Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

To present the results of the Design Development Phase Program for the Robert R. Ovrom Park, Neighborhood Recreation Center, and Community Day School Project and request authority to proceed with the Construction Documents Phase with Wolff Lang Christopher Architects, Inc.

BACKGROUND

Robert R. Ovrom Park/Community School Project - The South San Fernando Redevelopment Project Area is primarily comprised of industrial and commercial uses. However, the area immediately surrounding the South San Fernando Corridor also has a high residential concentration with no direct access to adequate open space and recreational facilities. For this reason, when the South San Fernando Redevelopment Project Area was formed in 1997, the Plan specifically recommended development of a 10-acre recreational park facility. Since then, City Council has dedicated funds from various sources for property acquisition in the South San Fernando Boulevard Area and, with the support of the Redevelopment Agency, a 1.4 acre site for a community park and community day school was assembled.

The Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) took operational control of the existing community day school from the County of Los Angeles in 1999. BUSD was also seeking a permanent home for its community day school. As the City began assembling a site for a neighborhood park, it became apparent there was an opportunity to combine much-needed recreational amenities with the community day school at a single location. This joint-use opportunity has evolved into the subject neighborhood recreation center, community day school, and park project.

Design Progress - On April 22, 2003, the City Council accepted the conceptual design program and directed staff to proceed with the Schematic Design Phase. City Council subsequently approved the Schematic Design on January 13, 2004, including the commensurate $9.2M project budget. Although the project budget substantially increased from the $6.0M established in December 1999, the Design Development program, the primary subject of this staff report, has only been revised slightly from the conceptual program presented to City Council in April 2003.

Exhibits A, B, C, and D portray the current project design and includes revised exterior building elevations, the site and park plan, the subterranean garage and floor plans, and the detailed space program, respectively. Programming generally includes:

Together with the South San Fernando Boulevard Street Improvement Project, the Ovrom Park Project will be very instrumental to the revitalization to the South San Fernando Redevelopment Project Area as well as enhancing the quality of life for the surrounding community. The streetscape project, with the financial backing of the Agency, is expected to be the �backbone� for future utility upgrades as future projects are constructed (especially along the South San Fernando Boulevard corridor). The park project brings open space and recreation facilities as well as a community day school to a neighborhood that has suffered for a long time without such facilities.

Programming and Design Development - From the very beginning, the Project�s programming and design development process has been, and continues to be, a matter of consensus building among project stakeholders. Stakeholders include the: Project�s Oversight Committee; Burbank Unified School District; general public; Planning Board; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Board; and City Council. The Design Development Phase program and budget presented in this report is the direct culmination of these concerted and continuing efforts.

Schematic Design Phase and Budget - Between January and October 2003, staff worked collaboratively with project stakeholders to develop and solidify a design program, commensurate project schedule, and budget. Several conceptual plans were presented to the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education between April and May 2003 with unanimous acceptance of one conceptual plan and approval to proceed with the Schematic Design Phase.

The Schematic Design (SD) Phase documents, budget, and schedule were presented to Project committees for consideration between September and December 2003 to discuss design alternatives, value management considerations, and commensurate cost information. The design program resulted with an approved SD Phase Project budget of $9.2 million in January 2004.

Design Development Phase and Budget � Pursuant to City Council�s acceptance of the SD program, the project team proceeded with further design development, cost exercises, and value management efforts. The program did not materially change from the SD program and the $9.2M Project Budget remains unchanged through the Design Development (DD) Phase.[1] A budget summary comparison of the SD and DD Phases is provided herein as Exhibit E and will be discussed below.

Project Budget Summary Comparison � SD vs. DD Phase � Exhibit E compares the previously approved Schematic Design Phase Project Budget with the Design Development Phase Project Budget. Although the Professional Services, Construction, Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment, and Project Contingency cost categories each fluctuated to a minor degree, only a few points merit notability.

Comparative Project Costs � At the January 2004 City Council presentation, staff identified comparative and completed projects designed by WLC having similar programming scope to the Park Project. This information is being presented once again to reinforce the fact that the Park Project is economically viable. These projects compare well with the anticipated $258/s.f. project cost and exclude the cost for the park.[4] The recreation center and community day school represent about 16,900 gsf.

Alternative Design Considerations - The building�s design genesis focused on a quality and environmentally sound design to reflect the considerable and long term public investment. After allowing the architect considerable design freedom and expression to convey a building design that would address unique program needs and to integrate the facility within the fabric of its historical neighborhood context yet express its own permanent identity, the committees� collaborative efforts ultimately modified the exterior design options for aesthetic and budgetary reasons. The on-going and collective input for the design is reflected in the current proposal.

Staff and the design team remains committed to continuing value management efforts during the Construction Documents (CD) Phase to ensure the $9.2 million project budget remains viable. There remains some limited flexibility in the design if during the development of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) current market conditions continue to prevail.[5]

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System represents the U.S. Green Building Council�s effort to provide a national standard for what constitutes a �green building.� Through its use as a design guideline and third-party certification tool, it aims to improve occupant well-being, environmental performance, and economic returns of buildings using established and innovative practices, standards, and technologies.

Green Building Commitment - The City of Burbank made a commitment early in the Phase I programming process to obtain a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)[6] Silver Rated Green Building. The City�s commitment to obtain a minimum Silver Rating for the neighborhood recreation center and community day school makes economic, environmental, and social sense and will represent the very first LEED building within city limits if the project is completed prior to the Development & Community Services Building.

General Strategy � Exhibit E represents the current LEED program summary that identifies six design guideline categories, required design consideration and potential credits, the probability and possibility of each credit, and the cost differential (cost premium) to implement the component. This LEED program summary also identifies the certification rating level, the estimated premium cost, and the LEED cost of $176,359 or 2.4% of the construction budget.

The general strategy the Project Team adopted in creating a viable LEED program was to first identify those program elements that could be implemented without any project cost such as the project�s located within one-quarter mile of public transit facilities (Sustainable Sites � Credit 4.1). Secondly, to identify those program elements that could be incorporated with minimal incremental project cost such as installing a permanent temperature and humidity monitoring system with user controls (Indoor Environmental Air Quality � Credit 7.2). And finally, to identify those program elements that could be incorporated with reasonable incremental project cost and represented a tangible and highly beneficial result to building occupants and/or operational cost savings over the building�s economic life. Providing high efficiency irrigation technology for 50% of potable water reduction (Water Efficiency � Credit 1) can result in significant water consumption savings over the Project�s life expectancy.

The Project goal is a LEED Certified Silver Rating with the objective to achieve the highest certification level at the least incremental cost for materials, components, and/or systems that provide tangible and measurable benefits. At this time, staff is still pursuing a LEED Certified Gold Rating. Staff will continue to assess the real cost and benefits through the CD Phase as more refined cost information becomes available. Staff will report back to City Council with a LEED strategy update during presentation of the CD Phase.

City Council adopted a resolution in January 2004 allowing consolidation of the construction management oversight of the Park and South San Fernando Boulevard Streetscape Projects. The decision was founded on single source accountability and economic benefit. From a schedule, logistics, and construction management stand point, these projects could rationally be combined without compromising quality, schedule, and budgetary goals.

However, staff was allowed flexibility to segregate the projects in the event construction for either project was delayed or accelerated. The Streetscape Project is currently a six or seven month endeavor and tentatively scheduled to start construction in September 2004. Park construction is scheduled for March 2005, seven months later. The impetus to start the Streetscape Project as soon as practicable is the realized benefits from re-gentrifying this redevelopment area sooner rather than later.

Consequently, there is no project overlap and the anticipated economies cannot fully be realized. At this time, staff intends to execute construction for each project independently of one another.

At the January 2004 presentation to City Council, staff asserted that the project site was environmentally free of hazardous materials and posed no environmental threats to future users. This position was predicated on staff�s prior due diligence efforts to identify and mitigate the presence of identifiable and potentially hazardous materials during land assembly. However, since the Project includes a school component, a stricter protocol was considered necessary and beneficial to ensure all potential environmental issues were appropriately addressed.

Although there was no legal requirement for the City to engage the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to oversee further environmental investigations[7], the Development Oversight Committee deemed that the City�s best long-term interest would be served in accepting the DTSC grant funding to complete a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment[8] [9] (PEA). The decision will provide further and undeniable assurances that the assembled site is environmentally safe for all users.

The City Council subsequently adopted resolutions approving a Cooperation Agreement between the City and BUSD for preparation of the PEA, approving an Indemnification Agreement between the City and the DTSC, and accepting the DTSC grant funding to complete the PEA. As of the date of this Staff Report, a draft PEA has been issued and is available for public comment from April 27, 2004 through May 27, 2004. A public hearing to receive and discuss comments to the PEA report is scheduled for May 20, 2004 during the regular meeting of the BUSD Board of Education.

The results of the investigation may ultimately end with the DTSC issuing a �No Further Action� letter and will represent both a time and cost savings for the Project. This process is expected to be complete during June 2004 when the final PEA is issued.

Turner Construction Company was selected through a competitive process to develop the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the Park Project and provide other related GMP services. Staff expects Turner to commence these important services once City Council has approved the Professional Services Agreement later this month.

At this stage of the design process, the following Milestone Schedule representing the primary tasks required to achieve final occupancy include:

Schedule Concerns - As previously discussed, the DTSC�s PEA process which is expected to be completed during June 2004, has suggested favorable results and should not impose any schedule or financial impacts to the Project. However, one concern that remains on the Project�s radar screen is the required review process by the Department of State Architect (DSA) and its direct impact on the timing of construction commencement.

The Project includes a school component requiring construction documents to a review and approval process through the DSA and the California Department of Education (CDE). Given the expected favorable PEA results, the process with the CDE does not pose a concern at this time and therefore, no further discussion is offered.

When the design documents are 90% complete, they will be submitted to the DSA, CDE, and other public agencies for review and a back check review process. Based on staff�s investigation, the current DSA work load may require twelve (12) weeks after documents are received to review construction documents and provide written comments, three (3) weeks for the design team to respond, and an additional two (2) weeks to complete the DSA back check review process for approval.

The Project Team is targeting submittal of 90% complete CDs to the DSA in mid-September which implies that approvals should be secured in late January 2005 given the holiday season. This will support subsequent City Council�s approval of the Project�s CDs and GMP in March 2005 and enable construction to commence later that same month. Should the DSA review and approval process extend much beyond this seventeen (17) week period, this may directly impact the May 2006 completion date.

The $1.5M Natural Resources Infrastructure Fund Grant represents an important Project funding resource and stipulates project completion by June 2006. Any project delays, including the DSA review and approval process, may jeopardize this important funding resource. At this time, it is too early to request a Grant Fund extension. If the DSA process proves to be the Project�s nemesis, staff anticipates some relief (project extension), due to this potential State-imposed delay.

Should the City Council approve the Design Development Phase and direct staff to proceed with the Construction Documents Phase, there will be no additional fiscal impact other than the projected budgeted expenditures. This is supported by:

1. The current appropriations and funding sources discussed below and identified in Exhibit F.

2. The Project Budget collaboratively developed by staff and Jones Lang LaSalle, provided herein as Exhibit G, and

3. Potential additional funding sources based on two grant funding applications.

Appropriations and Funding Sources - City Council directed staff to proceed with the Design Development Phase for the Park Project and included a commensurate $9.2M Project Budget. Staff provided detailed appropriation and potential funding source information at the January 2004 City Council meeting to address the Project�s $3.2M funding shortfall. Funding sources such as YES Funds for the 2003-04 fiscal year and YES Funds to be appropriated for the 2004-05 fiscal year are reflected in Exhibit F, Project Funding Sources and Expenditures.

Grant Funding Applications Update - The Park, Recreation and Community Services Department (PRCS) submitted a $1.7 million grant application (Murray-Hayden Urban Parks and Youth Service Program) for consideration under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act in December 2003. If awarded funding, this will be applied 100% to the Park Project. Grant award and notification is expected during September 2004.

PRCS also submitted a $2.4 million grant request under the Urban Parks Act of 2001 grant program. Grant award notifications will not be made until August 2004 with funding to be utilized by the end of June 2010.

Project Budget Summary and Comparison � The Schematic Design Phase Project Budget accepted by City Council in January 2004 is compared to the updated budget for the Design Development Phase and included herein as Exhibit G. The budget remains unchanged and capped at $9.2M. Several points worthy of mention are provided below for discussion.

Staff will continue to closely monitor costs during the CD Phase and GMP development once Turner Construction is on board. Value management and cost exercises remain as important functions as the Project confronts market conditions with respect to construction material costs and labor availability.

Staff recommends that City Council accept the Design Development Phase program and direct staff to proceed with the Construction Documents Phase for the Robert R. Ovrom Park, Neighborhood Recreation Center, and Community Day School Project, Phase 1 with Wolff Lang Christopher Architects, Inc.

[1] As of the date of this Staff Report, Turner Construction Company has been retained to provide an independent reconciliation of the Design Development Construction Budget as part of its GMP development efforts.

[2] As of the date of this Staff Report, the draft Preliminary Endangerment Assessment issued by the Department of Toxic Substances Control is recommending a �No Further Action� letter indicating no presence of hazardous materials on the subject project site.

[3] At this stage of the design process, the Project Contingency should be on the order of magnitude of five percent (5.0%), not the 3.0% currently reflected.

[4] These historical project costs have been adjusted upwards with an annual 2.5% escalation rate.

[5] Material costs for steel and related metal building components such as metal studs, HVAC ducts, and piping, and drywall continue to escalate. Overall, this may have adverse cost impacts to the Project Budget. There appears to be a �cooling� trend for steel pricing expected to peak in July 2004.

[6] As defined by the U.S. Green Building Council, LEED is a self-assessing system designed for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings. It evaluates environmental performance from a �whole building� perspective over a building�s life-cycle, providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a green building. LEED criteria includes Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality.

[7] Since the BUSD did not request nor elect to receive state funds for its community day school, involving the DTSC would enable the District to pursue subsequent funding if it so elected.

[8] A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) is an investigation performed to determine whether current or past hazardous material management practices or waste management practices have resulted in a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, or whether naturally occurring hazardous materials are present, that pose a threat to children�s health, children�s learning abilities, public health, or the environment.

[9] The DTSC grant covers initial costs to review existing environmental documentation, develop a work plan to perform additional site reconnaissance, soil sampling, and laboratory analyses, and completion of the PEA report. Should subsequent environmental consulting, DTSC oversight, and hazardous material mitigation be required to obtain final DTSC certification for a clean site, this will be at the Project�s expense.

[10] It�s important to note that the format used for the DD Project Budget Construction cost category was changed to allocate the cost for escalation, the contractor�s general conditions, insurance and bonds, and the contractor�s fixed fee across most of construction line items. The affect was to increase a majority of the construction line items since each of them are now burdened with its pro-rata share of overhead costs.

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

PURPOSE

BACKGROUND