HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/2000, 1 - REBIDDING THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION counat
j aGEnba RepoRt i"�d.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works Ok
Prepared By: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manatg---�
SUBJECT: REBIDDING THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve amending the project to:
a. Eliminate the pedestrian bridge and gazebo.
b. Eliminate the second floor bathrooms.
c. Eliminate the mid-span stairwell and relocate the elevator to Monro Street.
d. Eliminate the Pacific Street office space.
e. Revise the exterior finish.
f. Eliminate the"blue" light safety system and television security system conduit.
g. Add two public bathrooms on the ground floor with a Morro Street access in lieu of the
Morro Street office.
h. Add a mid-block traffic signal on Marsh Street
i. Provide bid additive alternates for: 1) office building shells only on the Pacific Street; and
2)upgrading the exterior finish.
j. Convert all plans and specifications to English units.
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Administrative Officer to award
the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's estimate of$7,104,000
3. Approve contract amendment with Phillip Metschs Sweeney Moore in the amount of
$181,000 for additional design work and authorize the City Administrative Officer to execute
the contract.
4. Approve a revised budget of $7,939,400 for construction and $497,100 for construction
management; and approve additional debt financing of$2.5 million ($7.9 million total)
5. Appropriate $212,800 from the unreserved parking fund working capital to fund additional
design work($181,000) and current deficient in the design account($31,800).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Construction Costs. In July 2000, the Council rejected construction bids for the Marsh Street
Garage Expansion due to their being over budget by 70%. Following this action, Council
directed staff to return with a project that more closely matched the approved budget of $5.4
million. As a result, the project was broken into "construction components" to determine what
portions of the project could be removed while still maintaining the functionality of the garage.
Key components for consideration are:
1. Eliminate the pedestrian bridge and gazebo.
2. Eliminate the Pacific Street office space.
1-1
Council Agenda Report—Rebidding the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 2
3. Eliminate second floor public bathrooms (four) and add two public bathrooms on the
ground floor with a Morro Street access
4. Revise the exterior finish
5. Revise the security system
6. Eliminate mid-span stairwell and relocate the elevator tower to Monro Street
7. Provide alternates for the exterior finish and office space retention
8. Convert all plans and specifications to English units
Based on an independent cost estimator retained by the design architect, the elimination of the
preceding components would reduce the project budget by $1.1 million (including a 10%
contractor mark-up). This figure is well below what was anticipated after discussions with the
project bidders, which indicated that as much as $2.1 million could be saved from the budget if
all of the components were eliminated from the revised project.
Although highly discussed as a cause of cost overruns at the last council meeting, research found
that use of the metric system was not a factor. It may be a factor, however, in determining the
number of bidders interested in the project. Thus, in order to obtain the maximum number of
bidders, staff is recommending that the plans be modified to English units.
It is not possible to fully detail all the reasons for this large variance between the estimator and
contractor construction costs. As discussed more fully in Attachment 1 (Project Analysis), two
possible reasons include: inconsistent plans and specifications making it difficult for those who
bid to accurately cost the project and possibly reducing the number of bidders; and not fully
taking into consideration the current bid climate to construct a complex project in downtown San
Luis Obispo. Several steps are being proposed to improve.on these areas, which will be
discussed later in the report.
Environmental Considerations. Approving the project as recommended will not require any
additional environmental review; only approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
for the recommended changes will be required. However, it would reinstate the requirement of a
mid-block traffic signal on Marsh Street as stipulated in the original Environmental Impact
Report(EIR).
Fiscal Impacts. An additional $2.5 million in debt financing will be needed to meet the revised
construction cost estimate of $7.9 million. This will result in an increase of about $200,000 in
annual debt service costs. The proposed design changes, conversion to English units and other
architectural services will cost $212,800. A sufficient revenue stream exists in the parking fund
to cover the $200,000 increase in annual debt service payments, and the current unappropriated
working capital balance can finance the design changes. However, funding future projects will
require implementing the revenue enhancements already presented in the Draft Parking and
Downtown Access Plan. Reducing free garage parking from 90 to 60 minutes is the key
enhancement currently under consideration.
Conclusion. It is financially and architecturally feasible to complete the project as proposed.
1-2
Council Agenda Report–Rebidding the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 3
DISCUSSION
Background
On July 18, 2000, the City Council rejected all construction bids for the Marsh Street Garage
expansion project and directed staff to return with a revised project that more closely matched the
approved budget. This action was the result of the low bid for the project being $8,170,000,
which substantially exceeded (by about $3.4 million) the project architect's estimate of
$4,780,600 for the garage expansion. Following Council's directive to reduce the overall project
cost, staff has worked to determine what could be realistically removed from the project without
jeopardizing the functionality of the garage.
Construction Costs
Staff researched the four major areas that comprised the bulk of comments about the bid results:
a) bid climate; b) number of bidders; c) quality of bid documents; and d) component cost within
the structure itself. A complete summary of those findings is provided in Attachment 1. The
CAO recommendation is based upon staff s best efforts to address each area.
As it turns out, even with the elimination of the pedestrian bridge and associated appendages, this
parking structure will be very expensive. The following table summarizes estimated savings
from the previous low bid based on the construction cost information provided in Attachment 2
(Architect's letter) and Attachments 3 and 3-1 (Construction Cost Estimate from O'Connor
Construction Management):
Cost Estim ate
Eliminate Pedestrian Bridge & Gazebo 651,700 1,500,000
Eliminate Public Restrooms 12,200 80,000
Eliminate Pacific Street Office 75,900 300,000
Change Exterior Finish 237,500 250,000
Eliminate Safety and Security System 91,900 No estimate
Eliminate Mid-Span Stairwell 41,800 No estimate
Total $ 1,111.000 $ 2 130 000
• Including contractor mark-up at 10% ofestimated cost.
Note: Attachments 3 and 3-1 represent the first cost savings and revised cost savings estimates
respectively. These are being provided for comparison purposes illustrating the difficulty in
arriving at the "true" cost estimate for this project. For discussion purposes, all cost savings
used throughout the report are based on the most recent estimate-Attachment 3-1.
The project architect arrived at these estimates by subtracting these amounts from the low bid of
$8,170,000 received in July 2000, which results in a revised construction cost of $7,059,000.
Including the cost of a "pilot program" traffic signal, discussed below, brings the revised cost
estimate to $7,104,000. As detailed in the Fiscal Impact section, the total revised construction
budget—including contingencies and other construction-related costs—is $7,939,000.
1-3
Council Agenda Report—Rebidding the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 4
Although the Council direction was to bring back a project within the original budget, the
proposed cost savings will be significant, but not nearly enough to meet the Council direction.
The project architect's latest estimate basically states that the original budget is no longer
realistic based on the first-hand knowledge of the current bid climate. A supplemental letter
from the project architect regarding the bid climate is provided as Attachment 3-2.
Mid-Block traffic signal on Marsh Street
The Marsh Street Pedestrian Bridge eliminated the need for a mitigation measure mid-block
traffic signal. Eliminating the Pedestrian Bridge may now warrant a traffic signal at this location.
Both items were based upon the idea that the major point of pedestrian ingress and egress would
be the central stairwelllelevator located directly in line with the entry alley (and the mid-block
crossing). Based upon staff's review, the design of the project has now changed and pedestrians
will no longer be oriented to this location. Instead, they will be directed to the stairwell/elevator
on Morro Street midway between Marsh and Pacific. Staff believes that with this orientation and
with the installation of pedestrian signal heads at the intersections of Monro and Chonro Streets,
the impacts of additional pedestrians at the mid-block crossing will be substantially less.
Staff remains concerned about the potential safety issues associated with a mid-block signaled
crossing and also the possibility of congestion at the intersection of Marsh and Chonro caused by
the mid-block signal. Unlike now, where immediately after pedestrians have cleared the
crosswalk traffic can flow, a mid-block signal under coordinated operation will prohibit traffic
from moving even when there is no pedestrian activity. The portion of the traffic queue moving
up Marsh Street caught by the mid-block signal will be joined by turning Chorro traffic. Because
the mid-block signal will be so close to the Chorro/Marsh intersection, there is high likelihood
that not enough capacity will be available to allow this to occur causing gridlock at the
intersection. This action comes close to happening now with high traffic and high pedestrian
movements in the noon hour but has not actually taken place.
The need for the signal has been a topic of concern since it only partially meets one of the
required traffic warrants and more importantly, the distance between intersections that would be
normally required for signal installation. In reconsidering this issue, staff believes that with the
above mentioned redesign and orientation of the pedestrian access points a traffic signal will not
be necessary or warranted at the mid-block crosswalk. However, due to the sensitivity of this
issue in regards to pedestrian safety, and in order to verify the accuracy of the gridlock concerns,
staff is proposing to install a trial temporary traffic signal at the mid-block location upon
completion of the garage. The trial period will be for six months and the temporary signal will
look just like a permanent signal, except that signal arms will be replaced with span wire and
signal heads hung from the wire. The "success or failure" of the temporary signal would be
measured by the following traffic engineering standards:
1. Traffic flow analysis before and after the mid-block signal
2. Number of violations by pedestrians using the crosswalk
3. Number of accidents in the vicinity of the crosswalk
1-4
Council Agenda Report—Rebidding the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 5
Staff would convey the results of this test operation for Council consideration prior to removal or
installing the permanent signal. In the event the signal is not warranted, the traffic lights could
be utilized at other intersections (Broad and Pacific and Osos and Pacific) identified in the EIR as
potential candidates for signalization if traffic warrants substantiate the need six months after the
completion of the garage expansion. In either case, the cost ($45,000) of the signal will be borne
by the parking fund.
The Ranetitti Property
The City purchased the rear ten feet of this property (also known as the Parable property) after
the project architect identified it as needed in order to implement his design for the post office
mail delivery trucks' egress. As a part of the agreement with the Ranellitti family, the City
agreed to allow access to the pedestrian bridge from a planned second floor expansion on their
site "if and when such bridge is completed". Therefore we are not contractually obligated to
construct the bridge to satisfy provisions of the agreement. Staff foresaw the possibility that the
cost of this project might come in over budget and left flexibility to delete expensive items with
the City Council. The City is not obligated via the agreement with the Ranellitti's to build the
pedestrian bridge. Although access would have been simpler from the bridge, the property owner
can still build a second story and provide access to that space just as many other buildings in the
downtown have done.
Environmental Impact
Traffic and Circulation -The revised project, which is essentially the same as the first proposed
design, would not exceed any thresholds established for traffic and circulation based on the
findings (Attachment 2) of the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, without
the stairwell re-design and the installation of pedestrian signals at Morro and Chorro to
encourage crossing, it would reinstate the.requirement of a mid-block traffic signal to offset the
loss of the pedestrian bridge (see discussion of traffic signal above.)
Aesthetics - The main parking structure would experience some minor changes to the building.
The relocation of the elevator tower would shift the high point to Morro Street as opposed to
mid-span. The streetscape along Pacific and Morro will be slightly modified with the removal of
the offices and replaced with additional exterior treatments and/or landscaping. The inclusion of
public restrooms on Morro will also create a slightly different look than the former proposed
office space. These changes will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC),
but will not require formal environmental review because the footprint and mass of the building
have not changed.
Air Ouality and Cultural Resource-There would no changes from the findings of original EIR.
CONCURRENCE
The Community Development Department concurs with the above findings based on determining
that the relocation of the elevator tower would be considered a minor aesthetic change and that
1-5
Council Agenda Report—Rebidding the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 6
the streetscape would still be maintained on Morro and Pacific with the minor changes for the
ground floor public bathrooms and office shells. Thus, both would not require formal
environmental review. The projects exterior appearance would need ARC approval of the
proposed changes.
FISCAL IMPACT
The original cost.estimate for the construction component of the Marsh Street project was set at
$4,780,600 for construction plus 15% ($717,400) in contingencies, for a total construction
budget of $5,498,000. This estimate was based on the design concept that included the
pedestrian bridge and gazebo and office space. The proposed debt financing for the project was
set at $5,400,000, either by the issuance of bonds or the approval of a loan from the California
Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (final submittal of this loan application is
pending at this time until we finalize project costs). The following summarizes revised project
costs and funding sources (exclusive of land and other pre-design costs) compared with the
current budget:
Project Cost Summary
Proposed Budget Variance
Design 597: 500. 384,700 212 8.00
Original Workscope 384,700 384,700 0
Proposed Workscope Additions (Attachment 5)
Architectural modifications 90,000 90,000
Converting plans to English system 63,000 63,000
Rebidding the project 28,000 28,000
Total Additions 181,000 181,000
Current shortfall•bid assistance & plan check 1 31,800 1 J31,800
Constructfon '7,'939,4-00. 5 4'98000 22441,400
Construction Contract
Previous Low Bidder 8,170,000
Proposed Project Revisions (1,111,000)
Traffic Signal 45,000
Revised Construction Contract 7,104,000 x,400
Contingencies (10% revised; 15% prior) 710,400 1;000)
Additional Public Art @ 1% of Construction Co 15,000 ` 5,000
Water and Sewer Impact Fees 100,000 )`,000
Promotions During Construction 10,000 600
Constraatzon' I at*al 'smell =erg E;f.; - 497 1[01: ` 0
Contract Services 486,600 0
Materials Testing 10,500 ,500
TOTAL - y :$9 634-000':_ 4 3. 9'd0
In addition to the proposed changes, the project budget includes additional money to reimburse
the previous construction budget for Downtown Association requested monies for business
1-6
Council Agenda Report–Rebidding the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 7
promotions during the actual construction of the garage ($10,000). The revised budget also
includes reimbursement for the previously council-approved additional public art project
($15,000) and the required materials testing component ($10,500). The final additional request is
for sewer and water fees, which were thought to be included in the previous construction budget.
However, considering the history of the bid process, the new budget is requesting a separate line
item for this required cost($100,000).
Funding Sources
Proposed . . -
1,900Debt Financing 7,851,900 5,400,000 ,45
WorkingCapital 1,182,100 969,300 212800
TOTAL-
$
3.00. '$_� 6&4 T6.0. .
Funding Debt Service Costs. The additional $2.5 million from debt financing will result in an
increased annual debt service cost of about $200,000. This can be absorbed within existing
revenues projected as being available for new projects, which is approximately $550,000
annually (Attachment 6). Even with this increased cost, adequate revenues are available for this
project—as well as parking projects envisioned as part of the Chinatown Historic District and
Court Street Project—assuming the revenue plans already identified in the Draft Parking and
Downtown Access Plan are implemented (Attachment 7). The primary revenue enhancement
being considered is the reduction of free garage parking from 90 to 60 minutes.
Funding Design Changes. Design changes and other architectural service costs ($212,800) will
be funded from the unappropriated parking fund working capital, which has a current projected
balance of about $3.3 million. As such, this amount would not impact the City's current policy
of maintaining a minimum working capital balance that is 20% of operating costs (about
$200,000).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are three obvious questions:
1. Should we proceed with the garage without making any design changes?
2. Should we build the garage at all?
3. What can staff and the architect do to insure abetter bid process?
Should we proceed with the garage without making any design changes? No.
Eliminating the bridge and gazebo significantly reduces the cost of the overall project.
Eliminating the central stairwell will put pedestrian traffic closer to the corner of Morro and
Marsh, which will decrease the impact of pedestrians at the mid-block intersection for which the
bridge was meant to rectify. Revising the exterior finish could save up to half of the cost of the
original design because of reduced and/or eliminated hand plaster work and extensive metal
screen work. Thus, it will change the appearance of the garage, (which will require approval by
the ARC to ensure it still maintains an aesthetic quality).
1-7
Council Agenda Report—Rebidding the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 8
Eliminating the proposed "blue light" safety system is possible because it is not necessary to the
functioning of the garage itself. The removal of the Pacific Street office space will save
construction costs, but it would also eliminate some future minimal revenues from the leased
space. Providing for a bid alternate for retention of the shell office space and original exterior
will allow these features to be reinstated if possible. The same would be true for the exterior
finish alternate. Considering the primary focus of this project is to expand the parking space
inventory, staff believes the proposed design changes are appropriate.
Should we build the garage at all? Yes
The CAO strongly recommends that the Marsh Street Garage should be expanded. The
current.garage is commonly full and traffic must recirculate throughout the downtown and the
adjoining neighborhoods to search for parking. As identified in the project EIR, the Marsh
garage has a tremendous turnover rate compared with other garages in similar size and
community. The Draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan (scheduled to be considered by
Council in November) and its EIR both found that the assumption for the need of 300 additional
parking spaces at the Marsh Street location was necessary to meet then-current demand
(Attachment 8). In fact, it turns out that the garage would only provide a net new 232 spaces
toward that total need.
A new parking garage located somewhere else is a possibility. However,based upon experiences
with the Palm, Marsh and Marsh Street garage expansion projects, any new publicly-built garage
project will probably take at least five years to achieve due to the delays in associated land
acquisition, environmental, design and construction approvals and public hearings. The Draft
Parking and Downtown Access Plan recommended that even with the inclusion of Marsh Street
expansion project, for the City to stay ahead of the parking demand curve required in the
Downtown, the next public garage (the City's fourth) should be started no later than 1997.
Obviously, this has not occurred and therefore, establishing additional public off-street parking
immediately remains a critical need for our Downtown. Furthermore, the Historic Chinatown
District/Court Street Project has assumed that the Marsh Street Garage Expansion will be built to
lessen the full-development parking shortfall (342 spaces) already projected for the project.
Without the garage expansion, the parking deficient would be nearly 660 (342+250+68) spaces.
Thus, it is even more imperative to complete this project in the near term.
What can staff and the architect do to insure a better bid process?
To help insure a more responsive and competitive bid process, staff will be working with the
design and construction management team to solicit more bidders for the project. This will
encompass an aggressive outreach program. All prospective bidders would ggain be invited on-
site prior to the actual bid issuance in order to get a better "picture" of the project and to answer
questions about how the City can improve the bid project so more qualified bidders actually
submit a formal bid, and assuring that the plans and specifications are of the highest possible
quality. Additionally, the project architect has been requested to provide a written report on what
added quality control measures, including timely and courteous responses by his sub-contractors
will provide to the next set of bidders on this project. It is anticipated that he will have this
written report available for presentation to the council at this meeting.
1-8
Council Agenda Report—Rebidding the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 9
ALTERNATIVES
The objective of tonight's meeting is to receive direction from Council as to how staff should
proceed with the garage expansion project. Council can choose to go forward with the original
design, to add or delete various components for consideration, set a different budget amount, or
reject the project outright if it so desires.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- Project Analysis
Attachment 2- PMSM Letter dated August 31, 2000
Attachment 3- Original Cost Estimate for Garage Revisions
Attachment 3-1 Revised Cost Estimate for Garage Revisions
Attachment 3-2 Architect letter on Bid Climate
Attachment 4- Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Attachment 5- Architects Fee Proposal
Attachment 6- Parking Fund Working Capital Forecast
Attachment 7- Parking Fund Revenue Options Projection
Attachment 8- Parking Demand vs. Supply Graph
I cadparldng issuestcouncilreportrevisedplansandspecs
1-9
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 1 -- Project Analysis
Bid Climate
Little can be done by the City of San Luis Obispo to change the bid climate. The Federal
Reserve Board recently declined to raise interest rates as they felt the economy had "cooled"
enough. The most recent data on housing starts shows a slight downward trend. This may mean
that bidders may be more interested in bidding a project such as ours if things are, indeed,
starting to slow down. However, our location—midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles
(where major contractors of parking garages are located) will not change regardless of interest
rates. In addition, while the overall economy may be cooling, there is no indication that the
either of the two major markets (L.A. and S. F.) are in that category. In conclusion, staff does not
believe that any substantial change in the bid climate can be achieved which will lower the
project cost.
Number of Bidders
The City received two bids on the Marsh Street Project. One bid came from a firm in the L.A.
area and one from a local firm. The two bids were so close that staff believes they did represent
a legitimate competitive bid. However, more bids (and bidders) can create a lower project cost
due to increased competition. One additional local bidder has stated that, if given another
chance, they would also bid on the project. In discussions and interviews with the two bidders,
the construction managers, and an interview with a subcontractor by Councilmember Romero,
the issue of having the plans bid in the metric measurement system was explored. All said that
the measurement system had little effect on the bid price outcome. However, they indicated that
some subcontractors could be intimidated by the metric design. The independent cost estimator
retained by the project architect stated that it could be possible that the bids were "...inflated due
to confusion with the metric system and inconsistencies in dimensions." Both contactors said it
could have been a deciding factor by subcontractors "on the fence" on whether or not to bid the
project.
The project architect has verbally stated that the cost ($63,000) to convert the plans from metric
to English is not warranted for the potential cost savings (little to none). Given all factors —
contractors feedback, the project architect, etc. staff feels that while it will not affect the overall
project cost, switching from metric to English may induce more contractors to bid the project.
The CAO strongly feels that the switch is appropriate, if indeed, it will produce a. more
competitive bid.
Quality of Plans and Specifications
From interviews with both contractors a major factor leading to their bid costs was the quality of
the plans and specifications. One bidder stated that "the plans were hard to read and didn't
match from plans to specifications" and therefore simply bid an extra amount for each occurrence
to try to cover the discrepancy. As mentioned above the independent cost estimator
1-10
Attachment 1
retained by the project architect found the plans and specifications inconsistent. Some major
examples of problems they found were: S8.1 Bridge details. "The scale is incorrect"; S8.2, detail
IA. "Dimension 338 is incorrect. It should be 244"; S8.2 Detail 11. "Scale is 1:48 is neither
metric nor architectural. This is typical for other details this page." and A3.33 `Bridge railing
identified as steel but on bridge plans the rail is aluminum." Likewise staff was told that bidders
did not receive timely responses to bid questions concerning these discrepancies and in fact were
sometimes dealt with in a curt manner leading to problems in accurately bidding the project.
Staff is not in a position to assess the quality of plans and specifications —this type of project is
simply beyond our capability. The plans did receive three rounds of plan checking by the
Building Divison's contract plan checking firm, and one complete "constructibility and
biddibility" review by our construction management firm. The responsibility for a good
complete set of plans and specifications is that of the proiect architect.
Cost Savings of Individual Components Possible
This is the one area where staff can offer suggestions for cost reductions to the project in
accordance with Council directions. From interviews with Contractors and using common sense,
staff has suggested the following changes. However, cost estimates of savings received from
contractors differ remarkably from those provided by the project architect and his independent
cost estimator. The project budget is based upon information from the independent cost
estimator, as verbal discussions between staff and contractors cannot be substantiated nor directly
relied upon for cost estimating. The following table compares the estimator's vs. contractor's
cost savings potential by modifying the project.
Construction Component Estimator;.Cost Contractor's Cost
Eliminate Pedestrian Bridge & $592,500 $1,500,000
Gazebo
Eliminate Public Restrooms $11,100 if two remain $80,000 if all 4 are removed
Eliminate Pacific Street Office $69,000 $300,000 (2/3 of $450,000 of
all office space cost)
Change Exterior Finish $216,000 $250,000 (50% of total cost-
$500,000)
Eliminate Safety and Security $83,600 No estimate
S stem
Eliminate Mid-span Stairwell $38,000 No estimate
Total Potential Savings $190109200 $291309000
Note: The estimator's cost savings do not include :the 10% contractor mark-up typical for
construction projects.
1-11
Attachment 1
The above features are the only ones upon which that staff received contractor feedback.
Add back in two public restrooms. While saving funds from four restrooms was desirable,
staff felt that a commitment had been made to the Downtown Association to provide public
restrooms to meet a true need for more facilities in the downtown area. The obvious location was
the area formerly occupied by the Monro Street office—it was on the same street as the stair well
and could function as the restroom for the lone remaining office. The additional cost of doing
this is$22,000($12,000 design +$10,500 construction).
Totaling all information:
Again, because verbal discussions between staff and the two contractors cannot be substantiated
nor directly relied upon for cost estimating, a low and high savings value regarding their
feedback issues is given below. This uncertainty is further substantiated as the independent cost
estimator has provided different estimates as well.
Savings from contractor feedback: low: $1,500,000 high: $2,130,000
Savings from the independent estimator low: $873,600 high: $1,010,200
The total savings from the estimator of $1,010,200 is without the traditional 10% mark-up for
contractor's overhead and profit. When the mark-up is factored in the total savings potential is
$1,111,220. This represents the "best" cost assumption that staff can determine based upon the
limited information given by the project architect, independent cost estimator and bidding
contractors. Additional savings discussed were a lower grade of concrete and/or abasic change
in foundation design (estimated at $1M savings) however given the location of the garage and
problems associated with previous garages, staff could not justify these changes.
1-12
Attachment 2
31 August 2000 PHILLIPS
Mr.Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
1260 Chorro Street, Suite B MOORE
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Subject City of San Lulls Obispo A R C H I T E C T S
Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion
Re-bid Package/Cost Estimate
PMSM#98028.00
Dear Keith:
We have evaluated the cost estimate analyses prepared by our in house team and
O'Connor Construction Management,Inc. Our assessment is as follows:
1. O'Connor's revised cost estimate itemizes elements of the project that the City has
requested be removed from the project scope of work.Those items total $873,600
including a 10%mark-up for contractor's overhead and profit associated with those
costs.
2. We have requested that O'Connor assess the cost difference between the currently
designed exterior fagade of the garage and that of a simple"bare bones"stricture
as delineated in the sketches sent to you on 8/29/00. The potential cost difference.
is estimated to be$216,000. However,it must be noted that potential savings could
only be achieved if the city's design and planning approval process allows such a
scheme.
3. We have also asked O'Connor's opinion about the cost per square foot for the basic
garage structure. They estimate that the figure,for square footage analysis,based
upon what we now know, should be about$46 per square foot.We have assumed,
based upon the bid numbers received,that the contractor's comparable base cost is
at least$5.0 per square foot.
4. At least one bidder said that the cost for the bridge and gazebo was$1,500,000.
However,'O'Connor has been unable to substantiate that figure as noted in items#1
and#2 of the attached cost estimate.
It appears that reducing the project scope may only result in a savings of$873,600 to
$1,010,200. The re-bid amount would then be approximately$6,988,000 to
$7,226,000,using the two bids already received as a base point.
Victor Iraheta and I plan to attend the September 19`h council meeting to answer any
additional questions and await further direction from the staff and council.
Sinc
Fween AIA
Enclosures: O'Connor Construction Management's cost estimate dated 8/31/00(1 page)
ROGER A.PHILLIPS AIA
2020 ALAMEDA PADRE SERRA,SUITE 220 SANTA BARBARA,CA 93103 TEL 805 963-1955 FAX 805 5648582 STEP E MENEY AIA
1F� EENEY AIA
935 RIVERSIDE AVE., #20 PASO ROBLES,CA 93446 TEL 805 2274540 FAX 805 227-0712 -�•IA 00RE IV AIA
Attachment 3
28 AV st 2000
Fmt Sweeney, AIA
Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore Architects..
2020 Al nneda Padre Serra, Suite 220
Santa Barbara,California 93103 00
Regard ig: Marsh Street Garage Cost Reductions
OCMI Job#00134
Dear Mr. Sweeney:
As requ(sted O'Connor Construction Management has estimated certain components of the Marsh Street
Packing Garage. The purpose of estimating selected components of the project is to see if subtracting these
items from the low bid will reduce the estimate to within the project budget. The following components are
the ones O'Connor estimated and the associated direct subcontractor costs: Contractor mark-ups will be
discassedbelow.
1. Bridle $ 220,500
2. Gazebo(Including Elevator) $ 259,0.00
,f
3. ltela:ated Toilet Rooms and Related Plumbing $ 9,500
4.sOffrc e/Retail Areas $ 699000
5. E ctaior kin Revision .$ 1409000
4 'Blw:Light" Safety System $ 81,000
Teleldsion Security System Conduit $ 2,600
Tota $ 781,600
The sun of these seven items is$781,600 and represents subcontractor costs. A General Contractor would
mark those items up for administrative overhead and profit: A rate of 100/a would be appropriate for this. We
do not nrommend reducing the General Contractor's General Conditions costs because these costs are based
upon project 4uration,and these redugtions will not reduce the overall project timefizme significantly.
Tlieref v,the`marked up"cast for the deleted scope is $8599760.
2hq approach we mutually decided on is to modify the low bid(about$8.1 million)to assume a discount will
be achieved by attracting more bidders. From the adjusted bid we will deduct$859,760 for an adjusted bid
amount•)f$792M,240:
It is pos able that the bids were inflated due to confusion with the metric system and inconsistencies in
dimensions.' Some specific examples of problems we found follow: S8.1 Bridge details_ The scale is
incor=:. S8.2,detail 1A. Dimension 338 is incorrect.it should be 244. 98.2 detail 11. Scale is 1:48 is
neither raetric nor architectural. This is typical for other details this page. A333 Bridge railing identified as
steel but on bridge plans'the rail is aluminurri.
Very truly yours,
O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,INC.
ZFL
Wank `
ag MmmSq ,
fAqlf6Vd[:
• - 1-14
O'Connor ConatrucUan Management,Inc- 196M FalreWid,Suite 300,Intoe,CA 92612.949 476.2094 Fit:949 476M%•email:1 d0@0Cffd=M
Attachment 3-1
31 August 2000
Mr. Fred Sweeney, AIA
Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore Architects CC&
2020 Alameda Padre Serra, Suite 220
Santa Barbara, California 93103
Regarding: Marsh Street Garage Cost Reductions
OCMI Job # 00134
Dear Mr. Sweeney:
As requested O'Connor Construction Management has estimated certain components of the Marsh
Street Parking Garage. The purpose of estimating selected components of the project is to see if
subtracting these items from the low bid will reduce the estimate to within the project budget. The
folle�:::g comF;aeat� rre:he ones O'Connor estimated and the associated direct s�ubcont_Mctor
costs. Contractor mark-ups will be discussed below.
1. Bridge $ 333,500
. 2. .Gazebo (Including Elevator) $ 259,000
3. Relocated Toilet Rooms and Related Plurr $ 11,100
4. Office/Retail Areas $ 69,000
5. Exterior Skin Revision $ 216,000
6. "Blue Light" Safety System $ 81,000
7. Television Security System Conduit $ 29600
8. Delete Stairs at Elevator $ 38,000
Total $ 1,010,200
The sum of these eight items is $1,010,200 and represents subcontractor costs. A General .
Contractor would mark these items up for administrative overhead and profit. A rate of 10%
would be appropriate for this. We do not recommend reducing the General Contractor's General
Conditions costs because these costs are based upon project duration, and these reductions will not
reduce the overall project timeframe significantly. Therefore, the"marked up"cost for the deleted
scope is$1,111,220.
The approach we mutually decided on is to modify the 1oWbid(about$8.1 million)to assume a
discount will be achieved by attracting more bidders. F;om the low bid we will deduct$1,111,220
for an adjusted bid amount of$6,988,780. Please call if I can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours, '
O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,INC.
e41
Mauk
stim
ng
Manager
00134rbsw.e=
1-15
O'Connor Construction Management, Inc. 19600 Fairchild,Suite 300,Irvine,CA,92612.949 476-2094 Fmc:949 476-8294 9 email:info@oani.com
Sent By: PMSM Architects; 605 564 6582; Sep-1- `O 9:48AM; Page 1/5
To: OPALESKI K At: 7r' :7
ATLA 3-2
M E M O R A N D U M '
DATE 19 September, 20W
To Keith Opalevvski,Parking Manager
FROM Fred Sweeney
PROJECT City of San Luis Obispo—Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion A R C I T E C T S
Bid Climate
x1e NutmER 98028.00
This information is divided into two sections: 1)Information concerning apparent bid climate at the ti
of the first bid on July 12,2000;and 2)information concerning potential bid climate within the time
frame anticipated for re-biding the project after September 28,2000.
I. BID CLIMATE AT JULY 12,2000
The parking structure project was unable to attract more than the two bids received. Walker Parking
Consultants and Harris&Associates contacted general contractors before the bid to determine interest.
Walker spoke with representatives from McCarthy Construction and S.1.Amoroso(both companies had
done or were doing parking structures designed by Walker). Those firms declined to bid because of th
busy Schedules.
PMSM contacted A.1.Diani Construction,Larry Wysong Construction,S.J.Deferville Construction,and
Maino Construction. Of those local contractors only Malno expressed an interest in bidding. The other
contractors said they were too busy,in fact A.J.Mani Indicated that they had enough work for the next
two years without bidding anything else.
Harris contacted DIM Construction of Long Beach(they do garages all over Southern California)and
Specialty Construction from San Luis Obispo County. They were also too busy.
The City and Harris contacted ARB Contractors and were told that the bid date would need to be chang
in order for them to bid as they were already bidding other projects at that time. The City chose to rese
the bid date for July 12, 2000.
Pokrajac Construction of Templeton,wanted to bid,but missed the mandatory pre-bid meeting. The Cit f
was aware of this.
During this period the City had Harris&Associates conduct a constructability review of the project;some
adjustments in the cost estimate were recommended.
Walker Parking Consultants has prepared a list of bids based upon their knowledge of projects most
recently bid in California(attached).
II. BID CLIMATE PROGNOSIS UNTIL THE END OF 2000
PMSM contacted the following contractors on September 15,and 18,2000 to obtain their opinion as to
the contributing factors of discernable higher bids now being seen in the local bld area.
1. Frank Schipper Construction Company,Santa Barbara: They are currently Inundated with work
and are less interested in low bid work. They believe that for the tact six months subcontractors
have been increasing their bids by about 10%because everyone IS so busy.
2. S.J.Deferville Construction,Santa Maria: They believe bids are definitely coming in higher this
a year ago. How much higher depends on how busy subcontractors perceive they are. They are
also seeing a 10%Increase factor In subcontractor bids.
3. 1_W_Bailey Construction,Santa Barbara: They indicate that manpower is short and that they se
subcontractor bids coming in 6%to 10%higher.
ROGER A.PM LIPS
SMHEN METSCRA A
2920 ALAMEDA PADRE 5ERRA,6229 SANTA BARBARA,CA 93103 TEL 805-963.19SS FAX80S-SW4S82 FRED L SWEENEY
935 RN£RSIDE AVENUE.120 PASO ROBL£S,CA 9344E TEL 805-237-4540 FAX 605.227-0713 JAMES E.MOORS AIA
1-1
Sent By: PMSM Architects; 805 564 8582; Sep-10-00 9:49AM; Page 2/5
ATTR 3-2
4. A.J.Diani Construction,Santa Maria:Definitely seeing 10%higher on subcontractor bids. Als
there Is lack of interest in bidding public low bid jobs as long as negotiated private work Is still
available.
5. Maino Construction, San Luis Obispo: They have difficulty continuing to obtain qualified
subcontractors to bid.
The following entities were also contacted during this same period:
1. UCSB Facilities Department Their Brloda Hall Project was just bid. Contrary to three separate
estimates,the price of steel and concrete was double the cost identified in all three estimates.
They indicated that a similar situation had just occurred at their sister campus at UC Santa Cruz
2. City of Paso Robles. They currently have three major projects under construction,Niblick Brid
over-crossing,new airport terminal,and Barney Schwartz Park. Currently,they are anticipating
bids to come in for their new Safety Center,which Is estimated to be 9.3 million dollars. Bids
due for this project before the end of October 2000. Their construction manager is using an
online bid center to attract bidders.
3. Cal Poly is currently completing their parking structure and sports complex. As of the date of t is
memo,PMSM was not able to confirm the expected bid dates for other upcoming projects.
4. Lucia Mar School District has several projects that will be bidding before the first of the year.
They include the new Niponw High School,two elementary schools,plus other major work
totaling over 536,000,000. For the lat year they have been experiencing bids 5%to 1596 hig
than the architect's estimates, particularly on projects of less than$2,000,000.
5. Hanseomb international Consultants and Estimators published a recent newsletter identifying
increase in bids that are currently being seen in the San Francisco Bay Area. (See attached copy
6. The City of Santa Barbara is currently preparing for a new 570-space parking structure to be
located In their downtown care on approximately one-quarter city block. The construction cost
budget has been established as approximately 19.5 million dollars,and is projected to cost
$34,200 per space.
cc Walker Parking Consultants
ROGER A.PNILUPS IA
srom MEM"A A
2020 ALAMEDA PADRE SERRA,$220 SAMA BARBARA,CA 93103 TEL 805-%3-1955 FAx 805.56"592 FRED L.SWEENEY
935 RIVERSIDE AVENUE-$20 PASO ROBLES,CA 93446 TEL 80S-2274540 FAX 805.227-0712 JAMES E.MOORE ALA
1-1
�I�'IPI��11111111��II9@9
Ski!
u���l�'��iYflYii
IoOII�IiOIII�'ii�OCII�C�Y !1�
mm
�10311�1��113�33�9��11.@3�
�Ie�ll�17711�11111��11�97�
�l1�slL�y�ll�{IIIII��IICe��
Sent By: PMSM Architects; 805 564 8582; Sep-10-00 9:50AM;
FIM 1990
3
ATTACHIENT $-2
_
7.1
Issae 25 Spring 2000
RETURN TO INDEX PAGE
IN THIS ISSUE
Scenario Planning-new tool for the Design Industry
Bay Area Market Condifions
Hotel Economic Issues
Happy New Millennium)
Whether you believe the new millennium has already started,or doesn't begin until January 1,2001,we hope you
have a happy millennium anyway.There Is a level of uncertainty as to when the millennium begins,and there is
unoarfaalty in many Wings.One certainty is that things will change,and that can lead to uncertainty, as with tt e
changing market conditions in the San Francisca Bay Area.We address the changes that market conditions I ave on
bid prices In one article in this edition of the Hanscomb News.Our lead article,by Paul Justlson,a Vice Prash ient at
Fiad&Associates, is about a technique for managing change,and Paul is one of the pioneers in bringing this tool to
facility planning and design.
Scenario Planning - a new tool for the des gn
industry
Scenario Planning is a tool for making better decisions In the face of an uncertain future. Herrman Kahn initial
development of it doting the Cold War.Beginning in the mid-1 970s, Royal Dutch Shell adapted It to business se.
Scenario Planning is distinct from traditional forecasting and projection tools,as it accepts the impossibility of eliably
predicting the future.Yet, it recognizes that we must still make decisions that will play out well into the future. o help
with those decisions,Scenario Planning focuses in a rational and disciplined manner on the critical uncertain s of
the future. It then uses the uncertainties to construct a virtual wind tunnel to test major decisions.One of She[ s
successes with the tool is both memorable and a good illustration of the technique.
1-1
16 t,/15/00 I IM AM
Sent By: PMSM Architects; 805 564 8582; Sep-4 `0 9:50AM; f �^
Fan TR - td�Jlowava..con�urorveeonJl�gedhe - L -'
ATTAC@SLNT 8-2
Busy Bey Area Market
The recent upturn in market conditions in the Bay Area has produc ad a
number of conditions that are driving bid prices up:
Frequently,there are only two or three bidders fora projed or for a
sub-trade.Also,a look at the range of bids will often ind' that
the high bidder was not supplying a bona-fide bid.It has be in
established that a reduced number or true bidders results Ir an
increase in bid prices, and a report published on this was p blished
in the Hamscornb News in December 1991. The report sh that,
on average,under normal market conditions,bids can be a pected
to be up to about 15%higher than estimated where only 1w i bids
are received.
• There is also not the migration of workers that is usual In th
construdiort industry,since workers can usually now find
employment near to home.Consequently.the Bay Area is
experiencing a shortage of skilled workmen, especially fore non. In
the mechanical trades In San Francisco.there is no longer uch a
person as an apprentice any more,just cxaffi and 1.
The prevalent,prolonged effect of overtime has adverse on
productivity and labor costs.A previous Hanac9omb News
published In March 1995,was based on an.analysts of bifid
trends over the range of market conditions.That article written
in relation to a recessionary period,but it shows that a perl when
contractors work-books are full can Ind-to prices being.up o 30%
above the"norm".While there is undoubtedly a measure of overlap
in this issue and the preceding one,it can be expected that he
current situation in relation to workload is adding around 5 to
bids.This factor will(n general)be consistent across the b'
packages,and reflects the added costs of doing business ft a busy
market,over and above normal escatation/cttlation.
• Another trend that we have noticed for some tine,is that
contractors are getting more and more choosy about S.and
bidding accordingly.work that is straightforward(e.g. new
construction)will attract more attention and have some tition,
whereas work that is unattractive will('d bid at all)be pricer A a
level that covers all current and future risks,and possibly m m.
Renovation work generelly would fall into this"prmblematie"
category for many trades,and the premium(over and above the
other premiums)could be up to 25%.This factor will vary,
depending an the type of work,e.g. it can be expected to at ect the
structural sections,but will have minimal affect on finishes.
To summarize the above three factors affecting bids,we have the following range of effects:
1-2
fe 9115100 11:2.2 AM
Sent By: PMSM Architects; 805 584 8582; Sep-1a-00 10:19AM; Page .1/1
To: OPALESKI K At: 7F' 97 A 3-2
an 1"0 http://oww owmbWKN25.htm
i — IO @anm t�$BBdGS
Lack of bkkkn 0% 15%
Hot nw mt w dltt0 m 5% 5%
Aftchenem markup Il4fi 2`�ffi _J
TOM effect 59b '�i94
1-2
9/15/0011:22 AM'
d6
Attachment 4
Marsh Street Garage Expansion A EIR
Section 20 Summa
25 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 21 includes a brief description of the environmental issues relative to the proposed project,
the identified environmental impacts,proposed mitigation measures,and residual impacts. Class
I impacts are defined as significant,unavoidable,adverse impacts which require a statement of
overriding considerations to be issued per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines if the project
is approved. Class 11 impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to less'
than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of tate State
CEQA Guidelines. Class III impacts are less than significant,and Class IV impacts are considered
beneficial. The following is a listing of the number and classification of impacts identified.
Class I-Unavoidable Significant Impacts
None
Class II-Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Insignificant Levels
Traffic: additional pedestrian traffic;additional cumulative peak hour trips.
Aesthetics: conflicts with General Plan and Architectural Review Commission guidelines;removal
of existing trees.
Cultural Resources: potential disturbance of archaeological andlor historic resources.
Class III-Less Than Significant Impacts
Air Quality: construction and operational emissions would fall below Air PoIIution Control
District thresholds.
Traffi</Circulation/Parking: additional average daily(ADT)and PM peak hour trips;increased
traffic at entrances and exits to garage;additional pedestrian traffic;impact on bicycle hqf j ,
additional cumulative ADT trips.
Aesthetics: increased level of overall building intensity and scale;viewshed alteration.
Class IV-Beneficial Effects
Traffhc/CirculatiorilParldng: increased parking opportunities downtown.
C(ty of Sans utlspo
2-2 1-
Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR Attachment 4
Section 2.0 Summary
Table 2.1 Summary of . Impacts,
-Mitigation • Residual Impacts
n
R
The proposed parking structure would generate minor localized emissions of dust and other pollutants during the
construction period. These would be considered less than significant. Velhfde trips generated by the prod Jeare
anticipated to causeless than significant air pollutant emissions. The carbon monoxide emissions generated by
vehides whiFe driving through the proposed parking structure would be considered less than significant Based
on San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan projections, cumulative growth in the City is not anticipated to exceed local
air pollutant thresholds,resulting in less than signfficant cumulative growth Impacts.
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
Impact A04 Demolition and None required. However,due to the potential These recommended
construction activities would nuisance of construction generated dust,the measures would ensure
generate exhaust emissions and following mitigation measures are that impacts remain less
fugitive dust Because time recommended: than significant
emissions would fall below
recommended significance AQ-1(a) Water trucks shall be used during
thresholds,this is considered a construction to keep all areas of vehicle
Class III,adverse but less than movement damp enough to prevent dust from
significant impact. leaving the site. At a minimum,this will
require twice daily applications. Increased
watering is required whenever wind speeds
exceed 15 miles per hour.
AQ-1(b) The amount of area that is disturbed
at any one time shall be minimized.
AQ-1(c) If stockpiling of fill material is
involved,soil that Is stockpiled for more than
two days shall be covered,kept moist,or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation.
Impact AQ-2 The increase in Although the project would have less than These recommended
vehicle emissions that is significant air quality impacts,the following measures would ensure
anticipated upon completion of the mitigation measures are recommended: that impacts remain less
proposed project may result in. than significant
exoeedances of the state and AQ-2(a) Provide preferential carpool parking.
federal air emission significance
'
City of San L ujc Odktpo
2-3 1-/J
Marsh Street Garage Expansion i, EIR Attachment 4
Section 2.0 Summary
Table 2.1 Summary of • Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual impacts
thresholds. This is considered a AQ-2(b) Information on public transit and
Class III,less than significant local transportation management
impact. organizations shall be provided in the parking
structure in order to minimize vehicle use and
related emissions.
AQ-2(c) Final design of the Marsh Street
Garage expansion shall incorporate
Infrastructure to accommodate electrical
vehicle recharging. At such time as
considered feasible by the Department of
Public Works,recharge stations shall be
installed at designated spaces,not to exceed
a total of 10 spaces.
Impact AQ-3 CO generated by None required. None.
vehicles using the parking garage
would increase local ambient CO
concentrations. However,CO
concentrations would fail below
state and federal standards.
"Impacts are considered to be at a
Class III,less than significant level. _
` tAFFjCJCJRCU TlON/F�i4RK1NG :: _ yx r. . ; «K!A—
,475
�= r + . :Y•'�k,—; ��w'``,�....•.� ,yy••i,"'f "y. rtlrey "`Y� '?.v'sC•1 a� y 4.. > N.. S, z�—. y�•,,
,, ud.� :k F.,.skY.:a{G'�1.=�::.�^i v.:ti:.�i: .j:.,.•.rr'"�t.e..r.s� r,.. x.:s'S,.x`1..:".aa-..... .. �. +..: s_ _ ..-.._. �._�3_.
The proposed 310space garage expansion project is expected to generate a total of 3,475 Average Daily Trips(ADT)and
329 P M peak hour trips(PHT). Tht traffic analysis assumed that 75%of these trips(2,606 ADT and 247 PHT)would be
attracted to the study area adjacent to the garage from other areas within and outside the downtown core area of San Luis
Obispo. The remaining 25%of the trips were assumed to be captured from existing traffic flows within the immediate
project study arra. A!1 of the study area roadways and intersections operate at LOS A-D,which are considered good levels
of semi¢,under existing and existing+project conditions.Most of the study area intersections are expected to operate
acoeptably in the cumulative conditions,with the exception of Broad Street and Pacific Street,which is forecast to operate at
LOS F(57.1 sec.delay)with cumulative+project volumes. Review of the site access plan found that the entrance and exit
gate capacities would generally accommodate traffic volumes associated with the 310-spats expansion. The project is also
expected to masse pedestrian flows to the study arca. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of
the fallowing mitigation measures:signalizing the Broad StrceVPac fic Street intersection under cumulative buildout
conditions,installing a mid-blanc pedestrian signal on Marsh Street to assist with pedestrian movement,improve the
ingress and egress driveways serving the garage,and restriping westbound Pacific Street at the Chorm Stmt intersection.
Pacific Stmt west of the garage exit,is forecast to camp volumes in excess of the recommended level of 5,000 ADT,as
defined in the Circulation Element for Local Commercial stints,under the Cumulative+Project scenario. This would be
potentially inconsistent with the existing Circulation Element policies. However,given the short segment that would be
affected(fess than one-half of one block),and given that the levels can be accommodated,with the recommended restripimg of
Pacific Street,no absolute inconsistency has been identified. As observed during fold investigations,there is sufficient
roadway width and capacity on Oris segment of Pacific Street to accommodate forecast cumulative volume of 5,200 ADT for
that segment of the street west of the proposed garage exits west to Chorro Street. All of the study area roadways are
rest to operate acceptablyin the cumulative conditions.
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
Impact T-1 Development of the None required. None.
project will result in the addition of
2,606 attracted ADT to the
roadways adjacent to the site.
This would result in a Class 111
impact(adverse but less than
significant),as the downtown-area
roadways would continue to
operate acceptably.'
2-41GF
Gty of San t�rlf,s,QT o
Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR Attachment 4
Section 2.0 Summary
Tableof • Impacts,
Mitigation . Residual Impacts
Impact T-2 Development of the None required. None.
project will result in the addition of
247 attracted peak hour lips to the
intersections adjacent to the site.
This would result in a Class III
impact(adverse but less than
significant),as the area
intersections would continue to
operate acceptably.
Impact T3 Development of the None required. However,the following Impacts would remain less
project will result in increased mitigation measure is recommended: than significant with the
traffic at the entrances and exits to operation of the proposed
the garage. This would result in a T3(a) Ingress. Based on the gate capacity parking structure.
Gass III impact(adverse but less analysis reviewed above,the peak inbound
than significant),as the proposed flows would be accommodated by the two
configuration of the entrance and entrance gates. City parking staff has
exits would accommodate peak indicated,however,that unequal loading
traffic flows at the expanded occurs at the two entrance gates,which could
garage. influence the future operation of the gate
capacities. It is therefore recommended that
the configuration of the two entrance gates and
the driveway throat design be modified to .
promote more even utilization of the two
entrance lanes. Improvements to the gate
equipment,including bar code and proximity
sensors,pre-dispensed spitters(loop
detectors),etc.should also be considered to
enhance the entrance gate capacities.
Egress. Given the side-by-side configuration
of the two outbound driveways proposed for
the expanded structure and the high volume of
outbound traffic which turns right onto Pacific
Street,it is recommended that the westerly
driveway be striped as a right-tum only exit
lane and the easterly driveway be striped as a
shared left-and-right-tum exit lane.
Appropriate signage should.be provided inside
the garage to properly channefize outbound
traffic prior to the exit gates. In addition to the
treatments at the exit driveways,It is
recommended that the westbound Pacific
Street approach at the Chorro Street
intersection be restriped to provide a separate
westbound right-tum lane. This lane addition
will allow for more vehicle queuing on this
approach,thus minimizing interference with the
operation of the garage's exiting lanes. In
order to accommodate this restriping,the
existing loading zone on the north side of
Pacific Street would have to be removed,as
well as on-street parking(approximately 2
spaces)on the south side of Pacific Street
adjacent to Charro Street With the revised
exit lane configurations and the Pacific Street
restriping at Cho=Street,Pacific Street could
r 2-5 CW of San Luis
25 Po
Marsh Street Garage Expansion. .i EIR Attachment 4
Section 2.0 Summary
Tableof Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation . Residual Impacts
accommodate outbound traffic flows from the
expanded garage with minimal delays in the
LOS A range.
Impact T-4 Development of the None required. Impacts would be
project will result in increased beneficial without
parking opportunities in the mitigation.
downtown commercial area of the
City. This would result in a Class
N impact(beneficial).
Impact TS Development of the None required. However,the following Impacts would be less
project will result in additional mitigation measure is recommended: than ssignificant without
pedestrian traffic in the Marsh
Street area. This would result in a TS(a)Development of the garage expansion
Class 111 impact(adverse but.less would result in increased pedestrian use of
than significant). the existing mid-block crosswalk on Marsh
Street It is recommended that a separate
right-tum lane be provided on Marsh Street
at the garage entrance in order to improve
traffic and pedestrian flow at this location. To
provide this right-tum lane,on-street
parking along the south side of Marsh Street
between the driveway and a point east of
Chorro Street would need to be removed,
and the existing loading zone and trolley stop
would need to be relocated. It is also
recommended that a traffic signal be
Installed at this mid-block location. The
signal would need to be coordinated with the
upstream and downstream signals at Chorro .
Street and Morro Street to ensure that traffic
flows do not extend into the upstream
intersection(Chomp Street/Marsh Street).
Timing. Implementation of the right4um lane
on Marsh Street and the mid-block crosswalk
at the garage entrance would be required
prior to occupancy of the expanded structure.
Impact T-6 Development of the None required. Impacts would be less
project will result in additional than significant without
vehicle traffic in the area which mitigation
could impact bicycle travel. This
would result in a Class III impact
(adverse but less than significant),
as the existing bike lane system in
the area would help accommodate
bicyclists in dealing with the
increased vehicular traffic.
ImpactT-7 Development of the None required. Impacts would be less
project will result in the addition of than significant without
2,606 attracted ADT to the mitigation.
roadways adjacent to the site
under Cumulative conditions. This
would result in a Class III impact
(adverse but less than significant),
as all segments would operate
City of San L,{ris�bfspo
2-6 1 �d
Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR Attachment 4
Section 20 Summary
• - 2.1 Summary of • Impactsi
Mitigationand Residual Impacts
acceptably within their respective
design capacities.
Impact T-8 Development of the T-8(a) Broad StreettPacific Street Implementation of
project will result in the addition of Development of the garage expansion would Mitigation Measures T-
247 attracted peak hour trips to the degrade the intersection operations to the 8(a)and T-8(b)would
Intersections adjacent to the site LOS F range(57.1 second delay). A peak reduce project-generated
under Cumulative conditions. This hour traffic signal warrant analysis was impacts to a less than
would result in a Class II Impact completed for the intersection to determine significant level.
(significant but mitigable)at the the future need for traffic signals. The State
Broad Street/Pacific Street peak hour warrants indicated that traffic
intersection and a Class III impact signals would be required to accommodate
(less than significant)at the Osos Cumulative+Project P.M.peak hour
Street/Pacific Street intersection. volumes(worksheets are included in the
Technical Appendix). Given the dose
spacing between the Pacific Street and
Marsh Street intersections along Broad
Street it is important that the signals be
coordinated to minimize delays and queuing
on Broad Street at Pacific Street. With the
installation of a coordinated signal at this
location,the intersection would operate in the
LOS B range,thus mitigating cumulative
impacts.
Timing: Implementation of traffic signals at
the Broad Street/Padfic Street intersection
would occur after the City Public Works
Department conducts a detailed traffic signal
warrant assessment and delay study at the
Intersection and submits a report
summarizing their findings and
recommendations to the City Council. The
first signal warrant and delay study report
would occur within 3 to 6 months after the
expanded garage is operational and then
once a year for 3 years.
T-8(b)Osos Street/Pacific Street
Development of the garage expansion
combined with cumulative developments in
the downtown area would degrade
intersection operations to the beginning of the
LOS E range(31.1 second delay). A peak
hour traffic signal warrant analysis was
completed for the intersection to determine
the future need for traffic signals. The
cumulative+project traffic volumes forecast
for this intersection are slightly than the
minimum volumes satisfy the State traffic
signal warrants. it is recommended that
traffic signals be installed at this location to
accommodate cumulative traffic volumes,
when warranted.
Timing. Implementation of traffic signals at
the Osos Street/Pecific Street Intersection
City of San IS
a
2-7
Marsh Street Garage Expansion r:.al EIR Attachmipat 4
Section 2.0 Summary
Table 2.1 Summary of • Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Resi dual Impacts
would occur after the City Public Works
Department conducts a detailed traffic signal
warrant assessment and delay study at the
intersection and submits a report
summarizing their findings and
recommendations to the City Council. The
first signal warrant and delay study report
would occur.within 3 to 6 months after the
expanded garage is operational and then
once a year for 3 ears.
v .—,y-�_�:�yy,ev • L C f'T tN � L¢'�"X' rti. � � FS;J. 'CS' �.t _ rv..N7 '. y�il ar+'-
P. aYSf
I SSIflETM
This section,in examining the potential of the proposed project to atter the visual or aesthetic environment of the
site, analyzes:
a. The projecrs conformance with aesthetic guidelines of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land
. Use Element and Architectural Review Commission(ARC);
b. The projects consistency with the existing design character of the downtown area;
c. Whether the removal of existing trees constitutes a significant aesthetic impact;and
d. The project's impact on viewsheds available from public areas.
The Marsh Street Garage expansion would conform with the General Plan Land Use Element and ARC
guidelines. Design features would reduce the impact of the project's mass and intensity to adverse but less than
significant levels. The addition of street trees would reduce the aesthetic impact of removing existing trees on
site to an adverse but less than significant level. Adverse but less than significant impacts on viewsheds would
result with project implementation. Cumulative development In the downtown area is anticipated to result in
Adverse but less than significant cumulative viewshed impacts on pedestrians and motorists over the next ten
years due to the incremental reduction of the number of viewing opportunities from the street level of the
prominent natural features surroundino the
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
Impact AES-1 The proposed The following mitigation measures would The proposed project
parking garage extension may not ensure insignificance: would generally conform
conform with the aesthetic policy with the Land Use
guidelines of the City's General AES-1(a) The project shall adhere to all Element and ARC
Plan Land Use Element and the applicable Land Use Element Design guidelines,thus having a
Architectural Review Commission. Principles and ARC design criteria,as less than significant
This is considered a Class II; interpreted by the Director of Community impact
significant but mitigabte impact. Development and the ARC.
AES-1(b) At locations where driveway
access does not interrupt the facade,the
sidewalk frontage shall be buffered from the
structure with either structural or landscaping
elements that would be at a minimum of four
feet in height The provision of a recessed
alcove area within the landscaped setback
area,adomed with a sculpture,water feature,
and seating shall be considered by the
Architectural Review Committee.
Impact AES-2 In adding to the Mitigation Measures AES-1(a)and(b)would Design features would
bulk and massing of the existing address issues of neighborhood design. reduce the increase in
parking structure,the proposed Although less than significant the following mass and building
project would increase the level of mitigation measure is suggested: intensity of the proposed
overall building intensity and scale project to less than
in the project vicinity,therefore AES-2(a) Vary the surface forms and significant levels.
altering the existing design materials of the structure so that the Pacific
C►ty of San Luis;blspo
2-8 1-28
Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR Attachment .4
Section 2.0 Summa -
• - 2.1 Summary of • Impacts,
Mitigation • Residual Impacts
character of the downtown Street frontage has the appearance of being
community. This Is considered a two or three buildings instead of one,with the
Class III,adverse but less than part closest to Morro Street responding to the
significant impact context provided by the Post Office,the
Presbyterian Church,or the Downtown
Center.
Impact AES-3 Construction of the AES-3(a) Enlarged curbside planters shall The addition of the
proposed parking structure be provided on Pacific Street and planted mitigation measures
addition would result in the with wide-spreading trees. Due to space identified above,would
removal of the existing trees on- constraints,the trees cannot be replaced on reduce the aesthetic
site,which contribute to the a one-to-one basis. Therefore,widened impact of removing the
existing visual character of the planters shall occupy what is now curbside existing on-site trees to
area. This is considered a Class parking,thus allowing for wide-spreading an adverse but less than
II,significant but mitigable impact. trees which would cover a bigger area. significant level.
Selection of these trees shall be based on
size,long fife,and structural soundness.
AES-3(b) Areas of the subject site proposed
for landscaping or street tree wells shall:be
planted with ash trees of a minimum 244nch
box size. A minimum of eight(8)trees shall
be planted. The locations shall be selected
by a qualified landscape architect. Locations
shall be reflective of the canopy massing
currently existing at the site.
AES-3(c) If the former Parks and Recreation
structure is demolished rather than moved,
demolition of that building and construction of
the garage expansion shall be done so that
the two liquid amber trees are retained in
their present location.
Impact AES-4 The proposed Although the projects impact on viewsheds Impacts on viewsheds
parking structure expansion has is considered less than significant,the would remain adverse but
the potential to alter the.viewshed following mitigation measure is less than significant with
of Cerro San Luis Obispo and recommended. This ties to the City s Visual the development of the
other surrounding hills. This is Arts in Public Places Program. This program proposed parking
considered a Class III,adverse but stipulates that I%of the total approved structure.
less than significant impact construction cost of eligible capital
construction projects be expended for the
design and installation of public art.
AES-4(a) The proposed project shall
incorporate artwork on site,visible to the
public,that either enhances and draws
attention to the high quality of visual features
of the San Luis Obispo area.
- - r. - ,p•i ,c.J- •;(i� e'•36'...._Yr :.�•'. ^::.,e,. t. _gin ;?;-ve^,`c
u• t _.. �.�t �+'
S.
� OgRCESz.F ' ` '.,6 * Wyrryry., ' _.+3:`u_a• 4 _¢Y14.rs,}" tiJ .. `Y 5. "'1'14 t :i.
� �`` '.�,�a;y,�„it��+.�,T.j'„,:
Archaeological and historic artifacts discovered during a site investigation suggest that other resources may be
present in urunvestigated locations on-site. Construction of the proposed project could therefore pose a
significant impact on these resources. A survey of historic buildings revealed that the one building on-site was
previously determined to lack historical value. These archaeological and historical impacts are mitigable to a
less than significant level by combining archaeological monitoring and,If warranted data recovery excavations
into a single field operation during construction.
2-9
City of San T-f 51S101po
Marsh Street Garage Expansion anal EIR Attachment 4
Section 20 Summary
Tableof • Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
impact Miti ation Measures Residual Impact
Impact CR-1 Project construction CR-1(a) A detailed research design and With implementation of
would adversely impact a mitigation plan shall be filed with the State this mitigation measure,
potentially significant Historic Preservation Office prior to any impacts to archaeological
archaeological and historical construction activity that might disturb and historic resources
resource. This is considered a important resources. The research design would be less than
Class II,significant but mitigabie would guide evaluation procedures for significant
pct. discoveries and the treatment plan would
establish methods and procedures used for
each phase of work,from discovery to report
preparation.
Evaluation and data recovery work shall be
combined into a single field operation. Initial
demolition and pavement removal would be
carefully monitored by a qualified
archaeologist If intact archaeological or
historical deposits are uncovered,their
importance would be evaluated according to
a pre-approved research design.Data
recovery would be carried out immediately
according to the treatment plan for
discoveries that exhibit these specific
'importanP characteristics. Discoveries that
do not meet the criteria that would be
considered ineligible for further treatment
under CEQA and City guidelines. Impacts to
important resources would be immediately
mitigated to less than significant levels
according to the predesigned mitigation plan.
Recovered artifacts would then be processed
at a laboratory and analyzed. A Subsurface
Archaeological Resources Evaluation report
would be prepared documenting the
archaeological procedures and results.
z_,o City San of Js po
r �
Attachment 5
PHILLIPS
15 August 2000
Mr.Mike McCluskey .
Public Works Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A R C K
990 Palm Strect
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Subject: City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansion
PMSM#98028.00
Dear Mike:
As you requested,here is the dincline and anticipated financial impacts for the changes required j
to achieve the reduction in project scope outlined in your 8/4/00 letter and our 8/7/00 meeting,
then to re-bid the project-
Our
rojectOur understanding of the reduction in project scope and bid alternates is enclosed. .
L Timeline:
Upon authorization by the.City of San Luls Obispo,it will take 6 work weeks to make
changes to the contract dcwuments Once changes are completed weestimate 4 workweeks
for City plan check of chrutges and 3 work weeks for responding to comments and gaining
-final approval. This ti= ne assumes no ARC review. If exterior skin is redesigned and
ARC review is required,then an additional 6 work weeks may be required prior to plan
check:
11. Rebid Financial Impacts: . '
A. Starting Point:.Aventge of twq bids received by City(see note#1): $8,250,000
B. Order of Magnitude Estimate of Value of Scope Reduction(see note#2) <S2,000,000>
Subtotal-Projected Re-b:id Target Construction Cost• $6,250,000
C. Fee to change Constuctioa Documents for Scope Reduction-Item I $96,000
D. Fee to Convert Construction Documents from Metric to English-Item II
(see note#3) $63,000
E. Cost to Reid f
• Advertisements(Budget) $1,000
• BidSets(Print Budget) $7,000
• PMSM(Budget) $10,000
• Harris(Budget) $10,000
$28.000
Costs to complete the project should also include both Harris'and PMSM's Construction
Administration fee budgets.
dA
2020 AL AMEDA PADRE SERRAr SURE 720 SANTA BARBARA.CA 93103 TEL 805 963-1955 FAX 905 5646592 �„� r„ u
935 RIVERSIDE AVE.,920 PASO ROBUS,CA 93116 TEL 805 2274540 FAX 805 227-0712rlr� to N •u
Attachment 5
City of San Luis Obispo Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore Architects
Marsh Street Garage
I. Proposed Scope Reductions -Fee Breakdown
Eee.Budgets•
A. Remove bridge and gazebo, including items Al-A4 $27,500
B. Move elevator and eliminate stair $21,000
C-D. Remove 2nd floor restrooms; add new restrooms on first floor $12,500
E- F. Eliminate offices from base bid; provide as additive alternate $27,000
G. Provide"blue light"safety system as additive alternate $1,000
H. Provide conduit for security system as an additive alternate $1.000
Total Items A-H: $90,000
H. Convert Construction Documents from Metric to English system"
PMSM $12,620
Walker $36,500
OMB $1,500
T&K $1,500
Wallace(includes both topo and plans) $9,920
Firma $460
Rademaker $500
Total Item II: $63,000
• Fee budgets for items A-F have Walker subconsultant(OMB and T&K)
fees spread across budgets. Deletion of an item will require
reconfirmation of OMB and T&K fees end overall budget.
PMSM consultant fees for metric to english conversion not marked up.
1-32 8128100
hfjobs/1998/98o2800/docs/contracts/scopereductfees.xls
Attachment 6
g $ $ 0 $ 0 o0ppo apo opo goo
In N O, CS vn O O O O e� N O O N t fl T 7 ?
8 % Q .. 1: W W v1 Q� O O N O N R �O O� O o0 00
i N kn 90 Or .�. N v0kn 1 O N N O lV Rn N N N
W p G O O O O O pCC p O 8 S pp O O 10 pp O O O
a00 vOi_ O O O O qt �O O O b 000• �D T
g O �••� l� W %n to to O v 4 O N % h O en O O
N h O% O .�. O� N %n v1 � N v1 C el N �. N N N
W)) a\ R
p Cp p p 8 8oo
CC
V4
en N N 2 �O o O O r.O ej D O O O
u Q V'i •� M M h h V1 O 00 00 N 000 N a e1 %D en en cq
y �y �* 00 O M in Os N a% vl le en
N .r •-� N
0i o 0 0 0 o g O O o T �D O b n 7t � h O Iq
NO r- W 00 [: O -n
M h T M h h N � O M N N 4 T N O� M eO
N Cr 00 M O� V7 a\ N Q\ V'1 00 00 C �'4!, in VMI N N N
� 00 M '+ � !F OD
« k4
N
R p p p
0 O o 0 0 o o o Op o 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0
C O 00 00 O O O o e� N O N -1 t N % D
LL. t- vi O� Wt kn vi O O r+ 00 N Cl '~ M. N N
L S v) 00 M oo v1 a\ N oo h .�. G eei en N H N N N
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0p 0 QU 00 g 0 • p 'p O 0 0 0
LL. C o vOi� 0 00� 0 0 0 000 O 1-4 N - O NC N .+ 00 N N
O O C4 a0 M O� N 00 M O e�
N • •�{ oo N ,-• ••• N l: O 00 oo °�CL
N N M N
L4 C •
� W i 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o O o 0 o O O O O c o o
0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 V 00 O. rl O "i O: M V1 00
6 �6 V1 W V1 O N N t O C7% N O O [- �' b r-
a.. O O` 00 N N T N N b O N 7 0 N [�
a '•' 00 ...
3 N n OD Cl; N N
C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O p O O
T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o MO
en�
d 00 V n V [ V1 00 O'. C. 'T 00
C �+ V1 N 4%C O\ n V n r4 N V'i N O O [- r M Iz
(Q V r
S Q N N M M M
V
c
M
C b y d d ;zaaw°
ta y 6 � r: ^�
C W V > h = V W 61 O W is •S �C
PC
�. -d O.•CL•p
W oG a d a D d D O: W W LCCd
vO 7
YC > � ` w y0 Rq.ow
e °o b •7 OdG toJo N. Ce
cc COO -S o Pd �
CL .93J, 0 ulz
Fo
1-33
Attachment 6
$ o
i
N
R1
w ' O
E
8 >1 g O
CD O
c
r N V1
64
O ami
o c E o
U C2 0
U w O
E CIS
m
cca N � `v
oo
LL CO d •C ° u 0%, G
O
CI.0 enSQ. 3 r
CM i
N d 7 U .2 ." O
' C pq8 d ppOpp $ �.
LL M Cn O O y Q O V01
~ tiCL -S 3O Cn C Nen
'�
cc
d601
O S
C 8 Yom. C .'� y -vC C i•. d
6D 'eu' N N ay+ O 3 E N
o ood, °° o
vi
a Nis 6
3
° a ^ 000 o
O > ? S o R a3 0 or
a E 00
e
'O h
d v OIM
'a U G N
CK
C E 4) C wN v enb H � w -@
W 9 0 �' L L 'n rLii 'C G 2 C
� ~ L d d� J � L •a y p
8 vm � eo
CIS
°� E c •`�
g H a
CL ba
d o y d E o U
W d y d o' tw 00
LL to m
m e n. a °.jS OLOr o �U2ZO
� a
1-34
Attachment 7
.. .. .p. .. .. 8 8 pQ ppm Q pQpQ ppQQ �p pppp
. 8 � s $ O NOS : $ F0 $ $ � SSpS SN0008G0
0 N O O v1 h v1 N es O� m a0 OZ 04 N vi O O vi
•--� N %M CK en �O �O O V'1 l� N M %0
(� N ••• ••+ N M M 00 N N N % eai v 000 N CV M
v v v v v
v ^'
V
S CD
'11
0 0 0 0 My
N M .•+ V•1 M �O 00 cc 0 7 h den
eV M %p .•+ .r N N \O en 000 V1
N .N. N M M C 000 %n N; y
u
to d y
i•. ipp-. .—. .. .. � .J E � e3 O O O O O
7. g ON M p > n_D w �O m O 00
4 06 eq
in 00a p7 O
.N. N tin e� W O ,3 O aj• Vv v h 'N
v w v v N ra
b w N
V °
0 0000000 c aix 7 ,
o voiv v 0, �o v_ r v
d d E $ e
g 000 N N vn o00 v 0 .. `J b 00 in
" en enayi A Gam. A T• " 0 iC,_
v v v v en
a z inzo
v 2 U U a F
0 0 0 0 0 o D o n y o
V5 N O e" T� C1 re O
g h m N In b M to 'ti 6 c
ei
W
OOGp 00000
e U CD 0
O O O p O v01. C 0 Vn A
v 0 0 N ^ %0 oN oN O O ti
V� v_ �o N C Cl` CD
~ In v V d
yy N 7 �+
VC
0 � U
.� C 7 W ed
N O C O O
v fA •� 0 0 'C
` v O N v C
d Z d
O C
N
C1 a h v O O O
V " 6 N M w V C �•' .••e o
O C E to L vY
c
c m A .Ca
0 E u a ti e � � U
u
Q. �, a @ice ° A 0 y 1E
Cd
:2pup 'n = U
C O LO .fir 0. .0
a. U ai
U - E
V W w ��.. ® h .N w w O N GT+ D C 00
u�9 jE O t7 M y 0 fa y C v1 C- gmg ' C C
4.0 m .. C4) %n oG UU e� a v
a ¢ 8 q z c 0. q
o
e d u. _O 4.
Ey] o r o
.°] O P: y° a c ° °' 7 d V
a. a E uA
Y G oG �F sZ a E b' E c 9 m o z
Q H m
L�0 t O y U w o. d h W o d O �+ [: d u y d e o .�', m ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
1-35
Attachment 8
N
r
v
r O p O
r a «r9 N «r7 N
N
w Eo Eo
1` a Do aE
1 rn cm �
1 0
L cL
` IM
H aZ CL
Go i
O � �
J
N 1
r
IL �` m
o
CO) �1
L
O Z `1 C
Z �
c� co
W o R
00 _ ca
0 ° N
C� o
Z
x c
Co w
W Cl)
m
1 c CO) cm co
a
co
1 o z m Lu o
to Z
C7
11 CD a E E m
1 w � 8 � s
0o z a �°aa �
coA z (n VJ co y
00 0 �
IL N N N
29 O 1� r N C7
CA
CD
LON O LON Lo CD
r r r
woods jo ## 1-36
i Ken Nampian- Marsh—Sire t Garage ort
SITLM #
From: "John Ewan"<jewan@alteryourenergy.com>
To: "Mike McCluskey" <mmccluskey@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>,"John Dunn"
• <jdunn@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Ken Hampian"<khampian@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: 9/27/00 3:10PM
Subject: Marsh Street Garage Report
Hello ETfOUNCIL CDD DIR
IN DIR
(I would like Sherry to copy this to all Council members) La�cno ❑FIRE CHIEF
C"fTORNEY GSA DIR
C3 CLERI:IORW ❑POLICE C'F
am somewhat confused by the staff report on the Marsh street garage r TE�:,t ❑REC DIR
addition. HAZF.rF ❑UTIL DIR
�.�� ❑PERS DIR
The first page lists several key facts, but lacks clarity in the cost . � lewhk
analysis. Point four gives a total cost,which is not a total for the two T a 0c1)aYVm
numbers listed in that same item.
A further clarification of the total cost of the project is needed in the
CAO report, and the Public works report.
What was the original budget amount(before plans were approved)for this
project?
What are the land costs involved in this project?
What are the real costs per space, both for the total completed project, and
for the 232 new spaces broken out. (including land costs).
• How could the existing surface lots be reconfigured to optimize surface
parking?
Are we locked in to the purchase of the Post Office parking lot air rights?
The revised estimate still appears to be a 33% cost increase over an already
over budget project. Is this revision as much as can be done?
Who is paying the costs for the incorrect set of plans first issued for
bidding by the Architect?
Why are the revisions costing US so much $,when there is testimony to the
lack of clarity of the plans that were issued?
Thanks
John Ewan
CC: "Sherry Stendahl"<sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
RECEIVED
CPP 9 R 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
-STING AGENDA
{ DATEa=ITEM #
council mcmoizanbum
September 26, 2000
ZftUNCIL B'CDD DIR
TO: City Council Z tA0 FIN DIR
,0'ACAO O FIRE CHIEF
RNEY JMW DIR
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer LERK10RI0 O POLICE CHF
❑M MT T M 0 REG DIR
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works 0 UTI
r�sz Te,R,,.� p PERS D R
SUBJECT: Marsh Street Garage—Rebidding—Red File ✓ 13O�AoM
0 pck l ewc,�
Three items for additional Council consideration are included in this memo.
1) Attached is a copy of the fax that the project architect sent in response to the staff request
described on page 1-8 of your agenda report (last paragraph, next to last sentence). As you
will see, he is proposing that his firm, his structural engineering subcontractor and our
construction management firm conduct a coordinated quality control re-check; and b)that the
city hire an independent engineering or architectural firm to check the dimensioning of the
project.
Much of the fax deals with the larger context of the last paragraph on page 1-8 of the staff
report, i.e. how to assure a better bid process. In this area, he offers five suggestions. Staff
has reviewed the five and is in general agreement. However, we feel a mandatory pre-bid
meeting may limit bidders, don't know if a city-paid lunch will accomplish much more than
an open question and answer period of an hour or two; and we know that the extra work
being suggested of our construction managers is not included in their scope of work (so that
translates into extra cost that is not addressed by the staff report). The issue of low shrinkage
concrete is dealt with separately below.
2) Just because the agenda report has been finished doesn't mean that staff ceased working on
ways to decrease the cost of the project and investigate reasons for the budget overrun. We
reviewed data recently received via a process called "value engineering". From that
information, it is apparent that the cost of the structure can be further reduced from that
shown in the staff report, although the changes suggested herein have not been reviewed with
the architect or his sub-consultant team - so we don't know how much more in design costs
we can expect. The data suggest the following changes with the appropriate cost savings:
A) Decrease the overall length of the structure by 9 feet, standarize the parking stall widths
at 8'-611, increase stall lengths to 17'-0", increase the number of stalls total to 344, and
move to the exterior of the building the offices or eliminate them. The combination of
these actions decreases the overall size of the structure by 4,303 sq. ft. resulting in an
overall cost reduction of$172,000.
B) Replacing the design moment frame design with shear wall design wil REC
savings of$321,000.
SEP 2 6 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
ti
C) Changing the square gravity columns to round columns will save $27,000.
D) By increasing typical slab spans to 18'-1" from 17'-8", it is possible to save another
$97,000 in construction of beams and girders.
E) Simplify the exterior details and design is estimated to save another $300,000. This
recommendation does not affect the exterior design "appearance", but is simply another
simpler / easier to build design that has significant savings. As opposed to the exterior
changes suggested in the staff report, which will require a return trip to the ARC, these
changes could be implemented with roughly the same cost savings (actually a little more
- $62,000) and would not require ARC approval. Staff would propose these
modifications in lieu of those in the staff report.
The total of all these new cost savings (including the exterior savings of $62,000). is
$679,000. This would lower the project's estimated cost to $6,425,000 from the $7,104,000
shown in the staff report. The total cost per parking space would be $18,677 — well within
the range of parking garages around the state. Staff will discuss these ideas and recommend
incorporating them into the project at the Council meeting.
Finally, in the attached letter from the architect, he brings up the issue of low shrinkage
concrete. Staff.has likewise surfaced this as a possible additional cost item, although no one,
to date, has been able to estimate its cost effect. It was specified by staff because of the
tremendous problems we have encountered on both past parking garages as a way to build a
better garage and decrease long-term maintenance costs. Although staff does not know the
cost effect, we are proposing to make the use of low shrinkage concrete a bid additive. If
funding allows, staff would like to be able to keep this item in the project.
3) Attached is a letter from a local concrete supplier stating that the price of oil has had an
impact on the price of concrete and thus the price of concrete will be going up. This will
have an affect on the bid prices unless the price of oil recedes by the time we go to bid.
Attachments
Fax from project architect
Fax from Hanson Concrete
Ladmin/ms/pge/cm—cost data
S€nt By: PMSM Architects; 805 564 8582; Sep-9" '10 3:06PM; Page 1 /1
M E M O R A N D U M
pa7E �2 September, 2000
To Mike McClusky
FROM =red Sweeney
PROJECT Citr Of. San Luis Obispo—Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion Re-Bida R c H 1 T E C T 5
M NUMBER 96328.00
�®w
Mike:
It will be important vdien this project is put back of to bid that the bid documents have been
by the
f�toroughfy-ti3vilwved for �aitw^r airy t w111 be md for l portant to imors and p►emenation of changes nt strategies ught to assure that
reductio.)in scope
a sufficient-number of qualified general cone following additional steps he implemented upon their bid!:. herefore,we would propos
authorization tc,procaed with preparation of re-bid documents.
RE-BIP L)OC.UMENT TASK
.1. ph,SM,Walker,and Harris&Associates will conduct a coordinated quality control re-check
of all bid documents.
2. PMSM,will authorize a complete new cost estimate to be performed by an independent cost
estims.tor.
3. A meEting specifically to discuss the construction and bidding ramifications of the use of low
shrinkage concrete should be set with the city public works staff. The outcome of this
rmetlig Wil!to be to reconfirm the city's request to use such concrete for the decks in the
ga:-ag e. to check the
4. An independent engineering or architectural firm would be engaged
dimensioning of the project should the council approve the switch from dimensioning the
projo t in metric to the English system.
RE-BIG _Clil"ACTOR STRATEGY
n to
1. Thert should be a mandatoryp todate
on the status od site 9th1 project and to answer and a city-hosted uany queing
stions
imen�ted contractors up in i s reduced The luncheon date should be
enno3ming the documents or the project'
s=_t shell in advance of the pre-bid site meeting.
2. During The bid period it is recommended that an on-line bid document system should be
utill2ed
3 vt low shrinkage concrete is faas the material,
expanded specification
irfolmtan should be distributed to all well iadvance of both the and
the pre-bid site meeting.
4. Close monitoring of other bid dates for other projects of this size within the tri-county area
should be accomplished in advance of setting the re-bid date for this project.
5. Waris will conduct a formal outreach notification of all general contractors who have built
gareges within the last ten years and whose offices are within the San Francisco bay area to
the .os Angeles/Orange County area.
cc
Keith Opalewski Walker Parking Consultants
Ken Hampian pMSM File
ROGER A.PHI LIPS AIA
STEPHEN MET CN ALA
TEL Mol RE A AIA
2070 ALAIIIECA PARE SEI:RP.x220 5AKTA CA BAW CA PASO ROBLLA
ES.CA 93µ6t03 TEL 805.227-4540 FAX1105-227-07i2 LAMES rRED L.E IAIE
935 RLVER!20E.AVENUE.Pi 0
r
now
mom
"'Hanson
Manson Aggregates
Central Coast Office
131 Suburban Road
P.O.Box 71
San Luis Obispo,CA 9340G
Tel 805 543 8100
September 15, 2000
SUBJECT: FUEL SURCHARGE
TO OUR VALUED CUSTOMERS:
As you know, the price for fuel has increased dramatically in the past few months.
In addition, we have been notified by our raw material haulers of a surcharge for
cement and aggregates delivered into our ready-mix concrete plants. To help
mitigate the delivery increases and the dramatic increases of Diesel fuel for our
mixer trucks, we will be adding a fuel surcharge of $15 per load of concrete,
effective October 1, 2000. The charge will be for every delivery we make in a
ready mix truck regardless of quantity. The surcharge will be in effect until fuel
prices reach acceptable levels and material haulers cease their surcharges. Any
future changes in fuel costs will be passed onto the buyers account.
If you have any questions regarding this surcharge, please contact your sales
representative or our sales office. As always, we appreciate your business and
look forward to our ntinued service to you.
Very truly your
Timothy A. Cox
Regional Sales Mana er
:il ON DAY , AU G 11 S T 14.. 2 0 0 0
VIEWPOINT @L U K"I$ �.011Md
DATE9 'e� —no 9uLM I
The Win-Win Plan:
• ��D
Remeches for an 0TppN01L SFINDDIR
n �AO ❑FIRE CHIEF
extravagant proposal trTTORNEY PA DIR
ER<ERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑t.IG T M ❑REC DIR
By IRA WINN G) Retain amenities such as 1 VN ❑UTIL DIR
Tlne city's hope for a$4.8 mil- Public bathrooms and avoid nit- : � �'
❑PERS DIR
lion bid for the Marsh Street picking away other features that
garage addition was dashed will foster pedestrian flow and Q�/*J M
when ti1e low bidflet`cae convenience.
• s off are now at 7)Aim at 110 new parking
scrambling
million.Cof costs.compromise spaces maximum.171at is
In the spirit of
scrambling to enough to relieve any claimed
shortage of space near[lie
and goad sense that would bene- Downtown Centre,while the
fit the environment die city,and main parking effort is redirected
the business community,Into the opposite side of down-
gest adifferent approach andd a a town,where it is closer to free-
smaller garage of no more than and Santa Rosa Street ac-
cess.and
reduces
110 new spaces,rather than the way S shift
232 new spaces proposed for greatly
Marsh Street.The 110space the flow of traffic into pedestrian RECEIVED
garage has certain definite ad- street in the city core.Cut by
half long-term parking in
vantages over the pie in the sky i
proposal made by staff and the g�gCS' S F P 2 5 1000
City Council.It would save the 8) Implement a shuttle service:
city and the taxpayers over$3from"remote"parking lots nortlj
million;it would be more aes and south of downtown,as is SLO CITY COUNCIL
thetically pleasing than the 48 sought by Mr.Copeland.During:
foot walls of the proposed the construction phase for Court
garage;and it can be built in a Street will occur the best oppor-
much shorter time period. tunity for educating people about
Here briefly is what I or000se the virtues of access to the
1)Elunmate the fourth story downtown by fast and frequent ro O
(top floor)of the shuttle service.This should be
garage addition. come a permanent downtown EQ
This will solve the problem of feature. O N N S4
blocking the view of San Luis g) Introduce a private or joint >' ro A O
Mountain.It will bring the � •� ,
garage down to a height where it Partnership package delivery oo N
won't dominate the downtown service from downtown stores, \ > N to R+
and especially the three nearby an anlenity well-known in many N �4 0_
%1
cities. UU11
history buildings.A garage of \ u 1,4
0 p
lesser height will also greatly re 10) Produce NOW a down rn H >4 .,.1 0 �
duce costs of foundations and town pedestrian plan with heavy 0 A
community input—so we all ; 4—) w 4JaC-a
structural needs associated with ro ro N O
the weight of the fourth story, know where we are headed and ; r I C tS ro
how we intend to maintain our +•n ro 4-r G
2)Redesign on a smaller foot- award-winning ambiance. N ri -H Edi H
print this will save some of the SLO is already heavily over- I rO O O -r[ +I
existing parking spaces lost to N LL m 7 N
the present plan.It will allow for committed to pouring rivers of ,f x O R to
concrete for huge projects in anm �4 O Z rZ
a terracing that yields a lower around Ute city.We need to aim CO a O O
profile.And it can leave room for I U -4
for a
some interior court or garden more balanced and realistic.' X 'O N Rf
that can give pleasing entry to Project development and a care; >1 P g -r[ ri -rI
ful assessment of cumulative Im-
the new stores and allow for acts.Our city ro � b ro 0
more light and air. P ty is risking an 4-) (a a,
3) Increase the setback on ocean of red ink for projects ; 4 N �4 ro O M
Morro and Pacific streets and Poorly thought through and of- j rd 11 U r-i N -P
ten unitative of faulty patterns i 'O U E CL ra >'
ring these sidewalks with plvrts being followed by towns lacking N U)j N >r v ro
and places to sit, a distinctive character and P E 5 (a -P In
4)Add 2 to 4 more stores that award
can bring added income to the '-winning environment
O N
._
Lets begun with this extrava r[ va R O
project
U -r[ 0 -P H 4
5) Include an entrance as well gant garage project to downsize I W G U tv �4 E-4
as an exit on Pacific Street to re- by thinking more clearly about N 0 0 >4 N 4J
our direction and urban heahh.
duce the traffic burden on 4 U O Q� •rI 4
Marsh Street,which is already to U to O +J
near capacity(and beyond)be—
cause of vehicular and pedesui- of Urban Studies and a San Luis
an traffic at busy tunes. Obispo resident.
AEETING AGENDA
DATE 9-16-00 ITEM #...
September 25, 2000 J
Mayor Allen Settle
Members of the City Council latOUNCIL 19 tDD DIR
e'cP.o WIN DIR
City of San Luis Obispo oK.Cno ❑F E CI„I
990 Palm Street VA-TOR,;EY VW Din
101!3 ❑POLICE C}:F
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 L T rF.:.I ❑REC DIR
�, .'� ❑UTIL DIR
Re: Marsh Street Garage Expansion ❑PERS DIR
V 0 kt.e WSK t
Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members: V 506h um
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce continues our support of the Marsh Street
Garage Expansion and encourages you to approve the rebidding process.
This project remains, despite recent setbacks, a viable and historically acceptable
component of a well thought out downtown parking and access plan. Its benefits to
the downtown core and the community at large are numerous. These include less
traffic congestion in and improved accessibility to the downtown core, the promotion
of a compact urban form, and the creation of a pedestrian friendly environment.
We are supportive of design changes and a more competitive bid process which
would help make this project economically feasible. Apart from the actual cost of the
expanded structure, we ask that you also consider the potential opportunity cost to the
city if the Marsh Street Garage Expansion does not proceed in a timely manner.
At this important juncture, the Council can help insure the long term health of the
downtown core and the general well-being of the city by approving the rebidding for
the Marsh Street Garage Expansion.
Sincerely,
Z: �
Dave Cox RECEIVED
Chairman of the Board
SEP 2 5 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
: ai :I. i .,_ ;G,' ,'; �Unl`8f.'ir � 4J'' :lt:•t, .� :' _ 'r fi ... ,i `/ _I-. •
MEETING CENDA
M E M O R A N D U M DATE aLIL2L.ITEM # PHIt UPS
IC1
�COUNCIIDATE 22 September, 2000 CADCKTTO 5 FI =G:. ..TO Mike McClusky ®'ATTORNEY YJ0L�J'L`LERKJORIG 0 POL!CCC,'7 ; MOCRF
FROM Fred Sweeney 0 M T TEAM 0 REC DIR
�' E% ❑UTIL DIR
IR
PROJECT City of San Luis Obispo—Marsh Street Parking �lJUJY�rX_'. a R C NV, L)P5LVk
I T ECT S
JOB NUMBER 98028.00
Mike:
It will be important when this project is put back out to bid that the bid documents have been
thoroughly reviewed for consistency and for coordination of changes brought about by the
reduction in scope items. Additionally, it will be important to implement strategies to assure that
a sufficient number of qualified general contractors and subcontractors are attracted to submit
their bids. Therefore, we would propose the following additional steps be implemented upon
authorization to proceed with preparation of re-bid documents.
RE-BID DOCUMENT TASK
1. PMSM, Walker, and Harris &Associates will conduct a coordinated quality control re-check
of all bid documents.
2. PMSM will authorize a complete new cost estimate to be performed by an independent cost
estimator.
3. A meeting specifically to discuss the construction and bidding ramifications of the use of low
shrinkage concrete should be set with the city public works staff. The outcome of this
meeting will to be to reconfirm the city's request to use such concrete for the decks in the
garage.
4. An independent engineering or architectural firm would be engaged to check the
dimensioning of the project should the council approve the switch from dimensioning the
project in metric to the English system.
RE-BID CONTRACTOR STRATEGY
1. There should be a mandatory pre-bid site meeting and a city-hosted luncheon to bring
interested contractors up to date on the status of the project and to answer any questions
concerning the documents or the project in its reduced scope. The luncheon date should be
set well in advance of the pre-bid site meeting.
2. During the bid period it is recommended that an on-line bid document system should be
utilized.
3. If low shrinkage concrete is confirmed as the desired material, expanded specification
information should be distributed to all bidders well in advance of both the luncheon and
the pre-bid site meeting. 0 0 �
4. Close monitoring of other bid dates for other projects of this size within the tri-county area ul N c
should be accomplished in advance of setting the re-bid date for this project. r'
W c1 F
5. Harris will conduct a formal outreach notification of all general contractors who have built W
garages within the last ten years and whose offices are within the San Francisco bay area to IY N
the Los Angeles/Orange County area.
i
cc Keith Opalewski Walker Parking Consultants
✓Ken Hampian PMSM File