SR-081407-1J~ City Council and
~,tY °, Redevelopment Agency Report
Banta Dionica
City Council Meeting: August 14, 2007
Agenda Item: ~'-'~
To: Mayor and City Council
Chairperson and Redevelopment Agency
From: Craig Perkins, Director -Environmental and Public Works Management
Subject: Award of Contracts for 2°d and 4~' Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape
Improvements
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Councii:
1. award a construction contract to Griffith Company, the best bidder, in the amount
of $7,248,650 plus a 5% contingency, for a total amount not to exceed
$7,611,083;
2. authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services
agreement with PBS&3 Company for construction management services, far a
total amount not to exceed $600,000;
3. authorize the City Engineer to issue any necessary change orders to the
construction contract to complete additional work within budget authority;
4. authorize the City Manager to execute a Cooperation Agreement between the
City and the Redevelopment Agency for costs associated with the 2na and 4"'
Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project; and
5. adopt a resolution finding that the proposed improvements are of benefit to the
Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area.
1
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency:
1. authorize the Executive Director to execute a Cooperate Agreement between the
Cify and the Redevelopment Agency for paymenf of costs associated with the -
2nd and 4th Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project; and
2. adopt a resolution #inding that the proposed improvements are of benefit to the
Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project area.
Executive Summary
The 2na and 4~' Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements Project covers the
eight blocks between Wilshire Boulevard and Colorado Avenue and includes the
installation of an additional 139 new Ginkgo trees, removal of up to 54 existing ficus
tress, new closely-spaced pedestrian ligh#ing to illumina#e the sidewalk area, the
enlargement of tree-wells and the addition of decorative uplighting to the ficus trees,
enhancement of the six mid-block crosswalks on 2"d and 4~' Streets and accessibility
improvements. Council approved the project design, including the removal of some
trees, on October 11, 2005. As the result of a subsequent review by the new Planning
and Community Development Director in late 2006, the total number of trees proposed
to be removed was further reduced.
Staff recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Griffith Company, the
best bidder. Funding for this project is from various sources, including $1,836;000 in
Federal Transportation Enhancement Activities funds which must be awarded by
2
Augus# 30, 2007, or the funds will expire. The final project design that was submitted to
Caltrans for review and approval cannot be modified or the grant funds wilt be forfeited.
Discussion
Background
On October 11. 2005, City Council conceptually approved the schematic design for 2"d
and 4`~ Streets that included the new closely spaced pedestrian lighting similar to the
Transit Mall fixture, curb extensions at the mid-block crosswalks to provide greater
visibility and shorten fhe exposure of pedestrians to traffic while crossing the streets,
replacement of alternating ficus trees with two Ginkgo trees, ficus tree uplighting, curb
ramp accessibility improvements, and repair of tree damaged sidewalks and curbs.
(See Exhibits)
The project is located on 2"d and 4t~' Streets from Wilshire Boulevard #o Colorado
Avenue. Project improvements were identified as a third phase in the Downtown Urban
Design Plan and were initially funded through a $2.169 million grant from the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The improvements will enhance the environment
along these streets including enhanced lighting for those utilizing the many transit lines
that run through downtown and the City's six public parking strtactures on 2"~ and 4=h
Streets. The eight blocks of improvements include the installation of 139 Ginkgo trees,
removal of up to 54 ficus trees, installation of new pedes#rian/street light fixtures,
upgrading the electrical service, irrigation and structured soil, enlargement of the ficus
3
tree-wells, addition of decorative uplighting, enhancement of the existing six mid-block
crosswalks by installing curb extensions and installation of new accessble curb cuts.
Public Outreach
Community workshops were held on April 4th and 9th, 2005, to explore and reconfirm
the vision for the project. Workshop invitations were sent directly to alt business
owners, residents and property owners within the downtown area and the workshops
were advertised in three local papers. A survey was distributed at the community
meetings and to anyone who was not able to attend a meeting but wanted to voice an
opinion. Input was also gathered from the 13ayside District and the Santa Monica
Chamber of Commeroe at their monthly meetings.
Subsequent to the City Council approval of the schematic design in October 2005, staff
proceeded with the detailed design phase of the project and refined the tree placement
plan. Individual #rees were evaluated and it was determined that an additional 8-9 of the
larger "specimen" trees could be retained and still provide the spacing necessary for the
pedestrian lighting and other amenities. Of the approximately 181 total street trees in
the project area, 106 ficus remain; 31 ficus trees will be removed and replanted
elsewhere in the City; 23 of the ficus trees that have been identified as diseased,
beyond their useful life or unable to survive a transplant, will be removed and converted
to compost; and 21 palm trees will be removed and relocated within the City.
4
Contractor Selection
No#ice Inviting Bids were published in the Santa Monica Daily Press on Wednesday
May 16, 2007, and Thursday May 17, 2007, and the bid package was sent to nine
public plan rooms. The Notice Inviting Bids was also posted on the Civil Engineering
and Archftecfure Division's webpage. Nineteen contractors requested bid packages,
five companies attended the pre-bid job walk, and one sealed bid was received by the
City Clerk's office and publicly opened on June 19, 2007, by the Deputy City Cierk.
Only one bid was received as follows:
Company Name
Griffith Company
Bid Amount
$7,248,650
The one bid that was received is approximately $400,OOfl greater than the Engineering
estimate used for project budgeting purposes. The bid was evaluated based on Federal
grant requirements per Caltrans. The Federal grant requires that the contract be
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder The grant administrator, Caltrans, verified
that a single bid qualifies as the lowest responsible bidder. The bid documents required
documentation of at least three projects similar in nature to the 2"d and 4th Streets
Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements Project.
Griffith Company supplied the City with-the names of previous similar projects. These
projects include the Incline Baggage Screening Project (Los Angeles World Airport),
Ramon Road Project (County of Riverside), Magnolia Boulevard Improvements {Cify of
5
Burbank}, and the Ontario Airport Runway (Los Angeles Worid Airport}. City staff
contacted the referenced agencies and all respondents reported that the Griffith
Company work was completed in a timely and cost-efficient manner whits maintaining
consistent quality. City staff contac#ed the Center for Contract Compliance and found
Griffith Company is in good standing and capable of handling labor compliance issues.
City staff also verified with the State Contractors License Board that Griffith Company,
license is current, active, and in good standing.
Construction Management Selection
The City requested Statements a# Qualifications for constructior management services
on July 19, 2006. Ten firms submitted Statements of Qualifications, which were
reviewed and rated by Environmental and Public Works Management (EPWM) staff.
Selection criteria included direct experience on similar projects, staffing efficiency, cost
of services, technical competence, understanding of the project's scope, approach to
the work, qualification of proposed staff, and the ability to meet required #ime frames.
The top four firms qualified for the 2nd and 4th Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape
Improvements Project were invited to interview with the City. Staff from EPWM
interviewed the four firms on February 27 and 28, 2007. PBS&J Company is
considered the top ranked frm.
PBS&J Company is recommended to provide construction management services. Their
services will include construction oversight and continuous inspection of the contractor's
work during demolition, tree relocation, locating underground utilities, sidewalk
6
construction, lighting systems- installation, managing traffic control and detour plans,
reviewing submiftais and change order requests, conducting weekly progress meetings,
providing information to the contractor on an as-needed basis, and maintaining all
necessary project documentation relevant to the work conducted during construction.
PBS&J Company has relevant experience working on streetscape and sidewalk
projects for the City of Dana Paint and street resurfacing, bike-lane and pedestrian
walkway projects for the City of Dei Mar.
Redevelopment Considerations
To authorize the use of Redevelopment funds for the Project, the City Council and
Agency must make the appropriate determinations as required by the State of California
Health and Safety Code Section 33445. The attached resolutions find that the use of
these funds is 1) a benefit to the Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project area; 2)
no other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available; 3} the payment
of#unds for the Project will assist in the elimination of one or more blighted conditions
inside the Ear#hquake Recovery Redevelopment Project area by assisting in the
elimination of one or more of the conditions resulting from the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake disaster; and 4} the Project is consistent with the Agency's Five-Year
Implementation Pian. The Cooperation Agreement will delegate to the City the
Agency's authority to carry out the proposed improvements and provide for the
Agency's funding of those costs.
7
BudgeUFinancial Impact
In December 200&, the California Transportation Commission authorized an eight-
month extension of the $2.169 million Federal Transportation Enhancement Activities
(TEA} grant the City obtained from Metro {approximately $306,000 of this amount has
already been spent during the design process). If the construction contract for the
project is not awarded prior to the end of August, this entire grant amount will be
forfeited. The City also applied for supplemental TEA funding in the amount of
$762,000. However, it has not yet been decided by Caltrans whether the entire
supplemental grant amount can be used for the project due to restrictive Federal
requirements. City staff does not know when Calfrans will make their final
determination on the supplemental TEA funding.
As a result of a bid that came in higher than the Engineer's estimate, the potential loss
of the $762,000 in TEA supplemental grant funding, and a significant riumber of bid
items that. are ineligible under Community Development Block Gran# and Prop A and C
regulations, it is recommended that the budget shortfall be made up through the use of
Redevelopment Agency funds. If the City receives all or a portion of the supplemental
TEA grant funds, the Redevelopment Agency commitment will be reduced by an equal
amount. As a result of City Council direction at the time of concept design approval,
staff explored alternatives for funding including possible assessment to the
improvement district. Although not a part of this proposed action, staff and the Bayside
District Corporation are looking into additional assessments for other capital projects in
the district.
8
-Funds are available in the following accounts:
Account Number Source of Funding Amount
0200646.589010 Proposition A $ 80,000
0200646.589020 Proposition C 968,102
0190646.589000 CDBG 2,027,347
0200464.589000 TEA Grant Funds 1,797,393
0010456.589000 General Fund 301,263_
0010646.589000 General Fund 506,382
0170776.589000 Redevelopment Agency 2,530,596
Total: $8,211,083
Prepared by: Mark Cuneo, Principal Civil Engineer
Appraved:
Forwarded to Council:
Craig Perki ~. a ont Ewell
Director - nvironmental and Public Ci anaaer
Works Management Department
Attachments: City Council Resolution
Redevelopment Agency Resoiution
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
9
Exhlhttl
.c.'
/~! 3
nor. n:z
Existing Ficus Trees( Mid-block Curb Sculptural Lighting
to remain f Extension
~
i a, a.~ ~ ~ e
m us.~, u y
x r
q
~y
i
y*
~~~~ ,j;8
~'~~~3 ~°~~
~
Ong
u ~
}~~..`
M
L
wM1U ..fa .,
%
~
;~f
"., . W
P~~ 0~l g
E`~Y~.~.iL L+t~~F,
CJ =.a
~d ~,
~>5
m
n~ ~o~,
3
II
I- ~
Y A I ~~~w ,y ~,~,e
._; f 3
9~ ~
~.
.~~.
~ Tzd;~ :.9~
sN
~_
'S IF -'-I 'T~ - 4
0 100'
`-Modified Transit Mall `- Replacement ~° r°'
~,~ Pedestrian Light Tree
Fixture
~.
~~
~ p6 pazking structure
Ezhlbh 1
~~'~a 3
.,~
MQ
w
(;~
3,~,
~.
~h~~'~
Modified Transit
Mall Light Fixture
Existing Ficus Tree
Mid-block Crossing
Curb Extension
Tree
p2 parking structure
4i~
~~
L"1,$
4"=
'~
ta,,
p4 parking structure
,. ,.~N.u~a~ ~~a~~~~~y
,.~
W
~.)
{
ry,~a,
~,
~~
~u
2
t~~
~i i«Y „Ja
0 100'
ntwuiea t~,man ~~„dt u8h~
-1B ull padastrianlight and
25' tali combiaeoonmad-bad
and pWesniao light (uvcmge
spacing 60' npaxt)
Exempla of tree upr-ligLting b
highlight 4ha avulpnval Mmioliirg
ehucWro (option)
~, if ~~~
J
August I4, 3007
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405 RE: Agenda Item No. 1-J Ficus Trees
Dear Counoil Members:
Please do not pull down year round ficus trees downtown and replace them with
decidious ginkgo biloba trees.thai do not provide air pw ification during the winter
months.
Please do not do this far the following reasons:
1) Due to the ongoing massive overdevelopment of our City, the traffic is mostly
gridl~cked. We cannot even drive forward anymore on green lights. It takes 2-3
lights sometimes to go 2 blocks!
2} tiVe need trees to purify this massively increased car exhaust going into our air
3) Ficus trees should be re-planted or preserved whenever possible -their roots can be
controlled by regular trimming of the trees.
4) Ficus trees also provide shade for the buildings, lowering the need for air-
conditioning, and gives us wonderful shade while wal=king in tha city.
5} Store signs can be placed below the canopies so that pedestrians and car drivers can
see them.
6} If Santa Monica calls itself a "Sustainable City" then we should be saving year round
trees that offset our gridlock and lower the need for air-conditioning. They also
provide a weleome refief year round to the developer-friendly trend of "pedestrian
friendly" new buildings being built up to the vary sidewalk, without set backs for
landscaping.
Thank you for listening to my comments.
Sincerely,
-~
f'~ ~%Z~~
Kathy Knight
Reference Contract
Nos. 8814 (CCS),
8815 (CCS), and
8816 (CCS/RAS)
Reference
Resolution Nos.
10237 (CCS) and
504 (RAS)