From: Jacob Patterson
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment -- 4/28/25 CC Mtg., Item No. 8D, Bainbridge Park Date: Monday, April 28, 2025 12:09:27 PM
Attachments: DOC042825.pdf
City Council,
I am forwarding the bid package from the recommended contractor for your review, albeit without much time to review it before tonight. IMO, the bid packages should always be included in the agenda materials (at least from the lowest responsive bidder) so you can actually make an informed decision. One of the alternative actions is to not award the contract and solicit bids again. You might want to do that sometimes because staff may have overlooked an important aspect of the project or proposal that merits further review or the bid price is too high and we want to see if we can do better with another round. You only have summary information in the staff report and you are being asked to approve a contract without all of its component parts (the bid package is incorporated by reference). I would never approve a contract without reviewing all substantive provisions and the bid is a very substantive provision.
Normally, I would assume that staff did an acceptable job reviewing the project prior to bringing it forward but this project has already had several concerning issues and errors that suggest a more careful review is necessary (e.g., opening the playground without first having a fully accessible surface and only partially addressing that after much public pressure to do so).
In fact, the reason why I wanted to review the full bid package is to ensure that the contractor either has the requisite specialized expertise or has identified a subcontractor with it, to implement the playground surface component of this overall project. I fear that they do not and the City might end up paying for a contractor to install the playground surfacing in a manner that doesn't meet ADA requirements. I am particularly concerned about the slopes of the surface, which are highly regulated. The issue is the playground equipment itself was installed prior to the design of the underlying surfacing and it appears to have been installed at relative heights that won't permit the surface to meet the slope requirements for accessible paths of travel. Normally, accessible playground surfaces are installed by specialist contractors not just any general contractor with experience with hardscaping because of the more stringent regulations for playgrounds. A lot of contractors don't follow the regulations because they don't know them. A perfect example is what happened at the intersection of Oak and Harold you already know about. IMO, we have set up a similar situation here and may end up with an expensive playground that doesn't meet requirements and the various parties will be pointing fingers at everyone else as the cause. Well, the City should ensure that won't happen but I have no evidence that has been adequately addressed. Note: I raised this issue with Isaac and PW for Oak and Harold BEFORE THE NONCOMPLIANT WORK WAS DONE, and it was ignored with assurances that my concerns had been addressed in the design phase. Well, we all know that wasn't actually the case and I suspect the City won't be able to recover the replacement work and we will end up having to pay for it ourselves or end up paying ADA damage awards. This can be avoided through rigorous planning but only if someone is paying attention to these specific issues. The City can award this contract but should research the qualifications and expertise of the firm actually proposed to install the playground and the plans should be reviewed by an ADA expert who has specialized knowledge of the very stringent regulations that only apply to playgrounds rather than generally. (We also had issues with mandatory slopes when we installed the EV charging stations at the Footlighters parking lot so this is a common issue that slips through the review and planning cracks.) Moreover, the CEQA analysis is incorrect and should be amended, IMO. This project presents two potentially significant issues that require actual analysis rather than reliance on an exemption. That analysis actually has already been done, it just wasn't properly documented in an Initial Study (IS). The two issues are the artificial turf component which I have addressed in prior comments, and the significant increase in impermeable surfaces compared to current baseline conditions. (Oddly, the staff report asserts that "there is no significant increase in pervious surface area" but that is both grammatically and substantively incorrect.) Pervious surfaces are surfaces that drain and percolate, staff obviously meant impervious. The playground, stage area, and additional walkways are all impervious where they are currently pervious. The soccer field is also going to present a change in percolation where the turf will be installed, although it is partially pervious, just less so than the current open grass. In any case, the two issues should have been analyzed and included in an Initial Study that was briefly circulated for public review and comment. That didn't happen even though it is a minimal burden to do so. Technically, the City still has time to do that rather than asserting an arguably inapplicable categorical exemption, thus properly covering its bases and eliminating the risk of delay and expense due to improper reliance on a categorical exemption since you don't have to delay the contract award or planning to circulate an IS that would probably take less than an hour to draft due to the limited issues and project design and planning that reduced the potential impacts. The City should get in the practice of relying on brief Initial Studies rather than recurring reliance on dubious exemptions as a best planning practice. (That also mitigates legal risk and the small investment in staff time is well worth that "insurance" against avoidable delays and potential legal expenses--lawyers are supposed to help reduce risk, not just try to justify what staff was already doing.) Best,
--Jacob