SR-01-27-2015-8DAgenda Item: '6D
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works
Gigi Decavalles- Hughes, Director of Finance
Subject: Feasibility analysis and Design -Build Agreement for the City Services
Building Project
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and comment on the feasibility analysis, concept design and financial
options for the City Services Building project.
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
with design -build contractor Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company, a
California -based company, for design services (including schematic, design
development and construction documents), for the proposed City Services
Building.
Executive Summary
On April 4, 2014 Council authorized staff to negotiate and execute a professional
services agreement with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company for the feasibility
analysis, concept design and cost estimates for the City Services Building. Staff
recommends that Council review and comment on the feasibility analysis and financial
options and authorize staff to enter into negotiations for a Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP) for a design -build agreement to initiate the design phase of the project. Staff
would return to Council for approval of the GMP for the design phase.
Background
City Hall was constructed in 1938 when the city population was 53,500. The
approximately 60,000 square foot building was designed to consolidate staff offices,
services and activities of three separate municipal structures including: City Hall, a fire
station and police station /jail.
Santa Monica's population has grown to 92,400 and City services and staffing levels
have evolved and increased to serve the needs of an active community and commercial
1
hub. In addition to the 243 staff located in the historic City Hall building, approximately
200 city employees are housed in leased spaces throughout Santa Monica at a cost of
almost $2 million per year. Current lease agreements stipulate increases as high as 5
percent annually, based on the consumer price index (CPI). Given the strengthening
economy and real estate recovery, these increases could be much higher once leases
expire and must be renegotiated with lease and utilities payments expected to increase
to $2.4 million by 2020.
On July 24, 2001, Council awarded a contract to Sares Regis Group of Northern
California to conduct a feasibility study to determine the City's space requirements,
assess department locations and adjacencies, prepare seismic upgrade and
rehabilitation options for City Hall and explore options for a new City Services Building.
The feasibility study was completed in April 2002, with the following recommendations:
® Construction of a new City Services Building spanning Main Street on a site
northwest of City Hall with 111,245 square feet of office space and 147,170
square feet of below -grade parking for 300 spaces.
• Reorganization /rehabilitation of City Hall, including interior, exterior and grounds.
• Demolition of the Police Annex building, located in the City Hall courtyard.
`a
Illustration from Sares Regis Group of Northern California Feasibility Study 2002
The July 2002 estimated cost for all of the recommended improvements was over $70
million.
On June 28, 2005, Council adopted an update to the 1993 Civic Center Specific Plan
(CCSP). The 1993 and 2005 updated CCSP recommended that:
• A City Services Building be built on the "North Slope" between City Hall's north
parking lot and the 1 -10 Freeway.
• The historic City Hall be seismically upgraded, restored and enhanced
(completed).
• Construction of a new Public Safety Facility (completed).
• The Police Annex building located in the City Hall courtyard be demolished
(completed).
• A new Civic Center Parking Structure /Garage be constructed (completed).
3
The Civic Core Special Use District
— (M[CeMe�Ganye
• AN +wain M1iWhf6(6RMrl
. et..rwm!mv.on
twayrmrtwwYtM.niw,v
• rMa ..�.mnaww.Maw.�.nva,.twuw.r.v,m
IM1OrmMrtnin' MnlxYnlM1nMrye4n9 Mun Nwvi
Illustration from Civic Center Specific Plan 2005
On January 9, 2007, in an effort to expedite the consolidation of City Hall staff,
Council was presented with a report to select Natoma Architects, Inc. to prepare
initial design for a proposed "Temporary Office Building" east of City Hall until a
permanent space could be identified. The proposed "Temporary Office Building"
was envisioned to be two or three floors to house a one -stop public permit counter,
including planning, building and safety, public works, parking and finance
operations. The existing public counter space on the first floor of City Hall would be
transformed into office space. Upon further review of the cost benefit of this
"Temporary Office Building," Council did not consider this plan and directed staff to
look at other alternatives.
0
Illustration from Stanley Saitowitz / Natoma Architects, Inc.
On October 13 2007, staff presented a City office space needs analysis to Council at a
special meeting, which included five alternatives: Council expressed a preference for
the option of an enhanced Civic Center. With this approach the city would construct or
purchase and rehabilitate a 90,000 square foot building and would also offer art
galleries and community meeting space.
On July 8, 2008, Council endorsed the short term strategies identified in a February 11,
2008, Information Item. Strategies included reducing leases and moving staff closer to
City Hall, developing office space in the former jail and on Fourth Street within the Civic
Center Parking Structure.
On September 16 2008, Council approved a contract with Gensler Architects, Inc. to
complete a space needs analysis for City administrative space as an update to the April
2002 Sares Regis Group of Northern California's feasibility study. The completed
analysis report recommended the implementation of:
• A "one stop shop" model for public counter functions.
• Optimize the effective use of the historic City Hall building.
9
® Implement specific departmental office space designs to support and enhance
the variety of work processes required within the City's administrative functions.
® Construct an administrative services building on the City Hall campus
On March 27 2012, Council authorized staff to seek proposals for initial design and cost
estimates for a City Services Building located on the site just east of City Hall
Civic Center Specific Plan: North Slope Site
The "North Slope" site identified in the Civic Center Specific Plan has certain difficulties
due to freeway adjacency and non - contiguity with City Hall. Additionally, a report
submitted and reviewed on September 20, 2011, by the Landmarks Commission
characterized the "North Slope" site as "original terraces and retaining walls" circa 1956
which are character defining features of the City Hall landscape. For these reasons,
staff is no longer considering use of the "North Slope" site.
Proposed Alternative Location: East of City Hall Site
Staff studied the site immediately east of City Hall as a potential alternative location for
a City Services Building. A new building could be constructed parallel to Avenida
Mazatlan and to the Public Safety Facility across the rear of City Hall enclosing the City
Hall courtyard. This is a variation of the 2007 proposal by Natoma Architects to add a
temporary office building. This location could accommodate 40,000 square feet of office
space on three levels with optimal adjacency to City Hall. Limiting the size and height
would aid compliance with the National Register of Historic Places /Secretary of the
Interior Standards. This new building would provide sufficient space to accommodate
off -site staff requiring City Hall adjacency currently located in leased spaces.
Advantages of utilizing this proposed site
• Furthers the efficiency and functionality of a City Hall campus byr centralizing of
municipal activities utilized by the public.
• Increased employee productivity due to centralized municipal staffing and
eliminating travel time from various offsite locations.
h
u
• Could be incorporated with a detailed City Hall Master Plan, to ensure that
phased improvements meet the long term goal of a functional and restored
historic City Hall.
• Provides the opportunity to include the recommended "One Stop Shop" (a
localized first floor public counter area and central cashier for financial
transactions).
• Would minimally disrupt the historic City Hall massing and front fagade.
• Would be able to relocate off -site staff, currently in lease spaces, back to City
Hall including Finance, the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, Housing
and Economic Development, Civil Engineering, Architecture Services and
Cultural Affairs, increasing efficiencies conducting City business by eliminating
travel time.
Challenges of utilizing this proposed site:
• Delicacy of designing and constructing an addition, particularly immediately
adjacent to historic City Hall, will require using The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Preservation Planning.
• Sensitivity to the light and views of Public Safety Facility and City Hall
inhabitants.
• Necessity of careful planning of both the proposed new structure and historic City
Hall structure with respect to locations of underground utilities and obstructions,
including possible expensive relocations.
• Future expansion of City Hall and the new building may be limited.
None of the listed challenges are insurmountable. This proposed site has the strongest
functional relationship to City Hall while still creating minimal impact to the Civic Center.
Additionally, the City currently spends approximately $2 million per fiscal year to lease
space to accommodate City staff. It is anticipated that lease and utility savings of
approximately $2 million per year would be redirected to fund a portion of the debt
service for the financing of this construction. The remaining payment of debt service
would come from the General Fund.
On October 8, 2013, staff issued an Information Item detailing the proposed design
build delivery method for the design and construction of the City Services Building. This
approach offers phased implementation, starting with a feasibility analysis, concept
design and cost estimation.
7
On April 8, 2014, Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a
professional services agreement with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company for
the initial concept design, cost estimation services and feasibility analysis for the City
Services Building. This agreement is the first of three phases in the design -build
process. The project design and construction phases would follow under a design -build
contract subsequent to Council approval for each phase.
Staff recommends continuation of the City Services Building project with the initiation of
a design -build agreement for design. Additionally, staff explored approaches that would
make this building the most sustainable City facility yet built. Staff recommends a City
Services Building constructed to Living Building Certification (LBC) as the most prudent
solution for the long term needs of the city. A building built to LBC standards would cost
approximately $8 million more than a LEED Platinum building with composting toilets.
However, the LBD building would increase operational savings through Net Zero Energy
and Net Zero Water requirements. The differences between LEED and LBC are
described in further detail in Attachment A. Staff would return to Council for approval
and authorization of two guaranteed maximum prices: one for the design services this
spring and a second guaranteed maximum price for construction in winter 2016.
The design -build team led by Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company (HDCC)
working with Frederick Fisher Partners Architects conducted a feasibility analysis and
created a concept design for a state -of- the -art, sustainable, civic office building attached
to the east of City Hall. The City Services Building would house the City's permit center,
staff and ancillary spaces currently located in leased offices throughout the city. The
feasibility analysis report is included in Attachment B. Employee and customer parking
would be located in the Civic Center Parking Structure or on the Civic Auditorium Lot as
prescribed in the Civic Center Site Specific Plan (CCSP) and the Environmental Impact
Report. This feasibility analysis resulted in a number of findings, a proposed concept
design with a corresponding cost estimate for the City Council's review and input
(stressing scale, massing and location).
rte' � ✓ `�- J�- >- �-�... � i
a '
61 IT,
Feasibility Analysis - City Services Building, Frederick Fisher + partners, 2014
Iwnosemr
The proposed building would be 50,000 square feet (including a basement) and pursue
LBC certification. The feasibility analysis found that a building conforming to these
standards could be constructed on this site for a total project cost of $56,385,130.
Within this LBC budget of $56,385,130, the proposed structure would be a cutting edge
building reflecting the community commitment to sustainability and customer service.
The City Services Building would exceed the current sustainability standards and serve
as a regional example and a compelling vision for the future of the built environment in
California.
The team conducted a cost - benefit analysis of the overall project cost to determine
whether a building housing staff in this location could be funded through savings from
the elimination of leased spaces. The cost - benefit analysis indicated that savings from
future rents would exceed the annual debt service cost of the building starting in FY
2034 -35. There would be a period of approximately 16 years where the General Fund
would need to pay the difference between rent and debt service.
we
,� /
CNY SERVICES BNLDING
®
VEHICULAR
CIRCULATION
1�
f
PEDESTRIAN
^'
CIRCULATION
1 �
_
PUBLIC SAFETY
i
VEHICLE CIRCULATION
PUBLIC /STAFF
ENTRY POINT
/
.:.�
LOADING ENTRY
�
A
EMERGENCY EXIT
Ya
VEHICULAR ENTRANCE
TO PARKING GARAGE
OUTDOOR AREA
L
WITHIN PROJECT SCOPE
61 IT,
Feasibility Analysis - City Services Building, Frederick Fisher + partners, 2014
Iwnosemr
The proposed building would be 50,000 square feet (including a basement) and pursue
LBC certification. The feasibility analysis found that a building conforming to these
standards could be constructed on this site for a total project cost of $56,385,130.
Within this LBC budget of $56,385,130, the proposed structure would be a cutting edge
building reflecting the community commitment to sustainability and customer service.
The City Services Building would exceed the current sustainability standards and serve
as a regional example and a compelling vision for the future of the built environment in
California.
The team conducted a cost - benefit analysis of the overall project cost to determine
whether a building housing staff in this location could be funded through savings from
the elimination of leased spaces. The cost - benefit analysis indicated that savings from
future rents would exceed the annual debt service cost of the building starting in FY
2034 -35. There would be a period of approximately 16 years where the General Fund
would need to pay the difference between rent and debt service.
we
Concept design and occupancV / programmatic analysis
A concept design of the proposed structure was completed, focused on the
determination of the building massing, scale and location on the site. Concept design
excludes consideration of the structure fagade and appearance (this would be
developed as part of the design phase).
A three story building on the proposed site could accommodate both a state of the art
public permit center and accommodate staff from lease spaces located throughout
Santa Monica. The study shows that sufficient space can be constructed in this location
to house both a one stop Permit Center and eliminate five City leases totaling
approximately 43,500 square feet. Operating groups identified for relocation to the City
Services Building include: Housing and Economic Development, Finance and Risk
Management, the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, Architecture Services,
Civil Engineering and Cultural Affairs. These groups currently occupy leased office
space at sites throughout Santa Monica.
Co- locating the staff and the permit center would improve the efficiency of the City Hall
campus for the public benefit. A second floor south wing internal connection to the City
Hall building would be supported to increase staff synergy and enhance the productivity
and functionality of the overall City Hall campus.
Customer Service
A "One Stop Shop" (public permit services and payment center) would be located on the
first floor of the proposed building. Santa Monica permitting and public counter functions
are now spread across various locations. The public must visit two to three locations to
complete a single business transaction. For example, business licenses are distributed
in the first floor leased space at 1717 Fourth Street a few blocks from City Hall. A
number of the permit functions are located in an area of City Hall that is crowded and
outdated. The permit counter is inadequate to meet demand and meeting space is at a
premium.
10
A new permit center in the City Services Building would improve customer service by
co- locating staff members from Planning and Community Development, Public Works
and Finance to provide a comprehensive, one -stop shop. A reception and public waiting
area would be located adjacent to the counter and project meeting spaces. Business
license processing would be served by a central cashier for the collection of fees
(including potential collection of utility bills and traffic citations) with increased security in
one convenient location.
FIRST FLOOR: ONE -STOP PERMIT CENTER: 10,670 GSF
Feasibility Analysis -City Services Building, Frederick Fisher+ Partners, 2014
NOTTOSCAIE
u
Additional benefits would include increased productivity of employees as staff would
eliminate the travel time associated with coming to City Hall for meetings and services.
In addition, the central campus atmosphere would provide greater interaction and
cooperation among staff.
Historic Preservation
The proposed design requires sensitivity in design and historic preservation. The 1939
City Hall Building was designed by prominent Los Angeles architects, Donald B.
Parkinson and Joseph M. Estep. An outstanding example of the PWA Moderne/
Streamline Moderne style of architecture, City Hall is eligible for listing in the National
11
PUBLIC FACINIES
rl
PUBLIC /SFAFf INTERFACE
®
PRIVATEOFfICB/
CONFERENCE ROOMS
OPENWORKAREAS
CORE
a
VERTICAL
CIRCULATION
®
PUBLIC /STAFF ENTRY
LOADING/TRASH
CONVENIENCE
CONNECTION BETWEEN
a+
EXISTING CITY HALL & NEW
ADDITION (S'aU Only
EMERGENCY EXIT
Feasibility Analysis -City Services Building, Frederick Fisher+ Partners, 2014
NOTTOSCAIE
u
Additional benefits would include increased productivity of employees as staff would
eliminate the travel time associated with coming to City Hall for meetings and services.
In addition, the central campus atmosphere would provide greater interaction and
cooperation among staff.
Historic Preservation
The proposed design requires sensitivity in design and historic preservation. The 1939
City Hall Building was designed by prominent Los Angeles architects, Donald B.
Parkinson and Joseph M. Estep. An outstanding example of the PWA Moderne/
Streamline Moderne style of architecture, City Hall is eligible for listing in the National
11
Register of Historic Places and is included in the California Register of Historical
Resources. The structure was also designated as a Santa Monica Landmark in 1979.
The design build team utilized an integrated process to explore the feasibility of utilizing
the space behind City Hall by investigating the historic preservation aspects, the
existing conditions underground, and the available sustainability opportunities. The
team focused on the massing and arrangement of the existing structures and their
relationship to the placement, size, scale, and massing of a proposed addition in
conformance with the preservation guidelines.
The Historic Preservation Report included in Attachment C and developed as part of the
feasibility analysis demonstrates an addition to the historic City Hall could maintain the
City Hall's State and Local Landmark status so that the building retains eligibility for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Once the heights and proximities of City Hall and the Public Safety Facility were
established, three approaches were explored in the presentation to landmarks in
Attachment D to locate an approximately 45,000 square foot building between the two
existing buildings:
1. Approach one: Incorporates the former equipment bay into the project. This
entails a footprint of approximately 6,830 square feet on the remaining site,
requiring a five story building in order to accommodate the needed square
footage for the addition. Considering the historic preservation of the City Hall, this
was considered to be aggressively tall adjacent to the City Hall. Additionally, the
floor plate size is not very efficient.
2. Approach two: Captures the equipment bay into the new facility. This allows for a
footprint of approximately 8,750 square feet which becomes a four story building
in order to create the needed square footage. This has functional issues as it
bifurcates the new building and creates a less efficient structure.
3. Approach three: Removes the equipment bay. A footprint of approximately
12,900 square feet becomes a three story building. This scheme is the most
efficient of the three, overall being smaller in scale and massing and is the
proposed approach.
MA
A three story building placed at the rear (secondary) elevation of the building would
minimally disrupt the historic City Hall massing and front fagade. A subordinate, modern
harmonious building in this location can be sensitively designed to be compatible with
the historic City Hall. These three options were reviewed with the Landmarks
Commission at their December 8, 2014 meeting and they expressed support of
proposed approach number three for its size, scale, massing and position
G10093Y. 9290,.i11111'"MR&IfSAM
Feasibility Analysis - City Services Building, Frederick Fisher + Partners, 2014
Sustainability
The team sought to maximize the sustainability of the City Services Building and
examined a number of emerging, high performance technologies and rating systems
(including LEED and the Living Building Challenge) to reduce the ecological footprint of
the building.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was developed in 1993 by the
U.S. Green Building Council. Most newly constructed municipal buildings in Santa
Monica are LEED Gold or Platinum. Parking Structure 6 is LEED Gold, with Pico Library
on track to earn LEED Platinum. The Living Building Challenge (LBC), developed by the
International Living Future Institute (ILFI) in 2006, is a newer certification program that
13
promotes the most advanced measurement of sustainability in the built environment;
exceeding even LEED Platinum standards.
The monthly water budget for the City Services Building would be approximately 34,000
gallons. With composting toilets, the monthly water usage drops to 15,000 gallons which
could be sourced with a combination of water sources including collected rainwater,
grey water from air conditioning condensation, kitchen dishwater and the use of a
ground well. Composting toilets on the market have been NSF -41 certified since 1994.
NSF certification is an internationally recognized standard for public health protection.
These micro -flush toilets use 3 oz. of water along with a foaming biodegradable alcohol
to flush waste into a compost area. Additional details regarding composting toilets are
included in Attachment F.
Components of the LBC include Net Zero Energy (NZE) and Net Zero Water (NZW).
These components would be pursued with a full LBC certification. Net Zero Energy and
Net Zero Water are separate certifications awarded by ILFI. In order to achieve NZE, a
building must be designed to create the same amount of energy that it consumes. NZW
aims to relieve buildings from dependence on city water with a `closed loop' supply,
which will decrease strain on water treatment facilities. A computerized energy model
was utilized to determine if it is technically feasible for the three -story proposed concept
to achieve a full LBC certification on the site that could be NZE and NZW.
The feasibility analysis demonstrated that the proposed City Services Building in this
location may technically achieve a full LBC certification that is both NZE and NZW
compliant that is comfortable, environmentally friendly and demonstrates sustainable
City values in order to serve as a replicable model for the community. An executive
summary of the sustainability report is included in Attachment F. These opportunities
come at an added cost to the baseline building cost, which may be slightly offset by the
cost of energy savings which is discussed in the cost - benefit analysis of the project.
14
Site Preparation
The preparation and construction of the City Services Building presents challenges that
impact the project cost including:
® Rerouting of existing utilities including electrical conduits and a major electrical
service closet.
® Removal and remediation of the subterranean, encapsulated firing range
including the concrete perimeter walls (from the former demolished police
addition.)
® Preparation of the south site to accommodate a building entrance in this area.
® Construction to the rigorous standards of an Essential Services Building to
ensure the building would be operable after a seismic event.
VIEW FROM CIVIC CENTER PARKING
Feasibility Analysis - City Services Building, Frederick Fisher + Partners, 2014
Otherlssues
The Feasibility Analysis has identified the following challenges of utilizing this potential
site with offered solutions:
® Existing City Hall Campus inhabitant's views and light can be both managed and
enhanced by the addition. The concept design demonstrates that the existing city
offices located in the former jail may retain some of these windows. Some views
ip
from the Public Safety Facility will be impacted by the construction of a three
story addition, the same height as City Hall.
Cost Benefit Analysis
In FY 2014 -15, staff anticipates the City will spend approximately $2 million on rental
fees for approximately 43,500 square feet of offsite office space for 200 employees.
Utilities are an additional cost and are averaging approximately 10% of rental fees at
some offsite locations. Should Council direct staff to move forward with the City
Services Building, staff anticipates the building could be fully occupied by these
employees in FY 2019 -20, resulting in an annual, ongoing rental and utilities savings of
approximately $2.5 million starting in the first year of operations, assuming a 4% annual
increase in rent from the current fiscal year based on current lease terms and
anticipated growth in the local real estate market.
It is the City's fiscal policy to consider both pay as you go and debt financing for capital
projects, depending on the availability of funds in the former case, or the ability to use
annual revenues to fund annual debt service, in the latter case. Because capital
expenditures produce long -term benefits, they can appropriately be funded by debt,
which can lead to a more equitable cost burden across generations. Staff recommends
funding the City Services Building through a lease revenue bond with a thirty year final
maturity. The amount financed may depend on the approach determined by Council but
the rates would not vary significantly. Staff has identified $4 million in capital reserves
that could be used as an equity contribution that would lower annual debt service costs.
To calculate the payback period of this project, staff analyzed financing options for two
construction scenarios:
• Option 1. Living Building Challenge (LBD) certification at an estimated cost of
$56,385,130 (resulting in close to zero utility cost).
• Option 2. LEED Platinum with composting toilets at an estimated cost of
$48,218,880.
MV
There is a third option to construct a LEED Platinum building with standard low -flush
toilets at an estimated cost of $47,535,000. The debt service payments would be
negligibly lower than payments outlined for the LEED Platinum building with composting
toilets, but the difference would be insignificant with a total project cost difference of less
than $1 million.
The table below highlights the differences in financing Option 1 and Option 2. Both
scenarios assume a $4 million equity contribution and a 4% annual increase in rental
costs over a thirty year debt service period. Initially, debt service and other costs related
to building ownership would exceed rent and utilities savings. This cost would steadily
decrease under either scenario until the rent vs. debt service break -even year, after
which point projected rent and utilities savings would exceed debt service payments and
result in savings to the City going forward.
During the initial years when debt service payments will exceed anticipated rent and
utilities savings, funds would need to be diverted from the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget to accommodate the net cost of debt service. Current financial
forecasts assume an annual amount from the General Fund for the CIP budget of $21
million annually, and available funds would be reduced by the amounts listed below.
The CIP budget contributions would decline over time until the rent vs. debt service
break -even point, at which point the projected cost savings achieved by not renting
would be sufficient to cover the debt service payments. The table below shows the
projected reductions to the CIP budget in year 1, 5, 10, and 15 of building operations.
Option 1
Living Building Challenge
Option 2
LEED Platinum
Average annual debt service payment
$4.2 million
$3.5 million
Rent vs. debt service breakeven year
FY 2034 -2035
FY 2031 -32
CIP budget contribution in year 1
$2.0 million
$1.4 million
CIP budget contribution in year 5
$1.6 million
$1.0 million
CIP budget contribution in year 10
$1.0 million
$0.5 million
CIP budget contribution in year 15
$0.3 million (stops in yr 16)
N/A (stops in yr 14)
Recommendation
Staff recommends development of a 50,000 square foot City Services Building as
outlined in scenario 1 with LBC rating. Achieving the LBC certification would be a long-
term investment in the City's wellbeing. This project is representative of the community
values to build sustainable structures and minimize the impact on energy and water
resources. It would also serve as a sustainable regional model for future development.
This would require the dedication of approximately $2 million reduction in the amount
available CIP projects beginning in FY 2019 -20, which would then be reduced annually
based on the difference between rental /utilities savings and annual debt service.
CITY HALL COMPLEX
Feasibility Analysis - City Services Building, Frederick Fisher+ Partners, 2014
Next Steps
Dependent upon Council action and approval of the recommended action, staff
anticipates the following project timelines:
® Return to Council for authorization of a Guaranteed Maximum Price for design —
Spring 2015
® Schematic design — Spring 2015 through Summer 2015
• Design development— Summer 2015 through Spring 2016
• Complete construction documentation phases — Spring through Fall 2016
iff
• Return to Council for authorization of a Guaranteed Maximum Price for
construction and to issue lease revenue bonds — Winter 2016
• Start of construction / site preparation — Spring 2017
• Complete construction — Summer 2019
Additionally, upon Council approval of the recommended action, staff would return to
Council to amend the Civic Center Specific Plan to allow for the use of the proposed
site.
Alternatives to Staff Recommended Options
Council could direct staff to pursue a City Services Building but with fewer sustainability
features including:
• LEED Platinum certification with composting toilets for a savings of
approximately $8.16 million in construction costs compared to LBC certification
• LEED Platinum certification with standard low -flow toilets for a savings of
approximately $8.85 million in construction costs compared to LBC certification
Council could decline to pursue construction of a City Services Building and direct staff
to continue to lease necessary office space
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action. If Council authorizes staff to negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP) for a design -build contract with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction
Company, staff would return to Council for approval of the negotiated GMP for design
and would recommend budget actions at that time. Staff would also return to Council
with debt service financing plans at a later date.
The debt service for the LBC building would be approximately $4.2 million per year
Assuming a $4 million equity contribution and a 4% annual increase in rental costs over
a thirty year horizon of debt service, this project would generate lease savings that,
along with utility savings, would eventually exceed the cost of annual debt service in FY
19
2034 -35. Initially, debt service and other costs related to building ownership would
exceed savings by approximately $2 million a year. This cost would steadily decrease
until FY 2034 -35. Funds would need to be diverted from available General Fund CIP
allocation annually during this time to accommodate the net cost of debt service.
Prepared by: Miriam Mulder, City Architect
Homa Mojtabai, Senior Administrative Analyst
Brooke Sween - McGloin, CIP Project Manager
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Martin Pastucha Rod Gould
Director of Public Works City Manager
Approved:
GigPDecavalle"ug'hes
Director of Finance
Attachments:
A — LEED and LBC Background Information
B — Feasibility Analysis
C — Historic Preservation Report
D — Landmarks Presentation
E — Composting Toilets
F — Executive summary of the sustainability report
P7i]
UA&
91;-:�
GigPDecavalle"ug'hes
Director of Finance
Attachments:
A — LEED and LBC Background Information
B — Feasibility Analysis
C — Historic Preservation Report
D — Landmarks Presentation
E — Composting Toilets
F — Executive summary of the sustainability report
P7i]
Attachment A — LEED and LBC
The City of Santa Monica is an internationally recognized a leader in sustainable city
planning. In 1994, it was one of the first cities in the world to publish a Sustainable City
Plan. The City continues to pursue long -term environmental goals outlined in its
Climate Action Plan. Current City codes mandate enough sustainable features to
almost guarantee a minimum LEED Gold rating for new building projects. LEED
Platinum, the highest LEED standard, is becoming increasingly common. The Pico
Library, completed in 2014, is on track to achieve LEED Platinum certification.
LEED Certification
In 1993, LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), was
developed as a program of the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED certification has
been recognized across the globe as the premier mark of achievement in green
building. Buildings are rated LEED Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum based on
increasingly rigorous measurements. For more information on LEED, see
http://www.usqbc.org/leed.
The Living Building Challenge
In 2006, an even more rigorous international rating standard for sustainability, the Living
Building Challenge, was developed by the International Living Future Institute (ILFI).
The Living Building Challenge is a philosophy, advocacy tool, and certification program
that promotes the most advanced measurement of sustainability in the built
environment. Similar to LEED, the LBC offers three levels of recognition: Living Building
Certification, Petal Recognition or Net Zero Energy Building Certification, the most
challenging level is full Living Building Certification. A full Living Building Certified (LBC)
project achieves net -zero energy, net -zero water and contains no cancer - causing
chemicals. Since 2006, only 5 projects in the world have met the standard, each of
which was two - stories or less and developed by a foundation or private school.
LBC differs from LEED in that it is performance based. A building project seeking LBC
certification is monitored during the operational phase to determine if LBC certification is
warranted whereas building performance is not a factor after a LEED rating is achieved.
During the design phase of an LBC building, substantial attention is paid to how the
building will be operated and occupied. A conservative design approach is used so that
the designed building will produce at least as much energy and water than it consumes
over the course of a year.
A sixth building built to LBC standards and expected to achieve LBC certification in
2015 is the Bullitt Center, a six story, 50,000 commercial office building in Seattle,
Washington. The building is occupied and currently in the operational monitoring /
commissioning stage. Because the Bullitt Center is similar in size and use to the
proposed City Services Building, it was studied by the project team in the Feasibility
Analysis as a benchmark and aspirational model facility.
More information regarding the Living Building Challenge can be found at http: / /living-
future.org /Ibc /certification. More information regarding the Bullitt Center can be found at
http://ww.builittcenter.org/.
Sustainability Approach
As part of the feasibility analysis, the City Services Building was registered with the ILFI
for the Living Building Challenge (LBC) to explore the impact and applicability of LBC,
Petal or Net Zero certification. The project team, driven by the City's commitment to
sustainability, conducted the feasibility analysis to maximize sustainable design,
construction and operation of the proposed facility within funding constraints. The
project team utilized an integrated design process to identify available technical
opportunities for sustainable solutions. Baseline energy and water budgets for a
proposed building on this site were established and solutions were identified to provide
enough energy and water to achieve Net Zero Energy and Net Zero Water Certification.
Energy or water budgets are calculations of energy or water requirements necessary to
serve the needs of building occupants. Budgets are designed to be both functional and
conservative in their measurement of natural resources. Early -stage energy modeling
simulations, utilizing the industry's most advanced software tools, were employed to
maximize energy efficiency opportunities using quantifiable data.
The feasibility analysis demonstrated that the proposed City Services Building in this
location is technically able to achieve full ABC with both a Net Zero Water (NZE) and
Net Zero Energy (NZW) status.
Net Zero Energy (NZE)
A NZE building must create at least as much energy as it consumes. By definition a
NZE building should have zero or near zero energy utility costs. A number of design
variables including local climate, building size, location and orientation relative to daily
and seasonal position of the sun, insulation requirements, daylighting, window to wall
ratio, and overhang depth must be studied and understood to determine if NZE is
feasible. Additionally, the use of natural ventilation, daylighting, high efficiency windows,
heating, cooling, lighting equipment and office equipment must be studied and
analyzed.
Energy model simulations help predict building performance prior to construction. The
first step in an energy model is the creation of an energy budget. A baseline energy use
study calculates the energy needed by building occupants based on the best data
predictions available at the time (including occupancy numbers, thermal comfort levels,
lighting and daylighting, equipment plug load requirements). Building power must be
generated on -site and can be provided by a combination of renewable energy sources
including, but not limited to: solar photovoltaic panels (PV panels), wind, solar thermal
and geothermal. The proposed generated power must be equal to or greater than the
annual energy budget in order to achieve Net Zero Energy.
During the City Services Building Feasibility Analysis the team identified that solar
photovoltaic panels (PV panels) would be the most effective power generation source
on the proposed site. Important elements of the proposed NZE strategy for the City
Services Building include energy savings through the use of:
Building Envelope — use of high performance glazing and shading devices to control
solar heat gain.
® Daylighting — strategic placement of windows and project spaces and the use of
daylighting sensors and automated shades to provide natural lighting levels needed
for interiors while controlling glare.
® Natural ventilation — reduce dependency on HVAC systems through natural
ventilation. Modern designs can incorporate natural ventilation as a systematic
function to manage building thermal comfort and healthy air. A building 'weather
station' monitors weather conditions and automatically operates high efficiency
windows based on temperature and pressure differential between the building and
outside environment. Mechanical cooling and heating are utilized only when natural
ventilation is unavailable or not suitable. In climates like Santa Monica, natural
ventilation can meet all of a building's heating and cooling needs for most of the
year. Occupants would need to take an active role in order for the proposed building
to achieve NZE by responding to the seasons through the use of layered clothing
and adjusting clothing levels to maintain thermal comfort.
Energy efficiency — all equipment in the building must be industry rated as energy
efficient, which will reduce the energy load from plugged -in appliances.
Net Zero Water (NZW)
NZW recognizes buildings that capture and harvest all water to achieve water
independence from municipal sources. This achievement is sometimes referred to as
'closing the loop' on water usage.
A building water budget is calculated by determining the number of building occupants
and visitors and calculating a total of their daily water use. Once the budget is
established, design opportunities are evaluated to determine whether a proposed
structure can be designed and constructed to achieve NZW. One affordable water
conservation method with a low energy footprint is the use of composting toilets. It is
estimated compost toilets would reduce the CSB water usage by over 55 %.
During
the City Services Building Feasibility Analysis,
the design
team
evaluated
multiple
technologies in order to achieve NZW. These
included the
use
of a living
machine (an ecological wastewater treatment designed to mimic the cleansing functions
of wetlands), sewer mining (capturing water from the sewer and processing it on site)
and dew harvesting (capturing moisture from the air on site) none of which are
recommended because of the size of the building site or the low water yield.
A 50,000 gross square foot commercial office building such as the proposed City
Services Building would have a water budget of approximately 34,000 gallons of water a
month. The use of composting toilets would reduce water use in the building by 19,000
gallons per month. The remaining required 15,000 gallons a month would then be able
to be supplied using the following combination of recommended strategies:
• Rain /Stormwater harvest with on -site treatment.
• Graywater and process water capture and reuse for irrigation.
• Groundwater well with on -site reverse osmosis (RO) to be used in extreme
drought conditions.
Reference:
Attachment B
Feasibility Analysis
Is available at the City Clerk's Office
Filed with Staff Report 01/27/2015, Item 8D
Within Legislative File
Attachment C
INTRODUCTION
This report is a response to our assigned portion of the work plan for the project noted
below. References include the Santa Monica City Hall Historic Structure Report, Volumes
I and 11, dated April 10, 2003 (HSR), observations of existing conditions on August 1,
2014, and review of renderings prepared by Frederick Fisher and Partners Architects in
November 2014. The HSR includes data on the development chronology and significance
of the property, spaces, and features. With the exception of the intervening removal of the
police department addition on the east side of the original structure and alteration of the
yards and setting on the west and south, there are no features or conditions that are
significantly different relative to the historic structure.
OWNER'S PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: E. PRESERVATION
The proposed new structure is an addition that is adjacent to and will connect to the 1939
Santa Monica City Hall, a historically significant structure, and will require design
sensitivity. Designed by prominent Los Angeles architect Donald B. Parkinson, and Joseph
M. Estep, the historic City Hall was constructed by Campbell and Kelly Construction and
dedicated into community service on November 24, 1939. A local architectural treasure
and an outstanding example of the PWA Moderne /Streamline Modern style of
architecture, Santa Monica's City Hall building was formally determined to be eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 1996 by consensus determination, and
was therefore listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. City Hall was
designated as a Santa Monica City Landmark in 1979.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES STATUS AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
City of Santa Monica: Designated Landmark
The Santa Monica City Hall was formally determined eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places in April, 1996. By virtue of this determination of eligibility, the
building was placed on the California Register of Historical Resources.
In addition, the City Hall was designated Santa Monica City Landmark # 12 on October
16, 1979. The Santa Monica City Council adopted the Landmarks Ordinance
(#I 028CCS) to recognize local landmarks, structures of merit, and historic districts in
1976, as amended in 1991. The Ordinance created a Landmarks Commission and criteria
for designating local landmarks. Once a property has been designated a City of Santa
Monica Landmark, the Commission reviews permits for alteration, relocation, or
demolition and issues certificates of appropriateness for any such changes. As a city
landmark, the Santa Monica City Hall is subject to this review process upon the proposal
of any alterations.
The City s criteria for a certificate of appropriateness under the Landmark ordinance
include the following.
• "In the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, removal or relocation, in
whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or to a Landmark Parcel, the proposed work
would not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any exterior feature of
the Landmark or Landmark Parcel upon which such work is to be done."
• "In the case of any proposed construction of a new improvement upon a
Landmark Parcel, the exterior features of such new improvement would not
adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the exterior features of other
existing improvements situated upon such Landmark Parcel,"
• '7n the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, removal or relocation, in
whole or in part, to interior public space incorporated in a Landmark designation
pursuant to Section 9.36.1 10, the proposed work would not detrimentally change,
destroy or adversely affect any interior feature of the Landmark structure."
• "The Secretary of Interiors Standards shall be used by the Landmarks Commission
in evaluating any proposed alteration, restoration, or construction, in whole or in
part, of or to a Landmark, Landmark Parcel, or to a Contributing Building or
Structure within a Historic District"
PROJECT SITE & PROJECT CONCEPT HISTORIC ASSESSMENT
Santa Monica City Services Building
Phase I Feasibility Study
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91105 -1915
Telephone 626 793 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401
historiclaxom
level of CEQA review is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), then it is generally
considered that impacts to historic resources are less than significant when the property
retains its eligibility as a historic resource (e.g., City Landmark, California Register, and
National Register).
CONSOLIDATION OF OWNER'S MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS & FRED FISHER PARTNERS ARCHITECTS
EXISTING FACILITIES ANALYSIS TASKS FOR FRIG:
1. The proposed alterations to City Hall will be designed so that the building retains
eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
2. The proposed alterations to City Hall will meet the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation
3. The proposed additions to City Hall will follow the recommendations of
Preservation Brief Number 14, New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:
Preservation Concerns
4. Study the demolition and removal or incorporation of the historic fire station
vehicle bay into a building addition on the east (rear) side of the extant structure
5. Create an addition that is designed to be compatible with the historic City Hall
6. Outline the project issues with respect to potential benefits and impacts
7. The project budget will keep in mind that: where new work intersects historic
finishes, the replacement; repair and /or preservation of the historic finishes has
priority; historic finishes shall be protected during construction; identify historic
finishes or other elements; and materials used for repair of existing finishes should
meet or exceed the same quality as the existing finishes.
BUILDING AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
We understand that the basic project intent is to construct a multi -story addition that is a
long bar shape that closes the open, east (rear) side of the existing City Hall courtyard. The
addition would provide 40,000 square feet of new office space to consolidate city services
into a "one stop' city hall complex. We have adequate information at this stage to discuss
broad directions and guidelines, and potential impacts measured against historic
preservation criteria that are given by the owner and regulatory environment. As the
project planning and design proceeds, the project description and historic assessment will
proceed in an iterative process.
PROJECT SITE & PROJECT CONCEPT HISTORIC ASSESSMENT
Santa Monica City Services Building
Phase I Feasibility Study
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
n S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite zoo, Pasadena, CA 91105 -1915
Telephone 626 793 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401
historiclaxom
Service defines seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. These qualities are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place
where the historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure,
and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
• Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a
historic property.
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feelingis a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.'
If the original fire station apparatus room were demolished and a low -rise addition
were made on the east side, the City Hall would remain on its original site and
therefore would retain integrity of location. It would retain most of its essential
original form, architecture, materials, finishes, and features, and therefore would
retain integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. Because of this, the City
Hall would still be visually identifiable as a civic building, in its current setting in a
civic center, and would retain its important association with the government of
Santa Monica; it would therefore retain integrity of feelingand association. The
integrity of settingis retained, as the yards and elevations that are most visible and
used by the public are not changed; the rear area of the addition is spaced closely
to a new structure to the east and is in an area occupied for decades by the 1955
police department addition.
2 National Register Bulletin 15. How to Apply the National Register 0kena for Evaluation. Washington D.C.: National Park
Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 1995.
PROJECT SITE & PROJECT CONCEPT HISTORIC ASSESSMENT
Santa Monica City Services Building
Phase 1 Feasibility Study
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite zoo, Pasadena, CA 91105 -1915
Telephone 626 993 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401
historicla.com
Provided that an addition to the project can be visually distinguished from the
original building by most observers, the project can meet Standard 3,
Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own
right will be retained and preserved
No removals of later additions are proposed. The project can meet Standard 4.
Standard S. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Features such as murals, decorative glazed tile, wood paneling, and poured -in -place
concrete would be largely retained and preserved. The project can meet Standard
S.
Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced Where
the severity of deterioration requires replacement of distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical
evidence.
There does not appear to be any need for replacement, and appropriate methods
can be used for repairs where needed. The project can meet Standard 6.
Standard 7• Chemical and physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using
the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will
not be used.
If such treatments are undertaken, they can be specified so as to not cause damage
to historic materials. The project can meet Standard 7.
Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
it is not expected that archeological resources will be found on the Project site
because the area of potential construction has been repeatedly disturbed and may
have already been documented. Appropriate mitigation measures should be
adopted for any proposed work. The project can meet Standard 8.
3. The proposed additions to City Hall will follow the recommendations of
Preservation Brief Number 14, New ExteriorAd&dons to Historic Buildings:
Preservation Concerns
PROJECT SITE& PROJECT CONCEPT HISTORIC ASSESSMENT
Santa Monica City Services Building
Phase 1 Feasibility Study
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 9uo5 -1915
Telephone 626 993 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401
historiclaxom
Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings 3
Alterations /Additions for the New Use
The construction of an exterior addition on a historic building may seem to be essential for
the new use, but it is emphasized in the Rehabilitation guidelines that such new additions
should be avoided, ifpossible, and considered only after it is determined that those needs
cannot be met by altering secondary, i.e., non - character - defining interior spaces. If, after a
thorough evaluation of interior solutions, an exterior addition is still judged to be the only
viable alternative, it should be designed and constructed to be clearly differentiated from
the historic building and so that the character - defining features are not radically changed,
obscured, damaged, or destroyed
The proposed addition accommodates new uses and functions, and can be designed to be
differentiated and compatible.
Building Site
Recommended.
Identifying, retaining and preserving buildings and their features as well as features of the
site that are important in defining its overall historic character.
Retaining the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape.
The project retains the relationship between the existing building and its relationship to the
street and district. The project conforms to the guideline.
Designing new onsite parking loading docks, or ramps when required by the new use so
that they are as unobtrusive as possible and assure the preservation of the historic
relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape.
Any new onsite parking and docks can be located so as to be unobtrusive.
Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction which
is compatible with the historic character of the site and which preserves the historic
relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape.
An addition to the historic building on the east side would not change the relationship to
the existing landscape at the north, south, and west. The proposed design conforms.
3 [bid., pp. 63 -115.
PROJECT SITE & PROJECT CONCEPT HISTORIC ASSESSMENT
Santa Monica Services Building
Phase Feasibili Study
Ity
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 20o, Pasadena, CA 91105 -1915
Telephone 626 993 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401
historicla.com
11
Setting (District /Neighborhood)
Recommended'
Retaining the historic relationship between buildings and landscape features of the setting
For example, preserving the relationship between a town common and its adjacent historic
houses, municipal buildings, historic roads, and landscape features.
Alterations /Additions for the New Use Designing and constructing new additions to
historic buildings when required by the new use. New work should be compatible with
the historic character of the setting in terms of size, scale design, material, color and
texture.
Refer to the comments above.
Not recommended'
Removing or radically changing those features of the setting which are important in
defining the historic character.
Refer to the comments above.
Destroying the relationship between the buildings and landscape features within the setting
by widening existing streets, changing landscape materials, or constructing inappropriately
located new streets or parking
No streets are widened; no significant landscape materials are changed, and no new streets
are proposed. The project can conform to the guideline.
Introducing a new building or landscape feature that is out of scale or otherwise
inappropriate to the setting's historic character, eg, replacing picket fencing with chain link
fencing
Refer to the comments above. The project can conform to the guideline.
Introducing new construction into historic districts that is visually incompatible or that
destroys historic relationships within the setting
Does not apply.
Preservation Brief 14
In addition to the Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, the National Park Service
publishes a series of briefs that includes Preservation Brief 14, New Exterior Additions to
PROJECT SITE & PROJECT CONCEPT HISTORIC ASSESSMENT
Santa • Services }
•
Phase Feasibility
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite Zoo, Pasadena, CA 9uo5 -1915
Telephone 626 793 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401
historicia.com
13
Potential benefits.
a. Comprehensive preservation plan for the retention and treatment of remaining
character - defining spaces and features
b. Removal of non - significant and incompatible additions to the building
c. Sustainability through continued use and operation of an existing building and its
infrastructure, rather than replacement and /or relocation (ideally through life -cycle
metrics to provide comprehensive comparisons between the use of embodied
energy /carbon, operating use, maintenance, and cyclical rehabilitation, versus the
same parameters for new replacement construction).
Potential impacts:
a. Loss of historic fabric by demolition of historic fire station apparatus room
b. Change of visual character of the historic City Hall building caused by an
incompatible addition
7. The project budget will keep in mind that: where new work intersects historic
finishes, the replacement; repair and /or preservation of the historic finishes has
priority; historic finishes shall be protected during construction; identify historic
finishes or other elements; and materials used for repair of existing finishes
should meet or exceed the same quality as the existing finishes.
Assist FFP in identifying significant materials and finishes, and providing model
specifications and /or referrals for protection and treatment.
PROJECT SITE & PROJECT CONCEPT HISTORIC ASSESSMENT
r , M141 !'
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 9no5 -s915
Telephone 626 793 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401
historiclaxom
15
V)
�n
J
Q
Z
Q
Z
V)
V)
Q
U
w
0
CL
n
C-
a)
E
U
Q
MQ
W
F—
z
5W
IL.L
��
V
W
LU
N
O
J
U
z
W
N
u,
LLI
V)
i
�i
�i
�i
E!
N !
� I
cl ^+
� I a
0 j d
C: .
0 cI
c
CDLL!
h
0
LO
L
W
I
0
� I
x
w
J
L
0
U
J
J
Q
H
I
u
F-
LU
LU
ry
F-
V)
Z
SQ
SL
L
O
ry
LL O
rV
r
OL
Q
0
0
N
C
N
C_
O
E
O
L
U
O
O
O
CL
Q
Attachment E - Composting Toilets
Standard low flow toilets require 1.28 gallons of water per flush and are the primary
driver of water usage in commercial buildings. Due to advancements in technology
many facility owners around the world are considering commercial -scale composting
toilets. Internationally, there are real -world applications of compost toilets in commercial
office buildings, a university and several environmental non - profit buildings.
The Codes
The Green Plumbing & Mechanical Code Supplement ( GPMCS) to the 2015 Uniform
Plumbing Code (UPC) includes the approved use of composting toilets. Typically,
information published in the GPMCS is integrated in the next adopted code. Staff
anticipates that composting toilets will be allowed by the Uniform Plumbing Code by
2018. If approved to move forward, the City Services Building would go into service in
2019. Staff is working with the LA County Health Department to help ensure that
composting toilets will be allowable by the time the building would be constructed.
Benchmark Precedent
The project team visited the Bullitt Center in Seattle, a building that has been using
foam -flush composting toilets for almost two years. The Bullitt Center is a 50,000 square
foot, 6 story office building that is considered one of the most sustainable buildings ever
built. The International Living Future Institute (ILFI) is one of its most notable tenants.
The project team inspected the composting toilets at the center and discussed
implementation with King County and State Department of Health regulators, Seattle
planners, the project managers and maintenance staff responsible for keeping the
toilets operational. Bullitt Center staff and occupants fully endorse the use of
composting toilets as an acceptable water savings technology for use in a city building.
Each toilet is negatively pressured at all times; air is directly ventilated through the
composters and then exhausted out of the building. Occupants cite that the bathrooms
with compost toilets are more pleasant due to fewer odors than standard toilet rooms.
For more information on the Bullitt Center: http: /Iwww.bullittcenter.org /.
Composting Toilet Details
The composting toilet technology implemented successfully in the Bullitt Center and
proposed for use in the City Services Building is a foam -flush toilet that only uses 3
tablespoons of water per flush. The foam -flush technology mixes 3 tablespoons of water
with Neponol, a foaming biodegradable alcoholic surfactant, to provide sanitation and
the lubrication necessary to carry waste down vertical chutes that replace conventional
pipes. The waste is collected in composters located in the basement of the structure.
The composters are designed for passive aerobic digestion (a process performed by
microorganisms under the influence of oxygen) with assistance from vermicomposting,
or composting with worms. Aerobic conditions are introduced with minimal manual
maintenance. Each unit requires churning (or mixing) once a week with an easy -to -use
external lever to supply oxygen. Additionally, — 1 gallon of bulking agent (wood chips or
sawdust) must be added per 100 flushes to maintain the necessary chemical balance.
In approximately 18 months, solid waste will be converted to compost. The maintenance
staff arranges for a permitted hauler to pick up the compost and deliver to a biosolids
recycling facility. Testing requirements for the biosolid by- product would be coordinated
with the Los Angeles County Health Department. Subsequent to Health Department
verification, the compost will be available for mulching and distribution. More information
and a demonstration of foam -flush toilets can be found on YouTube — Neptune Foam
Flush Toilet: httns: / /www,voutube.com /watch ?v= ofFpVddwfO4.
Proposed Project Approach
For the proposed City Services Building, the water budget is 34,000 gallons of water
required per month. With the proposed use of composting toilets, the water required
reduces to 15,000 gallons per month. (This represents a water savings of 19,000
gallons per month or 228,000 gallons of water per year.)
The project team has calculated that the needed remaining 15,000 gallons per month
could be supplied from a combination of captured rainwater, graywater and groundwater
well in order to produce a net -zero water building. The proposed City Services Building
would serve as a regional model of sustainability.
Attachment F
�. 2mw=
Copyright 0 1976 - 2015 Buroldappold Engineering. All Rights Reserved.
Revision Description
Attachment F
BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING
Issued by Date Checked
02 Concept report Gideon 05/01/2015 Julian Parsley
Susman
This report has been prepared for the sole benefit, use and information of City of Santa Monica for the purposes set out
in the report or instructions commissioning it. The liability of BuroHappold Consulting Engineers Inc. in respect of the
information contained in the report will not extend to any third party.
author Gideon Susman
date 05/01/2015
approved Julian Parsley
date 05/01/2015
Santa Monica City Services Building Revision 02
Concept Report 5 January 2015
Copyright 0 1976 - 2015 BuroHappold Engineering. All Rights Reserved. Page 3
Attachment F
BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING
This report details the sustainability strategies that will allow the building to achieve one of three possible aims (in order of
difficulty to achieve):
1. Living Building Challenge (LBC) full certification (aspirational goal)
2. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 4 Platinum certification
3. LEED version 4 Gold certification (minimum goal)
As the content of this report outlines, these three goals are all technically possible, but the certification that the project
team will ultimately pursue depends on the financial resources available to the project. Pairing the information in this
report with the cost information, the team can more realistically narrow the sustainability goal of the project to what best
suits the aspirations of the City of Santa Monica. This report and the sustainability matrix and LEED scorecards in the
appendix set out the roadmap to achieving each of these three sustainability project targets. Finally, this report specifically
assesses the (non - financial) feasibility of the Owner's Project Requirements (OPR) for sustainability.
1.1 Feasibility of Living Building Challenge Full Certification
The Living Building Challenge is the highest recognized standard of accreditation for sustainable buildings. Of the 20
Imperatives required to meet full certification, those pertaining to energy, water and materials present particular
challenges for this project. However, with advanced water and energy systems design and diligent selection of materials,
these challenges can be met.
1.1.1 Materials
Selection of materials will require dedicated collaboration between the design team, suppliers and sub - contractors in order
to select only materials that meet the stringent LBC requirements. If LBC is pursued this will become a prominent on -going
feature of the design process and will necessarily drive the selection of all products, materials and finishes.
The following must be incorporated into the design to comply:
• Eliminating all materials listed in the Red List
• Purchase of a one -time carbon offset tied to the project construction
• Processing main project materials within 310 miles of project site
• 100% FSC certified wood with no formaldehyde and within appropriate distance
• Appropriate resourcing of materials within the designated radii (refer to section 7 for diagrams depicting radii)
• Development of a Material and Conservation Management Plan
Santa Monica City Services Building
Revision 02
Concept Report
5January 2015
Copyright 0 1976 - 2015 BuroHappold Engineering. All Rights Reserved.
Page 5
Attachment F
BUROIJAPPOLD ENGINEERING
Lighting:
Daylighting
• Solar film or light shelves
• Daylight sensors and controls
Efficient lighting design
• LED fixtures
• Task lights
• Occupancy sensors and controls
Mechanical design:
• Low energy heating and cooling
• Exposed ceiling slab with embedded PEX water piping in open plan office areas, private offices, and
public access areas
• Ceiling- mounted radiant heating and cooling panels in meeting rooms
• Dedicated outdoor air supply
The graph below displays baseline and proposed annual energy performance. The proposed building model's performance
indicates that a net zero energy building is technically feasible.
45.0
40.0
35.0
LL
30.0
a 25.0
Y
m
20.0
5
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Baseline (Code Proposed (LBC, NZE
compliant) compliant)
, IT and communications
M Water treatment
1, Kitchen
H Service hot water
rm Elevators
M Exterior lighting
FA Lighting
® Office equipment
N Fans
® Heating
® Cooling
Net Zero Energy is an alternative certification path offered by ILFI and can be pursued independently of LBC accreditation.
This path certifies that on annual basis, the CSB is a net zero energy (or better) building and does not rely on combustion
to produce its energy. Additionally, Imperative 01: Limits to Growth, Imperative 18: Rights to Nature, Imperative 19: Beauty
and Spirit, and Imperative 20: Inspiration and Education must be achieved. If the project meets the energy petal and these
imperative, as outlined above, it will be a Net Zero Energy certified project.
Santa Monica City Services Building Revision 02
Concept Report 5January 2015
Copyright 0 1976 - 2015 BuroHappold Engineering. All Rights Reserved. Page 7
Attachment F
BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING
• Imperative 20: Inspiration + Education
1.2 Feasibility of LEED version 4 Platinum and Gold certification
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a cohort of rating systems developed by the US. Green Building
Council (USGBC). In the LEED New Construction version 4 rating system there are 110 possible points distributed across
eight credit categories: Location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials
and resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation in design, and regional priority.
In order to achieve Gold or Platinum LEED certification, an energy use intensity (EUI) rating of 35 kBtu /SF should be
targeted, this is considered an aggressive but realistic target that could be achieved with a number of different mechanical
system approaches. To achieve LEED platinum, it is currently assumed PV would need to generate between 30 to 38% of
the building energy cost. If renewables are less aggressively pursued as part of a private purchase agreement by the City, it
will be necessary to more aggressively pursue materials credits or to achieve a higher level of performance from the
building systems. See both LEED Gold and LEED Platinum project scorecards in the Appendix to understand the calculus of
reaching these goals for the project.
1.3 Recommendations
There is a significant gap, in terms of sustainable design measures required, between achieving LEED platinum and
achieving LBC compliance. If LBC certification, net zero energy (NZE) or water independence are not pursued, specific
elements are recommended to be retained or implemented as part of the design, due to their relatively high savings
impact and relatively low capital cost.
Low energy design elements recommended to be retained if NZE not pursued:
• Natural ventilation, with elements maintained as operable within open plan areas and the use of night flush for
pre- cooling
• Optimized glazing area and location, with strategies maintained to limit peak loads
• Exposed thermal mass: Concrete ceiling and floor, where practicable, and possible strategic use of phase change
material
• Low U- factor fa4ade
• Relaxed cooling set point to extend the operation of natural ventilation
• Light redirecting films to optimize day light use and improve the quality of light within the space
As well as these measures, low energy workstations, as described by the client, should be pursued for the double benefit of
reduced electricity and cooling load.
LBC strategies recommended to be further studied as the project is pursued include:
• If full certification is not pursued, the design team could still look to many concepts for inspiration, particularly in
the Site, Health, Equity categories and consider
• Where possible, select and specify materials from the declare program and look to responsibly source materials
Water elements recommended to be retained or further studied if water independence is not pursued:
Santa Monica City Services Building Revision 02
Concept Report 5 January 2015
Copyright 0 1976 - 2015 BuroHappold Engineering. All Rights Reserved. Page 9
Attachment F
Gideon Susman
BuroHappold Consulting Engineers Inc.
800 Wilshire Boulevard
16th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
USA
P. +1310 945 4800
F: +1310 558 9697
Email: gideon.susman @burohappold.com