Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/05/2016 10 Yakima Central Plaza Value Engineering Discussion
xs 1 s. n. BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 10. For Meeting of: July 5, 2016 ITEM TITLE: Yakima Central Plaza Value Engineering Discussion SUBMITTED BY: Sean Hawkins Economic Development Manager 575 -6274 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The enclosed packet includes the results of an extensive effort to reduce the Yakima Central Plaza project cost through multiple value engineering exercises by the GGN design team and the City of Yakima. Elements were selected to reduce costs and yet maintain the functionality and esthetic integrity of the overall project. Add alternates have been identified to further manage costs during the bidding process. An Owner's Contingency of 4% is included in the cost below to manage change orders and to apply to the project at the owner's will. This effort has reduced the $12,817,796 project cost as presented to the Yakima City Council at the May 3rd, 2016 City Council meeting to $10,817,460. Included in the $10,817,460 number is the Owner's Contingency of $351,942. Also included in the packet is a memo updating the City Council on the status of shared parking agreements in the downtown district. ITEM BUDGETED: STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Economic Development ierir APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: Interim City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: BOARD /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type O Memo - Shared Parking Agreements 6 ;28/2016 Coyer Memo O Yakima Plaza VE Matrix 6/2812016 Coker Memo O Yakima Plaza VE Summary 6/28/2016 Cover Memo O VE Materials 1 of 3 6/28/2016 Cover Memo O VE Materials 2 of 3 6/28/2016 Cover Memo ID VE Materials 3 of 3 6/28/2016 Cover Memo Memorandum To: Interim City Manager, Jeff Cutter From: Sean Hawkins, Economic Development Manager Date: June 27, 2016 Subject: Shared After Hours Parking Agreements in Downtown Yakima In an effort to secure more available parking in Yakima's downtown district, the Interim City Manager and Economic Development Manager have been in discussions with downtown banks about creating shared parking arrangements for after hours and weekend parking for the general public and employees. In exchange for allowing public use of the lots, the City would provide certain basic maintenance services as part of its commitment to securing additional parking options in Yakima's downtown district: 1) The City of Yakima's streets division would provide street sweeping and basic litter removal in the parking lots; 2) The City of Yakima would install appropriate onsite signage notifying the public of their ability to park in the bank parking lot during agreed upon off hour times; 3) The City of Yakima would provide liability insurance to parking lot owner during the times the public was permitted to use the parking lots. The following is the present status of the agreements with each parking lot owner: 1) Yakima Federal Savings and Loan Association — 101 East Yakima Avenue — 29 Spaces — The terms of the agreement have been negotiated and Yakima Federal has signed the agreement. 2) Wheatland Bank — 201 East Yakima Avenue — 24 Spaces — The terms of the agreement in negotiations. Wheatland's local branch manager was having a phone call today to discuss the execution of the agreement and additional considerations they may have. 3) Wells Fargo Bank — 118 East Yakima Avenue — 52 Spaces — The terms of the agreement have been negotiated and the City is awaiting a signed agreement from Wells Fargo's legal team in San Francisco. The Wells Fargo attorney assigned to the project advised during a telephone conversation today that a signed agreement will be sent via email by tomorrow afternoon. 4) Bank of America — 101 N. Second Street — 44 Spaces - The terms of the agreement have been negotiated and the City is awaiting a signed agreement from the bank's property manager based in Seattle. An updated agreement with final changes requested by the leasing manager was submitted today. In addition to shared parking with local banks, the City of Yakima has been in discussion with Mr. Morrier about utilizing a portion of the former Yakima Mall Parking Garage for favorably priced future parking opportunities for employees, theatre goers and more. While a number of options have been discussed to date, no specific details have been negotiated at this point in time and discussion is ongoing. Yakima Central Plaza VALUE ENGINEERING EVALUATION KEY Tuesday, June 28, 2016 E R REMOVE from Project (take VE option) Remove from Project, document as ALTERNATE The value engineering evaluation spreadsheet presents cost reductions that are approximate values K KEEP in project (do not take VE option) corresponding with the unit rates provided in the cost estimate, dated April 22nd, 2016. The unit rates were informed by trade consultant reviews, materials suppliers, sub - contractors and City of Yakima cost recommendations. The base cost reduction evaluations estimated values based on existing REMOVE from Remove from KEEP in project market conditions. Further evaluation will be required to verify these assumptions. The provided costs are or planning and budgetary purposes only, including the potential savings with mark-up Project Project, document (do not take VE f P g g YP P Y g P g column. Total VE savings (take VE option) as Alternate option, keep as -is) $2,000,336 $1,702,690 $297,646 $255,732 VE Potential lir Item Ref Ideas / Options Base Cost Savings W/ Decision TOTAL VE REMOVE ALTERNATE KEEP Notes n GENERAL - Adjustment to City Engineering costs - increase allocation for City G staff time, engineering tests etc. during construction. ($150,000) - $150,000 - $150,000 - Adjustment to City portion of franchise utility cost (staff was able to confirm that the City will pay 1/3 of these costs rather than the total. G The total cost was previously accounted for in the project budget) $373,553 $373,553 $373,553 - - Removes supplemental furnishings only, Benches, 1 G Eliminate supplemental site furnishings allowance $ 80,000 $ 103,643 R $103,643 $ 103,643 - - trash receptacle, bike racks etc, remain in project. 14 G Change water feature piping from stainless to PVC $40,000 $51,822 R $51,822 $51,822 - - PAVING AND WALLS Reduce size of granite stone modules from to 24" x 24" x 2" 24 PW (International stone, 2" thick) $596,623 $772,949 R $772,949 $772,949 - Supply basalt water feature and stage paving stone from an 26 PW international source (Rather than Moses Lake) $25,000 $32,389 A $32,389 - $32,389 27 PW Eliminate exposed aggregate finish from Market Hall concrete $63,000 $81,619 K - - $81,619 Eliminate waterproofing under stone paving in grove area (keep under 29 PW spray water feature) $13,470 $17,451 A $17,451 - $17,451 30 PW Eliminate skateboard deterrent textured paving $11,176 $14,479 A $14,479 - $14,479 Includes main alley area and driveway entries. Sidewalks and area between trench drain and step 37 PW Replace concrete Alley paving with asphalt $65,000 $84,210 A $84,210 - $84,210 - remain concrete. 39 PW Convert stone walls to concrete walls w/ basalt caps $38,826 $50,301 K - - $50,301 channel water feature walls remain stone Square module works with granite size in item tt24 43 PW Reduce size of basalt stone modules to 18" x 18" x 2" $28,822 $37,340 R $37,340 $37,340 - - PW ARCHITECTURE 45 A Eliminate Market Hall roof insulation $24,571 $31,833 R $31,833 $31,833 - Need Indemnification from the City to remove this 46 A Eliminate Market Hall fire suppression system $71,126 $92,147 R $92,147 $92,147 - - code - required element. 49c A Remove solid roof from east 3 bays (keep rest of structure) $37,625 $48,745 R $48,745 $48,745 - _ 11,615st roof remaining, Remove mechanical box and replace w/ moment Remove Mechanical /equipment /storage box. Add equipment room frame and grade beam. Add small mechanical space 49d A and modest amount of storage to Restroom box. $45,675 $59,174 K - - $59,174 back to bathroom box 49d2 A Remove 1 WC to make space for storage. $11,000 $14,251 K - - $14,251 Printed 6/28/2016 Page 1 of 2 Yakima Central Plaza VALUE ENGINEERING EVALUATION KEY Tuesday, June 28, 2016 E R REMOVE from Project (take VE option) Remove from Project, document as ALTERNATE The value engineering evaluation spreadsheet presents cost reductions that are approximate values K KEEP in project (do not take VE option) corresponding with the unit rates provided in the cost estimate, dated April 22nd, 2016. The unit rates were informed by trade consultant reviews, materials suppliers, sub - contractors and City of Yakima cost recommendations. The base cost reduction evaluations estimated values based on existing REMOVE from Remove from KEEP in project market conditions. Further evaluation will be required to verify these assumptions. The provided costs are or planning and budgetary purposes only, including the potential savings with mark-up Project Project, document (do not take VE f P g g YP P Y g P g column. Total VE savings (take VE option) as Alternate option, keep as -is) $2,000,336 $1,702,690 $297,646 $255,732 VE Potential lir Item Ref Ideas / Options Base Cost Savings W/ Decision TOTAL VE REMOVE ALTERNATE KEEP Notes n Change 3rd Street (Restaurant) Trash Enclosure from concrete and 51a A metal to wood posts and cedar boards $15,346 $19,881 $19,881 - $19,881 Change 3rd Street (Restaurant) Trash Enclosure from concrete and Sib A metal to chain link with slats. $38,893 $50,387 K - - $50,387 52 A Remove Donor Recognition (replace w/ boardform concrete) $10,780 $13,966 A $13,966 - $13,966 59 A Remove plaza trash enclosure from equipment room structure $15,000 $19,433 A $19,433 - $19,433 PLANTING 60 PL Reduce shrubs and groundcover by 12% $19,456 $23,611 A ' $23,611 - $23,611 64 PL Reduce grove trees. Includes structural modifications to tree pits $20,543 $26,614 R $26,614 $26,614 - Current est, has 6" Jaquemontiis @ $1650/ea. 66 PL Reduce caliper for birches in lawn (from 6" to 3") $24,000 $31,093 A $31,093 - $31,093 _ Assumes 24 trees @ $1000 savings per tree UTILITIES Sanitary Sewer Trench Drain in Market Hall: Remove sanitary sewer trench drain and oil /water separator, modify grading so the entire 70 U market hall area drains south to bioretention and gets infiltrated $70,000 $90,688 $90,688 $90,688 - - 71 U Modify plaza infiltration facility to be gravel instead of plastic $60,000 $77,732 R $77,732 $77,732 - - Keep existing traffic signal pole in place @ corner of 2nd & Chestnut Needs city approval. Previously preferred to move 72 U (rather than relocating it out of the sidewalk) $40,000 $48,542 R $48,542 $48,542 - _ pole for optimal traffic signal location, LIGHTING 80 L Eliminate EL6 lighting feature (in -grade light at water feature) $12,750 $16,518 $16,518 - $16,518 Eliminate hop valance /shade on catenary lights, use simple cylindrical 86 L valance $19,000 $24,615 A $24,615 - $24,615 - Remove City standard Harp pedestrian pole fixture. Replace with cost based on $5000 for replacement pole, KIM 87 L alternate pedestrian pole $80,000 =MMI R $97,083 I $97,083 I - - Archetype or sir. $2,256,067 $1,702,690 $297,646 $255,732 _ All VE items (some mutually exclusive) Printed 6/28/2016 Page 2 of 2 JCW COST MANAGEMENT YAKIMA CENTRAL PLAZA - VE REPORT RECOMMENDED BUDG: ,UMMAR UNE 28, 2016 The following summarizes an extensive effort to reduce cost through multiple value engineering exercises by the GGN design team and the City of Yakima. Elements were selected to reduce costs and yet maintain the functionality and esthetic integrity of the overall project. Add alternates have been identified to further manage costs during the bidding process. An Owner's Contingency of 4% is included in the cost below to manage change orders and to apply to the project at the Owner's will. April 22 " 2016. Yakima Central Plaza Cost Plan: Original Recommended Budget: $11,736,982. Original Franchise Utility Relocation Cost: $ 46o.24c. TOTAL Original Budget: $12,197,227. Included A &E Fees: $370,569. Included Engineering Fees (updated): $250,000. (Per City of Yakima). TOTAL PROJECT COST: $12,817,796 June 21S 2016. Yakima Central Plaza VE Cost Reduction Exercise: VE Cost reductions: - $1,476,783. (Accepted). Revised Franchise Utility Relocation Cost reduction: -$ 373,553 ADD: Additional Engineering fee per City of Yakima: $ 1 o,000 Total Cost revision: $2,000,336 Revised Recommended Budget: $10,817,460 NOTE: Budget includes $351,942 of Owner's Contingency. Yakima Central Plaza Value Engineering Evaluation Yakima City Council June 28, 2016 Note: The value engineering evaluation presents cost reductions that are approximate values corresponding with the unit rates provided in the cost estimate, dated April 22nd, 2016. The unit rates were informed by trade consultant reviews, materials suppliers, sub - contractors and City of Yakima cost recommendations. The base cost reduction evaluations estimated values based on existing market conditions. Further evaluation will be required to verify these assumptions. The provided costs are for planning and budgetary purposes only, including the potential savings. Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 1 Site Plan with VE Items Keyed Note: Costs are approximate and will need to be updated with final design. Costs listed here include mark -ups and tax where applicable. General Site furnishings G 1 li , 1 Water feature piping G 14 ' Paving and Walls + A51 Granite paving PW 24 ' Basalt paving PW 26/43 `�:� nl I L Concrete finish PW 27 ,48 ` .,. .L. , ._ ,, _..„, PW37 Gro waterproofing PW 29 .* x - Skate deterrent paving PW 30 P66 Alley paving PW 37 t A RT Basalt walls PW 39 1 - �� PA/26/43 - Architecture ' PW24 Market Hall roof insulation A 45 w, - Market Hall sprinkler system A 46 �_ X14 8 Market Hall roof extents A 49c — ,,' f ' ;%' tJ71 ° ° - L80 A Market Hall equipment room A 49d '. ' 0 ., � �•�� n Market Hall restroom stall A 49d.2 0 , 3rd Street Trash Enclosure A 51a /b— Donor Recognition A 52 G � _ d Plaza trash enclosure A 59 L8. - - +I Planting ' A �? � � � 9 \ Shrubs S. groundcover P 60 I �_ l � -_._ � � I '� � Grove trees and tree pits 64 A49..2 � Birch trees (reduce caliper) P 66 A45/58 k U70 A49c & 49d Utilities ; �. "'pig A. 1 � a� Market Hall drainage U 70 �. , , 2 • '" Infiltration facility U 71 5 ` w3 -� '' i* `' - 4 ` . _ ..It .:. _ ,- �, . •` ` . . ' : � 2nd S. Chestnut traffic signal U 72 I Lighting t' � N. , � :, - � / ' i . 1 - �;: Z ' � ;_ ti S Spray feature inset lights L 80 ,w P Y 9 — Catenary 'hop' valance L 86 "Harp" pedestrian pole L 87 scale: 1" = 60' 0 15 30 60 120 feet Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 21, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 2 VE Items: General G 1: Eliminate supplemental s furn Anticipated Savings: $103,643 allowance • REMOVE REMOVE ❑ KEEP (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) Remove an $80,000 allowance from construction budget for purchase of flexible site furnishings, such as movable cafe tables and chairs for day -to -day use, picnic tables, and chairs and tables for events. Advantages /disadvantages of / "�� l � � C � � l removing additional furn 4% 1 • - - • L . - ■■■■ i 1■II . • . Mai from construction budget: •■ ..... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■...i■■ riFIF4- EMI : '0 Firnishings are easy to add /P N l 1 o E N later: not hard construction r F, ;AO , „A 3 ‘ / LA O MI + Avoid contractor mark - %� ups if purchased outside of ,-- 1■■'■�a■■■hi■ ■a ® IrAV /11. /i construction contract ® l■■i■ ■■n■■n■■ ■■■■�� ■■ ■ g � l�lii �i ■i ■ ■i ■ ■�■■`� ®■i� �! ■�IIi 1�ii�i�, �■ �� �,1■■P�iiiRi4mimi_ L;■% -■ ormigD■ ■ ■I ■� t ■ ` ` mili i ■ �irom iimassumorm■ ■■■r■�■■■■■miN m1 1w-la ■ ■.lm....■ . ■ ■ ■:E " :Ei #G ■ ■MMIIII E1 it M ■ Illlliill■■■■ II■ 1■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I ■■EB■■■■iiiS.EMIS■ ■I INI = ilJl 'I�ID■ii■SID■iID■ii■ii■im■iID■ IZINEZiiiiiSlllMI■:11111li /11Miml ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■• ■■ ■111■ ■1111111■ 0 I ■■■■ 1■ ■ ■ , _ CONS -r Y Y , � � i �ffi / 4 1 ,,1 III IIO{i M I I IIii 'i ■I ' pam ma WM MI :1 :� , ; IIIIIII Flexible furnishings are _ i _ important for day -to -day use and rental function of Plaza Plan showing potential locations and quantity of movable tables and chairs that could be purchased with the $80,000 allowance • • - _\ /_ a Examples of Furnishings Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 3 G 14 Chan feature i in i J' I L Anticipated Savings: $51,822 from stainless steel to PVC �� ■ "" REMOVE REMOVE ❑ KEEP (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) The drawing set currently shows stainless steel piping for IF ■ the water features' plumbing within the equipment vault. 1,,....,,.,.,..,.., ai f uii�...... Stainless steel and PVC both have long lifespans for I Iil••• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■Ilf the materials themselves, but PVC is more vulnerable to Ili- _v_v�.�_.__�__ - .iu damage, and PVC valves would need replacement sooner. - Advantages /disadvantages of Revised design would retain metal for the most critical valves and pumps. switching to PVC pipes and fittings: 11° ... rigif ' fa : .-f wp ifiljto' ' � t ol t. i v ® PROS r 7-7 7 ? + Adequate performance - PVC "' 41 0 / - is the standard used in most ile t iliate t i water features nationally. .' Metal is a premium option. I + Both materials have a long t. / / lifespan + Lower cost Water feature site piping plan CONS -.> .. — Shorter life span for valves - Less robust material: more susceptible to damage if hit ,�� (though this type of damage is rare in a protected equipment vault). — Larger fittings: less space - Stainless steel piping Proposed in VE: PVC Piping efficient lifespan of material > 100 years lifespan of material >1000 years lifespan of valves — 30 years lifespan of valves — 10 years Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 4 VE Items: Paving and Walls 'r' I J ' L 1t Anticipated Savings: $772,949 PW 24a: Modify size of granite stone . F . 1 Y g - (with 24b & 24c) modules ; • REMOVE REMOVE 0KEEP — i The current size of the granite stone pavers across the plaza is 15" x III (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) 45 ". Modifying the pavers to 24" x 24" will cut the cost of the stone F _ I 9 ! ®111 ■ ■ ■■ „, because of the shorter maximum length. It will also save on labor -� ,Ij costs, as a single person can lift and install a 24” x 24" paver, while „ ��� '' ��"'�9 two people or a crane are required for a 15" x 45" paver. Advantages /disadvantages of modifying paver size: PROS + Reduced cost + Simplified installation + More contractors are capable of this work (more competition) 4 4/1/4/11111r CONS ft Existing in 100% CD set: 1 5" x 45" paver — More conventional size /ratio 7 *** **** r'_ ' 1 11 611 ,{• _ _ ' , t .&, � ; , 1 ill F R f 1 � f It , — . -27: illir * t. 4*** hi" , .... , . *** *1■11, Proposed in VE: 24" x 24" paver 24" x 24" pavers at Rights of Man Square, Evry, France Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 5 VE Items: Paving and Walls 'r 1 J L 1t Anticipated Savings: $772,949 PW 24b: Supply granite from an : M. -TI-' (with 24a & 24c) international (rather than domestic) source REMOVE REMOVE 0 KEEP Stone currently specified would be quarried and cut to Ili i _ (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) size in Minnesota. Stone from international sources (i.e. ;,,- ,,.,.,., I China or In has a significantly lower cost than US- ia iiiiii1,,,,,,li _ Advantages /disadvantages of h the public low -bid process may „ - ' s -1- ' w" ' !9 domestic stone, although p p y � changing to international source: yield a domestic stone that is competitive. Intended color to remain similar to "Mountain Green." PROS ` « j - 4 + Reduced cost ' Density:1731bs /cu ft + Maintains material quality: ,' v Water Absorption: 0.05% ": �� ` � stone is long- lasting and has , 0 ,A, , Compressive Strength: 18,310 lbs/sq in • - r ''''' '' ' '' r Flexural Strength: 2,920 lbs/sq in low maintenance overall ` '' + Granite is essential to function R ", and longevity of water feature ,,,l Existi in 100% CD set: + ' ' Similar Density and : . ' . t ,,; Domestic "Mountain ." .,, '` _: "' «� Green" granite supplied by Compressive Strength as .s.. �ssJ,.a�, 9 ``' > zw a }°', Coldspring "Mountain Green" N., - ,..1 r- ot. _, f • ' - i r ~ Density:164.81 Ibs /cu ft CONS ' ; ° �' . . Water Absorption: 0.49% — Not sourced from USA w a f. ,, , Compressive Strength: 21 lbs/sq in Fg' .+ , - s t� Flexural Strength: 1,523 Ibs / q s .n — Different color (final TBD) i { r . . u. 9 ' ' — " Chende Green" Flexural : ■ 3 ti Example of alternative Strength is less than that of ' 4 material: .� s ,� • ve . c.• "Mountain Green" * w;.,. , .,•Y , Chinese granite "Chende • L '..+ : ' './... Green Granite" supplied by •' Stone Unlimited Note: will continue to look for a lighter - colored international source Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 6 VE Items: Paving and Walls ' rtx Anticipated Savings: $772,949 PW 24c: Reduce gran paver th (with 24a & 24b) from 3" to 2" II ) • REMOVE REMOVE 0 KEEP I (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) The entire plaza area is currently designed to be vehicle -rated and therefore endure periodic vehicle based maintenance, loading, and iiiirammusum i.-) Advantages/disadvantages of evil ■ ■ ■ ■ _.� wwwwil granite r ns 3". Reducing g the c thic av I thickness to 2in vehicle rated it °u reducing paver thickness from 3" areas will marginally increase the potential for cracking due to live to 2 ": or point loading. The initial cost of the stone is significantly lower, which allows for purchase of additional "attic stock" to replace any PROS damaged modules. + Lower cost of material GROUT JOINT STONE PAVERS, SEE PLAN + Lower cost of labor to install MORTAR SETTING BED, COORDINATE MORTAR DEPTH WITH STONE MASON, SEE SPEC. + Less transport cost WELDED WIRE REINFORCEMENT CLEAVAGE MEMBRANE + Most of strength of paving a WATER PROOFING CONCRETE SLAB, SLOPED TO DRAIN, SEE CIVIL assembly is in sub -base and COMPACTED BASE COURSE, SEE CIVIL concrete slab. Role of stone is / \ / \ \�A COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL, SEE CIVIL relatively small within overall structural performance of PT -5 OR PT -6 paving. SIM w w © EXPANSION JOINT, WITH N N Now BACKER ROD AND SEALANT it FLUSH, STONE PAVERS CONS � � ;i — More prone to cracking LLJ w ° PIP CONCRETE SLAB, — Limit weight of vehicles ° o SLOPED TO DRAIN, SEE s. a ° CIVIL FOR DEPTH & i%.77% REINFORCEMENT allowed on plaza (may need to ' ' Wy � 0 . 1° ' • '' control with bollards) \ j \ A \ j 7 a .I a • 4aa4 • / eV V V V �° /0.� �0A.,24._424., COMPACTED BASE COURSE, A V �V �V �V�V�V�V�VVAVA � A VA SEE CIVIL �� � / /A �� A / / / /� // " / �� � / ,\.\-4 A COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL, SEE CIVIL Note: At the request of City Council, the design team Section details of granite paver has been working with suppliers and engineers to try to quantify the implications of this VE item and the increase in probability of cracking. While we have not yet been able to arrive at a clear percentage, the team is comfortable Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation recommending this VE item. June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 7 VE Items: Paving and Walls $772,949 PW 24c: Reduce granite paver thickness from 3" to 2" Anticipated I4 Savings: S &2 (Precedent: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle) • REMOVE REMOVE 0KEEP (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) \ f : r ate: 1s . il k P t,_• � `� .., .,,,,,,,,,,,,,., r l c M `i y � "' I iA q. 1111 .= Ir k.`. , 4.11 _ 11P --..11111101E11.11.1111.11111. MIN _ ', 1 i�1 — ■ Event set -up in the Campus Heart (trucks were used to load materials into the space) 1. „ / 1 1 `' , 1 d1' -, ai A �: ' \ -� .• 1� f . P ! r �, � • , _ { �y, I. r 4— � kit,. A _ r � L \ 11 i4 r . � j .. 2” -thick vehicle -rated pavers in the Campus Heart Art installation using a boom truck in the Campus Heart Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 8 VE Items: Paving and Walls L +'; Anticipated Savings: $32,389 PW 26: Supply basalt water feature and P 9 ' stage paving stone from an international ❑ REMOVE REMOVE 0KEEP source Ii (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) � uii m•• ee The currently- specified material would be quarried in Moses Lake, sell ®U••••III■C ®I Advantages /disadvantages of WA, and fabricated in British Columbia. Stone from an international ;:��'"� changing to international source: source (i.e. China or India) has a significantly lower cost than US g In g domestic stone. Performance characteristics are similar. PROS + Reduced cost + Maintains material quality: stone is long- lasting and better for maintenance overall Basis of Design: CONS Domestic "Black Tusk" — Diminishes the 'story' of the basalt supplied by Bedrock plaza referencing local basalt Natural Stone geology. — Not sourced from USA Proposed in VE: Chinese basalt supplied by Stone Unlimited Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 9 VE Items: Paving and Walls I J Anticipated Savings: $81,619 PW 27: Eliminate exposed aggregate finish from Market Hall concrete REMOVE 0 REMOVE • KEEP � — i (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) The currently- specified concrete finish is exposed aggregate, which means that some of the cement in the concrete mix is washed away jl ;i from the surface to expose the stone aggregate. This increases j; l�.�ll \- durability and improves maintenance because more of the contact "Gio ai"" surface is stone rather than porous concrete. Advantages /disadvantages of eliminating exposed aggregate finish: PROS . '`P + Reduced cost CONS — Increased maintenance — Stains more visible — Less refined appearance Difference in wear between exposed aggregate and conventional finish concrete Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 10 VE Items: Paving and Walls ! i , Anticipated Savings: $17,451 PW 29: Eliminate waterproofing under _____: grove stone paving \ REMOVE REMOVE KEEP II i ifild (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) I Waterproofing between the concrete slab base and stone assembly H ;, ,-, l enhances protection against efflorescence (migration of salts to the IE lil••••,,,,,,,ll '_ surface of the stone, where it can form a white coating). This option • s .1111 would remove the waterproofing from the western half of the Plaza, but Advantages /disadvantages of would maintain it under the dark basalt paving and in the area of the spray water feature. The team does not believe there is a high risk of removing waterproofing: efflorescence in this location. PROS + Reduced cost + Efflorescence is less visible on light- colored stone. GROUT JOINT STONE PAVERS, SEE PLAN MORTAR SETTING BED, COORDINATE MORTAR DEPTH CONS el 0 22=02 ® WITH STONE MASON, SEE SPEC. — Increased potential for MINIM WELDED WIRE REINFORCEMENT CLEAVAGE MEMBRANE efflorescence _ _ _ WATER PROOFING f `�� �'�� �'���� CONCRETE SLAB, SLOPED TO DRAIN, SEE CIVIL t COMPACTED BASE COURSE, SEE CIVIL j \ /\j A /• /\ COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL, SEE CIVIL © SECTION: PAVING PT -1, PT -2, PT- 3,PT -4 Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 11 VE Items: Paving and Walls l - -1 L I've' Anticipated Savings: $14,479 PW 30: Eliminate skateboard , I\ deterrent textured paving �® "' REMOVE REMOVE 0 KEEP • (take VE reducti (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) The skate deterrent paving consists of heavily grooved l ■ pavers intended to deter skateboarders from grinding ' iii ::::nniamil 0 III ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■II on the site walls. The skate deterrent pavers line the gii,....'"www —at „ walls within the plaza center, creating a rough and ___s_ w_ u° uncomfortable riding surface. For this VE option stone Advantages /disadvantages of pavers would be used in lieu of the textured pavers. removing textured pavers: PROS TEXTURED PAVING STRIP + Reduced cost TEXTURE PERPENDICULAR TO WALL + Can use alternate means, such as notches in walls or other l means to deter skateboarding. + Stone walls hold up well to 111111111111111111111111111 °- minor scrapes and dings a,a – – – CONS –----- - - - -- – -- ______________________ III -- -- - --- – --- - ---– – -- - - - - – – III – III – III III - - -– -- ----------- --- - — - - - - - - Increased potential for skatin g III III iii -iii -I - III " p III 3' -0" damage to walls , , , , r ip" - l ift DI OFFSET ROM WA� w GOU S ING DI RSGJAN m 3 OA it 14 ipifiii / 1144,11,41rit FOR G ROO V ED FI . A, W A, DETAIL VIEW SCALE: 3 /B" = 1' -0" Details of skate deterrent paving Textured paving Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 12 VE Items: Paving and Walls PW 37: Replace concrete Alley paving with I � � — I Anticipated Savings: $84,210 asphalt ❑ REMOVE REMOVE ❑ KEEP aw / L (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) Replacing the concrete paving in the Alley with asphalt will have a lower ;I; initial cost but will do little to foster the pedestrian - friendly atmosphere a ���.... . �.umemm I intended in enhancing the outdoor dining areas of the businesses along I111�,,,,,,II the alley. It would be possible for the City or adjacent businesses to "ir - `_ ,' ' 1111 pave the Alley in concrete at a later date. Advantages /disadvantages of converting alley paving to asphalt: Cowiche Jim & Sports [_Olive Garden il , r -® i Canyon F Casa Vittore Jennis Center PROS Kitchen I i + Lower initial cost grA ■ ■ - - ■ ■ - - �r kilo N■ ■__ ■_, . . m ■■ CONS Ell Shorter lifespan (asphalt often ■. requires maintenance within ° ® ' NW the first 5 years; concrete can I / — tug/ , . last 10 years before needing uvie Existing in 100% CD set: Alley paved in concrete repair) — Higher life cycle cost (sources o - I C owiche • II J im& I sports I Olive Garden I " vary as to percentage: range ® i Canyon i ienni ! Center from 10% - 30% is � I'� Kitchen i i � i � - 30%) Lower quality finish • ■ ��.............o..�.r . 1 Af � (I ' ii Proposed in VE: Alley paved in asphalt Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 13 VE Items: Paving and Walls 1 4 I I I Anticipated Savings: $50,3on PW 39: Convert stone walls to concrete II � \ i _ ,I (Assumes PW 26 is taken) i �■ ■ walls w/ basalt caps �■�i REMOVE REMOVE • KEEP In this option, the basalt stone veneer of select walls would be replaced i 1 (take VE reduc (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) with finished concrete. Leaving the basalt capstones maintains the hi durability of stone in the area most critical to support the longevity 'l••••••••••• 9 Y P P 9 Y � ■III ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■III of the walls. Water channel walls remain cubic stone to maintain d:I•••••�•••"L•1 Advantages/disadvantages of � removing stone veneer: waterproofing system. g PROS + Maintains durability at most critical portion of walls + Lower cost CONS — Diminished aesthetic quality vs. completely stone walls <FILL, WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC CLEAVAGE MEMBRANE CONC SLAB, SEE CIVIL DG TYPE PER PLAN BACKFIL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC STONE TYPE 2 CAPSTONE MORTAR BED HNC SLAB, SEE CIVIL PIN AND EPDXY \\ STONE TYPE 2 CAPSTONE \ 1 •_ 6 . THINSET MORTAR 144 CHAMFER 1 PIN AND EPDXY 1 ,SLOPE TO DRAIN \ 1' -B' STONE MASONRY ANCHOR SLOPE TO DRAIN SAND AND SEALANT JOINT, TYP ----- . 4-7.. 1 4 CHAMFER } / � PIP WALL !Id a VENEER TYPE 1 ,� K . 3 8" SAND AND SEALANT JOINT, T1P� EXPANSION OINT PIP WALL + e STONE TONE PALING A " CONCRETE SLAB SEE CIVIL I AN EXPANSION JOINT JOINT I - - I ITS STONE PAVING CONCRETE SLAB SEE CIVIL I I ctiwa ' M '' 1" ° ' 4 4 i i5:01.5.0kYtt 0 C. EACH WAY A v rw/.'H„, ' $4 ®12' O.C. ��� \A , 1 -ID �' O.C. EACH WAY /, wAwAwAM r M0- p lr Existing in 100% CD set: Walls with basalt veneer and capstone Proposed in VE: Concrete wall with basalt capstone Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 14 VE Items: Paving and Walls i I Anticipated Savings: $37,340 PW 43a: Reduce size of basalt stone ice.■ modules, change to international stone REMOVE REMOVE 0 KEEP The current size of the basalt stone pavers in the stage area is "18 x 54 ". I i ! (take VE reducti (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) Reducing the pavers to 18" x 18" will cut the cost of the stone because i, wili; . I of the shorter maximum length. It will also save on labor costs, as a ,,,,P single person can lift and install an 18" x 18" paver, while two people or a „1:I , 171 1-. � ®111 ■ ■ ■■ crane are required for an 18" x 54" paver. � - Advantages /disadvantages of changing size and source of pavers to international source: PROS + Reduced cost + Simplified installation *0 + Maintains material quality: stone is long- lasting and better for maintenance Existing in 100% CD set: + Square module works well with i 18" x 54" paver granite size proposed in PW 24 0 0 ••• ... CONS — More conventional paver size/ ratio a y li i W j a y IU ITO 111101 1101101 Proposed in VE: 18" x 18" paver Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 15 VE Items: Architecture ' 1 L I I Anticipated Savings: $31,833 A 45: Eliminate Market Hall roof insulation -�_ .. Insulating the Market Hall roof furthers the ability to maintain a ® ® ® REMOVE REMOVE KEEP cool and pleasant temperature below for parked cars or Market Hall '' ® (take VE reduction) (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) events. The light-colored metal roof and the open-air Market Hall ! design render insulation less imperative, because heat is reflected and k ■li ~••�li air circulation is uninhibited. Sound and heat are also mitigated by the -1-- °��,Gu plywood, decking, purlins, and GLULAM beams supporting the metal — Advantages /disadvantages roof, amounting to approximately 22" of wood thickness. of removing Market Hall roof ROOF ASSEMBLY insulation: R -1: STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING ON r 1 WEATHER RESISTIARRIER ON 2 RIGID INSULATION VE B ON PLYWOOD PER STRUCTURAL ON I T &G DECKING STRURAL O 4x6 PURLINS PER PER STRUCN RAL ON N PROS BEAMS PER STRUCNRAL + Lower initial cost CONS I I 1 I - Heat and sound L J Note: The team has been working with '� m.a . �, Er engineers to try to quantify the degree of ._.. E m, heat mitigation from the insulation. While al 6 -'--1 M .�, I ' it is difficult to quantify without a full mock trelF I _ ----- up, the op inion of the team is that the high ceiling, lig roof, and wood decking, will '9 _ mitigate h eat gain enough to make the insulation less critical Details showing roof insulation Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 16 VE Items: Architecture '''. l -i L I'I'I' Anticipated Savings: $92,147 A 46: Eliminate Market Hall overhead fire __ .. suppression system `i A , n • REMOVE REMOVE 0 KEEP ■ III ® I ■ (take VE reduction) (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) The current building code requires overhead fire suppression ' i 4 systems systems on parking structures of this size, but does not anticipate Mil - °41 open -air, unenclosed parking structures. Given that the Market Hall �� ���� ��._v_._,_�w l 5 I is not an enclosed structure, an overhead fire suppression system is - Advantages /disadvantages of not necessary to ensure evacuation of human occupants. The City will need to provide indemnification to the design team in order to removing Market Hall overhead pursue a variance that will allow the structure to be permitted for fire suppression system: three uses -- parking, mercantile, and assembly. PROS + Lower cost • • + More space available in I� �R=Pwk�=PP.µTM=RA equipment /mechanical room = a a . - - ® PER Mas R . � nz. ® r i,... , __ CONS ® =,' � , — Requires city action to �w��wPEwLLwm���� � � - -J recognize a type of building rk-" " a ° °� and use that was not mrlarE I 4i, %IiP anticipated by the code. c IT I —I E I I.I ® : I R VA AVAAVAAVAAVAAVAAVAAVAAVAAVAAVAA \""""""/W/\"""‹ \ A A . \ / \. /\. \ \Y /�� / // /-\ \�\7/ 4 7\\ j {. Section showing fire suppression system Outdoor fire sprinklers at from 100% Design drawings. Cowiche Canyon Kitchen Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 17 VE Items: Architecture A 49c: Remove sol roof from east 3 • l J � o It Anticipated Savings: $48,745 bas (keep rest of structure) "I W7111111110 "' REMOVE REMOVE KEEP y p , :1! ■ ❑ ® ■ (take VE reductio (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) This item examines saving costs by reducing the size of the ; _ I ■ Market Hall roof. The negative effect is reduced shade under ®°°-•slil the Hall for events or parking. �;�• --• -• Advantages /disadvantages of _ b _ / I U reducing roof area ,71 [ \\ ,/ \ / 7 i --.17----- -- WR I WOIllealll V , , t — � ' . PROS / �— '= �/ :, .. ; .. - ___ ; —�. , -_. � _ �-- �-- _��- J� ---� -- ,-=-- �- --- —� � 1/ ��/ 2 � Reduced cost iTi M I M M I N + Can replace some of the shade /JJrr �, performance via vines growing 1 , ;' on structure I1 _ 1 ',;;/;', at 0 //,-;// IFINIWINCINIMMININUMBINVINIZEIMPARIVAIIINFIRIVAMBIIIII11 /r,.//, ,11 /, N. / CONS Roof extents per 100% Design drawings — Less shade — Less rain protection I /� i,r/ F T7___________ \ P 9 , , ° . -,,, ..44 , . — .i ' ._ ' I �� �, , ' � . n - 1 / ,, / , , /,, /(, J . /, /2' 2/ ` /, /, / 1 / �" / /, /,, / / / /, /,, //� 4 // Y ,, / /2, / /, /I /,, / /2 /r /Y //,, '• /, / '<2' "// /, / /, // / /, / / X r / , //y //, // X 1 p Iliii,1 /,, ;/,, / , l am /f /, NI NI MI MI MI MI MI � J ,� ,/ /� L / ''/ , / // Proposed roof extents for VE item Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 18 VE Items: Architecture ' °' l J ' L I ' t Anticipated Savings: $59,174 A 49d: Remove mechanical /equipment __M ._ box. Add equipment room and some I iij p iiitti "' REMOVE REMOVE KEEP ■ (take VE reducti (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) storage to Rest room box. I; _ ■ Consolidate the rest rooms and mechanical equipment into i eli ~ -- 9 1 one 'box', eliminating the equipment /storage structure in the v_._:_�_v iu SE portion of the Market Hall. A space of about 110 SF is Advantages /disadvantages added back to the NW block for equipment and some storage _ l',X ;,, a eliminating equipment box: ,, _ / ' , ' `' „"/' ; , ,1 , -- � - - - - rHTT r. r, - - - -'� r , m- ; ;;;�- _ '_ /sass - -_''' � � a 1 0 Reduced cost , 1� Red d c NE I I I I + Increased sense of openness JfP If i _ __ .- ._ ;� p �, ,'i�o toward future outdoor seating . Y ,'4//,/,,// ' at restaurant across Chestnut "� mil imi +Gain 3 parking spaces - - Illl — mil IIII I -__W ___i, r r / r / , liffi 110 SF i CONS i �� (– 55 Sf Market Hall per VE item A 49c (see previous page) '� - 1 — Less space for storage 6 .1 1 f or storage) p g �L — Reduction to single trash IIII ih IF JILL IIII JUL ',41-1-: _ _ _ I, , enclosure // ,/i , --,---\ wweva Equipment and furnishings will . -$ - -I_ --- , -- 4_ -_ -__ = \c = - - '' - iii' ' 'I last longer if they don't have to l ,/,';/„/;,,, L ;;I: - __ .. �- -_-- °, - -� ^ 1E-'1---*----,-___, � be moved as far - Extensive redesign to re- ,; engineer structure and re -route /„"<" , , , , , , � , u t i l i t i e s � ,,,,, ,,, C, , f, ,,, I ,, , , y , , / ,, II _ Proposed VE item A 49d.2, showing consolidation of equipment room w/ rest room block Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 19 VE Items: Architecture ' ' l J L I' I'I ' Anticipated Savings: $14,251 A 49d.2: In addition to all items in 49d, - Jam remove one restroom stall. aNiiiii( 1 REMOVE p REMOVE •KEEP (take VE reduction) (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) 4 i :I.I.I.I.Ii j ._ ill —' i This item removes one of the rest rooms to make more room �' . 1—i5 for storage. Advantages /disadvantages of converting restroom to storage: 1111 1111 PROS „ ► IIII + Reduced cost lug. – H IT �� p II + Increased space for storage l - I II H I .- ' . ,1 t 11 CONS 1 11 Only one unisex rest room FM -I mI - Doesn't meet code required I11` 1 I I I 1 J II U II I quantity of rest rooms for Restroom stru with 2 separate WCs assembly use 1111 Ill 1111 I'll/ / 1111 II 4 _LI IL Ir .-p 1111 111111 ��'' �i 1111 Imi1 _ 1111 C IA .- , , 1111 11 1 7 -. 1111 1111 FM - I mI - Ju� 1111 Jul 1111 1111 1111 IIII iiii iiii Restroom structure with one WC Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 20 VE Items: Architecture ,. I A 51a: Simplify 3rd Street (restaurant) trash I ;a:, L I C,, ' Anticipated Savings: $19,881 , ; enclosure: wood posts and cedar boards "i \ _ "' REMOVE REMOVE KEEP This item examines saving costs by simplifying the construction of the i (take VE reducti (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) 3rd Street trash enclosure. ; I ■111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■II I IIMMWMMEMMMEMII .5 Advantages /disadvantages of changing enclosure to wood: y �� — PROS ` —a � + Lower initial cost ,. '0, ''' i � ti t - # `, ,, „'�`�� ti,� - _� ,`�'��y1 + Retain moderate quality & • z4. appearance for enclosure Existing in 100% CD set: trash enclosure with concrete and metal slats CONS — Shorter lifespan (0 -10 yrs expected cedar; +25 years - — `' original design) g.�.n -- _ — Not as in- keeping with Plaza aesthetic — Diminishes quality of - pedestrian experience along K. 3rd Proposed in VE: simplify trash enclosure to wood posts and cedar boards — Diminishes perceived quality for outdoor seating in alley Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 21 VE Items: Architecture A 51a: Simplify 3rd Street (restaurant) trash I _ � _ IC Anticipated Savings: $50,387 enclosure: chain link with slats " , \ III REMOVE REMOVE • KEEP This item examines saving costs by simplifying the construction of the i • ® (take VE reducti (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) 3rd Street trash enclosure. 46:::2222161.1 I 111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■II 1 111MMMMMIIIIMM EMil �i�� Advantages /disadvantages of changing enclosure to chain link: .; PROS ■ yam, to ` ' —a , ' ° "`""" s ' 9 is + Lower i cost a' Af lli t , J - �. 'f ' I [ `,NF: i 1:, =, -- k r ' - z , , I 7f z4. CONS Existing in 100% CD set: trash enclosure with concrete walls and metal slats — Shorter lifespan (2 -8 yrs chain link; +25 years original design) 7� Significantly diminished k a:. . r yr —"" r aesthetic 1 �1 , t '- 0,0111i1111111111 � I III III I 1 I 1 ; '`�' 'I ��_ i�l ,0 — Significantly diminishes quality I I - - III 1 I ✓/ � 1 111111 ' ' 11 11I111I1�1 of pedestrian experience along d { I sl �� V I ',,,,0��t��! 3rd li .� I I �li f���l1i/ I i l - ,/,•„•,•/,' 1 1 /� ./�1 Significantly diminishes _s " y' t perceived quality for outdoor seating in alley Proposed in VE: simplify trash enclosure to chain link with privacy slats Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 22 VE Items: Architecture l J Anticipated Savings: $13,966 A 52: Remove Donor Recognition • Removing the Donor Recognition panels will save cost. REMOVE REMOVE KEEP Donor Recognition can be added at a later date. This ® : (take VE reduction) (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) option assumes that the area shown as metal -clad wil be replaced with boardform concrete. 4117111111111111:61.1 III ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■II Advantages /disadvantages of removing donor recognition: PROS it I + Reduced cost + Can be sponsored by a donor or added at a later date CONS — Decreases architectural interest of structure — May compromise fund - raising efforts — Will ultimately need some way II to recognize donors 1 - Existing in 100% CD set: Donor Recognition under the Market Hall Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 23 VE Items: Architecture ': 1 J L II t Anticipated Savings: 519,433 A 59: Remove Plaza trash enclosure � _ .. from equipment room structure i , \ "' REMOVE REMOVE KEEP • The base design includes a trash enclosure where I 1 ® ■ (take VE reductio (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) maintenance staff would consolidate bags collected from !i I receptacles throughout the site. This VE item would remove I lil 11•••• the dedicated trash enclosure for Plaza trash and share 3rd „ ;P......... _.1 u Street (Restaurant) trash enclosure. - Advantages /disadvantages of removing trash enclosure 1111 1111 NI 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 PROS 11 1111 ' + Reduced cost • • 1111 �� : "' + Increased space for storage - _ _ _ � _ _ _ + Consolidates trash (including 205 SF smell and mess) in single tL L __ 1 4 location � � � CONS Administrative complications Current Plan with Plaza &Trash Enclosure of sharing trash disposal with 1111 1111 a commercial uses on Third St. 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 NI 1111 1111 1111 • Note: This reduction is already • 1 I . �� , . l �_�; , ,_„_ , included in VE item 49d above • ii f iii and cannot be taken in addition -- - - -- — a -- to that item. 260 SF 4 Total Trash Enclosure Removed Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 24 VE Items: Planting P 60: Reduce shrubs and groundcover by 12% Anticipated Savings: $23,611 REMOVE REMOVE KEEP (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) Teere • Advantages /disadvantages of reducing planting *ea PROS + Reduced cost • *ea CONS - Plants have less impact at Full Plant Density initial opening — Less dense planting will require more maintenance to suppress • ) weeds ` Reduced Plant Density Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 25 VE Items: Planting P 64: Reduce grove trees and structural tree pits Anticipated Savings: $26,614 Remove three trees from grove. Savings includes removal REMOVE REMOVE KEEP of tree grates, concrete walls, and other structural (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) elements that provide adequate soil space for trees under paving. Y as III Advantages disadvantages of removing grove trees ° gip �„ _° PROS u m ° I trees with associated + Reduced cost - - _ g ra tes and soil to I ` _ _ + I More visual openness toward • I = — _ _ I remain potential development on 2nd e . -a > O trees, grates, and soil !I I I . i+ I ,', l'' t I I. to remove CONS iim si ,.._ . �..�.�... � ®......w.. 1 1 111111 — Less shade NOTES: TREE PLUMB AND CENTERED IN T RL I R a 1 5, ImE£Pais LE OR TREE TREE OPENING 2 SEE TYPICAL NEE PLANBNG FOR ALL OTHER NOTES. 3. CONSTRUCT TREE PITS SD THAT TREES I / CUT DO DO DO NOT LIST OR SETTLE NOT PRUNE wTHOUT APPROVAL 9 AT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT sPnoES CONSTRUCT TREE PITS SO ' Da NOT LIST DE SERIF AT TRE> ROOT WATERING A EXPOSE AND SET TOP DE ROOT RARE .T ASOYE TOP OF ® A EN. SOIL SEE SPEC r A l I AIR GAP BELOW TREE GRATE EXPOSED S" O RADIUS OF MEDAN �� \� caNC waLL suPPDRr. SEE smucT DRIP RIGA. BENEATH cavoRETE P: �Y . • G R ELL AR.., SURFACE AROUND DASE OF TRUNK STONE NANG . 01 1, IMPRAITTER SLAB SEE / \ TOPSOIL COMPACT PER r III SPECIFICATIONS / 7 / / � ice i� i ii� ii / \ /, �/ lG . . NOT DISNRB ANTALL o° OR ° R OTSS DD i; %� . / . �.\.\ \` � E�� ' A' S GRADE PEDESTAL TO SUPPORT ROMAN TAMP /N /� THOROUGHLY ANT FOOT DOTY 0 DETAIL: TREE PLANTING IN TREE PIT scnEE DETAIL/2 = T o Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 26 VE Items: Planting P 66: Reduce caliper of birches in lawn Anticipated Savings: $31,093 from 6" to 3" 0 REMOVE REMOVE 0 KEEP (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) Purchase and install smaller birch trees in the lawn area. Keep other, slower-growing trees as 6" caliper. , 1 ..:': , , , I ,\It • • .,'5,4 , 4,, , . 41 A` . ;.•4:k . ,. " , '4 ', j5 .11, ( t'a'..' /0.4 ritV Advantages/disadvantages of '' \ G :!•, , . ,. ,' • ' le ' : ; . 0 a' .v ,` " , , I . JA: .- = - -• : 04 I '41,ri reducing caliper size: \ $.1' ..f - : 1 ;. '.- - t '7 ._ . \\_ , ' •ti, * V • ; 1 I I P"'n • , • ' , ..■ -,' I ' 4 i . ••• E ., ‘• • ' i i ' - 4.• '%. 4' • 1: - 1 P ' . 4•■•: l c/ ' 4 11 " ' ‘ '44- PROS , . 4 , + Reduced cost 1 , 1 , 1 I I .. + Birches grow fairly quickly 1 ■ 0 - 11 11 . - 0. . , - CONS i mpact i — Trees have less mpact at i n i t i al opening — Less shade — Smaller trees are more often subjected to vandalism 3-4" caliper trees 6-8" caliper trees ", i 6. 1r - M — F -41 1 0 , — ill ‘, ..ku 11 ' __ . — . 0 II / 1,,p w •■•■,_ c 73 -- 0 A ,,,,....... 1 „ ........... __ , T Wirw rail 7, /----. I - /0 . 0 At-t Atill 0 % , . _ . . i i . 1 . . Ili 6. Oa I. . . I. • I I I showing 111.1. ii•M iii• •' Iffle 111011111111m1m11‘11111.1. 1 41 n location of !we sitezentgtv alemorevIreirelleffieriali '' , , a - I II .06467..y. w I I birch trees promftwom,ipm Low,... , ;0 .. ._ CIONLE .., 14,6 emp v / /, 4110-01 within lawn Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 27 VE Items: Utilities J L I Ilk Anticipated Savings: $90,688 U 70: Remove trench drain at Market Hall _..___ and drain to 0___________I 1 Lefaiagefil • f REMOVE REMOVE KEEP (take VE reducti (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) li 1. I Ie Advantages /disadvantages of — ' — III ru changing drainage scheme. l';;,/,d o 0 0 0 "Gi __ __ __ - _.__ --_ .jai 0 PROS + Reduced cost + Simplified scheme using %;' 1 -- - - -- —_____ o o _ o o I ;' %', %, surface flow . _ + Reduce Oil /Water separator and trench drain maintenance %rr/ -- e _ tl- � " ", requirements %''% %' ?,' %' ?,'? ;? „/ /, /, /, % —/ '? % /r %'' %' + Planting scheme proposed ;;,;?,, ?,, ,, . :EMM.EFIE.IENIMMEMI RMIENINA:�.MEMEMI ?/; ,c %, ?, in 100% Design works for '' /''/ ''�'' � / / / / / / / / / /// V / / / / / /// AM ';? / ''/,'% bioretention Current design with trench drain ° CONS — Moderate redesign required - Swale along Chestnut maybe - deeper %I %, _ . %,' %', — Requires additional approvals - - -- from city engineering ;' %,' Ii z departments ',,,'',', ,, ,, , — / /, — Bioretention maintenance j,,„ ,,,„/, �9I�E�1I�1 .�6IMEMiMeNEJ.�1I�ME1IME.®■ ,,i,,,,� }� :,,� requirements '''%''''''''''' /�� /� /� / / /� /V / / / / / ///10'—'// '' Revised design sheeting water into bioretention planter Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 28 VE Items: Utilities U 70: Remove trench dra at Market Hall Ant Sav $90,688 and drain to bioretention • REMOVE REMOVE 0KEEP . (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) d_ ➢ — p�$ — iii Z 6 1 ,µ e � _ � c Y i 4 y 1I `y�v` �� l 0 1 \ I ' E ( ■I II 1 11 / / ; A -$° f � / } L 11 - / � _ <; > ' / / /�/ /\ / / / \/� / /�_ / / / \ / /� / / \ \//\ / / \ \// . :.: .: a . . : ;'' .. ": : . �:: s.': '!.'' , C ..k ■ Current design with trench drain Planting sketch from 100% design presentation: ,— 2 — Planting character as proposed in current design would not need to be significantly vg ;111 ep= +gip` a , modified for change to bioretention function. It would still be a combination of red Art. p ,� _ _ and yellow twig dogwood with ornamental grasses. 4 . BIORET: TION ,� PLAN G �. 4„ek _ - 4.„ i In r7? 't.: / / / / / / / / / /�/ ///////, � / // /� /� / '.`. .: ,. :' : :' : 'a.. ::': . ;. • / /` / / /\ / / \ / // / / /\/ / / /\ %/� / / /� //� / // / /��� / /�// /` � ��•4 • • • `. / / \ / / \ // / // / // /i,, // /i,, / / / / /! / / � / i,, -0_ //, // Revised design sheeting water into bioretention planter Bioretention area at a GGN project in Prove, Utah Yakima Central Plaza-Value Eng Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 29 VE Items: Utilities U 71: Modify plaza infiltration facility to be gravel Anticipated Savings: $ 77 , 732 instead of plastic • REMOVE REMOVE 0KEEP The current design uses a system of plastic cells to hold stormwater. The infiltration facility is to (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) meet Stormwater code. During the summer and non -rainy season, the spray jets will be on and the water collected from the trench drain will be recirculated; excess water will overflow to the sanitary sewer system. During the winter when the spray jets are not on, the rainwater collected in the trench drain from the plaza will enter this infiltration facility and infiltrate into the ground. Without this Advantages /disadvantages of facility, the Stormwater will discharge into the sanitary sewer system. A gravel facility could be used changing infiltration gallery: instead, but would need to be approximately four times bigger than the current facility. " I z� , ;1, PROS _° M G Reduced cost 190 25 PL PIP 063 2 •'7Rr . I I I` 1 �. aca n B °i _ , -��1. CONS • lI lII �5����!� • , - Increases area /volume required ... a � � � for stormwater treatment IT' . ..... Extents PIN 101 �� o ���� _ — Requires coordination with rd,,,„...-e,„......,,,,,,,.„. ���i , 13,... j— larger gravel infiltration water feature piping and other facilit y P ! _ —, site utilities � \ � P °6 gill 1111_1-", current R ` Typical cleanout with — More cleanouts in plaza paving 1 �' -- _. �r - -. ,.,a extents of___ 7 -- - — �° j "� ,m bronze lid, which would be 011111IF TnIEE 'A' infiltration HL. ill - t facility i a`" set into the plaza's stone A �1 F ' = °, g, -11 E paving for maintenance .. ®......(,,,„,„., ,,.'�EAIkFM.....pi4 access. Diameter 6 ® hr so . o Aims, 1 -tea .. 50. . E. CHESTNUT AVE. _ -_ __. -__- - � 1'T _ - L _ TRENCH DRAIN . ' ` -T : I .. , , • 1 �� .. .. -... ..FROM AF EQUIPME '° TO WF EQUIPMENT PLAN SIZE AND EL PEA PLAN SIZE AND EL PER PLANJ� �� L �� MINIMINVM - INSTALL DDOT ION LINER PENE AND STEEL TR CLAMPS ATIONS AT ■ ' '.. /� INFILTR r _ PLAZA INFILTRATION PLASTIC PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATION �' .' *Ma EXIST SEWER INFILTRATION M r DEVICE Section from 100% Design drawings Rainstore3 plastic cell Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 30 VE Items: Utilities '. l J I'I'I Anticipated Savings: $48,542 U 72: Keep existing traffic signal in place @ __.. corner of 2nd & Chestnut tli R EMOVE R KEEP * ■ Iii ® ■ ■ (take VE reduction ❑ (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) The 100% Design proposed to relocate the signal pole ; ■ and associated equipment in order to remove it from miim.........ii the sidewalk and put the traffic signal lights in optimal I.....nowww -aat location over the re- aligned travel lanes on 2nd. The VE 'm °_ °�_ °_ u° option places the lights within the acceptable range of Advantages /disadvantages of locations allowed per the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform keeping pole in place rather than Traffic Control Devices) but not the preferred /optimal relocating it: location. PROS j ( ( ( ( rr ( / ?? + Reduced cost / 4 ) ' ? _ rr rr CONS ,c _ _ _ A 0 _ r J r Pole and cabinet conflict with [°:2 I ,-, 1 °° — � i � c r m Hi_ ° ° sidewalk alignment I 0. I I /� - - Traffic lights not in optimal — II i wommymiwAriek -? ?) position over traffic lanes lir I I / RELOCATED POSITION rI r )/ z/J It �� rr rr EXISTING POSITION F I rr rr rr COULD WIDEN SIDEWALK I r r ° L ..... 1 AND CROSSWALK IN -**---........., . %: J THIS AREA ■ EXISTING CURB ■ Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 31 VE Items: Lighting L 80: Eliminate pav i nset l at spray water Anticipated Savings: $16,518 feature (EL 6) ❑ REMOVE REMOVE ❑ KEEP This item involves the small LED lights embedded in the (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) stone paving to make a 'constellation' of lights in the spray water feature area. Advantages /disadvantages of I�Idm lon � 1� - � n � � o n _ � IJ o -o. ° �,; ° eliminating paving inset lights trio i %r „ rr in pain �f� m o oy PROS ° ®� + Reduced cost err I I I I i + Reduced maintenance r� �r � � o - r, � � 17 .1) ...:.. � CONS 1 F — — 1 m wr --- ).■---7_ ...gra...1*_,.....1.,,____,„,„,,, � A ,, Reduced 'magic' from lighting 1 I ' - - - d v o effect � ! II: ' I Iii ii ppiiA ,„,„ a) mar , ,; , ,iffmni, , ,, , r r,,rr r,,rr,,r, �y u eno. n pan il /rr?AImIZ,Z/ Am r I . EL 6 lighting from 100% Design plans LED micro uplight Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL I Graham Baba Architects I DCW Cost Management 32 VE Items: Lighting L 86: Eliminate hop valance (shade) and • i iii.. Anticipated Savings: $24,615 . "' replace with cylindrical valance ,1 � I i REMOVE REMOVE KEEP • i ®® ®r/®// ■ (take VE reducti (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) ' ' Lights above the Market Hall 'Porch' and along the north 9 9 i � ®n A ® .. edge of the site are suspended from catenary cables $ iI rAIIMI ta •• A /disadvantages of strung between freestanding poles and the structure of m��:���q the Market Hall. The base project currently includes a "11' — ��°— °l�-_ °__uu replacing hop valance custom valance (shade) designed to evoke hop flowers. I PROS + Reduced cost + Might be sponsored by a donor CONS — Would lose reference to local industry — Enthusiastic public feedback Catenary lights for hop light option tlilo) r Iliv 414 1 11°14 4 i - op r jr, try Hop valance Cylindrical valance Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL 1 Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 33 VE Items: Lighting ' I J' p pole L i'�� Anticipated Savings: S97,083 L 87: Replace 'harp' pedestrian pole fixture : - .. Mil with simpler ole "i R EMOVE R KEEP L. I ®® ■ Ili - ® � ■ (take VE reducti (ALTERNATE) ❑ (leave in scope) The Yakima City standard pedestrian-height light poles ' 9 used elsewhere in the Downtown area cost approximately 1 111��������1��111 $15,000 each. A number high quality alternatives are f;pF = ninon s..: mi llll available within the range of approximately $5,000 each. �j I Advantages /disadvantages of replacing pedestrian pole OW PROS + Reduced cost -, + More contemporary appearance associated with iv - plaza l r ' + Poles are in relatively i i Jules inconspicuous locations between trees so difference from standard will be less ~— noticeable (see next page). h. 1 , y # � ! — } . V ` Examples of potential pole CONS alternatives, of which there are — Lack of consistency with other many others. streets Downtown The design team can work with iniiiiii the City to select an appropriate alternative pedestrian pole within the $5000 per pole budget of this 'Harp' pole Sketch showing option VE item. A simple pole retrofitted with 'hop valance on with the project's hop valance simple pole might even be possible within that allowance. Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL 1 Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 34 VE Items: Lighting L 87: Replace 'harp' pedestr pole f Anticipated Savings: $97,083 with simpler pole • REMOVE REMOVE 0KEEP i �� (take VE reduction (ALTERNATE) (leave in scope) i }I �� Most poles are located within tree ci A-1 �� s , �..� canopy areas making them less I \ 0 111 visible than many of the 'harp fixtures At /'�r`r ' downtown I 0 oh 11:1 'L ejr Cp' 7 , -' f Vir ..„... 0 41k P71 I" ..,...,..ii. 0 / 1 11111r ''.2F.4 ANL, 1 . vor-ltriaMelijill $" [, ; rr ° ® ® 0 0 0 0 ,;/,;/ L. u u u s te r .. .... ......................................... .............................._ 1 r - ; 1 I �Ill ' ; %' 0- II I PI �!� o !1 EFINNIEf _ . 11 X1 1 .' ''s, .aimaia"'r't.' `4. r'�', 5''s !tea W 1 r rrr 'fly; MEOW 81 CI1 7 I 'F :NM 'f ; �' I rr r ; r r� ! I I A. rr/ /,, r Ji 1 'w '�1► : "ier wr W ' W / I RV �� / dill ; r r ;r r r 1= Yakima Central Plaza - Value Engineering Evaluation June 28, 2016 GUSTAFSON GUTHRIE NICHOL 1 Graham Baba Architects 1 DCW Cost Management 35