SR-1000-008 (8)
EPWM: CP:AA:DB:MM:F:\DATA\SPFILES\SP1609\CC1609april27(DP).doc
Council Meeting: April 27, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT:Proposed Big Blue Bus Campus Expansion Plan Revisions
Introduction
This report presents proposed Big Blue Bus Campus Expansion Plan revisions and
seeks approval from Council, as the client, on those revisions. When this project was
last before Council, a new design approach based on a modified expansion plan was
presented. Council expressed concern that it was being asked to consider a new design
when it had not approved the modifications to the previous expansion plan. A new
design approach based on an approved expansion plan will be presented to Council at
a later date.
Background
In 1996, the City Council adopted a five-year Service Improvement Plan for the Big Blue
Bus. Route, frequency, fleet and passenger amenity enhancements were included to
address the environmental and service quality needs of the community. Since that time,
Big Blue Bus services have increased over 50 percent with commensurate increase in
employees and parking needs at the existing transit facility.
1
On February 27, 2001, City Council approved the Campus Expansion Plan necessitated
by that growth and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. At its
August 14, 2001 meeting, City Council awarded a construction contract to Mallcraft, Inc.
for a Natural Gas Fueling and Bus Wash Facility, Phase I of the expansion, which will
be completed in July 2004. On September 11, 2001, Council awarded a design contract
to Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc. (HOK) for the design of the remainder of the BBB
Campus Expansion Project.
Analysis of Existing Expansion Plan
The 2001 Expansion Plan prepared by RNL/Interplan was based upon facility needs
studies done in 1996. In addition to construction of the new natural gas fueling and bus
wash facility, the 2001 Expansion Plan calls for the maintenance building at 1620 Sixth
Street and the 612 Colorado Avenue building to be demolished, while the administration
building at 1660 Seventh Street is renovated and enlarged with a second story addition.
A new three-story office building with underground parking replaces 612 Colorado
Avenue and a new maintenance building with a detached chassis wash/tire change
area along Seventh Street is constructed. The remainder of the site is allocated for bus
parking.
When HOK was engaged as the design architect on the BBB Campus Expansion
Project, an update of the existing Expansion Plan was undertaken. HOK interviewed
BBB staff and identified the need for additional parking and workspace, primarily in the
2
maintenance function. This was based on actual and newly projected growth in both
employees and fleet vehicles.
In regard to re-use of the existing administration building at Olympic Boulevard and
Seventh Street, HOK determined that leaving the administration building intact and
attempting to remodel would make it impossible to expand the maintenance facility and
bus parking area as required based upon the updated space needs. The shape, size
and location of the facility, built in 1982, does not readily lend itself to current and future
BBB program needs or effectively link the BBB to the downtown. The building is a steel
frame structure, making it vulnerable to seismic damage. Constructed to the 1979
Building Codes, which did not consider the full effect of major earthquakes on steel
frame structures, the building is in need of seismic strengthening. HOK has indicated
that the metal skin and roof of the building will need to be redesigned and replaced. The
exterior skin and roof employs dozens of rubberized joints that are prone to
deterioration. As a result, rainwater leaks into the interior workspace. Repairs over the
years have been only marginally successful. The heating, ventilating and air
conditioning systems are at the end of their useful life and do not comply with current
energy efficiency standards. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), communications,
fire and life safety upgrades are mandatory. Achieving LEED Silver or Gold certification
for the building makes remodeling more difficult than starting from scratch for a new
facility. The initial capital cost of remodeling and upgrading the existing administration
facility versus constructing a new building was analyzed and found to be virtually the
3
same. The life cycle cost of a new facility will be lower than that for a remodeled and
expanded administration building.
The projected fleet size and the addition of articulated buses to the City’s fleet; the
desirability of employee parking at a single location for ease of access to assigned work
areas; the higher life cycle cost of permanent re-use and seismic strengthening of the
existing administration building; the desire to link BBB customer service functions and
community presence with the downtown; enhanced bus parking layout to allow for
clearing and maneuvering; and the need for additional maintenance building bays to
service the fleet, required exploration of alternatives to the RNL concept.
HOK developed possible alternatives that included provision for:
(1) Co-location of all administrative functions;
(2) Drive-thru bays and an enlarged maintenance building to accommodate
current and projected fleet; and
(3) Sufficient bus parking, including parking for articulated buses, on site both in
the final configuration and during construction.
Discussion
Proposed Expansion Plan Revision
The proposed Expansion Plan revision calls for demolition of the existing administration
building at Seventh Street and Olympic Boulevard; construction of an administration
building with underground employee and visitor parking fronting Colorado Avenue and
4
linked to a maintenance facility along Seventh Street between Colorado Avenue and
Olympic Boulevard; and on site parking to accommodate a total of 235 buses. (see
Attachment A)
Phasing considerations
With Council approval of the revised plan, staff will occupy the existing administration
building during demolition of the 612 Colorado building and construction of the new
Administration Building. Only essential repair and renovation of the administration
building will be required for this interim occupancy.
The proposed administration building is built in one construction phase and the
proposed maintenance building is built in a subsequent phase. The maintenance
building cannot be constructed until the existing administration building has been
demolished, since the maintenance building occupies a portion of the site of the existing
administration building. Disruption to staff is minimized, and the maximum site area is
kept open for interim bus parking in this phasing plan.
The advantages and disadvantages of the proposed revised Expansion Plan are:
Advantages Disadvantages
Provides BBB customers and the Requires demolition of 21 year old
??
community with a single, clear “front administration building
door” access along Colorado Avenue
Requires some tandem bus
?
All administrative functions in a single parking in order to accommodate
?
building and all employee parking in one bus parking needs, including
location articulated buses, which is not
5
Maintenance building program needs desirable from an operational
?
fully met standpoint
Greater on-site bus parking and flexibility
?
to accommodate fleet growth
Eliminates the need for offsite bus
?
parking as the fleet grows beyond the
200 buses identified in the existing
Expansion Plan
Administration and maintenance
?
buildings built in two phases
Reduced construction schedule (up to
?
one year time savings)
Enhanced safety and security by
?
eliminating unauthorized access to bus
yard
Enhanced security through building
?
consolidation
Allows for increased landscaping along
?
the perimeter streets
Anticipated reduction in facility
?
maintenance costs
Improved operational efficiency
?
Eliminates bus/passenger car conflict at
?
Sixth Street and Colorado Avenue
Easier for public to access the
?
administration building after hours for
meetings and events
Eliminates conflicts between busses and
?
BBB customers walking across site to
the administration building at Seventh
and Olympic
6
Allows a much higher level of sustainable
?
design and construction approaches than
could be achieved through retrofit of the
old building
Tenant Relocation
OPCC currently occupies a portion of the 612 Colorado Avenue facility. This property
was purchased in 1985 with dedicated public transit funding and leased to OPCC and
other tenants on a temporary basis until the site was needed for transit purposes.
On August 12, 2003, City Council approved the relocation of OPCC’s Daybreak Shelter
and the establishment of their new Safe Haven program at 1751-1753 Cloverfield Blvd.,
and directed the retention of the Access Center program on the Big Blue Bus campus.
The southwest area of the campus currently houses SAMOSHEL, a 110-bed homeless
shelter, and SWASHLOCK which contains shower facilities, lockers, laundry facilities
and a counseling center for the homeless, both operated by the Salvation Army.
Options to achieve that Council direction were developed and evaluated on their
impacts on existing social service program activities, Big Blue Bus operational needs,
project costs and schedules. The Community and Cultural Services Department was
consulted during the option evaluation stage and concurs with the approach described
here. A complete analysis of the options is included in the February 26, 2004
Information Item sent to Council and attached as Attachment B.
7
The most cost effective solution to meet OPCC’s and Big Blue Bus’ current and future
needs incorporates Access Center and SWASHLOCK in a two-story, 10,550 square
foot modular facility (increasing the Access Center square footage from 3,500 to 8,700).
It leaves the SAMOSHEL structure and activities unchanged. It provides space for
expansion of Access Center functions with minimal disruption to existing social service
programs and Big Blue Bus operations. There is sufficient outdoor queuing space for
clients, and loading functions can also be accommodated on-site. It does not provide
parking on-site but thatwould be accommodated within the proposed Big Blue Bus
parking structure. Employee parking capacity for all three social service programs would
be improved over what exists today. Construction time, schedule and budget impacts
are minimized for the agencies and the BBB by the use of modular construction. The
estimated costs would moderately exceed the relocation assistance amount authorized
by City Council for OPCC. The construction of this project would occur during the
planning and documentation phase of the transit facility expansion project, eliminating
the need for OPCC relocation from 612 Colorado during construction. Suitable on site
facilities will be made available for the SWASHLOCK function during construction of the
new modular building.
Phasing
The phases of the revised Expansion Plan are as follows:
(I) Construction of a natural gas fueling/bus wash Facility (liquefied natural
gas (LNG) fuel for buses, compressed natural gas (CNG) for other fleet
vehicles), to be completed in July 2004;
8
(ll a.) Demolition of the existing SWASHLOCK facility along Olympic Boulevard
and construction of new modular facilities for the OPCC Access Center
and SWASHLOCK at the site;
(ll b.) Demolition of the 612 Colorado building, construction of a new
administration building with a below grade parking structure, and
subsequent demolition of prior administration building;
(III) Construction of transit bus maintenance facility; and
(IV) Demolition of the existing maintenance facility, grading, paving, and other
site improvements.
The estimated project budget for the remaining phases of proposed expansion plan is
$80.4 million. The pre-development costs (which include concept plan preparation,
preparation of the EIR, concept design, testing, and program management) aggregate
approximately $9,625,000. Relocation and renovation expenses are estimated to be
$3,000,000. The construction of a new administration building, maintenance buildings,
site work and utilities are estimated at $59,600,000. Finally, the budget includes
$2,000,000 for furniture, furnishings and equipment, and other miscellaneous
administrative costs and contingencies of $6,175,000. The project is funded by regional
transportation funds (Prop. A&C, State Transit Assistance Funds and Transportation
Development Act Funds) allocated to the Big Blue Bus and requires no local General
Funds.
9
CEQA
The subsequent phases of the revised Big Blue Bus Campus Expansion Plan will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission for their planning entitlements prior to
construction. An addendum has been prepared to the Big Blue Bus Facility Expansion
Master Plan Environmental Impact Report to analyze the environmental implications of
the revisions to the Master Plan. No additional significant environmental impacts were
identified. The Planning Commission will consider the addendum along with the
planning applications for the subsequent phases of the Expansion Plan.
Requested Action
Staff is seeking input from Council on the proposed revision to the Expansion Plan and
will return to Council for final approval in December 2004 once the Planning
Commission and Architectural Review Board review and approve the proposed
changes.
It is recommended that staff be authorized to proceed to develop the design based upon
the proposed revised plan. If such approval is obtained, staff will be back to request
authorization to proceed with the renovation for the interim use of existing BBB facilities
in parallel with obtaining final Board and Commission approvals. This will assist in
avoiding project delays that might escalate the overall project cost.
10
Previous Concept Design Presentation
At the October 8, 2003 Council meeting, questions were raised regarding facility design
concepts presented that evening. A concept design will be prepared for presentation in
the coming months and will address these questions.
Budget/Financial Impact
There is no budget impact associated with Council action recommended in this report.
Note, the estimated project costs are described earlier in this report.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised Expansion Plan for the Big
Blue Bus Campus Expansion Project.
Prepared by: Craig Perkins, Director of Environmental & Public Works Management
Anthony Antich, P.E., Manager, EPWM Engineering & Arch. Division
Stephanie Negriff, Director of the Big Blue Bus
Janeene De Martinez, Assistant Director of the Big Blue Bus - Transit
Finance and Business Services
Joe Stitcher, Assistant Director of the Big Blue Bus – Transit Operations
Ralph Merced, Transit Maintenance Manager
Dave Britton, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
Miriam Mulder, Architect
Attachments: Attachment A – Concept Site Plan (Not available electronically. Available
at the City Clerk’s Office.)
Attachment B - Info Item from February 24, 2004
11
February 26, 2004 Santa Monica, CA
INFORMATION ITEM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Options for Relocating OPCC’s Access Center Program to Southwest
Corner of Big Blue Bus Site
Introduction:
Pursuant to City Council direction, City staff has considered options for moving OPCC’s
th
Access Center program from the corner of 7 Street and Colorado Avenue to an
alternate location on the Big Blue Bus (BBB) site, which currently holds SAMOSHEL
and SWASHLOCK activities. This report describes the option that will maximize
functionality of the services at this location.
Background:
OPCC’s Access Center and Daybreak Shelter programs operate from leased space in
the BBB facility currently located at 612 Colorado Avenue. The property, purchased in
1985 with dedicated public transit funding, was originally intended as a temporary
location for OPCC and other tenants until the site was needed for transit purposes.
12
On February 27, 2001, City Council approved the BBB Expansion Plan and certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The plan calls for the demolition of
the 612 Colorado building to allow for additional bus and employee parking, a new
maintenance facility, and expanded operations and administrative space.
During the course of developing design concepts, it became apparent that incorporation
of the OPCC functions into the new transit facility would not meet the needs of either
OPCC or the BBB. OPCC initiated a process to explore alternative locations for their
programs. A site at 1751-1753 Cloverfield was identified. On August 12, 2003, City
Council approved the relocation of the Daybreak Shelter, the establishment of the new
Safe Haven program at the Cloverfield site, and the retention of the Access Center
program at the BBB.
Discussion:
OPCC Access Center Relocation Alternatives
The southwest portion of the BBB site currently houses SAMOSHEL, a 110-bed
homeless shelter, and SWASHLOCK, a shower, locker, laundry and counseling center
for the homeless, both operated by the Salvation Army. The design team explored
several different alternatives for accommodating OPCC’s Access Center at the
designated site, considering impacts on existing social service program activities, BBB
operational needs, project costs and construction schedules. Due to space restrictions
and facility conditions, all alternatives include the replacement of the existing
SWASHLOCK with new buildings and equipment.
13
Three alternatives proposed the use of modular construction for the SWASHLOCK and
the OPCC Access Center to limit the construction time and overall cost and schedule
impact. The fourth involved refurbishment and reuse of the existing BBB administration
building for SWASHLOCK, SAMOSHEL and the Access Center. This alternative
precluded accommodating the BBB fleet even at its current size. This was the most
costly alternative and extended the construction schedule for the bus expansion. For
these reasons it is not a practical option. The advantages and disadvantages of the
other three alternatives are described in more detail below.
Scheme 1 – ACCESS/SWASHLOCK
This scheme provides a two-story modular building, adjacent to the existing SAMOSHEL
structure. The 5,760 s.f. structure is equivalent to the combined area of the existing Access
Center and SWASHLOCK operations. The current Access Center facility is overcrowded which
would not be alleviated under this scheme.
This scheme offers 10 on-site parking spaces for employees. Additional parking demand
would be accommodated within the proposed BBB parking structure. Deliveries and pick-
up/loading functions can be accomplished without affecting service activities, but will affect the
number of on-site parking spaces available.
This solution is the least costly of all the schemes presented and could be accomplished
within the budgetary authority approved by Council for OPCC’s relocation.
14
The schedule for this scheme compares favorably to the existing BBB facility expansion plan.
The construction of this project would occur during the planning and documentation phase of
the main facility expansion project.
Key advantages are minimal disruption to BBB and SAMOSHEL operations, equipment
upgrades for SWASHLOCK and cost. The primary disadvantage is that this option does not
address the space deficiency of the existing Access Center program.
Scheme 2 - ACCESS / SWASHLOCK/ SAMOSHEL
This scheme provides for one two-story building incorporating Access Center, SWASHLOCK
and SAMOSHEL programs within one facility. The total area of the proposed building is
18,700 s.f. which includes space equivalent to the existing SAMOSHEL square footage and
10,700 s.f. for the OPCC and SWASHLOCK programs.
Approximately 18 on-site parking spaces are provided for employees and service loading, with
the remaining parking need being met within the proposed BBB parking structure.
This solution is the most costly of the modular schemes considered and would substantially
exceed the relocation assistance amount authorized by Council for OPCC.
The schedule for this scheme is the longest of all schemes. Relocation of SAMOSHEL will
require temporary trailer facilities at another site. As it is unlikely that a site acceptable to the
community could be identified, the temporary facility would be located on the BBB campus and
would delay the start of construction of the expansion project.
15
Scheme 2 expands the Access Center space by 5,350 s.f., allowing more space for lounge,
counseling and educational activity areas, and offers the greatest amount of outdoor space,
including off-street queuing areas for all program clients. The major disadvantage is the need
for SAMOSHEL to temporarily relocate from the site in order to build the combined structure.
This scheme could result in a change in program operations for the three programs, as
services would become centralized within one facility. This relocation would have the most
significant impact on project budget and schedule of the three options.
Scheme 3 - Expanded ACCESS / SWASHLOCK
This scheme incorporates Access Center and SWASHLOCK in a two-story, 10,550 s.f. facility.
It leaves the SAMOSHEL structure and activities unchanged.
This scheme does not provide on-site parking for employees. All parking would be
accommodated within the proposed BBB parking structure. A loading zone would be
designated on the eastern side of the property. This option provides outdoor space, including
off-street queing areas for all program clients.
Estimated costs would moderately exceed the relocation assistance amount authorized
by Council for OPCC. The schedule for this scheme would be similar to Scheme 1. The
construction of this project would occur during the planning and documentation phase of
the transit facility expansion project.
16
The advantages of this scheme are the provision of additional space (from
approximately 3,500 s.f. to 8,700 s.f.) to accommodate the Access Center’s services,
and minimal disruption to BBB and SAMOSHEL operations. The main disadvantage is
the lack of on-site employee parking, but with the construction of the transit parking
structure, employee parking capacity for all three social service programs will be
improved over what exists today. This is the most cost effective solution and the one
that best meets the programming needs of OPCC.
Summary:
Staff has evaluated options for accommodating the Access Center according to Council
direction. Scheme 3 – Expanded Access/SWASHLOCK is both financially feasible and
operationally viable for BBB, the Access Center and SWASHLOCK. It provides
sufficient space for expansion of Access Center functions with minimal disruption to
existing social service programs and BBB operations. There is sufficient outdoor
queuing space, and loading functions can also be accommodated on-site. Construction
time, schedule and budget impacts are minimized by the use of modular construction.
While this scheme does not provide on-site parking, it does provide nearby protected
parking, which is an enhancement over current parking availability. Of the three
alternative schemes presented, Scheme 3 is the preferred option for OPCC Access
Center relocation. Staff will present the revised facility expansion plan, including the
preferred Scheme 3 option, for consideration in April, 2004.
Prepared by: Stephanie Negriff, Director of Transit Services
17
Janeene de Martinez, Assistant Director-Transit Finance and
Business Services
Tony Antich, P.E., City Engineer
Dave Britton, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
Miriam Mulder, Architect
18