11/25/2002 - Packet Library Steering Committee
Agenda
November 25, 2002
Summercreek Conference Rm, 3:OOpm
I. Park Planning — special guest Dan Plaza
I!, Review of meeting notes and follow-up
III. To Do List Review (Group)
IV. Actual Budget v. Expenditures Summary (Group)
V. Hahn & Associates assessment (Greg)
VI. Tree Moving/Mitigation Code (Jim)
VII. Abandoning wells and Aquifer Storage (Gus)
VIII. Schematic Design copies (Margaret)
IX. Weekly Project Meeting Update (Gus)
X. Public Information (Margaret)
XI. Other Issues —
XII. Agenda Building
I I.
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Library Steering Committee,,,
x�.
FROM: Jim Hendryx /�
DATE: November 25, 2002
SUBJECT: Tree Mitigation Fund
At our last meeting, I was asked whether the tree mitigation fund could be used to pay for the cost
of moving trees from one location on the library site to another to accommodate the building and
associated improvements.
The primary purpose of the tree removal standards in the Community Development Code (18.790)
are to encourage the retention and if necessary, replanting of trees lost during development.
Trees so regulated are 12 inches or greater in size.
The code (18.790.060. D. Guidelines for replacement) sets out the process for replacement of
trees lost through construction. Trees need to be of substantially similar species, if not available,
the Director may approve alternate species; if replacement trees of adequate size are not
available, the Director shall allow more than one tree in accordance with a specified formula. If
trees can not viably be planted on the subject property, the Director may approve plantings on
other properties. In-lieu of tree replanting, the developer may elect to compensate the City for its
cost of tree replacement.
The code does not state that the funds can be used for other than tree replacement. I interpret
that as meaning that the funds can go for the reasonable costs associate with planting
replacement trees.
It is my opinion that it would not be appropriate for such funds to cover the costs of moving trees,
unless such costs were directly associated with a tree mitigation plan where costs were off-set by
direct expenditures of a particular project. An example could include a project requiring 400 caliper
inches tree mitigation. A portion of that obligation could go towards moving existing trees on site
or else where within the City. Thereby, moving towards meeting the developers' obligation.
Consideration could be given to the cost of the actual tree(s) moved.
To simply use the tree mitigation funds to move a tree does not appear to be an appropriate use of
the fund.
I:\cdadm\jerree\jim\general\tree mitigation fund memo.doc
Library Steering Committee
Meeting Notes
November 18, 2002
Members Present: Margaret Barnes, Greg Berry, Gus Duenas, Jim Hendryx, Craig
Prosser, and John Roy.
Members Absent: Bill Monahan
Review of meeting notes and follow-up: Greg distributed a map showing the
contaminated area; part is in the buildable area. Need the site plan before determining
the ramifications of the contaminated area on the project.
Once a site plan that includes a grading plan is received, Greg will then be able to
determine what requirements, permits, etc. will be necessary.
SRG has received a copy of the map showing the contaminated area.
Greg stated that initial testing shows that the contaminant is in the first two feet of soil.
It is most likely that the contaminated soil will be removed during grading.
Greg noted that permits maybe needed for disposing of the contaminated soil. The
permits will be dependent upon the concentration and volume of contaminated soil.
The next steps are to do additional testing to finalize the area of contamination. Hahn &
Associates will be doing the testing. Greg stated that Hahn & Associates should be
providing a proposal in the next two to three weeks. Hahn & Associates will be making
recommendations on the best way to proceed. Greg noted that any additional testing
would be coordinated through the City Attorney's office as this is part of the
environmental assessment.
Greg will give an update on Hahn &Associates schedule, testing and
recommendations at the November 25 meeting.
The group wants the contaminated area information conveyed to SRG even though it is
highly unlikely that it will effect the placement of the building.
Gus provided a map showing the alignment of Wall Street. The map shows a proposed
easement to Mr. Fields in the event that Wall Street does not go through. Gus stated
that the library's portion of the road does impact the wetland area. The full portion of
the road is not being shown on the land use application as the library construction
project only includes the temporary access driveway. If/when the final access driveway
is built, DeHaas will be responsible for applying for wetland permits.
To Do List Review: Craig stated that Gus and Charlie had provided him with a
completed cash flow. This item can be shown as done.
i
City of Tigard
New Library
Cost Savings Options for Schematic Desi n Estimate
item Budget Priority Reversible(R) Further
No. Description Chane 1,2 or 3 Irreversible I Approved Analysis Comments and/or Actions Required
SITE
1 Scored concrete vs.brick pavers 15,000
2 Asphalt vs.eco pavers 70,000 C
3 Reduce intensive landscape 20% 50,000
4 Concrete vs.stone retaining wall 18,000
5 Reduce retaining wall 40,000
6 Stone entry sign 10,000
7 Reduce landscape budget ? Jr
Subtotal-Site Cost Savings Options 203,000
ARCHITECTURAL
8 Furred wall without acoustical panels in lieu of exposed acoustic block in (5,000)
common mtg.room
9 Reduce metal roof one ba 6,500
10 Simplify canopy construction-metal 20,000
11 Folding partition 10,000
12 Reduce relites cost(25%) (10,000
13 Reduce ceramic tile to wet wall only 10,000
14 Change lobby floor to tile colored concrete 15,000
15 Carpet-reduce quality of,or maintenance issue) 40,000
16 One elevator only 53,000
17 All ACT,no wheatboard 13,000
18 Delete projection screens and white boards 22,500
19 Fireplace 10,000
Subtotal-Architectural Cost Savings Options 216,000
MECHANICAL
20 Reduce Plumbing fixtures(per fixture 1,750
21 Package DX air handlers remove air cooled chiller) 175,000
22 Remove boiler system Gas heat in AHU&electrical reheat 164,000 $50,000 of increased electrical costs are included in this
23 Standard efficiency boilers in lieu of high efficiency boilers 11,000
24 Reduce number of zones from 48 to approximately 30 72,000 Z
25 Ductwork for second floor located in level 2 54,000
26 Reduce control points (60,000) 'The value of this item will be reduced if selected in combination
with items 2,35,or 8
27 Delete data/telecomm room AC no 24 hour cooling) 35,000 3
Subtotal-Mechanical Cost Savings Options 672,760
ELECTRICAL
28 Reduce service size no future capacity) 25,000
29 Reduce specialty lighting allowance to$8.00 all lighting$500,000) 60,000
30 Eliminate list floor duct system(use smart columns or power poles) 25,000
31 Reduce da li htin control/dimmable ballast 20,000
32 Reduce fire alarm system coverage to code minimum 35,000
33 Delete PA equipment in Community Room from Division 16 10,000
34 Delete ant a uipment connections from Division 16 5,000
35 Site lighting($75,000) ?
Subtotal-Electrical Cost Savings O tions 180,000
TOTAL OF ALL COST SAVINGS OPTIONS $ 1,170,760
TOTAL OF PRIORITY 1 ITEMS
TOTAL OF PRIORITY 2 ITEMS
TOTAL OF PRIORITY 3 ITEMS
TOTAL OF ALL PRIORITIZED ITEMS
y Or agar
New Library
Revision Date:11/21/2002 Page 1 of 1
Sustainability Sounds Good- What does it Cost?
CSI November Dinner Presentation
Contact info for Pane!
Moderator: Dorothy Payton, Dorothy A. Payton Atelier
503-236-2141V 503-236-0567F bybee@teleport.com
Panel: Jim Jerde, Architectural Cost Consultants LLC
503-297-7210V 503-297-7187F archcost@aracnet.com
Alan Scott, Green Building Services
503-603-1611V 503-603-171 OF alan_scott@pgn.com
Bob Schroeder, GLUMAC
503-227-5280V 503-274-7674F bschroeder@glumac.com
Bart Ricketts, Lease Crutcher Lewis
503-223-0500V 503-223-2874F rickettsb@lcl.com
Scott Lewis, Brightworks NW
503-225-1985V prefers e-mail scoff@bwnw.com
Additional Resources for General Building Professionals:
BEES Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability;
www.bfrl.nist.gov/opae/software/bees.ht I
Easy to use free tool for product to product comparisons, based on proprietary,
unpublished data.
Athena; www.athenasmi.ca
Inventory data tool for comparing assemblies or whole buildings, based primarily
on published Canadian Data.
ENVEST; www.bre.co.uk/sustainable/envest.htmi
U.K. -based LCA-based building design tool, only addresses whole building, and
provides results in highly summarized 'ecopoints'.
Eco Quantum; www.ecoduantum.nl
Dutch LCA- based residential building design tool, only for whole buildings.
Baseline Green; www.cmpbs.org
Developed with the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems and BNIM Architects
as a tool to examine the specific materials that are responsible for a certain percentage
of Toxic Release Inventory emissions, green house gases, and criteria air pollutants
using U.S. Department of Commerce data.
"Economic Input-Output LCA"; www.eiolca.net
Developed at Carnegie Mellon University starts from the resource flows and emissi9ons
for entire sectors of the economy, and assigns the associated burdens tom products of
each sector.
(B.I.D.S.) Building Investment Decision Support, soon to be available at www.betterbricks.com
through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. A"What if'tool to explore the cost
impacts of early design decisions.
f
��w •� _ All
• NIA
* ILIE
u
�I MA '
�' .. ►� m MRS
�� _ ild q
a I Y a • � � � .— —
{+ ii ® • III dH ° ';7 F / 1 \ . . i ' •
1 F
s i v 00
r
•
p wl �
14 v1A� I
II
P
i I
�, J � / '`' � � • Pro osed AccesS
a R"0 Eosement
i !ne W.lett •
Iris sw a.—Pwr •
S.
R SS SS
' a.w a 1a rn. • SS
♦caw
�JJOwsus.x �
t -Librory Project °• °
Limits of Improvement
{ : I
Imo_
I