|
|
Council Agenda - City of BurbankTuesday, May 2, 2006Agenda Item - 11 |
|
|
Council Agenda - City of BurbankTuesday, May 2, 2006Agenda Item - 11 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PURPOSE
Staff requests City Council authorization to proceed with design efforts for a revised Multi-purpose Neighborhood Recreation Center Program as part of the original Robert R. Ovrom Park Project, Phase 1.
BACKGROUND
The design status for the Robert R. Ovrom Park Project was last presented to City Council on May 18, 2004 where staff was directed to proceed with the Construction Documents Phase. At that time, the Total Project Cost was estimated to be $9.2M and construction commencement was slated for March 2005. This compares to the current Total Project Cost of $16.0M, or more than 74% over the previously accepted budget.
Even though the building and park program had not changed since it was first approved by City Council on January 13, 2004, several key challenges and circumstances beyond the Project�s control became evident during completion of the Construction Documents Phase effort that has since rendered the Project, as currently designed and approved by the Building & Safety Department, infeasible.
The Project Oversight Committee met to address these challenges and reviewed several program options to ensure the City�s continued commitment to provide this important recreational amenity to this under-served community. As a point of reference and basis for subsequent comparison, the currently accepted program includes:
The four program options briefly described in the Analysis Section all retain the current Project elements listed below. These program options focus on revisions to the multi-purpose neighborhood recreational center and on-site and off-site parking.
ANALYSIS
Program Options A through D. Staff developed four preliminary Program Options (Options A, B, C, and D) briefly summarized in the table below to address the challenges previously mentioned above. Based on the City Council�s authorization to proceed with the new design effort, staff will report back to City Council with a fully developed program for its subsequent consideration and approval.
Staff deems Option C as the superior long-term program option that would most benefit the community through its evaluation of building quality, aesthetics, overall cost, parking, schedule completion, and other relevant considerations. Based on preliminary program information that will be propounded later, Option C will comprise a single story multi-purpose neighborhood recreation center of about 5,800 to 6,800 s.f. with about 20 to 24 on-site parking spaces, an estimated cost range of $7.6 to $8.0M, and a February 2009 occupancy date.[5]
The recreation center size cannot be finalized at this time since a balance between its size and interior uses, on-site code parking requirements, and the area already set aside for the Park and AIPP remains to be determined. Staff met with the Planning Division and the on-site parking requirements may be in the range of 20 to 24 vehicle spaces.[6] A new parking determination approved by the Planning Board will most likely be necessary since several key program variables have changed.
Program Option A � Park with On-Site Parking - $4.7M � Includes the Park and Art-In-Public Places (AIPP) Program, on-site surface parking for approximately 40 vehicles, and the option to provide eight (8) angled parking spaces along Providencia Avenue. Pros and cons include:
Pros
Cons
Program Option B � Park, Modular Type Recreation Center, and On-Site Parking - $5.9 to $6.1M - Includes the Park and AIPP Program, a 5,800 to 6,800 s.f. modular type facility that will provide multi-purpose recreational programs, on-site surface parking for approximately 20 to 24 vehicles, and the option to provide eight (8) angled parking spaces along Providencia Avenue. Pros and cons include:
Pros
Cons
Program Option C � Park, Permanent Type Recreation Center, and On-Site Parking - $7.6 to $8.0M - Includes Park and AIPP Program, a 5,800 to 6,800 s.f. permanent facility that will provide multi-purpose recreational programs, on-site surface parking for approximately 20 to 24 vehicles, and the option to provide eight (8) angled parking spaces along Providencia Avenue. Pros and cons include:
Pros
Cons
Program Option D � Park with Gymnasium - $10.1M - Includes Park and AIPP Program, an 11,500 s.f. permanent facility that will provide one full size basketball court and multi-purpose recreational programs, on-site surface parking for about eight (8) vehicles, and the option to provide eight (8) angled parking spaces along Providencia Avenue. Pros and cons include:
Pros
Cons
Program Option C � Details and Other Considerations. As a basis of comparison and reference only, the currently approved recreation center program is 8,382 s.f. A range between 5,800 s.f. and 6,800 s.f. is being considered for the size of the revised recreation center to ensure community program needs are met, functionality is maintained, and assure code compliance for surface parking is accommodated on-site without affecting land area set asides for the Park and AIPP Programs.
As currently conceived, the multi-purpose recreation center will include the following program components with a square foot range for each.
No conceptual elevations, floor plan layouts, or other planning design activities have been developed at this time. However, staff assures the City Council that the recreation center will be an aesthetically pleasing facility and of commensurate quality the City has come to expect for its new buildings and one that will add long-term value to the South San Fernando Redevelopment area.
Staff expects the building to be a single story, on grade structure, with no subterranean parking, Type V One-hour construction, and a fully operable sprinkler system. No determination has been made at this time if the building should be at street level or slightly below existing grade since there is an approximate six foot height difference between a majority of the Park and the existing building pad.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. The City of Burbank previously made a commitment early in the Phase I programming process to pursue a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver rating for this Project. At that time, this commitment made economic, environmental, and social sense. However, based on the current program recommendation, previously expended design and engineering costs related to LEEDs, and the Project�s considerably smaller scale, staff recommends that LEEDs no longer be a consideration. However, a sustainable and energy efficient design effort will be pursued as part of the redesign effort. High energy efficient air conditioning equipment, a cool roof, recyclable materials, high performance insulating glass, and other sustainable measures that represent sound architectural and engineering design and make economic sense will be evaluated and integrated into the final building program as deemed necessary.
General Contractor Selection and Guaranteed Maximum Price. Staff recommends that the subsequent general contractor selection process be on a pre-qualified basis similar to the successful process employed for the Buena Vista Branch Library Project. Staff further recommends that the traditional design-bid-build delivery method be pursued given the relatively small construction value (estimated to be on the order of $5.4M to $5.8M). Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) delivery methods are traditionally performed on projects with minimum construction values greater than $10.0M since the additional administrative and reporting efforts can more cost effectively be absorbed.
However, staff will solicit information at the appropriate time from general contractors concerning the feasibility of pursuing a GMP delivery method for this Project. There may be the possibility to creatively structure the delivery process to minimize construction staff and reporting costs that otherwise impact a project�s construction cost.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Staff anticipates that the following milestone schedule activities can be accomplished within the time frame cited below based on City Council�s authorization to proceed with Program Option C.
Staff�s ability to reduce the overall schedule several months is contingent upon how quickly a design team can be brought on board and a revised program approved. With the full support of the Oversight Committee, staff is confident that this can be accomplished based on prior programming and design efforts completed to date. As mentioned earlier (reference Footnote 5), the redesign and approval process can be shortened by about four (4) months and will accelerate the occupancy date to October or November 2008.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Based on staff�s recommendation to proceed with Program Option C, no fiscal impact is expected. As presented in the following �Project Funding Sources and Uses� Section below, total appropriated and potential funding sources represent about $8.2M and are sufficient to cover the projected range of $7.6M to $8.0M for Option C.
Project Funding Sources and Uses. Exhibit A identifies current City and Grant Funding Sources, other potential City and Grant Funding Sources needed to ensure Project feasibility, and Project Uses. Staff has identified several City and Grant Funding Sources (currently listed as potential funding sources � please reference Items 12 through 16 of Exhibit A) that can be used for this Project. These potential funding sources are listed below for convenience.
Without these potential funding sources specifically being earmarked for this Project, Program Option A will be the only viable option available. Staff will request appropriation of these potential City and Grant Funding Sources during the Fiscal Year 2006/07 budget process.
Project Budget Development. In developing the Project Budget for Option C[9], staff included reasonable and appropriate estimates for a revised building program unit cost ($/s.f.), Construction Contingency, Escalation, and Project Contingency to address current and projected construction market conditions given the Project�s limited program information developed at this point of time. The $7.6M to $8.0M Total Project Cost estimated for Option C was based on available comparative cost information for recently constructed public facility projects.[10] Each Total Project Cost amount includes more than $950,000 in total expenditures for the OPP-1 Project through March 31, 2006 and $1.0M to $1.1M in construction contingency, escalation, and project contingency, or about 18% of the remaining cost to complete the Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests City Council authorization to proceed with design efforts for a revised Multi-purpose Neighborhood Recreation Center Program as part of the original Robert R. Ovrom Park Project, Phase 1.
Attachment A � Project Funding Sources & Uses
[1] The approved construction documents were competitively bid by pre-qualified subcontractors. The construction estimate for the Design Development Phase and Construction Documents Phase was $7.3M and $13.7M, respectively, an 87% increase. [2] At the District�s April 20, 2006 Board of Education Meeting, the Board voted 5-0 to relocate the Community Day School (CDS) operations to the former Miller Elementary School site. The District�s initial $1.5M cash contribution jointly held with the City in an interest bearing escrow account now includes approximately $116,400 in accrued interest was originally earmarked for the Ovrom Park Project. Based on the Board�s recent direction however, these funds will now be used to relocate the CDS and restore it�s current location to pre-existing conditions. [3] It is staff�s intention to keep the Park and AIPP Programs fully intact. However, minor adjustments may be necessary as part of the building footprint, on-site parking, and circulation design process. [4] Curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along South San Fernando Boulevard will be separately funded and constructed as part of the South San Fernando Streetscape Project [5] Staff has conservatively estimated a twenty-one (21) month design and approval process. However, staff is also confident that with an expedited design and approval process, this effort may be reduced to about seventeen (17) months. This is founded on the programming and design effort that has already been accomplished to date and the shorter time expected for achieving consensus. [6] The driving factor in determining on-site code parking requirements will be the size of the assembly or (community) room. For example, if the assembly room is 1,800 s.f. and we use 15 s.f. per seat (or 120 seats), and one vehicle space per five seats, parking requirements would be 120/5 = 24 spaces. There are other relevant considerations such as the Park�s shared use, the assembly room�s projected maximum annual utilization, and other interior uses such as office/administration, and arts and crafts. [7] For the 5,800 s.f. recreation center program, there�s a $578,000 projected surplus between Option C�s estimated $7.6M cost and the proposed $8.2M total project budget. However, Option C carries just over $1.0M in combined construction and project contingencies and escalation. For the 6,800 s.f. recreation center program, these amounts are $200,000 and nearly $1.1M, respectively. [8] For this type of use, Section 31-1408 of the Burbank Municipal Code requires six (6) spaces per 1,000 s.f. of adjusted gross floor area, or about 59 vehicle spaces assuming an 85% building efficiency. [9] Staff employed an identical approach in developing Project Budgets for Options A, B, and D. [10] Staff compared the modular facility cost for the City of Lancaster�s Inspector�s Facility that will be completed in May 2006 as a basis of cost comparison for Option B; a $350/s.f. unit price was used for Option C based on discussions with two separate Architectural firms and a professional cost estimator; and the City of Garden Grove�s Gymnasium and Recreation Center (15,900 s.f.) completed in 2005 and the County of Los Angeles, Loma Alta Gymnasium and Recreation Center (13,500 s.f.) in Altadena to be completed in June 2006 were used as a basis of cost comparison for Option D.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
