Loading...
SR-513-008 a~ OCT I 1 2005 Council Meeting: October 11, 2005 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Conceptually Approve the Schematic Design Elements for the 2nd and 4th Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements Project, Authorize the City Manager to Amend the Design Contract with Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership (ZGF) in the amount of $39,700 for Scope Enhancements and Authorize Staff to Proceed with Design Development and Preparation of Construction Drawings INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council conceptually approve the proposed schematic design elements for the 2nd and 4th Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements Project, authorize the City Manager to amend the design contract with ZGF in the amount of $39,700 for the de~ign of scope enhancements and authorize staff to proceed with design development and preparation of construction drawings. BACKGROUND On June 22, 2004 City Council awarded a contract to Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership for the design of the 2nd and 4th Streets Pedestrian Streetscape Project, also known as the Pedestrian Extension to the Downtown Transit Mall. The Project consists of eight blocks of pedestrian and streetscape improvements along 2nd and 4th Streets between Wilshire Boulevard and Colorado Avenue (Exhibits A and B.) These improvements were identified as a third phase in the Downtown Urban Design Plan, adopted in 1997. Staff applied for a grant from the Los Angeles County 1 ~~ 1 1 2005 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in 1999 and federal Transportation Enhancement Activity (TEA) funds were awarded starting in FY 02-03. The project scope included new closely-spaced pedestrian lighting to illuminate the sidewalks; replacement of every-other street tree; and other possible streetscape amenities. Subsequently, mid-block crosswalks were added to the scope of the project as a component of Phase III of the City's crosswalk improvement program. The project is intended to further enhance the pedestrian environment within the downtown area, encourage pedestrian circulation beyond the 3rd Street Promenade and improve the pedestrian experience for the patrons of the many transit lines that run through downtown. DISCUSSION ZGF has completed two phases of the schematic design portion of the project. The first phase was to explore and reconfirm the vision for the project, since the plan was developed in 1997. To this end, the team conducted outreach through community workshops on April 4th and 9th, 2005. The attached survey form was also distributed (Attachment 1) though workshop invitations were sent directly to downtown businesses, residents and property owners and the workshops were advertised in three local papers, attendance was low. The team sought comments from Bayside District and the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce at their monthly meetings. A presentation was made to a combined meeting of the Architectural Review Board and the Landmarks ." 2 Commission, at the request of these bodies so they could provide input. Issues raised are addressed below. The second phase, development of schematic design recommendations, identified specific program components and developed a preliminary cost estimate. During both phases ZGF worked closely with City staff to understand sustainability, design, operational, maintenance and funding-limitation issues. Recommended Program Components for 2nd and 4th Streets between Wilshire Boulevard and Colorado: Pedestrian Liqhtinq: The recommended lighting fixture to replace the existing cobra- head street lights is a modified version of the one used for the Transit Mall, with a closely spaced single-head fixture directed at the sidewalk and a less frequently spaced two-tiered version to light the sidewalk and street (Exhibits C and D). Use of a Transit Mall-type fixture will create an expanded sense of a downtown "district." The Transit Mall fixture is no longer being supplied and a new custom fixture that is similar, but not identical, must be developed to incorporate a long lasting and energy efficient lamp, reduce glare and provide a warmer quality of light. Maintenance issues will also be addressed in the performance standards for the new light fixture. Discussion: Members of the Landmarks Commission and the Santa Monica Conservancy advocated for use of a historic-style fixture. The 1997 Downtown Urban Design Plan originally recommended a historic fixture for the district, which included 3 both the Transit Mall Streets and the current project. A different course of action was elected through the Transit Mall design process, resulting in selection of a contemporary fixture. Street Trees: The Downtown Urban Design Plan called for the replacement of every- other Ficus tree. The density of the Ficus trees makes the streets dark in the daytime and difficult to light at night. A less dense deciduous tree would provide dappled light most of the year and direct light in the winter, as well as increased visibility to and from the many interesting building frontages. Ginko biloba trees are recommended to replace every other Ficus tree. (Consistent with the original design plan, two replacement trees will be needed to fill the space of each Ficus because of the distance between the Ficus.) A Ginko is a graceful airy columnar-shaped tree with a light green distinctive leaf that flutters in a breeze. The recommended cultivar is bred to turn golden seasonally. The trees tend to be slow growing and reach a maximum height of around 40 feet. The Ficus trees would continue to provide canopy and the Ginko trees will provide an attractive complement to the Ficus at an appropriate scale for 2nd and 4th Streets. The alternating pattern will maintain the canopy effect and be continued on the east side of 4th and west side of 2nd Streets, between Broadway and Colorado, and locations on where there are currently Palm trees. Coordination with Santa Monica Place on the west side of 4th Street and east side of 2nd Street is discussed below. Discussion: An objective of the design process was to review the Downtown Urban Design Plan 1997 recommendation to replace every other street tree in light of the 4 City's Community Forest Management Plan adopted in November 1999, the Benefit- Cost Analysis of Santa Monica's Municipal Urban Forest (October, 2001) and current community sentiment. It was difficult to assess community "sentiment", since so few people chose to participate in the widely noticed process. The Ficus is the dominant tree in the City with respect to numbers and size and scored highly in the City's benefit-cost analysis study with respect to factors such as shade and atmospheric benefits. However, the report also emphasized the need to ensure the stability of the urban forest and noted that, although gradual replacement of Ficus during the next ten years will result in short-term reduction of canopy cover, the loss is offset by the promise of net benefits, in the long term, from replenishing and diversifying the forest. The study recommended diversifying 5-10% of the new plantings with species that have proven successful in nearby cities and offers the Ginko as an example to be considered. As part of the schematic design phase, City staff surveyed other cities to assess their experience with Ginkos and received positive feedback. By leaving half of the Ficus (and relocating some of the removed trees to fill in the spacing), the City will continue to reap the benefits of the Ficus and will also benefit by increasing the diversity of the urban forest. Ficus roots grow close to the surface, are destructive to the surrounding paved areas and generate a high level of sidewalk maintenance expenditures. Replacing the Ficus with the Ginko will reduce sidewalk maintenance expenditures and liability exposure in this pedestrian oriented district. 5 The project assumes that the new trees will be planted in structural soil, as was done for the Transit Mall trees. Structural soil ensures that the new trees have the maximum opportunity to establish and thrive within the urban environment by providing space for the roots to grow within the compacted soil that supports the sidewalk. If structural soil is included as part of the project, ZGF must perform additional design work in the amount of $7,700. The additional construction costs associated with the structural soil are estimated at $320,000. Mid-Block Crosswalks: Landscaped curb extensions at the six mid block crosswalks on 2nd and 4th Streets would provide greater visibility and shorten the exposure of pedestrians to traffic while crossing the streets. One or more of the crosswalks may be moved slightly to shift them away from existing driveways. Curb extensions on both sides of 2nd Street in the existing red curb area would be no wider than the parking lane. On 4th Street curb extensions would be limited to the east side of the street since there is no parking on the west side (Exhibit E.) Discussion: Curb extensions generally accepted as pedestrian friendly have been criticized elsewhere as impeding traffic flow. The curb extensions on 2nd and 4th Street would be no wider than a parked car (approximately 5 feet wide) and would be contained within the existing mid-block red curb (up to 30 feet on each side of the crosswalk.) Since the curb extension would remain within the parking zone of the street, they would not impede traffic flow or bicyclists. They would also be designed to 6 accommodate the needs of street sweeping and drainage. If Mid-block crosswalks are added to the project, an additional $32,500 in design costs and $248,000 in construction costs are required. Access Ramp Upqrades: The project would reconstruct all curb ramps on 2nd and 4th Street that require updating for accessibility reasons. Art /SculDtural and Tree Uo-Liahtina: The project artist developed preliminary concepts for sculptural lighting elements near the pedestrian entrances to the parking structures and at the mid-block crosswalks to provide strong identity for these focal points. Because the project budget is limited and the parking structure entry elements should be coordinated closely with the parking structure upgrade projects, the design- development and fabrication of sculptural lighting at the parking structure pedestrian entrances will be considered at that time with funding from the parking structure upgrade art budget. No funding is available for proposed lighting sculptures at the mid- block crosswalks. Up-lighting the branching area of the Ficus trees has been explored as a way to feature the sculptural nature of the trees and add atmosphere to the Streets. The feasibility of lighting each tree with a dual rack of LED lights either mounted on a pole adjacent to the . tree or mounted in the tree would require further evaluation during the design process with respect to ongoing maintenance requirements. The proposal could create a unique atmosphere and could be developed in a way to meet dark-sky policy objectives. 7 Discussion: Both the ARB and the Bayside Board strongly supported this proposal. No funding source has been identified for estimated design-development at $28,000 and construction at $540,000. Sustainability Sustainable design is incorporated into every aspect of the project. Enlarged tree wells and landscaped curb extensions at the mid-block crosswalks would reduce storm water run-off. The new trees would be irrigated with inline drip irrigation. The new pedestrian and streetlights would adhere to Santa Monica's dark sky policy and utilize energy efficient and longer lasting lamps. Coordination with Other Projects on 2nd and 4th Street: The following additional coordination issues were explored as part of the outreach and schematic design phase. . Santa Monica Place: The ZGF team provided recommendations for the west side of 4th Street and east side of 2nd Street that could be incorporated into a future project. . Series Circuit Conversion on '}!'d Street: The construction of the two projects will be coordinated to be seamless. . Way Finding/Real Time Parking Information: Potential coordination has been explored, with timing being a critical factor. A budget for way finding signage is 8 included in the Bayside Capital Improvement Budget approved by the Council for FY 05-06. . Transit Stop Furniture: Big Blue Bus is currently working on the design of transit stops for the Rapid 3 and other ~igh-use stops. Shelters may be placed on 4th Street within the transit stop areas at some time in the future. The streetscape project does not preclude the addition of shelters. . Parking Structure Seismic Upgrade and Construction: The seismic upgrade of the structures can be coordinated with the streetscape construction and existing installations can be protected if parking structures are upgraded after the streetscape improvements are installed. Two of the three structures that are slated for demolition will be a number of years out and careful planning will be required for the first structure that is demolished. Possibly fixtures and/or trees may need to be temporarily relocated. NEXT STEPS There will be a hand-off of the project lead from Planning and Community Development Department to the City Engineer's Office of EPWM as lead for design development, preparation of construction drawing and specifications, and construction management. The project will be bid and the construction contract will be brought back to Council for approval. 9 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT Design Costs: The recommended design options, including mid-block crosswalks and structural soil addition, will require an increase to the existing contract with Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership (ZGF) of $39,700 for a total authorized contract amount of $522,700. Budget authority is available in capital account C010456.589000. Therefore, $39,700 will be transferred from account C01 0456.589000 (Crosswalk Improvements) to account C010646.589000 (Pedestrian Extension -Transit Mall.) Future Costs: Construction costs for the recommended project including the mid-block crosswalks and the structural soil addition are estimated at $3.5 million. At this time, a combination of grant funds are available, including $1.8 million in federal TEA funds, $1.0 million in local Proposition C and A grant funds; $.4 in federal CBDG funds and $.28 in General Funds from previously approved Crosswalk Improvement project funds. Construction costs and associated funding sources will be detailed with the requests of construction bid award. The project will add ongoing maintenance and operating costs and will require future enhancements to City operating budgets when the project becomes operational in FY 06-07. The additional cost of tree pruning, maintaining the landscaped areas of the mid-block crosswalks and the increased irrigation requirements is estimated at $5,OOO/year for a full year. The new pedestrian lighting will add increased utility costs of 10 approximately $ 7,200/year. Maintenance cost for both bulb replacement and pole repair will cost approximately $ 18,1 OO/year. Additionally, based on the experience for the Transit Mall, up to four poles may need to be replaced per year, resulting in potential pole replacement costs of up to $31,OOO/year. The total on-going maintenance costs are estimated at $61,300 annually. CEQA ANALYSIS The proposed pedestrian and streetscape improvements for 2nd and 4th Street have been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 19, Section 15301 (c) which was recently amended to define Class 1 exempt project in the following way: "Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving little or not expansion beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination..." This exemption lists as an example of "existing facilities: (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and ~imilar facilities." The pedestrian and streetscape improvements, including minor curb alterations; the addition of pedestrian lighting, replacement of street trees and other minor landscaping, are to existing streets and sidewalks and include negligible or no expansion of these existing facilities. 11 RECOMMENDATION Recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with design development and the preparation of constructions drawings and specifications for the recommended pedestrian and streetscape improvements. 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate an amendment to the Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership (ZGF) contract in the amount of $39,700. Prepared by: Andy Agle, Interim Director, Planning and Community Development Ellen Gelbard, Deputy Director for Special Projects, PCD Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B (1 & 2): Exhibit C (1 & 2): Exhibit D Exhibit E Attachment 1: Context Existing Conditions Proposed Layout Street Trees and Lighting Mid-Block Crossings 2nd & 4th Street Pedestrian/Streetscape Questionnaire 12 ~ x .~ ~ = -. :;: '" L I't , ., I , J! I -< ~ - sa = ~ ~ ., t ~ ~ . .~~ . . . .~. (~ .; I _ ".1 """';l~~. i 'i~~:,~j' .,~ t'~'f , · l!!i' fJ I ~ t:~.' Ii 6.' , ~~ L; ..,; .'" .'~.! I 5: :L~ iil .ill. 'r- = ': .- - .- - '-' - ~ ... <:.,; oJ~ = .- .... 'J.J .- X t<"" ..., I .- ,-; '--' CQ ~ - es ::c ~ ~ 01 c 'ill II) o o """ u o :c :Q ~ L__. (I) (I) ~ II) ::l ,~ U. ..... ..c 01 :.:; Gl ~ Q. (j) - -~-~ b .'1"\ ) ~ r '.1 , 5: J,~ '~\~ .. l1J ... ::J - U ::J ~ VI OJ c: :i! ... III c.. "!. ~",) <II ... ::J .... U ::J :: III OJ c: :i ... III c.. ('II c.. -:I;. C C .- ... .- ""e - ~ ',.. ;:.; ~ = .- - .~ ;< ~ I ---- e c:Q ~ - es - - ~ ~ ~~ :": :.~~':::k ..~i:t; .--"';;:!:::~}~: ....g.,~"'"O. "'--. ',:;',1,'" ,.l.",., 1 -.1. 1..(.. ~!i J.:....'.'.', !.- ,: !- :;~ r' ) OJ c: "~ o c'5 -" 8 :0 12 ::2 l___--; . ..... ..c: Ol ~ ~ l!! U5 J ,~- Q) Q) t-'= IJ) ~ u::: L~~. ../S"'.' ('; t .'( t:.- ,.. ~".,' ill 0- o o (j) +-" o Q) ._~\ o I- tl c -I-'" o c .'~.! i 5: o i~ g ~ :J - CJ :J .... - 'II Cl c :.i: .... "' c. '8. -"' := .; ~, ...:s ""0 ,~ '.I; .; c.. ~ '- -, - ~-. I'"'""i '- T ' - ~ - sa - - ~ ~ 8l t= III :::I U u: C) c .iil ~ l. " C) <: 'in r::: lIJ .Q U ~ -><:$1 U )( .Qw ~.n 'C ~ .- :> ;2() l, ..... '..... <> .'~.l $2 , ,!:-. u. ;:,?~ ~ o C) <: :0:> ..<: Ol ::i ~ :> .... c.. ""5 u (f) l!:! III J .... ::::I ::l - - IJ U ::::I 2 .... - - III III C) C) c: c: :i: :i: .... .... IV IV Q, Q, C') ~ Q, --~'-l <: G.l ~ III g.~ ~f-- III .... a u ::l .... - III C) ,~ ..lIl: .... IV Q, ...... c. G.l 'ffi 2 ~Lf f--... -g~ ~...J 'C = o '" ~~ .---j III .... ::l - U ::l .... - III C) c: :i: .... IV C. N C. .'0 ) ~! ". ". I: ~ 'I', ' , " (."'l.t OJ Q.. o o (/) 'O+-J o (1) ---. o ~ 0.. c ...... o c GJ ... ~ OJ .. <: U :;::; ::::I .l:: , . ,..~, ,~ .... OJ .. ::J Ul ~ Cl ::J c: Q. :i: :> ... GJ <> III ... (J) c. ... - ~ ..... L~ 10 .. 0 c. u ...., ~ ... ~ c Vi - "'0 ~ <D Cl E c:: ~ :> 8 rr. l) :i: - ..>< <: !II ... "-' <> 0 Ci<D III ::.. 0 'jjj :1"".".'" <D !!! c. ,-. :n <: ...l~~ a::; -6-1!! CD Q... ,- X C. ~W i'''> I r-~ . ' --- 'CO,', ~ ~I .--- !!! C-i I- ... ... iJl .~~ :::I ~ U l\I-' IT: ~ <: - c: ~"!!! es OJ'iij ,!;O E ~1ii!!! :c ti CIl .- CIl :::I ;BE -u-u.... iOl< ~Jl~ ~ J . ~~1;Q.i :) ~~ i =i~e~ s <: c..., _ CI3 0 bQ.'~ .~ .~ .~ ~ i! Ii ,,-- '" '" :: -g "S "B . "C 0. 0 '" 0 Q)::::I r)' 4.} \0 C::.3=1$~ i \0 .s ~~ ::;:l-:~a~ "',.; ~'ti , . ~ ~ ,...: . T " I/. .'li:r, .. <:~'), :~~ / "..' .. ,'-:-- ",-" : ~.~I-';",",,&IW--;"",*~\lfA$"~$ .. ' '; ~~ .~. i".!';' r J ) ~ ~ ~:,...: t~tf )....; '~, :.:.- _ ~ ., , I ~':a)~.<!~4' ' r~ ;,V, . ~~~~.. ~,,'l- . ~ ~''l'>~ ." ..(~" _ ' -. . '11>>~t?:;;'$~ii!;~ :: J .~" ....,. t ~'" .... " ;, I, 1, !~ i$' . ~ 1. ~ '"' , ;J. _"_ l~~~ r... ~. ~ _ " . . _ ' "ii OJ;" .... - .- ..... ..= OJ) .- - '"0 =: ~ .1; .::.; ,~ :.. .... ..... .:;; ,:,; :.. .... 00 c o '" 'i ,;;; .. ..., '" -a i' ""0 ..... o ,,-'" "0... ~ ~ ><"" tiJ '; "" C .~ -~ ~ I-t Il.) .a U 1; u -'g=b 'O-'~ ~.S .= ~~~ ;:; c 0.. c "'..... 0,"0 s: a ~ P::r:I:~ .'".1 , ~. o. "" c .8:..a ~t> -5 f;i -ll i. '1'~ ~~ Q"'3 0 t :i! "'" ... '" c.. .......c 0 0'" ~ ~~~ E ;.::I t: .~ ~E ~..c.. ~ iii ,'{ ~ .~ -; - F= g a !!)j~ .. ~ ~ 'OJ>~ " ,,- f~l ~ 1 E" o ~ <0 ] _~ a p..l:z,,~ '" I~ i It I I !l,;l ~"l ii''' " $ ~-~ .~ ~ l! :1 i ,I ,. il , I i (r?~1 , l j '. .1 il , rt:- .- - ~ ...... ~ ...:;.;:: '~F1 ...... - ~ ...... .~ c:: c ~ I r:.';; =1:) = .- r:iJ 00 ~ ~ ~ o - ..Q I := - - - I ~ E-c - ~ - - - ~ ~ r'" ., /." /--', '0 I (' \). .S / ~. . ,. - u. 2: "--j 1&, :~, ." .~ 1 '" " '!I' t': '4 ~ ..... <l.l <!.l -= rfJ ..c ~ ~. ... - <!.l <!.l ..... - ~"" ""0 >= '='l Attachment 1 CITY OF SANTA MONICA 2ND & 41'11 Streets Pedestrian / Streetscape Improvements Questionnaire Name (optional) Affiliation Phone or E-mail (optional) Address (to receive future notices) I. What are your suggestions for how to make 2nd and 4th Street unique and comfortable walking environment within the downtown? Do you think the two streets should be treated similarly? Please explain. 2. Regarding street trees, what is your preference for (check one): _ Replace every other one with 2 new trees (As proposed in the Downtown Urban Design Plan) _ Replace the all the ficus with all new trees (Option 1) _ Keep the existing ficus trees (Option 2) 3. Regarding the street lighting, please answer the following: If the existing Transit Mall fixture could be modified to be effective on 2nd and 4th Street, would you be in favor of using this fixture? _ yes _ no (if no, please eXplain) Are you in favor of considering sculptural lighting in key locations on the block in place of standard pedestrian lighting? Please explain. 4. Do you have any ideas on how you would like to see the gateway blocks designed? Do you think lighting would be an effective gateway element? 5. What else do you suggest be considered? ,. ..... ~ : I~ ,." Please drop form in comment box provided or FAX to Ellen Gelbard at 310/576-4755. Thank you! Sa_E. lion lea: