The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0707 CC REG ITEM 10LO . L 0 -7, -I-A0,011 ate/ MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT _moo_ TO: Honorable City Council n, FROM: Norman B.Miller, City Engineer DATE: June 23, 2004 (CC Meeting of 07/07/04) SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Selection of a Consultant to Prepare a Preliminary Design Report for the North Hills Parkway Improvement Project BACKGROUND In February of this year the City Council directed staff to proceed with the distribution of a Request for Proposals [RFP] for the preparation of the subject report, the scope of which is described in more detail herein. Proposals were received from Boyle Engineering and from Parson. DISCUSSION A. Project Need Citywide traffic analysis of the buildout of the City in accordance with the General Plan shows that North Hills Parkway is a vital circulation component of the overall circulation system. At buildout, our traffic analysis shows that there will be approximately 38,000 average daily trips (ADT) on North Hills Parkway from SR -118 Freeway easterly to Spring Road and +22,000 ADT from Spring Road easterly to Los Angeles Avenue. The existing road network does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate these trips. B. Project Scope and Limits The project limits to be addressed in the subject study extend from the proposed future intersection of North Hills Parkway and Los Angeles Avenue (to be located east of Butter Creek North Hills Parkway_0407 000400 North Hills Parkway: Preliminary Design Report Selection of Consultant July 7, 2004 Page 2 Road) north and east to the proposed future intersection of North Hills Parkway and the future northerly extension of Spring Road northeast of the Suncal Project. The possible future extension of North Hills Parkway east of Spring Road will be addressed at a future date. Key components of the project include: • the intersection of North Hills Parkway and Los Angeles Avenue [State Route 118); • the railroad grade separation (bridge or underpass); • the turn or curve north of the railroad; and • the bridge to be constructed over Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23). • All components of design shall meet Caltrans standards. C. Scope of Work The purpose of the subject study is to compile the information required to clearly describe and define the North Hills Parkway Project. Some of the facts and information to be determined by the study include: • the vertical and horizontal alignment of the roadway; • a conceptual design for a bridge to cross over Walnut Canyon Road • a roadway grading design and other components which conform to Caltrans standards; • design alternatives for the railroad grade separation (bridge or underpass) near the west end of the project; • design alternatives and options for the turn or curve north of the railroad grade separation; • geotechnical analysis and grading requirements; • intersection locations and designs; • right -of -way needs (including the cost of the acquisition of properties on the west side of Walnut Canyon Road under the proposed Walnut Canyon bridge); and • cost estimates for all of the above. This general alignment was adopted as part of the 1992 Circulation Element. The purpose of this study will be to develop a fairly precise preliminary design in order to determine a fairly accurate project scope and cost. This will North Hills Parkway_0407 000401 North Hills Parkway: Preliminary Design Report Selection of Consultant July 7, 2004 Page 3 then enable the City staff to proceed with project implementation efforts which would include: • development of a financing plan; • preparation of the required environmental document; • preparation of the final design plans; and • acquisition of the required rights -of -way. D. Project Funding Along the reach of North Hills to Los Angeles Avenue, are the projects: Parkway from Spring Road, west following approved or proposed 1. Suncal's approved 110 Single Family Homes. 2. Centex's proposed 120 Single Family Homes (north of Casey Road) . 3. Hitch Ranch's proposed 600 Single Family and Multiple Family Homes (Specific Plan No. 1). 4. A/B Properties approved Industrial Project (Tract No. 5147) . 5. Southern California Edison approved Industrial Land Use. It is anticipated that development fees or assessments paid by these developments will fund a large portion of the project construction costs. Subsequent to the completion of the study a financing plan will be developed by staff based on the overall project costs identified in the study. E. Proposals As mentioned above, Proposals were submitted by Boyle Engineering and by Parsons. The proposals were reviewed and evaluated by the Community Development Director, the Public Works Director and the City Engineer. Both firms were deemed, by all of the reviewers, to be extremely well qualified to provide the required services. The RFP did not dictate to the responding consulting firms the scope of work, approach or level of effort deemed to be necessary or appropriate to develop the needed study. The RFP North Hills Parkway_0407 000402 North Hills Parkway: Preliminary Design Report Selection of Consultant July 7, 2004 Page 4 invited the consultant to provide that information. Accordingly, the two proposals were quite different in their description of the recommended approach and level of effort. The Parsons proposal was more detailed and described a final work product which would be more specific and able to be more accurate in defining and "costing" the proposed project. It should be noted that when the levels of effort (content) of each proposal was adjusted to be more comparable, the fees quoted by each firm were also comparable. It was the unanimous conclusion of the evaluation team that the Proposal submitted by Parsons best met the needs of the City. It should be pointed out that the purpose of an RFP for professional design services is to solicit Proposals for type, kind and level of consultant services deemed to be necessary to best meet the needs of the City. The City is not obligated to select the low bidder. The objective of this type of selection process is to select the most qualified consultant offering that scope of services which will best address the requirements of the City. F. Consultant Fee and Budqet Amendment The amount of the fee submitted by Parsons is $277,279. It is the opinion of staff that the level of effort cited in the proposal is appropriate for the services to be provided. It is recommended that $300,000 be appropriated from the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fund for this work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Roll call vote) Approve the selection of Parsons to prepare the subject report, authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement subject to final language approval by the City Attorney and the City Manager, and adopt resolution 2004- appropriating $300,000 from the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fund. North Hills Parkway_0407 000403 Exhibit 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FY 2004/05 BUDGET TO ESTABLISH PROJECT 8061 FOR THE NORTH HILLS PARKWAY PROJECT [CITYWIDE TRAFFIC MITIGATION FUND (FUND 2002) WHEREAS, on June 16, 2004, the City Council adopted the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004/05; and WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the City Council requesting a budget increase in the aggregate amount of $300,000); and WHEREAS, Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof, describes said budget amendment and its resultant impacts to the budget line item(s). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That a Budget amendment in the aggregate increase of $300,000, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A ", is hereby approved. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2004. ATTEST: Patrick Hunter, Mayor Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit 'A': Appropriation and Budget Detail �A Resolution No. 2004 - Exhibit "A" Citywide Traf. Mitigation Fund !2002.8310.8061.5500 . . ......... ........... .... ......... . - ................................. . ......... ..... . ........ . ... .. .. .... .. .. ... B. FY 03/04 Budget Re-Cap Account Number _fb-FT. "8' . ..... 3 1 10 ------- 8. - - - -0. - .6. - - i _.- _x� x--.x--.x- uurrenzi subject FY 04/05 Appropriation Budget! / (Reduction) . ................ . . . ......... ---- 30 - 0_,_ -0- -0, * 0- C. Distribution of Appropriations to Expense Accounts W�J 00,000 FY 04/05 Budget r Approved as to form: f1b 000405 Current'! Subject'i Revised FY 04/05! F Y 04/05 Account Number .. . ........ Budget (Reduction) Budget 2002.8310.8061.76-01D.esi.gn $ 0 $ �00,000 $ 300,000 l_O*,,_._8__0,_6_,1. 9 6 10: ........ R - 0 - w ... ... .... . $ Oz .... . .... . ........... . ..... . .............. . ... . .... . . ... . ... . ................... 0 $ 0 2 002.8310.8061.9640: ..... . Const $ 0', . ....... ... . . . ........... ........__... 0 -- ....... . ..... 0 ................. . .. . .... _ .. ....... . ......... . . ......... . . ............. .8310.8061.9650: .. . ............ ........... ...... ... .... ..... . ............. . . .... 0 0 Total to .... . ......... .......... . ............ . . .... . ............ . ............ ........... ............. ....... . ........... .. . ................. Project 0 300,000 $ 300,000 Approved as to form: f1b 000405