X Q G D W L R Q  V \ V W H P V  L Q F O X G H   $OW     6 W H H O  + H O L F D O  6 F U H Z  $ Q F K R U V  $OW     7 L P E H U  3 L O H V  3 R V W V  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    +\ G U D X O L F  , V V X H V  0D W F K H V  H [ L V W L Q J  V W U X F W X U H  W \ S H  D Q G  F R Q I L J X U D W L R Q    & D Q  RQ O \  D F F R P P R G D W H  D  V P D O O  D G M X V W P H Q W  L Q  G H F N  HOH Y D W L R Q  W R  D F F R P P R G D W H  W K H  U H J X O D U  H E E  D Q G  I O R Z  RI  W K H  W L G H V  D Q G  V H D  O H Y H O  U L V H   0D W F K H V  H [ L V W L Q J  V W U X F W X U H  W \ S H  D Q G  F R Q I L J X U D W L R Q    & D Q  DF F R P P R G D W H  D  V O L J K W O \  K L J K H U  D G M X V W P H Q W  W K D Q  5H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    G X H  W R  W K H  R X W U L J J H U  V X S S R U W V  )OH [ L E O H  V W U X F W X U D O  V \ V W H P  W K D W  F D Q  E H  U D L V H G  R U  O R Z H U H G  DV  U H T X L U H G  W R  E H V W  D F F R P P R G D W H  W K H  U H J X O D U  H E E  D Q G  IOR Z  R I  W K H  W L G H V  D Q G  V H D  O H Y H O  U L V H    6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    $' $  & R P S O L D Q F H  2S W L R Q  Z L O O  P L W L J D W H  P D Q \   E X W  Q R W  D O O   $ ' $  & R P S O L D Q F H  ,V V X H V  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    'H V L J Q  Z L O O  D G G U H VV  D O O  D S S O L F D E O H  $ ' $  & R P S O L D Q F H  UH J X O D W L R Q V  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    $Q W L F L S D W H G  ' H V L J Q  /LI H    W R     < H D U V  O L N H O \  J R Y H U Q H G  E \  H [ L V W L Q J  H O H P H Q W V  W R  UH P D L Q  L Q  V H U Y L F H    W R     < H D U V  O L N H O \  J R Y H U Q H G  E \  H [ L V W L Q J  H O H P H Q W V  W R  UH P D L Q  L Q  V H U Y L F H    6 O L J K W O \  K L J K H U  W K D Q  2 S W L R Q    G X H  W R  PR Y L Q J  Y H U W L F D O  V X S S R U W V  R X W E R D U G  R I  W K H  H [ L V W L Q J  ER D U G Z D O N  D Q G  D Z D \  I U R P  W K H  H [ L V W L Q J  G U D L Q D J H  FK D Q Q H O  W K D W  K D V  I R U P H G  E H O R Z  W K H  H [ L V W L Q J  E R D U G Z D O N     W R     < H D U V  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    $Q W L F L S D W H G  'X U D W L R Q   W R    \ H D U V  ' H V L J Q  D Q G  3 H U P L W W L Q J   W R    \ H D U V  & R Q V W U X F W L R Q  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q     W R    \ H D U V  ' H V L J Q  D Q G  3 H U P L W W L Q J   W R    \ H D U V  & R Q V W U X F W L R Q  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    $Q W L F L S D W H G  &R Q V W U X F W L R Q  & R V W V          W R                     W R                     W R                     W R             $Q W L F L S D W H G  6 R I W  &R V W V          W R           ' H V L J Q               a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ( Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           & R Q V W   0 J P W     a     F R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ' H V L J Q               a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ( Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           & R Q V W   0 J P W     a     F R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ' H V L J Q               a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ( Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           & R Q V W   0 J P W     a     F R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ' H V L J Q               a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ( Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           & R Q V W   0 J P W     a     F R Q V W U X F W L R Q  1 3 Recommendation/Conclusion: In general, both rehabilitation options discussed in the table above, rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options presented in the table above and described in Chapter 6. In general, both replacement options discussed in the table above are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber beams utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct, maintain and lower in cost than Replacement Option 1. Replacement Option 1 more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported directly on timber beams). Permanent steel screw anchors or timber piles with treated timber elements are proposed for foundation of the proposed boardwalk. However, the repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have a negative effect on the long term life cycle of the structure. Therefore, the foundation system shall be further investigated during the design phase of the project. Based on current conditions, the existing boardwalk would be flooded by a 100'year storm event (1% annual chance of exceedance). Given projected sea level rise, by 2030 the entire existing boardwalk would be flooded by only a 10'year storm event. This is an indication that the City should consider raising the deck level of the replacement boardwalk to reduce future flooding occurrences. Determining an appropriate accommodation for sea level rise shall be a focal point of the design development during the Final Design phase of the project and will be a combination of design engineering, public opinion, environmental considerations, acceptable risk, and anticipated closure frequency. The proposed boardwalk would have a design life of 50'75 years. 2 1 Chapter 2 – INTRODUCTION Purpose and Vicinity Map Purpose: The existing Baylands Boardwalk structure at the Lucy Evans Nature Center (2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303) is currently closed to the public due to deterioration of the existing structure. The City of Palo Alto is considering repair, rehabilitation and/or replacement of the boardwalk structure to reinstate public access into the popular Baylands marshlands. The Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Project has the following stated primary objectives: 1. Perform structural assessment of the existing boardwalk structure. 2. Determine how to best repair, rehabilitate and/or replace the existing boardwalk to meet functional, structural, environmental and code requirements for short5term and long5term improvements. 3. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near5term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long5term improvements. 4. Rehabilitation options will review the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long5term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. 5. Replacement options will review the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long5term use by the public. Vicinity Map 3 1 Chapter 3 – Existing Structure and Constraints Existing Structure General Description: The Baylands has become one of the most important natural environments in the Bay Area. It is particularly rich in bird life boasting a large resident bird population as well as being a way point for many varieties of migratory birds. Over 150 species have been seen within the park boundaries. The Baylands not only attracts large numbers of birds, it also has many excellent spots for viewing them. Up until its recent closure, the Baylands Boardwalk was a favorite viewing location. The existing timber boardwalk structure extends roughly 850 feet north across the Harriet Mundy Marsh towards the San Francisco Bay from the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center and the San Francisquito Creek Trail. The existing boardwalk structure was constructed in 1969 and consisted of a 2’30” wide timber walkway (comprised of two 3x12x 203foot timber planks) with 3’36” high timber railings spaced 2’38” apart. The timber walkway was supported on timber bents spaced roughly 10’30” on center and comprised of timber 4x4 posts driven at roughly a 2½:12 batter into the wetland soil (length unknown) and reinforced with 1x4 timber cross bracing. At the south end, there was a small triangular entry platform at the connection to the nature center and at the northern end of the boardwalk by the bay, the boardwalk transitioned to a raised 103 foot by 183foot observation platform. The existing boardwalk structure was rehabilitated and widened by the City in 1980. Structure improvements included the following: ·The existing 850 foot boardwalk was widened to 4’30” wide by removing the existing timber railing and adding one additional 3x12x 203 foot timber plank on each side of the existing timber walkway supported by the existing timber substructure. New 3x10 fascia beams and 3’36” high timber railings with steel pickets at roughly 9” on center were also provided along the edge of the widened structure. 3 2 ·Two small intermediate overlooks roughly 3’30” by 10’30” were added approximately 2003feet from each end of the structure. Each overlook required the installation of two new vertical 4x4 posts driven into the existing wetlands soil (length unknown). The new posts were connected to the existing boardwalk substructure with a pair of new 2x6x 7’30” timber bent caps (which replace the existing 2x6x 4’30” timber bent caps on each side of the existing timber posts). A 3x12x 6’30” bench was provided at each overlook. Each overlook was sized to allow a 5’30” clearance to facilitate the turnaround of a wheelchair. ·At the north end, the existing observation platform was upgraded with new timber and steel railings similar to those installed along the length of the boardwalk. New 30’30” long steel pipe handrails were installed along the sloped boardwalk ramp leading up to the observation platform. ·At the south end, the existing boardwalk ramp was raised and lengthened by roughly 10 feet to provide an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp slope of 1:12. New steel pipe handrails were added. 3 3 Structural Assessment: The existing boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. The driven timber posts and supports have gradually decayed over the years and broken due to the elements and impacts from the corrosive tidal saltwater. The once level boardwalk is now undulating along its surface and listing noticeably to the east in several locations due to failed substructure elements. Per discussions with City Parks and Recreation personnel, the staff has had to make numerous repairs over the years to maintain service including but not necessarily limited to installation of new timber posts and strong backs, replacement of damaged members, patching of damaged members and removal of uneven boards and other tripping hazards (record drawings of repairs were not available). A detailed two3day structural inspection of the boardwalk was performed on June 30, 2015 and July 1, 2015. The structural assessment of the existing boardwalk was performed utilizing a pre3prepared inspection checklist which included general conditions as well as specific concerns developed during review of the available project data. Field notes, photographs and observations were collected and compiled into a summary report titled “Structural Evaluation of Baylands Boardwalk 2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303.” The structure was assigned a condition rating in conformance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards. Preliminary field observations by the other design disciplines (Geotechnical, Hydraulic, Environmental and Biological) occurred concurrently with the structural assessment on June 30, 2015. Field investigations were visual in nature and did not include material sampling or testing. The general findings of the structural assessment report are as follows (refer to Attachment A for a summary plan of the general findings from the referenced structural assessment report): ·Superstructure: Overall the members that make up the Superstructure (Deck) of the boardwalk are in SERIOUS CONDITION exhibiting heavy weathering. The timber member’s exhibit splits, missing sections and are disconnected in several locations from the substructure due to corrosion of nails and bolts. Steel members forming the railing exhibit corrosion. Existing timber ledger beams supporting the guardrailings were split for the length of the structure. In addition, the damage to the substructure members has led to settlement and rotation of large segments of the superstructure. ·Substructure: Overall the Substructure of the boardwalk and its members are in SERIOUS CONDITION exhibiting heavy weathering. The posts and braces exhibit reduced sections and broken members along with splits throughout the timber members of the boardwalk. Steel plates, bolts and nails exhibit corrosion throughout. ·Overall: The structure is overall in SERIOUS CONDITION with several posts and braces either broken or exhibiting reduced sections. The superstructure deck planks exhibit splits, missing sections and corroded or missing nails throughout the boardwalk. In addition, the steel plates and bolts that connect the structural members exhibit corrosion at several locations. Finally, the damage described above to posts and braces has led to large segments of the boardwalk to settle and rotate. More specifically, the condition of the structure varied over its length with some portions being in FAIR or SATISFACTORY condition while other portions were In CRITICAL or IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION. In general, the southernmost portion of the boardwalk adjacent to the Nature Center, including the first overlook platform, is in FAIR to SATISFACTORY condition (roughly Bents 60 to 87). The majority of the more severe deterioration, including broken and buckled posts, missing braces, severe section loss and significant warping and settlement of the boardwalk, is concentrated in the segment of the boardwalk on either side of the PG&E lines and catwalk (roughly Bents 33 to 59). The conditions of the remaining portions of the structure (roughly Bents 1 to 32) varied from bent to bent between POOR to SATISFACTORY CONDITION. Refer to Chapters 4, 5 & 6 respectively for a discussion of the various Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement options considered as part of this Feasibility Study Report. 3 4 Existing Site/Constraints EXISTING SITE: Palo Alto’s stewardship of the Baylands began in 1921 with the modest purchase of 40 acres. Today the Baylands encompasses 1,940 acres. The park includes some of the last remaining salt marsh/ mudflat habitats on the West Coast. Unlike other Bay Area marshes, the plants within the Baylands have a mixed plant distribution rather than distinct plant zones with pickleweed and cordgrass habitats interspersed with the mudflats. Bird watching is a favorite pastime within the park with a large migratory bird population in the spring and fall. The area immediately adjacent to the Baylands Boardwalk includes the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, the Harriet Mundy Marsh, the Duck Pond and San Francisco Bay. The Lucy Evans Nature Center hosts a variety of public and school education programs year round. The Nature Center will also undergo rehabilitation under a separate contract concurrently with the Baylands Boardwalk Project. A pair of PG&E overhead transmission lines runs roughly east to west across the marsh land. These lines are supported by a series of steel towers which dot the landscape. PG&E owns and maintains the lines and towers from a small dilapidated timber catwalk running below the lines to each tower. The catwalk intersects the Baylands Boardwalk roughly mid3length with access controlled by a pair of locked gates. The Baylands Boardwalk project will be required to maintain permanent access to the catwalk. Environmental Conditions: The project site represents an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) for its entire length through the marsh land. The area is known to be home to several endangered species including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and the Ridgeway’s Rail (formerly Clapper Rail). The environmental constraints and approval process will be a key driver in the feasibility design and ultimate construction of any planned repairs, rehabilitation and/or replacement of the boardwalk. It will be imperative that the structural design and environmental approval process be tightly integrated to avoid costly delays, constraints and mitigations to the project. Key biological drivers are summarized below: ·Ridgeway’s Rail: Suitable tidal marsh habitat for the Ridgeway’s Rail begins at the toe3of3slope adjacent to the Baylands Interpretive Center and extends to the observation platform at the terminus of the boardwalk. Thus, the entire Boardwalk Project is within the habitat for the Ridgeway’s Rail. Suitable breeding habitat for Ridgeway’s Rail generally needs to be avoided during the Ridgeway’s Rail breeding season from February 1 through August 31. If breeding Ridgeway’s Rails are determined to be present during these surveys, activities will be prohibited within 700 feet. This buffer requirement during the prolonged breeding season will pose a serious constraint to the available construction window. ·Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse: Suitable tidal marsh habitat for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse extends from the Baylands Interpretive Center to the observation platform at the terminus of the boardwalk. The harvest mouse is listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a “fully protected” species. Avoidance and minimization measures will be required to avoid killing or harming a harvest mouse during construction activities conducted in the pickleweed marsh. ·Nesting Swallows: The Baylands Interpretive Center supports a fairly large population of nesting swallows. The nesting season for these birds is generally March 15 to August 30, and CDFW requests a 300 foot setback during this period. 3 5 Based on the environmental and biological sensitivity of the site, regulatory permits will be required from multiple agencies, with the exact number dependent on the extent of the proposed rehabilitation or replacement construction activities. While the structural designs can be tailored to minimize direct impacts to the sensitive environment on the site, the construction operations for these two alternatives will still be environmentally significant enough to require permits from the agencies listed below: ·US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit ·Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification ·California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement ·US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 consultation ·San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit For the Repair Option, work could potentially be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures, provided the work is limited in nature and that the work can be performed without the need to have equipment or personnel physically in contact with the sensitive tidal marsh habitat (i.e. boots on ground). Therefore, any repair work would need to be designed to be constructed from the existing boardwalk structure with minimal noise, vibration or other impacts to the site biology. Refer to Chapters 4, 5 & 6 for additional discussion of the environmental coordination required for each alternative. Subsurface Conditions: The project site consists of marsh land overlaying medium stiff, highly compressible, highly plastic clays typically referred to as Bay Mud. The high compressibility of the Bay Muds results in a subsurface that is settling slowly under its own weight. This settlement is anticipated to continue for hundreds of years before equilibrium is reached. Ground water within the Baylands is typically present at shallow depths. Given the close proximity to the Bay, the surrounding water and soils are anticipated to be corrosive. The underlying Bay Muds have little capacity for supporting heavy loads. Therefore boardwalk foundations will either need to be designed as deep foundations that penetrate through the low strength Bay Muds or as shallow foundations supporting a flexible structure that can accommodate the anticipated long term and differential settlements at the site. Deep foundations are generally expensive to construct and require heavy equipment that is not compatible with the surrounding sensitive wetlands environment. Therefore, shallow foundations supporting a flexible structural system will be preferred to accommodate the long term settlement of the site. Lightweight materials should be considered for the boardwalk. Two primary foundation options have been proposed: ·Timber Piles: Shallow timber piles consisting of treated timber members (similar to existing configuration) that would be pushed and3or tapped into the soft bay soils utilizing relatively small motorized equipment (such as a Bobcat) that can be staged on the existing boardwalk. Over a period of time, the pushed/tapped timbers will “set” within the soils and gain additional strength suitable for supporting the anticipated loading over the life of the structure. ·Helical Screw Anchors: Helical steel anchors consist of steel shafts with helices, similar to a large screw that provides a foundation support for various types of structures. Helical screw anchors are often used when challenging soil conditions prohibit a traditional foundation system. Helical screw anchors can be installed with hand operated equipment (consisting primarily of a hand carried motor with a torque bar that can be braced against the existing foundations) that can be staged from the existing boardwalk. Helical anchors are “screwed” into the soil and do not generate spoils. They are also commonly used to correct and support existing foundations that have settled or failed. 3 6 One key driver in the selection of the foundation system is the corrosivity of the site. The repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have a negative effect on the long term life cycle of the structure. One key reason the existing boardwalk was closed to the public was the failure of the existing timber support system due to slow deterioration from the constant wetting/drying cycle prevalent in the salt water tidal marsh environment. Likewise, the tidal marsh environment has been harsh on the steel components of the boardwalk with existing steel brackets and railing showing signs of deterioration. Therefore, proper treatment and coating of the foundation elements will be a critical component in the final structure Type Selection. Biggs Cardosa Associates recommends that a Corrosion Specialist be included in the Design Team for the Final Design phase of the project. Hydraulic Conditions: The generally low and flat Baylands landscape is exposed to the regular ebb and flow of the Bay tides. Based on review of the Bay tide records at the Dumbarton Bridge and Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, the mean tides (long3term average of the astronomical tides) in general have a high of roughly 43feet above mean sea level and a low of roughly 3½ 3feet below mean sea level. The highest few tides in any year are also known as “king tides.” The water surface is also subject to the effects of storm surges and riverine discharges into San Francisco Bay and coupled with high tides can result in unusually high water. Per the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor tide data these storm events can be as high as 5.9 to 6.4 feet above mean sea level (El 9.50 NAVD for 10% annual chance of exceedance and 10.00 NAVD for 1% annual chance of exceedance respectively). In general, the existing mudflats at the site have established themselves just above the mean higher high tide and generally protect the structure from the most frequent tidal effects. However, due to shadowing effects of the boardwalk structure, vegetation doesn’t grow below the structure and a drainage channel has formed that channels tidal flows back and forth below the structure during the regular ebb and flow of the tides. This regular flow of water has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Per discussions with City of Palo Alto staff, the height of the water extends above the top of the deck of the structure (typically at sag points where the foundation system has failed in the past) during some high tide events. This is evident based on the level of water damage to the structure noted during the structural field evaluation. Additionally, the mean sea levels have been slowly rising due to greenhouse gas emissions, accelerated land ice melt patterns and other climate effect. Projected sea level rise affecting the Baylands Boardwalk project has been interpolated from the 2012 National Research Council Report, “Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past Present and Future” as adopted by the City and County of San Francisco for infrastructure planning. Anticipated sea level rise is on the order of 63inches (±2 inches) by 2030, 113inches (±4 inches) by 2050 and 363 inches (±10 inches) by 2100. Year Mean Sea Level (NAVD) 10.Year Storm SWL (NAVD) 100.Year Storm SWL (NAVD) 2000 3.58 9.50 10.00 2030 4.08 10.00 10.50 2050 4.50 10.42 10.92 2100 6.58 12.50 13.00 3 7 Based on an existing average boardwalk deck elevation ranging between 9.2 and 9.9 (NAVD) and an Interpretive Center Deck elevation of 13.0 (NAVD), the existing boardwalk would be flooded by a 1003 year storm event (1% annual chance of exceedance). Given projected sea level rise, by 2030 the entire existing boardwalk would be flooded by only a 103year storm event. This is an indication that the City should consider raising the deck level of the rehabilitated/replaced boardwalk to reduce future flooding occurrences. Determining an appropriate accommodation for sea level rise will be a focal point of the design development during the Final Design phase of the project and will be a combination of design engineering, public opinion, environmental considerations, acceptable risk, and anticipated closure frequency. Refer to Attachment B for “Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center” Access and ADA Constraints: The existing Baylands Boardwalk contains a variety of access compliance issues, several of them as a result of the original and widening designs, and a number of them stem from the structural issues described previously. The key access issues evaluated for the boardwalk include the following: ·Slopes: All slopes parallel with the path of travel shall either be flatter than 5% (Section 11B3403.3 of California Building Code (CBC), 2014) if no handrail is provided or flatter than 8.33% where handrails are provided (Section 1010.3 of CBC, 2014). Per the original design and widening plans the boardwalk was designed to be level for the majority of its length with a planned rise at the observation platform at the north end and a planned rise at the connection to the Nature Center at the southern end. At the north end, the roughly 1:10 existing slope exceeds the allowable ADA ramp slope of 1:12 and vertical ramp rises without an intermediate landing. At the south end, the roughly 3’38” vertical rise exceeds the allowable ramp rise without an intermediate landing. Additionally, with in the structurally failed portions of the boardwalk near the PG&E catwalk, the boardwalk slopes spike to as high as 21% which exceeds the code allowable slopes. ·Handrails: Handrails are required at all ramps (CBC Section 11B3505). The ramps at either end each contain an existing handrail, which are non3compliant. Although the existing handrails are continuous and unobstructed on their tops and sides (CBC 11B3505.5/6) and the circular cross section appears to meet code per CBC 11B3505.7.1, the rails are only roughly 26 inches above the ramp grade. Tops of handrails are required to be between 34 and 38 inches above grade (CBC 11B3 505.4). Additionally, each handrail must extend 1’30” minimum beyond the top and bottom of the ramp (CBC 505.10.1). The existing handrails do not extend beyond the top and bottom of the ramps. ·Guardrails: Guardrails are required wherever there is a vertical change of more than 30 inches between a walking surface and an adjacent surface (Section 1013.2). The boardwalk is elevated above the adjacent grade and is also located within a sensitive wetland habitat so a continuous guardrail is required. The existing guardrails are roughly 35 inches with roughly 9 inch wide openings between pickets. The code requires guardrails to be 42 inches (Section 1013.3) high and clear openings in the guardrails should not allow the passage of a 4 inch diameter sphere. ·Cross Slopes: The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not exceed a 1:48 (2%) gradient (Section 11B403.3). The cross slopes of the existing boardwalk where designed to be flat, however due to the structural issues, the structure has sagged and settled appreciably at locations producing existing cross slopes as high as 21%. ·Walking Surface: The walking surface of a pathway should be consistent and even. There should not be openings that allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch (Section 11B3302.3) and vertical changes in elevation should not exceed 1/4 inch (without an edge treatment) or 1/2 inch (with a bevel). Due to wear and tear and structural settlement and shifting of the structure, the existing deck planks often exceed the code minimums. 3 8 ·Passing Spaces: The existing 48 inch boardwalk width meets the code required minimum accessible width of 36 inches (Section 11B3403.5.1). However, an accessible route with a clear width of less than 60 inches requires passing spaces at intervals of not greater than 200 feet (Section 11B3403.5.3). Although there are two such passing spaces provided at the overlook platforms, the passing spaces are located at intervals too far apart to meet code. ·Resting Areas: The boardwalk is required to have resting areas at least 60 inches in length, with a width at least as wide as the walk, at intervals no more than 400’ apart (Section 11B3403.7). The existing boardwalk does contain these required resting areas. Refer to Attachment C for “Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation” ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT: “The Baylands Nature Preserve is a distinctive landscape notable for openness and subtlety. Because of the shallow soils, brackish water, and persistent winds, the landscape is flat and treeless, defined by the expansive horizon— a big sky, flat water, and waving grasses. The natural color palette is a study in muted tones. This simple, serene landscape is a dramatic contrast, and a welcome respite, from the more complicated landscapes found in the Peninsula: bustling cities, rolling hills, and restless beaches.” 3 SITE ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The project will endeavor to maintain a low unobtrusive profile while accommodating for the high tides and providing for projected sea level rise. Project aesthetics will be guided by the principles found in the Design Guidelines including the use of “muted, natural colors” and “materials and finishes that will weather without degrading.” 4 1 Chapter 4 – REPAIR OPTIONS Repair Option Descriptions General: It is our understanding that there is strong public desire to reopen the structure as soon as practical. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near term reopening of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long term improvements. Repair Option 1: General: Repair work could potentially be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures, provided the work is limited in nature and that the work can be performed without the need to have equipment or personnel physically in contact with the sensitive tidal marsh habitat (i.e. boots on ground). Therefore, any repair work would need to be designed to be constructed from the existing boardwalk structure with minimal noise, vibration or other impacts to the site’s biological resources. Therefore, the amount of work that can be accomplished to restore temporary limited use of the boardwalk while final designs (Rehabilitation or Replacement) are completed is very limited. Structure Repair: For Repair Option 1, we have limited the proposed repairs to occur only within the segment between the Nature Center and the first overlook platform (Bents 69 to 87) where the existing damage/deterioration is manageable. The existing damage beyond this point is too extensive to reasonably construct without environmental permits. The proposed repairs will be limited to the following: ·Repair Damaged Posts: Existing damaged timber posts with the potential to fail prior to ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the boardwalk will be strengthened. “Sister” members or strong backs will be provided to strengthen existing deteriorated areas. Effected bents include Bent 69, 70, 71 and 72. ·Replace Missing Braces: Missing timber cross braces will be replaced. Effected bents include Bent 75, 77, and 84. ·Replace Damaged Braces: Existing damaged timber cross braces with the potential to fail prior to ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the boardwalk will be replaced in kind. Effected bents include Bent 69, 70, 71 and 86. ·Replace Damaged Deck Planks: Existing damaged and misaligned timber deck planks will be replaced as needed to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. The affected planks will be swapped with better quality existing planks from the portion of the structure to remain closed to the public. 4 2 ·Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements requiring repair. Once repairs are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced as noted above. Site Constraints: The repair of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic and ADA compliance issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: With a little creativity, the work between Bents 69 and 87 described above, can be performed by the Contractor from the existing boardwalk structure only. This option presumes that the ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the structure will occur within 1 to 2 years of the completed repair work such that anticipated additional deterioration of structural elements not proposed for repair will not significantly degrade the integrity of the structure. The proposed repairs are limited in nature and scope and the size of the tools, equipment and materials required can all be hand carried. Access for the repair work will occur along the outside decking of the existing Nature Interpretive Center. Access inside the nature Interpretive Center will not be required. ·Environmental Compliance: Since the work is proposed to be performed from the existing boardwalk structure without the need for Contractor staff or equipment to be physically staged on the marshland surface, the limited repairs recommended for Repair Option 1 could be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures without the need for new permits. ·Geotechnical Issues: There will be no change to the existing conditions. ·Hydraulic Issues: There will be no change to the existing conditions. The repaired structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions. The repaired structure will experience the same frequency of overtopping of the low lying portions of the boardwalk; since these areas are not typically open to the public, the impacts are expected to be negligible. The repairs will not address sea level rise, however, since the repairs are anticipated to be a short term solution to allow public access during the design of the rehabilitation or replacement structure, the potential impacts are negligible. ·ADA Compliance: This option does not address the majority of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 2, and simply restores the existing structure to safe temporary public use (in its current configuration). The one noted upgrade would be that during the removal and resetting of the existing timber deck planks, the timber planks can be adjusted and realigned such that the walking surface is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 2. The existing slopes, handrail, guardrail, cross slope, passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 2 would not be addressed until the ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the structure. ·Design Life: Design life of the repair is limited to only 3 to 5 years and is intended to extend the life of the existing structure sufficiently to complete the design and construction of either the full rehabilitation or replacement options. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $30,000 to $40,000 or roughly $40 to $51 per square foot of repaired structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 20% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 30% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: materials selection, finishes, construction work windows, construction access, supplemental repairs, small size of project, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the repaired boardwalk structure only. Other non structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. 4 3 Repair Option 2: General: The alternative to Repair Option 1 is to do nothing and keep the boardwalk closed until it can be fully rehabilitated (see Chapter 4) or replaced (see Chapter 5). Given the significant anticipated cost and environmental clearance and permitting efforts to perform boardwalk repairs beyond what was outlined in Repair Option 1, the leading alternative to Option 1 is to stay the course and leave the boardwalk closed until the rehabilitation or replacement design can be completed and approved by the various environmental agencies. 5 1 Chapter 5 – REHABILITATION OPTIONS Rehabilitation Option Descriptions General: As noted in Chapter 3, the existing structure is in overall SERIOUS CONDITION with a variety of structural damage and deterioration throughout which requires correction. The rehabilitation work is anticipated to be labor intensive and have a design life less than that of the replacement option. Additionally, the existing boardwalk does not meet current Access and ADA requirements throughout its length. Depending on the desires of the City, the rehabilitation option can address all, some or none of the existing ADA issues with their associated risks/liabilities to the City. At a minimum, new railings are anticipated to be provided. Boardwalk walkway width will remain 4’,0”. Correcting the structural and ADA issues will represent the lion’s share of the rehabilitation costs and complexity. The Rehabilitation Options are also likely to have greater maintenance requirements than the Replacement Option. Also, the City may elect to raise the walking surface of the existing boardwalk to accommodate for King Tides and projected sea level rise further complicating the structure rehabilitation design and increasing project costs. Lastly, all proposed rehabilitations will need to be acceptable to the various regulatory agencies involved. Rehabilitation Option 1: General: This option essentially reconstructs the existing boardwalk in its existing configuration and alignment. Rehabilitation Option 1 utilizes temporary screw anchors to temporarily support the structure while failed timber posts are replaced. The structure will be leveled and plumbed during this process to provide a consistent and even walkway within the parameters described in Chapter 3. Structure Rehabilitation: The proposed structure rehabilitations will include the following: ·Temporary Supports: Temporary screw anchors, coupled with a temporary jacking beam, will be installed near the center of the existing structure at each bent to provide a jacking platform to temporarily support the existing structure while the substructure is reinforced and rehabilitated. The temporary screw anchors will also be used to level and plumb each bent to provide a consistent and even walkway surface. ·Install New Posts: A large percentage of the existing posts are either broken, buckled or have severe section loss. These posts will be reinforced with a new “sister” post that is pushed/driven into place adjacent to the existing post. The new and existing posts will be connected to act in unison to support the rehabilitated structure. ·Repair Existing Posts: Roughly 25% of the Bents have at least one post that is either split or notched. These posts will be rehabilitated with either a stich plate or strong back as applicable. ·Replace Missing and Damaged Braces: Missing timber cross braces will be replaced. Additionally, both existing braces at locations where new posts are installed will be replaced to improve the lateral support of the rehabilitated substructure. Existing damaged timber cross braces will be replaced in kind. 5 2 ·Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements being rehabilitated. Once the substructure rehabilitations are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced. ·Remove and Replace Guardrailing: In order to meet ADA safety requirements, the existing guardrailing and edger beams will be replaced with taller railings with tighter pickets which meet the requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Raising the structure using this system is feasible but will be labor intensive and expensive. If the structure is to be raised beyond the few inches required to level and align the structure, then every bent will need to be retrofitted. For a minor increase in structure elevation, a new deeper timber cap beam could be installed to provide a few additional inches in structure height. For more significant changes in elevation, new posts would need to be installed at all bents (not just at select bents) along with new timber cap beams and cross bracing as required. Site Constraints: The rehabilitation of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk rehabilitation. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. ·Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. ·Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the timber posts and temporary screw anchors. Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program. ·Hydraulic Issues: There will be no significant change to the existing conditions. The rehabilitated structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions. The rehabilitated structure will restore the existing low lying portions of the boardwalk such that the frequency of overtopping the boardwalk deck should be reduced considerably. The rehabilitated structure does not address sea level rise, therefore there is a potential for the frequency of overtopping to increase in the future with the change in sea level elevation. With significant effort and cost, the existing structure could also be raised as part of the structure rehabilitation to address future sea level rise. 5 3 ·ADA Compliance: This option addresses some, but not all, of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. Jacking and realigning of the structure with the temporary supports will eliminate the slope and cross slope issues caused by the previous structural failures. It will also accommodate adjustment and realignment of the walking surface such that it is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 3. The existing guardrails and handrails will be replaced to meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 3. The existing passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 3 would not be addressed in the baseline rehabilitation option. Suitable passing spaces and rest areas could be retrofitted into the rehabilitated structure for additional cost if desired by the City. ·Design Life: Design life of the rehabilitated structure is anticipated to be on the order of 25 to 50 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. Maintenance requirements for the rehabilitated structure are anticipated to be roughly equivalent to that of the existing structure since many of the existing components will remain as part of the rehabilitated structure. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $860,000 to $1,030,000 or roughly $210 to $252 per square foot of rehabilitated structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 20% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, inclusion of passing zones, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the rehabilitated boardwalk structure only. Other non,structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $214,000 to $257,000 Design (~25%) $129,000 to $154,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $171,000 to $205,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Rehabilitation Option 2: General: This option reconstructs the existing boardwalk in its existing configuration and alignment and provides a new vertical support system outboard of the existing walkway. New permanent screw anchors are used to provide the permanent structural support while the existing timber posts and rehabilitated cross bracing provide lateral restraint. The structure will be leveled and plumbed during this process to provide a consistent and even walkway within the parameters described in Chapter 3. 5 4 Structure Rehabilitation: The proposed structure rehabilitations will include the following: ·Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. The permanent screw anchors will also be used to level and plumb each bent to provide a consistent and even walkway surface. ·Install New Cap Beam: Remove the existing timber cap beam and install a new timber cap beam. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. ·Repair Existing Bents: The existing timber bents will provide lateral resistance for the rehabilitated structure. Timber posts and braces will be rehabilitated or replaced. Roughly 25% of the Bents have at least one timber post that is either split or notched. These posts will be rehabilitated with either a stich plate or strong back as applicable. Roughly 50% of the Bents have at least one timber post that is either broken, buckled or has severe section loss. At these bents the existing timber bent will be abandoned and a new inclined steel screw anchor brace will be installed to provide the necessary lateral resistance. The existing timber braces will be removed and replaced in kind with new braces at each of the timber bents to remain (roughly 50%). ·Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements being rehabilitated. Once the substructure rehabilitations are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced. ·Remove and Replace Guardrailing: In order to meet ADA safety requirements, the existing guardrailing and edger beams will be replaced with taller railings with tighter pickets which meet the requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Raising the structure using this system is feasible but will be labor intensive and expensive. If the structure is to be raised beyond the few inches required to level and align the structure then the existing timber substructure system will be abandoned at each bent. An inclined screw anchor will be required at each bent to provide lateral stability (formerly provided by the timber substructure). Site Constraints: The rehabilitation of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing 5 5 structure to minimize environmental impacts and aid in the permitting process. Timber piles could be installed in lieu of the screw anchors if desired for aesthetic reasons. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk rehabilitation. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. ·Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. ·Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the timber posts and temporary screw anchors. Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program. ·Hydraulic Issues: While the rehabilitated structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The rehabilitated structure does not address sea level rise, therefore there is a potential for the frequency of overtopping to increase in the future with the change in sea level elevation. With additional effort and cost, the existing structure could also be raised as part of the structure rehabilitation to address future sea level rise. ·ADA Compliance: This option address some, but not all, of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. Leveling and realigning of the structure with the outboard screw anchors will eliminate the slope and cross slope issues caused by the previous structural failures. It will also accommodate adjustment and realignment of the walking surface such that it is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 3. The existing guardrails and handrails will be replaced to meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 3. The existing passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 3 would not be addressed in the baseline rehabilitation option. Suitable passing spaces and rest areas could be retrofitted into the rehabilitated structure for additional cost if desired by the City. ·Design Life: Design life of the rehabilitated structure is anticipated to be on the order of 30 to 60 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. Maintenance requirements for the rehabilitated structure are anticipated to be slightly less than that of the existing structure since the vertical supports have been shifted outboard of the existing drainage channel located below the structure, thereby reducing the frequency of wetting and drying and anticipated erosion. 5 6 Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $870,000 to $1,050,000 or roughly $214 to $256 per square foot of rehabilitated structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 20% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, inclusion of passing zones, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the rehabilitated boardwalk structure only. Other non,structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Based on Caltrans estimating guidelines and practices, soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $218,000 to $261,000 Design (~25%) $131,000 to $157,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $174,000 to $209,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Summary: In general, both rehabilitation concepts discussed above rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation to minimize flooding and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options noted in Chapter 6. Criteria Rehabilitation Option 1 Rehabilitation Option 2 Superstructure Type Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank (Match existing) Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank (Match Existing) Substructure Type Timber bent caps supported on timber piles/posts (Match existing). Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Boardwalk Width 4’,0” (match existing) 4’,0” (match existing) Constructability Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Environmental Compliance Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Geotechnical Issues Matches existing structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement and corrosion issues. Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow steel helical anchor foundation systems 5 7 located outboard of the existing boardwalk decking for vertical support and to improve design life. Hydraulic Issues Matches existing structure type and configuration. Can only accommodate a small adjustment in deck elevation to accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. Matches existing structure type and configuration. Can only accommodate a modest adjustment in deck elevation to accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. ADA Compliance Option will mitigate many, but not all, ADA Compliance Issues Option will mitigate many, but not all, ADA Compliance Issues Anticipated Design Life 25 to 50 Years (likely governed by existing elements to remain in service) 30 to 60 Years (likely governed by existing elements to remain in service). Slightly higher than Option 1 due to moving vertical supports outboard of the existing boardwalk and away from the existing drainage channel that has formed below the existing boardwalk. Anticipated Duration 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) Anticipated Construction Costs $860,000 to $1,030,000 $870,000 to $1,050,000 Anticipated Soft Costs $214,000 to $257,000 Design (~25% Construction) $129,000 to $154,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $171,000 to $205,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $218,000 to $261,000 Design (~25% Construction) $131,000 to $157,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $174,000 to $209,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) 6 1 Chapter 6 – REPLACEMENT OPTIONS Replacement Option Descriptions General: As noted in Chapter 3, the existing structure is in overall SERIOUS CONDITION with a variety of structural damage and deterioration throughout which requires correction. The replacement work is anticipated to provide the following benefits to the City: ·Most flexible structural system. While the structure will be limited to being replaced along the same alignment as the existing structure, the replacement structure will not be constrained to the existing span lengths, width or structural system as the existing structure. ·Corrects ADA compliance issues. The replacement structure can be readily designed to address all existing access and ADA compliance issues. ·Accommodates sea level rise. The profile of the replacement structure can be set to accommodate king tides and projected sea level rise. ·Minimize environmental impacts. The replacement structure can be designed to utilize the existing structure as a working platform for the boardwalk replacement minimizing impacts to the marshland. ·Increased design life and reduced maintenance costs. Utilizing all new components and thoughtful selection of materials and finishes will lead to a longer design life and reduced maintenance costs over the duration of that design life. Replacement Option 1: General: This option replaces the existing boardwalk along its existing alignment. The structure is proposed to be widened by 1’00” to provide a total clear walkway width of 5’00”. Permanent steel screw anchors are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint of the structure. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. The decking is proposed to consist of longitudinal timber planks similar to the existing system. Structure Replacement: The proposed structure replacement will include the following: ·Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Inclined steel screw anchor braces will be installed to provide the necessary lateral stiffness to the system. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. Ultimately the final selection of the substructure system will depend on the corrosivity of the soils, the ability to effectively protect the steel or timber elements and the acceptability of the corrosion protection measures by the regulatory agencies. 6 2 ·Install New Cap Beam: Install a new timber cap beam to span between the new supports. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. ·Install Deck Planks: Install new longitudinal timber deck planks to span between the adjacent bents. Transverse ribbing/stiffeners will be provided in each span to tie the deck planks together so that the system deflects uniformly to maintain a consistent and even walking surface. ·Install Guardrailing: Install new timber and steel guardrailing that meets the ADA safety requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Site Constraints: The replacement of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk replacement. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. ·Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. ·Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the screw anchors (or timber posts). Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program to ensure appropriate corrosion protection is provided. ·Hydraulic Issues: While the replacement structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The replacement structure profile will be set to accommodate sea level rise. ·ADA Compliance: This option will address all of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. The new structure will be constructed so that the slope, cross slope and walking surface requirements are met. The widening of the structure to 5’00” will eliminate the need to provide passing spaces at 200 foot intervals. Resting areas will be provided at intervals of less than 400 feet. ADA appropriate guardrails and handrails will be provided. 6 3 ·Design Life: Design life of the replacement structure is anticipated to be on the order of 50 to 75 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. The maintenance requirements for the replacement structure are anticipated to be reduced from that of the existing structure (and Rehabilitation Options) since all the boardwalk elements will consist of new materials constructed to current standards. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $910,000 to $1,140,000 or roughly $183 to $229 per square foot of replacement structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 25% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, final boardwalk width, inclusion of passing zones, final observation platform/overlook size, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include removal of the existing boardwalk and structural items of work for the new boardwalk structure only. Other non0structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $227,000 to $284,000 Design (~25%) $137,000 to $171,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $182,000 to $227,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Replacement Option 2: General: This option replaces the existing boardwalk along its existing alignment. The structure is proposed to be widened by 1’00” to provide a total clear walkway width of 5’00”. Permanent steel screw anchors are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint of the structure. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. The superstructure is proposed to consist of longitudinal stringers between bents with transverse timber decking. Structure Replacement: The proposed structure replacement will include the following: ·Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The 6 4 outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Inclined steel screw anchor braces will be installed to provide the necessary lateral stiffness to the system. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. Ultimately the final selection of the substructure system will depend on the corrosivity of the soils, the ability to effectively protect the steel or timber elements and the acceptability of the corrosion protection measures by the regulatory agencies. ·Install New Cap Beam: Install a new timber cap beam to span between the new supports. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. ·Install Timber Superstructure: Install new longitudinal timber stringers to span between the adjacent bents. The stringers will be capped with transverse timber decking to provide the walking surface. Since the timber decking has a much shorter span length, thinner members can be used. Also since the members are smaller than that required for longitudinal planks, a variety of timber species are available for use including engineered plastic lumber alternatives. ·Install Guardrailing: Install new timber and steel guardrailing that meets the ADA safety requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Site Constraints: The replacement of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk replacement. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. ·Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. ·Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the screw anchors (or timber posts). Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program to ensure appropriate corrosion protection is provided. ·Hydraulic Issues: While the replacement structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the 6 5 existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The replacement structure profile will be set to accommodate sea level rise. ·ADA Compliance: This option will address all of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. The new structure will be constructed so that the slope, cross slope and walking surface requirements are met. The widening of the structure to 5’00” will eliminate the need to provide passing spaces at 200 foot intervals. Resting areas will be provided at intervals of less than 400 feet. ADA appropriate guardrails and handrails will be provided. ·Design Life: Design life of the replacement structure is anticipated to be on the order of 50 to 75 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. The maintenance requirements for the replacement structure are anticipated to be reduced from that of the existing structure (and Rehabilitation Options) since all the boardwalk elements will consist of new materials constructed to current standards. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $890,000 to $1,110,000 or roughly $180 to $224 per square foot of replacement structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 25% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, final boardwalk width, inclusion of passing zones, final observation platform/overlook size, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include removal of the existing boardwalk and structural items of work for the new boardwalk structure only. Other non0structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $223,000 to $279,000 Design (~25%) $134,000 to $167,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $179,000 to $223,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Replacement Option 3: General: A third replacement concept was reviewed based on interest from the public during the public meeting held for the project at the Lucy Evans Nature Center on September 30, 2015. This option proposed to replace the existing boardwalk structure with a floating boardwalk that could rise and fall with the ebb and flow of the tide during high tide events. The primary benefits would be the ability to keep the structure open during all but the worst storm events. However, ultimately this concept was abandoned due to significant ADA compliance challenges associated with a segmented, flexible, moving structure as well as potentially significant objections from the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction on the project. 6 6 Summary: In general, both Replacement Options 1 and 2 are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber bent caps, utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct and slightly lower in cost than Replacement Option 1, which more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber bent caps). Based on the findings of the Feasibility Study both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Criteria Replacement Option 1 Replacement Option 2 Superstructure Type Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank Transverse Timber Decking on Longitudinal Timber stringers Substructure Type Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors or timber piles/posts located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors or timber piles/posts located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Boardwalk Width 5’00” assumed (subject to regulatory agency approval) 5’00” assumed (subject to regulatory agency approval) Constructability Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Environmental Compliance Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Geotechnical Issues Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow pile/anchor foundation systems include: Alt 1: Steel Helical Screw Anchors Alt 2: Timber Piles/Posts Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow pile/anchor foundation systems include: Alt 1: Steel Helical Screw Anchors Alt 2: Timber Piles/Posts Hydraulic Issues Flexible structural system that can be raised or lowered as required to best accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. Flexible structural system that can be raised or lowered as required to best accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. ADA Compliance Design will address all applicable ADA Compliance regulations Design will address all applicable ADA Compliance regulations Anticipated Design Life 50 to 75 Years 50 to 75 Years Anticipated Duration 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) Anticipated Construction Costs $910,000 to $1,140,000 $890,000 to $1,110,000 Anticipated Soft Costs $227,000 to $284,000 Design (~25% Construction) $137,000 to $171,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $182,000 to $227,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $223,000 to $279,000 Design (~25% Construction) $134,000 to $167,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $179,000 to $223,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) 7 1 Chapter 7 – CONCLUSIONS Short Term Repair: Prior to completion of the final Feasibility Study, the City completed maintenance repairs sufficient to reopen a portion of the structure (roughly 200 feet between the existing Nature center and the first overlook platform) based on the recommendations contained in the draft Feasibility Study Report. Long Term Rehabilitation/ Replacement: In general, both rehabilitation concepts discussed in Chapter 5 rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and width and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options noted in Chapter 6. In general, both replacement concepts discussed are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Both replacement options have flexible structural systems which can be refined during final design to accommodate adjustments to the boardwalk, elevation, width, and anticipated long term settlement of the site. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber bent caps, utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct, maintain, and will be lower in cost than Replacement Option 1, which more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber bent caps). Attachment A. Summary Plan of Structural Assessment Report Findings (2”x1’-8”)(7”x5’-0”)(2”x6”)(3”x1’-8”)(settlement along East side of boardwalk) (settlement along East side of boardwalk)(6”x4’-0”)(3”x1’-8”) (3”x2’-0”) (1’-1”x1’-6”)E LEGEND: I) SUBSTRUCTURE DAMAGE GIRDERS: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES POSTS: BROKEN/BUCKLED POSTS: REDUCED CROSS-SECTION (SECTION LOSS) POSTS: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES BRACES: MISSING/BROKEN BRACES: REDUCED CROSS-SECTION (SECTION LOSS)/DISCONNECTED BRACES: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES HARDWARE CONNECTIONS:CORROSION OF STEEL CONNECTION PLATES/BOLTS/NAILS II) SUPERSTRUCTURE (DECK) DAMAGE DAMAGE OBSERVED THROUGHOUT SUPERSTRUCTURE: ƒGAPS BETWEEN DECK PLANKS EXCEEDING 1” ƒUNEVEN DECK PLANKS CREATING TRIPPING HAZARDS ƒNAILS CONNECTING DECK PLANKS TO BOARDWALK SUBSTRUCTURE EXHIBITING CORROSION ƒSTEEL RAILING PICKETS EXHIBITING CORROSION ƒBROKEN 3X10 FASCIA BEAMS AT BASE OF RAILING DUE TO CORRODED STEEL RAILING PICKETS ƒDECK PLANKS EXHIBIT DISCOLORATION AND SURFACE CRACKS DUE TO WATER DAMAGE ƒTOP OF RAILING OUT OF ALIGNMENT VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALY THROUGHOUT LENGTH OF STRUCTURE LOCALIZED DAMAGE: SETTLEMENT AND WARPING OF BOARDWALK STRUCTURE SETTLEMENT OF BOARDWALK STRUCTURE SECTIONS OF DECK PLANKS MISSING LOOSE DECK PLANKS DUE TO CORRODED NAILS GAPS BETWEEN EDGE DECK PLANKS AND RAILING EXCEEDING 3” SPLITS THROUGHOUT LENGTH OF DECK PLANKS VEGETATION PARTIALLY COVERING BOARDWALK C B A1 F E D TYPICAL BOARDWALK CROSS-SECTION (E) BOLTS (E) 1X4 BRACE 4’-0” +/- 3’- 6 ” + / - VA R I E S (E) 3X6 (E) 2” O PIPE (E) 3X12 PLANKS (E) 3X10 FASCIA (E) PLATE CONNECTION PL’s (E) 2-2X6 GIRDER (E) 4X4 POST (E) NAILSTOP OF GRADE (VARIES) E B B C C F E C E C C C C C CE E E E E EDBBBBBB A2 A2A1A1 11 Attachment B. Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center Schaaf & Wheeler Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Notaro, P.E. Biggs Cardosa DATE: July 7, 2015 FROM: Charles D. Anderson, P.E. JOB#: BCAX.35.15 SUBJECT: Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center This memorandum documents our research into tidal hydrology at the City of Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center. The City plans to repair, rehabilitate and/or replace a boardwalk and observation platform at the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. Site Location and Exposure to Tides The Baylands Nature Interpretive Center is located at the end of Embarcadero Road off the San Francisquito Creek Trail, as depicted in Figure 1. This area is part of the San Francisco Bay’s marsh land and as such, is directly exposed to inundation from Bay tides. Based on calculations for the relative celestial positions of the sun, moon and earth, it is possible to predict tides for any day of the year at any time of day. Astronomic tides, created by the gravitational forces of the moon and sun acting on earth’s oceans, are provided in tide prediction calendars. The mean tide cycle is simply the long-term average of astronomic tides. Observed tides, on the other hand, are the actual recorded tidal elevations and include the effects of tides, storm surges and riverine discharges into San Francisco Bay. The highest few tides in any year are also known as “king tides,” but there is no scientific basis for these. 1171 Homestead Road., Suite 255 Santa Clara, CA 95050-5485 t. 408-246-4848 f. 408-246-5624 s&w@swsv.com Figure 1. Site Location Relative to Open San Francisco Bay Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 2 Tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Fortunately the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a tide gage at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, immediately adjacent to the Baylands Interpretive Center. Tides of interest at the Yacht Harbor are indicated in Table 1 and Figure 2 for consideration in the challenges faced when planning and designing improvements in the Baylands Center. (Note that tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor are slightly higher than commensurate tides at Dumbarton Bridge, when adjusted for local datums.) Table 1. Tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Tide1 Elevation (feet MLLW) Elevation (feet NAVD) One-percent chance2 (100-year) TWL 12.19 12.00 One-percent chance2 (100-year) SWL 10.19 10.00 Ten-percent chance3 (10-year) SWL 9.69 9.50 Mean Higher High (MHHW) 7.61 7.42 Mean High (MHW) 6.99 6.80 Mean Sea Level (MSL) 3.77 3.58 Mean Low (MLW) 0.77 0.58 Mean Lower Low (MLLW) 0.00 -0.19 1. Tide levels described subsequently. Epoch data collected from NOAA website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/diagram.jsp?PID=HT1274&EPOCH=1983-2001 2. Preliminary FEMA Coastal Hazard Map for Santa Clara County (2015) 3. USACE San Francisco Bay Tidal Stage vs. Frequency Study (1984); adjusted per reference (2) Figure 2. Tidal Datum at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 3 Depth of Tidal Inundation The elevations of mean tides and extreme event tides listed in Table 2 can be related to the site as depths, by subtracting ground elevations. Based on the USGS San Francisco Coastal LiDAR data set (2010), average ground elevations at the site are roughly 7.8 feet NAVD, the average boardwalk elevation ranges from 9.2 feet NAVD to 9.9 feet NAVD and both the interpretive center building deck and observation deck elevations are roughly 13 feet NAVD. Figure 3 shows a raster image of the LiDAR data for the mud flats in the vicinity of the Baylands boardwalk. Figure 3. Rastor Image of LiDAR Data near Baylands Interpretive Center Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 4 Tide elevations from Table 1 are converted to depths above the mudflat in Table 2, using the data processed from Figure 3. Once the difference in elevation between the boardwalk in its existing condition and the mudflat are known from the recent field reconnaissance, the potential for inundation under various tides can be calculated at locations of interest. For the most part, the tidal mudflat has established itself just above the mean higher high tide (given the accuracy of the LiDAR data), which makes geomorphologic sense. The different tides are defined below. Table 2. Tidal Inundation of Mudflat near Baylands Interpretive Center Tide Elevation (feet NAVD) Depth (feet) One-percent chance (100-year) SWL 10.00 2.2 Ten-percent chance (10-year) SWL 9.50 1.7 Mean Higher High (MHHW) 7.42 no inundation Mean High (MHW) 6.80 no inundation Mean Sea Level (MSL) 3.58 no inundation Mean Low (MLW) 0.58 no inundation Mean Lower Low (MLLW) -0.19 no inundation Definition of Tides The following definitions of tides are frequently used: 100-year One percent annual chance of being equaled or exceeded. 10-year Ten percent annual chance of being equaled or exceeded. Total Water Level (TWL) Water surface elevation at any instant including local variation due to waves and wave set-up and including the effects of tides, storm surges and long period seiches. Stillwater Level (SWL) Water surface elevation at any instant, excluding local variation due to waves and wave set-up, but including the effects of tides, storm surges and long period seiches. Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) The arithmetic average of the elevations of the highest daily tide over a specific 19-year period. Mean High Water (MHW) The average elevation of all high tides over the 19-year period. Mean Sea Level (MSL) The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over the 19-year period, determined from hourly readings. Mean Low Water (MLW) The average height of all low waters over the 19-year period. Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) The arithmetic average of the elevations of the lowest daily tide over a specific 19-year period. Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 5 Inundation of Boardwalk Based on record drawings from 1969, the elevation of the boardwalk was originally 7.9 feet NGVD (presumed datum). This converts to 10.6 feet NAVD. Based on the LiDAR data it appears the boardwalk has settled by about a foot for most of its length. As evidenced by Figure 4, the boardwalk has not uniformly settled, however. According to the same record drawings, the observation platform was originally established at elevation 10.9 feet NGVD, or 12.6 feet NAVD, which is above the 100-year tide level. Unfortunately there is no record elevation for the interpretive center deck. Future Sea Level Rise Table 3 presents sea level rise projections from the 2012 National Research Council Report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future as adopted by the City and County of San Francisco for infrastructure planning. The projections (for example, 36 ± 10 inches in 2100) represent the likely sea level rise values based on a moderate level of greenhouse gas emissions and extrapolation of continued accelerating land ice melt patterns, plus or minus one standard deviation. The extreme limits of the ranges (for example, 17 and 66 inches for 2100) represent unlikely but possible levels of sea level rise using both very low and very high emissions scenarios and, at the high end, including significant land ice melt that is currently not anticipated but could occur. Figure 4. Baylands Interpretive Center Boardwalk Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 6 Table 3. Sea Level Rise Estimates from SFPUC Time Period Projection (inches) Range (inches) 2000 – 2030 6±2 2 to 12 2000 – 2050 11±4 5 to 24 2000 – 2100 36±10 17 to 66 Table 4 reprises Table 2, but compiles possible increases in tidal inundation on the mudflat due to sea level rise. Sea level rise is generally treated as a change in datum; that is, as the mean sea level rises so do all other tidal elevations arithmetically; there is no accepted means to otherwise adjust tide elevations. This analysis also ignores any changes in elevation to the mudflat itself that might result from future sea level rise, for example due to changes in San Francisco Bay sediment accumulation. Table 4. Tidal Inundation of Mudflat near Baylands Interpretive Center with Sea Level Rise 2000 2030 2050 2100 Tide Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) 100-year SWL 10.00 2.2 10.50 2.7 10.92 3.1 13.00 5.2 10-year SWL 9.50 1.7 10.00 2.2 10.42 2.6 12.50 4.7 Mean Higher High 7.42 n/a 7.92 0.1 8.36 0.6 10.42 2.6 Mean High 6.80 n/a 7.30 n/a 7.72 n/a 9.80 2.0 Mean Sea Level 3.58 n/a 4.08 n/a 4.50 n/a 5.58 n/a Mean Low 0.58 n/a 1.08 n/a 1.50 n/a 0.58 n/a Mean Lower Low -0.19 n/a 0.31 n/a 0.73 n/a -0.19 n/a .6 Attachment C. Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only August 11, 2015 (408) 296-5515 x1150 anotaro@biggscardosa.com MEMO TO: Anthony Notaro, Associate, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. FROM: Matt Gruber, Project Manager, Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/ACCESS COMPLIANCE EVALUATION The City of Palo Alto is evaluating options to repair or replace the popular Baylands Boardwalk at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. The evaluation includes the examination of three separate repair options from a low cost repair to total replacement. Below is the access compliance evaluation and the impact analysis for each option. Overall Access Evaluation This section addresses boardwalk components that would require repair or replacement so the boardwalk complies with California and Federal regulations. These regulations address all important areas of accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. California's Building Standards Codes are found in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and are designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State statutes. This evaluation is based on CCR and ADA requirements. The code references in this document refer to the California Building Code (CBC). The Baylands Boardwalk contains a variety of access compliance issues. A number of them stem from structural issues. Repair of those structural issues are addressed under a separate section. The key access issues evaluated for the boardwalk include the following: 1. Slopes: All slopes parallel with the path of travel shall either be greater than 5% (Section 11B-403.3) if no handrail is provided and less than 8.33% where handrails are provided (Section 1010.3). The existing boardwalk has one location where the slope is as much as 21% and there is no handrail (see figure A1). Another section of the boardwalk has a ramp with a slope of 10.3%. Both these sections exceed the allowable slope per code. The height, width and length of the existing ramps do meet code, per Section 11B-405. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 2 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 2. Handrails: Handrails are required at all ramps (CBC Section 11B-505). There are three locations where the existing boardwalk has a ramp (slope greater than 5%), but only two of the locations have a handrail and the handrails are non-compliant. Although the existing handrails are continuous and unobstructed on their tops and sides (CBC 11B-505.5/6) and the circular cross section appears to meet code per CBC 11B-505.7.1, the rails are only approximately 26 inches above the ramp grade. Tops of handrails are required to be between 34 and 38 inches above grade (CBC 11B-505.4). Additionally, handrails must extend 1’-0” beyond the top and bottom of the ramp (CBC 505.10.1) and the existing handrails do not extend beyond the top and bottom of the ramps. 3. Guardrails: Guardrails are required wherever there is a vertical change of more than 30 inches between a walking surface and an adjacent surface (Section 1013.2). The boardwalk is elevated above the adjacent grade and is also located within a sensitive wetland habitat so the guardrail is necessary. The existing guardrails are 35 inches high when code requires them to be 42 inches (Section 1013.3). Guardrails should not allow the passage of a sphere of 4 inches (Section 1013.4). The existing openings between the rebar pickets vary in width with openings a much as 10-11 inches (see figure A2). 4. Cross slopes: The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not exceed a 1:48 (2%) gradient (Section 11B- 403.3). The cross slopes of the existing boardwalk in general exceed the minimum cross slope of 2% and can be as much as 21%. 5. Ground surface: The walking surface of a pathway should be consistent and even. There should not be openings that allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch (Section 11B-302.3) and vertical changes in elevation should not exceed 1/4 inch (without an edge treatment) or 1/2 inch (with a bevel). The existing planks on the boardwalk often are spaced further apart than 1/4 inch (see figure A3), there are rotted out or missing pieces of planks where holes are created, and the planks have shifted so that there is larger than a 1/2 inch vertical grade change between planks. 6. Passing spaces: The width of the boardwalk is compliant as it is 48 inches and the minimum accessible width is 36 inches (Section 11B-403.5.1). The issue with the boardwalk design is that an accessible route with a clear width of less than 60 inches requires passing spaces at intervals of 200 feet (Section 11B-403.5.3). Although there are two such passing spaces (see figure A4), the passing spaces are located at intervals too far apart to meet code. The first one is at a compliant length (approx. 180’), but the second (approx. 410’), and the third (approx. 230’) do not meet code. In addition, the passing lanes that do exist do not meet code. The requirement is either a 60 inch square passing lane or a T-shaped space that is 48 inches square. The existing passing lanes include benches that prevent the minimum clear width. 7. Resting areas: The boardwalk is required to have resting areas at least 60 inches in length, with a width at least as wide as the walk, at intervals no more than 400’ apart (Section 11B-403.7). The existing boardwalk does contain these resting areas (see figure A4), but they do not have the required width. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 3 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Access Repair/Replacement Options Repair: Repair consists of minor improvements to make the boardwalk structurally sound and generally safe. From an access compliance perspective, repairing the boardwalk is very difficult because of the variety of access compliance issues that require significant attention and repair work. So many boardwalk components would require replacement to make the boardwalk code compliant it would not be logical from a cost benefit analysis. The non-compliant slopes would need to be adjusted and all the handrails and guardrails would need to be replaced. Significant work to, and replacement of, the planks to eliminate non-compliant cross slopes and eliminate the vertical and horizontal gaps in the walking surface would be required. More passing spaces and code compliant resting spaces would need to be added. Repair is not recommended. Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation consists of keeping the majority of the structural components that are not damaged intact. This would consist of all the repair items listed in the repair option With new guardrails, handrails and planks, replacement of the damaged structural posts and the addition of new passing spaces and resting areas rehabilitation is a sensible option that would add another 20+ years to the life of the boardwalk (at least from an access compliance standpoint). Replacement: Replacement consists of replacing the boardwalk in entirety. From an access compliance perspective this is the best option and allows for the greatest compliance to code and ability to accommodate users that have access challenges that are not strictly required by code. It would allow for more passing spaces, more comfortable boardwalk width, more resting areas (this is a long boardwalk for people with access issues), deck materials could be used that have a greater longevity, the deck at the end of the boardwalk could be designed to support a class of school children, and sea level rise issues could be addressed. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 4 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Figure A1 Figure A2 Figure A3 Figure A4 Attachment D Baylands Boardwalk As%Built Structure Plans ,..,...,.,m.,-., ~~~i'~ .. tf~~'<I~ f-~--->---+t---ih 1-W•T'o,..,.v.rocr 1::1~~01"r =K~PJC. *'flt ~eoe ,.,. ,...,...._ f:r,z~~ ...,,K.::..::-=.;:.;:_ ____ J ~->~-"'---"--'-..W------"l~rt .. -20~0" ,...,._ \4--1-----,A~,.,l.d n, 1'4:l'Va ~'t~•6,•'f.C' ,;.:ns,,f.;ffiil't)'f ~N FOfll,.C~ll'( ----11,o,n tk.l,..A:l'ftt __ _,_ __ ....JU.--.--....JLA..>:'..A..~'----.1!..._~...t...l..-...l!..--on'1>e11.., _....,1,__ _ __.__,l,o(.....,::.ii-1<.-...--'""'"'-....:,....1,..1....---- ®.....:.iY!.!l'l.,,~:c;..:,:s_; .. e,l!Cf="'OH"-'---------- 10 ),!ATC"! s.qef , ... •* ' ,... \ / ~ "'"~ = • ';I I 1!:. . ~· ,,_ ~ O.' I .. L..._ JOO-/'k>:1.-~ t•I IUOM Sllllf ,Mo AUO, CAU•Oll,IIA to•t t•lt)JU,1100 r a: < z w a: ~ 0 ... z ::; w < <) (.) z w 0 > j:: j:: <( > w 0 a: z w Q. a: a: :.: w ...J ~ <( z 3: C a: u, <( 0 Q CD z 0 <( ... ..J ...J < > g <( co < .. taa ~NOG·1'1~7 I09-f;,oq1J"\ :::}ti,., 1'160 ~N~I esieVAilON<S. <!>e&TION'9, 4 i:>eT;..IS':> --·-r---~--~-- S A N <,,II (H """*""'°~/ NU( ,,vec S<k'D CROSS·S«Tl()N .,.,,. ~ .,",,H /'' . . , ,o.o' , / , / PLAN / ~ A N , / M . ... a.. -'-.. "'-.JI. , , C I S C 0 ,., ,. A.. ... ,l.c-,,-1 ~ ,,,. a.•~ 4,./,11. IN/)£X ro Pl. Arit SHE£( N(). G,1t,r11/ Pion Oo,,:,l'(/f'NIJ C11,v/11,K/,W, tkto/t:, OMnw1/u11t l'/.dl/"orm .... f"b.51 I I I I I I ~ .... , .. , ..... J OIWJ C:,E..{Att.. 1.-···~::':-:: ... , .... ,f/1 .. _ ................. \ ........ "'". -..,..., '"·,,to• S!!"C:TrOI-J A·A C'~:1\110 • <\,, ...... t.,, ran. f.-· ... -~~-~Tl .. fd""'-~ c .. , ,. ......... ,. ... c. ('l ......... ,, J. 1., ..... ~ .. , E.l t&..\/6.J\OW •c..,.,, t",r.o• t.vt•,,•41r,u ao.t ~r,o\as (Oll'i'II. t .. tf/1 p,t&.c,c,,i.uO, IIWOIU•.J.'-0 -U,,} WII'"' """''14 w,,. ... 11. • .:,r-ctt. .;o,..,.1"·· A t·4<>·'-•....., ..... ~, ......... """u ,s cow1,.,,11•..i• •~•c. ••wt, +------...-fl.~.tJ!.~.,.~.~-=---1--IHII 1r I I I I I ,, 11 ~: ELEVA;TION -C,OAl2,Q)'{4U; .._.,., Yt.•.1\0" 4•.o" •. ~·+--+!8lf---~ :~ - ,, ,, ,, t i I I fil-n--IT HPit, FOil C,{NGM AU,. ........ U ai.\. , .. '-•4 O.f $4S •,-c:ILPf AS ~HOH'.,._ c. ... 1 ,a.o .... t's,_ µA:....J f---...... -..cr ~-:;~~ ... -:· ... ~l,S ij[fil~ 4t.()" 11 ftS BUILT :v ',,.: !J. CITY OF PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA IHdT NO. l 0, 1 SHCIEY$ e, 9 ·.i.· " •.. , . .,,.,. .. ...,._.., ~-:+"ti~---"'.:,t,r----,~i----:,;"11'i:..rr tr~~~~~" ... f awo ., •. , CAIi', t~ •• ,, • .s,• "'•-:t 1.ha ...... {, Ell.VA 'TJON ,-.. 1&•f I•.,, ·-T-#.• .. •Jl'lt&T •t •01!; .... ,1._ ~ e,,-.t-• ---....1. ... "'4 5'f',..,.,,, YIO'lt. ••'-'""·•t , --.Lt<l:!=======ITT~=:!=.' ..... = ... ==!;.ii '. ' \ , , I I' ,· ,, I , , I \ ' ,, ,, \I \\ --· .... ------· ... ·~-.... ·""''-•1'\o;' hC..• --.. .. ., ... , .. t...11.~ ~ .... •M-1' ...... .., ... -1(.-0 Hc:>tt.S t, ........ '-\l""h-'llt 1$ c.:--. ............. , • .,, N ~CII M•TU,...'-.,..,~• 1; S4C. t ""''-11,0,tOW'AltC. Tc> •1 •r 0-.f' .-a1.v4w,t.1,o, J, ~.,.!~:~ll fU&fo,1....,, .SIi .#(1&4•\. AS BU/Ll 1--"-=IJ,AII.LI IAIPll()Y£M£NT l'IU>.l~CT v,.,, J.,;1rm.~:!l!;,"'1,13,4n,,ANO$ ll./7£~PIUTNe CNITE~ :::_ /WA$£ 11 (~OAROW1•U.K) •--..--- C6$EllVATl0N PLAT/!()J/M llf'-.1 CITY OF PALO ALTO '!.., !;;ii'+t--,-.--""'"';_,A~.~~~IF~~~R~;~·A~,.--..,..-----i""4.t,u-Hs Attachment E. Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Cost X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPAIR OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:180'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=720 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 610 $7.50 $4,575.00 2 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 140 $25.00 $3,500.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 11 $400.00 $4,400.00 4 REPAIR DAMAGED POSTS EA 8 $750.00 $6,000.00 SUBTOTAL $18,475 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$1,848 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $20,323 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $3,048 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $5,081 supplemental repairs, small size, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $28,452 material selection, etc.BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$28,452 ESCALATION FACTOR (@30%)(See Comment 3) $8,535 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$36,987 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $30,000 $40,000 X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REHABILITATION OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=4,073 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 TEMPORARY SUPPORTS LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 2 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 2,940 $7.50 $22,050.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 700 $25.00 $17,500.00 4 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 76 $400.00 $30,400.00 5 REPAIR DAMAGED POST EA 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 6 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,759 $50.00 $87,950.00 7 REMOVE AND REPLACE GUARDRAILING FT 1,759 $45.00 $79,155.00 8 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER POST EA 76 $2,250.00 $171,000.00 9 LEVEL EXIST WALKWAY LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL $554,555 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$55,456 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $610,011 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $91,502 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $152,503 structure height, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $854,015 material selection, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$854,015 ESCALATION FACTOR (@20%)(See Comment 3) $170,803 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,024,818 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $860,000 $1,030,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 214,000 257,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 129,000 154,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 171,000 205,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 880,000 1,056,000 2 YEAR 907,000 1,088,000 3 YEAR 934,000 1,120,000 4 YEAR 962,000 1,154,000 5 YEAR 991,000 1,189,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REHABILITATION OPTION 2 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=4,073 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BENT CAP LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 2,940 $7.50 $22,050.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 700 $25.00 $17,500.00 4 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 76 $400.00 $30,400.00 5 REPAIR DAMAGED POST EA 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 6 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,759 $50.00 $87,950.00 7 REMOVE AND REPLACE GUARDRAILING FT 1,759 $45.00 $79,155.00 8 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM FT 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 9 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 220 $850.00 $187,000.00 10 LEVEL EXIST WALKWAY LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL $564,755 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$56,476 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $621,231 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $93,185 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $155,308 structure height, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $869,723 material selection, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$869,723 ESCALATION FACTOR (@20%)(See Comment 3) $173,945 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,043,667 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $870,000 $1,050,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 218,000 261,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 131,000 157,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 174,000 209,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 896,000 1,075,000 2 YEAR 923,000 1,108,000 3 YEAR 951,000 1,141,000 4 YEAR 979,000 1,175,000 5 YEAR 1,009,000 1,210,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPLACEMENT OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:5' 6"AREA (SF)=4,958 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BOARDWALK SQFT 4,013 $20.00 $80,260.00 2 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 230 $850.00 $195,500.00 3 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM EA 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 4 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 4,625 $20.00 $92,500.00 5 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 6 FURNISH AND INSTALL GUARD RAILING FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 SUBTOTAL $589,540 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$58,954 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $648,494 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $97,274 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $162,124 structure width, depth, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $907,892 overlook/observation platform size, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$907,892 ESCALATION FACTOR (@25%)(See Comment 3) $226,973 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,134,865 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $910,000 $1,140,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 227,000 284,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 137,000 171,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 182,000 227,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 936,000 1,169,000 2 YEAR 964,000 1,204,000 3 YEAR 993,000 1,241,000 4 YEAR 1,022,000 1,278,000 5 YEAR 1,053,000 1,316,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPLACEMENT OPTION 2 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:5' 6"AREA (SF)=4,958 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BOARDWALK SQFT 4,013 $20.00 $80,260.00 2 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 230 $850.00 $195,500.00 3 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM EA 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 4 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER STRINGERS SQFT 4,625 $10.00 $46,250.00 5 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER DECKING SQFT 4,625 $7.50 $34,687.50 6 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 7 FURNISH AND INSTALL GUARD RAILING FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 SUBTOTAL $577,978 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$57,798 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $635,775 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $95,366 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $158,944 structure width, depth, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $890,085 overlook/observation platform size, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$890,085 ESCALATION FACTOR (@25%)(See Comment 3) $222,521 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,112,607 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $890,000 $1,110,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 223,000 279,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 134,000 167,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 179,000 223,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 917,000 1,146,000 2 YEAR 945,000 1,181,000 3 YEAR 973,000 1,216,000 4 YEAR 1,002,000 1,253,000 5 YEAR 1,032,000 1,290,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C17163750 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BIGGS CARDODSA ASSOCIATES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 15th day of August , 2016, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC., a California Corporation, located at 865 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A.CITY intends to replace the existing Baylands Boardwalk (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide environmental assessment, preliminary and final design development, and bidding phase services; and if later approved by the City Council, thisAgreement will be amended to include construction administration services for the Project in connection with the Project (“Services”). B.CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide theServices. C.CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on- call agreements.) Services will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A- 1. Each Task Order shall designate a CITY Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope ofwork, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Attachment B Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit "B" unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Three Dollars ($399,993). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Four Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Two Dollars ($439,992). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: 1. David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. - Environmental Documentation, CEQA and Permits 2. Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers - Hydrological and Hydraulic Engineer, Surveying 3. Parikh Consultants - Geotechnical Engineering4. Callander Associates - ADA Compliance & Aesthetics 5. JDH Corrosion - Corrosion Engineering CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Anthony Notaro as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Stephen Biggs as the project Director to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2502. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon receipt of payment , all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. The CITY assumes all responsibility for the use of the work product outside of its original intent. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. In accordance with Section 2782.8 of the State of California Civil Code, the duty to indemnify, including the cost to defend is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct caused by CONSULTANT, and only to the extent caused by the CONSULTANT. [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 6 SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 7 only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 8 State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 9 addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION 25.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS 26.1 This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7 if the contract is not a public works contract, if the contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000. OR 26.1 CONSULTANT is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. CONSULTANT shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONSULTANT shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. 26.2 CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit “E” for any contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance. SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 27.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 10 action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. 27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 27.11 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 11 representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager (Required on contracts over $85,000) APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney or designee (Required on Contracts over $25,000) BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT “E”: DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Stephen Biggs President Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 12 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto (City) plans to replace the existing Baylands Nature Center Boardwalk (Boardwalk). The Boardwalk is located at 2775 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA. The boardwalk structure was constructed in 1969 and rehabilitated and widened by the City in 1980. The Boardwalk is one of the more popular trails within the City’s Baylands Nature Preserve. This ¼ mile long and four feet wide Boardwalk extends into the Baylands Nature Preserve and is connected to the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center (Interpretive Center). The Boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. City staff made temporary fixes to re-open the first two hundred feet of the boardwalk to the public in 2015. The timber posts and supports are damaged due to the elements and impacts from the corrosive tidal saltwater. There are a variety of access compliance issues due to the original design and structural damage. PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant shall provide engineering, design, environmental assessment and clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and bidding and construction support services. Prior to bidding the project, the Consultant shall prepare and obtain City and regulatory agency permits for construction by others. The City will pay for the City’s construction permit fee and reimburse the Consultant for the regulatory agencies permit fees. The Boardwalk shall be an accessible, code compliant facility compatible with the Interpretive Center architecture, meet the Baylands Master Plan guidelines, and provide a service life of 50- 75 years. The Boardwalk shall follow the existing boardwalk alignment. The boardwalk is in an environmentally sensitive area for its entire length through the marsh land. The area is home to nesting birds and several endangered species including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and the Ridgway’s Rail (formerly California Clapper Rail). The potential environmental impacts, constraints and mitigations will be a main component in the Boardwalk design and construction approval process. The design and construction shall minimize direct impacts to the sensitive environment supporting nesting birds and endangered species, marshlands and mudflats on the site. The construction may require coordination and permits from the agencies listed below: •US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit •Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification•California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement•US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 13 Based on (2012) National Resource Council Report under moderate climate change conditions, the sea level rise (SLR) predictions are 2 to 12 inches by 2030, 5 to 24 inches by 2050 and 17 to 66 inches by 2100. The Consultant shall determine the appropriate height of the Boardwalk given SLR, tidal effects and storm surges, etc. for the Boardwalks’ service life. The Consultant shall work closely with the community, City staff, boards and commissions, and Council to establish a deck elevation that accounts for the SLR and the Baylands Master Plan guidelines. The Consultant shall perform the professional services in three phases including agency coordination, reviews and approvals as follows: 1.Phase 1 – Design Development and Environmental Assessment 2.Phase 2 – Final Design, and Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) 3.Phase 3 – Bidding and Construction Support PHASE 1 – DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Task 1: Preliminary Design Task 1.1 Project Management Project Management: The CONSULTNAT shall provide project management and administration services including coordinating with City staff and subconsultants. Subconsultant Coordination: The CONSULTANT shall provide oversight of subconsultant work and coordinate with its sub-consultants. Project Schedule: The CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a Project Master Schedule in Microsoft Project to the CITY. The schedule shall be updated regularly. Progress Reports: On a monthly basis, the CONSULTANT shall issue invoices and progress reports to the CITY. Deliverables: •Project Master Schedule and updates •Invoices with Progress Reports 1.2 Project Meetings The CONSULTANT shall conduct one (1) kick-off meeting with the City to review and refine scope of work, work plan, and schedule. Identify critical milestones and establish communications protocol. Project Development Meetings: CONSULTANT shall schedule monthly project development meetings to discuss the status of the project, upcoming efforts, issues and other relevant information. An agenda and invitation shall be provided prior to each DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 14 meeting, along with minutes from the previous meeting. At the meeting, an Action Items List shall be distributed. Deliverables: Meeting agendas and minutes Action Items List 1.3 Public Outreach The CONSULTANT shall prepare presentation materials and exhibits, and attend and assist City staff with presentation at the following meetings: a.At the end of the Conceptual Development (15%) (Task 1.6) – One (1) Interagency review meeting (after the Shade Study is completed - Task 1.7), one (1) public meeting, one (1) Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, and (1) Architectural Review Board Meeting (ARB).b.At the end of Design Development (35%) – One (1) PRC meeting. Site design process meetings which include one (1) Design Review Committee (DRC), one (1) Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), one (1) ARB and one (1) City Council Meeting, as required. c.The environmental sub-consultant shall attend up to three (3) team meetings during thecourse of the environmental clearance process and (4) public meetings/hearings in Palo Alto, as required. 1.4 Data Collection and Review and Site Visits The CONSULTANT shall review available data and information provided by the City. Conduct up to three (3) site visits to review existing conditions and identify constraints that may affect the proposed design and environmental clearance process. Provide field notes, representative photos, and field measurements. Available data/information includes, but is not limited to the following: • Previous studies, reports and/or documents related to the project • Community input •Baylands Master Plan guidelines•As-built plans 1.5 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation General: CONSULTANT shall provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed foundation for the boardwalk. The investigation shall be developed for lightly loaded pile support system. Field Exploration: The CONSULTANT shall perform field explorations at 3 locations along the existing board walk to a depth of 30’ maximum. Portable equipment shall be used for this work. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 15 A RWQCB Section 401 Notification shall be submitted and approved prior to the field sampling program (Task 3.5) commence. The CONSULTANT shall mark and call for USA clearance and review the available utility information, and drill into the native subgrade from the existing boardwalk deck. Laboratory Testing: The CONSULTANT shall review of existing soil reports in the area and perform limited laboratory tests to verify the classification of the bay mud, strength of the subgrade materials and to validate the soil conditions. Laboratory tests on intact samples are expected to include; Index properties (Plasticity Index 1-3 tests), Pocket penetrometer or laboratory torvane tests on samples as feasible, unconfined compression or unconfined Triaxial (if sample is intact) 1-3 samples. Some samples may be too soft or disturbed for all of the anticipated tests. CONSULTANT shall also conduct visual classification. Engineering Analysis and Report Preparation: Based on the minimal field and laboratory test data, limited engineering analyses shall be conducted for the proposed boardwalk. Log of Test borings shall be prepared in gINT format (8.5”X11”). Draft and Final Foundation Reports shall be prepared summarizing the findings and the recommendations for the foundation design capacity. Soil parameters shall be provided for any proprietary design. Task 1.5 Deliverables: • Preliminary Foundation Investigation Memo (at Type Selection) • Draft Foundation Report (at 65% PS&E) • Final Foundation Report (at Final PS&E) • Log of Testing Borings (at 65%, 90% and Final PS&E) 1.6 Design Concept and Preliminary Geometric Plans (15%) Base Mapping: The CONSULTANT shall set the horizontal and vertical control points for project mapping in accordance with the CITY’s horizontal and vertical control requirements. The existing Nature Center deck shall be tied to Santa Clara Valley Water District Benchmark 1170 to serve as the project control, unless otherwise directed by the City. Available LIDAR data shall be used to prepare the base mapping. The replacement structure shall follow the same alignment as the existing boardwalk. Topographic surveys are not required. Boardwalk and Geometric Alignment Drawings: In order to support the environmental evaluation, CONSULTANT shall work closely with the City to develop a Replacement Option in accordance with City’s design criteria. Assume that the boardwalk replacement shall be constructed during closure of the existing boardwalk. Construction limits shall be defined. The plans shall show the existing water features, the existing boardwalk outline, and the proposed layout. Sections and various profiles shall also be developed. A preliminary cost estimate shall also be developed. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 16 Utility Coordination: A pair of PG&E overhead transmission lines runs roughly east to west across the marsh land. These lines are supported by a series of steel towers which dot the landscape. PG&E owns and maintains the lines and towers from a small dilapidated timber catwalk running below the lines to each tower. The catwalk intersects the Baylands Boardwalk roughly mid-length with access controlled by a pair of locked gates. The Baylands Boardwalk project shall be required to maintain permanent access to the catwalk. The CONSULTANT shall provide permanent access from the replaced boardwalk to the existing PG&E catwalk including gated access. It is assumed that access to the existing PG&E catwalk can be interrupted during construction of the replacement boardwalk. Aesthetics Coordination: The existing Lucy Evans Nature Center is undergoing renovation under a separate contract. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate the proposed interface of the new boardwalk with the Nature Center design team led by FOG Studios. It is anticipated that railings similar to those developed and selected by the Nature Center Project shall be incorporated into the Boardwalk Project. The City will provide PDF and AutoCAD files of the selected railing design to the CONSULTANT for use in the boardwalk design development. Some modification of the Nature Center railing design by the CONSULTANT is anticipated to meet the specific design needs of the Boardwalk Project. Task 1.6 Deliverables: •Draft and Final Boardwalk and Geometric Alignment Drawings •Preliminary Cost estimate Provide five (5) draft 15% design documents for City’s review. Incorporate City’s comments and submit final 15% design documents. Provide one (1) Draft Design Concept Statement with design concepts for meetings listed under Task 1.3a and incorporate comments. Provide one (1) final Design Concept Statement that incorporates all comments from these meetings. 1.7 Hydrologic Assessment and Shade Study A The CONSULTANT shall provide a technical memo to evaluate and recommend a Boardwalk height using the service life, hydrologic assessment using tidal, storm surges and sea level rise predictions and tidal water map information provided in Task 2.5. Utilize this information to gain consensus on the Boardwalk height and the development of the shade study. The shade study shall define the relative change in shading of the marsh surface due to the Boardwalk height and configuration. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a shade study to reflect the proposed Boardwalk. It is assumed that the shading effects of the new structure will be roughly equivalent to the existing shading effects. Task 2: Environmental Assessment, Clearance and Permits Task 2.1 Compliance with CEQA DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 17 The CONSULTANT shall prepare an initial study and mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) in compliance with the CEQA assumed for the Boardwalk. The primary sections of the initial study (IS) shall consist of a description of the project, a description of the environmental setting, and a description of the project’s environmental impacts, including mitigation where applicable. The impacts section shall include the standard environmental CEQA checklist used by the City. Due to the environmentally-sensitive habitat of the Palo Alto Baylands, coupled with the presence of multiple endangered species, biological impacts may occur especially during the construction phase, the IS shall focus on the existing biological environment and the effects of the project on that environment. The IS shall provide this discussion based on a biological resources report. The CONSULTANT shall submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the administrative draft IS to the City for review and comment. The IS shall be revised based on the City’s comments and an electronic screen check version shall be provided to the City for final review/approval. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall also be prepared and submitted for City’s comments. Upon City approval, the CONSULTANT shall make 50 hard copies of the IS/MND (with appendices on an USB drive inside the back cover). The CONSULTANT shall also complete the CEQA Notice of Completion form and send 15 copies of the IS/MND to the State Clearinghouse. Mailing and distribution of the IS/MND to the public and non-State agencies shall be undertaken by CITY staff. The City shall also be responsible for the preparation and publication of public/newspaper notices. The CONSULTANT shall assist the City in preparing responses to comments on the IS/MND and prepare a final IS/MND and MMRP. Upon adoption of the MND and project approval, The CONSULTANT shall prepare and file the CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder on behalf of the City. The CONSULTANT shall pay the $2,260.25 NOD filing fee. It is assumed that technical reports for the subject areas of traffic, noise, air quality, archaeology, hazardous materials, and energy are not required and are not part of this Scope of Services. 2.2 Biological Resources Report Assuming all impacts from the project as being either less-than-significant or less-than- significant-with-mitigation, the biological resources report shall contain an existing conditions section, an impact assessment, CEQA significance assessment, and proposed mitigation measures. The report shall analyze the project in the context of the biotic resources of the site and vicinity and identify both project-specific and cumulative impacts. The CONSULTANT shall determine whether a given impact is either less-than-significant or less-than-significant- with-mitigation. All state and federal listed species, and all other special-status plants and wildlife shall be reviewed; this shall include mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and bats. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 18 The CONSULTANT shall provide two (2) focused surveys for rare plants to document existing conditions and to document potential rare plant blooming periods. The information from the two surveys and shall assist in making decisions on rare plant presence and potential impacts. Mitigation measures shall describe all potentially significant environmental impacts. Mitigation, as appropriate, may be a combination of avoidance, minimization, restoration and/or compensation measures. If wetland mitigation is required, assume that all mitigation for impacts to wetlands and other waters will be mitigated through purchase of mitigation credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank. 2.3 Regulated Habitats Report (Wetland/Other Waters/Riparian) The CONSULTANT shall conduct the field work necessary to prepare a full report representing a delineation of Waters of the U.S./State on the site, which would serve as the project’s Wetland Delineation. Data on the soils, vegetation, and hydrology within potential wetlands on the site are necessary in order to complete a formal delineation. The CONSULTANT shall delineate the boundaries of these features according to methodologies outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual and other USACE guidance. Any other potentially jurisdictional features, including “other waters” of the U.S./State, shall be delineated and described per USACE and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. In addition to Section 404 wetlands, the extent and distribution of USACE [under Section 10 (current and historical) and Section 404] and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction in tidal waters, as defined by the mean high water, mean sea level, mean higher high tide line datums, and the high tide line as determined by field indicators, shall also be mapped from a combination of field observations and topographic data, this information shall be described within the report and presented on accompanying figures. This report is a requirement of the permit applications for each of the state and federal agencies (Task 3). The CONSULTANT shall prepare a technical report summarizing the methods and results of the field survey of regulated habitats. The report is an important permit support document that is submitted to all applicable agencies as part of the permit application materials. The report shall be prepared to report specifications developed by the USACE, RWQCB and BCDC and shall include sufficient detail for agency review and a jurisdictional determination (in the case of the USACE). It shall include a brief description of existing conditions, description of field techniques employed in the delineation, wetland data sheets, and copies of aerial photographs and maps which show the extent of regulated habitats on the project site. 2.4 Biological Assessment The proposed boardwalk improvements may affect several federally listed wildlife species. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Biological Assessment (BA) report. The BA is required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the purpose of conducting a Section 7 consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 19 The overall goal is to obtain Section 7 coverage on an informal basis. Assume that one BA report can be compiled for both agencies. 2.5 Hydrology Investigation and Recommendations The replacement boardwalk deck elevation shall be determined based on a balance of the hydrologic data (tidal, storm surges and sea level rise), design engineering, public opinion, and acceptable risk by the City. If required by the regulatory agencies, provide supplemental sources, and input regarding potential magnitude of projected sea level rise, and provide Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) mapping of requested design level tidal events. 2.6 Geology Utilize the Preliminary Foundation Investigation information from Task 1.5 to complete the geological information required for environmental assessment. Task 2 Deliverables: Technical Studies/Report: •Biological Resources Report •Regulated Habitats Report •Biological Assessment •Hydrology Investigation and Recommendations (based on the “Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center” memorandum dated July 7, 2015 •Geology Report CEQA Documents •Administrative Draft IS/MND •Draft and Final IS/MND •Draft and Final MMRP •CEQA Notice of Completion •CEQA Notice of Determination Task 3 Project Permits Upon conclusion of the CEQA process and project approval, the permitting process shall commence. This consists of the completion and submission of applications (including required technical reports), as well as coordination and consultation with the staff of the permitting agencies during the application review process, and obtain final permits approval for construction. Provide coordination, processing and timelines to obtain the various permits. The permitting process is described below. 3.1 USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit Application Package DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 20 The CONSULTANT shall assemble a Nationwide Permit application package that includes Engineering Form 4345, a project description, summary of previous environmental studies, and an assessment of impacts and discussion of suitable mitigation measures. The CONSULTANT shall submit a first-review administrative draft USACE permit package to the City for review and comment. After incorporation of any changes, the package shall be submitted to the USACE. The CONSULTANT shall maintain regular contact with the USACE to monitor processing of the permit application. 3.2 RWQCB 401 Certification/Waste Discharge Requirement Application Package CONSULTANT shall prepare a water quality certification/waste discharge requirement application to submit to the RWQCB. The complete permit package shall include information that is submitted to the USACE as described above, but shall also include the appropriate forms and required materials. The submittal shall include all copies of the CEQA documents, all correspondence with USACE and RWQCB staff, impact assessment, proposed post-impact site monitoring plan, and project drawings. The City will pay a processing fees required by the RWQCB. The CONSULTANT shall submit a first-review administrative draft RWQCB permit package to the City for review and comment. After incorporation of any changes, the package shall be submitted to the RWQCB. The CONSULTANT shall maintain regular contact with the RWQCB to monitor processing of the permit application. 3.3 BCDC Permit The CONSULTANT shall prepare a permit application for submittal to BCDC. The application package shall include the completed Major Permit Application, sea level rise assessment, and copies of the boardwalk improvement plans. The City will pay a processing fee for handling applications. The CONSULTANT shall submit first-review administrative draft BCDC permit package to the City for review and comment. After incorporation of any changes, the packages shall be submitted to the BCDC. The CONSULTANT shall maintain regular contact with the staff of BCDC to monitor processing of the permit application. 3.4 Permit Processing, Meetings, and Coordination Related to Impacts Analysis This task shall include time for site visits with the agencies, meetings and correspondence with the project team and regulatory agencies during the permit processing phase. Time shall be included for calls with design team and agency members to coordinate initial, accurate development of the permit packages, and processing of the submitted permits and developing the impact assessment within all three responsible agency jurisdictions, including coordination with members of the engineering portion of the team. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 21 3.5 Permit Processing in Support of Geotechnical Field Investigation Program It is assumed that the geotechnical field sampling shall be Categorically Exempt under CEQA and shall be eligible for USACE Nationwide Permit #6 (Survey Activities). This USACE permit, however, requires notification to the RWQCB via their “Certified Nationwide Permit Notification Form” package. The CONSULTANT shall undertake the following activities to obtain approval for the field sampling programs from the RWQCB: •Based on information to be provided by the geotechnical testing firm, prepare a ProjectDescription • Prepare and file the CEQA Notice of Exemption and IS • Prepare and submit the RWQCB Section 401 Notification • Serve as the City’s designated agent in the processing of the RWQCB permit• Pay the CEQA Notice of Exemption filing fee on behalf of the City• Pay the RWQCB notification fee on behalf of the City The RWQCB form shall be accompanied by a short biological memo. The equipment to be used for the field sampling programs shall operate from the deck of the existing boardwalk, shall have negligible effects on the Baylands, and shall have no effect on endangered species. Task 3 Deliverables: •BCDC Application and Permitting Coordination •USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit Application Package and Permitting Coordination •RWQCB 401 Certification/Waste Discharge Requirement Application Package and Permitting Coordination •RWQCB Section 401 Notification for field sampling program •CEQA Notice of Exemption and IS Task 4 35% Plans, Specifications and Estimate CONSULTANT shall prepare 35% Plans and Estimates based on findings of the IS/MND, input from the community, Interagency Review meeting, PRC, ARB and City staff from Task 1.3a. Task 4.1 Boardwalk Type Selection Report Type Selection Report: CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a Type Selection Report that shall include a review of the existing boardwalk for anticipated equipment staging and boardwalk foundation types being considered. This analysis shall include costs, environmental impacts, geotechnical impacts, construction impacts, shading impacts, design life of the foundation systems, hydrologic impacts, geometrics and aesthetics. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 22 The Type Selection Report shall include a discussion of the structure types considered, the reasons for selection of the proposed boardwalk structure, and the following: •Type Selection Memo •Vicinity Map •Alignment General Plans•Cost Estimates •Project Seismic Design Criteria •Preliminary Foundation Recommendations • PS&E in coordination with the Draft Environmental Assessment IS Type Selection Meeting: CONSULTANT shall meet with City to discuss the draft Type Selection Report. At the meeting CONSULTANT shall present the proposed boardwalk structure and discuss all the factors considered that led to the selected alternative. The CONSULTANT shall address all issues raised at the Type Selection Meeting in the final Type Selection Report. The City shall provide written approval of the proposed boardwalk alternative. Task 4.1 Deliverables: •Draft and Final Type Selection Report •Type Selection Meeting Agenda and Minutes Task 4.2 35% Plans and Estimate CONSULTANT shall prepare 35% PS&E based on preferred alternative selected at the Type Selection Meeting (Task 3.5), findings of the IS/MND, and input from the community and City staff. This submittal shall include the 35% Boardwalk General Plan, and preliminary construction cost estimate. Task 4.2 Deliverables: •35% PS&E •Site & Design Review application and materials correlate to Task 1.3b PHASE 2 – FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E The CONSULTANT shall complete the 65%, 90%, and 100% PS&E design for the project based on the PRC, Site & Design Review Process, and City staff from Task 1.3b. CONSULTANT shall provide final engineering design of the project, obtain City design approval, and produce high quality construction drawings, special provisions, and construction estimates for construction of the project. The PS&E shall be prepared to the most current Caltrans Standards and in accordance with the City’s policies, procedures, manuals, standards and agency permit requirements. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 23 •The CONSULTANT is fully responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the plans and related PS&E. City reviews shall not transfer the responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or details with which such designs are depicted on the plans. •The title sheet for the specifications and each sheet of the plans shall bear the professional seal, certificate number, registration and classification, expiration date, and signature of the professional engineer responsible for its preparation. Task 5 – Phase 2 Project Management and Coordination 5.1 Project Management The CONSULTANT shall provide project management and administration services including monitoring subconsultants activities, coordinating with the City and subconsultants, implementing quality control and quality assurance procedures, submitting monthly invoices and progress reports, preparing and maintaining project schedule, and developing a work plan to ensure the project remains on budget and schedule. 5.2 Project Meetings The CONSULTANT shall attend up to three (3) in-person and three (3) tele-conference progress and coordination meetings with City staff and key stakeholders. Prepare and submit agenda and meeting minutes for each meeting for City staff reviews. Task 6 – PS&E (65%) CONSULTANT shall prepare 65% PS&E. This submittal shall include the 65% plans, technical specifications and detailed construction cost estimate. The CONSULTANT shall prepare draft Technical Specifications. Technical Specifications shall follow the 2015 format of the Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Special Provisions (SSP’s). The CONSULTANT shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of probable construction cost for 65% design using both the Caltrans database and CONSULTANTs professional experience. Estimate shall include construction costs that reflect current market conditions, the bid items, associated environmental mitigation costs through purchasing mitigation credits associate with Task 2. and contingency costs. 6.1 Project Plans The 65% plan set shall include, but is not limited to the following drawings and documents: Title Sheet Boardwalk General Plans DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 24 Boardwalk Typical Sections Boardwalk Design Details Railing Details Demolition Plan Construction Staging 65% PS&E Submittal: The CONSULTANT shall submit the 65% PS&E package for City review, including: • Full Size 65% Plans (22x34) – five (5) sets •Technical Specifications – five (5) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost – two (2) sets •Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Working Day Schedule – two (2) sets • Draft Foundation Report – two (2) sets The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format in PDF format in an USB drive. Task 7 - Final PS&E (90% and 100%) Task 7.1 90% PS&E CONSULTANT shall advance the 65% PS&E to the 90% level. This submittal shall include the 90% plans, technical specifications and detailed construction cost estimate. CONSULTANT shall address any remaining review comments and finalize any outstanding design issues in the PS&E package. CONSULTANT shall combine technical special provisions with City prepared “boiler plate” to prepare final (100%) Project Specifications. All design activities shall be completed. The PS&E package shall be prepared for a final City review. CONSULTANT shall update the Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs. The CONSULTANT shall incorporate City and Stakeholders comments to finalize the cost estimate. Include supporting data for City use in administering construction. During the 90% design stage, CONSULTANT shall perform final check of the structural plans, calculations and quantity calculations. CONSULTANT shall also perform final check of the technical specifications and Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost. The City may have an independent third party verifying the plans and specifications. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the independent third party as part of the City review cycle. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 25 90% PS&E Submittal: The 90% PS&E submittal shall include all plans in required format, special provisions, technical specifications, and the engineer’s estimate as follows: • Full Size 90% Plans (22x34) – five (5) sets •Project Specifications (CONSULTANT prepared Technical Specifications combined with City prepared “Boiler Plate” Specifications – five (5) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost – two (2) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Working Day Schedule – two (2) sets • Response to City Review Comments of 65% PS&E •Stamped Structural Design Calculations – two (2) sets •Quantity Calculations – two (2) sets The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format in PDF format in an USB drive. Task 7.2 100% PS&E The CONSULTANT shall address any comments from the City’s final review and prepare Final PS&E with signed technical specifications, plans and the final estimate. CONSULTANT shall submit the final Plans to the City’s Building Department. CONSULTANT shall address City’s Building Department review comments and submit final signed plans for approval. 100% (Final) PS&E Submittal: The 100% (Final) PS&E submittal shall include all plans in required format, stamped calculations, special provisions and the engineer’s estimate as follows: •Full Size Final Plans (22x34) – eight (8) sets, including two (2) wet stamped & signed plans set for Building Department Submittal •Project Specifications (CONSULTANT prepared Technical Specifications combinedwith City prepared “Boiler Plate” Specifications – five (5) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost – two (2) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Working Day Schedule – two (2) sets • Final Foundations Report – two (2) sets • Response to City Review Comments of 90% PS&E The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format in PDF format in an USB drive. The final plans shall also be submitted in AutoCAD format. PHASE 3: BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT The CONSULTANT shall provide bid and construction phase services including, but not limited to: Task 8 – Bid Phase Services 8.1 Bid Package DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 26 The CONSULTANT shall prepare bid documents including bid forms and final PS&E that can be used to solicit competitive bids for the Project. The final signed PS&E noted in Task 7.2 will serve as the Bid Package. Advertisement, reproduction and distribution will be by the City. 8.2 Pre-bid Conference and Bid Addenda CONSULTANT will attend the Pre-Bid Conference and support the City with response to questions. Pre-Bid conference will be administered by the City. 8.3 Bid Review The CONSULTANT will assist the City with review of submitted bids upon request. Task 9 – Construction Phase Services The CONSULTANT shall provide construction administration and support during the anticipate construction duration (Sept. 1st – January 31st). Construction Support Services shall be confirmed and authorized at the completion of the 90% PS&E phase and are anticipated to include, but are not limited to: 9.1 Pre-Construction Meeting The CONSULTANT shall attend one (1) pre-construction meeting. The City Construction Management Firm shall prepare agenda and minutes of the meeting. CONSULTANT shall respond to any project and construction documents related questions during the meeting. 9.2 Submittals and Request for Information (RFIs) The City Construction Management Firm shall administer the construction and provide day to day oversight of the construction. The CONSULTANT shall review and provide comments on contractor’s submittals, and respond to RFIs in a timely manner. Processing of submittals and RFIs will be routed through the City Construction Management Firm. 9.3 Design Clarifications The CONSULTANT shall provide clarifications and/or explanations of the construction documents, as requested by the City Construction Management Firm during construction. 9.4 Change Orders The CONSULTANT shall assist the City in preparing and reviewing change orders, as necessary. 9.5 Meetings and Coordination The CONSULTANT shall attend weekly progress meetings, upon request of the City Construction Management Firm, during the course of the construction. Coordinate construction DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 27 administration services with City’s construction management CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall make site visits for construction coordination as requested by the Construction Manager. 9.6 Final Review The CONSULTANT shall participate in the final project review at the site and assist the City Construction Management Firm with preparation of the final review punch list. 9.7 Record Drawings The CONSULTANT shall coordinate the preparation of record drawings with the Contractor and City’s construction Project Manager during the construction and post construction phases. CONSULTANT shall perform final review of the record drawings for “as-built” accuracy and assist the City in submitting the record drawings to review and approval. The CONSULTANT shall make any modifications to the record drawings as necessary. CITY PROVIDED DOCUMENTS 1. Previous studies, reports and/or documents related to the project2. Community input 3.Baylands Master Plan 4.As-built plans 5.PDF & AutoCAD file of the Interpretive Center railing ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made in generating this scope of work: •CONSULTANT scope of services is limited to the tasks and services as outlined in the preceding Scope of Services (Task 1 through Task 8). The Task 9 Construction SupportServices scope of work and fee shall be submitted and negotiated with the CITY at thecompletion of the 90% PS&E submittal to ensure that all required services are adequately addressed. •Additional services shall be provided as outlined in Additional Services following thissection. •The contract documents shall be prepared in the Imperial (English) system of measures. •Electronic submittals, if required, shall be in PDF format. •City will supply CONSULTANT with all available record information, including but notnecessarily limited to as-built drawings, inspection reports, prior project development documents, traffic counts, City-owned utilities, right-of-way, and existing use or franchise agreements, at the initiation of the project. •All plan development shall be done in AutoCAD. Electronic plan submittals, if required,shall be in PDF format. The final Plans shall be submitted in both AutoCAD and PDF formats. •All reports shall be submitted as draft and final. One round of reviews of the draft reports shall be assumed. •CITY and any other commenting entities shall provide full comments at each submittal. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 28 •Plans and specifications shall be prepared following standard Caltrans format as outlined in “Ready-to-List and Construction Contract Award Guide” published by Caltrans. •The 2015 edition of the Caltrans “Standard Specifications” and Caltrans “Standard Plans”publications shall be referenced in the project plans and technical specifications. •CONSULTANT shall prepare Technical Specifications (Division II through Division X only) based on the 2015 edition of Caltrans Standard Special Provisions. City will prepare “Boiler Plate” general provisions and special provisions for compilation with TechnicalSpecifications. CONSULTANT shall populate the “Boiler Plate” with the Pay item List upon request of the CITY. •Construction Cost Estimates shall be prepared based on readily available industry standards and past project experience. Construction Cost Estimates are the Consultant’s estimate of theprobable construction costs. Actual construction costs may vary based on varying industrytrends and competitive Contractor bids and understanding of the project. •Construction Working Day Schedules shall be prepared based on readily available industry standards and past project experience. Construction Working Day Schedules are the CONSULTANT’s estimate of the probable construction durations. Actual constructiondurations may vary based on Contractor methods and means. •Design scope and fee are based on an assumed maximum design duration of 24 months. •One geometric for the boardwalk shall be developed, ie. 5’-0” wide boardwalk full lengthplus 1 observation platform and 2 overlook platforms (match existing) •Boardwalk Conceptual Design shall include review of one (2) superstructure types and 2 substructure types •The 35% PS&E shall include plans and estimate based on the selected alternative from theBoardwalk Type Selection Report and draft IS/MND. •Scope does not include topographic surveys or potholing (none anticipated to be required) •Scope does not include right-of-way engineering (none anticipated to be required). •The City will be the Lead Agency under CEQA and the environmental document will be anInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. •All impacts shall be mitigated by the project to a less-than-significant level •The proposed work qualifies for a USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit. •Attendance at the USACE Interagency Meeting on December 9, 2015 by BCA and HTH staff is included in Task 2. •Scope does not include a public outreach program. CONSULTANT shall attend publicmeetings and support City staff as outlined in the scope. ADDITIONAL SERVICES CONSULTANT has identified the following potential Additional Services that may be required depending on the actual conditions encountered and design features selected by City. The scope of services for these potential Additional Services cannot be reasonably estimated until further design development and studies are completed. The City will request for a proposal and issue additional services for the following task(s) listed below if needed: •Supplemental environmental technical studies (if required) •Supplemental meetings beyond those outlines in the scope (if required) •Public outreach services (if requested, such as writing press releases, development of an on- line survey of community preferences, advertisements, flyers and fact sheets) DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 29 •Topographic Surveys (if required) •Right-of-Way mapping (if required) •Hazardous Material (Hazmat) Investigation (if required) •Corrosion Engineering (if required) •Supplemental mitigation by regulatory agencies (if required) based on findings of shade study DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 30 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Weeks From NTP 1.Schematic Design 12 2. 35% PS&E 31 3. 65% PS&E 44 4. 90% PS&E 49 5. 100% PS&E 53 6. 1st Public Release Draft MND 40 7.Final MND 57 8.Agencies Permits 101 9. Construction Support TBD DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 31 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $108,767 (Preliminary Design) Task 2 $104,612 (Environmental Assessment, Clearance and Permits) Task 3 $54,491 (Project Permits) Task 4 $15,380 (35% Plans, Specifications and Estimate) Task 5 $7762 (Phase 2 Project Management and Coordination) Task 6 $55,920 (65% Plans, Specifications and Estimate) Task 7 $38,431 (Final PS& E – 90% & 100%) Task 8 $4,993 (Bid Phase Services) Task 9 TBD (Construction Phase Services) DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 32 Sub-total Basic Services $390,356 Reimbursable Expenses $9,637 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $399,993 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $39,999 Maximum Total Compensation $439,992 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Classification Actual Hourly Rate (Min) Actual Hourly Rate (Max) Overhead Multiplier Fee Fully Loaded Rate (Max) Fully Loaded Rate (Max) Principal III $95.00 $105.00 155.66% 10.00% $267.16 $295.29 Principal II $80.00 $95.00 155.66% 10.00% $224.98 $267.16 Principal I $75.00 $82.00 155.66% 10.00% $210.92 $230.61 Associate $55.00 $67.00 155.66% 10.00% $154.67 $188.42 Engineering Manager $50.00 $57.00 155.66% 10.00% $140.61 $160.30 Senior Engineer $42.00 $52.00 155.66% 10.00% $118.11 $146.24 Project Engineer $38.00 $48.00 155.66% 10.00% $106.87 $134.99 Staff Engineer $32.00 $40.00 155.66% 10.00% $89.99 $112.49 Assistant Engineer $28.00 $34.00 155.66% 10.00% $78.74 $95.62 Junior Engineer $17.00 $32.00 155.66% 10.00% $47.81 $89.99 Sr. Computer Drafter $30.00 $47.00 155.66% 10.00% $84.37 $132.18 Administration $11.00 $52.00 155.66%10.00%$30.93 $146.24 *Charge Rates Applicable October 1, 2015 – September 30, 2016 (Charge Rate revisions will be submitted in October of each year) BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Fee Schedule Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Project EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 33 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Ov e r h e a d Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Mi n Ma x Mu l t i p l i e r Fe e Mi n Ma x Pr i n c i p a l P r o j e c t M a n a g e r 61 . 0 0 $ 87 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 7 4 % 10 . 0 0 % 20 1 . 8 0 $ 28 7 . 8 1 $ Se n i o r P r o j e c t M a n a g e r 50 . 0 0 $ 53 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 16 5 . 4 1 $ 17 5 . 33 $ Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r 34 . 0 0 $ 47 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 11 2 . 4 8 $ 15 5 . 48 $ As s o c i a t e P r o j e c t M a n a g e r 27 . 0 0 $ 40 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 89 . 3 2 $ 13 2 . 33 $ As s i s t a n t P r o j e c t M a n a g e r 25 . 0 0 $ 31 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 82 . 7 0 $ 10 2 . 55 $ Re s e a r c h e r 23 . 0 0 $ 26 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 76 . 0 9 $ 86 . 01 $ Gr a p h i c A r t i s t 25 . 0 0 $ 28 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 82 . 7 0 $ 92 . 63 $ *C h a r g e R a t e s A p p l i c a b l e O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5 - S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 (C h a r g e R a t e r e v i s i o n s w i l l b e s u b m i t t e d i n O c t o b e r o f e a c h y e a r . ) Da v i d J . P o w e r s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c Ac t u a l Ho u r l y R a t e Fu l l y B u r d e n e d Ho u r l y R a t e Fe e S c h e d u l e U. S . 1 0 1 / A d o b e C r e e k B i k e / P e d O v e r c r o s s i n g P r o j e c t EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 34 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Labor Classification Hourly Salary Overhead Multiplier Professional Fee % (Profit) Fully Loaded Hourly Rate Project Manager $71.51 186.0%10%$225.00 Project Engineer $62.00 186.0%10%$195.07 Senior Engineer $55.00 186.0%10%$173.04 Associate Engineer $44.50 186.0%10%$140.01 Assistant Engineer $40.00 186.0%10%$125.85 Designer $35.00 186.0%10%$110.12 Junior Engineer $32.50 186.0%10%$102.25 Technician $25.00 186.0%10%$78.66 Indirect Labor Percentage Calculations Employee & Fringe Benefits (1) 36.8% 11.2% 6.5% Payroll Tax 8.7% PST Contribution 9.6% Workers Comp 0.8% General Overhead Expense (2) 149.2% 24.6% Office Expenses 8.7% Supplies 2.8% Automobile 2.2% Travel 1.6% Taxes & Licenses 0.3% 2.5% 2.0% 4.5% Depreciation 6.3% 92.1% Miscellaneous 1.6% Total Indirect Cost (1)+ (2) 186.0%<-- Indirect Cost used for Multiplier Indirect % of Direct Labor Calculations* Benefit Insurance Legal & Accounting Schaaf & Wheeler Fully Loaded Hourly Rate by Classification Vacation, Sick, Holiday General Administration Corporate Insurance Rent and Maintenance Prof Dues & Training *Modified categories to match Federal DCAA Audit for Schaaf & Wheeler EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 35 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Classification/Role Labor Rate actual and/or range Loaded Rate 2.5 plus 10% (2.75) Project Manager $92.59 $254.61 Sr. Engineering Geologist $65 $178.75 Sr. Project Engineer (QA QC- Eng. Manager)$67.1 $184.53 Sr. Project Engineer $53 - $61 $145.75 - $167.75 Project Engineer $43 - $50 $118.25 - $137.5 Field Engineer $44 - $50 $ 121 - $137.5 Lab Technician/@Materials Tester $32 - $44 $88 - $121 Sr. Staff Engineer/PE $33 - $35 $90.75 - $96.25 Staff Engineer $28 - $34 $ 77 - $93.5 Draftsperson $34 - $36 $93.5 - $99 The rates may be changed based on annual escalations and are valid for the year specified. Loaded Rates are calculated based on: 42.27% Labor Fringes 107.73% Gen. Admin. & Overhead 150% Total Overhead 10% Fee 2.75 Total Multiplier @ Prevailing Wage will apply as per DIR requirements & will be calculated on a project specific basis. 2016 Billing Rate Cost Plus Fee EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 36 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Classification Actual Hourly Rate Overhead Multiplier Fee Fully Loaded Rate Principal $75.25 184.00% 10.00% $235.08 Associate $54.39 184.00% 10.00% $169.91 Project Manager 1 $45.69 184.00% 10.00% $142.74 Designer 1 $32.14 184.00% 10.00% $100.41 Construction Manager $50.26 184.00% 10.00% $157.01 Administration $21.00 184.00% 10.00% $65.60 Callander Associates Fee Schedule Baylands Boardwalk EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 37 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Protecting the infrastructure through innovative Corrosion Engineering Solutions CORROSION ENGINEERING SERVICES 2016 Fee Schedule Personnel Charges Rate Per Hour Principal Corrosion Engineer $220.00 Senior Corrosion Engineer $205.00 Corrosion Design Specialist $185.00 Corrosion Project Supervisor $175.00 Project Engineer $165.00 Corrosion Technician $135.00 Field Technician $115.00 Drafting/AutoCad $ 88.00 Word Processing/Computer $ 70.00 Litigation Depositions & Mediations (4 hour min. charge) $330.00 Court Appearance (4 hour min. charge) $395.00 Expenses Subsistence (Room and Meals) Cost Mileage Current IRS Standard Mileage Rate Travel (Airfare, etc.) Cost Reproduction, Outside Testing & Consulting Services Cost + 5% Notes: 1. Effective Date: Jan, 1, 2016 thru Dec. 31, 20162. Payment Terms: Net 30 days Office Address: 1100 Willow Pass Court, Concord, CA 94520 Tel. No.: 925.927.6630 Fax No.: 925.927.6634 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 38 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 39 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II.CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III.ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A.PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 40 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASONOTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDECITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATEOF CANCELLATION. 2.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN(10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 41 EXHIBIT “E” DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS This Exhibit shall apply only to a contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONSULTANT without proof that CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. CITY provides notice to CONSULTANT of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors that CONSULTANT is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and CONSULTANT is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. CITY requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, respectively. At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY’s request. CITY requests CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 42 then CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONSULTANT. Inform the project manager of the location of CONSULTANT’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121