with support from - · pdf [email protected] programación del proyecto:...

SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility

Compilation of Project Materials

Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study

NOVEMBER 2016

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

WITH SUPPORT FROM:

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Contents

Project Fact Sheet ..................................................................................................................... 3

Public Outreach Plan ................................................................................................................. 6

Summary of Public Outreach Results ....................................................................................... 11

Kickoff Meeting (June 17, 2015) Presentation Slides ............................................................... 14

Neighborhood Assessment ...................................................................................................... 30

Design Review Meeting (December 16, 2015) Presentation Slides .......................................... 34

Cap Park Design Concept: Plan & Section Views .................................................................... 45

Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimates .................................................................................... 48

Planning-Level Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate ....................................................... 53

Open House Meeting (September 27, 2016) Presentation Slides............................................. 55

SR 94 Cap Park Brochure ........................................................................................................ 68

SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016

Project Fact Sheet





Project Fact Sheet

Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study

SDCaltransSANDAG

Caltrans District 11SANDAGregion

SDCaltransSANDAGregion

What is a Freeway Cap?Freeway caps (also called decks) can enable additional uses for land already dedicated to transportation facilities. Freeway caps can be used to to create new parks in urban areas where vacant land is scarce and dense development exists adjacent to freeways.

What is this study?Caltrans District 11, in coordination with SANDAG and the City of San Diego Planning Department, are working with a consultant team to study recent developments and best practices for freeway caps, along with potential pros, cons and funding sources.

The study will:• Assess the best practices of freeway cap

projects.• Engage the community—including Golden Hill,

Grant Hill, and Sherman Heights—to develop a vision that considers both the opportunities and challenges for a cap over State Route 94.

Project Manager:Chris Schmidt, Caltrans District 11(619)[email protected]

Project Schedule:

June 17, 2015Community kick-off meeting

Summer 2015Information gathering

Fall 2015Design workshops

Spring 2016Conclusion of study

andfinalrecommendations

More Information:Project Website http://bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy

Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study Cap Park Concept ASeptember 18, 2015

0’ 50’ 100’North

24th

Str

eet

SR 94

22nd

Str

eet

25th

Str

eet

SR 94

TREE LINED PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE “STREET”

TO NEIGHBORHOODS

TO NEIGHBORHOODS TO COMMERCIAL AREAS

TO BALBOA PARK ANDCOMMERCIAL AREAS

ACTIVE USES

PASSIVE USES - “TERRACED”

PASSIVE USES

ACTIVE USES (PLAYGROUNDS)

ACTIVE USES- SPORTS FIELDS

POTENTIAL PARKING

POTENTIAL PARKINGPOTENTIAL PARKING

POTENTIAL PARKING

PEDESTRIAN “SPINE” CONNECTS ALL USES

ENTRY SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING

ACTIVE USES

VIEWS

ENHANCED FRONTAGE STREET

BIKE LANES

HIGH-ACTIVITY CORRIDOR

F Street

G Street

PHASE 3 PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study Cap Park Concept BSeptember 18, 2015

0’ 50’ 100’North

24th

Str

eet

SR 94

22nd

Str

eet

25th

Str

eet

SR 94


TRANSIT STOP

ENTRYPLAZA

TO NEIGHBORHOODS


TO BALBOA PARK AND COMMERCIAL AREAS


ACTIVE USES

COMMUNITY GATHERINGSPACE AND VIEWING LAWN

PASSIVE USES

NATIVE SPECIESGARDEN

EVENT PLAZA

ACTIVE USES

ACTIVE USES/PLAYGROUNDS


“WOVEN” PATHWAYS

POTENTIAL PARKING


POTENTIAL PARKING


BIKE LANES

F Street

G Street


VIEWS

Resumen de Datos del Proyecto

Las Mejores Prácticas en Cubiertas de Autopistas& Estudio del Parque sobre la Cubierta de la SR94

SDCaltransSANDAG



Qué es una Cubierta de Autopista?Las cubiertas de autopistas (“freeway cap”) pueden permitir usos adicionales del área ya dedicada a las instalaciones asociadas con el transporte. Las cubiertas de autopistas tienen particularmente sentido como un medio para crear nuevos parques en zonas urbanas donde la tierra disponible es escasa y en donde ya existe un desarrollo muy denso en las áreas adyacentes a las autopistas.

En qué consiste este estudio? • ElDistrito11deCaltrans,encoordinaciónconSANDAGyelDepartamentodePlanificacióndelaCiudad

de San Diego, están trabajando con un equipo consultor para estudiar las mejores prácticas y desarrollos recientes para las cubiertas de autopistas, así como de los riesgos potenciales y de las fuentes de financiamiento.

• El estudio evaluará las mejores prácticas de proyectos de cubiertas en autopistas, e involucrará a la

comunidad –incluyendo Golden Hill, Grant Hill, and Sherman Hights- para desarrollar una visión que considere tanto las oportunidades como los desafíos para la cubierta sobre la Ruta Estatal 94.

Gerente del Proyecto:Chris Schmidt, Caltrans Distrito 11(619)[email protected]

Programación del Proyecto:

Junio 17, 2015Reunión Inicial de la Comunidad

Verano 2015Recopilación de Información

Otoño 2015Talleres de Diseño

Primavera 2016Conclusióndelestudioyrecomendacionesfinales

Para mayor información:Sitio web del Proyecto: http://bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy

Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study Cap Park Concept ASeptember 18, 2015

0’ 50’ 100’North

24th

Str

eet

SR 94

22nd

Str

eet

25th

Str

eet

SR 94


TO NEIGHBORHOODS


TO BALBOA PARK ANDCOMMERCIAL AREAS

ACTIVE USES

PASSIVE USES - “TERRACED”

PASSIVE USES

ACTIVE USES (PLAYGROUNDS)


POTENTIAL PARKING


POTENTIAL PARKING

PEDESTRIAN “SPINE” CONNECTS ALL USES

ENTRY SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING

ACTIVE USES

VIEWS


BIKE LANES


F Street

G Street


Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study Cap Park Concept BSeptember 18, 2015

0’ 50’ 100’North

24th

Str

eet

SR 94

22nd

Str

eet

25th

Str

eet

SR 94


TRANSIT STOP

ENTRYPLAZA

TO NEIGHBORHOODS


TO BALBOA PARK AND COMMERCIAL AREAS


ACTIVE USES

COMMUNITY GATHERINGSPACE AND VIEWING LAWN

PASSIVE USES

NATIVE SPECIESGARDEN

EVENT PLAZA

ACTIVE USES

ACTIVE USES/PLAYGROUNDS


“WOVEN” PATHWAYS

POTENTIAL PARKING


POTENTIAL PARKING


BIKE LANES

F Street

G Street


VIEWS

Public Outreach Plan

6





Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Park Cap Study Public Outreach Plan

This draft public outreach plan, last updated in September 2015, summarizes the broad outreach activities conducted during the project.

Schedule of Outreach Meetings

Meeting #1: Stakeholder Working Group Interviews (June 2015) Stakeholder interviews provide opportunities to meet with key stakeholders one-on-one and gain insight on their perspective, specific objectives or concerns regarding the project. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:

Meet one-on-one, or in small group format with the stakeholder working group members over the course of a day to gather input on their priorities for the project and the community, identify potential individual issues/questions

Provide a summary of the interviews to SANDAG.

Meeting #2: Kick Off /Evening Public Open House (June 2015) The first meeting will introduce the project (process, goals, etc.) and provide a forum to gather initial input from the general public. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:

Deliver a presentation to explain project process, project goals and desired outcomes.

Break the assembled audience into groups facilitated by team members and SANDAG staff (if desired) to gather public input, solicit recommendations, record concerns and answer questions in a small-group format ( use maps and large post it pads to record information).

Close with a summary of shared issues and concerns, along with a recap of the goals and objectives, project schedule and upcoming events.

Debrief with City and SANDAG immediately following the meeting.

Figure 1: Public Outreach Plan Process

Meeting 1:Stakeholder Interviews• Goals &

Objectives• Issues &

Opportunities

Meeting 2: Kick off• Introduction• Goals &

Objectives• Issues &

Opportunities

Meeting 3:Stakeholder Site Walk• Issues &

Opportunities

Meeting 4:Pop-ups• Review

Concept Alternatives

Meeting 5: Stakeholder Design Review• Review

Concept Alternatives & Community Inputs

Meeting 6:Open House• Preferred

Alternative

Neighborhood Profile

Develop Base Map

Develop Concept

Alternatives

Review Concept

Alternatives

Refine Concept

Alternatives

Preferred Alternative

Ou

trea

ch

Des

ign

7


Meeting #3: Site Visit with Stakeholder Working Group (July 2015) Parsons Brinckerhoff proposes using the site visit to photo-document the project area and enhance our understanding of community context and opportunities and challenges specific to the site. This information will be included as part of the existing conditions materials. To accomplish this, our site visit will be structured as an active “site walk.” The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:

Meet with stakeholders working group to discuss the purpose of the site walk and desired outcome of the site walk.

Provide participants a site visit kit in paper and electronic format at the start of the site walk that includes an aerial map and comment sheet. During the site walk team members will interact with stakeholders to identify key opportunities, constraints, environmental, social and economic factors that could influence the project.

(Optional) Employ the electronic site visit tool called eAudit, which enables users to provide input online using a smart phone, tablet or any computer with internet access. This will allow us to gain input from more members of the community on their time and at their leisure. The consultant team will introduce group to the tool, and we propose using electronic mailing lists to reach out to the broader community.

Conclude the site walk with a gathering of the participants to summarize key topics, ideas and community expectations for the project.

Meeting Group #4: Pop-up Outreach (September-October 2015) The objective of the pop-up outreach events is to engage the community in the design process of the park cap concept: What elements might it contain? What connections to the community are desired? What park uses (active, passive, etc.) might work well or be challenging? What, if any, commercial uses or sustainability opportunities might be considered? From this process a number of community-driven ideas will emerge and key opportunities and challenges will be discussed.

Two design alternatives, with a Phase 1 that includes only a pedestrian/bike bridge, will be developed to inform the discussion. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:

Send the concepts to the Stakeholder Working Group via email (at their request)

Conduct four “pop-up” outreach events, two in each community:

o Sun 9/20/2015 – Hispanic Heritage Month Festival, Sherman Heights

o Sat 9/26/2015 – Golden Hill Farmers Market

o Sat 10/10/2015 – Golden Hill Farmers Market

o Sat 10/31/2015 – Dia de Los Muertos, Sherman Heights

Staff the pop-up events in Sherman Heights with Spanish translators.

Provide multiple ways for the community to give feedback, including:

o Comment cards

8


o Park “puzzle”

o “Design your own park from scratch”

o Optionally, any park “puzzle” or “design your own park from scratch” could be posted on the Caltrans or SANDAG social media accounts by agency staff

Produce a large poster/banner to be posted at a high-activity location in each community. The poster will illustrate the design concepts and provide a link to the project website.

Meeting #5: Stakeholder Working Group Design Review (Late 2015) Following the pop-up events, we will convene the Stakeholder Working Group once more for a brief meeting to review the public comments received on the design concepts, and to obtain specific feedback from the stakeholders themselves. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:

Present a summary of public comments received at the pop-up events;

Solicit specific feedback on the design concepts (if needed); and

Review next steps, including the public open house and the post-study implementation process.

Meeting #6: Open House to View Final Preferred Concept Alternative(s) (Mid 2016) Using input from the open house, the Parsons Brinckerhoff team will further refine the concept alternatives into a reduced set of preferred alternative(s). We will bring these preferred alternative(s) to SANDAG for review, follow with the focus group, and subsequently synthesize that input in order to refine them for use in meeting #6. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:

Present a brief overview of the project process that led to the preferred alternative(s);

Present the final preferred concept alternative(s) along with any benefits or constraints; and

Discuss next steps, including planning, design, construction and funding opportunities.

Project Fact Sheet

The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will produce a project fact sheet—to be updated twice during the study—for distribution via physical and electronic means.

Online Engagement Process

The Online Engagement Strategy is intended to encourage ongoing public participation, facilitate timely information exchange, and maximize the impact of the study in the community.

9


Project Website The project website, hosted by Caltrans, will be the central location for project materials. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will work with Caltrans to develop and post content and periodic updates.

Email List Working with Caltrans, SANDAG, and City of San Diego staff, the Parsons Brinckerhoff team will maintain an email list of interested parties, which will be used to share project materials and provide periodic updates on the study progress. The list will include Stakeholder Working Group members, various community groups, and any members of the public who have provided their email address to the study (e.g, on comment cards, meeting sign-in sheets, etc.).

Social Media The study will utilize both Caltrans and SANDAG social media accounts (generally Facebook and Twitter) to promote the study. Social media will be used to:

Advertise outreach events.

Distribute project materials (e.g. fact sheet, design concepts).

Engage new community members who have not been reached via other means.

Create an additional forum for public comment and conversation.

Working with the Caltrans and SANDAG Public Information Officers, the Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:

Suggest social media posts 3-5 days in advance of desired posting date.

Contact City Council D3 & D8 staff to request they share or “retweet” posts.

Monitor and document comments received via social media.

(Optional) Video Production Working with Caltrans video production staff, the Parsons Brinckerhoff team may explore options for producing short video clips on the study. Caltrans would be expected to provide all video production resources. Potential topics include:

Coverage of public kick-off meeting.

Coverage of pop-up outreach events.

Coverage of pubic open house event.

Interviews with various experts or community leaders.

10


Summary of Public Outreach Results

11





Caltrans District 11, in coordination with SANDAG and the City of San Diego Planning Department, has engaged in a number of public outreach efforts to gain input on a proposed freeway cap park over SR 94. The purpose of this outreach was to share the proposal and potential design concepts, and gain insight about park features the public would like to see, should this park be developed in the future.

SDCaltransSANDAG



More Information:Project Websitehttp://bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy

Project Manager:Chris Schmidt, Caltrans District 11

(619)[email protected]

SR 94 CAP PARK STUDYSummary of Public Outreach

The public was engaged in a number of ways from Summer through Fall 2015

Kick-off workshop – 35 people

Hispanic Heritage Festival – 48 people

Golden Hill Farmers Market #1 – 23 people

Golden Hill Farmers Market #2 – 28 people

Dia de los Muertos Festival – 41 people

Project website – 363 people

Social media – 90 peopleI want the park to stay true to the culture and historic character of Sherman Heights and Golden Hill.Keep it simple, with event space

and lots of open space.

503

259

61 70169

951

OPEN/PLAY/ GATHERING AREA

ACTIVE/SPORTS/FACILITIES

DOG PARK FOOD/VENDING TRANSPORTATIONFACILITIES

BUILDING STRUCTURES

OTHER

SR 94 CAP PARK STUDYSummary of Public Outreach

Open space/lawn

Benches/picnic area

Free Wifi

Shade trees/structures

Community event space

Security

Park Amenity Preferences

Community Priorities

SDCaltransSANDAG






Kickoff Meeting June 17, 2015:

Presentation Slides

14





Freeway Cap Best Practices andSR 94 Cap Park Study

June 17, 2015

Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study

Background & Purpose of Study

• Assess the best practices of freeway cap projects, and

• Engage the community to develop a vision that considers both the opportunities and challenges for a cap over SR 94.

15



Stakeholder Working Group Role

• Stay involved in the study throughout• Bring community perspective and

insights• Act as a conduit to the communities in

which they live to share progress on the study

• Help shape the outcome and next steps at the conclusion of the study effort


Project Team

• Caltrans• Connery Cepeda, Project Manager

• Parsons Brinckerhoff • Ximena Atterbury, Urban Designer

• Jeff Howard, Landscape Architect

• Facilitators

16



Introductions

• Stakeholder Working Group

• Project Team• Caltrans

• Parsons Brinckerhoff

• In Coordination with:• SANDAG, City of San Diego

• City Council Districts 3 and 8


Community Plan Updates

• Southeastern San Diego:• Draft Community Plan already released• Draft Environmental Document to be

released in late June• 60-day public review

• Greater Golden Hill:• Draft Community Plan to be released in

late June

17



Overview of Tonight’s Meeting

1. What is a freeway cap (or deck, or lid)?2. Study steps and schedule3. Study goals and outcomes4. Group assignment

Seattle

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

Los Angeles

San DiegoPhoenix

Boston

Dallas

Trenton

Cincinnati

Detroit

Louisville

18


ExampleSeattle

ExampleSeattle

19


ExampleSeattle

ExamplePortland

20


ExampleSacramento

ExampleSan Francisco

21


ExampleLos Angeles

The Historic Core The Trench

The Vision

ExampleLos Angeles

22


ExampleSan Diego

Overview of tonight’s meeting

1. What is a freeway cap?2. Study steps and schedule3. Study goals and outcomes4. Group assignment

23


Past EngagementJuly 24, 2013

Past EngagementJuly 24, 2013

What other cities have these?

How does Caltrans feel about putting buildings on [cap]?

Need a [cap] from 22nd Street to 25th Street. Sherman Heights has historically been short‐changed for improvements. Need a park where people can enjoy

enhanced quality of life.

Where would the money come from?

[Cap] to suppress noise, dust, air quality impacts.

Create sports fields on [cap].

Privatization of maintenance?

[Cap] would provide sound mitigation,

rejuvenate neighborhood, be a large attraction.

Strong need for parks, gathering

spots, buildings too.

Question about materials of [cap]

(sod, turf?).

Rare opportunity that could last

decades.

24


Project Schedule

Stakeholder Interviews

‐ Goals & Objectives‐ Issues/ Opportunities

Additional Outreach

‐ Issues/ Opportunities‐ SWG Site Walk

Kick Off

‐ Introduction & Best Practices‐ Goals & Objectives

Design Charrette

‐ Develop Park Cap Concepts

Open House

‐ Review Concept Alternatives

Open House

‐ Preferred Alternative

Meeting 1 Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 5 Meeting 6


Best Practices & Engineering Constraints

Develop Base Map

Develop Concept

Alternatives

Refine Concept Alternatives

Preferred Alternative(s)

Outreach Process

Technical / Design Process

July Fall Spring 2016



25



Study Outcomes:

• Assess the best practices of freeway cap projects, and

• Engage the community to develop a vision that considers both the opportunities and challenges for a cap over SR 94.



26


Questions to Consider

• Are you interested in a freeway cap near your community?

• What types of amenities and facilities would you like to see in a freeway cap?

• How often would you use a freeway cap park? What types of activities would you engage in?

• Are there good pedestrian routes in your neighborhood? What are the most traveled routes?

Questions to Consider

• Are there useful bike paths in your neighborhood? What are the most traveled routes?

• Do you think it would be easy to get to a freeway cap park from where you live? Do you have any concerns with the potential route(s)?

• How else should we engage the community in this study?

27


Sherman HeightsCommunity Center

Project Schedule



Additional Outreach

‐Issues/ Opportunities‐SWG Site Walk

Kick Off


Design Charrette

‐ Develop Park Cap Concepts

Open House


Open House




Best Practices & Engineering Constraints

Develop Base Map

Develop Concept

Alternatives

Refine Concept Alternatives

Preferred Alternative(s)

July Fall

28


Thank you Gracias

For more information please contact:Connery Cepeda, AICPCaltrans Project Manager(619) 688-6003Email: [email protected]

Or visit the website:bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy

29


Neighborhood Assessment

30





Neighborhoods Existing Character, Enhanced Connectivity Surrounding the proposed State Route (SR) 94 park cap, there are two neighborhoods/communities: Greater Golden Hill to the north and Southeastern San Diego to the south. Downtown San Diego also is nearby. Plans and studies have been conducted for and in the area, incorporating the preferences and priorities of the communities, and identifying opportunities for and constraints to future development.

Background Greater Golden Hill is an urbanized community, located east of Downtown San Diego and southeast Balboa Park. The landscape is characterized by a varying topography of canyons and mesas, as well as a historic district that features a variety of eclectic building types. Southeastern San Diego also is an urbanized community, located just south of Golden Hill across SR 94 and east of Downtown San Diego. Southeastern San Diego is similar to Greater Golden Hill in its landscape (i.e., topography) and early development (i.e., western portion of the community). Both Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego have goals of maintaining community character/heritage, including the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods, historic architectural resources, and open space areas.

Land Use In both Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego, the largest land use is “residential” (49 percent of total developed acreage and 39 percent of total developed acreage, respectively), followed by “roads/freeways” (37 percent of total acreage and 39 percent of total acreage, respectively). In both communities, parks comprise less than 7 percent of total developed acreage.

Parks and Open Space In Greater Golden Hill, city-owned canyons serve as open space areas. In Southeastern San Diego, there are a variety of neighborhood parks, community parks, and open space areas. Balboa Park, located in close proximity to the communities (e.g., the southeast corner, also known as the “Golden Hill Triangle” area), is a resource-based park; however, this park serves both the citywide population, as well as visitors. There is a lack of population-based parks in Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego. For population-based parks, the acreage standard, as defined in the City of San Diego General Plan, is a minimum of 2.8 acres per 1,000 people. For Greater Golden Hill (15,954 people) and Southeastern San Diego (57,041 people), this means 45 acres and 160 acres of population-based parks, respectively. Greater Golden Hill has 51 acres of park/military uses (not including the adjacent Balboa Park) and Southeastern San Diego has 100 acres of park/military uses. However, in Southeastern San Diego most of this combined acreage is military use. With limited vacant land and challenges surrounding the acquisition of developed land, meeting needs/standards is becoming increasingly difficult.

60 acres of population-based parks are needed in Southeastern San Diego to meet city standards

Figure 1: Parks and Open Space

Source: 2015 Southeastern San Diego Community Plan; 2013 Golden Hill Community Plan

31


Park access due to topography and reliance on public transit also is an issue. The communities have identified park opportunities, including an SR 94 park cap, as well as enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities to and through the communities.

Transportation Both Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego are well served by freeways, with regional access provided by Interstate (I-) 5, SR 94, and I-15. SR 94, which divides both communities, was constructed in the mid-1950s. Additionally, connections to Downtown San Diego, a major employment and population center, are maintained by a number of east-west streets (e.g., B Street, C Street, Broadway, Market Street, Island Avenue, and Imperial Avenue), public transportation (e.g., buses and the Trolley), and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. North-south streets that connect Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego are more limited and include 25th Street, 28th Street, and 30th Street. Both communities include gridiron street patterns, but transportation networks can be limited due to topography or other physical barriers (i.e., abrupt changes causing dead-ends). Both communities have goals of improving transportation, including streetscape improvements and an integrated bicycle network. Recent transportation plans, studies, and projects, which have, will, or propose to improve transportation, include the following: the 25th Street Renaissance Street Enhancement Project, the SR 94 Express Lanes Project, the Southeastern San Diego Community Plan Update, the Greater Golden Hill Community Plan Update, the Euclid Avenue Corridor Master Plan, the Imperial Avenue and Commercial Street Corridor Plan, and the Downtown San Diego Mobility Plan.

Environmental Considerations To construct a cap over SR 94, the following environmental issues should be considered:

noise and vibration, community and neighborhoods (e.g., air quality), visual resources and aesthetics, and historic architectural resources. The Environmental Impact Report for the SR 94 Express Lanes Project, which extends through the study area along the SR 94, will evaluate many of these considerations. A cap over SR 94 should be designed to be consistent with the existing visual character and quality, and would avoid or minimize impact to historic resources that are listed or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In terms of community and neighborhood impacts, a cap over SR 94 would improve community cohesion (including accessibility and connectivity) and would not result in displacements. In terms of noise and air quality related to freeway traffic, park user exposure would not be worse than resident (e.g., those living next to the freeway) exposure, and the cap could improve existing conditions by limiting exposure to (covering) freeway noise and air pollutants.

Demographics

Population and Employment As illustrated in Figure 2, Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego are relatively lower density communities, with restricted height limits and less population density in 2030 than adjacent Downtown San Diego.

Figure 2: Population, 2030

Source: SANDAG Series 12 Data Explore here: https://skfb.ly/FCRH

32


Greater Golden Hill has 16,000 people and 1,800 jobs, which is anticipated to grow by 2035 (26 percent and 17 percent, respectively). It has 723 developed acres and 7,289 housing units. The residential density is 21 housing units per developed residential acre and the employment density is 45 jobs per developed employment acre. Southeastern San Diego has 57,000 people and 11,100 jobs, which is anticipated to grow by 2035 (10 percent and 18 percent, respectively). It has 2,843 developed acres and 15,204 housing units. The residential density is 14 housing units per developed residential acre and the employment density is 19 jobs per developed employment acre.

Income In Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego, the greatest number of households (1,274 households and 3,956 households, respectively) have incomes within the $15,000 to $29,999 range. Additionally, most households (59 percent and 79 percent, respectively) have incomes below $60,000.

Race and Ethnicity In Greater Golden Hill, 45 percent of the population is Hispanic (7,206 people). By 2035, this will grow to 60 percent (12,147 people). In Southeastern San Diego, 84 percent of the population is Hispanic (47,967 people). By 2035, this will grow to 89 percent (55,800 people).

Figure 3: Household Income, 2012 and 2035

Figure 4: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2012 and 2035

Source: SANDAG Series 13 Data

Source: SANDAG Series 13 Data

33


Design Review Meeting December 16, 2015:

Presentation Slides

34






Design Review Meeting

December 16, 2015


Overview of Tonight’s Meeting

1. Best Practices Update:• Funding options• Health impacts

2. Design Review of Concepts:• Comments received from public outreach• Refined concepts

3. Conclusion & Next Steps

35





Site Walk


Kick Off


Additional Outreach

‐ Pop‐up Events‐ Online Engagement

Design Meeting


Open House



Summer / Fall 2015 Spring 2016Spring 2015

Project Schedule


Best Practices Update:Funding Options

36



Funding Options

• Local/Regional• Example: Mid-City Transit Gateway Project, Freeway Park (Seattle)

• Local/State/Federal Grants• Example: Mid-City Transit Gateway Project

• Transportation Project Feature/Enhancement• Example: I-15 Mid-City Completion Project/Teralta Park

• Public-Private Partnership (P3)• Example: Klyde Warren Park (Dallas)


Best Practices Update:Health Impacts

37



Exercise and Air Quality

• Animal Study• Netherlands epidemiological data study• Ongoing research at British Columbia

Environmental Physiology Lab. Pilot test promising.


Exhaust Emissions Standards Getting Stricter

38



Mitigation Strategies

• Designing edges with solid or vegetative barriers


Design Recap:Initial Concepts A & B

39



Design Concept A


Design Concept B

40



Design Review:Comments Received from

Public Outreach


Summary of Public Outreach

41



Detailed Amenity Preferences


Refined Concept

42



Conclusion & Next Steps




Site Walk


Kick Off


Additional Outreach


Design Meeting


Open House



Summer / Fall 2015 Spring 2016Spring 2015

Project Schedule

43


Thank you

For more information please contact:Chris Schmidt, AICPCaltrans Project Manager(619) [email protected]



Cap Park Design Concept:

Plan & Section Views

45





46

November 2016

47


Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimates

48





Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: Full ProjectFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)

Category Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Description / RemarksLow High

49,820 CY 75$ 3,736,500$ Outside retaining wall along F & G Streets1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$

2,810 Ton 150$ 421,500$ Along F & G Streets12,960 SF 50$ 648,000$ Along F & G Streets2,160 LF 40$ 86,400$ Along F & G Streets

1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 1 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ On SR 941 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1 LS 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ Tunnel ventilation, sprinklers, alarm, etc. 17,392,400$ 17,392,400$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 600,000$ 600,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 0 EA 250,000$ -$ 2 EA 150,000$ 300,000$ Bulb-outs etc. at 24th Street1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 5,400,000$ 5,400,000$ 0 LS -$ -$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ Along frontage street to deck1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$

61,020 SF 15$ 915,300$ Enhanced paving areas and event plazas

146,448 SF 25$ 3,661,200$ Lawn areas or multi-purpose use areas in raised

planters

36,612 SF 35$ 1,281,420$ Canopy or theme trees in raised planters

101,520 SF 20$ 2,030,400$ Streetscape treatment along F & G Streets, in

backfill area outside retaining wall

1 LS 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ Potential additional amenties e.g. water feature,

vending kiosks, picnic facilities, etc.

1 LS 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 19,888,320$ 19,888,320$

244,080 SF 400$ 97,632,000$ Cost range $400-$750 per SF of deck 97,632,000$


Key Assumptions & Notes Mobilization (10%)3 14,051,000$ to 22,594,000$

Contingency (25%)3 35,128,000$ to 56,485,000$

2. Unit costs of deck amenities & landscaping based on recent costs of "green roof" elements. Total Construction Cost (2016) 189,742,000$ to 305,070,000$ 3. Mobilization & contingency apply to all categories except right-of-way.

Construction Administration (15%) 28,461,000$ to 45,761,000$

Area Calculations Planning & Design (20%) 37,948,000$ to 61,014,000$

Deck Structure Area: Inside Retaining Wall Above SR 94 Agency Administration (20%) 37,948,000$ to 61,014,000$

West Cap 420 226 94,920 sqft

24th St 40 226 9,040 sqft Total Project Capital Cost (2016) 294,099,000$ to 472,859,000$

East Cap 620 226 140,120 sqftFull Project 1,080 226 244,080 sqft

Backfill Area: Outside Retaining Wall Along F & G Streets Cap ElementsWest Cap 420 94 39,480 sqft Construction Cost

24th St 40 94 3,760 sqft West Cap $ 75 million to $ 120 million

East Cap 620 94 58,280 sqft 24th St $ 5 million

Full Project 1,080 94 101,520 sqft East Cap $ 110 million to $ 175 million

Sum of Construction Cost $ 190 million to $ 295 million

Total Cap Area (Structure + Backfill)West Cap 420 320 134,400 sqft Total Capital Cost

24th St 40 320 12,800 sqft West Cap $ 115 million to $ 185 million

East Cap 620 320 198,400 sqft 24th St $ 7.5 million

Full Project 1,080 320 345,600 sqft East Cap $ 170 million to $ 275 million

Sum of Total Capital Cost $ 295 million to $ 460 million

Total Project Capital Cost (2016, Rounded to Nearest 5 Million)

$ 295 million to $ 475 million

Additional Amenities

Lighting/Security/Life Safety

Deck Structure Cost Range (Low)

Deck Structure Cost Range (High)

1. SR 94 Express Lanes project will construct new 22nd & 25th St bridges that are designed to accommodate tunnel ventilation systems and include intersection improvments.

Structure

Item

Title/Escrow/FeesHardscape

(25% of Deck Structure Area)Lawn

(60% of Deck Structure Area)

Environmental MitigationFire-Life Safety

LightingOverhead and VMS Signage

Traffic Management PlanTraffic Signals (Local Streets)

Multimodal ImprovementsSide Road Improvements

AcquisitionUtility Relocation

Subtotal Range

Roadway

Traffic

Right-of-Way

Deck Amenities

& Landscaping2

Excavation & BackfillClearing & GrubbingPavement (6" Depth)

PCC SidewalkCurb & Gutter

Drainage Outside DeckBarriers & Guard Rails

Erosion ControlWater Pollution Control

Trees(15% of Deck Structure Area)

Edge Landscaping(100% of Backfill Area)

49

Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: West ElementFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)



1,100 Ton 150$ 165,000$ Along F & G Streets5,040 SF 50$ 252,000$ Along F & G Streets840 LF 40$ 33,600$ Along F & G Streets1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ On SR 941 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 1 LS 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ Tunnel sprinklers, alarm, etc. 5,304,100$ 5,304,100$ 1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 0 EA 250,000$ -$ 0 EA 150,000$ -$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,050,000$ 0 LS -$ -$ 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Along frontage street to deck1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$



planters

14,238 SF 35$ 498,330$ Canopy or theme trees in raised planters

39,480 SF 20$ 789,600$ Streetscape treatment along F & G Streets, in




1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 9,067,680$ 9,067,680$




Contingency (25%)3 13,872,000$ to 22,178,000$


Construction Administration (15%) 11,240,000$ to 17,968,000$ Area Calculations Planning & Design (20%) 14,987,000$ to 23,957,000$ Deck Structure Area: Inside Retaining Wall Above SR 94 Agency Administration (20%) 14,987,000$ to 23,957,000$ West Cap 420 226 94,920 sqft



$ 185 million

StructureDeck Structure Cost Range (Low)



$ 115 million to


Deck Amenities

& Landscaping2

Hardscape(25% of Deck Structure Area)

Lawn(60% of Deck Structure Area)






Right-of-WayAcquisition

Utility RelocationTitle/Escrow/Fees

Traffic



Item Subtotal Range

Roadway






50

Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: 24th Street ElementFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)

Category Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Description / Remarks

1,850 CY 75$ 138,750$ Outside retaining wall along F & G Streets1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ 0 Ton 150$ -$ Along F & G Streets0 SF 50$ -$ Along F & G Streets0 LF 40$ -$ Along F & G Streets0 LS 500,000$ -$ 0 LS 300,000$ -$ On SR 940 LS 300,000$ -$ 0 LS 200,000$ -$ 0 LS 1,000,000$ -$ 0 LS 10,000,000$ -$ Tunnel ventilation, sprinklers, alarm, etc. 158,750$ 0 LS 500,000$ -$ Tunnel only0 LS 600,000$ -$ Tunnel only0 LS 3,000,000$ -$ 0 EA 250,000$ -$ 0 EA 150,000$ -$ Bulb-outs etc. at 24th Street0 LS 1,000,000$ -$ -$ 0 LS -$ -$ 0 LS 200,000$ -$ Along frontage street to deck0 LS 50,000$ -$ -$


0 SF 25$ -$ Lawn areas or multi-purpose use areas in raised

planters

904 SF 35$ 31,640$ Canopy or theme trees in raised planters

3,760 SF 15$ 56,400$ Streetscape treatment along F & G Streets, in


1 LS -$ -$

1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ 260,080$

9,040 SF 350$ 3,164,000$ Cost range $350-$750 per SF 3,164,000$

9,040 SF -$ -$ Cost range $350-$750 per SF

Key Assumptions & Notes Mobilization (10%)3 358,000$

Contingency (25%)3 896,000$

2. Unit costs of deck amenities & landscaping based on recent costs of "green roof" elements. Total Construction Cost (2016) 4,837,000$ 3. Mobilization & contingency apply to all categories except right-of-way.

Construction Administration (15%) 726,000$ Area Calculations Planning & Design (20%) 967,000$ Deck Structure Area: Inside Retaining Wall Above SR 94 Agency Administration (20%) 967,000$ West Cap 420 226 94,920 sqft

24th St 40 226 9,040 sqft Total Project Capital Cost (2016) 7,497,000$


StructureCost Range (Low)

Cost Range (High)


$ 7.5 million


Deck Amenities

& Landscaping2




Edge Hardscape(100% of Backfill Area)






Traffic



Item Subtotal

Roadway






51

Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: East ElementFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)



1,620 Ton 150$ 243,000$ Along F & G Streets7,440 SF 50$ 372,000$ Along F & G Streets1,240 LF 40$ 49,600$ Along F & G Streets

1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ On SR 941 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 1 LS 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ Tunnel ventilation, sprinklers, alarm, etc. 12,210,350$ 12,210,350$ 1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 0 EA 250,000$ -$ 0 EA 150,000$ -$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,050,000$ 0 LS -$ -$ 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Along frontage street to deck1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$



planters

21,018 SF 35$ 735,630$ Canopy or theme trees in raised planters

58,280 SF 20$ 1,165,600$ Streetscape treatment along F & G Streets, in




1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 10,528,480$ 10,528,480$




Contingency (25%)3 20,459,000$ to 32,720,000$


Construction Administration (15%) 16,591,000$ to 26,522,000$ Area Calculations Planning & Design (20%) 22,121,000$ to 35,362,000$ Deck Structure Area: Inside Retaining Wall Above SR 94 Agency Administration (20%) 22,121,000$ to 35,362,000$ West Cap 420 226 94,920 sqft



$ 275 million

StructureDeck Structure Cost Range (Low)



$ 170 million to


Deck Amenities

& Landscaping2










Traffic



Item Subtotal Range

Roadway






52

Planning-Level Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate

53





Planning-Level O&M Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: Full ProjectFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)

Category Quantity Unit Unit Price Annual Cost Totals

244,080 SF 0.50$ 122,040$

1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$

1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$

1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$

1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$

7.934 AC 12,000$ 95,207$

2 EA 25,000$ 50,000$

2 EA 60,000$ 120,000$

2 EA 60,000$ 120,000$

1 EA 10,000$ 10,000$

Key Assumptions & Notes Subtotal (Rounded) 792,000$

Contingency (25%) 198,000$

Element

Structural &

Roadway1

1 person (two shift)

Tunnel Lighthing Inspection & repair

Fire-Life Safety System Inspection & repair

OH/VMS/CCTV System Inspection & repair

Decking

Description / Remarks

Inspection & repair

Open space areas with modest improvements such as tables, trash receptacles, & small hardscape

areas. Includes water/irrigation.

2. Unit price of Open Park Areas based on Teralta Park freeway cap over SR-15. Unit prices of other elements based on City of San Diego staff estimates of similar facilities citywide.

397,040$

395,207$

Total Annual O&M Cost (2016, Rounded)

Costs typically shared by community

990,000$

Water Features

Community Garden

Operation Personnel

Open Park Areas

Deck Amenities &

Landscaping2

Additional Park Amenities

Set of Restroom Facilities

1. Unit proces of Structural & Roadway elements based on recent average costs of similar facilities.

Additional park amenities such as playgrounds, picnic areas, and dog runs.

Restrooms optional. Not in concept drawing but provided here for informational purposes.

54

Open House Meeting September 27, 2016:

Presentation Slides

55






Open House Meeting

September 27, 2016


Overview of Tonight’s Open House

1. Study Process Review2. Design Review:

• Summary of community input• Refined concept

3. Cost Estimates4. Next Steps:

• Case studies• Funding options

56





Site Walk


Kick Off


Additional Outreach


Design Meeting


Open House


‐ Next Steps


Summer / Fall 2015 Fall 2016Spring 2015

Study Process


Design Review:Initial Concepts A & B

57



Design Concept A


Design Concept B

58



Design Review:Comments Received from

Public Outreach


Summary of Public Outreach

59



Detailed Amenity Preferences


Refined Concept

60



Cost Estimates


Cost Estimates

$115‐185 million

3.0 acres

$7.5 million

0.3 acres

$170‐275 million

4.6 acres

61



Cost Estimates

West Cap(22nd – 24th St)

24th St East Cap(24th – 25th St)

Full Cap(22nd – 25th St)

Construction $75 ‐ $120 million $5 million $110 ‐ $175 million $190 ‐ $305 million

Planning, Design & Support

$40 ‐ $65 million $2.5 million $60 ‐ $100 million $110 ‐ $165 million

Total Project Cost$115 ‐ $185million

$7.5 million$170 ‐ $275 million

$300 ‐ $470 million

Park Acreage 3.0 acres 0.3 acres 4.6 acres 7.9 acres

• Average Construction Cost per Acre: $25 - $40 million est.

• Average Total Cost per Acre: $37 - $60 million est.*Excludes 24th St


Next Steps

62



Next Steps

• Best Practices Guide

• 3 Case Studies

• Funding Options


Presidio Parkway/Doyle Drive(San Francisco)

• Cost: Construction $460m. Total $856m.• Size: 10+ acres (Construction: $46m+/acre est.)

63



Presidio Parkway/Doyle Drive(San Francisco)

• Funding SourcesFederal Government (Grants; Stimulus funds) $209 million

State of California (Highway funds) $387 million

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bridge tolls; Air quality funds)

$114 million

Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District $75 million

San Francisco County (Prop K sales tax) $66 million

Marin & Sonoma Counties $5 million

Private investment consisted of financing from the concessionaire as well as private activity bonds.

Total Project Cost $856 million


I-5 Riverfront Reconnection(Sacramento)

• Cost: Construction $243m. Total $300m. (Total for 2 phases)

• Size: 3.8 acres (Construction: $64m/acre est.)

Phase 1Phase 2

64



I-5 Riverfront Reconnection(Sacramento)

• Phase 1: New & expanded bridges ($62m)• Opened 2 weeks ago• Combination of local, state & federal funding

• Phase 2: Full cap ($300m)• Deferred due to cost

• Design through collaboration of 11 stakeholder groups & public


Space 134 (Glendale)

• Cost (Phase 1): Construction $140m. Total not yet estimated.• Size: 4.75 acres (Construction: $29m/acre est.)

65



Funding Options

• Local/Regional Funding Sources• Example: Mid-City Transit Gateway Project; Freeway Park (Seattle)

• State/Federal Grants• Example: Mid-City Transit Gateway Project; Presidio Parkway (SF)

• Transportation Project Feature/Enhancement• Example: Teralta Park/I-15 Mid-City Completion Project

• Public-Private Partnership (P3)• Example: Klyde Warren Park (Dallas); Presidio Parkway (SF)




Site Walk


Kick Off


Additional Outreach


Design Meeting


Open House


‐ Next Steps


Summer / Fall 2015 Fall 2016Spring 2015

Study Process

66


Thank you

For more information please contact:Chris Schmidt, AICPCaltrans Project Manager(619) [email protected]


67


SR 94 Cap Park Brochure

68





SR 94 CAP PARK STUDY

SDCaltransSANDAG



Park Amenity Preferences

Keep it simple, with event space and lots of open space.

I want the park to stay true to the culture and historic character of Sherman Heights and Golden Hill.

The park should be designed to bring communities together.

Reconnect communities.

PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY Caltrans District 11, in coordination with SANDAG and the City of San Diego Planning Department, conducted 6 public outreach events in the Southeastern San Diego and Greater Golden Hill communities to gain input on a proposed freeway cap park over SR 94. The purpose of this outreach was to share the proposal and potential design concepts, and gain insight about park features the public would like to see, should this park be developed in the future.

Caltrans District 11, in coordination with SANDAG and the City of San Diego Planning Department, have worked with the community to develop this vision for a “freeway cap” over SR 94. This potential project would create an opportunity to add a new park - or other facilities - connecting the communities of Southeastern San Diego and Greater Golden Hill.

The project is currently in the conceptual stage, and does not have specific design or funding. This document summarizes the community’s vision, and may be used to raise awareness and gather support from neighbors and community leaders.




Make park safe and active.

August 2016

503

259

61 70169 9

51

OPEN/PLAY/ GATHERING AREA

ACTIVE/SPORTS/FACILITIES

DOG PARK FOOD/VENDING TRANSPORTATIONFACILITIES

BUILDING STRUCTURES

OTHER

Open space/lawn

Benches/picnic area

Sports Fields

Shade trees/structures

Community event space

Security

Community Priorities

https://twitter.com/sdcaltrans

http://www.facebook.com/CaltransDistrict11/

http://www.youtube.com/user/CaltransDistrict11

http://www.youtube.com/user/CaltransDistrict11

mailto:[email protected]?subject=SR 94 Freeway Cap

City College

Kimbrough Elementary

School

Sherman Elementary

School

San Diego High School

Garfield Senior High

School

Our Lady's School

Albert Einstein

Academies

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community¯

Greater Golden Hill

Sherman Heights

Downtown San Diego

!̂

AÀ

22nd

St

25th S

t

Market St

G St

Island Ave

K St

L St

E St

Broadway

C St

A St

Russ Blvd

28th S

t

20th S

t

19th S

t

21st S

t

27th S

t

26th S

t

23rd S

t

24th S

t

Persh

ing

Dr

Ash St

J St

17th S

t

16th S

t

15th S

t

14th S

t

13th S

t

Pa

rk Blvd

B St

SR94

This rough estimate accounts for the project’s full cost from start to finish, including design, environmental review, permitting, construction, project management, and contingencies. The estimate includes the park amenities shown in the conceptual illustration on the left. The final project cost will vary depending upon further refinement of the design concept.

PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE$300+ million for design, permitting and construction

SR 94 CAP PARK CONCEPT

Project Site

CONTEXT MAP

with support from - · pdf [email protected] programación del proyecto:...

Documents