Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Civic Center Cable Studio Location , CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 2, 1987 SUBJECT Civic Center: Determination of Cable Studio Location EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1) Notes from February 17, 1987 Meeting with Representatives of Community Television (41' 2) Letter from Bill Hoffmann dated February 25, 1987 3) Schematic Layouts for Alternative Studio Locations RECOMMENDATION Review the alternatives presented and determine the appropriate location for the cable studio. Also, provide Staff with direction on options to be included and method of providing interior design services. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See Below. DESCRIPTION At the City Council meeting on February 12, 1987, the City Council directed the Architect to enlarge the diameter of the building to accommodate a cable television studio. The proposed location was on the second floor of the City Offices . The Community Television. Corporation Staff were unable to meet with the Architects until February 17, 1987. The City was also represented at this meeting. The purpose was to identify the needs of a cable television studio and explain the existing building concept to Community Television representatives. This also allowed City Staff to provide additional input to the Architect on implications this change may have to the previously approved layout. The Architects pursued the addition _of a studio on the second floor at two separate locations. The basic concepts are presented as Scheme #1 and Scheme #3. As a result of further discussions and an attempt to address concerns which were raised, the design team also evaluated two additional schemes. Scheme #4 places the facility on the second floor of the Police Building. This is the most costly option and does not have some of the benefits of other alternatives . The final scheme evaluated the placement of the studio on the ground floor at the rear of the building. All of these schemes were reviewed to determine the impact on City functions and the cost of accommodating the facility. As mentioned above, Scheme #4 (2nd Floor Police Facility) presented more disadvantages than advantages . Likewise, Scheme #2 presents certain . problems which do not occur in other layouts. This scheme places the studio on the second floor behind the Administrative Offices . Instead of providing a separate elevator and staircase, the plan creates a corridor circling the entire second floor. This makes securing the facility somewhat difficult. The layout also provides a studio space which is very narrow and not ideal for cable television needs . Scheme #3 (2nd floor over Regional Meeting Room) places the entrance at the main entrance to the Civic Center complex. Unfortunately, this entry is more difficult to separate from the City functions . The scheme also shifts the City Manager, Recreation and Finance Offices further from the lobby staircase. City Staff expressed some concern over the area becoming quite congested if City events were occurring at the same time on the first floor. An interior stairway infringes on the regional meeting room and limits the ability to open this room to the lobby area. The Architects have suggested that an exterior stairway would address this concern, however, this impacts the appearance of the building and ease of access for studio participants. Based on the considerations addressed above and those stated in Mr. Hoffmann' s letter, Staff feels that it is appropriate to focus on Schemes #1 and #5. COPIES TO: George Miers & Associates Anr Harris & Associates ITEM NO. 14, Scheme #1 This alternative positions the studio on the second floor at the rear of the administrative building. In any of the scenarios where the studio is on the second floor, adequate emergency means of egress must be provided. Pursuant to the building code, this results in the requirement for two stairways. The code also requires handicapped accessibility and therefore, a second elevator must be provided. City Staff had some concerns with the layout of Scheme #1. The major impact is on the expansion area on the first floor. The additional stairway disrupts the area shown for Engineering. It also makes the future expansion area more removed from the Development Services departments where the future space may be needed. Mr. Miers has indicated that the layouts shown are only rough schematics and should not be taken too literally. He feels that during the design development phase, the stairway could be accommodated in a less disruptive manner. One alternative would be turning the stairway sideways . The employee lunch room could also be relocated adjacent to the receiving area. This places the expansion area closer to the development services office area. The layout does allow for the studio to operate as an independent function. The Architects have suggested that the primary entry would be from the courtyard. This would be accomplished by signing located at the main entry adjacent to the City Council Chambers. This allows the City Hall to be entirely secured during non-business hours. The Architects also note that having more space on the second floor benefits the layout of the City Manager' s area. The additional second floor space makes this area wider and offices are more easily accommodated. The restrooms serving the cable studio are located on the first floor adjacent to the City Staff lockers. This location benefits both the studio and City Staff. Additional advantages are outlined on Page 3 of the Architect' s letter. Scheme #5 This scheme provides for the additional space on the first floor. The relative location is directly beneath the location shown in Scheme #1. This scenario has many of the location advantages noted in Scheme #1. The studio would remain a distinct function and the remainder of City Offices can be easily secured. This scheme does not impact the expansion of Development Service areas because the need for an additional staircase is eliminated. Also, the cost of an elevator is not incurred. Mr. Miers has explained that the main disadvantages relate to the appearance of the building' s form and the layout of the second floor. The addition of the space on the first floor expands the base of the building. At the same time, the second floor remains the same size. This results in a small narrow band of offices placed on the first floor base. As mentioned earlier, a wider office area on the second floor benefits the layout of the City Manager ' s Office. Mr. Miers has indicated that in any scenario selected, further refinement would be necessary in the Design Development stage. However, it is important for the City Council to select a placement in order that the Design Team can proceed with the layout of the buildings . Cost As shown in the cost estimates in Mr. Hoffmann's letter, they range from $159, 500 to $219, 400 . These are only the costs associated with the construction of additional shell space. The interior improvements are not included for the studio space. The Architects indicate that if the interior improvements are consistent with the rest of the building, they are estimated at $40/sq ft. However, if they require special sound isolation systems, additional conduit or special lighting, the interior costs could equal $60/sq ft. This creates an estimated additional cost of $80, 000 - $120, 000 depending on the type of special improvements. Page 2 An optional cost factor is the cost of providing additional ceiling space in the studio area. If the studio is on the second floor, this cost is estimated at $20, 000. This requires raising the roof over the studio area. On the first floor, the additional height is obtained by lowering the floor which is a more costly approach. The lower floor is estimated to add $30, 000 to the studio construction cost. Discussions with Community Television representatives indicated that the preferred ceiling height was 15 feet. The Architects indicated that they could provide 12 - 12. 5 feet by not installing a drop ceiling in the studio area. However, beams and ventilation ducts may encroach in some areas . The existing facilities utilized by Community Television have a 12 foot ceiling. Ms. Darla Stevens indicated that the higher ceiling was desirable, however, it was not an absolute requirement of their program. Given the cost impact, direction from the City Council is appropriate. The final cost issue relates to the cost of providing interior design in the studio area. The Design Team has agreed to include the additional shell space in the existing agreement. They have already devoted significant resources to the initial study of the studio location at no additional cost. However, given the specialized sound isolation systems in the studio space, the Architects feel it is reasonable to discuss an amendment to the agreement to provide the interior services. Mr. Hoffmann has provided a rough estimate of $20, 000 - $28, 000. The Architects indicate that a precise cost proposal would require further definition of the interior improvements . This would include the services of George Miers & Associates and the other members of the Design Team. The electrical and acoustical consultants are two areas which would be heavily impacted. Another option would be to allow the Community Television representatives to secure the services independent of the City' s agreement. This may affect continuity in the project administration if another firm is selected. A summary of the costs associated with the two schemes Staff has focused on is shown below: Scheme #1 Scheme #5 Shell Space $ 187, 200 $ 149,100 Interior Improvements 80, 000-120, 000 80, 000-120, 000 Interior Design/Consultants 20, 000- 28, 000 20, 000- 28, 000 Sub-Total $ 287, 200-335, 200 $ 249,100-297,100 Option - High Ceiling 20, 000 30, 000 Estimated Cost w/15 ft Ceiling $ 307, 200-355, 200 $ 279, 100-327, 100 Conclusion Staff requests that the City Council review the alternatives and provide appropriate direction to the Design Team. The City Council should also instruct Staff as to whether the option providing for a raised ceiling is to be accommodated in the design. Staff will also require direction related to any necessary amendment to provide interior design services . The Architects would probably not begin actual layout of the interior studio space until the City was reasonably assured that Community Television would occupy the space. Page 3 NOTES Meeting with Representatives of Community Television - February 17 , 1987 - 2: 00 pm Attending : Bill Hoffman, George Miers & Associates * Victor Taugher , Building Official Richard Ambrose , City Manager Paul Rankin, Assistant to City Manager Darla Stevens , Executive Director CTV Jack Oliver , Community TV Jim Burt , Community TV (Note : * designates attendance at field review of existing Pleasanton Studio . ) The representatives of Community TV (CTV) were provided with background on the site plan and schematic design for the Civic Center project . 1 . Stairways : Mr . Taugher indicated that in order to meet fire codes access to a second stairway would need to be provided . 2 . Noise/Foot Traffic : In the City Staff meeting , concerns were raised regarding : the ability, to secure the City offices from the studio , ability to isolate sound into and from the studio ; and potential for congestion if it is located near other public areas (i . e . Council Chambers , Regional Meeting Room. ) 3 . Noise : The CTV representatives indicated that noise can be a problem. This applies to noise from within the building and a requirement to isolate noise within their operations . For example , the control room would need to be sound isolated . 4 . Restroom Location : CTV indicated that other facilities have had difficulties with restrooms located adjacent to a studio causing problems with noise . 5 . Air Conditioning : CTV indicated that the most, appropriate sizing would be to avoid a rush of air . This causes noise and may interfere with production activities . They also indicated a desire to have separate heating and ventilation controls for the studio . The fluctuation of temperature is caused by lighting . 6 . Satellite Dish : CTV indicated a desire to have a satellite dish either mounted on the roof or placed elsewhere on the site , with a cable to the studio . The dish would be 10 feet in diameter and would be placed at a 45 degree angle facing south/southeast . This would allow them to use C-span programming . 7 . Parking : For ongoing needs 4-5 spaces would accommodate . most of their needs . Potential in the future to have a,. cablecast van, which may require secured parking. Group. . . discussed potential for placing this vehicle in Police secured area on a daily basis. 8. Potential Participants: They have designed their criteria to accommodate a studio which would have seating for an audience of 25. They would anticipate a crew of 8-10 and a potential panel of 8-10. _ Maximum total 45. If they wished to accommodate a larger number, CTV would probably seek an alternate filming location. 9. Ceiling Height : CTV indicated a preferance to have a studio ceiling height greater than 12 feet if possible. They indicated that they could work within this restriction. However , a 15 foot space works better. Most sets are 8 feet high and if lighting hangs" down, they want it out of camera view. Could operate with exposed ducts . 10. Lighting : Maximum 10,000 watts . ' They foresee several grids running in ceiling , similar to a theater operation. 11 . Size : CTV representatives indicated a , 20 foot wide space would probably be too narrow. Current studio is 27 feet x 37 feet (999 square feet) . 12. Proposed Spaces : Proposal is to- have the following uses : Lobby area : . Seating 3-4 people. Adjacent to Secretary and Conference Room. Secretary : Room for two desks.. and 2-3 file cabinets . Some storage .. Need direct access from secretary to Studio area. Conference Room: Capable of holding approximately 10-12 people. Should be accessed from lobby area to serve as waiting room. Make Up Room: Can be unisex. Needs nearby access . to restrooms . Adequate to allow changing of clothes . Control Room: Needs sound isolated glass into studio . Counter area aproximately 6-8 feet long . Edit Bays : Two are. desirable. At least one should be adjacent to control room. Need to be sound isolated . Contain. Source Deck and Deck you are editin°g . to . Potential to have one edit room which can be accessed without going into studio area Studio : Seating for 25 . Current size is 1000 square feet . CTV feels this meets their needs . .. 13. Potential Locations : GMA reviewed potential layouts of the area on the second floor . This would result in an additional stairway and elevator being added to the building. In discussions , alternatives not presented earlier were -- - brought forth: a. Second Floor of police building. This would require an . additional elevator and stairway.: Some discussion was given to providing one stairway on the exterior. The uses below and adjacent to this location would be impacted less by the noise conditions. b . Placement of a - structure in front of the City Council Chambers . It was mentioned that the cost would increase . c . Placement at the rear of the second floor administrative offices . Creating a hallway by moving existing space out. This may . eliminate need for secondary stairway and elevator . City would want to review additional cost of securing the City Office areas. Also, the ease of securing these areas is a concern. A precise location was not designated. The architect . indicated that he would review design and cost implications and make a presentation to the City. 14. Analysis : Mr . Hoffman i-ndicated to City representatives that based on information, it would be appropriate to recommend only after review of layouts and discussions with the cost estimator. This will be available to City Staff by February 25 , 1987 , with presentation to City Council , March 2, 1987. cc : Brian Danley , Harris & Associates GEORGE MIERS & ASSOCIATES Architecture and Planning February 25, 1987 Mr. Richard Ambrose City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. , Suite 101 Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Dublin Civic Center CTV Studio Addition Dear Richard : . The purpose of this letter is to discuss briefly the advantages and disadvantages associated with each of the five schemes illustrated on the attached, plans. Before discussing the schemes indiv idually, however, it is important to list some of the criteria that influenced our thinking. These criteria were developed during discussions with City staff and personnel at CTV Community Television. The more important criteria are as follows: 1. Hours of Operation: ' The CTV studio wants to operate beyond normal business hours, possibly 24 hours a day. During the evenings hours, when City offices are locked, consideration must be given to access (including handicap access) to the studio, and to the availability of toilet room facilities. 2. Parking: Parking is required for a staff of 8 to 10, for panelists who could number up to 10, for a studio audience of up to 25, and for a mobile equipment van which wants to be parked in a secure area at night. 3. Identity: Although CTV is a community activity, it is not a City government function, and differs from all the other spaces, in the building in that, respect.. It should not be "just another door down the corridor". Ideally, it should have a physically recognizable entrance and identity of its own.. 420 Sutter Street San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 896-0305 ttf i�.a...✓sa.eY,ar�xSM... ,._n - -e.._ .:" ,. -,.y c...... "-r.. 'S'.8.'i 'Y..a.sfl,_...r ...G2L-ia.k bpi_- _ _..ice. .__ _.-.. Richard Ambrose February 25, 1987 Page 2 4. Emergency Egress: The studio audience needs two separate means of egress in case of fire. 5. Costs: The construction costs associated with each of the five schemes are detailed in the attached addenda. Please bear in mind that the schemes are schematic in nature, and the costs are only approximations. There is, however, a 38% variation between the most expensive and least expensive scheme. Please note also that the costs include only the construction of an empty shell. The cost of building a studio within that shell is not included. Some considerations of lesser weight, which seem to affect each of the five schemes equally, are these: 1. Noise: The studio wants to be isolated from noise created by external factors, air conditioning, flushing toilets, and even normal operations of City offices. The City, on the other hand, wants to be isolated from noises created in the studio, for instance, a dance band. 2. Ceiling Height: The TV studio ideally needs a higher ceiling height (by three feet) than what is practical for the remainder of the building. The cost analyses in the addendum show the cost premium for providing a raised roof, or lowered floor. This is an optional cost, because CTV could probably make do without additional height in the studio. (As you will note, it is easier to add the 3 feet at the second floor rather than the first, since all floors therefore, remain the same elevation while the pitched roof hides the raised roof.) SCHEME 41 (Studio at second floor , behind City Manager 's office, with independent access and facilities) Advantages 1. The TV studio has its own entrance lobby, elevator and stair ; all located across the courtyard from the main entrance to the Civic Center. It would be relatively easy, with Richard Ambrose February 25, 1987 Page 3 • signage, to provide CTV a separate identity of its own. People coming to and from the studio would not need to pass through City Hall.- The CTV lobby could be a very pleasant two story - space with view to the courtyard designed in .a manner consistent with the current design intent. 2. During evening hours, access to the studio is unimpaired and unchanged by the closing of City Hall. City spaces could easily be closed off and locked up in the evening. 3. The architectural. form of the building is improved by the addition of 2,000 SF to the . second floor of the north wing. 4.. Toilet rooms added for the studio could be located on the first floor, adjacent to the staff locker rooms. In that location they could benefit the City, the studio and the staff. 5. A tenant- to whom the expansion space could be leased would share the CTV lobby and entrance, giving that tenant the advantages of a separate and distinct entry. • 6. The second floor provides an easier and less expensive opportunity to raise the ceiling height . by 3 feet. 7. Easy parking access for staff and for the van. . Disadvantages: 1. . Cost of an additional elevator and stair. SCHEME #2 (Studio at second' floor , behind City Manager 's office, with dependency on City Hall facilities) Advantages: • 1. Scheme #2 is a variation of Scheme #1. Like Scheme #1, it has the advantage of a separate and . distinct entrance lobby across the courtyard from the main entrance to the Center, which could also serve as an- entrance lobby for the expansion space lease tenant. Richard Ambrose - February 25, 1987 Page 4 2. To avoid the expense of an additional elevator and separate toilet facilities, the TV studio is joined to the remainder of the City Hall by a second floor corridor that passes in front of the City Manager 's space, saving roughly $36,000. Disadvantages.: 1. The addition of the corridor forces the studio area/into a narrow volume that is somewhat less than ideal for the intended function. 2. The addition of the corridor also pushes the manager 's office area further towards the outer perimeter of the building, making it less likely that an exterior balcony will be feasible. 3. Most of the interior corridor system would have to be left open to the TV studio staff and audience most of the evening, or all night long. SCHEME #3 (Studio at second floor above regional meeting • room.) Advantages : 1. The studio is located near the front entrance to the Civic Center complex. People coming to and leaving the studio would add to the level of activity in the main lobby, which could be an advantage, or disadvantage depending on one 's philosophic point .of view. In general, and . within limits, a greater level of activity adds to the sense that a space (or a building) is a successful one. . . 2. The studio could make use of the grand stair, elevator and toilet facilities on the second floor during day and evening hours. The remainder of City Hall could be locked up in the evening with doors and/or gates that are already part of the building program. Richard Ambrose February 25, 1987 Page 5 Disadvantages: 1. It is more difficult to provide the studio a separate identity and separate entrance scheme than in any other. The primary entrance to the ' studio can be at either of two locations : the door at the top of the grand stair on the second floor, or the ground floor lobby just off the regional meeting room. At either location, however, despite a good signage program, the CTV. studio is likely to be perceived as a function of City government, rather than a separate and distinct operation. . 2. Foot traffic from the ' studio may at times cause congestion in the lobby. 3. Locating the studio at the front of the second floor pushes a more important area, the City Manager 's offices, to the rear of the second floor. SCHEME #4 (Studio at second floor in police wing) The advantages of this scheme are similar to those of Scheme #1. The studio has a separate and distinct entrance of its own; 'City offices can be locked up at night without affecting studio operations; the architectural form of the building benefits somewhat from the addition of 2,000 SF to the second floor (although this is of more importance on the administration wing).. Disadvantages are mostly economic. This is the expensive of. the schemes. It should be noted that there -"is no internal connection between the police spaces and the studio space.. They are as separated as. if built in separate buildings. The internal layout of the first floor of the police wing will have to be revised slightly, and will probably suffer some. The layout of the police spaces on the second floor, - however, will probably improve. This scheme also requires a separate elevator,- stair and toilet rooms with no joint use advantage. . ' • • Richard Ambrose February 25, 1987 Page 6 SCHEME #5 (Studio on the first floor, adjacent to the future expansion space) . . = . Advantages : 1. A separate and distinct entrance for CTV. 2 . City offices can be locked at night without affecting studio operations. 3. No need to provide an additional elevator for handicap access (although if the studio floor is lowered for a greater ceiling height, handicap access becomes slightly more problematic) . Disadvantages: V The architectural form of the building suffers from the addition of 2,000 SF to the first floor. The second floor becomes a very small form perched awkwardly above a .large base plateau. (Note that this disadvantage disappears if the expansion space is allowed on the second floor. Although not ideal this notion might have some V merit worth considering.) - RECOMMENDATIONS In our opinion, Scheme #1 offers the best combination of advantages, with the fewest disadvantages. The space that . is created for the TV studio is very attractive, with it's own entrance, and with good views, both into the courtyard and out to Dublin Boulevard. If the studio does not move into the space, it should be easier to find a new tenant for this space than it would with any of the other schemes. The overall shape and form of the building is improved. The relationship of the spaces with in the City Manager 's area will probably show improvement as well. After hours security problems are all but eliminated. Scheme #5 may actually be the most advantageous for the studio since it places them on the ground floor .. However, it does force the other expansion space to, the second floor which would - probably result in future split level departments. V Richard Ambrose February 25, 1987 Page 7 The other schemes each seem to have specific problems associated with them, either functional, aesthetic, or . philosophic. We do feel, however, that any one of the schemes can be made to work successfully. Sincerely, - GEORGE IERS & ASSOCIATES tiP4.0*** ra11/4"f"1.-4" William Hoffman cc: Brian Dawley Addenda to Letter - February 25, 1987 • • COST ANALYSIS SCHEME #1 Studio at Second Floor Rear (stand alone) 1. TV Studio at Second Floor 2,000 SF at $50/SF $100,000 2. Additional Circulation Space at Second Floor 340 SF at $50/SF 17,000 3. Additional Circulation Space at First Floor 300 SF at $65/SF 19,500 4. One Additional Stair 3,700 5. One Additional Elevator 37,000 6. Additional Toilet Facilities 10,000 7. Premium to Raise Roof 20. 000 TOTAL $207 ,200 Note: When considering these costs please bear in mind that the 2,000 SF program turned out to include net usable square footage only. As a result, all entrance lobbies, stairs, elevators, toilets, and circulation space had to be added to this base cost. It is for this reason that these estimates exceed the previously discussed $120,000-150,000 range. • Addenda to Letter February 25, 1987 • COST ANALYSIS SCHEME 12 • Studio at Second Floor Rear with corridor • 1. TV Studio at Second Floor .. . 2,000 SF at $50/SF $100,000 . 2. Additional Area at Second Floor 300 SF at $50/SF ' 15,000 3. Additional Area at First Floor 600 SF at $65/SF 39,000 • • 4. Premium to raise _roof 20. 000 • • TOTAL $174,000 • Addenda to Letter February 25, 1987 COST ANALYSIS SCHEME #3 Studio over Regional Meeting Room 1. TV Studio at Second Floor 2, 000 SF at $50/SF $100,000 2. Additional Circulation Space at Second Floor 560 SF at $50/SF 28,000 3. Additional Circulation Space at First Floor 120 SF at $65/SF 7,800 • 4. One Additional Stair. 3,700 . 5. Premium to raise roof 20. 000 TOTAL $159,500 . • Addenda to Letter February 25, 1987 COST ANALYSIS SCHEME 14 Studio in Police Wing 1. TV Studio at Second Floor 2,000 SF at $50/SF $100,000 2. Additional Circulation Space at Second Floor 380 SF at $50/SF 19, 000 3. Additional Circulation Space at First Floor 400 SF at $65/SF 26 ,000 4. One Additional Elevator 37,000 5. Two Additional Stairs 7,400 6. Additional Toilet Facilities 10,000 7. Premium to raise roof 20, 000 TOTAL $219,400 Addenda to Letter February 25, 1987 COST ANALYSIS SCHEME #5 Studio at First Floor Floor 1. TV Studio at First Floor 2,000 SF at $130,000 2. . Additional Circulation Space at First Floor 140 SF at $65/SF 9,100 3. Additional Toilet Facilities 10,000 4. Premium to lower floor 30.000 TOTAL $179,100