ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INTRODUCTIONS Web viewWorld War II Memorial. Law Enforcement Memorial. ... A study...

Joint Meeting of STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEE

ANDCAPITOL CAMPUS DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Legislative Building, Senate Rules RoomOlympia, Washington 98504

January 4, 20179:30 AM

SCC MEMBERS PRESENT: CCDAC MEMBERS PRESENT:Lt. Governor Brad Owen, Chair Alex Rolluda, Vice-ChairKelly Wicker, Governor’s Designee Senator Karen FraserKim Wyman, Secretary of State Kim Wyman, Secretary of State Peter Goldmark, Commissioner of Public Lands

CCDAC MEMBERS ABSENT:Representative Sam Hunt Architect Position – VacantDennis Haskell, Chair Senator Ann RiversSusan Olmsted Representative Drew MacEwen

STAFF PRESENTBill Frare, Department of Enterprise Services Chris Liu, Department of Enterprise ServicesRose Hong, Department of Enterprise Services Ann Larson, Department of Enterprise ServicesRobyn Hofstad, Department of Enterprise Services Lenore Miller, Department of Enterprise ServicesMarygrace Jennings, Department of Enterprise Services Michael Van Gelder, Department of Enterprise Nouk Leap, Department of Enterprise Services Services

OTHERS PRESENTSteve Masse, Legislative Staff Bob Jacobs, North Cap. Campus Heritage Park Assn.Dave Peeler, DERT Mark Gjurasic, GBOLAAllen Miller, North Capitol Campus Association Tom Gow, Puget Sound Meeting ServicesWalter Schacht, Schacht|Aslani Architects Jessi Massingale, Floyd|Snider Eric Aman, Schacht|Aslani Architects Paul DziedzicJason King, Mithūn

Welcome and Announcements – Information & Action Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen called the joint State Capitol Committee (SCC) and Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC) meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. A meeting quorum was attained.

Approval of Minutes – June 16, 2016 and October 6, 2016Secretary Wyman moved, seconded by Kelly Wicker, to approve the minutes of June 16, 2016 and October 6, 2016. Motion carried unanimously.

SCC Administration – 2017 Calendar - Action Lt. Governor reviewed the proposed meeting schedule for 2017:

Thursday, March 16

Joint Meeting of State Capitol Committee & Capitol Campus Design Advisory CommitteeMinutes of MeetingJanuary 4, 2017 of 15

Thursday, June 15Thursday, October 5Thursday, December 7

Lt. Governor Owen moved, seconded by Commissioner Goldmark to approve the meeting schedule for 2017. Motion carried unanimously.

Honor Committee Members Leaving SCC and CCDAC - Recognition DES Director Chris Liu recognized retiring members from the SCC and the CCDAC. He explained that the 2006 Master Plan articulates design queues and desired building design on the campus but lacks articulation of a vision for the future in terms of capacity, demands on the campus, parking, and circulation. Subsequently, members of the CCDAC initiated a review to consider the future of Capitol Campus and appropriate ways to incorporate that vision within an update of the 2006 Master Plan. That work serves as the genesis for recognition of three retiring members.

Lt. Governor Brad Owen has served on the SCC since 1997 and is the second longest serving member. Lt. Governor John Cherberg served for 32 years from 1957 to 1989. At his first SCC meeting, Lt. Governor Owen participated in approving the site location for the World War II Memorial and provided direction regarding the memorial’s design, review, and approval process. During the last 20 years, he has chaired SCC meetings and provided strong leadership skills contributing to the success of the committee. He chaired the Legislative Building Preservation and Renovation Commission to identify planning and resources to renovate and preserve the Legislative Building. In January 2000, the 19-member Commission submitted the rehabilitation plan to the Legislature. The plan included the project approach, scope, cost, schedule, and a space and relocation plan. Under his 20-year SCC leadership, Lt. Governor Owen exemplified decorum and demonstrated tremendous respect to the public, presenters, and committee members. He has been a responsible steward of Washington’s beautiful state capitol and has served Washington State citizens, state government, and future generations. He had the courage and the ability to pursue controversial issues and facilitate productive dialogue among committee members, presenters, and the public resulting in responsible actions. Lt. Governor Owen has always considered the interests of citizens in all SCC decisions and actions in addition to addressing the needs of state government. He also considered the costs and benefits to the citizens of the state. Lt. Governor Owen contributed to the success of significant Capitol Campus plans, projects, and policies to include the Law Enforcement Memorial in 1996, East Plaza Repair project in 1997, Heritage Park project in 1997, Capitol Lake Management Plan in 1997, Legislative Building Renovation project in 1998, Master Plan and updates in 2006 and 2014, Edna Goodrich Office Building project in Tumwater in 2003, 1500 Jefferson Building project in 2006, 1063 Block Replacement project in 2013, and the Capitol Campus Transportation and Parking Study and Plans in 2009, 2014, and 2015.

Director Liu thanked Lt. Governor Owen for his hard work and service on the SCC. He on behalf of DES, other SCC and CCDAC members, and the citizens of Washington State deeply appreciate the two decades of steady, stalwart leadership to the SCC. Lt. Governor Owen’s service is a tribute to what it means to be a public servant.

Director Liu recognized Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark for his service during the last eight years. During his first meeting in June 2009, Commissioner Goldmark considered the Heritage Center Executive Center Office Building project that was subsequently paused by the Legislature until the pre-design review was complete. He participated in approving the new West Olympia Preferred Leasing Area. Other key projects Commissioner Goldmark shaped included the 1500 Jefferson Building 1063 Block Replacement project, the update of the 2006 Master Plan, Capitol Lake Long-Term Management Plan, and the Campus Transportation and Parking Study. Commissioner Goldmark brought a diverse and


broad range of knowledge and ability to the SCC including community planning, environmental conservation, and a scientific approach to problem-solving and proven leadership. Commissioner Goldmark consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to his principles and applied critical thinking before taking an action. Commissioner Goldmark always engaged and asked presenters relevant questions to ensure that he and other members had sufficient and pertinent information to support decision-making. Director Liu thanked Commissioner Goldmark for his management and stewardship of the State Capitol Campus and the needs and interests of all state citizens.

Director Liu thanked and recognized Senator Karen Fraser, a member of the Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC). Senator Fraser attended the first CCDAC meeting on May 19, 1995 and remained a critical voice of reason and of the public during her 22-year tenure on the committee. During her tenure, Senator Fraser continued to express the need to engage citizens and stakeholders to receive ideas on projects to help inform and advise on decisions made by the State Capitol Committee. Senator Fraser has been a fair and thoughtful leader and never hesitated to ask compelling questions and share her observations and thinking on items presented to the committee, resulting in more comprehensive thought and advice creating more effective results. She served as a wonderful mentor and advisor who taught him a lot and made immeasurable contributions to the CCDAC. Key issues she urged the committee and DES to undertake included being an advocate for improving regional public transportation and commuting between Seattle and Tacoma, protecting the view of the Legislative Building and other significant campus view corridors. Broadening and expanding the committee’s work to consider state capitol facilities as a whole both owned and leased, having the CCDAC Chair or another member attend SCC meetings. Clarified the decision-making process for owned versus leased facilities and addressed the affect state leased or owned facilities would have on the community. Used a comprehensive approach in developing policy plans and projects from multiple perspectives, and participating in an array of Capitol Campus plans, projects, and policies since 1995. Key projects under her tenure include:

World War II Memorial Law Enforcement Memorial East Plaza Repair Project Heritage Park Capitol Lake Management Plan Legislative Building Renovation 2006 Master Plan and update in 2014 Edna Goodrich Building 1063 Block Replacement Project Capitol Campus Transportation & Parking Study

Director Liu presented gifts to Lt. Governor Owen, Commissioner Goldmark, and Senator Fraser. The gifts were pieces of original marble from the Legislative Building.

Director Liu recognized staff members for their thoughtful efforts in selecting the gifts.

Senator Fraser commented on how serving on the committee makes one realize how citizens care deeply about the Capitol Campus and its symbolism. She thanked everyone for the recognition.

Lt. Governor Owen said it has been a privilege to serve. The campus is a jewel for the state of Washington. The campus was created through the vision of the Wilder and White plan, and the ongoing attention to detail since that time has been important. He has been impressed by the ability of people to make changes that blends and aligns with the campus. He thanked everyone for the recognition.


Commissioner Goldmark spoke of his appreciation for the opportunity to serve on the committee. The people in the state are incredibly fortunate, not only for the landscape, but because of the magnificent state. He is always energized by the beauty of the State Capitol Campus. Too often, it is taken for granted until visiting another capital city. Only then can one begin to understand the perspective of how beautiful the campus is, not just for the buildings, but also for the care and preservation of the landscape around the buildings. He was always impressed with the amount of care to ensure the grounds are maintained, which reflects well on government because not only is the state protecting and preserving the heritage on the campus but also in the carefulness of design for new buildings to maintain and retain that character moving forward. He thanked DES for the efforts to maintain the campus each day.

CCDAC & State Capitol Committee – Quorum – Information Bill Frare, Assistant Director, Facility Professional Services Division, briefed members on options for members of both committees to delegate their respective authority when unable to attend a meeting. The long-term practice by DES in the interpretation of the statute was that members were selected by their respective position to serve on the committees based on the provisions in statute. However, at the last meeting, staff was asked to explore the possibility of assigning an alternate to represent a member when a member is unable to attend. Staff researched the issue. The Governor’s position on the SCC has the option of delegating an alternate, which is included in the statute for the SCC. For the Secretary of State and Commissioner of Public Lands, the statute is not specific and those elected officials could delegate their respective authority to another individual who can render votes. However, the statute does not authorize delegation of the Lt. Governor position on the committee.

For the CCDAC, the Secretary of State is able to appoint a designee. Representatives and Senators are not able to assign a designee according to the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General, but would defer to the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General assigned to the state Senate and state House. Private appointees are not allowed by statute to designate an alternate.

Master Plan & Campus Predesign – Final Capitol Campus Development Sites Report – Action Lenore Miller, Asset Manager, introduced Walter Schacht with Schacht|Aslani Architecture, who presented the report.

Mr. Schacht reported two legislative provisos provided direction for the study. One proviso spoke to identifying potential tenants, uses, and exploring future development of four buildings to include the renovation and replacement of the General Administration (GA) Building, replacement of the Newhouse Building, replacement and development of the buildings on the Pro Arts site, and evaluating the future of the Pritchard Building. The second proviso directed consideration of the Master Plan for infrastructure development to support development of the four sites with an understanding that any new development must relate to the campus as a whole.

The effort was supported by an external and internal team with the DES Project Team leading the process lending years of experience. DES leadership worked with the team to refine the information in the draft report. An extended project team comprised of members from the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and legislative staff provided programmatic and other information necessary for understanding the potential for redevelopment of the sites.

The 2006 State Capitol Campus Master Plan identified all the sites as Opportunity Sites for future development. Direction in the plan was not specific in terms of the type of development. The study attempts to add new information to the update of the 2006 Master Plan. The GA Building was designated as Opportunity Site #1, the Pritchard Building/ parking lot is Opportunity Site #5, Newhouse sits on one block of a two-block site as Opportunity #6, and the Pro Arts site is Opportunity #12. To understand


future opportunities, the project team studied the sites, as well as the buildings to ascertain development potential.

The first step was a review of program needs using limited information. The clearest directive for programmatic need was from legislative staff for legislative offices for the House and Senate. The House lacks adequate space for the number of FTEs. A prior directive replaces Newhouse for the Senate with a new building to provide appropriate space for staff. The study also accounted for legislative support functions located in the Pritchard Building because of the potential of adaptive reuse of the building or possible replacement. Under those scenarios, those functions would move to another location. Net square footage was recorded for those functions as well. The House is seeking an additional 37,000 square feet. The replacement of the Newhouse Building for the Senate would require 32,000 net square feet or 50,000 gross square feet (GSF). The legislative support functions located in Pritchard occupy over 22,000 square feet or 34,000 GSF if those functions moved.

Other areas of discussion included visitor services and swing space. DES manages visitor services for the campus. DES struggles to manage those services for the public because of limited resources. Over 2,500 students were denied tours last year. Approximately 150 event requests were denied. The campus has limited restrooms and DES operates in makeshift spaces across the campus. DES cannot provide welcoming public access that is appropriate for the State Capitol. An ideal program includes space for a welcome center, education center, visitors’ area, and event, conference, and meeting space to accommodate different sized groups. The study does not include a detailed assessment of square footage needs other than identifying the program needs. Additionally, the campus has a need for swing space for agencies displaced by renovations. Adequate commercial space is not available. Should replacement of the Newhouse Building proceed, swing space would be required for that program. The study identified offices for 400 FTEs or over 100,000 square feet of building space.

The team completed an assessment of campus needs with the development of the four Opportunity Sites. A three-dimensional full-scale model was developed to help explore options for the sites.

The team reviewed the State Capitol Campus Master Plan and other documents informing the Master Plan. Opportunity Sites #5 and #6 are designated by the State Campus Capitol Master Plan for uses directly related to the Legislature. Opportunity Sites #1 and #12, located on the north side of the campus are intended for agency functions or functions that support the legislative functions on Opportunity Sites #5 and #6. Another directive co-locates functions when possible to improve shared use of resources and effective use of space. Some constraints on development in the Master Plan include height limitations on the West Campus with the O’Brien and the Cherberg Buildings establishing the maximum height for new buildings. Height of buildings on the East Campus is established by existing buildings, which are higher than the existing plaza.

Views were acknowledged as important both into the Legislative Building, which connects all buildings on campus to the Legislative Building serving as the core of the campus, as well as connecting the surrounding urban neighborhoods to the campus. Views to Capitol Lake, Olympic Mountains, and Mount Rainier are all critical. Directives are included in all plans to improve pedestrian connections.

The State Capitol Campus Master Plan and other documents to include state law, dictate the implementation of the Parking Management Plan as parking is problematic on campus and parking management is one potential cure. Numerous studies were completed on parking with the most recent completed in 2014 of a comprehensive study documenting how during the legislative session, parking capacity was at a breaking point. The study also indicated completion of the 1063 Block project would increase parking demand on the campus. During the legislative session, parking capacity is no longer


adequate to serve needs. Parking was considered as part of the study because new development creates demand for parking, as well as meeting unmet parking needs. Managing parking demand is the most cost effective method and could be accomplished by reducing the number of single occupancy vehicles and drive alone trips to the campus. The study acknowledged the challenges to achieve those goals as habits and practices are hard to overcome as people want to drive to campus. Other issues include the expense of parking on the campus, the low cost of fuel, and the lack of alternative transportation modes. Constructing more parking either below grade or as structured parking is expensive. Surface parking is also costly but less than structured parking. Structured parking is a capital investment and a permanent improvement while surface parking is less expensive and provides for adaptability in change of use when the amount of parking demand reduces on campus.

Commissioner Goldmark questioned whether the solution for parking was identified. Mr. Schacht said the solution speaks to a multipronged approach. Changing the mode of operation on campus and identifying significant measures to encourage people to find other ways to travel rather than by driving alone is the most cost effective and is consistent with the laws passed by the Legislature since 1991. However, that would entail significant policy changes in terms of the cost for parking, availability, and other factors. It is only one component of a strategy. Another strategy is the need for additional parking facilities on campus. That speaks to whether parking is surface or structured (below grade or converting development sites for structured parking). The development scenarios address parking options. At some point in time, there could be overarching changes in policy and/or economics that are beyond what can be foreseen in the horizon. The cost of fuel and ongoing conversations will continue to increase between the Executive Branch and the Legislature about carbon reduction policies that could have a significant impact.

Commissioner Goldmark said the intent is to afford easy access to the campus for the public for obvious reasons. The public today anticipates driving alone. When changes occur in that regime, the public would likely take notice and future meetings could include the public expressing opposition. He encouraged members to consider the issue during future meeting while acknowledging that the public’s sense of freedom is through movement by their vehicle, which is a part of the culture and not easily changed.

Mr. Schacht said parking demand management is not focused on visitors but on campus employees. Parking demand management accounts for a greater number of spaces for visitors and fewer spaces for campus employees. Commissioner Goldmark acknowledged that his comments pertained to parking for the public.

Assistant Director Frare added that there have been several efforts by DES over the last year to include working with agencies to reduce the number of reserved parking stalls for employees and converting those spaces for public use. DES also restriped some parking spaces in the Plaza Garage to reduce parking space width, which added 140 parking spaces.

Mr. Schacht reviewed the spatial order of the campus. Different diagrams prepared over time describe the spatial order of the campus. The team overlaid several diagrams reflecting the fundamental axis of the Wilder and White and Olmsted Plans signifying important public spaces within the historic plans. He identified and described those public spaces. Those spaces play into Opportunity Sites 1, 5, 6, & 12.

The team completed an evaluation of the condition of the four buildings to understand the past, present, and future potential for each building. Many studies were completed on the buildings over time. Those studies were compiled with the team conducting an independent assessment to verify current conditions.


The GA Building was constructed in 1956. The building is a state capitol history facility listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Today, the building is 55% vacant with the plan to vacate the building completely when the 1063 Block Replacement project is completed. The building has deteriorated and does not meet codes for energy, structure, mechanical, or electrical. Any improvements extending the life of the building triggers requirements for building code compliance. The building suffers from structural fatigue caused by the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake and has been a life and health safety hazard since 1992. The City of Olympia will not allow vacated spaces to be reoccupied without comprehensive building system improvements.

The Pritchard Building represents a challenge and was studied several times. The building, completed in 1958 is a state capitol historic facility listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is 63% vacant (book stacks). The book stacks offer no viable use because the stacks cannot be adapted to another use. The footprint is too small with no windows, limited height of 7-1/2’, and only one exit stair. The building houses legislative staff support, code reviser, and a cafeteria. Existing conditions do not meet energy, structural, mechanical, or electrical codes, and any substantial improvements extending the life of the building would trigger code compliance. It is located against an unstable hillside, and has failing stone cladding. A study in 2008 concluded the stone cladding should be repaired within two years because it was a life safety hazard. The cost to repair the cladding would be several million dollars. Any repair of the cladding would extend the life of the building triggering compliance requirements.

The Newhouse Building was built in 1934 as a temporary facility. The building is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Occupancy is 100% but offices are undersized for programming needs. Similar to the GA and Pritchard Buildings, the Newhouse Building does not meet any codes and any improvements to the building extending the lifespan would trigger code compliance. The building has a poor indoor environment with the HVAC simultaneously heating and cooling, domestic water pipes leaking, poor water quality, sewer gas back up, and storm water flooding the lower level.

The Pro Arts site includes two small buildings of the Professional Arts Building and the State Farm Building. Both buildings are in use. When the state purchased the property, the intent was developing the property. Both buildings do not meet code and any improvements would trigger code compliance.

The next step evaluated maximum capacity of each site. The team determined the following future development capacity of each site with each building including underground parking:

Site Building ParkingSite 1, GA Building Replacement 7 stories, 274,750

GSF420 cars

Site 5, Pritchard & Parking Lot 4 stories, 144,000 GSF

420 cars

Site 6, Newhouse, Press Houses & Visitor Center (2 blocks)

4 stories, 265,000 GSF

840 cars

Site 12, Pro Arts & Centennial Park/ 2 options of retaining Centennial Park with a projected building size of 148,000 GSF, or developing the entire block generating 225,000 GSF

5 stories, 225,000 GSF

840 cars

Commissioner Goldmark expressed caution about Opportunity Site #6 and the Visitor Center. The site serves as the gateway to the campus. Currently, the horizon is unrestricted. However, any new building on the corner could change the greeting character of the campus. Mr. Schacht acknowledged the team spent some time considering future development of sites 5 and 6 because of the close proximity to the


capitol group. When physically defining new buildings, it is important to maintain consistency with the Olmsted Plan in terms of open green space. The plan speaks to compression and decompression as a way of funneling people through an enclosed sense of space along Sid Snyder and 11th opening up to the center of the campus (Winged Victory) providing a formal sense of sequence. That direction is embedded in the Olmsted Plan. Additionally, the trees planned as part of the Sid Snyder improvements help to funnel that view along the significant topographic change from Sid Snyder to Opportunity Site #6. The study assesses whether the buildings fundamentally change the narrow view that opens at the base of the dome or whether they align with the topography and the trees. The team’s perception at this time is that any new development would not alter the view.

Commissioner Goldmark offered an alternate view acknowledging the intent of creating a quad. However, if the entryway were located within the middle of the quad, it would not be problematic. The main entryway, however, is located off Sid Snyder, which is an entrance point at one edge of the quad that could restrict the public’s sense of openness of the campus. Mr. Schacht said the team’s efforts were in response to the request for maximizing capacity of each site. The team examined and considered each building differently than what has been considered in the past. In the study, the buildings are considered as a series of modules within four subsets. The plan affords the possibility to approach each subset differently and perhaps not redeveloping the entryway.

Commissioner Goldmark noted that the committee is also aware that a building was proposed on the corner in the past. Those issues surfaced at that time, as well.

Secretary Wyman inquired about the possibility of considering the site opposite the entryway near the underground parking garage. Manager Miller responded that the site was not identified in the proviso and the funding level required DES to focus only on the specific Opportunity Sites identified in the proviso.

Mr. Schacht reported that four levels of parking are included in each of the development scenarios.

Two development scenarios for the Pritchard Building and parking lot replace the building entirely or save the reading room with new construction surrounding the room netting a new building of 145,000 GSF. The two buildings on Opportunity #6 would provide 265,000 GSF. The largest configuration of the Pro Arts and Centennial Park site would provide a 225,000 gross square foot building.

Mr. Schacht reviewed the parking scenarios for each site. The team reviewed four measures for parking for a new GA Building of 274,750 GSF and determined that the parking demand is between 750 and 1,000 parking spaces. Construction of underground parking at the proposed scale for each building is less than required for the campus. Consequently, although each building requires at a minimum four levels of underground parking, the parking need is much more.

Mr. Schacht reported that as part of the development of maximum capacity for each site, the team developed project budgets for each site. The estimated costs are reflected as total project budgets (consultant services, construction contracts, equipment, artwork, agency administration, etc.) All costs are 2016 dollars because none of the sites has a designated construction schedule. Mr. Schacht reviewed the budget scenarios for each site:

Site 1: General Administration BuildingNo. Scope Building Parking Total1.A Mothball 282,682 GSF

$0.4M/year0#0

$0M

1.B Replace with surface parking lot $0 305 cars $11.3M


$11.3M1.C. Renovate for agency offices 251,000 GSF

$139.8M420 cars$50M

$189.8M

1.D Replace with agency offices 251,000 GSF$150.0M

420 cars$46.5M

$196.5M

Site 5: Pritchard BuildingNo. Scope Building Parking Total5.A Do nothing 55,485 GSF

$0M93 cars$0

$0M

5.B Renovation/addition 53,000 GSF$43.0M

93 cars$0

$43.0M

5.C. Renovate, events and receptions 22,000 GSF$15.0M

93 cars$0

$15.0M

5.D House offices on parking lot, do nothing to Pritchard Building

75,600 GSF$50.0 M

210 cars$25.6M

$75.6M

5.E. Expand/replace w/House/Senate offices 144,000 GSF$90.7M

420 cars$47.3M

$138.0M

Site 6: Newhouse BuildingNo. Scope Building Parking Total6.A Replace with Senate offices 75,600 GSF

$54.0M210 cars$25.6M

$79.6M

6.B Replace with House/Senate offices 132,500 GSF$84.7M

420 cars$46.3M

$131.0M

6.C. Replace with surface parking 0 GSF$0

350 cars$4.4M

$4.4M

Site 12: Pro Arts SiteNo. Scope Building Parking Total12.A No nothing 11,082 GSF

$050 cars$0

$0

12.B Replace with agency offices (1/2 block)surface parking lot

148,000 GSF$92.3M

420 cars$46.3M

$138.6M

12.C. Replace with agency offices (full block) 225,000 GSF$130.0M

840 cars$79.8M

$209.8M

Each site was studied independently and each site has a design-specific solution. Because of cost issues, the intent was seeking an integrated solution with multiple benefits and addressing parking demand on campus. The House and Senate provided a clear programming requirement. The team also examined ways to minimize costs and ways to promote substantial and beneficial changes on the West Campus. In terms of facilities, the GA Building should be considered as it continues to consume resources even if closed and would require a substantial amount of funds to renovate or replace. For the Newhouse Building, the assumption is replacement. For the Pritchard Building, the team considered the building as an important resource and location. Elements of the historic fabric should be retained. However, it has been demonstrated many times that a dramatic transformation is required for the building to remain part of the campus. The study includes a menu of alternatives. The team attempted to apply the alternatives to three development scenarios. However, it is possible to reconsider the menu of alternatives and develop another set of scenarios. The proposed scenarios are intended to prompt dialogue among key stakeholders on the best way to solve the problem.


Three scenarios were developed for each site:

Scenario 1: Project BudgetAlt. Scope Building Parking Total1A Mothball GA *$0 $0 $05A Do nothing $0 $0 $05D House offices on Pritchard parking lot,

below grade parking (210 cars)$50.0M $25.6M $75.6M

6A Senate offices replace Newhouse, below grade parking (210 cars)

$54.0M $25.6M $79.6M

12A Do nothing $0 $0 $0 Total 151,200 GSF

$104.0M$688/GSF

420 cars$51.2M$122k/stall

$155.2M

*$400,000 a year additional operational costs to mothball

Scenario 2: Project BudgetAlt. Scope Building Parking Total1A Mothball GA *$0 $0 $05A Do nothing $0 $0 $06B Co-located legislative offices, replace

Newhouse, below grade parking (420 cars)

$84.7M $40.3M $131.0M


$84.7M$639/GSF


$131.0M

*$400,000 a year additional operational costs to mothball

Scenario 3: Project BudgetAlt. Scope Building Parking Total1B Surface parking (305 cars) $0 $11.3M $11.3M5E Co-located Legislative offices, expand

or replace Pritchard$90.7M $0 $90.7M

6C Surface parking (350 cars) $0.5M $4.4M $4.9M


$91.2M$633/GSF


$106.9M

The scenarios are a dramatically different approach to development than considered before, but the scenarios take advantages of all four sites and consider critical issues involving deteriorating facilities, historic buildings, and program needs.


CCDAC Vice Chair Rolluda thanked Mr. Schacht for the detailed and comprehensive analysis and options. CCDAC members met with the team during the summer and participated in a planning charrette. It appears the team considered some of the comments involving parking, open space, pedestrian access, and view corridors. Because the information is so comprehensive, he recommended deferring action by the CCDAC to afford an opportunity for Chair Haskell and other committee members to review the information and provide comments.

Senator Fraser agreed the analysis is comprehensive and includes options and combinations not previously considered or studied. The information is helpful. It appears the information is oriented towards development of the campus with incorporation of other plans, such as the Wilder and White and the Olmsted Plan, as well as a Bicycle Plan and Landscaping Plan to ensure the protection of recreation, landscaping, and the heritage of the campus. In terms of the Pritchard Building, the option of storage could be a potential use. She also supports the option of expanding Pritchard Building to increase usability. In previous years, a predesign proposal was prepared for the Newhouse Building with reactions similar to Commissioner Goldmark’s comments that the building was too big. The adjacent neighborhood also objected to the proposal. She offered that the legislative proviso should have included more direction about not maximizing the square footage of that building. In terms of parking, another alternative is transit. Many visitors to her office are from the major metropolitan areas to the north. Those visitors are not able to travel to the campus by transit and must use their cars. Transit is not an option at this time. The effort should be considering ways to offer transit services to the campus as not all visitors own cars and many want to avoid the congestion along Interstate 5. One option is the state subsidizing transit service during the legislative sessions to provide more transit options to the campus to include evening hours to accommodate visitors during late meetings. A cost benefit analysis might reveal that subsidizing transit service during the session might be less expensive that adding more parking capacity. Another option is offering shuttle transit service from designated parking areas to the campus during the session. At one time, a proposal was offered for constructing underground parking below the Flag Circle, which could be further examined. In the future, Sound Transit plans to extend service to DuPont, which should be factored in the long-term for potential shuttle service. Parking technology is also available to help visitors identify locations of parking availability.

Vice Chair Rolluda mentioned the unstable slope to the southwest of the Pritchard Building. He asked about the severity potential of that situation. He was advised that the team reviewed the geotech survey for the hillside. The structural analysis for any expansion or renovation would require new construction to be setback from the slope. The cost analysis does not reflect any type of retaining wall.

Director Liu added that DES has requested budget consideration for slope stabilization of various sites. DES has been unsuccessful in securing funds during the last two budget biennia. DES recognizes the analysis in the geotech reports and would ensure any necessary stabilization is included as part of any new project.

Commissioner Goldmark left the meeting.

Vice Chair Rolluda asked whether the option of renovating the GA Building and adding atrium space to increase light in the building would create a Class A modern and contemporary office building. Mr. Schacht replied that during the 2012 predesign for the GA Building, the study introduced the idea of an atrium. However, the study lacked a space study to determine programming capacity given the spacing of columns in the building. The team considered programming capacity as part of the current study. The building doesn’t provide the same flexibility as would be available in a new building, but it does provide good yield for workstations and offices. The team believes it would be a reasonable option to consider as it would be somewhat less expensive than a new building – but close using typical measures for


budgeting state projects. Essentially, it would entail decisions about the historic resource and sustainability issues. A new building would have more flexible and adaptable space than a renovation. However, it is also possible to renovate and provide a serviceable building.

Secretary Wyman thanked the team for their work. However, since she became a member of the CCDAC, the same frustration surrounds how to ensure the recommendations and discussions are applied when the Legislature considers funding. One example is the 1063 Block Replacement project. The project prompted great discussions about the project, especially surrounding parking as the project not only eliminated existing parking but also did not include parking for a building occupied by 400 employees. That equation does not work. At the end of the day, the Legislature considered only the bottom-line costs and the easiest way to reduce building cost was eliminating parking. She asked how the process ensures that the SCC and the CCDAC have some weight in that process. The 1063 Block Replacement project is a good example of how circumventing the SCC and CCDAC created a loss to the overall project. She questioned how to make the committees’ process relevant to the legislative process; otherwise, it is only a waste of time and resources.

Lt. Governor inquired as to next steps on the proposal. Director Liu recommended delaying action pending feedback from other CCDAC members.

Capitol Lake Management Plan – Phase 1 Report on Capitol Lake/Lower Deschutes Watershed Long-Term Management – ActionDirector Liu reported the Capitol Lake/Lower Deschutes Watershed Management Plan planning effort did not include a long-term solution for Capitol Lake but to ensure all work was completed that the Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan (CLAMP) report had failed to complete or did not complete through the CLAMP process. The proviso did not require DES or the governmental bodies to arrive at a decision but to develop a process for moving forward, as well as ensuring that each of the governmental bodies involved in furthering the process has a good working relationship. Efforts concentrated on developing the process and complying with the directives of the proviso. Because of delayed funding for the effort, the timeline was shortened. The consultant team completed amazing work to lead efforts on the process with all stakeholders to consider all steps in addition to ensuring a thorough public process was implemented. All information reviewed throughout the process was available to the community in addition to public meetings to enable adequate time for feedback and input. Director Liu introduced Jessi Massingale with Floyd|Snider. Ms. Massingale briefed members on the process for completing the report to the Legislature on the Capitol Lake/Lower Deschutes Watershed Long-Term Management Plan.

Ms. Massingale reviewed the initial concept of the work intended for completion as part of Phase 1. The process and implementation plan were initiated through the vision of Director Liu and DES to consider the proviso as an opportunity to investigate the directives in the proviso, as well as utilizing the proviso as a springboard and foundation for moving forward. The process included an opportunity to engage with stakeholder groups, meeting the directives within the proviso, and laying the foundation for completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for identifying and evaluating long-term management options for future selection of a long-term management option.

The process entailed an opportunity for each stakeholder group to provide feedback, review revisions to materials based on feedback from each stakeholder group, and help sequentially establish the building blocks to lay the foundation to move to Phase 2. The steps included engaging with the Executive Work Group, the community, and the Technical Committee each month beginning in March through the end of the year. Each meeting included a set of materials to meet the directives of the proviso, as well as providing tangible work products to utilize during Phase 2.


Work products developed and moving forward to Phase 2 include: Identified Goals and Objectives for the Long-Term Management of Capitol Lake. The

process received 421 community responses on goals and objectives. The responses identified common areas and were consistent with those identified in 1997 during the CLAMP process and the process prior to CLAMP. Key goals for long-term management planning include:- Sediment Management - Water quality- Economics- Recreational Opportunities- Aesthetics - Habitat

Development of a Purpose and Need Statement. A Purpose and Need Statement is used in an EIS to help screen potential long-term management options and to identify the intent of the project. Over a series of months, stakeholder groups developed a Purpose and Need Statement acceptable to a majority of the stakeholders who agreed the statement was representative of the values for the project and should move forward as the basis for Phase 2.

Developed a Comprehensive Project Bibliography of Previous Studies and Information. The process reviewed a mass of prior studies and information generated from previous efforts dating to water quality studies completed in 1974 to recent studies. The consultant team developed and consolidated the information into a comprehensive project bibliography available in a database for querying in the future when reviewing technical analyses.

Worked with the Technical Committee led by the Squaxin Island Tribe, Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Natural Resources to review the studies related to water quality and habitat, and to identify which ones could serve as best available science in Phase 2 when additional technical analysis is completed.

Identified long-term management options for Capitol Lake. As part of the CLAMP process, three options of the Restored Estuary, Hybrid, and the Managed Lake were included. The community and members of the Technical Community identified another seven options and new concepts.

Development of relative cost comparisons for long-term management options. Establishment of a Funding and Governance Committee with an objective to evaluate

potential options for future shared funding and governance. The committee reviewed existing funding and governance models and used the information as an opportunity to identify, create, and develop a list of attributes that could form the foundation for a future funding and governance model for Capitol Lake. There is a commitment by all stakeholders to continue the discussion as part of Phase 2.

Summary of studies on sediment management and summary of sediment management work to occur in an EIS. All stakeholders identified sediment management as a priority. A group of stakeholders was convened to consider the issue of sediment management. The group acknowledged that the amount of work completed on sediment management could be used in the future. The 2006 sediment model created by USGS is viable and can be carried forward in Phase 2. The stakeholders agreed Phase 2 is the right time to evaluate sediment management especially when it would be informed by the long-term management options.


The stakeholders agreed the work products are a good foundation for Phase 2. The work products are described in the Phase 1 Report submitted to the Legislature in December. All information is available for public review.

The intent of Phase 2 is satisfying the State Environmental Policy Act to complete a project-specific EIS to analyze potential impacts and benefits of a reasonable range of long-term management options. As part of the Phase 1 process, community members and stakeholders were asked to consider long-term options for scoping in the EIS, as well as the primary impacts and benefits that should be evaluated by technical analyses during the Phase 2 EIS. Following completion of the scoping process, the range of reasonable alternatives would advance for future technical analyses ranging from water quality studies, sediment management modeling, ecological functions, cultural resources, community use to provide a draft and final EIS describing the potential impacts and benefits for each of the long-term management options carried forward.

DES, as part of that process, is anticipated to select and identify a preferred long-term management option. At the conclusion of the process with participation by all stakeholders, DES would recommend an alternative to decision-makers to move forward for implementation, design, and construction during Phase 3.

Senator Fraser commented favorably on the Governor’s recommended budget inclusion of funds for the EIS. However, the information lacks any mention of “heritage’ although it does mention “cultural.” During her conversations with community members, there is a lot of desire to preserve the historical heritage of the campus. The report, as written, focuses on the lake and not the land. She encouraged the inclusion of “heritage” and references to other Capitol Campus plans such as Wilder and White, Olmsted Landscaping Plan, and others. Ms. Massingale acknowledged that the feedback was also similar from the community as well. Within the Phase 1 Report, language speaks to the importance of the Wilder and White Plan, City Beautiful Movement, and the history that describes the context of Capitol Campus.

Vice Chair Rolluda asked whether the EIS process of three years includes review and approval by agencies. Ms. Massingale advised that the timing of the EIS is an estimated timeline based on the array of technical analyses required for completion. At this time, there is no set prescription of time to move through the process. DES has expressed an interest in engaging proactively with the technical agencies. Those agencies have agreed to continue with engagement and collaboration. Consequently, throughout the EIS, those agencies would be involved and provide input and technical guidance. Approval actions by those agencies occur through permitting during Phase 3.

Secretary Wyman said she assumes the EIS must be completed prior to any other steps occurring. Ms. Massingale affirmed the EIS is a required action to include any other actions, such as maintenance dredging because the agencies have indicated no permits would be issued for maintenance dredging unless there is an approved long-term management plan. Secretary Wyman asked about the next step following completion of the EIS in terms of review by the SCC or the CCDAC.

Ms. Massingale said she anticipates that both committees would continue its involvement throughout the process. Director Liu affirmed the involvement by the CCDAC and the SCC throughout the process.

Ms. Massingale affirmed that no dredging operation could be initiated until completion of the EIS. Additionally, it is anticipated that any long-term management option would begin with an initial dredging option to mitigate and address sediment accumulation over the last 30 years.


Senator Fraser referred to a report from several years ago that conveyed that no sediment plan could be determined until the final design is selected. She asked whether the EIS considers the various alternatives. Ms. Massingale affirmed an EIS considers the design and develops those components to aid in decision-making and completing analysis for sediment management and respective plans under each management scenario.

Secretary Wyman moved, seconded by Kelly Wicker, to endorse the Phase 1 Report on the Capitol Lake/Lower Deschutes Watershed Long-Term Management Report. Motion carried unanimously.

Extend Sid Snyder Avenue SW – Present Staff Report and CCDAC’s Advice – Action Michael Van Gelder, Asset Manager, presented the proposal initiated by Representative Hunt and endorsed by the CCDAC, to extend and rename Sid Snyder Avenue SW to Sid Snyder Loop SW.

The proposal would extend and create a loop of Sid Snyder Avenue SW by connecting to Cherry Lane, 12th Avenue, Water Street, and 11th Avenue. The process does not require action by the City of Olympia but would include the City of Olympia’s addressing system governed by the Thurston County common address ordinance. Staff considered factors for implementing the proposal. Some factors include the cost and the elements for implementation. Implementation of the action requires changes to signs on campus, changes to maps, new street signs, and changes to the website. The proposal would cost approximately $40,000 to $50,000. However, because of the number of unknowns, the cost could be higher.

Staff discussed the proposal with Thurston County 911 Communications, which maintains the master address for the county as the database for first responders during emergency calls, as well as for residential and commercial purposes. Thurston County acknowledged the confusion addresses on campus create as some addresses do not relate to streets, such as the Power Building below the bluff, which is assigned the address of 900 Water Street. Staff was asked to consider the entire campus in terms of addresses and street names. Thurston County’s index does not include common streets on campus, such as Pleasant Lane or Cherry Lane creating another level of complexity. During the review, the confusion factor would increase with the relabeling of Sid Snyder Loop. However, comprehensively, those difficulties could be overcome.

Senator Fraser referred to the frequency of use of GPS by visitors and the different streets within a small area, which has tended to be confusing when giving directions to the public. She agreed with staff’s acknowledgment that two major intersections with Capitol Way having the same name could be confusing. As an alternative, she recommended naming the intersections as North Sid Snyder Way SW and South Sid Snyder Way SW.

Staff was asked about the source of funding for the proposal. Director Liu explained that DES would need to request funding for the proposal as it entails more than minimal cost than what DES could have absorbed. Manager Van Gelder added that additional budget information recently received places the cost on the lower end; however, there are still many unknowns associated with changing the name.

Director Liu reported the intent is to re-present the proposal to address all the outstanding issues and to ensure it aligns with the county’s master record. AdjournmentWith there being no further business, Lt. Governor Owen adjourned the meeting at 11:42 a.m.

Prepared by Puget Sound Meeting Services, [email protected]

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INTRODUCTIONS Web viewWorld War II Memorial. Law Enforcement Memorial. ... A study...

Documents

Transcript of ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INTRODUCTIONS Web viewWorld War II Memorial. Law Enforcement Memorial. ... A study...