Loading...
SR 07-12-2016 8D City Council Report City Council Meeting: July 12, 2016 Agenda Item: 8.D To: Mayor and City Council From: Martin Pastucha, Director, Public Works, Architecture Services Subject: City Yards Modernization Concept Design Recommendation Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Review and approve the feasibility analysis, concept design and financial options for the City Yards Modernization project. 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) with design-build contractor HDCC for design services (including schematic design, design development and construction documents) to build the proposed City Yards Modernization Project in accordance to the proposed Zipper Plan and Phasing Package A. 3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to Professional Services Agreement No. 10145 in the amount of $468,000 (includes a 10% contingency) with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company (HDCC), a California-based company, to provide additional conceptual design scope of work related to the Olympic Treatment Plant, Water Resources, Gandara Park and Public Landscape, Phasing Package C.1. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $970,200, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. 4. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within budget authority. 5. Authorize the City Manager to register the City Yards as an eco-district with EcoDistricts Protocol. 6. Authorize the budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report. Executive Summary On July 28, 2015, Council authorized staff to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company for concept design, cost estimation services, and feasibility analysis for the Santa Monica City Yards Modernization project, long overdue to replace substandard facilities that provide so many important city services. Staff recommends that Council review and approve the concept design, feasibility analysis and financial options and authorize staff to enter into 1 of 24 negotiations for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the design phase of the recommended Zipper Plan and Phasing Package A. Staff would return to Council for approval of the GMP for the design phase. CEQA analysis will be commenced early in the design phase, informing the design, and project construction approval will be contingent upon the results. Additionally, the proposed Olympic Treatment Plant and Water Resources Campus need to be examined in the context of the City Yard project to ensure a coordinated approach. The Water and Wastewater Funds would fund the Water Administration buildings, components of the modernization project. This new scope of work also includes a phased plan to move the Public Landscape Division currently housed in the old Fisher Lumber building to City Yards and a reworking of Gandara Park to provide a more generous frontage to the neighborhood. The park and Public Landscape scope requires further analysis to provide a funding strategy. Background City Yards Site Characteristics and Considerations The City Yards is a 14.7-acre site owned and operated by the City of Santa Monica and th located at 2500 Michigan Avenue, near the intersection of 24 Street and Michigan Avenue. The City took ownership of the site in the late 1940s and constructed a series of three buildings to house City Yards operations occupying the land between Michigan Avenue and the former Santa Monica Rubbish disposal pit. The buildings were designed by Consulting Engineers Parker Zehnder and Associates to accommodate the needs and program requirements of the City at that time and included a small garbage transfer station and gas station, an auto repair and maintenance shop with two vehicle lifts, a broom repair and blacksmith shop. Facilities shops, crew space and administrative space was sized to accommodate the staffing levels at the time. The balance of the site was occupied by the warehouse and open equipment storage bays. This operations, storage facilities, and other industrial uses since then. 2 of 24 City Yards circa 1954 These same three buildings house the majority of the operations in the City Yards today. As program needs changed through the years, uses for the City Yards were adapted as-needed for various City functions, resulting in an expedient but inefficient utilization of space. Changing populations, growth, updates in technology, and differing service requirements have also resulted in a series of haphazard updates throughout the site. When additional shop, maintenance or office space was needed, the existing warehouse and open equipment storage bays were converted and reconfigured to accommodate these needs. This reconfiguration of the old buildings ty the City outgrew many years ago. 3 of 24 The original City Yard building envelopes and substandard structure remains in place today. These buildings have exceeded their expected service life and can no longer be utilized to support the current City Yards functions safely: Facilities Maintenance Custodial Services Street Maintenance Fleet Maintenance Traffic Operations Resource Recovery and Recycling Water and Wastewater Operations Household Hazardous Waste Fire Department Training Area Today, the City Yards operates seven days a week and currently houses significantly more functions and employees than it was designed to accommodate. The scope and breadth of the operating divisions has evolved over time. Functional needs and space requirements are no longer met by the facilities for any of the operations housed at the City Yards. Deficiencies include inadequate maintenance shop space, vehicle hoists, and covered maintenance area for heavy duty vehicles resulting in the need to perform some vehicle maintenance outside the fleet shop space due to lack of maintenance bay capacity, creating site circulation constraints and hazardous conditions. Further deficiencies include employee restroom/locker facilities, parking for fleet, employee, and visitor vehicles, storage, traffic circulation constraints, and inadequate customer service facilities to serve members of the public at the various City Yards offices. In addition, a private recycling facility of rudimentary design utilizes a substantial portion of the site. Santa Monica is a rare municipality that performs so many of these services in-house. The community has come to expect these services, but the high performance standards cannot be met with inadequate facilities. History of Council Actions Related to City Yards Master Plan On October 8, 1996, Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with RNL Interplan, Inc. (RNL) for consulting services to prepare a Master Plan for the City Yards that would address the physical reorganization, renovation and rehabilitation needs of the City Yards. Between 2000 2009, Council changed direction in regards to the City 4 of 24 operating a transfer facility at the City Yards. Current direction by Council is for the City to operate resource recovery transfer services through a contracted third-party provider. On October 24, 2000, Council approved the two proposed City Yards Master Plan alternatives in concept. One concept included the continued operation of a City- designed and constructed transfer station, while the second concept assumed contracted transfer station services with a third-party provider. On November 12, 2002, Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with RNL to complete full design and engineering services for a multi-phase construction process for the City Yards Master Plan Project anticipated to begin in 2005 and to be completed in 2010, including the function of the City operating a transfer facility at City Yards. However, subsequent changes in City Yard user needs, impaired functional use of the facilities, and space constraints all necessitated an update to the City Yards Master Plan. On October 13, 2009, Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with RNL to update the City Yards Master Plan approved in 2000. The update was substantially completed in July 2010; however, the plan was not presented to Council due to additional scope requirements that required Master Plan modifications, addressed in four subsequent modifications on September 13, 2011, February 14, 2012, September 11, 2012 and June 25, 2013. On January 27, 2015, Council approved the updated City Yards Master Plan by RNL in concept and authorized staff to issue a request for bids for a design-build team for the initial concept design, cost estimation services and feasibility analysis and prepare a financing plan for the initial phases at City Yards Modernization Project. On July 28, 2015, Council authorized staff to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company (HDCC) for concept design, cost estimation services, and feasibility analysis for the City Yards Modernization project (previously called City Yards Stage 1). The HDCC agreement represents the first of three phases in the design-build project process which are; 1) feasibility and concept design, 2) project design and 3) 5 of 24 will return with a design GMP for Council approval. After the design process, the construction GMP would be presented to Council for approval. History of Council Actions Related to Other City Yards Project Components On August 12, 2014,Council authorized Black & Veatch to design and install a pilot treatment unit to study the different treatment technologies available to produce California Division of Drinking Water (DDW)-approved drinking water in the Olympic Well Field. A final design report will be presented at a future date to Council. The pilot study is estimated to conclude in summer of 2016 and the final design report would be presented to Council in fall of 2016. The pilot study final design report would include criteria for the design, construction, and operation of the Olympic Treatment Plant. The pilot treatment unit is located at the City Yards due to its close proximity to source water and due to the availability of City-owned land being considered for a full scale treatment plant. On December 16, 2014, Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with International Parking Design, Inc. to prepare a parking study for the City Yards. The study reviewed financing options, economics, parking demand, and viability of a shared parking solution on the City Yards site. On May 24, 2016, Council authorized a grant award of approximately $1.5M from the California Energy Commission for the Santa Monica Advanced Energy District project proposal. The project will integrate a small, localized energy grid (a microgrid) consisting of onsite renewable energy generation and energy storage based at the City Yards and Bergamot Arts Station. The project will utilize four strategies to establish a multi-user microgrid. First, the City will own and operate its own microgrid, serving the City Yards facility. Second, the City will work with Worthe Development Group at the City-owned Bergamot Arts Station, to develop appropriate regulations and incentives through the entitlement and development agreement process and establish a unique partnership model. Third, a master plan over this area will be developed to delineate the integration and interconnection between the City, the public, and the utility. And finally, 6 of 24 the City will explore the value of its role as a Community Choice Aggregator to incentivize, construct and generate retail power supply. Discussion Feasibility Analysis - Concept Designs The design-build team HDCC working with Miller Hull Partnership conducted a feasibility analysis and created a report for a functional, transparent and sustainable City Yards. (Refer to Attachment A Feasibility Analysis Report.) Careful considerations were given with regard to the City Yards site issues including existing conditions, transportation and linkages, site adjacencies, climate and micro- climate, soils and topography, walkability, stormwater management and irrigation, landscaping and nearby connections to the community like neighborhood parks, ecology and habitat. In depth analysis of the site included a zoning analysis, landfill study, and the existing site utilities. The project design concepts focused on providing an economic and environmentally commitment to environmentally responsible development. Considerations also included how the future City Yards site would house present-day operations and include a Fire Training area and Public Safety Storage Facility. The new character and layout of the divisions would provide healthy and safe work environments for City Yards staff and also provide transparency to the operations, helping educate the public about the vital city services performed daily. Project architectural goals included: To enhance the quality and experience of Michigan Avenue by creating a more human scale experience. To develop a sustainable long term vision for City Yards. To improve the functionality of the site. 7 of 24 To increase green space and open space. To make City Yards an asset to the neighborhood by providing services and educational opportunities. To increase transparency of the site boundary allowing the public to view some of the critical work being done by City Yards staff. The initial task by the design-build team was to evaluate the 2013 City Yards Master Plan for opportunities and challenges and to consider modifications to the plan that might be simplify phasing, and offer cost savings. The following challenges were identified: Site circulation and dead ends Inefficient parking structure footprint Oversized isle widths Public interaction placed at the site core (accessibility and safety concerns) Many structures to be built over landfill Lack of consideration for pedestrian movement The design-build team then developed several concepts to improve the challenges identified in the original City Yards Master Plan. Concept designs explored different ways to organize the site, alternative approaches to constructing on-site and not placing building directly above the landfill, and improved design concepts that responds to community needs. Out of the different concepts explored, one concept provided the best solutions to the site challenges in addition to being responsive to the community. This concept, coined the Zipper Plan, focused on increasing transparency into the site from Michigan Avenue and improving connections between City Yards staff and the neighborhood (pictured below). The evolution of the concept is as follows: Transparency is achieved by rotating the buildings along Michigan Avenue to be perpendicular to the road, and separating them to create gathering spaces and courtyards between the buildings. By re-organizing the buildings, the areas used by the Facilities Maintenance and Street Maintenance divisions would have expanded work spaces outside 8 of 24 without putting staff in danger of the high levels of traffic running operations through the site. The buildings along Michigan Avenue are pulled back from the property line to establish a wider, pedestrian-friendly corridor. Although visible to the sidewalk, the Yards would be fenced. However, staff would have the ability to open their work areas up during open houses to increase neighborhood interaction similar to the art district galleries in the area. The parking structure was placed at the juncture with Bergamot Arts Station, maximizing shared parking potential. A courtyard/landscaped plaza was placed adjacent to the parking structure and community partnership programs directly accessible from Michigan. Similar to the other concept designs, most of the building structures moved off of the landfill area, minimizing expensive foundation requirements. The Zipper Plan incorporated improvements to the challenges found in the 2013 City Yards Master Plan and the concept could be phased without moving staff into temporary facilities, representing significant project cost savings. Based on these findings, this plan is the proposed recommendation to Council to be carried forward to the design phase of the project. 9 of 24 Zipper Plan Feasibility Analysis - Project Phasing Packages A - D In order to maintain continuous operations and allow for incremental project funding, the City Yards Modernization was developed for a phased rollout. The Zipper Plan would be broken into four phasing packages (A, B, C, D), with each package broken into incremental steps. The GMP to be negotiated with HDCC for design services would be limited to Phasing Package A. Outlined below is each project phasing package. Package A: Phase 1 Prepare Site Build Fleet Maintenance building New Fleet Maintenance parking New Street Maintenance storage for bulk concrete and asphalt 10 of 24 Phasing Package A Phase 1 Package A: Phase 2 Build Administration buildings for Resource, Recovery and Recycling, Fleet Maintenance, Street Maintenance, and Custodial Services 11 of 24 Phasing Package A Phase 2 Package A: Phase 3 Build Traffic Operations building Build Facilities Maintenance shops (partial completion) New Resource, Recovery and Recycling parking New medium vehicle parking for field operations 12 of 24 Phasing Package A Phase 3 (Phase A complete) Package B (future project, unfunded): Build Facilities Maintenance shops (full completion) Complete vehicle parking Build the shared parking structure Phasing Package B would retain existing Facilities Maintenance shops to be operated from their existing location on site. City operations and employee vehicles would be surface-parked on site until Phasing Package B is funded and completed. Package C: Build Water Resources administrative building Alternate Phasing Package C.1: Build Water Resources Campus on a North-South axis away from Stewart Street Integrate Public Landscape program into the City Yards Master Plan Build the new Olympic Treatment Plant at City Yards Reconfigure Gandara Park (formerly Stewart Park) 13 of 24 Phasing Package C.1 is a revised concept that would provide pedestrian-friendly routes and street frontage, further insulating City Yards operations to the site core and away from surrounding neighbors. By relocating existing water administration buildings, a northern connection from Stewart Street to the Bergamot Arts Station to the Metro Expo Line opens up for bike and pedestrian pathways. By expanding Gandara Park to the north, an open space connection is formed between Gandara Park and Ishihara Park (formerly Buffer Park; currently under construction). The new Olympic Treatment Plant (funded by settlement funds from Boeing and Gillette) provides an opportunity to redevelop most of the City Yard site including a new Gandara Park and a permanent home for the Public Landscape Division. The Olympic Treatment Plant would be located adjacent to the shared parking structure, which locates the main cisterns off of the landfill area. To the south of Gandara Park, public parking would connect to an emergency exit and entrance into City Yards for Fire and water emergency access only. Alternate Phasing Package C.1 concept 14 of 24 Community Outreach In February 2016, Miller Hull Partnership and City staff held a public meeting at Virginia Avenue Park to present the needed improvements for the essential city services based out of the City Yards. The purpose of this initial community outreach meeting was to hear the desires and concerns of the adjacent community which this project impacts. Staff and the consultants described the vision and goals for the project and attendees The design-build team documented public comment received and attempted to visualize and prioritize these comments. The intended outcome was to understand what the some of the specific comments from the community: Provide learning programs for broader groups Be conscious of the level of disruption to the neighbors Provide opportunities for public art Use the City Yards project to enhance Gandara Park and solve some current challenges Create a connection to the adjacent neighborhood to northeast and provide a connection to Bergamot Be mindful of overlap between pedestrians / cars / heavy equipment moving in & out of site Allow for more visibility into the City Yards celebrate the functions there Enhance Michigan Street Street trees, plant buffer Community Room Girls Pursue net-positive energy Produce electricity for the neighborhood Focus on opportunities for water re-use Achieve greater operational efficiency to conserve resources Explore composting opportunities Create a connection to Ishihara Park and expand Gandara Park street frontage 15 of 24 The results of this first public meeting have influenced the concept design options of the City Yards modernization project. As a follow-up, a second public meeting was held in March 2016 to present the preferred concept options developed by the design-build team. These specific concept design options were presented so the community could further evaluate these options and then the design-build team could make adjustments based on the participants input. Site Constraints of the Former Landfill A portion of the City Yards site is located within the former landfill known as the City of Santa Monica Landfill No. 2. This landfill operated as a municipal solid waste and incinerator ash landfill from the abandoned clay pit at the former Simons Brick Company Plant No. 4. Approximately 6.7 acres of the landfill site lies within the City Yards with another 3.9 acres within Gandara Park. The landfill site contains zones of fill materials ranging in depth between five feet and 58 feet. This area is not compacted and therefore not structurally suited for buildings and site improvements. Over the years, the settling and shifting of the fill material compromised the structural integrity of some of the buildings on the City Yards site including pavement shifting and buckling. This issue is inherent, long term, and has influenced decisions made by the design-build team led by Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company (HDCC) working with Miller Hull Partnership. The geotechnical engineering consultant reviewed the feasibility of various mitigation solutions for the landfill and determined that buildings and other ancillary structures located on the fill areas will require pile foundations to avoid future issues related to land settlement. Pile depths are anticipated to require an additional 70% length beyond the bottom of the landfill where they occur. The resulting pile depth could be up to 98.6 feet - buildings or stabilized paved areas. Due to the cost of such construction, a pile grid to stabilize the whole landfill site, including parking areas and drive isles, was determined to not be financially feasible. Piles will be limited to the structures on fill and a limited apron around the building. 16 of 24 New Water Treatment Plant The City supplies water to residents and businesses. The water is supplied from both local and imported sources. The Olympic Sub Basin (referred to as the Olympic Well Field) is the C located within the boundary of this basin. The City won two settlements from Boeing Co. (former McDonald Douglas) and Procter & Gamble Co. (former Gillette) for the widespread contamination of Perchloroethylene (PCE) and Trichloroethylene (TCE) that is present in the Olympic Well Field. The settlement agreements resulted in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB) issuing Modified Cleanup and Abatement Orders for the remediation of the soil and groundwater contamination. As part of the settlements, the City agreed to build and operate a new water treatment plant to treat the contaminated groundwater drawn from the Olympic Well Field and to produce public drinking water consistent with all appropriate regulatory standards and requirements. The completion o water self-sufficiency by 2020 goal adopted by Council on October 28, 2014. The City will be able to use its own local groundwater to produce drinking water and reduce, potentially eliminating, and the approximately 30% of all water used in the City. The Olympic Treatment Plant is planned to be located within the City Yards, adjacent to proximity to the Olympic Well Field source water and because City-owned land is the most appropriate site to construct -a facility of this scale. Included in Phasing Package C.1 are the coordination plans, project phasing and cost estimates to reconfigure the Water Division site within City Yards for the new water treatment plant. The actual costs for the Olympic Treatment Plant are to be borne by the settlement funds and are separate from the City Yards Modernization Project, requiring independent Council approval. Staff will return to Council with a design-build contract for approval for the Olympic Treatment Plant in spring 2017. 17 of 24 In order to advance the planning, phasing and environmental studies of the Olympic Treatment Plant and to insure coordination with the City Yards Modernization project reducing neighborhood impacts while enhancing community benefits, staff recommends the incorporation of the conceptual design of the water treatment plant and the Water Resources administrative offices. The coordination of phasing and schematic plans is crucial for maintaining uninterrupted operations of the existing City Yard services. Furthermore, this will result in a single, organized environmental document with minimized construction impacts and would allow major improvements to Gandara Park. Package D: Replace the existing Fire Training Tower Build the Fire Training Yard Build a new Public Safety Storage Facility Phasing Package D is not contingent on the completion of Phasing Package B or C, and could be commenced once funding is identified. Feasibility Analysis - Cost Estimates Concept Cost Comparison At the end of the concept exploration exercise, it was determined that the Zipper Plan best achieved the functional goals of the program and aspirational goals for the site. There was concern that the subdivision of the buildings would increase project cost so City staff requested the design team to provide a comparative analysis on phasing and cost for both 2013 Master Plan and Zipper Plan. Project Cost and Funding Strategies The feasibility analysis indicates an estimated cost of $114 million to complete Phasing Package A of the proposed Zipper Plan. The FY16-18 CIP biennial budget appropriated $11.7 million in Charnock settlement funds to fully fund the design phase, and $38.3 million in remaining available Charnock settlement funds will partially fund a portion of project construction. The unfunded construction budget of $64 million is proposed to be funded with a lease revenue bond. The General Fund would not bear the full burden of debt service costs for the City Yards. Costs would be allocated to other funds with 18 of 24 associated operations at the City Yards, including Resource, Recovery and Recycling and the Vehicle Management Fund. At this time, staff is projecting a $4.0 million annual debt service cost for the General Fund. This cost is included in the General Fund Financial Status Update, beginning in FY 2018-19. City Yards Modernization efforts would also be coordinated with adjacent Water and Wastewater plans, ensuring that those funds would also contribute their share of costs. Staff will explore financing options and feasibility and will return to Council with a recommendation. Sustainability Certification Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Certification municipal buildings newly constructed or planned in Santa Monica are green building rated by a third-party. Historically, the LEED rating system applies best to single building construction projects and is less suitable for industrial-type, infrastructure projects. City Yards, however, could collectively be described as a municipal infrastructure campus. The design-build team identified the Envision rating system as a better tool than LEED to measure the sustainability goals of the City Yards Modernization Project. They researched and compared the applicability of Envision versus LEED for Building Design + Construction. The team concluded that both rating systems are equally achievable but based on research, the Envision rating system should be pursued because it is better suited to the City Yards project type. Envision Platinum Certification could likely be achieved for City Yards, the highest level of certification for the green infrastructure rating system. (Refer to Attachment B - Envision Certification.) The Envision rating system and certification was developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure with the support of the American Public Works Association, the American Council of Engineering Companies and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Envision facilitates the development and maintenance of sustainable infrastructure and aims to improve the performance and resiliency of physical infrastructure. The rating system uses criteria from six categories for project 19 of 24 certification: Quality of Life; Leadership; Resource Allocation; Natural World; Climate; and Risk. sustainable leadership by being one of the first municipal corporate yards projects in the country certified under the rating system. Staff recommends further study in the next phases of the project prior to establishing Envision targets for this project. Eco-District Registration The City Yards Modernization Project presents opportune timing for the City and the community to mobilize its collective impact around the City Yards site. Staff recommends registering the City Yards as an eco-district with the EcoDistricts Protocol. In tandem with the green infrastructure rating system Envision, the City Yards stands to be redeveloped sensitively to both the needs of City staff and the surrounding -sore can be restored as a valued community asset and it can provide more community benefit than initially considered. After reviewing the protocol, an eco-district designation would be a good fit for City Yards, especially related to its project goals to be a better neighbor. The EcoDistricts Protocol is a process-based collaboration framework that promotes the neighborhood/district- development that cannot normally be achieved within a single green building. Opportunities to implement innovative community programming and to resource share could transcend project site boundaries. Examples include partnering the operations at City Yards and artists at Bergamot to upcycle goods found in the local wastestream as art, to increase the amount of training and services for the public via the shared use Community Room, and to collectively create a sense of place by making a bioregional library or gallery space. The first task at hand is to develop public-private-civic partners. (Refer to Attachment C - EcoDistricts Protocol V. 1.1.) The future City Yards will mix commercial and industrial uses. While the technical aspects of the City Yards Project would be managed by the design-build team, in 20 of 24 parallel would be the City Yards Eco-District with its own goals and measures to be established. By registering the City Yards as an eco-district at the beginning of the project design, it ca be developed as an asset to the neighborhood. Along with design feedback, emphasis will be placed on defining goals for three overarching imperatives: Equity Resilience Climate Protection As well as goals for six priorities: Place Prosperity Health and Wellbeing Connectivity Living Infrastructure Resource Restoration An eco-district expands traditional community engagement models with a new, unprecedented approach to collaboration and shared decision-making by establishing collaborative partnerships beyond design and construction through on-going operations. Next Steps Dependent upon Council approval of the recommended action, staff anticipates the following project timelines: Fall 2016 Return to Council for authorization of a Guaranteed Maximum Price for design services Summer 2016 through Early 2017 Schematic design Late 2016 through 2017 CEQA Analysis Early 2017 through Summer 2017 Design development Summer 2017through Early 2018 Complete construction documentation phases Return to Council for authorization of a Guaranteed Maximum Price for construction and to issue lease revenue bonds Spring 2018 Start of construction / site preparation Spring 2018 Complete construction Spring 2021 Feasibility Analysis Recommendation Next Steps 21 of 24 The Yards feasibility analysis report resulted in a number of findings such as the proposed Zipper Plan, the proposed Phasing Package A and corresponding cost estimates. Staff recommends that Council review and approve the feasibility analysis and financial options and authorize staff to enter into negotiations for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the design phase of the project for the proposed Zipper Plan and Phasing Package A. Staff would return to Council for approval of the design GMP Fall 2016. Second, staff recommends the new project components to be added into the feasibility analysis as a second modification to the Professional Services Agreement No 10145 with HDCC in the amount of $468,000 (includes a 10% contingency) to provide additional scope of work to 1) integrate spacing for the new Olympic Treatment Plant into the proposed yards configuration, 2) reconfigure Gandara Park, 3) integrate Public Landscape division staff and equipment, 4) prepare a phasing plan for the added components, and 5) prepare construction cost estimates for the additional scope and This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $970,200. Further, staff recommends to pursuit of Envision sustainable infrastructure certification for the City Yards Modernization project and registration as an eco-district with EcoDistricts Protocol. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The second agreement modification to be awarded to Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company is $468,000 (includes a 10% contingency), for an amended agreement total not to exceed $970,200. Funds in the amount of $418,600 are included in the FY2016- 17 Capital Improvement Program budget at account number C019068.589000, Olympic Treatment Plant. Award of the contract required the following budget actions: 1. Release the fund balance from reserve account 1.380246 (FY 2014-15 Capital Improvements Project savings) of $49,400; 22 of 24 2. Appropriate $49,400 to account C014028.589000, City Yards Master Plan Phases 1a through 2b. If Council authorizes staff to negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the design phase of the design-build contract with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company, staff would return to Council for approval of the negotiated GMP for design and would recommend budget actions at that time. Funding for the design phase is included in the FY16-17 Capital Improvement Program budget. Staff would also return to Council with debt service financing plans for the unfunded portion of construction of Package A after design is complete and construction costs are fully determined. Currently, the unfunded portion of the construction budget for Package A is $64 million and is proposed to be funded with a lease revenue bond. The General Fund would not bear the full burden of debt service costs for the City Yards. Costs would be allocated to other funds with associated operations at the City Yards, including Resource, Recovery and Recycling and the Vehicle Management Fund. At this time, staff is projecting a $4.0 million annual debt service cost for the General Fund. This cost is included in the General Fund Financial Status Update, beginning in FY2018-19. City Yards Modernization efforts would also be coordinated with adjacent Water and Wastewater plans, ensuring that those funds would also contribute their share of costs. Prepared By: Tom Afschar, Architect Approved Forwarded to Council 23 of 24 Attachments: A. Attachment A - Feasibility and Concept Design B. Attachment B - Envision C. Attachment C - EcoDistricts Protocol ver 1.1 D. Written comments 24 of 24 SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN 6.22.2016 INDEX CH. 0INTRODUCTION CH. 1EXPLORATION CH. 2VALIDATION CH. 3DEVELOPMENT CH. 4PROPOSED MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION ARCHITECTURAL GOALS Enhance the quality and • experience of Michigan Ave. creating a more human scale experience Develop a sustainable long • term vision for City Yards Improve the functionality of • the site Increase green space & open • space for city staff Make City Yards an asset to • the neighborhood Increase transparency of the • site boundary to expose to the public view some of the critical work being done by City Yards staff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION crews and operations since the mid 1950s. There are character and layout of the divisions will provide The Santa Monica City Yard Stage I project is a currently 16 buildings and structures constructed proposed redevelopment of the 14.7 acre facility of throughout the site. The design concept focuses and also provide transparency to the operations, the same name. The project site is located at 2500 on providing an economic and environmentally helping educate the public about the vital city Michigan Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90404. The site sustainable site that will be functional, educational, services performed daily. facilities have acted as a hub for the city’s public works and symbolic of the City’s commitment to employees to launch infrastructure maintenance environmentally responsible development. The new SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN JUNE 22, 2016 P.4 INTRODUCTION LANDSCAPE GOALS Enhance the quality of green • and open spaces within the site and its boundaries Connect the site edges • with surrounding civic and community spaces Integrate the site program • and amenities with a landscape infrastructure that marries natural systems with a mostly utilitarian use site REINTRODUCING NATURE INTO A UTILITARIAN SITE The redevelopment of Santa Monica City Yards poses A successful landscape design for Santa Monica City the natural environment. unique challenges and opportunities related to landscape Yards will take into account these unique challenges In essence, through thoughtful design, Santa Monica City design. The site’s history as a clay pit and a landfill has inherent in its overall operating function. Determining Yards can become a living landscape that brings together resulted in soil conditions with toxicity levels that must be factors will be both the built environment within the people and nature while continuing to perform its service considered when re-purposing the landscape. In addition, site as well as the connection between the site and oriented objectives. the present day functions of the site, which include a fleet surrounding neighborhoods, parks and transportation maintenance facility and fire department training areas, hubs. Programming within the open spaces of the site can create a need to carefully consider the site’s water run off integrate natural systems so that it can serve as a model of and its effects on the landscape. sustainability and of the integration of the utilitarian with EXPLORATION P.5 JUNE 22, 2016 CH.1EXPLORATION The 2013 Master Plan was provided in the RFP as a proof of concept for the Space Needs Program developed for the future City Yards Site. The initial task by the Hathaway Dinwiddie Design Build team was to evaluate the proposed masterplan for opportunities and challenges and to might better support the City’s mission for the site, improve the functionality of the site, cover this initial exploration. After the completion of SMCY Feasibility Anaylsis, Santa Monica Coucil renamed to Ishihara Park. The Following document will refere to Gandara park as Stewart Park CONTENTS SITE CONTEXT ANALYSISP.8 ZONING ANALYSISP.21 LANDFILL STUDYP.22 SITE UTILITY P.26 2013 MASTER PLANP.30 CONCEPT OPTIONSP.31 EXPLORATION SITE CONTEXT TRANSPORTATION The City Yards site lies within the Santa Monica City limits, at the 44444444444444444444444444444444444A City Yards is situated between and the new Expo Line (26th St/ Bergamot Station). The site is also approximately one block from the Olympic EB & 26th FS bus stop. to work on or from the City Yards is an ongoing concern for the local residents as well as daily utility truck in close proximity to multiple modes of transit and the new masterplan to the best extent possible. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.8 EXPLORATION SITE CONTEXT ADJACENCIES City Yards has adjacencies to several important civic and residential neighbors. To the east of the site is Stewart Street park, an important neighborhood sports park. To the south is a section of mobile homes – part of the Pico Neighborhood. To the north are several blocks being redeveloped along Michigan Ave. as part of the approved Bergamot Master Plan including potential mixed use residential building and the Bergamot Art’s Center/District. EXPLORATION P.9 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION SITE ANALYSIS CLIMATE AND MICRO-CLIMATE Micro-climates within the region and the City of Santa Monica are typical of Southern California coastal environments. The site topography, elevation, and proximity to the ocean define the City Yard’s micro-climate. The site’s existing and future land use, -- buildings and future infrastructure -- affect and create other specific site micro-climates that may be identified and will be useful in designing the planting palette for the site. CLIMATE AND MICRO-CLIMATE decreases groundwater recharge, and raises the potential clouds on the east. The site’s location creates an almost Design for resiliency is key to achieving the site’s landscape for more severe drought as well as the likelihood of Mediterranean-like mild climate with cool ocean breezes goals and can be strengthened by strategic awareness of flooding. that pass through the area in a west-east direction. the site’s physical challenges. The City Yards site sits in the transition zone between Temperatures in the region are 5 to 10 degrees cooler than In addition to addressing the site’s history as a landfill, the Santa Monica’s marine and inland environment and is farther inland beyond the city’s eastern boundary. Highest landscape design has thoughtfully recognized the recent a confluence of the region’s warmer and cooler coastal temperatures occur in the late summer, and periodic regional climate changes that has increased the number of micro-climates. This transition zone is influenced by the warm temperatures occur in the winter when Santa Ana extremely hot days and volatile rainfall. This exacerbates occurrence of persistent morning clouds along the western wind conditions bring hot dry inland air to the coast. the presence or absence of site alternative water sources, ocean front while the sun breaks through the morning SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.10 EXPLORATION SITE ANALYSIS SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY The alluvial soils observed from Converse Consultants’ geotechnical report correlates to the general soil type of the City of Santa Monica where the City Yards project site sits on. The Hanford Soils shown on the City of Santa Monica Soils Map at left are mostly occurring on stream bottoms, floodplains, and alluvial fans at elevations of 150 feet to 3,500 feet. This soil is geographically predominant in the San Joaquin Valley and in the valleys of central and southern California. The map at left shows how the distribution of Hanford soil and transition to the Pacific Ocean indicates a gentler slope at the southwest and a possible natural path for what could be the area historical watershed. It is likely that this transition is a natural path for existing surface run-off from inland City of Santa Monica Soils & Topography Map areas downstream to the ocean. Further review of site soil including chemical and biological soil testing for both existing or regraded, and new soils, including planting topsoil SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY should be conducted as part of the The majority of the City of Santa Monica’s elevation rises alluvial soils of the Ramona Placentia type. The Yards of clay sand, clay and refuse waste landfill materials to depths landscape planning and design. It 100 feet above sea level. The city is generally flat with the native soil type is within the Hanford Soils -- well drained, ranging between 5 feet and 58 feet bgs. Native alluvial soils is important to identify the depth of boundaries toward northeast sitting higher above the rest loamy sand with low potential for expansion and erosion.were encountered underneath the landfill to the maximum soil on existing or new landfill caps of the city. The southeast slope gently meets the sea level explored depth of 101.5 bgs. to help inform tree species. Soil while the west slopes have significant drop facing the The Preliminary Geotechnical Study Report done by The undocumented fill is considered to be prone to settlement test results will inform the planting Pacific Ocean.Converse indicated that based on 2009, 2010, and 2012 and lack of lateral resistance. Several landfill related distresses species selection. field exploration, fill soil, refuse landfill and alluvial soils were include differential settlement of structures, unlevel concrete Soil types identified for the city by the California encountered. The bottom of the landfill was encountered pads (10 degree rotation), vertical drop of asphalt ramps Department of Food and Agriculture constitute 3 major between 30 feet and 58 feet below ground surface (bgs).(2 feet in 4 years), leaning light poles, localized pavement types - from soft fractured shales to loamy sands and The refuse landfill includes undocumented landfill consisting depressions, and cracks on concrete foundation. EXPLORATION P.11 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION CONTEXT COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS WALKABILITY AND COMMUNITY With the presence of Bergamot station, local and regional access via the Metrolink creates opportunities for a larger community connectivity beyond the city limits. Strengthening this connection through the existing and local access points to bring a larger and wider number of visitors to the site will further reinforce the Yard’s future educational and civic landscape model for the site’s use and its sustainability. The Yard improvements and the enhancements that these create to neighboring civic and community spaces becomes also regionally relevant. Gateways and entries that will enhance these various linkages will help identify the site as a unique entity and define the landscape experience while at the same time visually linking it to its neighbors. The landscape character of the streetscape and site edges needs to be site specific yet at the same time scaled to the adjacent neighborhood uses. Landscape elements that delineate the property visually from its surrounding environs can be either fluid or fenced, gated or open. Site transitions should include the 24th Street edge and the Delaware and Frank Avenue streetscapes, both as buffers and as a means to improve the visual connection between the City Yards and its neighbors. Site elements may City Yard Context Map serve both as a visual and noise buffer and as an amenity that draws people into the site for the benefits of both the employees and the community. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.12 EXPLORATION SITE CONTEXT COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Santa Monica City Yard’s proximity to a number of existing city parks is an opportunity to create community connectivity. The Yards is directly adjacent to Stewart Park, and could possibly connect to it through the new Landscape Buffer Park. This connection can continue to link the currently under construction Buffer Park at Stewart Street and Exposition Boulevard, northeast of the site. Within the 1 to 2 mile vicinity, other nearby parks include Colorado Avenue Park on the northwest, located north of Bergamot Station, and Virginia Avenue Park located south of the Santa Monica Freeway. The design of the Landscape Buffer Park within the City Yards site should take into account the programs and amenities that the other parks already have and those that they may lack. The feedback from the Community Outreach meetings should help address the needs of the community that aren’t already being met. 44444444444444444444444444444444A should include elements that will draw both neighbors and site visitors to engage in the public amenities of the City Yard. Adjacent Parks Diagram NTS EXPLORATION JUNE 22, 2016 P.13 EXPLORATION SITE CONTEXT ECOLOGY The Southern California region to which the City of Santa Monica belongs has one of the widest ecological distribution and plant community diversity. Ecological plant communities -- from coastal sage scrub, grassland, wildflowers, chaparral, soft chaparral and riparian, and woodlands are well represented and naturally occurring within the city limits. The quality of existing site soil and area specific planting soil, both on the landfill portion and on native soil, City of Santa Monica Topographical Section (no scale) will be key modifiers in the selection of planting species. Plant communities should flourish naturally in the ecological communities identified that fall within the micro-climate zone in Santa Monica and in the region’s general ecological communities. Historic plant succession may be used to reintroduce California native flora - key to a successful environmentally Santa Monica Region Ecological Plant Communities responsive landscape design. PLANT COMMUNITY & SUCCESSION The topographical cross-section of the City of Santa Monica communities may be present. in terms of water use and soil consistency. above shows various ecological communities created by A wide variety of planting species would naturally thrive the land’s change in elevation and coastal exposure. within the project site given the site’s location and the city The amount of the region’s historic rainfall may be used to and region’s ecology. inform irrigation watering. Site specific analysis of existing Represented are three general plant communities - Coastal site soils, including the landfill soil, will be necessary Strand at the ocean front, Dune Scrub or Coastal Scrub, Reintroduction of California plant communities can be very and crucial for successful selection of plant species and and Oak Woodlands. With a rich climate and varying viable. However, a higher successful growth rate will be installation. topography within Santa Monica, a wider range of plant achieved when plants are given similar planting conditions SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.14 EXPLORATION SITE CONTEXT HABITAT The City of Santa Monica is a bustling urban community with most of its native habitat removed. Its location on the Pacific Flyway plays an important role in the ecological stability in the region for the migrating and resident bird habitat. Monarch butterfly (Danausplexippus) winter roosting sites have been found within the open spaces of Santa Monica and landscaped areas of the City. A living landscape that balances City of Santa Monica Topographical Section (no scale) the health and welfare of the human habitat will be well informed by observations and careful understanding of these existing animal habitats and the relationship between the two. Resident and Migratory Birds of Santa Monica HABITAT DIVERSITY Habitat diversity in Santa Monica has historically consisted the bird population in the urbanized Santa Monica is still The vital role of the city’s location in the bird migration path of diverse marine life, mammals, birds and insects. The abundant. The nearby ocean and the northern Santa (the Pacific Flyway) should be reinforced in the planning diagrammatic cross section of the city above, and the Monica Mountains remain to be natural areas that help and plant community selection for the City Yards site. complex system of plant community created by very maintain a level of plant community diversity to support diverse ecological communities can support the same wildlife.New or reintroduced tree and plant materials will contribute complex distribution of marine, terrestrial, and bird habitats to the ecological balance and food resources for most that have historically occurred in the past.Resident birds observed near the coast and more common of these bird species and will likely generate increased within the neighboring sites include northern mockingbird, resources for other beneficial insects. Like many cities in the metropolitan Los Angeles area, Anna’s hummingbird, house finch, and the snowy plover. EXPLORATION P.15 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION SITE CONTEXT CITY LINKAGES Connectivity to the rest of the city may be planned through linkages created by the adjacent existing city bike access system and future bike access leading to the City Yard. Local, walkable links can be created by allowing pedestrian site access and opening portions of the site to the public through existing and future pedestrian walkways connected to Bergamot station and Metrolink. Urban walks and pathways should be integrated in the planning of the Michigan Avenue streetscape as it relates and transitions to the portions 444444444444444444444444444444444A Direct pedestrian access through and along Michigan Avenue with crossings to the future Bergamot Station campus and the future city owned Bergamot Civic development project should also be part of future planning. 4444444444444444444444444444444444444A and residential communities may City Yard Linkages Map be done by opening portions of the NTS site for pedestrian, bike, or vehicle access. Signalized CrossingFuture Bike Path Future Expo Station Bike Lane Walk your Bike Bike Route SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.16 EXPLORATION SITE CONTEXT EXISTING CONDITIONS Photo Key Map EXPLORATION P.17 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION LANDSCAPE SUSTAINABILTY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND IRRIGATION STRATEGIES Storm Water Management • Harvested Rainwater • Gray Water Reuse • Recycled or Gray Water • Irrigation System VEGETATED SWALES The toxicity levels in the soil require a careful study of how Every effort should be made to reuse as much as possible the soil in stages prior to grading the site, and strategically to handle storm water and water runoff from the site, so both storm water and on-site produced water run-off for locating bioswales to enable the capturing and treatment that the water and toxins are remediated on site as much irrigation. Planting selection should be both water wise of rainwater. as possible. and useful as bioretention material for rain gardens or vegetated swales.Planted swales may be integrated as part of sidewalks, The use of bioremediation and water absorption pathways or trails, or as part of an engineered wetland, through appropriate planting and vegetated swales The site poses many challenges including inadequate a bioretention system or biofilters adjacent to hardscape are best management strategies that can effectively organic matter, low oxygen, possible contaminated paved areas. Bioretention areas may be connected to the reduce infiltration and prevent surface and groundwater topsoil, and unstable grade, among others. In order to be site’s storm water treatment and collection system. contamination while improving soil biology.a sustainably viable landscape, specific techniques should be implemented as part of site development: amending SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.18 EXPLORATION LANDSCAPE SUSTAINABILITY EDUCATION THROUGH LANDSCAPE OPPORTUNITIES TO INFORM Signage should be informative and integrated with the The design of the City Yards campus should serve an overall landscape design and may include building, garden/landscape and Facility Program signage (eg: reuse, educational purpose for visitors and employees at the recycle/Rosie’s Girls and other educational programs). site. Through signage, plantings, demonstration gardens, hardscape elements and educational kiosks, the design can inform and educate users about the site’s ‘biomes’ or An important landscape signage system may also include ‘ecozone’ and local climate. 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444A Banner signage may be integrated with street lighting Sustainable strategies to manage the site’s vegetation poles. should do so through zero or low water use and composting. EXPLORATION P.19 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION SITE CONTEXT Surrounding zoning and adjacent Bergamot development plan. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.20 EXPLORATION ZONING ANALYSIS The entire Santa Monica City Yards Conservation (IC) zone which falls under the guidelines of an Employment overlay. The site is adjacent to Residential Mobile Home (RMH) as well as Parks & Open Space (OS). There is no required setback from Michigan Street or from Stewart Street Park but there is a required 15’-0” setback from any adjacent RMH zoning. Building height is dictated by the IC zoning which allows two stories with a maximum height of 32’-0” and an required to be a minimum of 12’-0” and a maximum of 20’-0” and the street-facing facades of the second along the entire facade. In addition, a daylight setback is required on facades adjacent to RMH zoning. However, any building massing adhering to the required setbacks and maximum building heights will setback. EXPLORATION P.21 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.22 EXPLORATION LANDFILL STUDY A large portion of the site area is PILE GRID TO STABILIZE Resulting settlement and methane THE WHOLE SITE gas monitoring has been an DETERMINED NOT ongoing issue on the site and will FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE be mitigated to the extent feasible within the budgetary constraints of the project. Buildings and other areas will require pile foundations to avoid future settlement. Estimates and pile depths are anticipated to require an additional 70% length where they occur. The resulting pile depth could be up to 98.6’ in length and a maximum pile spacing is anticipated to be 30’-0” on center below buildings or stabilized paved areas. EXPLORATION P.23 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION LANDFILL STUDY SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.24 EXPLORATION LANDFILL STUDY VARYING DEPTH OF LANDFILL SECTIONS EXPLORATION P.25 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION EXISTING SITE UTILITY PLAN SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.26 EXPLORATION SITE UTILITY PLAN CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY OWNED SD PIPE FIGURE 1—REDIRECT TO CALTRANS EXPLORATION P.27 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION SITE UTILITY PLAN CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY OWNED SD PIPE FIGURE 2—RELOCATE TO 24TH STREET SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.28 EXPLORATION SITE UTILITY PLAN CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY OWNED SD PIPE FIGURE 3—OVERBUILD PERMIT EXPLORATION P.29 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION 2013 MASTER PLAN CONCERNS The 2013 Master Plan was provided in the RFP as a proof of concept for the Space Needs Program developed for the future City Yards Site. The initial task by the Hathaway 1 Dinwiddie Design Build team was to evaluate the proposed master plan for opportunities and challenges 2 plan that might better support the City’s mission for the site, improve cost savings. Below is a list of challenges cited with the proposed 7 plan and areas our team worked to 3 improve with subsequent master plan investigations. 1 Circulation dead ends 44 2 Incorrect parking structure 5 footprint 1 6 3 Oversized Isle widths shown at 75’ 4 Public interaction placed deep in site 5 6 7 Lack of consideration for pedestrian movement SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.30 EXPLORATION 2013 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT EXPLORATION After taking a close look at the 2013 Master Plan, we developed four alternative approaches to the a simple approach with minimal change to the MP that addressed the concerns seen in the original 2013 Master Plan. The second, third, and fourth approaches were to be more substantial approaches, breaking away from the original plan. This exploration brought us to 4 new concepts; MP2.0, Ribbon, Stage, ways to organize the site as well as respond to community needs. MASTER PLAN 2.0RIBBON STAGEZIPPER EXPLORATION P.31 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION 2013 MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN EXPLORATION Master Plan 2.0 included changes that addressed the concerns found in the original master plan. We shifted Fleets in order to create a new access point along Michigan in efforts to eliminate the dead end between Streets and Fleet on the west end of the site. The Fire building was also flipped to the west in order to get the building off of the landfill. The Footprint of the parking structure was corrected showing a more accurate footprint matching a parking structure study commissioned by SM. Master plan 2.1 explored a new location for the parking structure. This new location freed up Michigan Ave. to become a more active face for MASTER PLAN 2.0MASTER PLAN 2.1 OAC 2 OAC 2 the community and the City Yards. Further development uncovered new challenges that affected the master plan. Master plan 4.0 was carried forward into validation. MASTER PLAN 3.0MASTER PLAN 4.0 OAC 3 OAC 4 SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.32 EXPLORATION RIBBON RIBBON EXPLORATION The “RIBBON” scheme explored the creation of a green “Ribbon” stripe that would run along Michigan Ave. all the way through Stewart St. This would provide a pedestrian connection to Bergamot Station and the surrounding neighborhood. The parking structure was placed on the east end of the site creating a great location for public use during park activities and events. Furthermore, by removing the parking structure form Michigan Ave, the Ribbon creates a more functional human -scale pedestrian experience. The Fleet building was also removed from Michigan in order to have a better sense of scale from the main street. This allowed for the majority RIBBON 1.0 OAC 2 of the landfill to remain without building structures. However, the location of the parking structure was not desirable, therefore this scheme was not carried forward. EXPLORATION P.33 JUNE 22, 2016 EXPLORATION STAGE STAGE EXPLORATION The “STAGE” master plan focused on creating a more civic front door to the City Yards campus. This was achieved by developing an open plaza mid- block on Michigan with a secondary open space at the intersection of the Bergamot Arts District. The main plaza included a ramped vehicle entry that dove down one level to garage. This allowed us to move the minimize the building massing along the street scape. The secondary open space was viewed as a link to the arts district, surrounded by the administrative functions of the City Yards Program. We anticipated STAGESTAGE 2.0 OAC 2 OAC 3 a sculptural opportunity in this open space and viewed this as the the new Expo line for their commute. The Stage also attempted to limit the the parking garage. STAGE 2.1STAGE 3.0 OAC 3 OAC 4 SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.34 EXPLORATION ZIPPER ZIPPER EXPLORATION The “ZIPPER” master plan focused on increasing transparency into the site and improving connections neighborhood. This transparency is achieved by rotating the buildings along Michigan Ave. to be perpendicular to the road, and separating them to create gathering spaces and work yards between the buildings. This re-organization of spaces allows services shops within the Facilities and Streets divisions to expand their work area to the outside the site. The buildings are also pulled back from the property line to establish a 20’-0” wide pedestrian ZIPPERZIPPER 2.0 OAC 2 OAC 2 will have the ability to open their work yards up to this promenade during average work days or during open houses to better interact with the neighborhoods similar to the galleries in the area. ZIPPER 3.0ZIPPER 4.0 OAC 3 OAC 4 EXPLORATION P.35 JUNE 22, 2016 CH.2VALIDATION After presenting and evaluating a series of Master Plan options, we were asked to proceed to further validate Master Plan 4.0 and Zipper 4.0 with regard to merit and comparative cost. This chapter outlines the validation process and includes the comparative cost analysis. CONTENTS MASTER PLAN 4.0 V.S. ZIPPER 4.0P.38 COST COMPARISONP.42 VALIDATION 2013 MASTER PLAN 4.0 OAC 4 At the end of our exploration exercise, there was a unanimous vote that the Zipper Master Plan best achieved the functional goals of the program and aspirational goals for the site. There was however, concern that the subdivision of the buildings was going to increase cost and City Staff requested the design team carry both Master Plan 4.0 and Zipper 4.0 forward with a comparative analysis on phasing and cost. By limiting the number of structures built on the landfill and by eliminating the need for temporary buildings by improved phasing, we were able to validate the cost of implementing the Zipper Master Plan was comparatively less expensive than the buildout for Master Plan 4.0. The details of this cost comparison are included at the end of this section. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.38 VALIDATION ZIPPER 4.0 OAC 4 VALIDATION P.39 JUNE 22, 2016 VALIDATION 2013 MASTER PLAN 4.0 SOIL STABILIZATION SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.40 VALIDATION ZIPPER 4.0 SOIL STABILIZATION VALIDATION P.41 JUNE 22, 2016 VALIDATION 2013 MASTER PLAN 4.0 y CosnD Faces Buildings COST COMPARISON ON LANDFILL 13,320GSF 53.81 716,749 458,288 Masplan 4.0 Slabs on d ON LANDFILL 13,320GSF 55.43 738,328 424,408 Masplan 4.0 Exio Enlosu Façad Aa 15,480SF 100.001,548,000 (1,140,000) Faces Maintenance / Shop Areas Building ON LANDFILL 3 ,720GSF 53.81 200,173 145,043 Masplan 4.0 Slabs on d ON LANDFILL 3 ,720GSF 55.43 206,200 139,240 RRR Building ON LANDFILL 6 ,040GSF 53.81 325,012 235,500 Masplan 4.0 Slabs on d ON LANDFILL 6 ,040GSF 55.43 334,797 226,077 Fleet Building NOT ON LANDFILL 31,430GSF 14.82 465,793 (1,225,456) Masplan 4.0 Slabs on d NOT ON LANDFILL 31,430GSF 32.341,016,446 (725,719) Masplan 4.0 Exio Enlosu Façad Aa 36,900SF 100.003,690,000 480,000 Street Storage Building Masplan 4.0 Exio Enlosu Façad Aa 4 ,500SF 100.00 450,000 (204,000) Site Reinforced Paving (Apron at Buildings on Land Masplan 4.0 47,169SF 55.432,614,578 1,425,050 Landscape/Hardscape Areas along Michigan Avenue Masplan 4.0 2 ,025SF 25.00 50,625 (181,875) Temporary Faces per Phasing Masplan 4.0 Tmpoay Fl building (build and dmo) 4,000GSF253.501,014,000 Tmpoay RRR building (build and dmo) 6,640GSF217.281,442,739 2,456,739 2,513,295 Cost Dince (Masterplan 4.0 Higher SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.42 VALIDATION ZIPPER 4.0 y CosnD COST COMPARISON Faces Buildings Zipp NOT ON LANDFILL 17,440GSF 14.82 258,461 Zipp 4.0 Slabs on d NOT ON LANDFILL 17,440GSF 18.00 313,920 Zipp 4.0 Exio Enlosu Façad Aa 26,880SF 100.002,688,000 Faces Maintenance / Shop Areas Building Zipp NOT ON LANDFILL 3 ,720GSF 14.82 55,130 Zipp 4.0 Slabs on d NOT ON LANDFILL 3 ,720GSF 18.00 66,960 RRR Building Zipp NOT ON LANDFILL 6 ,040GSF 14.82 89,513 Zipp 4.0 Slabs on d NOT ON LANDFILL 6 ,040GSF 18.00 108,720 Fleet Building Zipp ON LANDFILL 31,430GSF 53.811,691,248 Zipp 4.0 Slabs on d ON LANDFILL 31,430GSF 55.431,742,165 Zipp 4.0 Exio Enlosu Façad Aa 32,100SF 100.003,210,000 Street Storage Building Zipp 4.0 Exio Enlosu Façad Aa 6 ,540SF 100.00 654,000 Site Reinforced Paving (Apron at Buildings on Land Zipp 4.0 21,460SF 55.431,189,528 Landscape/Hardscape Areas along Michigan Avenue Zipp 4.0 9 ,300SF 25.00 232,500 Temporary Faces per Phasing 4.0 Non Rquid - - - VALIDATION P.43 JUNE 22, 2016 CH.3DEVELOPMENT After validating Zipper 4.0 as the preferred option, further development of the Zipper Master Plan occurred through a series of The preferred master plan evolved through response to OAC comments. from OAC 5 through OAC 10. The development process is documented in this chapter. CONTENTS ZIPPER 5.0 - 10.0P.46 FINAL MASTER PLANP.53 DEVELOPMENT ZIPPER 5.0 OAC 6 SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.46 DEVELOPMENT ZIPPER 6.0 OAC 7 uncovered storage. DEVELOPMENT P.47 JUNE 22, 2016 DEVELOPMENT ZIPPER 6.1 OAC 7 CHANGES AND COMMENTS: Alternate plan showing relocation of existing water storage in efforts to create a pedestrian park link between future Buffer Park and Stewart St. Park. City liked the approach and requested that we move forward with this change. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.48 DEVELOPMENT ZIPPER 7.0 OAC 8 CHANGES AND COMMENTS: Introduced pedestrian path from Fleet to RRR through center of site. have closer proximity to each other. DEVELOPMENT P.49 JUNE 22, 2016 DEVELOPMENT ZIPPER 8.0 OAC 9 CHANGES AND COMMENTS: Moved Streets to west end of site Adjacent. Custodial moved in place of Streets. Rosies Girls moved to East end of Zipper. Hazmat was located between Fire and Street. Double loaded Medium Vehicle Parking. Created two anchor Park Courtyards at Zipper Combined wash bays with Fleet building. City requested that we correct extent of property line at Stewart St. entrance. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.50 DEVELOPMENT ZIPPER 9.0 Smcy site plan OAC 10 Facilities CHANGES AND COMMENTS: Facilities Management Custodial Angled RRR parking Traffic Moved streets storage to south area Hazmat of site. Streets Moved Street, Custodial, FM, and RRR RRR in L shape Admin. building. Fleet Water of site. Parking layout was adjusted to accommodate closer adjacencies Parking Structure to their corresponding Divisions. fire Fleet Building. Reduced Fleet Building Length Adjusted Fire Yard Covered parking station. City Requested that we move existing water structure back to original location due to the large change to the adjacent water treatment center project. DEVELOPMENT P.51 JUNE 22, 2016 DEVELOPMENT ZIPPER 10.0 OAC 11 CHANGES AND COMMENTS: Adjusted RRR open storage Moved Water structure back to original location. Reduced footprint of Fuel Farm by eliminating hydrogen fuel component City Requested to show scheme with 30K Recycling Center foot - print. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.52 DEVELOPMENT FINAL MASTER PLAN OAC 12 Increased Recycling Center to 30k Footprint. Landscape Buffer park area reduced due to increase of Recy - cling Center. Concrete Storage moved to north end of Bulk Storage. Included 250sf water treatment plant next to Fuel Farm Added transformer between Medium vehicle parking. DEVELOPMENT P.53 JUNE 22, 2016 CH.4PROPOSED MASTER PLAN perimeter adding to the street experience along of the concept design phase. A Master Plan Michigan Avenue, improving and expanding is presented that we believe represents the the park for the Mobile Home residents to the values and targets for the City Yards Project as connections to the local neighborhood. We The proposed Master Plan is based on high have also taken care to develop logical phasing sustainability goals and also elevates the daily for consideration to ensure the existing site functions can operate at all times throughout match funds with development to determine enhanced outdoor space for breaks, lunch and gathering. The proposed Master Plan also provides a vastly improved and more open site presented for approval within Chapter 4. CONTENTS PHASING, ZONING & SOIL STABILIZATIONP.57 ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL P.84 GEOTECHNICALP.128 CIVILP.132 FIBERP.144 LANDSCAPEP.146 MEPP.180 SUSTAINABILITYP.192 PARKINGP.203 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ZIPPER PHASING PACKAGE A PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.57 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING EXISTING SITE CONDITION EMPLOYEE VEHICLE PARKING 130 Stalls Provided SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.58 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PHASE 0 (NIC) Temp Fire and RRR vehicles • moved to west side of site. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.59 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE A PHASE 1 Prepare Site • Build New Fleet • Fleet Parking • Street Bulk Storage • Street Asphalt/Conc. Storage • RRR Worm Bin Storage • SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.60 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE A PHASE 1.1 Demo existing Fleet Building • PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.61 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE A PHASE 2 Build Administration building • (Includes RRR, FM, ST, & Custodial) Build Half of RRR Parking • SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.62 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE A PHASE 2.1 • Storage Demo Streets Storage • PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.63 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE A PHASE 2.2 Demo RRR • Demo Streets • Move FS into existing custodial • Demo Part of Facilities • SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.64 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE A PHASE 3 • Build Rosies • Build Facilities Shop • Complete RRR Parking • Build Medium Vehicle Parking • PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.65 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE A PHASE 3 - EMPLOYEE VEHICLE PARKING LAYOUT 300 Stalls Provided *Potential additional parking by RRR bin Storage SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.66 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE A PHASE 3A Build Fuel Island & Fuel Farm • Build RRR Wash Bay • PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.67 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE APHASING EMPLOYEE VEHICLE PARKING PHASE 3A - EMPLOYEE VEHICLE PARKING LAYOUT 230 Stalls Provided *Potential additional Parking by RRR bin Storage. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.68 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ZIPPER PHASING PACKAGE B PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.69 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE B PHASE 4 Build Streets • Build Community Park • Relocate Streets to New Building • their permanent storage. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.70 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE B PHASE 4.1 Build new Hazmat and Demo Old • Hazmat building. Complete Zipper Facilities • buildings allong Mitchigan Ave. Complete Vehicle Parking • PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.71 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE B PHASE 4.2 Demo Existing FS and Traffic • SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.72 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE B PHASE 5 Build 350 stall Parking Structure • PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.73 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.74 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ZIPPER PHASING PACKAGE C PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.75 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE C PHASE 6 Prepare site for future Water • Treatment Plant SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.76 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE C PHASE 7 Build additional Water Building • PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.77 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PHASE BOUNDARY OUTLINES SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.78 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING COMPLETE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.79 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE C.1 WATER TREATMENT CENTER STEWART STREET PEDESTRIAN WALK / BIKE PATH S T R E E T F R O N T A G E VEHICLE ACCESS : 3 1 STEWART STREET PARK 0 ’ ( 3.36 ACRES O R I (ORIGINALLY 3.33 ACRES) G I N A L L Y 9 0 ’ ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.80 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PHASING PACKAGE C.1 WATER TREATMENT CENTER Phasing package C.1 is a revised STEWART STREET plan that includes City Yard’s Water division and the new Water Treatment Center. By moving the existing water treatment center to the south, Stewart St. Park will have PEDESTRIAN WALK / BIKE PATH more street exposure and reduces S community safety concerns by T R E eliminating the deep pocket E T that exists today. The New water F R O treatment Center would be located N T adjacent to the parking structure, A G E VEHICLE ACCESS locating the main cisterns off of : 3 1 STEWART STREET PARK the landfill area. To the south of 0 ’ ( 3.36 ACRES O the park will be public parking that R I (ORIGINALLY 3.33 ACRES) G will connect to an emergency fire I N A exit and entrance in to the yard for L L Y Fire and water emergency access 9 0 ’only. To the north, a pedestrian and ) bike path can run across the north end of the park to allow the public to connect to Bergamot. With this new configuration, package C.1 would end up replace Package C. . This plan is forward looking and . . . . . . is currently NIC for the City Yards . . . . . . .Master Plan scope of work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.81 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ZONING TIER STANDARDS Tier 1 - Base Standard Tier 2 - With Provision of Community benefits FL-1 - Under Tier 2 but can be modified to fit Tier 1 standards. ST-1 Currently not satisfying zoning 15’ setback adjacent to residential zone. Will be revised during Design. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.82 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SOIL STABILIZATION STABILIZED AREA OVER LANDFILL PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.83 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS SUMMARY BY BUILDING Zipper Master PlanZipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 CSM ProvidedCSM Provided MP GSF MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS%OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.AreaQty.Area STANDARDS(SF)(SF)STANDARDS(SF)(SF) BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF)BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) T-3 Traffic Operations Storage areas 0 T-3TO Traffic Operations Storage Area2,70027000 FS-3 (Paint Shop) - T-3TO Traffic Operations Secure Storage1501500 FS-3FS Crew Leader 11001001000 T-3TO Parking Meter Storage7507500 FS-3FS Paint Storage 6006000 T-3TO Storage 2002000 FS-3FS Shop Area 61,20012000 Traffic Operations Mezzanine Storage -Removed from program by FS Paint Booth -NIC TO owner FS Emergency Ops Room Assume this is the same Parking Meter Mezzanine Storage -Removed from program by space provided in FS-5 - TO owner (Owner to confirm) T-3TO Secure Storage11,20012000 FS-3FS Men's Locker Room 4330173010 Signal Storage 12,000Include outdoor equipment Owner to confirm if Mezz FS-3FS Women's Locker Room 107078010 T-3TS storage, mezz, level, and level is add or included in FS-3FS Men's Restroom/Shower5004 sinks,4 toilets,2 shower 5000 storage yard2000sf allocation20000 FS-3FS Women's Restroom/Shower 2502 sinks,3 toliets,1 shower 2500 TS Signal Mezzanine Storage -See Signal Storage 0 FS Crew/ Lunch RoomMoved to A1 Subtotal -7,000 70000 FS Vending/ Kitchenette Moved to A1 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)1,40020%40(1,360)1% Subtotal73,021 303110 Total Shop/Storage Areas8,400 7040(1,360) Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)60420%144(460)5% Total Shops Areas3,625 3175(450) FS-1 Plumbing Shop FS-1FS Crew Leader 11001001000 FS-4 (Carpenter Shop) -0 FS-1FS Shop Area 31,200w/ 3 workststions w/ 3 workststions 12000 FS-4FS Crew Leader 11001001000 FS Mezzanine StorageProvided in FS-2 @ grade0 FS-4FS Shop Area 31,80018022 FS-1FS Secure Storage 6006000 FS-4FS Tool Storage 6006000 FS-1FS Covered Secure Storage (Shared) 2002000 FS-4FS Covered Secure Storage (Shared) 2002000 FS-1FS Threader Machine Storage Room50500 FS-4FS Refuse and Recycling Bins 10090(10) Subtotal42,150 21500 FS Crew Room Shared -Ref. Crew AreasFS-3 bldg Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)43020%10(420)0% FS Shared Lockers -Ref. Crew AreasFS-3 bldg Total Shops Areas2,580 2160(420) FS Men's Restroom/Shower -Ref. Crew AreasFS-3 bldg FS-2 HVAC Shop Subtotal42,800 2792(8) FS-2FS Shop StorageAdded Program400400 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)56020%105(455)4% FS-2FS Crew Leader 11001001000 Total Shops Areas43,360 2897(463) FS HVAC Technician/ Crew Room 4 -Ref. Crew AreasFS-3 bldg FS-2FS Shop Area 11,20012000 FS-2FS Trade Interns (1 per shop)6600ShopsProvided grouped together 100 within an open shop area6000 Provided in HVAC building @ FS-2FS Mezzanine Storage (Plumbing)600 ZIPPER MP NET AREA SUB-TOTAL DELTA FROM PROGRAM NSF TO grade 6000 Subtotal122,500 2900400 ZIPPER MP NSF. Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)50020%113(387)4% ZIPPER MP GSF Total Shops Areas3,000 301313 DELTA FROM PROGRAM GSF ZIPPER MP TOTAL BUILDING GSF ANTICIPATED TO ZIPPER MP GSF. (taken from building footprint on masterplan) 2792(8) 20%105(455)4% ACTUAL GSF FACTOR IN 2897(463) PROPOSED ZIPPER MP PROGRAM ANTICIPATED GSF FACTOR DELTA FROM PROGRAM TOTAL BUILDING GSF ANTICIPATED TO ZIPPER MP TOTAL BUILDING GSF SPACE PLAN KEY SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.84 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS FS-1FS-2FS-3FS-4 T-3 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.85 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS SUMMARY BY BUILDING Zipper Master PlanZipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 CSM ProvidedCSM Provided MP GSF MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS%OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.AreaQty.Area STANDARDS(SF)(SF)STANDARDS(SF)(SF) BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF)BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) FS-5 (Electric Shop) FS5(EltiSh) FS-5FS Mech/Electrical RoomNot in Original Space PlanPreliminary sizing by BH (230sf provided as part of GSF)0 FS-5FS Crew Leader 11001001000 FS-5FS Work Shop 71,20012033 FS Crew Room/Lockers -Ref. Crew AreasSee Building FS-3 FS-5FS Electrical Storage Area 1,00010000 FS-5FS Emergency Ops Storage 200More 1200SFsee FS-5 (not clear if there are required adjacencies ˆ related to this space - owner to clarify size and adjacency during design)23030 Restroom -See Building FS-3 Subtotal82,500 253333 (130) Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)50020%370 15% Œ Total Shops Areas83,000 2903(97) ˆ T-1 (Traffic Opertaions / Signals) ˆ T-1TO General Shop/Storage paint/shed1,20012000ˆ T-1TO Traffic Ops Shop/Storage1,50015000 Subtotal -2,700 27000 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)54020%80(460)3% ˆˆˆˆ Total Shops Areas3,240 2780(460) ˆˆ T-2 (Shops Areas/Traffic) T-2SM Janitor Closet 1001 mop sink1033 T-2SM Data Room 150130(20) T-2SM Conference/Training Room/Crew Room1500Conference Room for 2054343 T-2TO 1120Private Office 1201200 Traffic Painter & Lead Parking Meter Supervisor Technician T-2TO Lead Traffic Painter1120Private Office 1201200 Traffic Painter7 -Ref. Crew Areas for MM Owner to clarify space req TO further in design Lead Parking Meter Technician - --Removed from program by - TO owner T-2TO Parking Meter Technician212864124(4) T-2TO Parking Meter Shop50056464 TO Conference Room -Shared with FMRef FM-1 TO Crew Room/Lockers (Men)1284Combined with FMRef FS-37(84) TO Lockers (Women)321Shared with FM Ref FS-37(21) TO Janitor Storage Closet -Shared with FMRef FS-3 TO Lunch/Break Room -Shared with FMRef FS-3 TO Unisex Restroom -Shared with FMRef FS-3 TO Men's Restroom/Shower -Shared with FM Ref FS-3 TO Women's Restroom/Shower -Shared with FMRef FS-3 T-2TS Traffic Signal Supervisor 1120Private Office 1201200 T-2TS Traffic Signal Tech. 4256642560 Satellite Traffic Management Center 1225Could be located in Tech T-2TS Area 28156 TS Crew Room/Lockers - -Shared/Combined Ref FS-3 T-2TS Traffic Signal Shop 140041010 Subtotal172,724 2771(6) Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)54520%169(376)6% Total Shops Areas3,269 2940(329) SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.86 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS FS-5T-1T-2 FM-1 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.87 JUNE 22, 2016 () PROPOSED MASTER PLAN Zipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 CSM Provided MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.Area STANDARDS(SF)(SF) BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) SPACE PLANS Motor Sweeper Operator 6 - No space requirements RRR provided - Owner to clarify in design phase Heavy Truck Driver - - Removed from program by SUMMARY BY BUILDING RRR owner Zipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 Solid Waste Equipment Operator 38 - No space requirements CSM Provided MP GSF RRR provided - Owner to clarify in SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.Area design phase STANDARDS(SF)(SF) Equipment Operator I 6 - No space requirements BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) Zipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 RRR provided - Owner to clarify in A-1 (Admin Building) LVL-1 design phase CSM Provided MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta A-1(L1)FS Shop Area 23003000 Maintenance Worker 10 - No space requirements OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.Area STANDARDS(SF)(SF)A-1(L1)FS Rosie's Girls/ROP/Pre-care Room 401,200w/lockers 64 people 1185(15) RRR provided - Owner to clarify in BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) design phase A-1(L2)RRR Safety Trainer Coordinator164Workstation64640 A-1 (Admin Building) LVL-1 A-1(L2)RRR Hazardous Materials Technical1180Private Office18019818 A-1(L1)FS Shop Area 23003000 Admin Interns2 - No space requirements A-1(L1)FS Rosie's Girls/ROP/Pre-care Room 401,200w/lockers 64 people 1185(15) RRR provided - Owner to clarify in A-1(L1)FS Crew/ Lunch Room1,0751072(3) design phase A-1(L1)FS Vending/ Kitchenette 15017424 A-1(L2)RRR Conference/Training Room5140016 people 4088 A-1(L1)FS Restrooms2Added program64 128128 A-1(L2)Restroom/ Storage Closet - - No space requirements A-1(L1)SM Crew Room16720meet area 5 workstations81999 RRR provided - Owner to clarify in A-1(L1)SM Men's Locker Room 16112716856 design phase A-1(L1)SM Women's Locker Room 42875729 A-1(L2)RRR Copier/Filing Area 1501555 A-1(L1)SM Men's Restroom/Shower3502 sinks, 4 toilets, 1 shower 450100 Men's Restroom 1502 sinks, 4 toilets Combined with FM restrooms A-1(L1)SM Women's Restroom/Shower 1501 sink, 1 toilet, 1 shower23080 RRR (150) A-1(L1)SM Vending/ Kitchenette 150143(7) Women's Restroom 1002 sinks, 2 toilets Combined with FM restrooms RRR A-1(L1)Mech/ElecAdded to program based on (100) SM Design estimates (51sf A-1(L2)RRR Lunch Room/Kitchenette10011919 provided as part of GSF)0 As-needed/ On-call Staff 40 -No space requirements A-1(L1)RRR Men's Locker Room 108756778024 RRR provided - Owner to clarify in A-1(L1)RRR Women's Locker Room 27189722132 design phase A-1(L1)RRR Men's Restroom/Shower8006 sinks,8 toilets,2 shower82020 RRR Drivers Dressing/Restroom - See Crew Areas A-1(L1)RRR Women's Restroom/Shower 2502 sinks,2 toilets,1 shower28535 RRR Office Staff Kitchen/ Lounge - See Crew Areas A-1(L1)RRR Crew/ Lunch Room2,700Dividable 274242 RRR Men's Shower/Locker/Restroom - - See Crew Areas A-1(L1)RRR Vending/ Kitchenette 20026262 RRR Women's Shower/Locker/Restroom - - See Crew Areas A-1(L1)RRR Key/Button Stops Prep/ Storage Area 506111 RRR Restroom - - See Crew Areas A-1(L1)RRR Supervisor/ Driver's Supplies Storage Area15016515 Supply Closet - - Some extra area provided in A-1(L1)RRR Staff III (Dispatcher)164Workstation64640 janitor and Men's Restroom RRR A-1(L1)RRR As-needed Office Assistant Dispatchers164Workstation 64640 to account for this storage A-1(L1)RRR Janitor Closet1001 mop sink12121 requirement. Subtotal609,558 10311753 A-1(L2)RRR Data Room 150119(31) Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)1,91220%2754842 27% A-1(L2)Custodial Services Manager Administrator1260Private Office, Meet area260 CS 27010 Total Shops Areas11,470 130651,595 A-1(L2)Custodial Services Superintendent1180Private Office180 CS 1800 A-1(L2)Senior Administrative Analyst - - - - - CS A-1 (Admin Building) LVL-2 A-1(L2)Administratuve Analyst - - - - - CS A-1(L2)Maintenance Manager1260Private Office w/meeting 260 FM 258(2) A-1(L2)Staff Assistant III164Workstation64 A-1(L2)FM Fac. Contr. Administrator1120Private Office 120 CS 130108420 A-1(L2)FM Senior Administrative Analyst1120Private Office 120 A-1(L2)Custodial Contracts Administrator - - - - - 13010 CS A-1(L2)FM Administrative Staff Assistant2128Workstation 64 1280 A-1(L2)Custodial Services Supervisors 6720Private Office 120 CS 75030 A-1(L2)FM GIS Workstation Area2128Workstations 641280 A-1(L2)Custodian II1267686 Workstations to share 64 CS 7680 A-1(L2)FM Filing/Work Area2002000 A-1(L2)Conference Room 11505-10 People/ Shared CS 23888 A-1(L2)FM Reception Area/Lobby 120Combined with Custodial 257137 A-1(L2)Reception Area1100Combined with FM (165sf A-1(L2)FM Small Conference Room40016 people 44242 CS total)221121 A-1(L2)FM A.V. Storage1001001022 A-1(L2)File Storage 180Shared A-1(L2)FM Copy Room/Work Room10011616 CS 844 A-1(L2)FM Drawing Storage/Reviewing Area 2002000 Subtotal1598,488 8901413 A-1(L2)FM Plotter Room 60655 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)3,39540%3602207 40% A-1(L2)FM Kitchen/Breakroom2002011 Total Office Areas11,883 12503620 A-1(L2)FM Women's Restroom1501 sink, 1 toiletSpace for (3) toilets provided22070 A-1(L2)FM Men's Restroom1501 sink, 1 toiletSpace for (3) toilets provided313163 A-1(L2)FM Janitor/Storage Room1001 mop sink1 mop sink assumed11010 RRR Covered Areas A-1(L2)RRR Operations Manager1260Private Office w/meet 26027111 R-1RRR Wash Rack (wash bay)11,20024x50 provided24x5012033 R-2RRR Compost/ Worm Bin Storage 15005000 A-1(L2)RRR Bus. Manager Supervison Administrator1180Private Office1801811 A-1(L2)RRR Principal Admin. Analys1180Private Office1801811 Subtotal -1,700 17033 Systems Superintendent - --Removed from program by - Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)425 GSF provided within general 25%0% RRR site circulation area3(422) owner Material Recovery Superintendent - --Removed from program by - Total Covered Areas2,125 1703(422) RRR owner A-1(L2)RRR Solid Waste Recycling Coordinator 1120Private Office 1201211 Exterior Areas A-1(L2)RRR Solid Waste Business Supervisor 1120Private Office 1201211 Solid Waste Management A-1(L2)RRR Administrative Analyst 164Workstation 64640 RRR Solid Waste Bin Storage -2,00020000 A-1(L2)RRR Billing Specialist 2128Workstation 641280 RRR Trash and Recycle Bins 1,000Large Bins 103737 A-1(L2)RRR Customer Service Assistant 2128Workstation 641280 Outdoor Break Area 1,000 Combined Outdoor space A-1(L2)RRR Collection Superintendent 1180Private Office 1801811 RRR provided between A-1 & FM-1 (3000sf provided in total)10000 A-1(L2)RRR Solid Waste Supervisor 5600Private Office - Sharing120491(109) Subtotal4,000 403737 A-1(L2)RRR Solid Waste Crew Leaders3192Workstation641920 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)2,00050%2,0000 50% A-1(L2)RRR Refuse Account Inspectors 21643 to share Workstation 64640 Total Exterior Areas6,000 A-1(L2)RRR Business Assistant Zero Waste Coordinator1120Private Office1201200 60000 SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.88 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS A-1 A-1 P-1 P-1 R-STORA LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.89 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS Zipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 CSM Provided MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.Area SUMMARY BY BUILDING STANDARDS(SF)(SF) BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) FS-5 (Electric Shop) 72X40 area provided. H1 Hazmat Area 2,65053*50 Proportions to be validated in HZ design 26522 Subtotal -2,650 26522 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)2,650100%1836(814)69% Total Shops Areas -5,300 4488(812) T-3 Traffic Operations Storage areas 0 T-3TO Traffic Operations Storage Area2,70027000 T-3TO Traffic Operations Secure Storage1501500 T-3TO Parking Meter Storage7507500 T-3TO Storage 2002000 Traffic Operations Mezzanine Storage -Removed from program by TO owner Parking Meter Mezzanine Storage -Removed from program by TO owner T-3TO Secure Storage11,20012000 Signal Storage 12,000Include outdoor equipment Owner to confirm if Mezz T-3TS storage, mezz, level, and level is add or included in storage yard2000sf allocation20000 TS Signal Mezzanine Storage -See Signal Storage 0 Subtotal -7,000 70000 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)1,40020%40(1,360)1% Total Shop/Storage Areas8,400 7040(1,360) Exterior Areas 0 T-STORTO Sign Storage1300293(7)T. Open Storage T-STOR Pole Storage15,000Storage Racks shared No GSF provided within w/Traffic Signals boundary - loading and TO unloading acounted for on site plan50000 Subtotal5,300 5293(7) Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)2,65050%0(2,650) - TtlEtiA7950 5293(2657) SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.90 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS T-STORAGEH-1F-1 T-3 F-2 FUTURE FIRE STATION FIRE YARD F-4 F-3 PARKING STALLS PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.91 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS Zipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 CSM Provided MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.Area STANDARDS(SF)(SF) BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) SUMMARY BY BUILDING FL-1 (Fleets Shop/Storage Areas) FL-1(L1)FL Mechanic 18 -incl.0 FL-1(L1)FL Storekeeper 2 -incl.0 FL-1(L1)FL Mechanical Room Included in Elec Rm Area0 Electrical Room Estimated area req. - to be FL-1(L1)FL confimred in Design (236sf provided as part of GSF)0 Welding Shop 111,700Oversized in program per FL-1(L1)FL discussions with Fleets Staff1118(582) FL-1(L1)FL Metal Fab. Shop 11,4001530130 FL-1(L1)FL Repair Bay Light 84,48016x3556001,120 FL-1(L1)FL Repair Bay Heavy 88,80020x5588000 FL-1(L1)FL Welding Bay 11,32024x5513200 Smog Check Repair Bay w/Dyno 11,600Dyno No longer used. Would like Motorcycle repair area. - FL-1(L1)FL Change not yet accounted for in MP effort165050 FL-1(L1)FL High Pressure Washer Bay 11,320Chassis Wash Bays 24x5513200 Common Work Area 2800Crew did not know what this 400 was for or how it would be used. Electric vehicle repair FL-1(L1)FL was mentioned as an additional need. - Change not yet accounted for in MP effort8022 FL-1(L1)FL Emergency/Disaster Equipment Storage 11001000 FL-1(L1)FL Battery Storage Room 11001000 FL-1(L1)FL Hazmat Storage 12002000 FL-1(L1)FL Portable Equipment Storage28004008022 FL-1(L1)FL Parts Room 14,00040055 FL-1(L1)FL Tool Room 12002000 FL-1(L1)FL Tire Storage 12,00020011 FL-1(L1)FL Compressor Room 1800Combine w/Fluid Room 81515 FL-1(L1)FL Automatic Truck Wash 11,60020x90 provided20x801800200 FL Repair Bays -Included in Shops FL Welding Bays -Included in Shops Fuilds Room -Included in Compressor FL Room SF Tire Shop Removed from program by FL Owner Mezzanine Storage Removed from program by FL Owner Subtotal2131,220 32163943 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)6,24420%3,570(2,674)11% Total Shop/Storage Areas37,464 35733(1,731) Exterior Areas 0 Fleet Management 0 FL Vehicle and Equipment Storage - -0 FL Auction Vehicle Parking 101,6209x1816200 FL New Vehicle Staging 101,6209x1816200 CNG/Hydrogen fuel Farm12,000Compressor, storageNo Hydrogen Fuel provided in FL-2FL MP per owner1000(1,000) FL CNG Fast Fill Island 160012x506000 FL CNGFuel Lane 160012x506000 FL Diesel Fuel Lane 160012x506000 FL Unleaded Fuel Lane160012x506000 FL Unleaded/Diesel Fuel Island 14008x504000 Fuel Tank Farm 11,000below grade tank diesel 25x40 FL 10,000 gallons, unleaded 6,000 gallons 1,0000 FL Propane Tank Area 12502500 R-1FL Wash Equipment Room 160015x406000 FL Outdoor Break Area 14004000 Subtotal10,290 9290(1,000) Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)10,290 Provided as gen site circ.100%10,2900 111% Total Exterior Areas20,580 19580(1,000) SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.92 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS R-1 (SEE R-1 SUMMARY ON PG 96) FL-2 FUEL LANES FLEET LARGE/SMALL VEHICLE PARKING FL-1 LEVEL 1 Zipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 CSM Provided MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.Area STANDARDS(SF)(SF) BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.93 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS SUMMARY BY BUILDING Zipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 CSM Provided MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.Area STANDARDS(SF)(SF) BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) FL-1 (Fleets Shop/Storage Areas) (Level 2) Fleet Maintenance Superintendent1180Private Office 180 FL-1(L2)FL 1800 FL-1(L2)FL Administrative Analyst 164Private Office 120640 FL-1(L2)FL Staff Assistant III164Workstation 64640 FL-1(L2)FL Staff Assistant II Fleet Service Writer1 -64Workstation64640 FL-1(L2)FL Fleet Supervisor2120Private Office 1201200 FL-1(L2)FL Senior Mechanic (nights)1100Private Office - Shared10012020 FL-1(L2)FL Senior Mechanic (days)1 -Private Office - Shared - 0 FL-1(L2)FL Conference Room 140030 people41515 FL-1(L2)FL Intern164Workstation64640 FL-1(L2)FL Lunch/Break/Crew Room 1Ref. Crew Areas 0 Secure AV Storage/Library/Computer Room FL-1(L2)FL 14004066 FL-1(L2)FL Women's Restroom 1Ref. Crew Areas 0 FL-1(L2)FL Men's Restroom/Shower/Lockers 1Ref. Crew Areas 0 FL-1(L2)FL Data Room 1501500 FL-1(L2)FL Janitor Closet 1001 mop sink12020 FL-1(L2)FL Men's Locker Room 35245729853 FL-1(L2)FL Women's Locker Room 963714481 Men's Restroom/Shower5004 sinks,4 toilets,2 shower FL-1(L2)FL 52020 Women's Restroom/Shower 2502 sinks,2 toilets,1 shower FL-1(L2)FL 2522 FL-1(L2)FL Crew/ Lunch Room800(15)8022 FL-1(L2)FL Vending/ Kitchenette 1501522 Subtotal93,714 3935221 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)74320%2,3591,616 60% Total Shop/Storage Areas4,457 62941,837 SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.94 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS FL-1 LEVEL 2 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.95 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS Zipper Master Plan SPACE NEEDS PROGRAMMaster Plan Program Oct. 2015 CSM Provided MP GSF SPACE AreaDelta OWNER COMMENTSDB TEAM COMMENTS% Qty.Area STANDARDS(SF)(SF) SUMMARY BY BUILDING BLDGTYPESPACEStaffSpace(SF) Streets Covered Storage ST-1SM Tool Storage Room20020022020 ST-1 Individual Storage Closet41,800Included in Covered Veh. 25 SM Parking (undefined)18000 ST-2SM Asphalt Storage8008000 ST-1 Generator Enclosure1200Located adjacent to Covered SM Veh. Parking2000 ST-1 Covered Storage 14,000Duplicate of Covered Veh. SM Storage req. per interview with Streets Staff40000 ST-1 General Covered Storage 900Included in Covered Veh. SM Storage (last bay) 0(900) ST-1SM Covered Small Vehicle Parking110010x101000 ST-1SM Covered Standard Vehicle Parking71,1346 provided9x18972(162) ST-1SM Covered Medium Vechicle Parking132,60010x202,6000 ST-1SM Covered Large Vechicle Parking31,08012x301,0800 ST-1 Covered Extra-Large Vechicle Parking2Two Extra Large Vehicles 12x40 Identified on site not included SM in original program. (could be Grinder, Paver, or 18T Pomp) 960960 Subtotal11,734 12732(82) Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)1,17310%688(485)5% Total Covered Areas12,907 13420513 Streets Covered Storage ST-2SM Asphalt Storage8008000 Subtotal800 8000 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)8010%75(5)9% Total Covered Areas880 875(5) Streets Covered Storage ST-3SM Bulk Material Storage Bunkers Ref. Water 10 @ 14x24 provided total ST-3SM Covered Concrete Storage7507500 Subtotal750 7500 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)7510%750 10% Total Covered Areas825 8250 Exterior Areas ExtSM Refuse and Recycle Bins 200Provided at west end of A-12000 A-1 Outdoor Break Area 350BBQCombined Outdoor space SM provided between A-1 & FM-1 3500 Subtotal550 5500 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)5510%550 10% Total Covered Areas605 6050 RRR Covered Areas R-1RRR Wash Rack (wash bay)11,20024x50 provided24x5012033 (SEE R-1 LOCATION ON PG 93) R-2RRR Compost/ Worm Bin Storage 15005000 Subtotal -1,700 17033 Circ/Mech/Elec/Struc (Net: Gross)425 GSF provided within general 25%0% site circulation area3(422) Total Covered Areas2,125 1703(422) SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.96 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SPACE PLANS ST-3 ST-1 ST-2 R-4 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.97 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ARCHITECTURAL This Santa Monica City Yards Concept Design document is focused on the rehabilitation PROGRAM OCCUPANCY ASSUMPTIONS BY BUILDING of an existing site dedicated to providing city services to the City of Santa Monica. The site is approximately 14 acres in size and is proposed to house the following divisions: FL-1 (FLEET) B/F1/H(battery and hazmat areas) A-1 (FM, RRR, ST MAINT ADMIN, CUST) NARRATIVE - Facilities Maintenance RRR WASH RACK: B - Fleet and Streets FACILITIES SERVICES: - Resource Recovery and Recycling FS-1 PLUMBING F2 - Water Resources Division FS-2 HVAC/INTERN F2/B - Hazmat FS-3 PAINT/CREW F1/B - Fire Training and PSSF FS-4 CARPENTRY F1 - Parking garage (350, 500, 750 stall options) FS-5 ELECTRIC F2 FS-6 RADIO/LUNCH F2/A The work associated with this conceptual design for the site consists of validating program FIRE: B/(A3 at large classroom) developed prior to this contract while designing a long term solution to the site with a T-1 (SHOP/ PNT SHED/GEN STOR): F2/F1/S2 focus on long term functionality and improved integration into the local community. All T-2 (TRAFFIC SIGNALS/FS ADMIN): B buildings on the site, with the exception of the existing Water Resources Division, shall be P-1 (PARKING) S1 replaced with new facilities and will incorporate updated division program needs. Under HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: H(?)(Full chemical list and quantities the scope of this contract the Water Resources Division will be expanded to include W-1 (WATER FUTURE OFFICE) B some additional program, but the majority of the existing building and infrastructure will level of H occupancy) W-2 (WATER) EXISTING remain in place in anticipation of a future water treatment plant design for the site. The project as a whole will be designed to provide a phased construction sequence providing a continuously functional and operational site during all construction sequences. Building Typologies (refer to diagrams on following pages for more information) The program requirements are vehicle intensive and a priority has been given to site of the people who occupy and operate the facilities. Clear pedestrian circulation has been highlighted in the proposed Master Plan to ensure safety and an improved work experience for the City workers. A level of separation has also been provided on the Each division’s program has been divided into the following categories by the Space Need Program provided to our team by the City of Santa Monica. Shops / Storage Covered Areas Exterior Areas Covered Parking Uncovered Parking but orchestrated into the buildings to form safe and human work environments. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.98 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN 1. Building Type A (Buildings T3, H1, F2, F3,FL2,ST1, ST2,R1,R4) – Uninsulated be considered an Add Alt. Assume additional costs for bird control in open ARCHITECTURAL Steel frame building (Consider pre-engineered for cost savings)ceiling bays (spikes or netting as required along top of beams and to close open a. Walls: NARRATIVE i. Metal siding on light gauge metal girts spanning the primary structure. 3. Building Type C (FS1, FS2, FS3, FS4, FS5, FM1, T1, T2) - Load Bearing CMU walls ii. At property lines or between buildings assume full height CMU walls with steel tube columns and open web steel bar joists. b. Floors a. Walls: i. Exterior CMU walls shall be stacked bond ground face or combed face i. Sealed concrete. coating to exterior surface of all CMU walls. At interior side, provide c. Foundations: rigid insulation. i. (Refer to structural notes and building locations for foundation ii. Interior CMU Walls shall be stacked bond with ground face or combed requirements). locations). d. Roofs: iii. Exterior framed walls shall be metal siding o/ 1” rigid insulation o/ WRB i. Exposed steel decking with low slope standing seam metal roof. o/ sheathing o/ R-19 batt insulation o/ 6” mtl stud o/ 5/8” GWB. iv. Glazed areas shall be thermally broken alum storefront with low-E IGU’s 2. Building Type B (Buildings FL1) – Insulated Steel frame building combined (Assume Solar Ban 70-XL or similar for cost). with a load bearing CMU building. b. Floors: a. Walls:i. i. Exterior CMU walls shall be stacked bond ground face or combed OC starting 10’-0” from wall. ii. c. Foundation: (Refer to structural for foundation requirements) and R-10 rigid insulation. Storage areas are to be exposed CMU at the d. Ceilings: ii. Interior CMU Walls shall be stacked bond with ground face or combed i. Shop space: No ceiling. Assume all exposed conduit and underside of structure to be painted. ii. iii. Exterior Metal framed walls are metal siding w/ R-19 batt insulation e. Roofs: on metal girts. Interior surface of walls enclosed with paperless GWB i. Parapet condition: Open web steel joists w/ steel decking o/ R-30 rigid inside vehicle bays. insulation o/ Energy Star Rated singly ply membrane. b. Floors:ii. Single Slope roof: Open web steel joists w/ steel decking o/ R-30 rigid i. insulation o/ Energy Star Rated singly ply membrane. (Metal standing ii. seam to be considered an Add Alt at exposed single slope roof areas iii. along Michigan Street). c. Foundation: (Refer to structural for foundation requirements) 4. Building Type C1 (ST2, ST3, ST4, R2) - Load Bearing CMU walls with open web d. Ceilings: steel bar joists (open building w/ no heating cooling/no insulation. i. Shop space: No ceiling with exposed systems a. Walls: ii. i. e. Roofs:b. Floors i. Parapet condition: Open web steel joists w/ steel decking o/ R-30 rigid i. Sealed concrete. insulation o/ Energy Star Rated singly ply membrane. c. Foundations: ii. Single Slope roof: Metal purlins w/ exposed steel decking o/ R-30 rigid i. (Refer to structural notes and building locations for foundation insulation o/ Energy Star Rated singly ply membrane. (Metal standing seam to requirements). PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.99 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ARCHITECTURAL d. Roofs: i. Exposed steel decking NARRATIVE 5. Building Type D - (2-story) Load Bearing CMU walls with steel tube columns and open web steel bar joists. a. Walls: i. Exterior CMU walls shall be stacked bond ground face or combed face coating to exterior surface of all CMU walls. At interior side, provide rigid insulation. ii. Interior CMU Walls shall be stacked bond with ground face or combed locations). iii. Exterior framed walls shall be metal siding o/ 1” rigid insulation o/ WRB o/ sheathing o/ R-19 batt insulation o/ 6” mtl. stud o/ 5/8” GWB. iv. Glazed areas shall be thermally broken alum storefront with low-E IGU’s (Assume Solar Ban 70-XL or similar for cost). b. Floors/Ceiling: i. the center of conference rooms ii. joists w/ R-19 batt insulation o/ resilient channels o/ (2) layers 5/8” Type ‘X’ GWB. Required 1-HR rating c. Foundation: (Refer to structural for foundation requirements) d. Ceilings: i. Shop space: No ceiling. Assume all exposed conduit and underside of structure to be painted. ii. e. Roofs: i. Parapet condition: Open web steel joists w/ steel decking o/ R-30 rigid insulation o/ Energy Star Rated singly ply membrane. Single Slope roof: Open web steel joists w/ steel decking o/ R-30 rigid insulation o/ Energy Star Rated singly ply membrane. (Metal standing seam to be considered an Add Alt at exposed single slope roof areas along Michigan Street). Essential Services - The Fire building and the large conference room within Facilities Maintenance program are to be considered essential services. Final determination of building requirements SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.100 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPES PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.101 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE A T-3 • F-2 • F-3 • FL-2 • R-1 • ST-1 • ST-2 • R-4 • H-1 • SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.102 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE A STORAGE Uninsulated Steel frame building (Consider pre- engineered for cost savings) PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.103 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE A ELEVATIONS EAST WEST SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.104 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE A STRUCTURE ASSEMBLY NON INSULATED METAL ROOF O/ NON INSULATED METAL DECK O/ PRE-ENGINEERED STEEL STRUCTURE O/ FOUNDATION SLAB ON GRADE AND FOOTINGS SOUTHNORTH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.105 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE B FLEET FL-1 • SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.106 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE B FLEET Insulated Steel frame building combined with a load bearing CMU building. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.107 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE B PRE ENG STRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE SECTION CATWALK OPERABLE CLERESTORY WINDOWS W/ ACTUATOR PRIVATE OPEN OFFICE OFFICE WORKSTATIONS STORAGE OPEN WORK BAYS SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.108 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE B AUTOMATIC ELEVATIONS WASH BAY STRUCTURE AT 20' O.C. 16W X 15H GARAGE DOORS CMU METAL PANEL OPEN WASH BAY NORTH AUTOMATIC WASH BAY WASH BAY CONFERENCE ROOMOPERABLE CLERESTORY WINDOWS W/ ACTUATOR CREW ROOM LIGHT VEHICLE & WORKSTATION S THROUGH BAYS 2 STORY CMU1 STORY CMU (OFFICE OVER STORAGE) (STORAGE) SOUTH EAST WEST PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.109 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE B 9" thick mild reinforced STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION edge of structural slab PILES slab w/5.2# PSF of rebar -typical 8 FT CANT 8" CMU walls FLEXURAL DROP CAPS LEVEL 1 8ftx8ft x 18" total depth MEZZANINE TYP ALL PILES Foundation Plan OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW WINDOWS ALLONG PRIVATE OFFICES WINDOWS ALLONG CREW ROOM LVL 1 OUTLINE WINDOWS ALLONG OFFICE SPACE LEVEL 2 SPACE PLAN SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.110 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE B Portal Frames this is 1 story bldg - could be rod tension only2- Span Moment Framesportal frames STRUCTURAL FRAMING W14x68 Columns w/W18x50 beam pre-engineered braced frameW24x78 beams with W21x62 over door and W16x36 beam at roof sidewall columns plus HSS 8x8x1/2 center columns 8"x14GA Z Roof Purlins at 6ft O/C typical Rod x-bracing at roof typ 4 bays 1 bay moment frames typseismic joint W24x78 Beams with W21x62 columns this is 2 story Roof Framing Plan Portal Frames conventional building seismic joint LEVEL 1 W14x68 Columns w/W18x50 beam 8" CMU walls MEZZANINE over door and W16x36 beam at roof OPEN TO BELOW seismic joint wide flange girder HSB-36 OPEN TO BELOW (cantilever north end 1.5" metal deck out) metal deck over open WINDOWS ALLONG web steel joist (high PRIVATE OFFICES and low roofs) W10x19 TYP. WINDOWS ALLONG CREW ROOM composite concrete LVL 1 OUTLINE metal deck over wide W12x35 @ 10'-0" O.C. WINDOWS ALLONG OFFICE SPACE LEVEL 2 flange beams-typ at MAX., TYP. 2nd floor metal deck over 8" CMU walls VULCRAFT 22K9 open web steel open web steel joist at joists above at high 10ft o/c at low roof and roof SPACE PLAN high roof 2nd Floor Framing Plan PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.111 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE C SHOPS FS-1 • FS-2 • FS-3 • FS-4 • FS-5 • T-1 • T-2 • FM-1 • SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.112 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE C SHOPS Load Bearing CMU walls with steel tube columns and open web steel bar joists. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.113 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE C PERSPECTIVE SECTION SINGLE PLY MEMB W/ R-30 RIGID INSUL O/ STL. PURLINS @ 4'-0" O.C. W/ MTL DECK HSS COLUMNS PT'D STOREFRONT GLAZING FOUNDATION SLAB ON GRADE AND FOOTINGS SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.114 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE C ELEVATIONS EAST WEST PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.115 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE C ELEVATIONS NORTH SOUTH SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.116 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE C STRUCTURAL 8" CMU shearwall HSS Braced frame 5" SOG w/#3 at 12" O/C each way with perimeter thick slab edge stem wall 12"wide x10" cont strip 3ft x 3ft x 16" ftg ftg with (2)#5 cont w/4#6 ea way 24" wide by 16" dp 8" CMU shearwall cont ftg with (3)#5 cont Foundation Plan 8" CMU shearwall HSS Braced frame VULCRAFT 24K10 open web steel joist at 10ft o/c HSB-36 1.5" metal deck HSS 5x5x3/8 W10x30 columns (typ) at 20ft wide flange beams, o/c +/- TYP. 8" CMU shearwall Roof Framing Plan PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.117 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE D 2 STORY STRUCTURES A-1 F-1 SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.118 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE D ADMIN BUILDING (2-story) Load Bearing CMU walls with steel tube columns and open web steel bar joists. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.119 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE D PERSPECTIVE SECTION RRR Street Facilities M Custodial SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.120 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE D ELEVATION NORTH EAST PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.121 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE D FOUNDATION PLAN Ftg 6x6x18" with (7)#5 each way typical at interior cols Ftg 4x4x16" with (4)#5 cont ftg 24" wide by each way typical at 16" dp with 3#5 cont perimeter cols typical at all CMU Walls 5" SOG with #3 at 12" o/c each way withcont ftg 18" wide by either thickened stem14" dp with (3)#5 cont wall edge or CMUtypical perimeter ftg stem wall cont ftg 24" wide by Ftg 6x6x18" with (7)#5 16" dp with 3#5 cont each way typical at typical at all CMU interior cols Walls Ftg 4x4x16" with (4)#5 each way typical at perimeter cols SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.122 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE D ROOF FRAMING PLAN Framing Key Plan DCI 4-1-16 AKR 8 CMU GIRDERS COLUMNS C1 = HSS5x5x1/4 G1 = W12x35 C2 = HSS5x5x1/4 VERCO 18 GA. G2 = W12x45 (C=3/4") C3 = HSS5x5x1/2 TYPE PLW1 OR C5 C1 G3 = W12x53 (C=1") C1 C4 = HSS5x5x1/4 W2 FORMLOK G4 = W12x96 (C=1") C5 = HSS6x6x1/2 W/ 5 1/2" NORMAL G5 = W14x61 (C=1")C6 = HSS6x6x1/2 WHT. CONCRETE, C7 = HSS6x6x1/2 G6 = W21x73 (C=3/4") TYP. C8 = HSS6x6x1/2 G7 = W12x30 (C=3/4") C5 C9 = HSS6x6x1/2 G8 = W24x76 (C=1") C10 = HSS4x4x1/4 G9 = W12x45 (C=3/4") W12x35 @ 10'-0" O.C. G10 = W12x65 (C=1") MAX., TYP. G11 = W10x19 C10 8" CMU 8" CMU C2 C6 C2 C10 G9G5 G7G7 C4 C3 G10 C9 C8 G8 G6 G10G6 C7G6 C10 C4 W12x35 @ 10'-0" O.C. MAX., TYP. C10 G5G9G5 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.123 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE D 2ND. FLOOR FRAMING PLAN Framing Key Plan DCI 4-1-16 AKR 8 CMU GIRDERS COLUMNS C1 = HSS5x5x1/4 G1 = W12x30 HSB-36 C2 = HSS5x5x1/4 G2 = W21x55 1.5" metal deck C3 = HSS5x5x1/2 G3 = W24x68 C1 C4 = HSS5x5x1/4 G4 = W21x44 C5 = HSS6x6x1/2 C1 G5 = W24x94 C6 = HSS6x6x1/2 G6 = W24x68 C7 = HSS6x6x1/2 G7 = W10x19 VULCRAFT 24K10 C8 = HSS6x6x1/2 open web steel joist at 10ft o/c, TYP. C9 = HSS6x6x1/2 C10 = HSS5x5x1/4 G11 C10 C2 8" CMU 8" CMU C2 C10 HSB-36 G6G6 1.5" metal deck G4 G4 C4 C3 C10G7 C4 8" CMU wall C10 G5G6G6 SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.124 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE E PARKING STRUCTURE Upper Level Framing Plan PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.125 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING TYPE E PARKING STRUCTURE ADD 12"CMU RETAINING WALL WITH FTG IF THE PARKING STRUCTURE EXTENDS ONE LEVEL BELOW GRADE Foundation Plan SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.126 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUPERSTRUCTUREFOUNDATIONS STRUCTURAL The overall project includes a number of 1 to 2 story buildings and a 3 to 7 story Parking system for the buildings will vary depending on where the building is located. The NARRATIVE Structure. foundations for all the building other than the Parking Structure are summarized below: The following summarizes the superstructure for all of the buildings except for the high 1. bay portion of the Fleet Building and the Parking Structure: structural grade level podium slab spanning between piles. The piles will be located on roughly a 30ft by 30 ft grid. At the piles the slab will be thickened 1. Roofs to be framed with 1 ½ metal deck spanning between open web steel edge of the building a little to minimize settlement issues in the immediate area joists or steel beams supported on steel columns and CMU bearing walls. of the building. 2. spanning between steel beams supported on steel columns. 2. 3. spread and strip footings with a concrete slab on grade and perimeter concrete diaphragms spanning between CMU shearwalls. curbs as needed. A seismic joint will be provided between the high bay area of the Fleet Building and the adjacent 2 story area. The following summarizes the two options currently being considered for the superstructure for the high bay area of the Fleet Building: footings. The Parking Structure may include one below grade level. This would include either CMU or concrete basement walls. OPTION A – Conventional Construction a. steel “Z” purlins. b. Perimeter walls to be framed with metal siding spanning between cold-formed horizontal steel “Z” girts. c. Lateral system to consist of x-bracing at roof spanning between rod x-bracing or steel moment frames in the transverse. In the longitudinal direction there will be x-bracing at roof spanning between steel portal frames at the front wall and steel rod x-bracing along the back wall. OPTION B – Pre-engineered Metal Building a. Standard pre-engineered metal building using tapered steel rigid frames in transverse direction and tension only rod bracing in the longitudinal direction. Steel portal frames will be provided along front where there are overhead door openings. b. Wall and roofs to be framed with zee girts and purlins The superstructure for the Parking Structure will be as follows: a. The elevated levels will be framed as a standard post-tensioned long span garage with beams spanning approximately 60 ft between concrete columns in the transverse direction and slabs spanning approximately 18 ft between pt beams in the longitudinal direction. b. concrete moment frames (with upturned beams) located around the perimeter. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.127 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN GEOTECHNICAL City of Santa Monica – City Yard Geotechnical NarrativeCity of Santa Monica – City Yard Geotechnical Summary Summary of Prior Explorations NARRATIVE • Preliminary reports by Converse (2009 and 2012) • 9 borings (BH-1 through BH-9) in 2009 • 7 borings (B10-01 through B10-07) in 2010 • Majority of the buildings will be one to two stories to be constructed at or near • 16 borings (B12-01 through B12-16) in 2012 • • Fill Cap (consisting of clays, and silty to clayey sands) between 5 to 11 feet was of the proposed structures. Conventional foundations and slab-on-grades are anticipated for support of these structures. • • Parking Structure may potentially be 5 to 6 stories in height and may be metal, glass, and organics) was encountered to depths between 25 to 58 feet constructed over one subterranean level. If the structure will be constructed at • grade, then remove and recompact the unsuitable soils. If the structure will be of Santa Monica Safety Element and 2001 Santa Monica Geologic Hazards Map constructed with a subterranean level, then temporary shoring will be required, • and the structure may be supported on the native soils. Conventional foundations are expected. Depending on the foundation loading, some of the • Additional borings are needed to achieve a thorough investigation of the site isolated pad footings may need to be tied together to form a mat footing. • • • across the site • settle over time and downdrag loads will need to be accounted for in the pile 1) Complete Removal and Replacement design in addition to the structural loads. a) • Pile system may include Cast-in-Drilled Holes (CIDH) piles or Auger Cast Import Fill Soils Grouted Piles (ACGP). i) Large volume of export and import (est.) • ii) iii) hardscapes supported in this manner will require periodic maintenance, iv) Dust control/Air Quality/Environmental Concerns patching, and repair as necessary. v) Depth of excavation and shoring (soldier piles, tiebacks, and lagging) • vi) Setback will be required as overexcavation beyond the property line cannot be achieved the surrounding pavement or hardscapes. Swing joints suspended from the pile supported buildings could be incorporated into the design for entrances and 2) In-Situ Ground Improvement Methods hardscapes immediately around buildings. a) Deep Dynamic Compaction – Utilizing a crane dropping a ~50 ton weight in a • grid pattern to density the underlying soils supported on piles and structural slabs. i) • Due to settlement concerns, utilities (especially gravity feed systems) in the ii) iii) iv) Waste materials will remain in the ground and will continue to decompose over time b) Vibro-Stone Columns/Geopiers (Rammed Aggregate Piers) • The site was formerly a clay pit, which was utilized for mining clay to create i) ii) between 25 to 58 feet. The native soils are primarily clays, which are relatively iii) Crushed stones /gravel are vibrated or rammed into boreholes to densify and reinforce the underlying soils iv) v) Seismic Performance (shearing of stone columns under seismic ground SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.128 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN vi) Site Development Concerns to Investigate Further in Future Design Phase GEOTECHNICAL vii) Waste materials will remain in the ground and will continue to (To Be Investigated Further in Future Design Phase) decompose over time c) Grouting• Could the installation of deep foundation piles cross contaminate the native NARRATIVE i) Injection of cement grout into the underlying soils to densify or soils? reinforce the underlying soils• To what extend does the City want to improve the site? initial cost vs long-term ii) Quality Assurance/Quality Control issues maintenance iii) Volume of grout always tends to be much higher than estimated• If the buildings are supported on deep foundations, then what to do with the iv) Adding more weight into the soils causing additional settlement surrounding improvements such as hardscapes, and paving supported on d) Soil Mixing i) Mix cement slurry into the underlying soils creating overlapping soil • Flexible connections for utilities vs. pile supported utilities cement columns• Essential facilities? ii) Deleterious materials remain in the ground• iii) Waste will continue to decompose over time impermeable clay soils) iv) Cost• Additional borings are needed to achieve a thorough investigation of the site * In-Situ Ground Improvement Methods - Waste materials will remain in the ground and will continue to decompose over time ** Ground improvement methods will most likely destroy the existing underground gas collection system 3) Structural Solutions - Deep Foundation Piles and structural slabs a) Pre-cast Driven Piles i) Most likely will need to be predrilled with small diameter pilot holes due to debris – disposal of waste ii) b) Drilled cast-in-place piles (CIDH) i) Disposal of waste materials generated from the boreholes ii) Dust control/Air Quality/Environmental Concerns iii) iv) Caving? c) Auger Cast Grouted Piles (ACGP) i) No caving ii) Less dust control/Air Quality concerns iii) Load tested d) Full Displacement Piles i) No spoils to dispose ii) No dust control iii) No caving iv) Load tested * Downdrag will need to be considered for pile design unless the piles are sleeved ** Lateral seismic design or Full Displacement Piles would be the appropriate foundation type for support of the proposed structures. Auger cast piles or Full Displacement Piles would minimize the PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.129 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN GEOTECHNICAL IN-SITU GROUND IMPROVEMENT METHOD Dynamic CompactionVibroPiers/Stone Columns/Jet GroutingCompaction GroutingSoil Mixing GeoPiers SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.130 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURAL PILE SYSTEMS PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.131 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL I. Project NarrativeV. Site Demolition The Santa Monica City Yard Stage I project is a proposed redevelopment and renovation of the 14.7 acre facility of the same name. The project site is located at 2500 Michi-Several existing utilities within the limit of work will require demolition or relocation. gan Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90404. The site facilities have acted as a hub for the - NARRATIVE city’s public works employees to launch infrastructure maintenance crews and opera-phone, gas, water, storm drain and sanitary sewer lines. tions since the mid 1950s. There are currently 16 buildings and structures constructed throughout the site. The design concept focuses on providing an economic and environ- mentally sustainable site that will be functional, educational, and symbolic of the City’s These conduits will be relocated, or demolished as needed to accommodate the pro- commitment to environmentally responsible development.posed redevelopment. II. Existing Conditions An existing gas line is shown in record drawings along Frank and Delaware Streets. The gas line is outside of property line limits but it is assumed a point of connection to the line exists along either Frank or Delaware streets, the size is unknown. An additional site The site is located north of the I-10 freeway and is bounded by Michigan Avenue to the investigation found a gas meter near the existing water building, as well as connections northwest, 24th Street to the southwest, Delaware and Frank Streets to the southeast, and Stewart Street and the Stewart Street Park to the northeast. The existing site is during the design phase is required to determine the extent of the existing on-site gas network and the feasibility of connecting a proposed system to it. During the design of the site. There are numerous utilities serving the site, as well as a county storm drain phase, existing gas lines found extending on-site are to be relocated to accommodate line cutting through the site along the southwestern property line. The design team has redevelopment. reviewed all record drawings of existing utilities that were provided by the City in order to prepare this feasibility analysis. The existing site has a highpoint near the eastern Record drawings indicate 2 existing 8” water lines along the northern property line property line leaving approximately ¾ of the site to drain southwest towards Frank, Del- between Michigan Avenue and Stewart Street. These have their point of connection to aware and 24th Streets while the remaining ¼ of the site drains to Stewart Street and another 8” water line in the public right of way along Michigan Avenue. Michigan Ave- the Stewart Street Park. nue also has a 12” line in the public right of way feeding a hydrant on the street and has III. Sustainability Goals The lateral will need to be relocated to accommodate proposed site plan. Along the southern property lines there is an 8” line cutting across the property from Frank Street The City of Santa Monica is a leader in environmentally sustainable practices and is to Stewart Street which may need to be relocated to accommodate the proposed site committed to sustainable development. Additionally, the City of Santa Monica has ad- plan. There also exists a 16” line along Frank Street which reduces to an 8” line along opted and is implementing a sustainability program called Sustainable City. In keeping with these priorities, the feasibility analysis for the Santa Monica City Yard Stage I site has considered the following environmental goals: accommodate the proposed development. Resource Conservation: The site plans to implement a storm water mitigation plan that would allow for the capture and reuse of storm water for on-site use. This would Record drawings indicate that an 18” sanitary sewer line currently runs through the middle of the project. The line runs from a 27” line along Stewart Street through the pervious site and it would reduce the proposed potable water demand by reusing storm middle of the site and outlets out to another 18” line along Michigan Avenue. This line is to be protected in place. Additionally there is an 8” sewer line serving the site which Environmental and Public Health: The main way this goal is to be accomplished is by outlets onto a 12” line along Delaware. This 8” line is to be relocated as necessary for the proposed redevelopment. natural environment, an undeveloped site more similar in appearance to an undisturbed environment. Finally, several options have been proposed to for the 45” county storm drain running The goal of this site redevelopment project is to integrate these sustainability design through the project site. The current design objective is to avoid building over the coun- objectives and add value to the City. ty line. Should building over the line be required, however, several options have been explored to be able to build over the line which would require encroaching onto the IV. Erosion and Sediment Control easement the county currently holds. Solutions proposed to this problem are discussed further in the storm water section. In accordance with the NPDES permit, the construction site shall implement Best Man- agement Practices (BMPs) to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollut- stabilized construction entrances as tracking control, and stockpile management in accordance with good housekeeping practices. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.132 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN -CIVIL ever, the proposed capture and reuse system seems to be the most responsible and Finally, the presence of the 45” county storm drain line has posed several constructabil- V. Site Utilities NARRATIVE ity problems. Several solutions have been proposed below should it prove necessary to build over the line. Utility concept designs are based on a review of available record drawings provided by the City. KPFF recommends that additional utility investigations, such as ground penetrating radar (GPR) and potholing data be provided prior to preparing a detailed convey discharge to a Caltrans owned storm drain line running along the I-10 freeway. design. Additionally, due to a majority of the project’s footprint being over an existing Abandon storm drain running through project site and vacate easement to allow for construction (see Figure 2). for these utilities. Utility corridors with appropriate shoring or support structures, per 2. Relocate storm drain line along 24th street, abandon portion of line running through geotechnical recommendations, should be considered for proposed utilities within the project site, and vacate easement to allow for construction (see Figure 3). 3. Apply for overbuild permit from the county, build over easement (see Figure 4). A. Storm Water building over the line be required. It would present the most straight forward process to be infeasible at this time. A detailed geotechnical investigation is required to make a with the least amount of construction costs. The only associated construction cost would be to bring up the portions of the storm drain line up to county code if it does Based on this preliminary study, capture and reuse has been determined to be feasi- not already meet it. Additionally, approval for this overbuilding permit would require county approval which they may choose to accept or deny based on their review. Of the of Santa Monica requirements the site is required to capture and mitigate at least the line would prove to be exceedingly expensive as trenching would not be feasible for the gallons) per qualifying rain event. This method will serve two of the City of Santa Moni- I-10 freeway and jack and bore methods would have to be used. Coordination between ca’s environmental sustainability goals, as it will reduce pollution associated with storm city, county and Caltrans would also provide logistical challenges during the design and - approval phase. The second option presents a challenge in terms of the construction plementing this system however would require not only the necessary storage capacity costs associated with relocating a line for nearly 800 linear feet. Due to these consid- to contain this design volume but a corresponding and approved demand which will be able to utilize the storm water. Based on conceptual estimate from the mechanical and be taken to construct over the county storm drain line. The current master plan avoids landscape consultants it is estimated that approximately 179,000 gallons per year are to building over the storm drain line. and 178,000 per year would be required for irrigation purposes. Based on these concep- B. Sanitary Sewer tual demands, historical rainfall data (see Table 1) and proposed holding capacity it can be assumed that during the rainy season the capture and re-use system is expected to Sewer mining has been considered as a potential design objective for the redevelop- ment of the City Yard project. If implemented it would tap into the existing/proposed during the dry months the system may run dry and require use of the public potable sanitary sewer system, convey a portion of the sewage to a treatment facility on-site, water system. Therefore, sizing of the proposed cistern system should be coordinated across consultants and it should be determined how much storm water is planned to be use for training purposes. The envisioned system would allow for a reduction in water and wastewater infrastructure costs as well as conserve potable water for essential uses. Currently, three cisterns located at the three major phases of the site are proposed. A Existing 18” sanitary sewer line is approximately 15 to 20 feet in depth and runs through the site from Stewart Street to Michigan Ave. Based on existing record drawings it is and extract debris from storm water and to pre-treat the storm water. These cisterns assumed the 18” sewer line is approximately 50 years in age. The existing to remain 8” would be placed at the east and west ends of the site as well as one in the center as sewer system serving the current buildings on site is to remain in place if the new site plan allows otherwise it is to be relocated. This is currently not priced into the proposed water will be captured via a combination of catch basins, area drains, trench drains, masterplan. and planter drains and will be conveyed to this underground detention cistern sized to accommodate a ¾” design storm. The cistern will then convey stormwater to a centrally C. Water washing, and irrigation. From this on-site treatment plant water would be distributed to The existing system is comprised of 8” water lines on the northern and southern por- buildings, structures, and landscape as needed for the above mentioned uses. any reclaimed water lines on-site. The proposed City Yards facilities will be provided Paying an “in-lieu fee” has also been explored as an option if it is determined that it PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.133 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL tests, one along Michigan Avenue and another along Delaware Avenue, were conducted Finally, the construction of several new structures brings up the need to determine the available static and residual pressures were measured as 80psi and 44psi, respec- tively. Along Delaware Avenue the available static and residual pressures were measured new sewer connections be tied in to the existing 18” sewer line running throughout the NARRATIVE as 82psi and 32 psi, respectively. At this time no numerical pressure information has site, that new water lines would be supplied from the laterals running on site from both been provided for any reclaimed water lines that may be present on site. Available pres-Michigan and Delaware Avenues, and that roof drain would be tied in to the proposed sure information is to be used in the design considerations for the on-site water system capture and reuse system. that is proposed. IV. Phasing Considerations Current phasing strategies propose to break up the site’s redevelopment into several construction phases to allow for continuous and uninterrupted service of the facili- ty. The phasing strategies developed pose a few constructability coordination points. These include the constructability and implementation of an LID system, the relocation of existing on-site utilities, and the construction of POC’s for new structures. A. Phasing Considerations for an LID System Due to the proposed phasing strategies, the implementation of a capture and reuse system would have to be completed per phase. Since only certain portions of the site will be developed at a time, proposed cisterns would have to be built according to their phase. This phased build-out for the cistern system would mean that earlier phases of the site would be able to mitigate portions of stormwater before others. It is current- ly assumed that the site’s phasing will be broken up into sequence “A” encompassing phases 1-3, phase 4, and the last remaining phases. It is also assumed that a single permit will be obtained for sequence “A”, allowing a capture and reuse system to be measures due to it being constructed under a single permit. Additionally, since the site is being constructed in several phases, the storm drainage network collecting storm water and directing it to the cisterns would be built in pieces. The majority of the network would be built out during sequence “A,” leaving stub-outs for future connections and allowing future cisterns to be connected to the ones previ- ously constructed. B. Relocation of Existing Utilities As previously mentioned there will be a need to relocate several existing on-site utilities in order to accommodate the proposed redevelopment project and the construction of several new buildings throughout the site. The most impacted utilities include the 8” wa- ter line running east-west along the northern border of the site from Michigan Avenue onto Stewart Street, the 8” sewer line running north-south from Delaware Street on to the site, and the 6” water line running north-south parallel to the 45” county storm drain line. These utilities typically cross the borders of several of the proposed phases, which would complicate the relocation of these lines. Similarly to the solution above, a solution to the phased relocation of utilities would be - nect as they are built. C. Utility Connections for New Structures SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.134 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL NARRATIVE FIGURES Reference Civil narrative Figure 1—Stormwater Cistern Exhibit Figure 2—Redirect to Caltrans Figure 3—Relocate to 24th StreetFigure 4—Overbuild Permit PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.135 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL CISTERN SIZING This plan highlights the three main sequences in which the project will be carried out, the approximate stormwater volume needed to be captured and mitigated, and the corresponding cistern sizing required for these sequences. Currently, three cisterns located at the three major phases of the site are proposed. The cisterns are sized to mitigate a ¾” design storm as required by the City of Santa Monica. These cisterns would be located at the east and west ends of the site as well as one in the center, corresponding to the project’s major phases and as necessary to effectively capture runoff, detain it and reuse it. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.136 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL RAINFALL VOLUME PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.137 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL STORM DRAIN & CISTERN PLAN This plan highlights proposed main storm drain line routing, capture and reuse cistern locations and sizes, and roof drain connections. Based on this preliminary study, capture and reuse has oils and extract debris from storm water and to pre-that will treat water for use in in-door flush fixtures, for been determined to be feasible and the next required treat the storm water. Site storm water will be captured truck washing, and irrigation. From this on-site treatment option after infiltration for storm water mitigation. via a combination of catch basins, area drains, trench plant water would be distributed to buildings, structures, Currently, three cisterns located at the three major phases drains, and planter drains and will be conveyed to these and landscape as needed for the above mentioned uses. of the site are proposed. CDS units and or clarifiers would underground detention cisterns. The cisterns will then be implemented upstream of the cisterns to reduce convey stormwater to a centrally located filtration system SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.138 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL DOMESTIC AND RECYCLED WATER PLAN This plan highlights the proposed main line routing for potable water, fire water, and recycled water lines in addition to buildings which would need these connections. The existing system is comprised of 8” water lines on (potable) water, and recycled water harvested from the through the year’s dry season. the northern and southern portions of the site and 3 capture and reuse system. The goal of the system is to existing fire hydrants. The proposed City Yards facilities rely on recycled water as much as possible and only use will be provided with connections for fire water, domestic potable water from the public system when necessary or PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.139 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL SANITARY SEWER PLAN This plan highlights proposed main sanitary sewer line routing and buildings which need a sewer connection. The existing system is comprised of an 18” sanitary sewer is to be protected in place. Building connections are to be protected in place where possible and to be relocated as line is approximately 15 to 20 feet in depth and runs main to the existing 8” sewer system serving the current dictated by the proposed site plan. through the site from Stewart Street to Michigan. This line buildings on site. This 8” sanitary sewer system is to be SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.140 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL DRY UTILITY PLAN This plan highlights proposed main gas line routing and buildings which need a gas connection. Record drawings show gas, electrical, fiber optic and relocated, or demolished as needed to accommodate the property line limits but it is assumed that there is a point telephone lines throughout the site and primarily proposed redevelopment. The only gas line encountered of connection along this line serving the site. concentrated near buildings, structures and site lights; sizes during research of record drawings is one shown along are not specified. These utility lines and conduits are to be Frank and Delaware Streets. The gas line is outside of PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.141 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL COMPOSITE UTILITY PLAN SEQUENCE A This plan highlights the composite utility build out for Sequence “A” SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.142 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CIVIL COMPOSITE UTILITY PLAN FULL BUILD OUT This plan highlights the composite utility build out for the entire project PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.143 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UTILITIES FIBER (Provided by CSM) SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.144 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UTILITIES FIBER (Provided by CSM) PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.145 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE SUSTAINABILITY QUALITY OF LIFE With enhanced quality of life as one of The Yard’s goals, the landscape must be inviting, comfortable, and accessible. BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE INTERFACELANDSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IMPROVES USABLE GREEN OPEN SPACE A balance between the built environment and the EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Whether for momentary seating, occasional conversation, outdoor experience through courtyards and green open A successful landscape design will integrate site elements group gathering, or simply as a green backdrop for both space will reduce day to day operational and physical visual and physical comfort, open spaces can improve that address topography and mitigate toxic conditions stresses of users, encourage walking between buildings that may be present in the soil due to the site’s prior use the flow of people and vehicles within the site and help and contribute to the overall health of employees. minimize noise. as a landfill and to its current use as a recycling and trash collection facility. The design will identify possible storm water management strategies with a landscape that improves soil biology and infiltration, uses storm water for irrigation and reduces runoff. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.146 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN INSPIRATIONS PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.147 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN CONNECTIVITY The open space should be a hierarchy, ranging from an urban village street set under the Michigan Avenue “promenade” to more intimately scaled courtyard gardens and pathways for employee and community access that meet at the core of the Landscape Buffer Park. The new City Yards should serve as a link between the Bergamot Station, Buffer Park, Stewart Park and residential communities in the Yard’s neighboring vicinity. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.148 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN Michigan Avenue at Bergamot Station LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN Visitor Parking Gateway Plaza LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK Stewart Street Michigan Avenue Park Linkage Streetscape Firelane Community Garden Gate Courtyards 24th Street Edge Delaware Avenue Frank Street SITE FRAMEWORK & LANDSCAPE CHARACTER The project’s Zipper Site Plan concept is the framework for typography. The landscape character will include design Visual continuity in the use of consistent color and texture developing the landscape plan.elements (hardscape and planting) that create not only 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444A a single strong identity for the overall campus but also and hardscapes will convey a coherent, organized The landscape design will create unique landscape characteristics unique to individual spaces within the character for the Yard. characters for the streetscape, site edges and open spaces site, whether as a portal to a plaza, a street parkway, a typology defined by the Zipper Master Plan framework. promenade, a pocket garden, or an enclosed or open Plant form, density, mass, type and theme will define garden courtyard. the landscape experience and strengthen the landscape PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.149 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN TYPOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE AREAS The landscape plan can be defined into three open space typologies: The Civic Green which comprises the Parking Plaza and Michigan Civic Green streetscape. The Yards Green which covers all internal open space, circulation, pedestrian paths, and amenities for employee use and those exclusively for the Yard utility functions. The Yards Green will include integrated bioswales and programmed areas within the employee areas. The Community Green which includes the Landscape Buffer Park and possible pedestrian paths that run through the site linking it to the public areas of the Civic Green. Community Green The Yards Green Landscape Areas: 31,264 SF42,994 SF1,165 SF OPEN SPACE PLAN SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.150 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE DESIGN Enhance the quality of life • within the site Connect the site to • neighboring civic and community spaces Create a distinct landscape • character to define the landscape experience Develop site amenities and • program elements that empower, educate and inspire THE HILL AND TERRACE CONCEPTS The landscape design of the site will explore two design concepts, namely, the Hill and the Terrace Concepts. Both of these conceptual plans accommodate the site’s slightly elevated topography in the Landscape Buffer Park/Southeast portion of the site and enable the harvesting of rainwater where possible. The use of the ‘rain cup’ integrates land forms to make maximum use of limited water while providing a canvas for planting and program amenities. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.151 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN THE YARD’S TERRACE The Terrace concept organizes open space and hardscape structure to create vertical gardens. Vertical garden new paved areas as walking paths and crosswalks. along terraces, creating linear bands of graded or stepped planters of varying heights will play with the horizontal planting within the open spaces. grade changes in a linear topographic composition.The design elements may include built-in walls and benches at grade changes and level platforms that accommodate a The terraces become vertical planters in the community The topographic composition of the terrace scheme may variety of activities for seating and gathering. garden designed to capture rainwater and provide also translate as horizontal paving pattern reads on the SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.152 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN TERRACE CONCEPT PLAN Bergamot Michigan Avenue at Bergamot Civic Campus Roundabout Visitor/Parking Drop-off Michigan Avenue CourtyardCourtyard Entry Plaza 24th Street Fitness Trail/Employee Paths & Bioswales Stewart Park Delaware Avenue Frank Street Stewart Street Park Linkage PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.153 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN THE YARD’S HILL The Yard Hill idea was developed in response to the yards character along the southwest edge to a more cultivated Landscape Buffer Park as the “destination” that links the topography that rises slightly at the SW end, and the east side area towards Stewart Park and then into the ‘Water Pathways’ of the future Santa Monica Yard water lower elevations meeting the urban street and adjacent mostly urban streetscape character of Michigan Avenue treatment program and the redevelopment of Stewart community park. along the north.Park. The Landscape Buffer Park will function as a ‘green’ transition between the utilitarian functions of the Yard and Organized by the contours of the land, the landscape The landscape design creates a land art form using the idea the neighborhood that surround it. Instead of a buffer, it is a gradient blending from most deciduous forest-like of a sculptured hillside. The long term goal is to make the becomes a shared space and a land art destination. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.154 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN HILL CONCEPT PLAN Bergamot Michigan Avenue at Bergamot Civic Campus Roundabout Visitor/Parking Drop-off Michigan Avenue CourtyardCourtyard Entry Plaza 24th Street Fitness Trail/Employee Paths & Bioswales Stewart Park Delaware Avenue Frank Street Stewart Street Park Linkage Community Garden PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.155 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER from Delaware Avenue and 24th Street. A pleasant ‘dead’ gravel and groundcover may be used as part of the MICHIGAN AVENUE STREETSCAPE: end road at the cul-de-sac end of Frank Street will help pattern ensemble. RRR/Streets/Facilities lunch rooms Promenade and Plaza to be created. Improvements such with welfare and safety, and we encourage streetscape are designed to spill into the Plaza for outdoor seating as new street trees, new sidewalk paving, biofiltration improvements implemented as part of the City Yards opportunities. system, crosswalks and amenities including lighting and project be extended to the new development of other street furnishings like benches, trash receptacles and bike INTERNAL ROADWAYS/CIRCULATION: adjacent parcels such as the new recycling center. racks. All planting along roadways, between parking, and LANDSCAPE BUFFER PARK GATE: along pathways within the site are designed to be within MICHIGAN AVENUE AT BERGAMOT STATION: Should relate to the function of the RR buildings and a vegetated swale as part of the storm water BMPs. Portal relationship to future development to include programs inviting community access such as composting Pathways are a combination of mostly natural gray possible driveway openings or crosswalks. and worm bin storage. New Yards entry and new Firelane concrete with joint patterns and accents of steel or wood and may include new garden signage. bridges to cross over natural or engineered swales. VISITOR PARKING GATEWAY: Plaza or Promenade is envisioned to be shared with the PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: future Bergamot Civic campus development. Part of the internal pedestrian circulation is a system STEWART STREET PARK LINKAGE: 24TH STREET EDGE: of ‘paving reads’ or paving on the driveway/roadway New green portal may be introduced in the future as material similar to a “street print” or stamped concrete Streetscape improvement similar to Michigan Avenue the Northeast entry for City Yard from Stewart Street. paving. The intent is to create visual cues for safe streetscape improvements suggested above.A pathway along the City Yard next to the park may pedestrian movement within truck and vehicular areas include an integrated bike path and pedestrian path SOUTH EDGE: and at the same time create aesthetics that relate to the that begins at the green portal at Exposition/Stewart New trees along site edge at neighboring mobile home overall landscape design. Street and terminates at the Landscape Buffer Park. The park and the Santa Monica Freeway to create a green pathways between the Yard site and Stewart Park can COURTYARDS AND POCKET GARDENS: buffer. The new planting will add green to the site’s south serve as a walking, jogging, or fitness trail for visitors and Two courtyards are identified along Michigan Avenue edges and create a more pleasant environment for the employees. A row of trees along this path that continues between Facilities buildings. Hardscape paving is recycling facilities on this side of the Yard. to the south edge of the site will serve as green buffer for imagined to be a combination of integral color concrete the nearby community and private residences. DELAWARE AVENUE: paving with patterning similar to the plaza and use of Streetscape improvement should continue from 24th wood decking (can be structural plastic lumber) over PLAZA Street as described above. steel framing. A mix of softscape material such as loose Opportunity for medium sized seating and gathering gravel or groundcover between joints may be used. BBQs FRANK STREET: spaces exist near the Parking Garage at entry to Rosie’s. are included in the park. Operable gate to Michigan will Streetscape improvement is encouraged to continue Built in benches are designed within the tapestry of allow connectivity between City Yards and the public. the paving and planting. Mixed softscape of loose SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.156 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE PROGRAM ELEMENTS INVITING PROGRAMMING The concept plan for the site includes amenities and private and public realm, and organize the flow of people forms: street promenade, rain garden paths, par course paths programs that improve public image, while empowering, and vehicles to create a pedestrian friendly environment for employee exercise, the garden education hill (a community educating and inspiring both users and visitors. that improves the visual experience and enhances public garden and resource center for information exchange, and Programming should invite community involvement, with health. classes) and gathering spaces for families & children. consideration of fitness trails, a dog park, community gardens and gathering spaces. The overall design will Designed to accommodate both individuals and groups, include elements that delineate between the private, semi- the open spaces are urban, garden-like and take many PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.157 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE PROGRAM ELEMENTS PROGRAM ELEMENTS TO INCLUDE THE Buffer Park that will showcase a natural play area the garden. intended for kids of all ages.• Outdoor Fitness - 2 Fitness Stations are identified FOLLOWING, PENDING SPACE AND FUNDING: • A Welcome Center - Overhead structure and signage with the Yard bioswales. Play and Fitness pads are are to be designed as the main portal to Landscape shown in the Landscape Buffer Park plan that may • Employee Garden Plots - Vegetable, fruit, herb garden Buffer Parkaccommodate up to 3 more fitness stations. in the Landscape Buffer Park • An Education Center - Intended to be an open • Bike Access and Bike Parking - If not within the • Residential Garden Plots - May be rented within the structure, with a roof only, integrated into the parking structure, should be identified or shared with Landscape Buffer Park. The Hill concept uses ‘rain cups’ Landscape Buffer Park and sited at the Park’s highest adjacent Stewart Street Park for bike traffic from the or mostly bermed and concave planting grades for grade level. This gathering area will function as a view adjacent neighborhoods. The landscape plan may garden plots. The Terrace concept uses a combination deck, meeting space and outdoor classroomallow space for bike racks at or near the Plaza. of terraced planters and vertical trellis planters (4’, 6’, • A Distribution Area - May be incorporated at the back • Civic Art Opportunities - At nodes and meeting or 8’ tall) similar to a small scale vertical farming of the RR buildings next to the Welcome Center for places in the Plaza and in pocket parks along Michigan • Campus Trail - With outdoor fitness opportunities and the City Yard Compost Exchange. This will be the area • Communal Tables and Related Garden Furnishing connectivity to Bergamot and Stewart Park where residents pick up compost materials for their - Includes built-in garden boxes for use in gathering • Dog Run/Loop - May be incorporated in the future home garden or learn how to compost.spaces in the Landscape Buffer Park or interior from Stewart Park connection • Firelane at Landscape Buffer Park - Intended to Courtyards. • Children Play and Family Area - An provide access to the Yard and the adjacent mobile • Drinking Fountains - Should be provided. Minimum approximately 40’ x 60’ of outdoor space is home neighborhood, the firelane will also function as of 1 at the public plaza, 1 along the path to Fitness planned to be incorporated into Landscape a paved temporary gathering space and pathway for Stations, and 1 in the Landscape Buffer Park. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.158 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN DESIGN ELEMENTS SUSTAINABLE PLANTING PLANTING MATERIALS for irrigation. brought in at grading. The new clean soil is assumed to add Planting materials and species should be regionally at least 3’ depth of new soil on top of the current backfill/ Anticipated water use distribution will be for 4,800 SF of appropriate, with the majority favoring the use of California landfill cap (if landfill is capped) and thus, elevate the courtyard and Plaza planting along Michigan and 8000 endemic and native species as well as low water or drought new grades between 18” to 3’ above existing grades. The SF of Landscape Buffer Park planting. Total approximate tolerant species influenced by the coastal climate. Plants highest point is intended to be at the Landscape Buffer water use is based on a 14 gal/SF/year average low water should demonstrate hierarchy and plant succession from Park ‘Overlook’/Community Gathering Space. This design use planting and some turf on drip irrigation: 192,000 gal/ arid to meadow to coastal and mountain regions. is based on information from the early site soil analysis and year. These quantities have been coordinated with available geotech information that there is an average of 18” +/- soil gray water to provide a net zero potable landscape plan PLANTING IRRIGATION settlement in the history of the site within the landfill areas. for the project. Planting irrigation should use reclaimed or recycled water from building “reuse” as soon as available or where Planting soils would require installation of new imported SOIL available and allow for the use of natural precipitation and topsoil for both edible and ornamental type planting A separate mitigation recommendation for removal of any site runoff for irrigation. A reclaimed water drip irrigation in addition to the new clean site soil. A minimum of 12” soil contamination is not included as part of the landscape system with monitoring (water meters) and weather-based deep organic compost amended topsoil is recommended design scope and should be addressed by the project soil controllers will be installed throughout including within the for planting area. Required soil testing prior to planting remediation consultant. Site soil in general needs to be 2 courtyard plantings along Michigan, limited areas at the and after finish grading will be a minimum of three soil amended to address any soil contamination issues that are Plaza and the rest at the Landscape Buffer Park. chemical biological testings at the landfill backfilled soil either present or may arise during the pre-construction, and at native soil planting areas. site demolitions, and grading phases of the project. Per Site irrigation is currently assumed to be from harvested U.S. EPA, 2003 24” (http:://ucanr.edu/sites/UrbanAg/ rainwater and storm water runoff. If cistern is used for New site soil is anticipated to be brought to site ahead files/197207.pdf) inches of clean soil cover is generally edible landscaping, the project would need treatment of any landscape construction and planting installation, considered adequate for gardening. However, site specific to meet agricultural requirements for edible planting approximately between 6 months to one year prior to site conditions should also be considered. irrigation. improvements for each construction phase. During this time the landscape architect on board should propose The project’s history of soil quality from use as a landfill Site irrigation may be phased simultaneously with site several cover crops for planting on new site soil or amended is also not covered within the landscape basis of design. utilities and other utility improvement scenarios outlined soil if final landscape planting will not be installed or if the However, the berming concept of both the Hill and Terrace by Civil and MEP/Water consultant. The main sleeving for soil will sit unattended for a period longer than 6 months. schemes are designed with anticipated new clean site soil the roadways or under sidewalks may include main lines PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.159 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANTING SANTA MONICA URBAN FOREST The City of Santa Monica created an Urban Forest Task Force committed to establish and maintain the city’s current and future urban forest and has drafted a Master Plan that outlines guidelines and strategies to address the city’s urban forest man- agement. The list of tree species and planting materials on this report pertaining to Santa Monica Urban Forest is extracted from the Santa Monica Urban Forest Master Plan document. The landscape design and planting selections for the City Yards should take into account this planting palette and begin the process of planting species selected from what is currently prescribed by the urban forest document. The recommended replacement species for Michigan and the dead end at Bergamot Station is Lophostemon confertus variegata. Other recommendations Platanus racemosa. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.160 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANTING SANTA MONICA URBAN FOREST PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.161 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE PLANTING The overall plant palette is created from California native species representative of the plant community of the region. The selected list of species is intended for reintroduction of California flora that will help heal the land by improving degraded soil, increasing soil recharge capacity and improving site drainage and the site’s ability to handle flooding. The list included in this report is not exhaustive and Acacia greggiiAcacia greggii shrub formAcer negundo Acer macrophyllum additional regionally appropriate plant species may be added or selected for final planting in addition to the plant palette list. TREES • Acacia greggii • Acer macrophyllum • Acer negundo • Aesculus californica • Alnus rhombifolia • Cercis occidentalis • Cupressus arizonica • Fraxinus uhdei Cupressus arizonica Alnus rhombifoliaCercis occidentalis Aesculus californica • Fraxinus velutina • Fremontodendron californicum • Juglans californica • Lyonothamnus floribundus • Platanus racemosa • Populus fremontii • Prospops gradulosa • Prunus virginiana demissa • Quercus agrifolia • Quercus lobata • Salix lasiolepis • Salix lasiandra Fremontodendron californicum Fraxinus velutina Fraxinus uhdeiFraxinus velutina • Umbelluluaria californica ‘Modesto’ • Washingtonia filifera SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.162 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE TREES Juglans californicaPlatanus racemosa Prunus virginiana demissaQuercus agrifolia Prosopis glandulosa Populus fremontii Quercus lobata Salix lasiolepis PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.163 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE SHRUBS • Adenostoma fasciculatum • Agrostis pallens • Arctostaphylos edmundsii • Arctostaphylos ‘Emerald Carpet’ • Arctostaphylos glauca • Arctostaphylos hookeri • Arctstophylos ‘Pacific Mist’ Adenostoma fasciculatum Agrositis pallensArctostaphylos edmundsii Arctostaphylos ‘Emerald Carpet’ • Baccharis pililaris ‘Twin Peaks’ • Caesalpinia gilliesii • Calliandra eriophylla • Calycanthus occidentalis • Carpenteria californica • Ceanothus ‘Concha’ • Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Yankee Point • Comarostaphylis diversifolia • Coreopsis gigantea Arctostaphylos glauca Baccharis pilularis ‘Twin Peaks’ • Dendromecon rigida Arctostaphylos hookeri • Diplacus aruantiacus • Dudleya puverulenta • Encelia californica • Encelia farinosa • Epilobium canum Caesalpinia gilliesiiCalycanthus occidentalisCarpenteria californica Calliandra eriophylla SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.164 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE SHRUBS • Eriogonum fasciculatum • Festuca idahoensis ‘Siskiyou Blue’ • Festuca californica • Galvezia speciosa • Heteromeles arbutifolia • Heuchera maxima • Juncus patens Ceanothus ‘Concha’ Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Yankee PointComarostaphylis diversifoliaCoreopsis gigantea • Lepechinia calycina • Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’ • Malosma laurina • Muhlenbergia rigens • Myrica californica • Nassella species • Rhamnus californica • Rhamnus crocea • Rhus ovata • Ribes sanguineum Dendromecon rigidaDudleya pulverulentaEncelia californica• Romneya coulteri Diplacus aurantiacus • Rosa californica • Salvia clevelandii • Salvia leucophylla • Salvia sonomensis Mrs. Beard • Salvia apiana • Sphaeralcea ambigua • Trichostema lanatum • Woodwardia fimbriata Encelia farinosaEpilobium canumEriogonum fasciculatumFestuca idahoensis ‘Siskiyou Blue’ PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.165 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE SHRUBS Galvezia speciosaHeteromeles arbutifolia Heuchera maxima Festuca californica Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’Malosma laurina Juncus patensLepechinia calycina Muhlenbergia rigens Rhus ovata Rhamnus crocea Myrica californicaRhamnus californica Nassella species SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.166 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE SHRUBS Ribes sanguineum Romneya coulteri Salix lasiandra Rosa californica Salvia leucophylla Salvia clevelandiiSalvia sonomensis Mrs. Beard Salvia apiana Umbellularia californica Trichostema lanatum Sphaeralcea ambigua PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.167 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE GROUNDCOVERS • Adiantum capillus-veneris • Arctostaphylos ‘Emerald Carpet’ • Arctostaphylos edmundsii ‘Carmel Sur’ • Artemisa californica ‘Canyon Gray’ Adiantum capillus-venerisArtemisia californica ‘Canyon Gray’ Arctostaphylos ‘Emerald Carpet’Arctostaphylos edmundsii ‘Carmel Sur’ • Carex pansa • Ceanothus griseus ‘Heart’s Desire’ • Dudleya caespitosa • Epilobium canum • Eriogonum umbellatum • Fragaria chiloensis • Monardella odoratissima • Polystichum munitum • Rhamnus californica • Salvia clevelandii ‘Allen Carex pansa Chickering’ Ceanothus griseus ‘Heart’s Desire’Dudleya ceaspitosaEpilobium canum • Salvia mellifera • Sedum Spathulifolium Fragaria chiloensis Eriogonum umbellatumMonardella odoratissimaPolystichum munitum SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.168 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE GROUNDCOVERS Rhamnus californicaSalvia clevelandii ‘Allen Chickering’Salvia melliferaSedum spathulifolium PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.169 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE VINES • Clematis lasiantha • Keckiella cordifolia • Keckiella ternata septentrionalis • Lonicera hispidula • Lonicera subspicata denudata Keckiella ternata septentrionalis Clematis lasianthaKeckiella cordifoliaLonicera hispidula • Ribes aureum gracillimum • Ribes sanguineum glutinosum • Rosa gymnocarpa • Vitis californica • Vitis girdiiana Lonicera subspicata denudataRibes aureum gracillimumRosa gymnocarpa Ribes sanguineum glutinosum Vitis californicaVitis girdiana SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.170 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE BIOSWALE PLANTS • Acer negundo • Achillea millefolum • Alnus rhombifolia • Aristida purpurea • Artemisia ‘Powis Castle’ • Carex praegracilis • Deschampsia caepitosa Acer negundoAchillea millefoliumAlnus rhombifoliaAristida purpurea • Eleocharis montevidensis • Fraxinus velutina • Heuchera max • Juncus patens • Juncus Carmen Gray • Leymus condensatus Gray • Mimulus cardinalis • Mimulus guttatus • Muhlenbergia rigens • Myrica californica • Platanus racemosa • Populus fremontii Artemisia ‘Powis Castle’Carex praegracilisDeschampsia cespitosaEleocharis montevidensis • Rhamnus californica • Rosa californica • Salix lasiandra • Typha domingensis • Venegasia carpsioides • Vitis californica • Washingtonia filifera Fraxinus velutinaHeuchera maximaJuncus patensJuncus ‘Carman’s Gray’ PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.171 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PLANT PALETTE BIOSWALE PLANTS, CONTINUED Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’Mimulus cardinalisMimulus guttatusMuhlenbergia rigens Rosa californica Myrica californicaPlatanus racemosaPopulus fremontiiRhamnus californica Typha domingensis Salix lasiandraVenegasia carpesioidesVitis californica SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.172 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN DESIGN ELEMENTS HARDSCAPE GOALS OF HARDSCAPE DESIGN: Hardscape will be designed to reinforce and establish the and concept throughout the campus for coherent design will be open. A gate will be placed at the entry toward and visual aesthetics. scale, rhythm, and spatial relationship between buildings Facilities. and the landscape using design methods like hierarchy Fencing should help delineate between the private, Streetscape lighting poles, vehicular bollards, pedestrian semi-private and public realm, enclosed or open, gated and repetition. path lighting and landscape lighting are anticipated to be The hardscape will demonstrate clear wayfinding and or fenced. There will be fencing (mostly porous) along part of the site design and amenities. Michigan Avenue Michigan Avenue much of which will be operable to allow linkages in circulation and movement throughout the Plaza, the 2 courtyards and the Landscape Buffer Park campus in order to define paths, roadways, sidewalks, openness to the community and better access for staff to may have evening use until sunset. The entire site will need the future developments of Bergamot. Gates should be garden paths and vehicle travel routes. supplementary lighting during early evening hours of the The design should convey visual continuity in materials provided at Franklin and Delaware Avenues for pedestrian winter season. and vehicular traffic. The Plaza from the Parking Structure PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.173 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN DESIGN ELEMENTS HARDSCAPE Within the site, the consideration of fencing, garden gates, pocket parks, plazas, the use landscape over structures, lighting, signage, and seating opportunities will together create a visually appealing and comfortable user experience. Opportunities should be considered to include civic art and informative signage that demonstrates the site’s history and educates visitors of the site’s bioremediation and storm water run-off solutions. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.174 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SITE SECTIONS ENTRY PLAZA Section A - ANTS A A Plan View PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.175 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SITE SECTIONS MICHIGAN AVENUE Typical Section B - BNTS B B Plan View SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.176 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SITE SECTION BIOSWALE Section CNTS C Plan View PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.177 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SITE SECTIONS COMMUNITY GARDEN Garden Section D - DNTS D D Plan View SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.178 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN 1 ENERGY MEP 1.1Energy Strategy Covered Parking ArrayFleet Building Array Parking Structure Array NARRATIVE 124 kW, 186 MWh251 kW, 376 MWh 369 kW, 553 MWh systems and targeting the use of renewable energy generation. Santa Monica’s temperate climate allows for comfortable working conditions to be achieved systems, which are electrically powered and limit on-site combustion. and Fleet Division, can be generated by the proposed covered parking solar arrays (Solar Array 1). This would allow all non-maintenance Street and Fleet Divisions to be net zero energy. If solar arrays are added to the parking structure (Solar Array 2) and the Street and Fleet rooftop (Solar Array 3), the amount of power generated will exceed all non-maintenance and workshop areas, allowing the whole site to claim net zero energy for these spaces. 1.2Building environment Shop and maintenance spaces will be naturally ventilated, through large overhead door and operable windows, for most of the year. This allows for ease of access and best utilizes the favorable climate. During particularly hot without the expense and energy cost of full air conditioning of the space. Gas- as required. additional rooftop unit for each building. These spaces will have the option of 1.3Path to Net Zero Energy Two photovoltaic arrays, covering around 10,500 ft2 and 7000 ft2 are considered for integration in the covered parking structures located along the south east side of the facilities shops. These arrays could generate around 186 MWh of power per year. This is at least as much energy as used by the crew be net zero energy. Once implemented the current construction estimates consider all PV arrays to be add alternates. Should they not be implemented the spaces discussed below would be considered “Net Zero Ready”. Additional photovoltaic arrays could be added to the parking structure and the main Fleet building on Delaware Avenue. These arrays could generate around 555 MWh and 375 MWh, respectively. Combined with the covered parking uses on-site, as well as all site lighting. This is equivalent to a net zero energy site, not including shop and maintenance areas. Covered Parking ArrayRoof-Mounted Array SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.180 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN MEP STORM WATERTOILET FLUSHING NARRATIVE Maximum 780 gal / day Phases 1 - 3A: 155,000 gal (Phases 1-3A) Phase 4: 52,000 gal Phase 5-7: 66,000 gal CREW SHOWERS CENTRALIZED TREATMENT HOLDING TANKDAY TANKIRRIGATION AND LAVATORIESSYSTEM (NSF 350) Maximum 1000 gal Maximum 90 gal / day 1000 gal40 gpm Maximum 285 gal / day + 200 GPM booster pumper set (Phases 1-3A) FLEET AND TRUCK WASHING Maximum 3946 gal / day 2 WATER package A. Storm water will be captured and held in 3 underground cisterns to be individually installed in conjunction with each of the 3 phasing packages. The cisterns are sized to mitigate 2.1 Water strategy a ¾” design storm, as required by the City of Santa Monica. The cistern for phasing An integrated centralized water treatment system will capture and treat the following package A will be directly connected to the treatment system. Cisterns corresponding water sources for on-site re-use: to packages B and C will be connected during those packages. Collected storm water • Storm water will be fed to the treatment system as capacity allows, to drain down cisterns at the • maximum rate, so as to allow more additional storm water to be captured. • Shower and lavatory greywater Water will be treated to NSF 35o standard and recycled in the following uses: supply to the holding tank when produced. • • 2.3 Water sinks • Irrigation tank via dual plumbed pipework. This strategy greatly reduces the amount of potable water required from mains supply. Fleet and truck washing water will be supplied to those facilities from the day tank. Due to the fact that washing water will be simultaneously generated and required, the irrigation will be supplied to limited, drought tolerant planted areas. The site is designed treatment system will respond at time of use to recycle any water collected. for zero potable water use for irrigation – please see the landscape section for more details on this strategy. washing water is not required. This will ensure drain down of the day tank, allowing any additional collected storm water to be treated and stored. 2.2 Water sources and treatment The centralized treatment system will consist of a 1000 gal holding tank, a 40 GPM skid- 2.4 Phasing package water budgets set for circulation of the produced recycled water. This system will be installed in phasing Figures presented below under each phasing package are not cumulative. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.181 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN Phases 1 to 3A: MEP See table below for all major water sources and demands, phasing package A. Mitigated hardscape area equals 7.58 acres. NARRATIVE SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.182 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN Phase 4: MEP See table below for all major water sources and demands, phasing package B. Mitigated hardscape area equals 2.5 acres. NARRATIVE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.183 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN Phases 5 to 7: MEP See table below for all major water sources and demands, phasing package C. Mitigated hardscape area equals 3.16 acres. NARRATIVE SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.184 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN Total of phasing packages: MEP See table below for all major water sources and demands for all phasing packages combined acres. NARRATIVE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.185 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN MEP 3 LEED Accreditation transformers to 208/120V and panelboards for electrical distribution within the buildings. Smaller buildings or building areas such as the shops- carpentry, paint etc will require local panelboards in each space to serve the loads in those areas. The project can achieve LEED Gold for individual buildings by pursuing credits under In general, 480/277V, 3-phase, 4-wire sub-distribution systems will be utilized to serve version 4 of the accreditation scheme. The LEED score card outlines potential and likely NARRATIVE site lighting, motors rated 2 hp and larger, step-down transformers and other equipment credits for this project. Many credits are inherent to the site, such as those pertaining with the same voltage class. 208/120V, 3-phase, 4-wire sub-distribution systems will be utilized to serve general power, landscape equipment, car chargers, telecommunications to storm water management. Other credits will need to be addressed in future design equipment, special purpose receptacles, motors rated 1.5 hp and smaller and other equipment with the same voltage class. 3 SITE POWER 4.4 Emergency power 4.1 Incoming Site electrical service The Corporation Yard has been designated by the City to remain oporational, which means that it must remain operational after a major earthquake event. As such, the It is proposed that the current incoming electrical equipment and supplies be demolished following areas are to be provided with 100% backup generator power: to allow for a new transformer and switchboard sized to accommodate the increased loads of the new site layout. This would consolidate the utility electrical supply to the site. • Facilities Management Building At this stage it is estimated that the existing incoming service to the site will need to be • replaced with a 2.5MVA transformer to consolidate the existing supplies and cater for the new development capacity requirements. Power would then be distributed to the All other buildings will have emergency power provisions per the NEC code requirements. buildings at 480/277V from a 3000Amp main Switchboard. The new transformer would be located centrally to the west of the future streets building which lies outside the zone The existing site is provided with back-up power from an emergency power system, comprising what we understand to be one diesel generator and associated automatic front and 3’ clearance to the sides and back, therefore an area of 16’x23’ clear space in transfer switches. It has been determined that the existing generator size will not be plan. Refer to electrical utility site phasing sketches. The proposed equipment sizing excludes the contribution of the proposed PV array 10, 480V 3-phase diesel generators with associated automatic transfer switches and fuel which could potentially be 265Mwh on an annual basis.storage systems should be included to supply the Essential facilities listed above - facilities will be provided, one at 35kW in the vicinity of the water services buildings and one at 4.2 Electrical Infrastructure Phasing power to the site and building emergency and standby systems required by Code, as well as additional Optional Standby loads. The generators will be sized to cater for the In order to keep the site operational during construction of the new development, it is envisioned that the new incoming service equipment including new transformer and systems, elevators and emergency lighting as necessary depending on building type and switchgear will be put in place during phase 2. The new transformer would then be in occupancy. Separate distributions systems will be provided to serve the emergency and place to serve the new buildings as they come online. standby loads on the development. Phase 1 construction of the Fleet building would be fed with a temporary 480/277V service to the Fleet building sized at approximately 800A maximum. The Fleet building The generators will be separately housed in sound-attenuated, weatherproof enclosures would then be transferred onto the permanent supply during phase 2 once the new electrical supply routing across the site has been established. taken to ensure that the exhausts of the generators are not located within proximity of The existing utility transformer on the site should remain in place for as long as possible in order to facilitate the switch over from the existing 208/120V supply to the new to meet the emission level requirements of SCAQMD. The generators will be sized to 480/277V supply. Subject to the exact location of the existing transformer on the site, accommodate 20% future capacity and will be furnished with an integral, steel fuel it appears that the demolition of the existing 208/120V incoming utility transformer will storage tank located in the base frame sized to ensure 72 hours continuous load duration. need to take place in phase 2 and a temporary supply put in place to feed the existing A permanent radiator-mounted load bank will be provided for generator testing at each facilities and custodial buildings until phase 4.2. generator. 4.3 Electrical Site distribution The current site utility distribution is highlighted on the KPFF Existing Utility Exhibit drawing, EX-01. It will need to be determined as to which, if any, parts of the existing infrastructure distribution can remain and be re-utilized with the new site layout. Further utility information and site surveys would be required to ascertain this. From the new incoming service, power will be distributed via underground feeder conduits around the site to each building at 480/277V. A main electrical room will be provided at each of the larger buildings that will house local switchboards, step-down SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.186 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.187 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ELECTRICAL EXISTING ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.188 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ELECTRICAL PHASE 3A New Electrical Site Plan - Sequience A PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.189 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN SEQUENCE B SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.190 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN SEQUENCE C PROPOSED MASTER PLAN JUNE 22, 2016 P.191 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION The team evaluated and com - pared the applicability of pursuing the ENVISION rating system or the LEED for Build - ing Design and Construction rating system. The project team concluded that both sys - tems are equally achievable, but is making the recommen - dation based on our research that the ENVISION rating sys - tem be pursued, as it is more suitable to the project type of the Santa Monica City Yards project. The following pages demon - strate the analyses that was run for both rating systems. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.192 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY APPROACH AND ASSESSMENT of achievement for each applicable credit is determined. The target credits are added up with associated credit targets for each credit, the table on the following page measures are primarily related to academic, residential value that relates to the achievement level desired and commercial-type structures. The ENVISION rating and divided by the total points possible for all of the that could likely be achieved. Using a conservative applicable credits. This determines the percentage of evaluation (illustrated by the red circles), the project for infrastructure projects was proposed as a more achievement: 20%=Bronze, 30%=Silver, 40%=Gold, and would be just shy of the points required to achieve appropriate rating system for this project. This system 50%=Platinum. the ENVISION Bronze level. By increasing the points targeted in a few credits, the team believes that a Bronze developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure The costs for the ENVISION program are similar to LEED level of achievement would be both possible and highly (ISI) with the support of the American Public Works with the registration and review costs generally being Association, the American Council of Engineering marginally higher due to being calculated on construction aggressive evaluation (illustrated by the blue diamonds) Companies and the American Society of Civil Engineers cost rather than square footage. Construction costs demonstrates that ENVISION Platinum could likely be and documentation costs are roughly in line with what achieved, provided that the resources to support those of this project. ENVISION was created to foster a credits were available. dramatic and necessary improvement in the performance dependent on which credits are ultimately pursued. and resiliency of physical infrastructure across the full dimensions of sustainability. During the Feasibility Analysis and Concept Design demonstrate the City’s commitment to sustainable Phase of the SMCY project, the City approved ENVISION as the most appropriate third party rating system for this project. The D/B team subsequently reviewed the one determines which credits are applicable. Those that study in the next phases of the project are recommended are not applicable are crossed out and do not factor prior to establishing ENVISION targets for this project. into the scoring system. Second, the appropriate level credits based on the likely development of the project. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.193 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION CREDIT MATRIX a range of possible credits based on the likely development of the project. The conservative evaluation is illustrated by the red circles and the aggressive evaluation is illustrated by the blue diamonds. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.194 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - SMCY CONSERVATIVE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.195 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - SMCY CONSERVATIVE ASSESSMENT WITHIN REACH SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.196 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - SMCY AGGRESSIVE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.197 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - SMCY AGRESSIVE ASSESSMENT SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.198 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ENVISION –SMCY (LIKELY RANGE) SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - ANALYSIS OF LIKELY POINT RANGE ACHIEVABLE By increasing the points Likely Range of targeted in a few credits, the Conservative Trial Aggressive Trial SMCY Points team believes that a Bronze NR -19%PLATINUM -72% level of achievement would be 129/693473/693 both possible and highly likely. Possible PointsPossible Points If higher levels of certification BufferMinimum were desired, the aggressive Total Applicable Target evaluation demonstrates that Envision Points ENVISION Platinum could likely be achieved, provided that the resources to support Evaluate Value 693 possible 0 those credits were available. of Achieving Higher Point Totals PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.199 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY LEED BD+C - SMCY SCORECARD The project team determined that the project can likely achieve LEED Gold for individual buildings by pursuing credits under version 4 of the accreditation scheme. The LEED scorecard outlines potential and likely credits for this project. Many credits are inherent to the site, such as those pertaining to Brownfield development, and some are required by code, such as those pertaining to storm water management. Other credits will need to be addressed in future design stages in order to accumulate sufficient points. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.200 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY LEED BD+C - SMCY SCORECARD PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.201 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY LEED BD=C - SMCY SCORECARD As previously noted, the project team recognizes the merits of both the ENVISION and the LEED rating system. It is our recommendation that the ENVISION rating system be pursued for this project SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.202 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PARKING STRUCTURE STUDY PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.203 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PARKING STRUCTURE STUDY PARKING OPTIONS SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.204 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PARKING STRUCTURE STUDY PARKING OPTIONS AB C D PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.205 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PARKING STRUCTURE STUDY PARKING HEIGHT COMPARISON SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.206 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PARKING STRUCTURE STUDY PARKING HEIGHT COMPARISON PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.207 JUNE 22, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION The team evaluated and com - pared the applicability of pursuing the ENVISION rating system or the LEED for Build - ing Design and Construction rating system. The project team concluded that both sys - tems are equally achievable, but is making the recommen - dation based on our research that the ENVISION rating sys - tem be pursued, as it is more suitalbe to the project type of the Santa Monica City Yards project. The following pages demon - strate the analyses that was run for both rating systems. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.190 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY APPROACH AND ASSESSMENT of achievement for each applicable credit is determined. The target credits are added up with associated credit targets for each credit, the table on the following page measures are primarily related to academic, residential value that relates to the achievement level desired and commercial-type structures. The ENVISION rating and divided by the total points possible for all of the that could likely be achieved. Using a conservative applicable credits. This determines the percentage of evaluation (illustrated by the red circles), the project for infrastructure projects was proposed as a more achievement: 20%=Bronze, 30%=Silver, 40%=Gold, and would be just shy of the points required to achieve appropriate rating system for this project. This system 50%=Platinum. the ENVISION Bronze level. By increasing the points targeted in a few credits, the team believes that a Bronze developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure The costs for the ENVISION program are similar to LEED level of achievement would be both possible and highly (ISI) with the support of the American Public Works with the registration and review costs generally being Association, the American Council of Engineering marginally higher due to being calculated on construction aggressive evaluation (illustrated by the blue diamonds) Companies and the American Society of Civil Engineers cost rather than square footage. Construction costs demonstrates that ENVISION Platinum could likely be and documentation costs are roughly in line with what achieved, provided that the resources to support those of this project. ENVISION was created to foster a credits were available. dramatic and necessary improvement in the performance dependent on which credits are ultimately pursued. and resiliency of physical infrastructure across the full dimensions of sustainability. During the Feasibility Analysis and Concept Design demonstrate the City’s commitment to sustainable Phase of the SMCY project, the City approved ENVISION as the most appropriate third party rating system for this project. The D/B team subsequently reviewed the one determines which credits are applicable. Those that study in the next phases of the project are recommended are not applicable are crossed out and do not factor prior to establishing ENVISION targets for this project. into the scoring system. Second, the appropriate level credits based on the likely development of the project. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.191 MAY 9, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION CREDIT MATRIX a range of possible credits based on the likely development of the project. The conservative evaluation is illustrated by the red circles and the aggressive evaluation is illustrated by the blue diamonds. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.192 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - SMCY CONSERVATIVE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.193 MAY 9, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - SMCY CONSERVATIVE ASSESSMENT WITHIN REACH SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.194 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - SMCY AGGRESSIVE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.195 MAY 9, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - SMCY AGRESSIVE ASSESSMENT SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.196 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ENVISION –SMCY (LIKELY RANGE) SUSTAINABILITY ENVISION - ANALYSIS OF LIKELY POINT RANGE ACHIEVABLE By increasing the points Likely Range of targeted in a few credits, the Conservative Trial Aggressive Trial SMCY Points team believes that a Bronze NR -19%PLATINUM -72% level of achievement would be 129/693473/693 both possible and highly likely. Possible PointsPossible Points If higher levels of certification BufferMinimum were desired, the aggressive Total Applicable Target evaluation demonstrates that Envision Points ENVISION Platinum could likely be achieved, provided that the resources to support Evaluate Value 693 possible 0 those credits were available. of Achieving Higher Point Totals PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.197 MAY 9, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY LEED BD+C - SMCY SCORECARD The project team determined that the project can likely achieve LEED Gold for individual buildings by pursuing credits under version 4 of the accreditation scheme. The LEED scorecard outlines potential and likely credits for this project. Many credits are inherent to the site, such as those pertaining to Brownfield development, and some are required by code, such as those pertaining to storm water management. Other credits will need to be addressed in future design stages in order to accumulate sufficient points. SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.198 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY LEED BD+C - SMCY SCORECARD PROPOSED MASTER PLAN P.199 MAY 9, 2016 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SUSTAINABILITY LEED BD=C - SMCY SCORECARD As previously noted, the project team recognizes the merits of both the ENVISION and the LEED rating system. It is our recommendation that the ENVISION rating system be pursued for this project SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPT DESIGN P.200 | 1.1 THE GLOBAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD THAT EMPOWERS SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOOD- AND DISTRICT-SCALE DEVELOPMENT 1 SECTION NAME Version 1.1. | 05.2016 ©2016 EcoDistricts TM This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial No Derivatives 4.0 International License. This license allows you to download the work and share it with others as long as you credit EcoDistricts as the owner of the work, do not modify the work, and do not receive monetary compensation or commercial advantage in exchange for your use of the work. 01 THE CHALLENGE HOW WE BUILD OUR CITIES IS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE OF OUR LIFETIME OUR RESPONSE 05 PUTTING PEOPLE AND THE PLANET AT THE CENTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD- AND DISTRICT-SCALE DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCING THE PROTOCOL A NEW MODEL OF URBAN REGENERATION: THE ECODISTRICTS PROTOCOL 09 IMPERATIVES PRIORITIES IMPLEMENTATION 17 WHO THE PROTOCOL IS FOR SUPPORTING A NEW GENERATION OF URBAN REGENERATION LEADERS HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS WE CALL ON VISIONARY CITY MAKERS TO DISRUPT THE STATUS QUO 21 IMPERATIVES COMMITMENT FORMATION ROADMAP PERFORMANCE ECODISTRICTS CERTIFICATION APPENDICES 33 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY APPENDIX B: DISTRICT ASSESSMENT PLAN TABLE B.1: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES, AND INDICATORS 47 HISTORY OF THE PROTOCOL: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 50 ABOUT ECODISTRICTS i CONTENTS ii HOW WE BUILD OUR CITIES IS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE OF OUR LIFETIME 2 THE CHALLENGE Our Cities Are Undergoing a Radical Transformation Around the world, cities are undergoing the biggest growth of the past 100 years. More than one-half of the world’s people now live in cities, a proportion expected to into communities. The number of district-scale projects is increasing at a record pace, infrastructure systems. THE COST OF GROWTH HAS BEEN HEAVY, HITTING NEIGHBORHOODS THE HARDEST Cities now contribute to a vast and growing equity gap — where the postal code a child is born into has a bigger role in determining their future than any other single factor. Worldwide, a number of complex issues are colliding: income, education, and health disparities that sit at the root of social unrest; blight and ecological degradation; and the growing threat of climate change. Here is the good news — there is a growing appetite for innovation as cities seek competitive advantage to attract talent and investment, embrace aging and historically disenfranchised populations, restore cultural integrity, enhance prosperity, and respond intelligently to a rapidly changing climate. NEIGHBORHOODS ARE THE SOUL AND LIFEBLOOD OF THE CITY Yes, neighborhoods sit at the heart of some of the most complex challenges facing city makers today. But they can also become the building blocks of sustainable cities. Neighborhoods provide a uniquely valuable scale to introduce and accelerate investments that can achieve profound improvements in equity, resilience, and climate protection. Neighborhoods are small enough to innovate and big enough to leverage meaningful investment and public policy. How we build our cities — from the neighborhood up — is the biggest challenge of our lifetime 3 THE CHALLENGE 4 THE CHALLENGE PUTTING PEOPLE AND PLANET AT THE CENTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD- AND DISTRICT-SCALE DEVELOPMENT 5 SECTION NAME 6 OUR RESPONSE The EcoDistricts Protocol For far too long, urban regeneration has been primarily about brick-and-mortar solutions to building and rehabilitating neighborhoods. The world of city building has drastically changed, and it requires a more diverse and more integrated range of innovative solutions to empower social vibrancy and restore ecological health. Success hinges on building robust public-private-civic partnerships to align leadership, improve cross-sector collaboration, and To foster a new model and era of urban regeneration, EcoDistricts has created the EcoDistricts Protocol: a framework for achieving people-centered, economically vibrant, planet-loving neighborhood- and district-scale sustainability. THE ECODISTRICTS PROTOCOL IS: • A TOOL FOR FOSTERING NEIGHBORHOOD- AND DISTRICT-SCALE SUSTAINABILITY. The Protocol is freely available and EcoDistricts encourages those interested in advancing neighborhood sustainability to use it. • A RIGOROUS CERTIFICATION STANDARD. global peer-to-peer learning network pursuing continuous improvement. than a prescriptive standard. District teams tailor the Protocol to local circumstances, set their own performance targets based on local conditions and aspirations, and measure progress against the Protocol Imperatives and Priorities. Appendix A INSPIRATION FROM COLLECTIVE IMPACT The EcoDistricts Protocol was inspired by collective impact, a collaboration framework for leaders to achieve large-scale social change. The Protocol calls for district teams to create a shared vision and common agenda, establish shared targets and indicators, foster mutually reinforcing activities and investments, and identify and support a backbone organization that orchestrates the work of the group. For further information about collective impact, visit www.collectiveimpactforum.org. 7 OUR RESPONSE 8 OUR RESPONSE A NEW MODEL OF URBAN RE GENERATION: THE ECODISTRICTS PROTOCOL 9 SECTION NAME Introducing the Protocol The Protocol is a rigorous sustainable urban development framework designed to achieve vibrant community outcomes. The Protocol puts a comprehensive lens on every urban regeneration decision, drives the delivery of meaningful performance outcomes, and sets the conditions for sustainable, collective impact. THE PROTOCOL IS STRUCTURED AROUND THREE CORE AREAS: 3 IMPERATIVES: Equity, Resilience, and Climate Protection 6 PRIORITIES: Place, Prosperity, Health + Wellness, Connectivity, Living Infrastructure, and Resource Restoration 3 IMPLEMENTATION PHASES: Formation, Roadmap, and Performance The Protocol is designed to inspire urban regeneration that: • Commits to equity, resilience, and climate protection. • Supports multi-stakeholder collaboration and governance. • Creates a comprehensive neighborhood- and district-scale Roadmap guided by sustainability performance indicators. • Reports progress with a commitment to transparency and knowledge sharing. 10 INTRODUCING THE PROTOCOL IMPERATIVES PUTTING PEOPLE AND PLANET AT THE CENTER OF CHANGE The EcoDistricts Protocol starts with an unwavering commitment to three Imperatives: Equity, Resilience, and Climate Protection. By embedding these cross-cutting Imperatives in all aspects of a district, the Protocol recalibrates our urban regeneration mindset by placing social, economic, and environmental sustainability at the center of neighborhood initiatives. Equity Cities that embrace equity identify and acknowledge the communities most vulnerable to change. District teams must ensure their community has the opportunity to meaningfully participate, lead, and thrive. Resilience Resilience is the capacity of cities to function so that all people are able to withstand the shocks and stresses they encounter. District teams must address resilience with a broad lens that prepares for social, economic, and environmental shocks and stresses. Climate Protection Cities are responsible for a majority of global carbon dioxide emissions, the dominant greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. District teams must build a pathway to carbon neutrality. 11 INTRODUCING THE PROTOCOL 12 INTRODUCING THE PROTOCOL PRIORITIES ACHIEVING MEANINGFUL OUTCOMES At the heart of the EcoDistricts Protocol are six Priorities — a set of six goals containing 22 objective categories that are used to scope Place GOAL: Create inclusive and vibrant communities. OBJECTIVES: Strong civic engagement; preservation and celebration of culture and history; Prosperity GOAL: Support education and economic opportunities that build prosperity and accelerate innovation. OBJECTIVES: Equitable access to quality education and career pathways, a robust employment base with increasing jobs and job quality, and entrepreneurial innovation and business start-ups. Health + Wellbeing GOAL: Nurture people’s health and happiness. OBJECTIVES: Active living based on walkability and recreation; equitable health outcomes environments; and strong public safety. 13 INTRODUCING THE PROTOCOL Connectivity GOAL: OBJECTIVES: A street network accommodating diverse ages and abilities using multiple travel modes and shared mobility options, and a high-quality digital network providing equitable connectivity and leveraged community data. Living Infrastructure GOAL: OBJECTIVES: Healthy soils, water, trees, and wildlife habitat; accessible nature; and natural processes integrated into the built environment. Resource Restoration GOAL: Move towards a net positive world. OBJECTIVES: renewable energy production that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 14 INTRODUCING THE PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION CATALYZING NEIGHBORHOOD- AND DISTRICT-SCALE SUSTAINABILITY Underpinning the EcoDistricts Protocol is a three-phase implementation framework. This framework sets the conditions for sustained, scalable outcomes that address the Protocol’s Imperatives and Priorities, and Formation Build the necessary leadership, collaboration, and Roadmap Assemble a comprehensive action plan of performance targets, feasible strategies for achieving the targets, and a schedule and resources for implementation. Performance Implement the Roadmap, report progress towards targets, and use results to strengthen performance and transfer lessons learned. THE ECODISTRICTS PROTOCOL HERALDS A NEW ERA OF CITY BUILDING FOCUSED ON EQUITY, RESILIENCE, AND CLIMATE PROTECTION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD UP 15 INTRODUCING THE PROTOCOL 16 INTRODUCING THE PROTOCOL SUPPORTING A NEW GENERATION OF URBAN REGENERATION LEADERS 17 SECTION NAME A New Model of Collaboration The Protocol drives this outcome by prioritizing collaboration. The Protocol is designed to support a full spectrum of neighborhoods and districts, both new and existing, including residential neighborhoods, business districts, institutional campuses, mixed-use projects, and redevelopment areas. 18 WHO THE PROTOCOL IS FOR SUPPORTING THREE PRIMARY AUDIENCES WHO ARE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN NEIGHBORHOOD- AND DISTRICT-SCALE INITIATIVES AND INVESTMENTS GOVERNMENT For municipalities, redevelopment agencies, and housing authorities, the Protocol is a comprehensive framework for neighborhood- and district-scale policy development, planning, and project delivery. It provides an important mechanism for measuring impact related to public participation, transparency in government, stewardship of public investments, and public policy objectives. CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS For community development corporations, community-based comprehensive framework for identifying and moving catalytic neighborhood- and district-scale priorities forward. It provides a practical approach to collaborative governance, neighborhood planning and assessment, and reporting progress to stakeholders and funders. THE PRIVATE SECTOR For real estate developers, business improvement districts, and institutional and corporate campuses, the Protocol is a comprehensive project implementation framework and global mark of leadership that complements existing corporate and environmental performance standards. It provides an overarching platform for shaping project governance, selecting catalytic investments, and reporting sustainability performance over time. 19 WHO THE PROTOCOL IS FOR 20 WHO THE PROTOCOL IS FOR WE CALL ON VISIONARY CITY MAKERS TO DISRUPT THE STATUS QUO 21 SECTION NAME 22 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS Inside the Protocol THE FIRST-OF-ITS-KIND, PROCESS-BASED STANDARD THAT EMPOWERS URBAN REGENERATION PRACTITIONERS TO COMMIT TO AND ACHIEVE THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF SUSTAINABILITY Embracing the standards within the EcoDistricts Protocol is a mark of neighborhood- or district-scale to inclusiveness, transparency, information sharing, and peer-to-peer learning. These elements are central to the Protocol. The Protocol includes a series of actions and steps in the following four areas: 01 IMPERATIVES COMMITMENT 02 FORMATION 03 ROADMAP 04 PERFORMANCE Appendix A. ECODISTRICTS CERTIFICATION embrace the Protocol. See www.ecodistricts.org for more details. 23 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS | 01 IMPERATIVES COMMITMENT the Protocol: equity, resilience, and climate protection. These are indispensable cornerstones process ensures their integration in the Formation, Roadmap, and Performance phases. Equity This obligation is an equity commitment that describes how a district will embrace procedural, distributional, structural, and transgenerational equity in district activities. Resilience This obligation is a resilience commitment that describes how a district will work to withstand environmental, social, and economic stresses and shocks. Climate Protection This obligation is a climate protection commitment that describes how a district will strive for carbon neutrality. REQUIRED ACTION: • Convene key stakeholders and collaboratively develop an Imperatives Commitment that details the methods for addressing equity, resilience, and climate protection in subsequent phases. IMPERATIVES COMMITMENT ENDORSEMENT: Districts must seek endorsement of their Imperatives Commitment within 12 months of registration. Endorsement requires the submission, and EcoDistricts approval, of the following: 1. IMPERATIVES COMMITMENT, using the template provided or an equivalent document. 24 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS | 02 FORMATION The Formation phase focuses on shaping the necessary leadership, collaboration, and decision-making conditions to align interests and investments, and ultimately enable and accelerate achievement of desired outcomes. This phase is also a starting point in exercising a district’s equity commitment by building a decision-making process that includes the interests of all stakeholders. COLLABORATIVE FORMATION IN THREE STEPS STEP 1: ASSESS READINESS Conduct an evaluation to determine whether a district is ready to meet the EcoDistricts Protocol requirements. REQUIRED ACTIONS: • Convene key stakeholders to understand the issues, opportunities, and organizations that will come together to form the district, and determine the capacity to collaborate. subsequent steps. • Prepare a community asset map that categorizes stakeholders and physical assets according to their location inside or outside the district, and their control by entities based inside or outside the district. STEP 2: BUILD A DISTRICT TEAM Establish a district team that emerges from Step 1 to manage the formation and implementation process over time. REQUIRED ACTION: • Form a district team of key stakeholders representing the district’s major public, private, and civic sector assets. STEP 3: COMMIT TO COLLABORATION Formalize the district’s governance in a Declaration of Collaboration that establishes a Initiate ongoing stakeholder engagement in district activities. 25 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS REQUIRED ACTIONS: • Identify or establish a backbone organization with the capability and necessary resources to support district activities. • C roles and responsibilities, establishes or designates a decision-making body, and describes resources that stakeholders will provide to the organization. FORMATION PHASE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: 1. COMMUNITY ASSET MAP, including a description of its preparation by stakeholders, using the template provided or an equivalent document. 2. DECLARATION OF COLLABORATION, using the template provided or an equivalent document. 26 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS | ROADMAP 03 The Roadmap phase provides district teams with a process to understand the district’s context, set ambitious performance targets, prioritize strategies to accomplish the targets, and set implementation milestones. It is a key phase for exercising a district’s commitments to equity, resilience, and climate protection as they intersect the Protocol Priorities. The Roadmap is also a key communication and leveraging tool to engage stakeholders, attract investors, and bind the district team together under a common implementation framework. ROADMAP ASSEMBLY IN THREE STEPS STEP 1: ESTABLISH CONTEXT Understand the district’s setting and location in the community, REQUIRED ACTION: • P identify contextual issues, and ongoing or imminent activities relevant to the Imperatives and Priorities. STEP 2: ASSESS BASELINE PERFORMANCE, SET TARGETS, AND IDENTIFY STRATEGIES Establish current performance baselines for the Imperatives and Priorities, develop future performance targets, and identify strategies to achieve the targets. REQUIRED ACTIONS: • Prepare a district assessment plan of indicators for reporting on baseline conditions, future targets, and ongoing performance, as described in Appendix B. • Prepare a baseline appraisal of current district performance relative to the Imperatives and Priorities using the assessment indicators. • Develop future performance targets using the assessment indicators and relevant local plans. • Identify potential strategies to meet the targets, and test the strategies with stakeholders to seek feedback and evaluate feasibility. • Prioritize feasible strategies according to target impact magnitude, funding availability, and implementation timeframe. 27 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS STEP 3: ASSEMBLE ROADMAP Assemble the context, assessment plan, baseline conditions, future targets, and prioritized achieving the targets. REQUIRED ACTION: • Assemble the context, assessment plan, baseline conditions, future performance targets, strategies, funding, and implementation schedule into a Roadmap, using the template provided or an equivalent document. ROADMAP PHASE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: the following: 1. A ROADMAP action plan, using the template provided or an equivalent document. 28 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS | 04 PERFORMANCE The Performance phase implements the Roadmap and gauges a district’s progress towards its performance targets. It is a uniquely ongoing phase of regular reports that are shared in the community, with results used to strengthen the district and support peer-to-peer learning. PERFORMANCE IN THREE STEPS STEP 1: IMPLEMENT ROADMAP REQUIRED ACTION: • Implement Roadmap strategies, including feasibility STEP 2: REPORT PROGRESS Track the district’s progress using the assessment plan indicators, and summarize the backbone organization status and implementation activities. Report every two years to stakeholders and the community to foster transparency, share experiences, and maintain momentum. REQUIRED ACTION: • Prepare and publish an indicators progress report, at least every two years, that describes the backbone organization status, implementation activities, and progress towards the targets, using the template provided or an equivalent document. HOW DOES THE PROTOCOL ALIGN WITH RATING TOOLS? There are numerous green rating tools in the built environment sector that assess neighborhood performance important district components to reinforce district identity, achieve design excellence, increase funding eligibility, or comply with regulatory standards. For a global registry of urban sustainability assessment and rating tools, visit www.transformativetools.org. 29 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS STEP 3: ENHANCE GOVERNANCE Ensure that the district continually improves its collaborative decision-making, celebrates successes, and embraces opportunities for improvement. REQUIRED ACTIONS: • Maintain a backbone organization and governance structure that provides leadership and strives for continuous improvement. • Ensure that success is celebrated, knowledge is shared, and opportunities to replicate PERFORMANCE PHASE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: been endorsed by EcoDistricts, and they possess two years of operating history. Once Performance 1. BIENNIAL PROGRESS REPORT summarizing the backbone organization status, implementation activities, and indicator results relative to baselines and targets using the template provided or an equivalent document. All Imperative indicator results, and a majority of Priority indicator results, must 30 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> REGISTER. www.ecodistricts.org. toolkits containing guidelines and templates to help teams successfully prepare submissions. 01 IMPERATIVES COMMITMENT. Within 12 months following registration, district teams must submit an Imperatives Commitment pledging to integrate equity, resilience any or all of the Protocol’s three implementation phases: Formation, Roadmap, and Performance. 02 FORMATION PHASE. adoption of a collaborative governance framework. 03 ROADMAP PHASE. adoption of a comprehensive Roadmap action plan. 04 PERFORMANCE PHASE. district’s achievements and progress toward targets. Results must improve biennially for all Imperative indicators and a majority of Priority indicators in order to maintain OUR COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY the EcoDistricts Registry that includes the district’s Imperatives Commitment, Declaration of Collaboration, 31 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS CERTIFICATION REQUIRES: 1. Progress Report every two years CERTIFICATION REQUIRES: 1. Roadmap CERTIFICATION REQUIRES: 1. Community Asset Map 2. Declaration of Collaboration WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF REGISTRATION EcoDistricts-endorsed Imperatives Commitment REQUIRED BEFORE PURSUING ANY PHASE OF CERTIFICATION 3232 HOW THE PROTOCOL WORKS SECTION NAME 33 SECTION NAME 34 APPENDICES Appendix A: Glossary Backbone organization. An organization dedicated to coordinating and managing district activities. Baseline assessment. A comprehensive, quantitative appraisal of a district’s current performance characteristics relative to the Imperatives and Priorities. Biennial progress report. A comprehensive report on the progress of a district Roadmap. with improvements in all Imperative indicators and a majority of Priority indicators. Carbon neutrality. District energy production and consumption, and carbon sequestration The multiple-phase process of certifying a district under the EcoDistricts Collaborative governance. A set of processes and structures used by communities to address problems that cannot be easily solved by one organization or sector alone. Collective impact. A framework for facilitating and achieving change, using a structured approach that brings cross-sector organizations together in a collaborative way to focus on a common agenda and produce long-lasting change. Declaration of Collaboration. A non-binding agreement that establishes or designates designates a decision-making body with decision-making procedures, and describes resources that participating stakeholders will provide to the organization. District. Generically, a subarea of a community with a distinct identity, character, and/or planning area boundary, equivalent to a neighborhood. For purposes of the Protocol, a District team. its core decision-makers unless and until the role is assumed by a backbone organization decision-making body. EcoDistricts. TM 35 APPENDIX A Endorsement. The EcoDistricts organization’s approval of a district’s Imperatives Commitment. Imperatives. Three critically important, overarching issues that must be addressed to attain neighborhood sustainability: equity, resilience, and climate protection. The Protocol requires granted, and Imperative indicator results must improve biennially to maintain Performance Indicators. Quantitative measurements that characterize district performance relative to the Imperatives and Priorities. Indicators are used to express baseline conditions, performance targets, and biennial outcomes for a given objective, e.g., daily vehicle miles traveled per capita is an indicator for the objective of multimodal travel. Natural capital. The stock of natural resources that communities depend upon for basic needs, i.e., land, water, and air. Neighborhood. A subarea of a community with a distinct identity, character, and/or planning area boundaries, equivalent to a district. Objective. A desired outcome in a group of similar outcomes that compose an objective category. A majority of objective indicator results must improve over a two-year period to Objective category. districts must assess all objective categories under all Priorities in the Roadmap and Performance phases. Priorities. The Protocol’s six goals: Place, Prosperity, Health and Wellbeing, Connectivity, the Priorities in the Roadmap and Performance phases. Program. An ongoing service or activity that implements an Imperative commitment or Roadmap strategy. Project. A one-time action, e.g., capital improvement, that implements an Imperative commitment or Roadmap strategy. Protocol. The EcoDistricts framework and process management platform for achieving leadership and achievements. Public spaces. Publicly accessible streets, plazas, parks, and comparable outdoor areas. 36 APPENDIX A Roadmap. The action plan prepared by a district to characterize district context, describe baseline conditions, set future performance targets, and prioritize strategies to meet them, including scheduling and funding. Stakeholders. Organizations based in, or serving, a district, including public agencies, private utilities, schools, community development corporations, major property owners and investors, civic groups, and religious organizations. Strategy. A Roadmap implementation measure, including one or more programs or projects. Toolkit. A set of guidelines, templates, and technical resources that support a Protocol implementation phase. Zero Energy Performance Index (zEPI). zEPI provides a scale for measuring commercial building energy performance. zEPI represents a fundamental shift in measurement of using a predictive energy model of building energy performance to calculate a “percent-better-than-code” metric. zEPI sets an energy use intensity (EUI) target for building type and is adjusted for climate. It is also the measure by which a building’s energy use data. 37 APPENDIX A 38 APPENDIX A Appendix B: District Assessment Plan An assessment of district conditions and trends is a foundational part of the EcoDistricts Protocol. The assessment underpins key steps in the Protocol process: • INTEGRATING THE IMPERATIVES INTO ALL FACETS OF DISTRICT PLANNING. Assessment is an opportunity to ensure that Imperative commitments are adequately measured by indicators. • PREPARING A DISTRICT ASSESSMENT PLAN. selecting indicators for describing baseline conditions and measuring implementation. • ESTABLISHING A BASELINE OF CURRENT CONDITIONS AND PERFORMANCE LEVELS. Assessment plan indicators are used to document existing conditions that become a baseline for measuring progress. • SETTING FUTURE PERFORMANCE TARGETS. Stakeholders set future performance targets, using baseline conditions and relevant community plans as frames of reference. • MONITORING AND REPORTING PERFORMANCE. Biennial performance reporting is a requirement for monitoring a district’s progress towards its performance targets. District assessment can be a process that builds team capacity, forms partnerships with other organizations, and engages stakeholders who know the district best. A recommended assessment planning activity is a stakeholder workshop that goes beyond the usual data collection challenges to ask what innovative data sources and techniques can be tapped to document issues and progress. ROADMAP PHASE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: District assessments must include at least the following: • BASIC PHYSICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL DATA, describing current land uses, population, housing, plans. • IMPERATIVE INDICATORS, for equity, resilience, and climate protection. • PRIORITY INDICATORS, including a minimum of one objective and indicator pair per objective category for all Priorities. These are minimum requirements, and districts are encouraged to expand the scope and detail of assessment to address issues of particular interest or concern. 39 APPENDIX B INDICATORS Indicators are quantitative measurements that characterize district conditions and performance relative to the Imperatives and Priorities. Indicators are selected at the outset of the Roadmap phase and used thereafter in the Performance phase to gauge progress toward targets. The district team has the following options for fashioning a locally responsive set of indicators: • Adopt or adapt relevant indicators already used in the community. • Use the illustrative indicators from Table B.1 directly, or as a beginning point in formulating • Adopt or adapt relevant indicators that appear in indicator databases at one of the following indicator knowledge hubs: - www.communityindicators.net/projects - www.neighborhoodindicators.org/ - www.sustainablecommunities.gov/indicators - www.dataforcities.org - www.iisd.org/measure/compendium • Adopt or adapt indicators in urban sustainability rating tools from the selection of tools at www.transformativetools.org. • Create new, custom indicators that take advantage of unique local data. BELLAGIOSTAMP EcoDistricts recommends that selection of indicators be guided by the Bellagio Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles (BellagioSTAMP), including the guiding vision of sustainability, adequacy of measurement. Using the BellagioSTAMP framework for district assessment can strengthen governance and improve accountability in setting and meeting targets. SOURCE: BellagioSTAMP 40 APPENDIX B TABLE B.1: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES, AND INDICATORS PRIORITY 1: PLACE CREATE INCLUSIVE AND VIBRANT COMMUNITIES INDICATORS OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVES CATEGORIES Each objective requires at least one indicator from the Minimum one per category examples here or from other sources. Mandatory Engagement processes are - Percentage of population engaged in public inclusive and representative.consultation processes (e.g., attendance rates, social media subscribers). - Demographic makeup of engagement participants. Civic engagement is strong.- Number of hours per capita volunteered annually by ENGAGEMENT + residents and business employees. INCLUSION - Percentage of eligible residents voting in most recent local election. Sharing programs are robust.- Number of sharing programs in continuous operation. - Percentage of households and businesses participating in sharing programs annually. Historic and culturally - Number of historic/cultural preservation projects completed and programs operated annually. preserved and celebrated.- Number of public art and cultural interpretive CULTURE + installations. IDENTITY - Percentage of population participating annually in Participation in cultural events cultural events within the district. is high. - Number of public spaces available for cultural events. Public spaces are accessible. - Percentage of dwelling units and businesses within a 0.25 mile (0.4 km) walk of a public space other than a street. PUBLIC Public spaces are high quality, - Number of activities programmed annually for public SPACES engaging, and active.spaces, including streets. - Number of people using public places daily, at peak and average levels of occupancy. - P maintained.- Percentage of dwelling units occupied. - Percentage of dwelling units in poor condition. - The district’s Housing and Transportation (H+T) Housing is available to meet a - Simpson diversity index score of district dwellings. HOUSING diversity of dwelling needs.- Percentage of dwellings meeting visitability and universal design standards. Housing is close to a complete - Percentage of daily essentials (e.g., shopping, civic, set of daily needs.education, recreation) within a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) walk of 50% of dwellings. 41 TABLE B.1 TABLE B.1: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES, AND INDICATORS PRIORITY 2: PROSPERITY SUPPORT EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES THAT BUILD PROSPERITY AND ACCELERATE INNOVATION INDICATORS OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVES CATEGORIES Each objective requires at least one indicator from the Minimum one per category examples here or from other sources. Mandatory Income and race inequality is - Household income and education levels. reduced.- Percent of population living below the poverty line. Schools provide quality - Graduation rates. education.- Absenteeism rates. ACCESS TO - Percentage of students advancing from one level to OPPORTUNITY the next. Career pathways and training - Number of training programs matched to district job are engaging residents.opportunities. - Percentage of eligible district participants enrolled in training programs. Employment opportunities in - Number and type of jobs created and retained the district are enhanced.annually. - Percentage of district residents employed at locations in the district. Job quality in the district is - Median wage. ECONOMIC enhanced.- P DEVELOPMENT Economic development is - Number of “local sourcing” agreements and programs encouraged.in operation. - Number of community-owned/controlled business formations annually. - Number and scale of businesses assisted annually by district-based support organizations. Interaction between - Number of incubators, accelerators, maker spaces, entrepreneurs is fostered.and co-working spaces in the district. - Number of programs, and enrollment levels, to INNOVATION cultivate business innovation. Job growth in emerging sectors - Number of district-based start-ups in emerging is occurring.sectors annually. 42 TABLE B.1 TABLE B.1: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES, AND INDICATORS PRIORITY 3: HEALTH + WELLBEING NURTURE PEOPLE’S HEALTH AND HAPPINESS INDICATORS OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVES CATEGORIES Each objective requires at least one indicator from the Minimum one per category examples here or from other sources. Mandatory Access to recreation facilities is - Percentage of population within a 0.25 mile (0.4 km) improved.walk of a public indoor or outdoor recreation space. ACTIVE Walkability is enhanced.- Percentage of street length in the district with side- LIVING walks on both sides. - The district’s Walk Score. Health outcomes and life - Average life expectancy. expectancy are more equitable.- Percentage of population with cardiovascular disease. - Asthma rates. - Obesity rates. - Percentage of population with health insurance coverage. HEALTH care is accessible.- Walk and transit scores of health facility locations. Toxic environments are - Number of days annually that air quality emission remediated and regenerated.standards are exceeded in and near the district. - Percentage of population living near an unremediated Public safety is enhanced.- Annual composite index score of crimes against persons and property. SAFETY The built environment is - Percentage of public spaces visible from a street. designed for public safety.- Number of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities annually. - Percentage of dwelling units with a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) food is accessible.walk of a fresh food outlet. FOOD Food production in the district - Area per capita used for food production. SYSTEMS is encouraged.- Percentage of households with a home garden or using a community garden. - Quantity of local fresh food procured annually by establishments in the district. 43 TABLE B.1 TABLE B.1: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES, AND INDICATORS PRIORITY 4: CONNECTIVITY BUILD EFFECTIVE AND EQUITABLE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND PLACES INDICATORS OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVES CATEGORIES Each objective requires at least one indicator from the Minimum one per category examples here or from other sources. Mandatory The street network supports all - Intersections per square mile or kilometer. travel modes.- Transit stops per square mile or kilometer. - Percentage of total street length with bicycle sharing. STREET The street network - Percentage of students walking to school and NETWORK accommodates diverse ages residents walking to work. and abilities.- P controlled crosswalks. District travel, internally and - Vehicle miles or kilometers traveled daily per capita. externally, is multimodal.- Mode split of daily person trips. - Household car ownership rate. - Number of “ transit stops. MOBILITY Shared mobility options are - Number of bike and car share stations. increased.- Percentage of population using shared cars and bikes annually. Quality wired and wireless - Percentage of residential and nonresidential users connectivity is available with Internet download speeds of at least 1 gigabyte. throughout the district.- Number of free Wi-Fi hotspots per square mile or kilometer. - Percentage of public spaces with free Wi-Fi. DIGITAL NETWORK Local government data is open - Percentage of local government services that can be and accessible for public accessed by citizens via Web or mobile phone. consumption.- Number of technology hubs for low-income residents to access the Internet. 44 TABLE B.1 TABLE B.1: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES, AND INDICATORS PRIORITY 5: LIVING INFRASTRUCTURE ENABLE FLOURISHING ECOSYSTEMS AND RESTORE NATURAL CAPITAL INDICATORS OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVES CATEGORIES Each objective requires at least one indicator from the Minimum one per category examples here or from other sources. Mandatory The quality and functions of - Area of functional habitat. habitat are enhanced.- Percentage of nonfunctional habitat restored annually. NATURAL FEATURES Tree cover in the district is - Area of tree canopy in the district. enhanced.- Number of trees planted annually. Rainwater is managed in the - P district.reused in the district. - Ratio of pervious to impervious surfaces. ECOSYSTEM The supply of healthy soil is - Area of contaminated land remediated for reuse HEALTH increased.annually. Water quality is enhanced.- Annual water quality index scores for surface water and groundwater. Access to nature is improved.- Percentage of residents within a 1 mile (1.6 km) walk to natural open space. CONNECTION Natural processes are integrated - Percentile 50-year rainfall event managed within the WITH NATURE into the built environment.district. 45 TABLE B.1 TABLE B.1: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES, AND INDICATORS PRIORITY 6: RESOURCE RESTORATION MOVING TOWARDS A NET POSITIVE WORLD INDICATORS OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVES CATEGORIES Each objective requires at least one indicator from the Minimum one per category examples here or from other sources. Mandatory Greenhouse gas emissions are - Annual tons of greenhouse gas emissions per capita reduced.from transportation, waste, and building energy use. - Number of electric vehicle charging stations. - Percentage of buildings benchmarked and measuring energy performance. - Improvement of district average zEPI score (or Energy Use Intensity) over time. District-scale renewable power - Percentage of annual energy supply generated from AIR and thermal energy are district-based renewable sources. produced. - Percentage of buildings connected to a district thermal energy or co-generation system. - A mitigated. - Annual air quality index score. Air quality is protected from pollutant emissions. - Gallons of water used daily per capita, indoors and outdoors. WATER Alternative water sources are - Percentage of buildings connected to nonpotable used for nonpotable purposes.water sources. Contaminated land is remediated - Area of contaminated land remediated for reuse for productive reuse.annually. - Percentage of nonhazardous waste diverted from LAND The residual value of organic - Percentage of organic waste diverted for energy wastes are captured.recovery or composting annually. 46 TABLE B.1 History of the Protocol: Research and Development engagement of more than 100 expert advisors, comprehensive roundtables, listening North America. In the interest of transparency, a complete report of the research, development, and engagement strategy employed by EcoDistricts is available at www.ecodistricts.org/protocol. We want to acknowledge the commitment of our Protocol Advisory Committee members the world. PROTOCOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Eliot Allen • Principal, Criterion Planners Brodie Bain • Campus Planning Director, Perkins + Will Matthew Blaikie • Senior Sustainability Consultant, EC Harris/ARCADIS Claire Bonham-Carter • Principal/Director of Sustainable Development, AECOM Matthew Bradley • Project Associate, Project for Public Spaces Mark Thompson Brandt • Senior Conservation Architect & Urbanist, MTBA Associates Inc. Alesia M. Call • Sustainability Program Specialist, Architect of the Capitol Erin Christensen Ishizaki • Associate Principal, Mithun Ray Cole • Professor, University of British Columbia Stan Curtis • Vice President, Business Development, Open Commons & People Power Mark Davies • Director/Senior Civil Engineer, SvR Design Company Ralph DiNola • Executive Director, New Buildings Institute Barbara Erwine • Sole Proprietor, Cascadia Conservation Bill Fleming • CEO, Toward Net Zero (TNZ) Caitlin Francis • Urban Planner, CH2M Richard Gelb • Performance Management Lead, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Brian Glazebrook • Senior Global Sustainability Manager, NetApp Alex Gold • Consultant, Elton Consulting 47 HISTORY OF THE PROTOCOL Denise Grabowski • Owner/Principal, Symbioscity Christina Grace • Principal and Food Systems Consultant, New Territories Don Grant • Executive Director, Ottawa Centre EcoDistrict Deb Guenther • Partner, Mithun Janet Hammer • Director, The Initiative on Triple Bottom Line Development, Portland State University Nicole Isle • Chief Sustainability Strategist, GLUMAC Charles Kelley • Associate Partner, ZGF Architects, LLP John MacArthur • Sustainable Transportation Program Manager, Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium Odetta Macleish-White • Program Director, Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. Rob Matteson • Managing Principal, Interface Engineering, inc. Jen McGraw • Climate Change Program Manager, Center for Neighborhood Technology Sandra Mendler • Principal, Mithun Jessica Millman • Director, Green Neighborhoods Program, National Resources Defense Council Christine Mondor • Principal, evolveEA/Faculty, Carnegie Mellon University Jim Newman • Partner, Linnean Solutions, LLC Wayne Olson • President, ADC A Development Consultancy Cameron Petersen • Clean Energy Manager, Metropolitan Area Planning Council Robert Ping • Technical Assistance Program Manager, Walkable and Livable Communities Institute Thomas J. Puttman • President, Puttman Infrastructure, Inc. Marissa Ramirez • Program Manager, National Resources Defense Council Dave Ramslie • Principal, Integral Group • Principal, Raven A + U • Director, CityCraft Ventures Kelly Rodgers • Yogesh Saoji • Senior Associate/Urban Designer, WRT Sarida Scott Montgomery • Executive Director, Community Development Advocates of Detroit Alan Scott • Principal, The Cadmus Group, Inc. David Taylor • President, Taylor|Future Solutions, LLC Melonie Tharpe • Ecodistrict Coordinator, Sustainable Atlanta Cameron Thomson • Associate Principal, Arup 48 HISTORY OF THE PROTOCOL Giles Thomson • Researcher, CRC for Low Carbon Living (Australia) Poul Tvermoes • Development Director, Parsons International Ryan Vanden Brink • Attorney/Member, Intelekia Law Group LLC Dan Vizzini • Principal Consutant, Carollo Engineers Andrew Waddelove • Senior Consultant, EC Harris Bradley Weinig • TOD Senior Program Director, Enterprise Community Partners Walker Wells • Vice President of Programs/Green Urbanism Program Director, Global Green USA 49 HISTORY OF THE PROTOCOL About EcoDistricts EMPOWERING JUST, RESILIENT, AND SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ALL Founded in May 2013, EcoDistricts is focused on propelling a new model of urban regeneration to empower just, resilient, sustainable neighborhoods for all. With hundreds of millions of people moving into cities around the world and trillions being spent to accommodate this growth over the next 30 years, EcoDistricts sees a major market opportunity to promote a range of neighborhood- and district-scale sustainability best practices that simultaneously address equity, resilience, and resource restoration. building a set of interconnected products and services to serve and support the growing number of urban development practitioners and policy makers who are responsible for building the neighborhood- and district-scale sustainable development marketplace throughout North America and beyond. HOW WE WORK BUILDING COMMUNITY EcoDistricts is committed to creating a network of urban development advocates and practitioners to build the cities and neighborhoods of the future that we need to thrive. Our Community program includes a suite of advocacy, membership, and sponsorship options that provide critical resources to power the EcoDistricts movement. Membership provides premium, lower-cost access to our Accreditation Training, convenings, and the EcoDistricts Information Exchange, a robust online depository of best-practices resources and Protocol-related tools. Sponsorship provides companies and organizations access to urban regeneration industry leaders and catalytic project opportunities. Our Ambassadors Program worldwide. EVENTS + EDUCATION EcoDistricts has built an exceptional reputation as a conveyor of innovative, diverse, and highly experiential leadership and educational experiences that convene some of the world’s most innovative, cutting-edge experts from around the globe focused on advancing neighborhood- and district-scale sustainability. Since 2012, over 5,000 attendees representing over 200 projects from over 100 cities, 25 states, and 12 countries have participated in our workshops, trainings, and annul Summit. 50 ABOUT ECODISTRICTS • SUMMIT. Our capstone event, the annual EcoDistricts Summit and accompanying Research Symposium draw urban development leaders from around the globe to propel industry best practices in a highly interactive, city-as-urban-lab experience. • INCUBATOR. The EcoDistricts Incubator is a three-day intensive designed to empower urban development Project Teams to accelerate sustainable district-scale projects forward. Held in EcoDistricts’ headquarters city of Portland, Oregon, world-class faculty and facilitators guide Project Teams through a powerful mix of presentations, work sessions, and mobile tours to support mastery of the EcoDistricts Protocol Implementation Model. • DISTRICT ENERGY+WATER ACADEMY (DE+WA). New for 2016, DE+WA is designed to engage practitioners pursuing catalytic, integrated infrastructure projects to sustainably meet their city’s ever-growing resource demands. DE+WA showcases the urban lab of Vancouver, BC, one of the world’s most aggressive cities in advancing a low-carbon distributed energy infrastructure to help them meet stringent livability and greenhouse gas reduction targets. • ACCREDITATION TRAININGS. Our Accreditation program is designed to help urban sustainable project development. Accreditation complements other industry accreditation programs, with an emphasis on the most relevant and cutting-edge neighborhood- and district-scale sustainability best practices. ADVISORY SERVICES direct experience advancing 16 local EcoDistrict pilot projects and 50 years of collective industry expertise in the areas of green building, urban planning, and community engagement. Our multidisciplinary advisors are positioned to help project proponents, policy makers, and project managers embrace and integrate the Protocol into projects, and to advance towards technical and advisory services in the areas of project readiness and formation, policy, governance, and project-based implementation pathways. CERTIFICATION + ACCREDITATION practitioners to achieve scalable outcomes in equity, resilience, and climate protection. that expresses a district’s commitment to transparency, cross-stakeholder information sharing, Without this level of exchange among peers, policy makers, practitioners, and our communities, September 2016. LEARN MORE AT WWW.ECODISTRICTS.ORG 51 ABOUT ECODISTRICTS TM www. ecodistricts.org 1223 SW Washington Street, Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 972015 USA Phone: (011) 503-863-2565 • Email: info@ecodistricts.org Add to 8-D 07/12/2016 Anne Samartha From:cristopher <cristopher1@myway.com> Sent:Monday, July 11, 2016 1:28 PM To:councilmtgitems Cc:p-n-a-board@yahoogroups.com Subject:Agenda Item 8-D/City Council Meeting July 12/2016 Dear City Mayor and Council Members. Why are we discussing the City yards @ 2500 Michigan ? The industrial Complex and pollution should not be within quarter mile of the expo line/ the new housing project at 2930 Colorado/village trailer park. The City needs municipal yards that they can be proud of and the costs go into the buildings and not the stabilization of 100 foot deep pylons the land IE: Built to last at Gold Le ed and Platinum quality standard Construction. The distruction of Stewart park in any way is a loss to the Neighborhood and the City as a whole which is can not be acceptable by your own stanards. I attended both public meetings and was restricted to 1 question only and was not allowed any further questions many other residents were allowed multiple Q&As this was not a proper public froum for all to partake.(I videoed both meetings and can show I was restricted to one question only) The maps used in this presentation are old and dont show train stations/ train maintenance yards/ bffer park under construction or Cancer reserach facilities/ the quarter mile radius starts at the center of a very large property which shortens the radius by one eight'th mile which removes many residential areas from the report most importantly the Village trailer park apartments which is the largest residential project in the City of Santa Monica for years. Move the City Yards to the Airport land, the new airprt park area is the right size already and then you have the old municipal yards for a new park whic is a perfect use for LANDFILLS etc. The Landfill is owned by the City of Santa Monica, all the trash in it belongs to the City, was put there by the City without the right to operate a landfill, this is the perfect opertunity to do the right thing and clean out the landfill and to build a better municipal yards and a better future for this fine City. I am writting this as a Resident of Santa Monica and as the Chair of the Pico Neighborhood Association and as a resident of MVMHP a direct Neighbor to the City yards and have first hand knowledge of the on going impact the City yards and old landfill has on this town. Please do the right thing and move the City yards to the Airport land and free up usefull transit rich land for a better City. Yours sincerely Cris McLeod 1 Add to 8-D 07/12/2016 Anne Samartha From:Belinda <belinda.vansickle@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 11, 2016 2:05 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc:cristopher; 'michelecole2@aol.com'; ken ward Subject:RE: July 12, 2016 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8DÐNO ROAD IN STEWART STREET PARK Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged 7/11/2016 Santa Monica City Council Santa Monica City Manager Mayor, City of Santa Monica RE: July 12, 2016 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8D—NO ROAD IN STEWART STREET PARK Dear Mayor, Council Members & City Manager, I am very alarmed to hear about the proposed street and parking space construction on the property of Stewart Street Park. I live at Mountain View Mobile Home Park, just adjacent to Stewart Street Park in a mobile home space within a few feet of the proposed parking construction. Mountain View Mobile Home Park is in a location already severely impacted by environmental hazards. It has been identified as being in the “Toxic Triangle” as classified by the Pico Neighborhood Association. This Toxic Triangle consists of properties such as the hazardous waste disposal yard, the City Yards, the recycling center, the regional dumpsite, the new Metro yard and of course, the old regional dump the park sits on, (that still outgasses into Mountain View and Stewart Street Park). We are directly next to Interstate 10, increasingly busy Stewart Street, and are now heavily impacted by the Metro trains. Our only respite has been Stewart Street Park. Neighborhood residents, regional team sports, the summer concert series, other events and local Metro users increasingly use this park. To add parking and cars to this park on the Mountain View Mobile decrease the environmental mitigation Stewart Home Park side would add more pollution, noise, traffic and crime, and Street Park adds to Mountain View . The map also shows the road and parking would eliminate the kids’ play area at the front of the park. I work at home and witness the fact that the play area is heavily used seven days a week, all year round by many community members. Right now, Exposition Park is under construction. If parking is needed in the area, add it there. That park is not directly adjacent to homes and people. Parking and cars there will not directly impact residents and will not add to the pollution, noise and negative environmental impact already suffered by Mountain View residents. Otherwise, put the additional parking on the northwest side of Stewart Street Park where the current parking is. That will not impact any current play areas and is adjacent to the City Yards and commercial buildings, not a residential area. (However, I still recommend the Exposition Park area. Stewart Street Park is well used and doesn’t need to get any smaller.) The City needs to continue to mitigate the environmental problems suffered at Mountain View, not add to them by We suffer enough. We need better air quality, not worse. We putting cars and parking just adjacent to our homes and air. need more trees, grass and plants to make our homes and lives cleaner, not fewer. This plan is not well thought out. Please do not put cars and parking in the planned location. We will be fully surrounded by Right now, we have some mitigation. This plan will destroy it. pollution. Please help us breathe! I have severe asthma and allergies. I don’t need any more cars right outside my window! Cough 1 Add to 8-D 07/12/2016 Belinda Van Sickle President Mountain View Mobile Home Park Residents Association 310-264-0338 2 Add to 8-D 07/12/2016 Anne Samartha From:mickey475@juno.com Sent:Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Agenda Item 8-D for mtg July 12, 2016 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged DearCouncilmembers: PleasedonotmovethecurrentroadonthenorthsideofStewartPark(GandaraPark)tothesouthsideofStewartPark. ThisproposedchangeshouldhavebeenproposedFIRSTthroughthePicoNeighborhoodCommunitywhichwouldhave engagedthepeopleinaconversationinsteadofsneakingitinthrougha1000pagereportandlosethetrustofthe residents. Thisparkisheavilyusedbyalowincomeneighborhoodandanychangesshouldhaveneighborhoodinput. Whathappenstothecurrentgasextractionsystemattheparkiftheroadismoved? Whathappenstothenumeroustreessurroundingthechildren'splaygroundonthesouthside? Whathappenstothechildren'splayground(slide,bars,etc)? Whathappenstothebasketballcourts? LASTLY,IDON'TTHINKAROADSHOULDBEMOVEDNEXTTOLOWINCOMEHOUSING. Thankyou MicheleCole 1930StewartSt.A9 SantaMonica,CA90404 ____________________________________________________________ AffordableWirelessPlans Setupiseasy.Getonlineinminutes. Startingatonly$9.95permonth! www.netzero.net?refcd=nzmem0216 1 Add to 8-D 07/12/2016 Anne Samartha From:MAC Gmail <mary.vincent.mav@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:45 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Agenda item 8-d city council meeting 7/12/2916 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dearcitymayorandcouncilmembers, RegardingtheproposedplanstorelocatetheroadatStewartStreetPark,IrespectfullyrequestthatthePico neighborhoodcommunitybegiventheopportunitytoreviewandcomment;andbegiventheopportunitytoparticipate indefiningandpreservingourvaluedgreenspace. TheVincentFamilyMountainviewmobilehomeparkresident(SpaceX4) SentfrommyiPhone 1 Add to 8-D 07/12/2016 Anne Samartha From:Christhild Andersen <christhildandersen@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 12, 2016 5:04 PM To:Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Terry OÔDay; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; David Martin Cc:PNA Board; Catherine Eldridge Subject:Agenda Item 8 City Yard and Configuring Gandara Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged PlanfornewCityYardandGandaraPark,StaffReportItem8CityCouncil71216 TotheCityCouncilandCityStaff, Whyareyoumakingitsohardtotrustyou???IfyouintendtochangeourStewartGandaraParkpleasebe openaboutitandinformtheNeihborhoodOrganisationandallNeighborsintheareaofyourplans.Tofind yourintentionshiddeninastaffreportandinamapislikeplayingunderthetable. WeneedanopendiscussiononthisissuethatisnotaCityCouncilMeeting,butinvitesresidentstoaspecial meetingdiscussingtheirpark.WehaveashortageofparksinourneighborhoodandinthewholeofSanta Monica.TocutoffagoodportionoftheparkespeciallytheĭŷźƌķƩĻƓ͸ƭplaygroundandpartofabasketball courthasanimmenseimpactontheneighborhood.AlsotoleaveasmallsliverofparkSouthofthenew plannedstreetandhavingparkingonbothsidesrendersthispartoftheparkuseless.Thewaytheparkisnow thechildrenplayingintheparkareshieldedfromtraffic.Allthekidsintheneighborhoodgoandplaythere watchedbyresidents.Youthatacertainagegotherebythemselvestoskateboardorrollerbladeorbicycle. IurgeyoutonotgoforwardwiththereconfigurationofourGandaraPark.Mostofthepeoplelivingcloseto theparkarehomeownersandpaypropertytaxes.Theyhaveagreatinterestintheparkandneedtohavea sayinanychanges.Pleasearrangeapublicmeetingtodiscusstheparkbeforeyoumakeanydecisionsthat willaffectourneighborhood.ThePicoNeighborhoodAssociationneedstobeinformedandinvitedtothe meeting. Ifyouwantustotrustyoupleaseinformresidentsofyourplansandintentions.IguesstheresultsoftheLuve Intiativestillhasnottoldyouthatresidentswanttohaveasaybeforeyoumakeanydecisionsthataffects theirlifeinthecity. Ifthiswouldbeyourneighborhoodandyourparkhowwouldyoufeel?Asmostofyouliveinmoreinfluential neighborhoodsIguessyoucarelittleaboutourareaandourpark. PleasenoplanofchangingGandaraParktilltheneighborhoodhasasayinit.Ialsosuspecttheremaybea plantoconnectwithMichiganAve.togivedevelopmentsonBergamotStationaccesstoStewartSt. OurneighborhoodshouldbeprotectedfrommoretrafficasStewartisalreadyverycongestedandwedonot wantmorepeoplecuttingthroughourneighborhoodtoCentinela. PleasegiveusthatchancetogiveourinputandholdanychangestoGandaraPark With best regards, Christel Andersen 1 Add to 8-D 07/12/2016 Ms. Christel Andersen Email: Christhildandersen@yahoo.com 2 wĻŅĻƩĻƓĭĻʹ ModifyAgreementNo.10145 (CCS)