Loading...
CC 2015-01-27_11a Bridge Street Bridge ProjectMEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 'BY: JILL MCPEEK, CONSUL TANT PROJECT MANAGER SUBJECT: SELECTION OFALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT DATE: JANUARY 27, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: 1. Select two alternatives with which to proceed for environmental study for the Bridge Street Bridge Improvement Project ("Project"): a) replace the existing supplemental truss with a new supplemental truss as the rehabilitation alternative, and b) construct a new conventional bridge with historic features as the replacement alternative for environmental study; and 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to the consultant services agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc.; and 3. Appropriate an additional $563,500 of Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant funds in the capital improvement program budget for the preliminary engineering phase of the project. , FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City has been successful in securing 100% funding through the Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds for the Bridge Street Bridge project. Preliminary Engineering (PE) For Phase I of PE (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Clearance), the City previously secured $581,400 in HBP funds. In September 2014, the City requested an additional $563,500in order to carry two design alternatives through the environmental process of Phase I, and to complete Phase II -Final Design Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and Permitting. This request was approved by Caltrans in October 2014.lt isanticipated $996,988 will be used for the design/environmentalconsultant contract and $147,912 will be usedfor city staff time, costs of copies, and exhibits, Item 11.a. - Page 1 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE2 consultant contract managementand quality assurance.The following is a summary of Preliminary Engineering contract amounts: Phase I Phase II Total Original Contract-May 22, 2012 -Quincy Engineering 467,000.00 390,000.00 857,000.00 -Contract Management/ Quality Assurance 64,400.00 58,500.00 122,900.00 Subtotal 531,400.00 448,500.00 979,900.00 Amendment No. 1 -May 27, 2014 -Quincy Engineering 39,895.19 0.00 39,895.19 -Contract Management/ Quality Assurance 10,104.81 0.00 10, 104.81 Subtotal 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 Proposed Amendment No. 2-Jan 27, 2015 -Quincy Engineering 100,092.83 0.00 100,092.83 -Contract Management/ Quality Assurance 14,907.17 0.00 14,907.17 Subtotal 115,000.00 0.00 115,000.00 Totals -Quincy Engineering 606,988.02 390,000,00 996,988.02 -Contract Management/ Quality Assurance 89,411.98 58,500.00 147,911.98 Totals 696,400.00 448,500.00 1, 144,900.00 As of December 31 2014, approximately $234,700 (50%) has been invoiced against Quincy Engineering's original contract, approximately $35,400 (89%) has been invoiced against Amendment No 1 ; and approximately $61,279 of the $14 7 ,900 for contract management has been expended. Construction (CONST) For the Construction phase of the project, in September 2014, the City requested $4,995,500 in HBP funding. This request has been included in Caltrans' 2P12/13 - 2017/18 Highway Bridge Program showing that the project has met eligibility requirements of the HBP program. Although the majority of staff work will be performed by contract engineering, staff that is covered by the grant, additional in-house time will be required for staff management and during environmental review. Item 11.a. - Page 2 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVl~ONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE3 BACKGROUND: Bridge Street Bridge Due to various deficiencies, the Bridge Street Bridge is restricted to a 3-ton maximum load limit. In 2005, a Preliminary Engineering Study (PES) was prepared that presented a preliminary set of alternatives and associated costsfor rehabilitating or replacing the Bridge Street bridge. However, further project development was halted due to the required local match funds under the regular Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP). In July 2010, the City submitted requests and received 100% Federal funding for both engineering and construction through the use of a new program which allows for the use of toll credits for bridges off the Federal-aid system to cover the local match fund portion. Authorization to proceed with Preliminary Engineering was received in April 2011, and City and Caltrans staff met in July 2011 to review the alternatives contained in the 2005 PES. Most of the alternatives still appeared feasible and eligible for funding under the HBP program, and it was determined that the next step would be for the City to secure a consultant team that would provide refinement of feasible alternatives, prepare visual displays of the alternatives for public review and input, environmental studies, and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates of the preferred alternative. The consultant team developed three replacement and one retrofit alternatives, along with a no-build alternative which is required be analyzed as part of the environmental study process. These alternatives were presented to both the community and the Stakeholder group that was established by the Council in June 2013. The first community meeting was held November 6, 2013. All Stakeholders, property owners and tenants along Bridge Street and East Branch Street were mailed a meeting notice, and a notice was posted in front of City Hall. The focus of the meeting was to review the condition of the existing bridge, summarize work completed to date, introduce the design alternatives, and solicit public comments. The first Stakeholders group meeting was held on· January 8, 2014.The focus of the meeting was to review the condition of the existing bridge, summarize work completed to date, introduce the design alternatives, and provide direction to solicit input from the respective groups. Each Stakeholder member present was requested to go back to their respective groups and solicit input and questions, and to encourage the members of these groups to attend the January 22, 2014 community meeting. Item 11.a. - Page 3 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE4 Comments received from these two meetings were collected and responses prepared for the second community meeting held on January 22, 2014. All stakeholders, property owners, and tenants were mailed a meeting notice. In addition, two of the Stakeholders hand walked notices to each address throughout the Village area (e.g.,Bridge, Branch, Nelson, Mason, and Short Streets). A notice was posted in front of City Hall as well as on the City's updated website. The focus of the meeting was to discuss the various alternatives in further detail, provide feedback on public comment received, and to outline the future activities in moving the project forward. In preparation for the second Stakeholders group meeting, staff contacted each Stakeholder member requesting that each group meet during the month of February 2014 to discuss the alternatives and to provide their representative direction/voice vote on which alternative should be carried forward through the environmental review process. The second Stakeholders group meeting was held on March 12, 2014. The focus of the meeting was to review newly acquired traffic information, consider research performed on alternative funding sources (should the selected alternative or portions of the selected alternative not be covered by the HBP grant), and perform a straw vote on preferred alternatives. The straw vote on which alternative should move forward through the environmental process resulted as follows: Stakeholders Group Option 1 : Conventional bridge replacement Option 2: Salvage & relocate truss on new bridge Option 3: Replace bridge with new similar truss Option 4: Rehabilitate existing bridge Option 5: No build 2 3 1 2 0 Others Present at the Meeting 3 5 1 4 0 The vote was followed by discussion that perhaps two alternatives could be carried through the environmental review process. A second vote was conducted to identify which additional alternative should move forward if two alternatives could be possible. The vote resulted as follows for a second alternative: Item 11.a. - Page 4 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSUL TANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGES Stakeholders Group Option 1: Conventional bridge replacement Option 2: Salvage & relocate truss on new bridge Option 3: Replace bridge with new similar truss Option 4: Rehabilitate existing bridge Option 5: No build 1 4 0 1 0 Others Present at the Meeting 2 8 1 3 0 Further discussion was held about additional information that may need to be gathered by staff before presentation of the alternatives to the City Council, and that if anything significant is identified, a third Stakeholders Group meeting should be held to discuss and a re-vote conducted. The four areas of additional information discussed were traffic, historical eligibility, fundability through the HBP program, and cost to carry two alternatives through the environmental process. Following the Stakeholders Group meeting, staff began researching these items. Research did reveal significant information, including the development and refinement of two retrofit strategies for Option 4. Alternative 4a involved removing the existing supplemental truss and strengthening the existing historic truss by replacing deficient members. Alternative 4b involved removing the existing supplemental truss and replacing it with a stronger supplemental truss. It is important to note that regardless of what retrofit/rehabilitation alternative is selected the existing bridge foundations must be completely replaced due to seismic and hydraulic scour deficiencies. Other significant findings included: Traffic A Bridge Street Corridor Study Report was prepared in March 2014 and it was found that in the near term, there would be some traffic impacts from the various options, but nothing as significant as anticipated (e.g., a drop in one level of service (LOS) at some of the surrounding intersections and roadway segments). Historical Eligibility A Rehabilitation and Replacement Strategy Analysis Report was prepared in August 2014. Preliminary analysis indicates that only two options (Option 4b and Option 5) would allow the bridge to maintain is eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Item 11.a. - Page 5 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSUL TANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE6 Fundability through the HBP Program The Rehabilitation and Replacement Strategy Analysis Report was prepared to assist Caltrans in determining fundability. A preliminary opinion from Caltrans was obtained that states all options as presented in the report would be fundable (with the exception of some aesthetics that Caltrans might consider too much). In addition, there may be some requirements such as a long-term maintenance commitment by the City for some of the alternatives. Cost to Carry Two Alternatives through the Environmental Process Caltrans considers both a replacement and rehabilitation design alternative fundable through the environmental review phase and the City secured additional funding for this in October 2014. With this additional information, meetings were scheduled with both the Friends of the Bridge Street Bridge and Stakeholders groups. A meeting was held with the Friends of the Bridge Street Bridge on October 13, 2014. The focus of the meeting was to discuss the four areas of additional information obtained following the March 2014 Stakeholders Group meeting. No formal action was taken, but the consensus of the group was to move Option 4b forward. The group also agreed that they were most interested in alternatives which would not affect the historic eligibility of the existing bridge. A third Stakeholders group meeting was held on November 19, 2014. The focus of the meeting was to discuss the four areas of additional information obtained following the March 2014 Stakeholders Group meeting, and to perform a re-vote on the preferred alternatives. The vote on which alternatives should move forward through the environmental review process resulted as follows: --------------------------·--i Option 4b: I 'Option 2: I : Option-3: ! Remove the existing supplemental Unanimously chosen as preferred , truss and replace with a new 1 Option to be carried through supplemental truss I environmental review i ·----------------------- : Salvage and relocate truss on new : First choice as second Option to be : , bridge ! carried through environmental I ; review I Bridge replacement with new ---!I Second choice-as second-Option to similar truss 1 be carried through environmental review --------'- Item 11.a. - Page 6 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE7 Option 1: · Conventional brfdge replacement I ~ Unanimously eliminated -------- ! Option 4a: Remove the existing supplemental i Unanimously eliminated 1 truss and retrofit the existing I : historical truss I ' ----- ' Do nothing I No build ----------·--·--! : Unanimously eliminated ·Option 5: I , ____ --'---- Consultant Services Agreement In May 2012, after issuing a request for proposals, the Council approved a consultant services agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc. for: Phase I -Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Clearance Refine feasible alternatives, provide visual displays and conduct public review, perform necessary engineering and environmental studies. Phase II -Final Design PS&E and Permitting Prepare plans, specifications and estimates for the preferred alternative. On May 27, 2014, the Council approved Amendment No. 1 to Phase I of the consultant services agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc. in order to prepare the above mentioned Rehabilitation and Replacement Strategy Analysis Report to assist Caltrans in determining funding eligibility of the rehabilitation alternative and to determine a preliminary opinion regarding historical eligibility. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Bridge Street Bridge The 3 ton load limit is the lowest posting allowed before bridge closure is required. If the bridge is not rehabilitated or replaced, the condition will continue to deteriorate and eventually bridge closure will be required. The proposed alternatives will rehabilitate or replace the bridge onthe existing alignment. However, the alternatives presented also have varied width options which must be selected prior to final design. The following is a summary of these alternatives followed by a table listing the anticipated outcome and impacts of each alternative. Option 1: Conventional Bridge Replacement Construct a new cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge in the current location. The new bridge could incorporate some design elements that would match the Item 11.a. - Page 7 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGES Village area. The existing steel truss bridge could be relocated to a location accessible to the public for viewing or possibly pedestrian use. Option 2: Salvage and Relocate Truss on New Bridge Construct a new cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge in the current location and incorporate the architectural features of the existing historic truss. Portions of the existing bridge, such as the main trusses and railings could be attached to the new structure as architectural components in order to recreate thehistoric feel of the existing bridge. Separated and raised wooden sidewalks could be designed to replicate the existing pedestrian sidewalks. Option 3: Bridge Replacement with New Similar Truss Construct a new steel truss bridge in the current location that would incorporate the architectural aspects of the existing historic truss designed to be similar in truss dimensions and member sizes. Separated and raised wooden sidewalks could be designed to replicate the existing pedestrian sidewalks. The existing steel truss bridge could be relocated to a location accessible to the public for viewing or possibly pedestrian use. Option 4: Rehabilitate Existing Bridge Option 4a Remove Supplemental Truss &Retrofit the Existing Historical Truss Remove the existing supplemental structure and rehabilitate the historic structure. Due to the existing trusses and vertical members having insufficient capacity, the end verticals of the truss would be replaced, all vertical members and top chords would be rehabilitated by replacing the lattice bracing with a half inch plate, and damaged diagonals due to vehicular collisions would be replaced. Heavily modifying the existing structure will likely impact the historic eligibility. Option 4b Replace Existing Supplemental Truss with New Supplemental Truss Replace the existing supplemental structure with a new stronger supplemental structure. The new supplemental structure will be designed to handle 100% of modern design live loads as well as support the weight of the historic truss. No structural changes would be made to the members of the historic truss. However, the historic truss would need to be removed and disassembled during new foundation construction. Item 11.a. - Page 8 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSUL TANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE9 Option 5 No Build Retain the existing historic bridge and make no improvements beyond normal bridge maintenance that the City would perform. Eventually the existing bridge condition would continue to deteriorate leading to closure. Item 11.a. - Page 9 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSUL TANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE10 Number of Proposed Traffic Option Travel Bridge Deck C1rculat1on Lanes Option 1: 2 Same as Conventional existing bridge replacement (with possible relocation of existing bridge) Option 2: 2 Same as Salvage and existing relocate truss on new bridge <1>NRHP = National Register of H1stonc Places CRHR =California Register of Historic Resources Width 28 feet 28 feet Bridge Proiected Functionally Potential Loading Sufficiency Obsolete Historic (metric tons) Rating (FO) Finding <1> Full design 82 6 FOtagwould Not Ehg1ble for hveload be removed NRHP Relocated bridge may be ehg1ble for CRHR >324 82 6 FO tag would Not Ehg1ble for (Full design be removed NRHP or live load) CRHR Construction Fundab1hty Advantages Disadvantages Cost Estimate through HBP $1,508,00 New bridge • Lowest construction cost • Does not match historical fully fundable • Lowest long-term context of existing bridge but potential maintenance costs • Must be constructed on that excessive • Clear span over AG creek falsework aesthetic features may not be fundable Potential • Moving existing bndge • Loss of ehg1bi11ty for NRHP funding for could be mrt1gat1on for • Future maintenance and relocating Section 106 inspection to be borne by existing bridge • Relocated bridge could City retain el1g1bll1ty for CRHR $1,711,00 New bndge fully • Lower construction cost • Impacts to h1stoncal fundable but • Lower long-term resource potential that maintenance costs • Must be constructed on excessive • Clear span over AG creek falsework aesthetic • Matches historical bridge • Loss of ehg1b1hty for NRHP features may context and CRHR not be fundable • Actual h1stonc bridge • Longest construction elements remain near duration of replacement existing location alternatives • Reuse of truss part of m1t1gat1on under Section 106 Item 11.a. - Page 10 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSUL TANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE 11 Number of Proposed Traffic Option Travel Bndge Deck C1rculat1on Lanes Option 3: 2 Same as Bndge Ex1st1ng replacement with new s1m1lar truss ~- (with possible relocation of existing bndge) Option 4a: 2 Same as Rehab1htat1on of Existing Existing Bndge (by removing 2 Same as supplemental Ex1st1ng truss and retrofitting existing 1 Vehicular historical truss) traffic hm1ted to SB or NB only ''1NRHP = National Register of H1stonc Places CRHR = California Register of H1stonc Resources Width 28 feet 24 feet 28 feet 24 feet Bndge Proiected Functionally Loading Sufficiency Obsolete (metric tons) Rating (FO) >324 776 FOtag would (Full design be removed hve load) 18 9 55 3 FOtag would remain due to bndr:iew1dth 12 4 49.2 FO tag IS expected to be removed 274 75 0 FOtagwould remain due to bndgew1dth Potential Construction Fundab1ilty H1stonc Advantages Disadvantages Finding ''1 Cost Estimate through HBP Not Ehg1ble $2,258,000 New bndge fully • Lowest construction • Impacts to h1stoncal for NRHP fundable but duration of replacement resource potential that alternatives • Highest construction costs excessive • S1m1lar appearance to of replacement alternatives aesthetic ex1st1ng bridge • Higher long-term features may • Clear span over AG Creek maintenance costs not be fundable Relocated Potential • Moving existing bndge • Loss of ehg1b1hty for NRHP bndge may be funding for could be m1t1gation for • Future maintenance and ehg1ble for relocating Section 106 inspection to be borne by CRHR existing bndge • Relocated bndge could City retain ehg1b1hty for CRHR Not Ehg1ble $3,424,000 Rehab1htat1on of • Removes visual impacts of • Some visual impacts due to for NRHP bndge may be the supplemental truss replacement of some fully fundable • Restores original cond1t1on h1stonc features w1ththe of h1stonc bndge carrying • Higher construction costs Not Ehg1ble $3,551,000 exception that load • Higher hfe-cycle costs for NRHP excessive • Depending on alternative • Higher long-term aesthetic may remove FO tag maintenance costs features may • Requires longest Not Ehg1ble $3,424,000 not be fundable construction time of all for NRHP alternatives • Depending on alternative may not remove FO tag • Revision of downtown c1rculat1on pattern and business access (single lane conversion) • Impacts to h1stoncal resource (likely loss of bndge ehg1b1hty for NRHP and CRHR) Item 11.a. - Page 11 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE12 Number of Proposed Traffic Option Travel Bridge Deck Circulation Lanes Option 4b: 2 Same as Rehab1lltat1on of Ex1st1ng Ex1st1ng Bridge (by replacing ex1st1ng 2 Same as supplemental Existing truss with new supplemental truss) 1 Vehicular traffic limited to SB or NB only Option 5: 0 No vehicular No Build traffic (possible between (eventual pedestrian OlohanAlley closure of and/or and parking bridge) bicycle) lots south of the bridge ''1NRHP = National Register of Historic Places CRHR = California Register of Historic Resources Width 24 feet 28 feet 24 feet 24 feet Bridge Proiected Loading Sufficiency (metric tons) Rating >324 726 (Full design live load) >324 74 6 (Full design live load) >324 82 7 (Full design live load) 3Tons 12 8 Functionally Potential Construction Fund ability Obsolete Historic Advantages Disadvantages (FO) Finding ''1 Cost Estimate through HBP FOtag would El1g1ble $3,443,000 Rehabilitation of • Historic truss remains • Highest construction costs remain due to for NRHP bridge may be visually unchanged of all alternatives bridge width fully fundable • Depending on alternative • Higher life-cycle costs w1ththe may remove FO tag • Higher long-term exception that • Possibly no adverse effect maintenance costs FOtag IS Reevaluation $3,984,000 excessive and remains el1g1ble for • Requires longer time to expected to required 1f aesthetic NRHP and CRHR construct be removed widened to features may • Depending on alternative determine not be fundable may not remove FO tag ellg1b1l1ty • Rev1s1on of downtown forNRHP c1rculat1on pattern and business access (single lane conversion) FOtag would Ellg1ble $3,443,000 • Re-evaluation required 1f remain due to for NRHP widened and may possible bridge width have adverse effect and 1eopard1ze eilg1bll1ty for NRHP and CRHR Yes Ellg1ble • Bridge would maintain its • Maintenance and forNRHP ellg1b1l1ty for NRHP and inspection to be borne by and CRHR CRHR City • If not maintained eventual full closure, including bicycles and pedestrians • Rev1s1on of downtown circulation pattern and business access Item 11.a. - Page 12 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE13 Consultant Services Agreement The project is currently in Phase I of preliminary engineering and the consultant team has developed three replacement alternatives, one retrofit alternative (with variations), and a no-build alternative. Due to public comment received and additional funding procured, it is being recommended that two alternatives, one rehabilitation and one replacement, be carried through environmental study. Should the Council agree, then Amendment No. 2 to Phase I of the consultant services agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $100,092.83 will allow the consultant team to carry two alternatives through the environmental process rather than one preferred alternative that was originally in the contract scope of work. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: -Approve staff's recommendations; Do not approve staff's recommendations; or Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Approval of two alternatives to continue through environmental review could eliminate restarting the environmental process should only one alternative move forward and be found to be infeasible. Quincy Engineering has an established working relationship with City staff and the community, specializes in this type of historic bridge work, and continues to demonstrate responsive professional engineering services on the Bridge Street Bridge Improvement Project which will help ensure the project progresses through the development process according to plan. This contract amendment will provide consistency and efficiency in engineering services. The rate adjustments do not increase the contract totals. Amending the CIP budget will allow the City to request 100% reimbursement for two alternatives to continue through the environmental review process. -Bringing the Bridge Street Bridge up to standard loadi to utilize Bridge Street as a route. Item 11.a. - Page 13 CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. AND BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 27, 2015 PAGE14 DISADVANTAGES: Approval of two alternatives to continue through environmental studies will require some additional time and effort from existing City staff. If preliminary engineering work is not completed in a timely manner, it is possible that the grant funding could be deobligated by Caltrans or that 100% funding for construction may not be available due to other projects in the State completing their project first. However, staff believes this is unlikely. Construction activities will also cause some traffic related disruption within the Village. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Preliminary Engineering work being requested in this staff report includes environmental studies and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval with Caltrans as the lead agency. The City will be the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approval and an environmental determination will be presented to Council at the time of the selection of the preferred alternative. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: Attachment 2 includes a list of all public comment received prior to the preparation of this staff report and the associated responses. The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, January 22, 2015. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, January 23, 2015. No further public comments were received. Attachment: 1. Consultant Services Agreement, Amendment No. 2 2. Public comment received 3. City Council report June 11, 2013 Public Input Process for the Bridge Street Bridge Project Item 11.a. - Page 14 CONSUL TANT SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 2 This Second Amendment ("Second Amendment") to Consultant Services Agreement ("CSA") by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE("City") and QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. ("Consultant") is made and entered into the day of January 2015, based on the following facts: WHEREAS, the _parties entered into a CSA dated May 22, 2012, for preliminary engineering work on the Bridge Street Bridge Improvement project; and WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the CSA was agreed to on May 27, 2014; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the CSA as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, for the good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties agree that the CSA is in full force and effect as amended, and subject to the new terms and conditions set forth below: 1. Section 1, entitled "TERM" shall be amended in its entirety as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until May 22, 2018 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. Exhibit B to the CSA entitled "Payment Schedule" shall be amended to reflect current billing rate sheets as specified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Scope of services shall include the additional services as specified in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the CSA, as amended, shall remain in full force andeffect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSUL TANT have executed this Second Amendment on the day and year first set forth above. ATTACHMENT 1 Item 11.a. - Page 15 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. Jim Hill, Mayor John Quincy, President Attest: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney Item 11.a. - Page 16 BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION I PUBLIC COMMENTS November 6, 2013 -Community Meeting Comment I Question Response I Action Can we make the bridge one-way? Corridor analysis was prepared by City traffic consultant --" --------- What would be the approximate length of construction? ------------------ Post alternatives on the City website January 8, 2014-Stakeholder Group Meeting Comment I Question Opinions heard from the community is that they do not want the elimination of the steel structure Comparable length of construction for each alternative was presented at the 01-22-14 communl!Y.. rr:!eeting ____ "" -- A Bridge Street bridge project page has been created on the City's website Response I Action N/A ------------_______ , ___________ ------------- The historical groups believe preservation of N/A the existin_g_ bridge isJ~-~-P-referred OB_tio_n ____ , ____________ _ For the rehabilitation alternative, would it be possible to remove the bridge, build something like a pony truss underneath from bank to bank and put the existing bridge back on top to possibly eliminate the super-bent structure? ----------- The possibility of a test closure to determine traffic patterns was discussed should the bridge be closed. It was suggested that we use data instead to illustrate traffic J?.atlerns. _ Are there any restrictions with the funding that would require a minimum time that bridge must remain open for vehicular traffic should the City desire to convert the bridge to Response was presented at the 01-22-14 community meeting ----·-· -----------·---- Corridor analysis was prepared by City traffic consultant -----·---------·---------- Consultant team has not yet been able to determine a definitive answer ped/bike u~e later? _ _ _ ______ , ______ ------·--------·-----! The replacement alternatives may be more desirable should relocation of the existing N/A _bridge be _f~_asible a~~/or d_esired __ _______ ___ _____ _ _________ . ________ , If the existing bridge were to be relocated, would this be an eligible cost for the grant funds? Possible funding for bridge relocation was presented at the 01-22-14 community meeting -------------------------1 Should the bridge close or relocation of the Until the type of bridge(s) are known (e.g., existing bridge result, what should be vehicular or pedestrian), there is no way to expected in the way of annual costs for estimate the annual costs bridge m?i_~tenance? -·----------____________ _ ----·---------·-- ATTACHMENT 2 Item 11.a. - Page 17 ~Surrounding residents need to be notified of the meeting. In particular, properties along Nelson Street and Mason Street where additional traffic could be expected should the bridge be closed and/or closure during construction. These additional property owners and tenants were mailed a notification of the 01-22-14 community meeting, and each address was also hand walked a notice ·-----___________ ,__ -------- We need to be sure that the businesses in the Village area are notified These property owners and tenants were mailed a notification of the 01-22-14 community meeting, and each address was also hand walked a notice January 16, 2014-Community Comments during Hand Walked Notices Comment I Question Response I Action Three residents stated they were aware of N/A _ meeting via mail notice -------------------- One resident stated she read about the N/A _eroject vi~_the Stagecoa~~ newsletter ------- Would it be possible to present projected Comparable costs and length of construction costs and construction timelines of the for each alternative was presented at the 01- various alternatives? -~2-14 community meeti_r,:i_g ---------- One resident stated that the bridge was closed for the repair in the BO's and the N/A _Village su!'."ived (e.g., do nothing _?lternative) -------- Two residents supported replicating the existing bridge providing it looks like the N/A current bridQe January 22, 2014-Community Meeting Comment I Question Response I Action Public requested access to meeting notes A Bridge Street bridge project page has been and presentation mat~!ials -created on ~he Citts website - Consider changing Bridge Street bridge to a Corridor analysis was prepared by City traffic one-lane, one-way bridge to side step bridge consultant widening_ ?!]d guardra!I reguirem~~~s ---- Widening bridge could result in higher traffic N/A seeed -------- Widening_ ~ridge could _alter historiC?_integri~ __ N/A -------- Traffic impacts from changing Bridge Street bridge to a one-way, one lane bridge would Corridor analysis was prepared by City traffic need to be studied to determine larger area consultant imeacts ------------- Private funding could be used to reinforce bridge in such a manner that may increase N/A bridge functionality but may not meet _ Caltrans (or other aeplicable} stan~_§!rds -------- --- -- - - Item 11.a. - Page 18 -----------------·~-------·------------- Private funding used to pay for Bridge Street bridge upgrades that do not meet standard N/A safe_!~ C?~iteria could place the 9i~Y. at leg~isk _____ _ Public questioned whether or not a different . . renovation approach completed in the 1990.s Sta~ ~oes ~ot have r~cord of criteria that was could ~-~ve prever:i_t~~urren!_E~dge stat~~_ ----~_::_~_prior reno~a 1 ~._n _________ 1 Public posed questions about whether or not the bridge could remain at its current width. Not widening the bridge per current design/safety standards could put the City at legal risk and render it ineligible for Federal funding for long-term maintenance and This will be part of the Council's decision on which alternative to move forward through the environmental and permitting phase re~~rs. ________________ 1 __________ _ ·------·------ Audience members discussed environmental constraints surrounding past bridge repair, maintenance and painting, and questioned viability of procuring permits for proposed Consultant team explained environmental process for this particular project ~e improvemer:i_ts __ _ ______ , ___ _ ---·-·------------- Questions arose regarding the Stakeholders Consultant team explained Stakeholders Group and its role in the project. There was Group meetings are open to the public and some concern that other stakeholders notifications about the project and upcoming (business owners, residents) may not be events are posted on the City's website, in aware of opportunities to engage/participate front of City Hall, through specific mailings, in the project. City newsletter, Citv website, etc. Miscellaneous Comment I Question 11-07-13: Suggestions from citizenfollowing first community meeting: -Salvage and relocate trusses on new bridge is the best option. -Send questionnaires throughout Village area regarding alternatives and bridge history -Parking lot of former church on Bridge can be used for construction staging -Incorporate permanent flower planters on new bridge with drip irrigation -Incorporate permanent "Village type" lighting on the new bridge -Clean creek of non-native vegetation in cooe_~~~!Jon with _g9c_~r local_ 9!_9ups ___ _ 02-10-14: Request from citizen to be added to mailing list for meetings and other information Response I Action -N/A -Property owners and tenants were mailed a notification of the 01-22-14 community meeting, and each address was also hand walked a notice -To be considered during construction phase -To be considered during design phase -To be considered during design phase -May be a project mitigation measure; to be considered during~ori~truction phase _____ _ Citizen has been added to mailing list -----------------1------------·--------- 02-18-14: Article published in The Tribune N/A entitle~~_ :·span Garners SuQ.Qo_rt _______ 1 ____ _ ------------------ 02-19-14: The Tribune ran an editorial N/A entitleg _"Preserve t~e Bridge Street Bridg._e_" ____ .J_ ________________ _ ------- Item 11.a. - Page 19 02-21-14: Request from citizen to be added to mailing list for meetings and other Citizen has been added to mailing list information -- 02-22-14: Email from grandson of County surveyor who designed the bridge believes This is an alternative to be presented to salvage and relocate trusses on new bridge is Council for consideration the best option. Suggests riveting on existing plaques to To be considered during design phase prevent vandalism 02-22-14: Article published in The Tribune entitled "History of Bridge Street Bridge N/A L§.Ean~ More than_ a gentury" _______ ----------------02-26-14: Letter from Arroyo Grande Citizen to City Council requesting retention of the old This is an alternative to be presented to bridge by fixing the issue of weight loads and Council for consideration leaving existing wid!h 02-27-14: Letter from Citizen summarizing his This is an alternative to be presented to report to Los Robles de Rancho Grande HOA choosing conventional replacement. Council for consideration Suggests alternative photos be on display at City Hall and erhaps include an "vote" box 03-11-14: Citizen disturbed by the photo of The image was changed to better reflect the the "do nothing" alternative on the City's website taken from another location Bridge Street Bridge location - 03-21-14: Request from citizen who attended Project manager responded with information Stakeholder meeting for information re: histori~al register __ that was available to date 05-07-14: E-mail from citizen to City Manager This is an alternative to be presented to requesting rehabilitation rather than demolition Council for consideration 05-14-14: Letter from Arroyo Grande Citizen This is an alternative to be presented to to Mayor requesting rehabilitation of the bridg~jr)~tead of d~~olition Council for consideration ------------- 05-30-14: Letter to City Council from Counsel Upcoming Council decision will be which for Friends of the Bridge Street Bridge re: alternative(s) to move forward through environmental process and opening up environmental and permitting process; Stakeholder meetings to all businesses Stakeholder meetinqs are open to the public 05-30-14: Article by City Manager published in TPR entitled: "Bridge Street Bridge a N/A Complex Issue" - 08-13-14: Request from citizen to be added to mailing list for meetings and informed of Citizen has been added to mailing list Stakeholders meet_ings --- Ongoing: A petition has been initiated and signatures have been received on N/A www.change.org 08-18-14 Item 11.a. - Page 20 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLl.SH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT DATE: JUNE 11, 2013 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the recommended process regarding public input for the Bridge Street Bridge project. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Consultants will be used to assist in facilitating public outreach for the project. Costs are included in the Capital Improvement Program budget and are 100% grant funded through the Federal Highway Bridge Program. Staff time will still be required to solicit and process stakeholder input. BACKGROUND: Due to various deficiencies, the Bridge Street Bridge is restricted to a 3-ton maximum load limit. Rehabilitation or replacement may both be feasible options to bring the bridge up to standard loading conditions. In 2005, a Preliminary Engineering Study (PES) was prepared that presents a preliminary set of alternatives and associated costs for rehabilitating or replacing the Bridge Street Bridge. However, further project development was halted due to the required local match funds under the regular Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP). In July 2010, the City submitted requests and received 100% Federal funding through the use of toll credits for bridges off the federal-aid system. Preliminary Engineering work includes environmental studies, NEPA/CEQA approval, final design, and other related work, including the cost of advertising leading to physical construction of a project. Construction work includes the actual cost to construct the project itself, construction engineering, and administrative settlement of cost for contract claims. Authorization to proceed with Preliminary Engineering was received in April 2011, and City and Caltrans staff met on July 12, 2011 to review the alternatives contained in the 2005 PES. In May 2012, the Council awarded Quincy Engineering a contract to refine ATTACHMENT 3 Item 11.a. - Page 21 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT JUNE 11, 2013 PAGE2 feasible alternatives, provide visual displays and conduct public review, perform necessary engineering and environmental studies, and prepare plans, specifications and estimates for the preferred alternative. Most technical studies are complete and four feasible options to study are defined along with a no-build alternative. It is anticipated that there initially will be two stakeholder group meetings and additional meetings as needed as the project progresses. Therefore, it is proposed to form a stakeholder group to seek public input. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Feasible alternatives include three replacement and one retrofit option, along with the no-build options required to be analyzed. However, it is important to note that the no- build option would mean that the bridge will remain both functionally and structurally obsolete, would not be eligible for maintenance funding and consequently, would cause bridge closure. Replacement options will mean some impact to the historic bridge and visual changes. The retrofit option also will result in visual changes due to need to strengthen the existing/supplemental truss. Because the bridge is a prominent historical feature in the Village, careful consideration of perspectives and renderings will inform the environmental review process and assist decision makers. The Stakeholder group is proposed to include representatives from the following groups as appointed by the. City Manager for staff and each Commission, Committees or association respectively. • Community Development Department • Public Works Department • Planning Commission • Architectural Review Committee • Historic Resources Committee • Chamber of Commerce • Village Improvement Association including Bridge Street Business Owner The meetings will be open to the public. They will also be advertised to help encourage as much public participation as possible. ALTERNATIVES: • Approve Staff's recommendation; • Provide staff direction on other groups to include in the Stakeholders' meeting or how to promote the meetings to the public; • Do not approve Staff's recommendation; or • Provide other direction. Item 11.a. - Page 22 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT JUNE 11, 2013 PAGE3 ADVANTAGES: The process will provide valuable input from stakeholders in determinfng a balance in applying modern requirements to a historic bridge, will educate and involve those who have an interest in the project regarding the issues that will need to be addressed, and help build consensus regarding the design direction. DISADVANTAGES: The process may increase workload and or lengthen the project schedule. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall and on the City's website on Friday, June 7, 2013. No comments were received. Item 11.a. - Page 23 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Item 11.a. - Page 24