www.sfcjpa.org
East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
Design Services for the Reconfiguration of Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course to Mitigate Impacts
of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration Capital Project,
Highway 101 to San Francisco Bay
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
This Request for Proposals is being jointly released by the City of Palo Alto, Community Services
Department (herein “The City”) and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (herein “SFCJPA”). The SFCJPA is a government agency serving residents in a 45-square-mile watershed that includes the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, and portions of the counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara.
The SFCJPA and The City are seeking qualified consultants to perform design services for the reconfiguration of several holes of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course to accommodate a new levee that will be built as part of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration Capital Project. In this document, reference to the “project” shall mean the flood protection and ecosystem restoration project. Reference to the “design” shall mean the preparation of plan sets and specifications for the golf course reconfiguration.
The SFCJPA is the fiscal agent and will hold this contract. In this role, the SFCJPA shall manage the administration of this contract, and it shall approve all work products.
The City owns much of the lands on which the project will take place, including the Golf Course, which it operates. The City will advise the SFCJPA on all matters related to golf course design, and will manage the public outreach and City approval process specific to that design.
The purpose of the Project is to provide the flood protection elements needed to protect homes, businesses, and other facilities in the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto downstream of Highway 101. The intent of the Project is to provide conveyance of the one-percent (1%) design flood flow through the area of consideration from the downstream face of East Bayshore Road to San Francisco Bay. During the design of the project, it became clear that the alignment of a new levee to be
constructed along the golf course will need to encroach significantly on to lands that are currently used for golf. In order to mitigate this impact, the City and the SFCJPA wish to reconfigure several holes to utilize underused space between existing holes to preserve the operations, overall length and rating of the golf course, ensure continued safe playing conditions for golfers and safety of users of the
proposed Project levee trail (with respect to potential exposure to errant golf balls), and to find opportunities to improve the golf experience when possible and reasonable.
The final work products from this contract shall be plans, specifications, and cost estimates to
Qualified consultants should have demonstrated and verifiable experience and expertise in golf course design, relocation of irrigation facilities, public outreach, project management, and construction plans and specifications preparation. Prospective consultants are encouraged to communicate within the proposal their specific:
• municipal golf course design • Bay Area-specific projects
• working in saline, high-groundwater site conditions, including turf maintenance design
PROPOSALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: Friday, May 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm local time to:
Kevin Murray, Project Manager
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 1231 Hoover Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025 e-mail: [email protected] phone: 650-561-4580
Please include four hard copies and one electronic copy on a CD. Submittals are to be limited to 20 pages, font size 11, including any supporting materials.
Introduction and Background
The San Francisquito Creek watershed encompasses a 45-square-mile basin, extending from Skyline Boulevard to San Francisco Bay. The watershed includes public lands and numerous private landowners in the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Portola Valley and Woodside, unincorporated areas of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and Stanford University.
The creek represents the boundary between the two counties in the lower watershed. The last relatively unaltered urban creek system in the South Bay, San Francisquito Creek begins at the confluence of Corte Madera Creek and Bear Creek, just below Searsville Dam in Stanford University’s Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve. The mouth of the creek opens to the San Francisco Bay adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport and the Baylands Nature Preserve. The system contains over 71 miles of creek bed; the main stem is 14 miles long.
The lower reach of the creek runs through urbanized areas. In 1998 the creek overbanked, causing $28 million in documented damage to homes and businesses in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park. Other significant flooding and high-flow events have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1982, 2002 and 2005. In response to the 1998 event, local jurisdictions formed the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in May of 1999 as a new government agency “empowered to protect and maintain San Francisquito Creek and its environs.” Founding members of the JPA are the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County Flood Control District.
In early 2009, the SFCJPA hired a hydrologic consultant firm to conduct a preliminary technical analysis on several candidate alternatives intended to determine feasibility, hydraulic performance, and develop preliminary cost estimates for a preferred alternative that would provide the flood protection and
In 2010 design and environmental planning began on the Project. Project design is currently at the 60% level of development. The proposed levee alignment and encroachment onto the golf course is shown on Attachment 1 to this RFP, Project Features. Conceptual alternatives for reconfiguration of the golf course necessitated by the levee realignment have been contemplated by the City, SFCJPA, and the SFCJPA’s design consultant on the Project and will likely involve changes to holes 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and possibly 4, as shown in Attachment 2 to this RFP, PAGC Aerial. Modifications to holes not directly impacted by the levee realignment will be required in order to maintain minimum separation distances between fairways as required for golfer safety. Given the anticipated scale of the changes that will be needed within the golf course, in January 2011, SFCJPA and City staff concurred that a golf course designer should be secured under a separate contract in order to maintain fairness and
transparency in the consultant selection process for this significant element of the Project.
The Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was constructed in the mid 1950’s on approximately 170 acres of flat former salt-marsh and bay fill. The course was designed by noted golf course architect William R. Bell of Pasadena, California. The Golf Course was designed as an 18-hole facility with a par of 72. The Golf Course is a classic 18-hole championship course that measures over 6,800 yards from the back tees. The facility includes a large practice putting green, a three building Eichler-designed
clubhouse/golf shop complex and parking lot. In the mid 1970’s, improvements were made to replace the clubhouse buildings. At that time, holes 3, 10, 11, & 18 were also renovated under the direction of golf architect Robert Trent Jones, Jr. Further improvements were made to the Palo Alto Golf Course in 1998. The improvements included rebuilding Greens # 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, rebuilding new Tees on # 4, 7, 13, 15, rebuilding Fairways on #4, 7, 13, 15, 16, new storm drain station along with drainage and 35 catch basins throughout the course, new irrigation system, and a new irrigation pump station
.
The Golf Course is located on a relatively flat site which ranges in elevation from 4.4 feet below to 7.5 feet above sea level. In 2008 the City of Palo Alto conducted a Golf Course operational study that describes in detail the conditions of the Golf Course, future needs and opportunities. This study can be viewed at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=14033. Prospective Consultants are encouraged to review Attachment 3 to this RFP, Golf Course Planning Principles to ascertain the general needs of the final design, and to attend a pre-proposal workshop on Monday, May 9, 2011, 11:30am to 1:00pm in the Golf Course’s Bay Café, 1875 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303.Project Schedule:
This project will begin with contract execution on approximately June 15, 2011 and be completed by December 15, 2011.
Proposal Requirements:
Each proposal should contain the following: • a cover letter with contact information; • title page and table of contents;
• organizational chart of the project team, as applicable;
• statement of approach to the project, and any suggested modifications to the Project Tasks; • project schedule;
• itemized fee schedule;
• list of team members that will be assigned to the project, their role on the project, and experience in their area of expertise.
• description of previously completed projects of similar scope, and two references (per individual) regarding those experiences.
SFCJPA and City staff will evaluate the proposals provided in response to this RFP based on the following criteria:
• quality and completeness of proposal;
• quality of the solution, goods and/or services to be provided and responsiveness to the stated project objectives;
• experience, including the experience of staff to be assigned to the project, the engagements of similar scope and complexity;
• cost to the SFCJPA;
• ability to perform the work within the time specified;
• creativity in recommendations for improving the playability/enjoyment of the course and its environment
Consultant Selection Process Timeline:
RFP Issuance May 2, 2011
Pre-Proposal Workshop May 9, 2011
Proposals Due May 20, 2011
Interviews May 25, 2011
Consultant Selection June 1, 2011
Contract Negotiations June 2 – June 10
Pre-Contract meeting June 14, 2011
SCOPE OF WORK
The SFCJPA is the Lead Agency for the Project and will administer this contract. Supporting the SFCJPA will be its member agencies, including the City of Palo Alto, primarily through its Community Services Department but also as needed through the City’s Planning Department and Public Works Department, which will provide technical support, reviews, and Quality Assurance/Quality Control in accordance with City policies and processes. Reference to the SFCJPA or the City is to agency staff; reference to the SFCJPA Board or City Council is to the elected governing bodies of the agencies. The SFCJPA will make all background information and reports available to the contracted Consultant. The Consultant will also be required to work closely with the design and environmental planning
consultants currently under contract with the SFCJPA for the Bay-101 Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration Project (Project) on San Francisquito Creek.
The Consultant shall perform design services for the various project elements listed below. The Consultant selected will be encouraged to review the scope and make recommendations for changes or additions to improve efficiency, cut costs, or produce a better product.
Task 1 – Design Management
The Consultant shall meet with the City and SFCJPA to review the scope of work, schedule, design standards, environmental mitigation measures, and Plans Specifications and Cost Estimates (PS&E) requirements for the Design. The Consultant shall provide project management services to assure delivery of the Design on schedule, within budget, and according to established quality control goals. The Consultant shall provide a written narrative progress report with each monthly invoice, detailing the major milestones achieved and the percentage of each major task performed (and cumulative
percentages completed) during the subject billing period. The Consultant shall participate in a Public Outreach Program by providing technical support and presentation materials, answering questions from meeting participants and presenting concepts and proposed plans.
It is anticipated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project will evaluate the
environmental impacts of the construction activities on the golf course resulting from the Design. As such, close coordination with the SFCJPA’s Environmental Consultant will be important to insure that the Design and the Project are successful.
The Proposals shall include preparation for (including written and graphic presentation materials) and attendance at the following required meetings, in addition to any additional meetings recommended by the Proposer:
Golf Course Advisory Committee (3 meetings) Parks and Recreation Commission (2 meetings) Architectural Review Board (2 meetings)
Planning and Transportation Commission (2 meetings) City Council (1 meeting)
Deliverables:
• Design Schedule
• Contract Administration and Invoicing • Attendance at 10 public meetings
Task 2 – Design Development
The PS&E package shall be submitted at 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% stages of completion of PS&E. The intent of intermediate submittals is to define the project for review by the SFCJPA, the City, and the Golf Advisory Committee and to allow for major comments prior to the investment of significant design effort in the design details. The plans shall be presented for review and input to the Parks and
Recreation Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Planning and Transportation Commission at the 30% design stage. The plans shall be presented for review by the Parks and Recreation
Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Planning and Transportation Commission (and referred to City Council for approval) at the 90% design stage. The Consultant shall prepare working drawings based on the review and comments received at the 90% stage.
In addition to the design packages, the Consultant will work with City staff, golf professional Brad Lozares and the Golf Advisory Committee to develop a plan and or/design for maximizing usage and revenue for continuing play during construction. As design progresses, the professional opinion of the Consultant will be sought as to the best approach. The Consultant will be expected to work with City staff to develop locations for temporary tees, greens or other features needed to best accommodate play during construction. Additional design fees for this work shall be established if deemed necessary to maximize playability and revenue generation during construction.
Deliverables: • 30% PS&E • 60% PS&E • 90% PS&E • 100% PS&E
Task 4 – Bid and Construction Support
BIDDING PHASE
The Consultant shall assist the City and SFCJPA during the bidding period as required. The Golf Course elements of the Project may or may not be bid with the flood protection and ecological
restoration elements of the Project. The SFCJPA’s Project Design consultant will provide bid support for the Project. Consultant shall provide consultation to the SFCJPA in the interpretation of the golf course design elements of the Project.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Consultant shall perform the following tasks: • Attend pre-construction conference
• Provide clarifications/interpretations of plans and specifications. • Perform shop drawing review and submittal reviews as requested.
• Assist SFCJPA or other designated construction administrator with the preparation of contract change orders.
• Perform periodic site visitations and review of construction activities as requested. • Provide recommendations for changes required by design discrepancies, utility conflicts,
or other unforeseen circumstances, which may develop during construction. • Provide assistance to final walk-through inspection.
Deliverables:
• Meeting attendance as above
• Responses to Requests for Information • Change orders
• Reviews of shop drawings
Potential Supplemental Work
The City of Palo Alto may wish to engage the selected consultant in design work beyond the 6 to 7 holes impacted by the flood control work. Any such design work beyond flood control mitigation will be negotiated between the City of Palo Alto and the Golf Course designer and would be considered through a supplemental agreement between the City and the Consultant.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Survey Datum
All coordinates are based on the California State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 3; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) and North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).
Specification Format
All specifications shall be prepared in Caltrans format. Ownership
Attachment 3 GOLF COURSE PLANNING PRINCIPLES
The information provided herein is a compilation from various sources within the golf professional sector to be used as a design guidance tool from lessons learned to assist during the design process. It is not intended to be a compete list of all considerations for the Palo Alto Golf Course project but rather a list of important considerations.
GENERAL PLANNING
Priority should be placed on playing conditions which are user friendly can safely accommodate a large number of rounds of golf, and be easily maintained and attractive. The vast majority of patrons
demonstrate average proficiency with only about 2% to 3% being accomplished golfers. Accordingly, the course should be designed with wide landing areas and gentle green surrounds making it user friendly to mid and high handicappers who comprise the majority of our patrons, and also provide challenging opportunities to low handicappers. The design should also acknowledge the tendency of the majority of golfers (predominantly right handed players) slicing the ball or playing to the right of their intended target. The course should be designed to provide good turf and playing conditions with a minimum of hand work and/or maintenance. New golf course layout should incorporate a creative routing which is environmentally sensitive. Greens and following tees should be in close proximity to one another to allow golfers to walk the course and accelerate play. Safety of golfers with regard to avoiding errant shots should receive strong consideration. All slopes around greens, tees, bunkers, and mounds should be no greater than 5:1. Cut and fill slopes in fairways, roughs, and non-use areas should not exceed 3:1. Man-made grades shall taper into the natural grades.
HOLE LENGTH PLANNING:
___ The preferable golf course design length for a regulation 18 hole par 72 course ranges in length
from 7,000 yards from the championship tees to 5,500 yards from the forward tees.
___ An 18 hole course will usually include four (4) par 5 holes, four (4) par 3 holes and ten (10) par 4 holes. Par 3 holes should be as follows two holes between 130-160 yards and 2 holes between 170-220. Par 5 holes should be as follows: two holes between 460-500 yards and 2 holes between 520-550 yards. Par 4 holes of 251-320 yards should be avoided and increased to a maximum of 445 yards. ___ The first and tenth holes should be easy get away holes to expedite play off the opening tees. ___ Holes should grow increasingly difficult to play as the round proceeds and end with an easier finishing hole.
___ Holes # 1,9,10, and 18 should not be par 3 holes.
TEES:
___ Tee complexes should include 3-4 sets of tees per hole.
___ The minimum surface area of 8,000 square feet should be used for par 4 and 5 holes and 10,000 square feet on par 3 holes. Short holes which require an iron tee shot should be larger due to the amount of abuse they will receive.
___ The forward and rear tees should be smaller in size (30% of the total tee surface) and 70% of the tee surface equally distributed between the middle tee(s).
___ The course length from the back tee should be about 7,000 yards, 6,000- 6,500 from the middle tees and about 5,500 from the front tees.
___ All tees should be slightly elevated.
___ Teeing surfaces shall be level from side to side.
___ All tees should have a 11/2% fall in the direction of play. On holes that play uphill, this slope will be from front to back. On holes that play downhill, the slope shall be from back to front.
___ Do not have multiple tees unless land constraints dictate this due to the increase in maintenance time.
___ Slopes around teeing surfaces shall not exceed 5:1.
___ Construct tee sub-grades with at least 1% pitch to allow for sub-surface drainage. Finished surface grades shall be flat from side to side. All tee tops shall have a 4" thick native sand cap root zone for improved drainage purposes.
___ Sod all slopes on new tees.
___ Tees should be constructed with no trees within 60' of the base of the tee on the east, south, and west to promote air circulation for healthy turf growth.
GREENS:
___ The green is the “heart” of the golf course.
___ Each green should have a putting surface of 6,000-8,000 square feet depending on the length of the hole.
___ The shape of the green will depend upon the strategy of the design, area geography, location and size of the bunkers, and the length of the shot playing to the green.
___ Poor drainage contributes to more turf trouble on the greens than any other factor. Therefore greens should be shaped so the surface slopes to drain in two or more directions.
___ A variety of pin placements must be accommodated to minimize wear and maintenance to the greens.
___ Greens and surrounds shall be constructed to accommodate triplex mowing equipment. Slope on pinable areas shall not exceed 4%.
___ Green construction should follow USGA guidelines. The final soil mixture percolation rate should be a minimum of 5 inches per hour. Part of the USGA green construction is a sub-surface drainage system. A removable vent drain cap shall be provided at the upper ends of all main sub-surface drain lines to permit air input and flushing of the line in the future.
___ Greens should be constructed with no trees within 90' of the base on the east, south, and west to promote air circulation for healthy turf growth.
FAIRWAYS and ROUGHS:
___ Fairway landing areas should generally be about 60-70 yards wide. A yardstick of fairway widths is as follows: 75-120 yards from the tee the width should be 40-50 yards wide: 120-180 yards from the tee the width should be 50-60 yards wide: 180-220 yards from the tee the width should be 60-70 yards wide.
___ Fairways should not be flat in appearance, but should have minor undulations to provide visual interest as well as facilitate drainage.
___ The minimum surface grade on fairways shall be 3% to provide proper drainage.
___ Any area that cannot be properly surfaced drained shall be drained utilizing a catch basin or drainage trenches with 4 inch perforated drainage pipe in a gravel bed extending to ditches, wetlands or other non-play areas.
___ Provide at least 6 inches of topsoil in fairways, 12-14 inches around features (i.e. bunkers, aprons, etc.) and 4 inches of topsoil in roughs. All debris and stones 1 inch or larger in diameter shall be removed.
___ Be selective of the types of new trees planted or the existing trees incorporated within the fairway design due to debris or leaves dropped by the tree which may increase maintenance, slow play, or detract from the course appearance.
BUNKERS:
___ Judiciously place bunkers due to the maintenance required. Some golf course managers are eliminating sand bunkers on existing courses that have little impact on play or converting some to grass bunkers which are easier to maintain. Construct bunkers in such a manner to reduce hand labor required to maintain the bunkers.
___ All fairway sand bunkers shall be clearly visible from tees.
___ All bunkers shall be properly drained to prevent ponding water. Provide sub-surface drainage systems consisting of rigid tile and sub-drain for all greens and bunkers in accordance with USGA recommendations. Wrap drain lines within bunkers with filter fabric to prevent infiltration of solids which could compromise the drain system. All bunkers shall drain to daylight and out of play areas.
___ Do not construct bunkers below the elevation of the fairway to ensure proper drainage.
___ Bunkers which are a short iron shot from the green can be deeper and have more of a lip. ___ Avoid drainage from greens into bunkers through the use of swales between the green and bunker. Drainage within bunkers especially around greens should be removed with drain tiles connected into the green drainage system.
CART PATHS:
___ Cart paths should be laid-out in a manner which is safe, visually pleasing, and if possible serves two holes to reduce the initial installation cost and reduces future maintenance.
___ Cart paths shall be at least 8 feet wide. In areas of heavier cart congestion such as adjacent to tees and greens consideration should be given to wider cart paths. Cart paths constructed with asphalt shall be at least a 2" asphalt surface course over a minimum 4" gravel base. Concrete cart paths shall be 4" thick on compacted sub-grade.
___ Provide cart path curbs adjacent to all greens and tees to keep carts on the paths and reduce turf wear.
___ Holes with turn-around adjacent to tee boxes or greens should be sized appropriately to eliminate turf wear due to tight turning radius.
___ Set paving flush with adjacent ground to allow the flow of surface water over pavements. ___ Bridges for golf carts shall be a minimum of 6' wide and support a loads of at least two tons. Bridges which provide access for golf maintenance equipment/golf carts shall be 10' wide and support loads of five tons. Bridges should be visually compatible with the rest of the golf course.
IRRIGATION:
___ The irrigation system design shall be prepared by a certified sprinkler system consultant/designer
with demonstrated experience in golf course planning and design. The design process shall consider the soil characteristics, humidity and rainfall characteristics, prevailing winds and their effect on adequate coverage, water supply source and economics. The sprinkler consultant shall design an irrigation system based on the existing environmental characteristics which addresses the line sizing and spacing, head spacing/size, pump location/size to ensure adequate coverage of all areas to be irrigated based upon the funding available.
___ Each sprinkler head covers a circular spray area with the heaviest distribution of water being at the center neatest the sprinkler head, with gradual reduction to the peripheral circumference of the spray. To obtain an even distribution of water, it is necessary to overlap the spray areas of adjacent sprinklers. Most manufacturers recommend a head spacing to obtain an even water distribution. In lieu of the manufactures recommended spacing, the following is suggested:
- 60% of diameter of coverage where wind is 0-5 mph - 50% of diameter of coverage where wind is 5-10 mph - 40% of diameter of coverage where wind is over 10 mph
___ Do not exceed 5 feet per second flow of water through any section of pipe. Do not exceed manufactures recommended flow velocities.
___ Consider during the planning stage of a new course or the expansion of an existing course the adequacy of the irrigation water source.
___ When expanding a golf course, the irrigation system components should be manufactured by the same company which manufactured the system and components for the original system. Sprinkler system components shall be provided by recognized golf course sprinkler system manufacturers with easily accessible service and parts distributors.
___ All non-ferrous utilities shall have copper tracer wires permanently affixed to the pipe. All utility trenches shall be marked with buried tape 6 to 12 inches below grade. The tape shall indicate the type of utility.
___ If budget allows provide metal distance tags on all fairway sprinkler heads measured to the center of the green out to 250 yards from the green.
___ With the rising costs of water, deliberate effort should be made minimize water use without
