Mt. Tabor Central Yard & Nursery Planning Group DRAFT Meeting NotesMonday, June 2, 2008 – 6:30pm-9:00pmMt Tabor Presbyterian Church, 5441 SE Belmont
Members in AttendanceEileen Argentina, Mark Bartlett, Tamara Failor, Pete Forsyth, Gary Johnson, Shannon Loch, Kristine Karnezis, Don Jacobson, Zeljka Carol Kekez, John Laursen, John Long, Dave McAllister, Nancy Norby, Kathryn Notson, Leslie Pohl-Kosbau, Lora Price, Kym Randolph, Dawn Smallman, Greg Snider, Chad Sorber, Al Staehli, Niki Todd, Karen Trappen, Jeff Tryens, Bruce Wakefield, Tom Wikle, Scott Yelton.
Members Not in AttendanceCascade Anderson Geller, Lynn Bailey, John Cava, Lance Condray, Steve Kruger, Hiromi Ogawa, John O’Shea, Earl Straley.
Staff/Support TeamJamie Damon, Barbara Hart, Jon Makler, Maija Spencer, Chad Talbot.
GuestsPaul Kinney (Opsis), John Shorb (Opsis), Jared Hassen.
Welcome, Agenda Review, 5/19 Meeting Notes AcceptanceJamie
Jamie reviewed the agenda. May 19th meeting notes were approved as written, with one addition by Dawn, on page 4. Under the question about the possible addition of City Nature, add that Tom McGuire mentioned that the addition of a different service currently not done in the Yard could potentially trigger a review, or change how BDS would consider the usage.
Project Management UpdateJon
The City’s budget will be voted on Wed, June 4, and this project’s full funded is included in the new budget. The design group has not been scoped yet, so this will be discussed at the Coordinating Committee on June 3, and a recommendation will be brought back to the June 16th meeting. On Wednesday, June 11th, the contract for Opsis will be approved by City Council. It will be on the regular agenda, so this is an opportunity to testify if anyone’s interested. Jon may offer weekly office hours somewhere in the neighborhood.
Horticulture DiscussionDon Jacobson, Greg Snider, Dawn Smallman, John Long, Leslie Pohl-Kosbau, Jeff Tryens, Niki Todd, John Laursen, Bruce Wakefield, Al Staehli, Kym Randolph, Shannon Loch, Nancy Norby, Lora Price, and Chad Sorber signed up to be part of the horticulture scoping discussion. A meeting wizard will be sent out to schedule this series of meetings.
5/31 Event DebriefJamie
Dawn talked to people from South Tabor & Center neighborhood associations that both wanted to hear more about this project.
Good location - lots of traffic in that corner of the Park – cars, pedestrians, bikers, etc.
The public was very surprised by the conditions in the Yard, not usually very visible. Hopefully this even will have a ripple effect in the community.
It was nice to meet people face-to-face, rather than just over email.
Nancy said this was her 3rd tour of the Yard, and she learned more this time than the first two.
Al has been on field trips with the Water Bureau – very effective public relations event for the public to understand a bureau’s work. Parks should consider an annual open house.
Displays were good, as well as lots of volunteers all day to help with the event.
Site Program Kristine introduced the presentation. Members of this group included: Al, Carol, Jeff, Cascade, Nancy, Mark, Chad, Leslie, Karen T, Eileen, Kristine, Dave, Don, Lora, Kym, John Long, Dawn, and Shannon. They did not use a consultant and held 5 meetings.
The group started with a lengthy number of questions that were need to know or want to know.
These questions were organized into categories (Best Practices, Historic Issues, Horticulture, Safety & Security, Service Delivery, Space Needs, Other Stakeholders, Plans/Studies). The groups recognized that they couldn’t answer all of them, due to time constraints. Horticulture issues came up at the final meeting, and these concerns will be referred to the horticulture conversation being organized by Jon Makler.
Approach/ProductsGather information, compile & document most important information.
Parks staff/mgrs compiled data about current and future needs.
Work unit meetings were held with all Yard staff to hear from line staff. Notes from these meetings were compiled into a report summary.
Document review was done to summarize past studies & reports and create a 1-page summary of each – underlying assumptions, limitations, etc.
Best practices – Chad/Lora – struggled to find similar case studies, but the Maintenance Design Group will be able to provide many examples.
Space NeedsJon Makler
See handout on Space Needs for full details.
Long block – about 3.1 acres
Fenced area – about 7 acres
Upper nursery – about 3.25 acres.
Total = 13.25 acres
Of the 7 acres in fenced, 43% is used for parking and circulation. The handout needs to be edited as Community Gardens has 2 employees, plus 2-3 seasonals).
Different studies including the Waterleaf (2006 Feasibility Study) and Holgate (2004) have been done to look at space needs. The Holgate determined 4.75 acres were needed (didn’t include Horticulture). The Waterleaf looked at the contemporary needs for Services (5.8 acres), as well as projecting the need in 2016 (20% growth projection) would be 6.9 acres. Horticulture could do current work in 5.5 acres (currently have 8.5 acres) – this includes an allowance for 10% growth. The handout outlines some of the factors that will affect future growth for Services.
Executive Summary with Work UnitsLeslie Pohl-Kosbau
Handout: Executive Summary
Leslie presented the key points from the Executive Summary. She also noted that an addition would be a request for drive through garages, as backing up can be unsafe.
ConclusionsKristine
Kristine summarized by mentioning several guiding principles for the design:
Safe, efficient, and adequate working conditions for employees
Serve the parks system into the future – be flexible to accommodate future reorganizations or staffing changes.
Capacity options – there may different aspects – employees/functions, softscape/hard scape. Architect team should look at whether additional employees/vehicles can be housed at Yard. Hardscape/softscape current use should be considered, as it is difficult to restore land after converted to hardscape.
Questions/AnswersQ: 5.5 acres (City Nature) + 7 acres (Services) = 12.5 acres?
A: Yes, the total 12.5 (not including community gardens). This is a starting point, but these numbers should be examined further in more depth, especially the future assumptions. Jon, Eileen, Sally Noble & Bob Downing met with Waterleaf who did the 2006 study. They chose 20% as a future growth assumption, but it is unclear why. Horticulture’s current services need about 3.1 acres. The 5.5 acres includes the possible relocation of the other City Nature units, including Delta Park/Urban Forestry.
Q: Does the 5.5 acres include the Long Block?
A: Not specifically. In his memo, Dave sought to answer generally what the needs are for Horticulture, and the needs for all of City Nature. He wasn’t looking at specific layouts. It was suggested that Dave’s memo needs some edits made (Long Block figures and Community Gardens figures aren’t correct, separate out greenhouses/support/in-ground beds into 3 separate categories).
Q: If Urban Forestry was moved to the Yard, how many trucks would that be for City Nature?
A: 58 trucks (14 vehicles there now – would be 44 more vehicles). This is something to explore in the design process – could this all work/fit?
Q: What about additional growth needs for Community Gardens?
A: In about 5-10 years, Leslie expects 4-5 employees, plus 4 seasonals in (which would require doubling or tripling current office space). There is also a request for a community garden in the long block (10,000 square feet would be minimum space needs for a garden). Currently, the program could use 2-3 times more space. They are working on a community garden master plan (or technical plan) and will be discussing a business plan, so this may be useful to architects. Food Policy Council for Multnomah County has report about community gardens, too. It was suggested that a demonstration or community garden in the Long Block be considered.
Q: How did Waterleaf arrive at those projections in their 2006/2007 reports? What body of data did they have to determine those numerical calculations?
A: The Waterleaf study doesn’t give its methodology. They didn’t do an empirical inventory. Waterleaf determined contemporary space needs through interviews/email and then projected 20% from 2006 to 2016.
Q: Is there a routing diagram for job/work orders? Are they filed for future cycling/projecting and budgeting? Could this be useful?
A: Some work is scheduled in advance. Other is more emergency-based. Services uses MS 2000 to schedule work orders Trying to do more preventative maintenance. Hardly anything happens at the Yard without a work order number, and the vast majority of the work is captured via work orders. All work orders are directed to a supervisor, and the results are captured (materials, equipment, hours used) for billing. Work orders are prioritized – 1 is an emergency – done first (roof leaking etc), 2 needs to be done in a work, 3 is okay, 4 is very low priority. Not all activities are done at the Yard – most happen at locations around the city.
Architect Kick-offPaul Kinney, Opsis Architecture
Paul introduced himself and John Shorb from Opsis. Paul is the project manager, and John is the project architect. John lives in the neighborhood and has been involved with the Tabor Commons project. They are very excited to be chosen and invited back. They feel there is a huge potential with this project and consensus can be reached among all parties. Paul walked the group through a timeline handout. There are 4 phases for this project – each phase has a critical milestone. In each phase, there are different levels of involvement.
Phase 1 (May/June) – Predesign/Discovery
Opsis will spend this phase catching up on history, background, past reports. They will be summarizing and understanding the past work. This will be part of final product – an assessment of work done to date. They will look at current space use/needs, including square footage, # of people, and where there are relationships/interdependencies. The program verification includes understanding site limitations (park users, sidewalks, safety, restrictions, etc), and identifying components of the site that aren’t being used for their best use. The June 16th Planning Group meeting will focus on goal setting which will guide the work Opsis starts in July, by laying out criteria to evaluate their concepts.
Phase 2 (July/August) – Concept Design Alternatives
In July, Opsis will hold a 3 day workshop with their team. Ken Booth & an associate from Maintenance Design Group will camp out at the Yard for a day or two and get to know the facility beyond the written reports. By the end of that workshop, there were be 3 draft schemes emerging, which will be presented at the end of the 3 days to the Planning Group. Each draft will be roughly fleshed out – showing where work units will be, etc., but still very loose – allowing Planning Group to comment on them and give feedback.
In August, there will be another 3 day workshop – the 3 draft schemes will be more fully fleshed out, with greater details and incorporation of comments from the July meeting. At the August meeting, the Planning Group will be asked to select which scheme to more forward to the schematic design.
Because of the 3 day workshops, we need to change the dates of the July & August meetings, as they will need to fall at the end of the 3 days on either a Wednesday or Thursday. There will be a sounding board group that participates at key times during the workshops. This group will be a representative smaller group who will give feedback but not make decisions.
The refined 3 schemes will be taken to Council in September, with a recommendation by the Planning Group. By this point, there will be some cost estimates for each scheme. Further
cost estimating will be done later with final report for the final scheme.
Q: How do we constrain the concept without a budget tied to it?
A: In the RFP, it was noted that Parks has a placeholder value for $24.9 million dollars. Since this project is intended to be funded by a bond measure, we also have to see how much voters are willing to spend. We will start with this placeholder – and see where it takes us.
There are two costs: construction cost and project cost (which includes soft costs - work will still remain to get to construction plus other potential costs like road/paths).
Q: Will we know project and construction cost?
A: Opsis will develop the construction cost. There is a formula to develop the project cost.
Q: How do we decide from 3 to 1?
A: Opsis has tools to help decide. They will develop an evaluation matrix that grades the different schemes. The criteria for evaluation will come from the June 16th goal setting meeting.
Q: How will you engage the community (beyond this group)?
A: Community engagement is scheduled at two points (August & October). It will be done through public meetings, including a formal presentation. The feedback in August will be built in to the design.
Q: The community engagement event in late October is very close to the completion of the draft report. Is that too late?
A: The community has the early August opportunity for input. The 2nd event is more a chance to come back and confirm their input was heard. When we go to Council, we want to present the Planning Group’s preferred alternative. These community events allow us to go to Council with broader community support.
Q: There may be cases where there may be additional information that is still flowing in (such as Horticulture discussion). What is the last day that Opsis needs this info to incorporate in?
A: By mid-July workshop, they hope to have all the information necessary. Major changes after that would not work. New information can still come in after that – assuming it’s not earth-shattering. Modifications, adjustments, etc are fine and expected. It looks like a straight line process, but the design process is iterative – they build in space to go back and re-decide things. In September, following the Council meeting, there is still work to be done to refine scheme.
Q: Can we make all these decisions in just one meeting in July & August?
A: Opsis is counting on sounding board to help eliminate some of the fatal flaws. Also, the schedule is somewhat flexible – the dots can move around. It is possible to add a meeting or two, if the budget allows. As well, the Planning Group could meet without Opsis staff present to discuss options further. It was suggested to add another meeting before the City Council meeting in September, so the Group can review what Opsis will present to Council.
Q: Will there be a model created?
A: Yes, there will be a model for the final schematic – it may be computer generated or a three-dimensional cardboard model.
Announcements6/3: Coordinating committee – Agenda for 6/16, sounding board recommendation
6/11: City Council approval of contract
Horticulture conversation will be scheduled.
June 16th – next meeting of Planning Group
Meeting wizard for July-August meeting dates will be sent out (Wed/Thurs)
Jon’s office hours TBA
Handouts5/19 Notes
6/2 Agenda
June Project Management Update
Horticulture Chat Memo (also emailed to Planning Group)
Space Needs
Executive Summary for Yard Staff Work Unit Meetings Notes
Sample of Cliff Notes
Opsis Project Schedule Chart
|
|