Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/1997, C-2 - HIGUERA STREET BRIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AND DESIGN SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, SPECIFICATION NO. 93-67B.council ac,Enaa Repout CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director Prepared by: Barbara Lynch, Civil Engineer ,7a ,Z 99? ?- 2 SUBJECT: lEguera Street Bridge Environmental Study and Design Services Request for Proposals, Specification No. 93 -67B. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for proposals for "Environmental and Design Services - Ifiguea Street Bridge Rehabilitation', and authorize staff to distribute the request. Authorize the CAO to award the contract ifthe negotiated cost for consultant services is within the project budget DISCUSSION: The Higuera Street bridge has been inspected by the State Department of Transportation and determined to be in need of rehabilitation or reconstruction. It is eligible for 80% funding under a federal program for bridges as long as all areas of structural concern are addressed. Due to the extent of this project and its location in the downtown, staff has worked with the BIA and community members on the project. Three public meetings were held to discuss community concerns with business owners, property owners and other interested parties. On March 19, 1996 the City Council discussed the project and took testimony at a public meeting. The public's main concerns relate to the disruption to businesses in the area proposed for construction. The business community would like the City to do most, if not all the work from the inside of the structure. These concerns were relayed to staff during the public meetings as well as to the Council. At the Councal meeting, staff was directed to proceed with the application for Federal funding, and to prepare a Request For Proposals (RFP) to do the environmental study, including a review of the impacts of opening the creek through a portion of the City owned Court Street parking lot Council gave general direction to rehabilitate the bridge, review previous options for rehabilitation and specifically to include design options which would allow as much work as possible to be completed from the inside. The RFP incorporates the concerns of the business community and Council. The work plan will be, in reality, two separate programs with a Council meeting in the middle. First, the consultant will complete the environmental work, present a discussion of alternatives and make a recommendation for design at a Council meeting. The consultant will also present updated cost estimates. At that meeting the Council will decide "the project" for implementation. Once Council gives the final direction, the second part of the project begins, and the actual construction plans will be prepared. Staff is incorporating public comment periods in the environmental and design phases to ensure input of public ideas and concerns. Construction work is be expected to start in 1999 or 2000 depending upon the extent of the environmental findings and the length of time needed to get permits for any work impacting the creek 02 / CONCURRENCES: City staff has reviewed the workscope with the BIA and incorporated their recommendations. Community Development has worked with engineering staff to outline the areas for environmental review and has provided a standard initial study check list for the consultant to use. FISCAL EM PACT: Staff has applied for and received authorization for Federal funding of this portion of the project. As with the Santa Rosa Bridge project, the funding request was made under the guidelines which allowed the preliminary engineering costs, which includes environmental work, to be no greater than 15% of the estimated construction costs. That limit has been increased to 25% to reflect actual costs agencies have been incurring. Staff will make an additional request for funds when we make the award and know what the engineering costs will be. The 1995 -97 Financial Plan Supplement (pg E4) identifies a total of $500,000 for the preliminary stages with an additional $3,000,000 estimated for 1998/99. General Fund Grant Funding Total Design $100,000 $400,000 $500,000 Construction $600,000 $2,400,000 $3,000,000 ATTACffiV1ENT: 'Description of Work" - excerpt from RFP The complete RFP is available in the Council office for review. brid9=Vng mI—_ _je.adv A. DESCRIPTION OF WORK 1. Background: The Higuera Street bridge is not only part of Higuera street but also Osos and Court Streets and located in the. CBD. The bridge is not visible from Mguera Street except to the degree that one edge can be approximated by the cracking in the street The bridge crosses Higuera street at the Thai restaurant then curves and runs parallel with Higuera, under the northerly sidewalk, parking and first travel lane. It crosses Osos and Court Streets. It curves north, leaves the Court Street right of way, and goes under private property (Mo's BBQ). See Appendix. The existing bridge is approximately 130 meters wide, 6 meters high and 6 meters long. The bridge abutments were constructed in 1892 of stacked rubble grouted on the inside face. The deck, built in 1910. and 1911, is constructed of steel girders set in a concrete grade beam with a reinforced concrete deck on top of that Plans indicate portions of the bridge were being rebuilt in 1910, removing the decking but salvaging the steel. Some of the steel girders are different Excavations in the area indicate a varying depth of dirt on top of the concrete deck with a 200 mm PCC concrete street and 20+ mm AC overlay at the surface. This bridge is more commonly referred to as the undercity culvert and has been identified as a significant hydraulic restriction in the creek during flooding. The storm waters have traditionally flooded over the banks at the entrance under the Thai restaurant and flowed through downtown streets. Originally, it was felt that it would be impossible to allow repairs to encroach in the channel to do repair. After discovering the layer of dirt on the deck, interior work was deemed a possibility due to the potential to maintain the restricted hydraulic channel capacity by increased height and interior surface treatments (replacing the deck structure with a thinner and higher one.) In November 1993 the Caltrans notified the City of San Luis Obispo that it should consider major rehabilitation or replacement of the Mguera bridge crossing San Luis Obispo Creek in the near future and should restrict loads on the bridge. Caltrans did not complete a study of the foundation at that time. The basis for their recommendation was the non - composite nature of the deck construction and the general condition of the deck. In February of 1994 the bridge was posted for load limits. In March 1995 a preliminary study of the bridge was completed to determine if the deck could be replaced without doing any work to the walls. To that end the back side of the wall was excavated. It was determined that there was little holding the walls together. The grout on the interior is a superficial treatment only. The study results show the walls appear to be adequate to carry direct loading; however, they are not adequate to handle seismic loading and the City should pursue rehabilitation or replacement. In March 1996, the City Council gave general direction to proceed with a rehabilitation project including options which focus on the possibilities available to do the bulk of the work from the interior of the bridge as requested by local businesses. In addition direction was given to pursue the environmental study including an option of relocating and opening the creek for a portion of the bridge length. See Appendix. 2. Funding: The environmental study, design, construction and any construction easements or right of way necessary to complete the construction will be funded at 80% of the lowest cost option under the Federal HBRR program. The remaining moneys will come from the City's general fund. 3. Alternatives The City Council has reviewed the initial study of the condition of the bridge and given general direction to rehabilitate the existing structure rather than to replace it. This decision was based on the information that a rehabilitation project could be completed with less disruption to the adjacent businesses at a reasonable cost with a potential of maintaining two travel lanes open during construction. The consultant will still need to make a basic assessment of the costs and impacts of replacement to confirm original findings and to provide a basis for requesting funding (least cost option). In addition to looking at various rehabilitation options versus replacement, the City wants to look into the option of permanent removal of a portion of the bridge. This includes realigning and opening the creek to view through the City owned parking lot between Osos Street and the west side of Court Street. Court Street would then be closed to vehicle traffic, but pedestrian would have to be maintained. r: �2 4. Scone of Work and Minimum Consultant Services: The City is looking for a qualified environmental, design and right of way team to carry the bridge project to the construction bidding stage and provide engineering and inspection support during construction. All work is to be done in accordance with Federal guidelines for HBRR funding under the new Local Assistance . Guidelines and in the metric system of measurements. Design shall be completed under the most current Caltrans standards for design. The plans and specifications shall conform to the standard formats used by the City of San Luis Obispo including use of City Standard Specifications, Engineering Standards, and drafting standards. A) Environmental: a. Meet with City staff and local business representatives to understand the community concerns, access needs, local environmental document requirements, design parameters affecting the environmental work and limitations on night work. a Make site visits as needed to understand the condition of the bridge. b. Complete investigation of the existing burden over the deck C. Research adjacent building supports and determine the impacts of construction on the structure, corrective measures, access issues and potential solutions including remodeling d. Study and report design alternatives for purposes of the environmental evaluation i. Alternatives for construction from within the creek ii. Alternatives for construction from outside the creek iii. Relocatinglopening the creek e. Complete necessary studies of the bridge and area to determine the effect of various design alternatives. Studies shall include, AS A N NIIvIUM, the following areas. The Consultant should discuss any other area they feel will be necessary for completion. iv. Hydraulic V. Biological - Wetland vi. Historical - Archeological vii. Geological - Hazardous materials viii. Social - business, traffic and circulation, private property f. Estimate the purchase cost from the Parking Fund of the area of the City parking lot which would be disturbed for creek opening, and any expected construction easements g. Complete rendering of creek opening option h. Complete an environmental initial study and make an environmental determination recommendation to be approved by the Community Development Director in accordance with CEQA, NEPA, FHWA and local guidelines. i. Develop and summarize pros and cons, costs and environmental impacts of alternatives including: i. Length of construction ii. Identification of any work which could be done at night, the extent of the noise and any effects that has on construction time and costs iii. Affects on pedestrian access to businesses and along the street. iv. Potentials for staging the work and any effects that has on construction time and costs V. Number of travel lanes which could be kept open and any effects that has on construction time and costs vi. Costs vii. Expected life of new/ rehabilitated structure viii. Any detrimental effects to fish and wildlife j. Make a recommendation for proceeding. k. Present environmental findings and recommendation to the business community at a public meeting 1. Present environmental findings and recommendation to the City Council at a public meeting. m. Process the environmental study through the DLAE to the FHWA for environmental clearance. B) Work required if the City Council gives direction to proceed with opening the creek: a. Meet with City staff and local business representatives to review preliminary design b. Attend two Architectural Review Commission (ARC) ineetings. C. Revise design and rendering as directed by the ARC. C) Acquisition: a. Complete descriptions for the necessary construction easements/ rights of entry to be prepared, the lots appraised and purchase coordinated with the City. b. Complete original Caltrans approved property appraisal. c. Complete original right of way or right of entry agreements D) Design: a. Complete any necessary surveying. b. Obtain any additional geotechnical information needed for design beyond that completed for the environmental study. C. For any work under their jurisdiction, prepare and file the necessary Army Corps of Engineer, Fish and Game and California Regional Water Quality permits and provide a copy of all permit applications to the City. Upon application approval, provide original permits, agreements, or waiver;. d. Coordinate work with the various utilities on the existing bridge to accommodate their facilities. e. Prepare the necessary design exception for encroachment in the 100 year flood plain. f. Prepare any other necessary design exceptions for approval by the City. g. Complete and submit preliminary and final plans, specifications, and Engineer's estimate. Two copies of the PS&E shall be submitted for each percentage review. i. 50 % submittal ii. 95% submittal iii. 100% submittal iv. Final Submittal includes: ORIGINAL stamped plans (ink on mylar), specifications and engineer's estimate - hard copy and diskette h. Prepare the Detailed Estimate necessary for federal authorization to proceed with construction. Any documents or materials provided by the Consultant will be reviewed by City staff and, where necessary, the Consultant will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. The City expects the Consultant to remain in regular communication with the Project Manager as to the status of the project City staff will carry the project through the City Council and bidding process. The City will furnish a copy of the City Standard Specifications based on the Caltrans Standard Specifications, July 1995, a set of City Engineering Standard Details, example specifications, City plan and profile sheets and drafting standards. Plan and profile shall be furnished on diskette. Written documents are to be submitted on standard english letter size (8.5 x 11) paper. One project manager is to be assigned as the contact point for all of the various work items. 5. Construction Engineering: As part of the workscope and at no additional cost, the Consultant will be responsible to issue any addendums, or clarifications which arise during bidding. During construction, the Consultant will be responsible to provide necessary clarifications and drawings at no additional cost where the Consultant failed to cover information at a level of detail necessary for the construction contractor and the City's inspector to interpret the plans and specifications. All communication with bidders and the construction contractor shall be handled through the City and the City will be the sole contact with the Consultant. The contract will also include consultation with City staff during construction paid on the basis of time and materials with a not to exceed amount. 6. Time frame: The City would like to complete the construction of the bridge during the summer of 1999 if the design includes creek work (PS&E, right of way agreements and permits to City Council by March 1999). If the rehabilitation will not require creek work, the City prefers to work during the off months for the downtown with the start of construction in January of 2000 (PS&E, right of way agreements and permits to City Council by October 1999). The consultant should be aware that no work is allowed in the area of the bridge between Thanksgiving and New Years. The work area in the downtown must be returned to a useable condition during that time period each year. Work in the creek is generally limited to the summer months The Consultant should address in the proposal when they estimate construction could start, and what effect the working month limitations might have on construction.