36C25718R0346-0005002.pdf

Department of Veteran Affairs Central Texas Veterans Health Care System

Project 674-280

Submitted by 23 Nov 2016

Construct Visitors’ Parking Garage Olin E. Teague VAMC

Temple, TX

CLIENT

LOGO

Construct Visitors’ Parking Garage, Olin Teague Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Temple, TX Project 674‐280

Table of Contents Tab

Executive Summary 1

Traffic Study and Traffic Study Briefing 2

Basis of Design and Assumptions‐Focus Group Meeting Minutes and Slides 3

Request for Proposal and Statement of Work 4

Atch 1: Site Layout

Atch 2: Campus Utility Plan

Atch 3: Traffic flow

Atch 4: Conceptual Structural Design

Atch 5: Geotechnical Report

Atch 6: Conceptual Rendering

Cost estimate 5

Executive Summary

Health Facility Solutions (HFS) was selected to perform a vehicle and pedestrian traffic study of the streets and sidewalks leading to the proposed site for the Construct Visitors’ Parking Garage adjacent to and north of Building 204, Olin E. Teague Hospital. HFS also developed the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the 380‐

400 parking space Visitors’ Parking Garage.

The traffic study found that the Valet Parking services helped reduce traffic congestion and mishaps, drivers were aware of heavy pedestrian traffic and the low speed limit helped avert mishaps. However, several “near misses” were observed. Signs were often hard to read or confusing, street layouts offered too many wrong choices and many opportunities for wrong‐way traffic. Applicable elements of the traffic study were included in the proposed site planning for the Visitors’ Parking Garage, including simplifying the entrance and exit to the Parking Garage.

Focus Groups involving interested representatives from the local community and Medical Center staff were held on 16 August, 8 September and 13 October. Led by Contracting Officer’s Representative, Ms.

Kelly Garcia, RA, the Focus Groups made the following significant contributions to the RFP:

‐ Higher minimum lighting levels with daylighting controls

‐ Lower sloped steps at stairs

‐ One‐way traffic and diagonal parking predominantly through the parking garage (the diagonal parking was less efficient (i.e. requires more space than perpendicular parking) but reduces the probability of backing accidents)

‐ Provide a means of securing the facility including screening and coiling doors at the entrances/exits.

‐ Selection of covered walkways, sunshades and a fourth floor as additive bid items

‐ Re‐routing traffic around the parking garage

The final RFP provides a minimum of 364 parking spaces including 32 accessible parking spaces and a net increase of 279 parking spaces over surface parking, as well as the following additive bid items: covered pedestrian walkway, sunshade covering upper floors and a fourth floor. The one‐way entrance to the parking garage reduces the vehicle congestion. The single pedestrian exit to the hospital does not cross vehicle traffic.

Traffic Study and Traffic Study Briefing

Traffic Study for Construct Visitor Parking Garage

Central Texas Veterans Health Care System, Temple , TX

Project 674-280

Submitted to

Ms. Kelly Garcia, RA

Project Manager

By

Health Facility Solutions Company

San Antonio, TX

Executive Summary

A traffic study was required to determine the existing campus pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns, to provide a location for a 380-400 space parking garage to support visitors’ parking for the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System.

A manual collection of traffic data was conducted on Tuesday, 3 May and Wednesday 4 May, 2016 by HFS employees. The observations and data collection were conducted during mid-week and for a full duty day cycle to best represent “steady-state” visitor traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular. Besides traffic counts, the entrances to the campus, configuration of the roads (i.e. road layout) and wayfinding (including signage and pavement markings) were assessed. Vehicle and pedestrian counts were compiled for a full 8-hour shift with the purpose of understanding parking capacity, visitors’ traffic habits and traffic issues.

General observations included:

-Wrong way drivers or “near misses” occurred approximately every 1.5 hours and often could be attributed to confusing wayfinding or awkward road layout. The low speeds and careful drivers helped avoid potential catastrophes.

-No near misses involving pedestrians and vehicles were observed

-From interviews, a majority of the visitors using the visitors’ parking lot visited frequently and were very familiar with the traffic flow through the campus

Recommendations included:

-Improvements to wayfinding (signage and pavement marking)

-Most cost effective parking garage dimensions to maximize parking garage spaces and remaining surface parking spaces; an optimum layout produced 436 parking spaces including at least 22 handicap parking spaces

-An opinion of the cost confirmed that the parking garage could be constructed within the budget

-Parking garage siting which should help solve traffic flow issues through the campus.

The optimum structural solution for the parking garage was presented as approximately 185 feet by 314 feet which would provide 437 parking spaces including 22 handicap parking spaces. Based upon current bids the parking garage could be constructed within the maximum construction budget.

I. The Traffic Study

Introduction

This traffic study was performed as a project requirement for Project 674-280, “Construct Visitor Parking Garage” at Central Texas Veterans Health Care System, Temple, TX under VA AE contract VA257-15-D- 0066. The existing visitors’ surface parking lot has approximately 374 regular parking spaces (237 spaces in the north lot and 137 in the south lot) and 32 handicap parking spaces located in the south lot. A small parking lot, adjacent to Building 204, is used for valet parking during duty hours and for visitor parking after duty hours. The valet parking has 20 regular parking spaces and 14 handicap parking spaces.

A separate Power Point briefing for use by the VA project manager is included at attachment 1.

Purpose of the Traffic Study

The purpose of this traffic study was to determine the existing pedestrian and vehicular campus traffic patterns and their relationship to visitors’ parking, traffic issues that need to be addressed within the proposed site of the parking garage, and to provide a location for a 380-400 space parking garage to support visitors’ parking to the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System.

The focus of the traffic study was on the traffic flow that affects potential parking garage sites. Optimum parking garage sites are necessarily located near the entrance to Teague Hospital, Building 204 located near the center of the Central Texas VA Health Care System campus. The primary area of study emphasis is bounded in the map below with the potential foot print of the parking garage outlined in blue:

Both parking garage sites would require reconfiguration of the curved roads to help simplify traffic flow.

The goals of the traffic study included:

determining the optimum site and configuration for the parking garage helping determine the optimum dimensions for the new parking garage based upon the site constraints, traffic flow, most cost-effective routing of traffic and modifications to existing hardscape identifying traffic issues and recommend solutions to avoid those traffic issues evaluating signage and wayfinding

Study Methodology

Traffic data was manually collected on Tuesday, 3 May and Wednesday, 4 May 2016 by Ms. Katy Feldmann, CPSM and Mr. Homer Guy, PE, AIA, DBIA, LEED AP, PMP, CFM, CEM. The observations were made for a complete duty day cycle during the middle of the week to accurately depict typical traffic flow throughout a duty day. The observers recorded:

pedestrian traffic between building 204 and the visitors’ parking lot to the north incoming and outgoing vehicle traffic from the central entrance through the parking lot valet traffic “potential mishaps” (i.e. typically wrong-way drivers and obstructions to emergency entrances)

The observers also:

evaluated wayfinding (signage, pavement marking and road layout) onto the campus from off-campus (from Veterans Memorial Drive) and in particular, the impact upon the first time visitor from the perceived differences between the north and south entrances and the middle/central entrance evaluated wayfinding on campus measured existing parking spaces and circulation lanes to ensure that minimum parking garage dimensions and clearances would be very similar to existing surface circulation dimensions evaluated valet queueing lane for safety and impact upon the traffic flow

Observations

On average, the observation team noted a “wrong way driver” or “near miss” approximately every 1.5 hours. In the majority of these cases, the incident appeared to be caused by confusing signage or inadequate pavement marking. Although “near misses” are significant, two factors contributed to general site safety, especially when vehicles and pedestrians crossed paths:

The majority of the visitors were familiar with the layout of the campus (or at least the areas they needed to visit) and understood where they needed to go and how they needed to get there.

Drivers adhered to the posted speed limits and recognized that pedestrians were present and yielded the right of way to pedestrians.

Pedestrian and vehicle traffic were the highest in the morning: The graphical representation of the vehicle traffic flow through the center (main) gate and to the visitors’ parking and the pedestrian traffic entering Building 204 is represented in Figure 1. Incoming traffic flow was heaviest between the hours of 7:00- 10:00 a.m. and from noon to 2:00pm. By midafternoon, incoming vehicle and pedestrian traffic was a fraction of the early morning traffic counts. However, by early afternoon, the north and south visitors’ parking lots were becoming full and visitors either parked in the staff parking or circled the parking lots looking for a parking space.

Figure 1: Graphical presentation of the numbers of visitors’ vehicles coming through the center entrance (red), vehicles entering visitors’ parking (green) and the pedestrian traffic into the hospital (blue).

Vehicles to be accommodated in the parking garage: Approximately two-thirds of the visitors’ vehicles were full-sized SUVs or pickups and many had rear extension platforms that extend 3-4 feet behind the vehicle to transport mobility devices. Two way traffic flow and wide turning radiuses need to be accommodated in the span and bay spacing of the new parking garage.

Valet parking: Valet parking appears to provide a valuable parking service that reduces congestion and increases the general flow of traffic and pedestrian safety. The valet parking staff parks an average of 150 cars per day. However, despite the valet parking staff aggressively managing the queueing line into valet parking, the queue of vehicles waiting for valet parking occasionally blocked the entrance to the emergency room parking. Although the vehicles could be moved, the queue line is bumper to bumper and moving a waiting-for-the-valet vehicle could take time.

Vehicle and Pedestrian traffic flow Pedestrians Vehicles entering center entrance Vehicles to vistors' parking

Figure 2: The waiting line for valet parking is aggressively managed; however, occasionally the queue line for valet parking blocks traffic and the entrance to the emergency room.

Observations and Recommendations:

Impact of wayfinding on traffic flow: Although a majority of the visitors were familiar with the campus layout, some visitors were not and typically used the south entrance to access visitors’ parking rather than the more direct center gate. A traffic count of the vehicles entering the center/main gate was taken to determine the frequency with which the drivers used the center gate to drive directly to visitors’ parking.

From traffic observations (summarized in Figure 1), and considering that hospital staff was arriving through the center gate, it appears that a high percentage of the drivers entering visitors’ parking for morning appointments were more likely to know the campus layout than those visitors who were arriving in the afternoon.

The following observations are arranged sequentially according to the travel path from Veterans Memorial Drive to Road 1A (headed east) to the Visitors’ Parking and then exiting the campus via Road 1B (westbound).

Entering the campus from the south entrance: As a first time visitor, it is not clear which entrance to use to access Building 204. The most direct route to the Building 204 entrance is the center gate; however, the access from Veterans Memorial Drive gives no indication of that fact. Coming from the south, the visual emphasis is upon the southern-most entrance which has the Avenue of Flags, a traffic light and a right turn lane to reinforce the perception that the south entrance is the main entrance. Similarly, the north entrance has a turn lane into the campus. The center entrance on 1st Street is a relatively narrow entrance and does not appear to be a significant entrance based upon the lack of turn signal, turning lane or landscaping/decoration.

Recommendation: Work with the City of Temple to reconfigure Veterans Memorial Drive with a right turn lane and widen the entrance (Road 1A) and exit (Road 1B) to emphasize the center/main entrance as the principal entrance to the campus and the hospital.

Figure 4: Arriving from the south, the center entrance does not appear to be a significant entrance.

Figure 3: Arriving from the south, the south entrance, with a turn lane, traffic light and Avenue of Flags appears to be the main entrance to the campus

Travel path from the center gate to the visitors’ parking: The traffic route to and from the visitors’ parking lot, signage and pavement markings contributed to the occurrence of “wrong way” drivers noticed during the observations and traffic counts.

Signage: Entering from Veterans Memorial Drive through the center gate and onto Road 1A, the driver is confronted with eight important signs to read while trying to decide where to go. Several of the signs are redundant and could be removed and signs such as the speed limit sign could be relocated further down Road 1A to help reduce visual clutter.

Figure 5: As shown in this photo through the windshield, upon entering the campus through the center entrance, the driver has a large number of signs to comprehend while deciding where to go

Recommendation: Remove the redundant signs and move the signs that can be relocated farther down Road 1A to reduce the visual clutter.

Valet parking pavement markings: Fortunately, the majority of the people who plan to use valet parking are familiar with the valet parking procedures and location; however, the pavement marking directing the driver to valet parking is generally ineffective because it can’t be seen due to glare or cars parked in the queue awaiting valet parking.

Figure 6: Photo taken from the windshield; “Valet parking” painted on the right lane, is invisible

Recommendation: Instead of “Valet Parking” spelled parallel to traffic flow, consider placing the “valet parking” text perpendicular to the travel lane and much closer to the intersection. Add a second set of pavement markings approximately midway to the valet drop off.

Directional signs that can’t be seen or are confusing: As shown in Figure 7, inbound Road 1A has directional signs parallel to the path of travel. By the time the signs can be read, there is little time to react. Also, the sign directing the driver to handicapped parking encourages backing up or at least stopping to decide how to access the advertised handicapped parking.

Figure 7: Road 1A (inbound road to Visitors’ Parking): Some signs are parallel to traffic and, if seen, imply that the driver can head the wrong way to get to Handicapped Parking

Recommendation: Align the signs perpendicular to traffic and modify the signs to accurately reflect intended traffic flow.

Road 1A entrance to visitors’ parking: As shown in Figure 8, the pavement marking on east-bound (incoming) Road 1A implies that the two incoming lanes actually continue into the visitors’ parking lot. In reality, the entrance to visitors’ parking is 1.5 lanes wide which forces one driver to unexpectedly yield.

The observers noticed two cars simultaneously trying to enter the visitors’ parking.

Figure 8: Entering the visitors’ parking lot from Road 1A; occasionally two vehicles simultaneously attempt to enter the single lane entrance to the visitors’ parking

Recommendation: Select one lane for “through traffic” to the parking lot and mark the lanes accordingly

Exiting Visitors’ Parking: A driver exiting the visitors’ parking lot heading west to Veteran Memorial Drive, has six path choice and two of them are wrong. As shown in Figure 9, the exiting driver has to choose from Road 1A (two lanes), Road 1B (two lanes), and a right or left turn onto roads 3A or 3B. The observers noticed two drivers exiting onto Road 1A (i.e. going the wrong way).

Figure 9: Leaving visitors’ parking, the driver is confronted with six (6) exit choices and two of them are wrong; there are no pavement markings to help the decision making process.

Recommendation: Pavement marking would help direct the driver to exit safely.

Road 1D, the cross-over between Roads 1A and 1B: Road 1D allowed a wrong-way driver to drive up Road 1B (outbound lane) and enter the right side of the visitors’ parking lot (through the outbound lane). Road 1D striping is confusing; as shown in Figure 10, the turn arrow appears to be in the wrong lane.

Figure 10: Heading west on Road 1B from visitors’ parking: Road 1D, the cross over between Road 1A and 1B, appears to be marked incorrectly (left turn arrow is in the “right” lane)

Recommendation: Restripe Road 1D with a center line and properly mark the turn arrow on the pavement

Pedestrian crossing signage obscures the pedestrian: The curve on Road 3A, the trees, the planter and the pedestrian crossing sign all help obscure the pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk. Fortunately, no negative interaction between vehicle and pedestrian traffic was noted during the traffic study observations.

Figure 11: Pedestrians and their vision are obscured by the pedestrian crossing sign

Recommendation: Relocate the pedestrian crossing sign farther to the east.

Traffic Observation Conclusions: A high percentage of the visitors using the center entrance are headed to visitors’ parking and are familiar with the route and the valet parking routine. There were “near misses,” typically involving “wrong way” drivers observed; however, the 10 mph speed limit was observed by the drivers and helped keep the near misses from being catastrophic.

II. Proposed siting of the visitors’ parking garage and configuration Introduction The proposed parking garage provides the opportunity to remove some of the traffic routing issues present in the surface parking. Although the parking garage will necessarily be sited near the entrance to Building 204 some separation to allow firefighting operations is necessary. A major consideration for the parking garage will also be accessibility, ease of wayfinding and segregation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic to the maximum extent possible.

Siting Considerations: From the traffic study observations, several parking garage siting considerations were taken into account:

The parking garage should be as close to building 204 as firefighting operations allow to minimize the travel distance for pedestrians Entry and exit to visitors’ parking should be simple and intuitive A return lane is required for valet parking that is short and efficient; valet parking patrons are often not able to withstand prolonged waiting for the return of their vehicle The parking garage could resolve the traffic issues associated with curved roads 3A, 3B and valet parking The footprint of the parking garage should fit within the existing parking lot as closely as possible while leaving as much space in the north lot for additional visitors’ parking as possible The ratio of length to width should be a close to 1:1 as possible to shorten walking distances and to fit on the site.

Parking garage design/RFP considerations:

Several design parameters drive the dimensions of the parking garage:

A minimum of 8’-6” floor to “ceiling” clearance.

Considering structural depths, the distance from finished floor to finished floor would be approximately 12’-0.”

The maximum slope on the ramp sections would be six (6) degrees The minimum ramp horizontal length to accommodate the 12’-0” floor to floor distance considering a 6 degree slope, would be 200 feet Two way traffic through the parking garage is important to accommodating the typically longer

SUV or pickup trucks used by the majority of the visitors and to give ample turning radii Structural clear spans of approximately 62’ would accommodate straight-in parking and two way traffic Maximize the number of level parking spaces A typical bay dimension of approximately 36’x 62’ would optimize parking spaces and pre-cast concrete structural standard dimensions

Considering the planning parameters, the minimum length would be approximately 314’ and the minimum width would be approximately 185’. For a three floor parking garage, these dimensions would provide approximately 436 parking spaces including a minimum of 22 handicap parking spaces.

III. Opinion of Cost

Rough order of magnitude costs estimates for parking garages are often estimated by the parking space.

Recent national prices have ranged between roughly $10,000 per parking space for “bare bones” parking garages and $25,000 per parking space for high-end parking structures. Based upon 436 parking spaces, the low end cost estimate would be approximately $4.36 million and the high end cost estimate would be approximately $10.9 million. With four elevators anticipated and a recent trend of maximizing the use of cast-in-place concrete to minimize liability risk, the proposed design for the parking garage should easily fit within the maximum construction budget.

Tr af fic S tu dy

Co ns tr uc t V isi to r P ar ki ng G ar ag e Ce nt ra l T ex as V et er an s H ea lth

C ar e Sy st em

, T em pl e, T X

Pr oj ec t 6

-2

O ve rv ie w

Pu rp os e of th e

Tr af fic S tu dy

St ud y

M et ho do lo gy

O bs er va tio ns a nd re co m m en da tio ns

Pr op os ed

P ar ki ng

G ar ag e s it in g an d co nf ig ur at io n

O pi ni on o f c os t

Pu rp os e of th e Tr af fic

S tu dy

Fo cu s o n th e tr af fic fl ow th at a ffe ct s t he pa rk in g ga ra ge p ro po se d sit e( s)

De te rm in e th e op tim um ro ut e to th e ne w in g ga ra ge

Id en tif y tr af fic is su es a nd re co m m en d s o lu tio ns

Ev al ua te si gn ag e an d w ay fin di ng

Pr op os e sit e an d co nf ig ur at io n fo r p ar ki ng g a ra ge fic S tu dy

M et ho do lo gy

M an ua l c ol le ct io n of tr af fic d at a on

T ue sd ay

M ay a nd W ed ne sd ay

M ay

O bs er va tio ns th ro ug h a m id

-w ee k, d ut y da y cy cl e

O bs er ve d an d re co rd ed p ed es tr ia n, in co m in g an d ou tg oi ng ve hi cl e an d va le t t ra ffi c

O bs er ve d

“p ot en tia l m ish ap s”

Ev al ua te d sig na ge a nd w ay fin di ng o nt o th e ca m pu s fr om th e ci ty a nd o n th e ca m pu s

M ea su re d ex ist in g pa rk in g sp ac es a nd c irc ul at io n la ne s an d co ns id er ed im pa ct o f p ar ki ng g ar ag e on c irc ul at io n

Ev al ua te d va le t p ar ki ng q ue ui ng la

Gr ap hi ca l p ed es tr ia n an d ve hi cl e tr fic su m m ar y

05010

-0

-0

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

Ve hi cl e an d

Pe de st ria n tr af fic fl ow

Pe de st ria ns Ve hi cl es e nt er in g ce nt er e nt ra nc e

Ve hi cl es to v ist or s' pa rk in g bs er va tio ns a nd

Re co m m en da tio ns

G en er al

O bs er va tio ns

Ex ist in g pa tie nt p ar ki ng in lo t F h as re gu la r p ar ki ng sp ac es a nd

Ha nd ic ap p ar ki ng sp ac es

N or th lo t-re gu la r s pa ce s;

S o ut h lo t-re gu la r s pa ce s a nd

Ha nd ic ap p ar ki ng sp ac es

Va le t p ar ki ng

-2 re gu la r s pa ce s a nd ha nd ic ap sp ac es pr ed om in an tly u se d by v isi to rs a fte r h ou rs

In co m in g tr af fic fl ow is h ea vi es t b et w ee n th e ho ur s o f 7

:0 0-

:0 a.

m . a nd fr om n oo n to

:0 p.

m

By m id af te rn oo n, th e no rt h an d so ut h lo ts w er e es se nt ia lly fu ll an d so m e vi sit or s e ith er h ea de d to th e st af f p ar ki ng lo ok in g fo r p ar ki ng sp ac es o r c irc le d th e pa rk in g lo t u nt il th ey fo un d a sp ac e in th e no rt h or so ut h lo

Va le t P ar ki ng

A re a

Va le t p ar ki ng h as re gu la r s pa ce s a nd ha nd ic ap s pa ce s;

v al et p ar ki ng u se d by a ll vi sit or s a fte r h ou rs er al

O bs er va tio ns

(c on tin ue d)

Va le t s er vi ce

, t yp ic al ly u se d by re pe at c us to m er s,” re du ce s th e co ng es tio n an d ap pe ar ed to p ro vi de a v al ua bl e tr af fic an d pa rk in g co nt ro l s er vi ce

In co m in g tr af fic fl ow h ea vi es t b et w ee n th e ho ur s o f 1 a.

m an d p.

m

Av er ag e of v eh ic le s p er d ay in v al et p ar ki ng

Ap pr ox im at el y tw o-th ird s o f t he v isi to rs

’ v eh ic le s a re lo ng er

SU

Vs o r P ic ku ps

; m an y ha ve re ar e xt en sio n pl at fo rm s t o tr an sp or t m ob ili ty d ev ic es

“W ro ng

-w ay d riv er in ci de nt s w er e no tic ed a pp ro xi m at el y ev er y 1.

ho ur s

N o po te nt ia l m ish ap s w ith p ed es tr ia ns o bs er ve d;

sp ee d w as n ot o bs er ve d as a n iss ue bs er va tio ns

: E nt ra nc e to th e

Ca m pu s

As a fi rs t t im e vi sit or it is n ot c le ar w hi ch e nt ra nc e to u se

Th e m os t d ire ct p at h to p at ie nt se rv ic es in

B ui ld in g ha s ch an ge d bu t t he a cc es s f ro m

V et er an s M em or ia l D riv e ha s no t

Fr om th e so ut h 1st

St re et , c en te r e nt ra nc e w hi ch le ad s di re ct ly to

B ui ld in gs a nd

, d oe s n ot a pp ea r t o be th e pr in ci pa l e nt ra nc e fo r v isi to rs

Av en ue o f f la gs

, t ra ffi c lig ht a nd ri gh t t ur n la ne re in fo rc e pe rc ep tio n th at so ut h en tr an ce is th e m ai n en tr an ce

Tu rn la ne s o n th e so ut h an d no rt h bu t n ot o n th e ce nt er

W id th o f e nt ry la ne d oe s n ot re fle ct th e im po rt an ce o f t he ce nt er e nt ra nc e as th e m ai n vi sit or e nt ra nc e

Ap pr oa ch to th e Ca m pu s:

S th

En tr an ce

Th e

So ut h en tr an ce w ou ld a pp ea r t o be th e pr in ci pa l e nt ra nc e (t ra ffi c sig na l, Av en ue o f F la gs a nd a tu rn in g la ne in to th e ca m pu s)

Ap pr oa ch to th e ce nt er e nt ra nc e

N o tr af fic si gn al o r t ur ni ng la ne to e m ph as ize th e en tr an ce ’s im po rt an ce

Si gn ag e

At th e ce nt er e nt ra nc e, th e dr iv er h as e ig ht si gn s t o co m pr eh en d w hi le d ec id in g w he re to g o Re co m m en da tio n:

re m ov e re du nd an t s ig ns a nd re lo ca te so m e sig ns to re du ce v isu al c lu tt er

Pa m en t m ar ki ng s

A ph ot o th ro ug h th e w in ds hi el d;

Va le t p ar ki ng pa in te d on th e rig ht is no t v isi bl e

Re co m m en da tio n:

p ai nt va le t p ar ki ng pe rp en di cu la r t o th e lin e of tr d at d iff er en t l oc at io

So e sig na ge is fa ci ng th e w ro di re ct io n

Ro ad

A

(in bo un d ro ad to V isi to rs ’ P ar ki ng

S om e sig ns a re p ar al le l t o tr af fic a nd

, i f s ee n, im pl y th at th e dr iv er c an h ea d th e w ro ng w ay to g et to H an di ca pp ed P ar m m en da tio n:

A lig n th e sig ns p er pe nd ic ul ar to tr af fic a nd m od ify sig ns to re fle ct th e in te nd ed tr af fic fl ow

En y to th e vi sit or ’s pa rk in g lo t

O cc as io na lly tw o ve hi cl es si m ul ta ne ou sly a tt em pt to e nt er th e sin gl e an ce to th e vi sit or s’ p ar ki ng

Re co m m en da tio n:

S el ec t o ne la ne fo r “ th ro ug h tr af fic an d m ar k th e la ne s a cc or di ly

Ex iti ng th e vi sit or s’ p ar ki ng lo t t o

Ro ad

1A

, 1 B, A or

B?

Th e dr iv er is c on fr on te d w ith si x

(6 ) c ho ic es a nd tw o of th em a re w ro ng ; c ur ve d dr iv es a nd la ck o f s tr ip in g af fe ct d riv er o rie nt at io n

Re co m m en da tio n:

U se p av em en t m ar ki ng s t o he lp th e dr iv er m ak e in fo rm ed ch oi s

Co nf us in g Pa ve m en t M ar ki ng s (

Ro

1D

) h ea di ng to w ar d th e ex it

He ad in g w es t o n

Ro ad

B:

R oa d 1D is m ar ke d in co rr ec tly

(l ef t t ur n ar ro w is in th e

“r ig ht la ne

Re co m m en da tio n:

R es tr ip e

Ro ad

D w ith a c en te r l in e an d pr op er ly m ar k th e tu rn a rr ow m en t m ar ki ng s

Th e pa ve m en t m ar ki ng o n th e rig ht si de o f t he p ar ki ng lo t e xi t l an e im pl ie s t w o w ay tr

Va le t p ar ki ng q ue ue b lo ck s e m er ge nc y en tr

Pe de st ria n cr os sin g sig na ge

Pe de st ria ns a re o bs cu re d by th e pe de st ria n cr os sin g sig n

Re co m m en da tio n:

R el oc at e th e pe de st ria n cr os sin g sig n fa rt he r t o th e ea st fic C ou nt

C on cl us io ns

A hi gh p er ce nt ag e of th e ve hi cl es u sin g th e ce nt er en tr an ce a re h ea de d to v isi to rs

’ p ar ki ng

Fr om in te rv ie w s w ith d riv er s;

a v er y hi gh p er ce nt ag e of th e vi sit or s a re v er y fa m ili ar w ith th e ro ut e to v isi to rs pa rk in g

N ea r m iss es in cl ud ed

Dr iv er s g oi ng w ro ng w ay o n ro ad s 1

A an d 1B

Tw o dr iv er s s qu ee zin g in to th e sin gl e la ne o f t he p ar ki ng lo t a t t he sa m e tim e

Le av in g th e pa rk in g lo t f ro m th e en tr an ce la ne

Sl ow sp ee ds k ee p ne ar m iss es fr om b ei ng c at as tr op hi c

Pr op os ed

P ar ki ng

G ar ag e

Si tin g an d Co nf ig ur at n tin g Co ns id er at io ns

Pr ov id e a re tu rn la ne fo r v al et p ar ki ng

M in im ize p ed es tr ia n an d ve hi cl e tr af fic in te ra ct io n

De al w ith c ur ve d ro ad s 3 A, B an d va le t p ar ki ng sp ac es

Fi t w ith in th e ex ist in g pa rk in g lo t f oo tp rin t a s cl os e l y as p os sib le

Pr ov id e fir e fig ht in g ac ce ss to th e ho sp ita l a nd pa rk in g ga ra ge

Si m pl ify e nt ry a nd e xi t t o vi sit or s’ p ar ki ng g ar ag in g

Ga ra ge R

FP

/d es ig n co ns id er at io ns

Ac ce ss ib le

M in im um o f 8 ’-6 cl ea ra nc e;

a pp ro xi m at el y

’-0 fr om fin ish ed fl oo r t o fin ish ed fl oo r

M ax im um o f 6 d eg re e slo pe fo r p ar ki ng ra m ps

M in im um o f 2

’o f r am p le ng th to a cc om m od at e th e flo or to fl oo r h ei gh t

Tw o w ay tr af fic th ro ug h th e pa rk in g ga ra ge is im po rt an t t o ac co m m od at in g th e ty pi ca lly lo ng er S

U V or p ic ku p tr uc ks u se d by th e m aj or ity o f t he v isi to rs

Cl ea r s pa ns o f a pp ro xi m at el y

’ t o ac co m m od at e tw o w ay tr in g

Ga ra ge R

FP

/d es ig n co ns id er at io ns

M in im ize th e fo ot pr in t o f t he p ar ki ng g ar ag e to op tim ize th e av ai la bl e su rfa ce sp ac e

M ax im ize th e nu m be r o f l ev el p ar ki ng sp ac es

Ba y di m en sio ns o f a pp ro xi m at el y

’x

2’ w ou ld op tim ize p ar ki ng sp ac es a nd p re

-c as t c on cr et e st ru ct ur al st an da rd d im en sio ns

M in im um le ng th a pp ro xi m at el y

4’

Ap pr ox im at el y pa rk in g sp ac es p er fl oo r w ou ld re qu ire a th re e flo or p ar ki ng g ar os ed si te

Ho sp ita l, Bu ild in g

Ap pr ox im at e fo ot pr in t o f t in g ga ra ge bl

-P rim ar y en tr y th ro ug h th e so ut he as t a so ut hw es t b ay o f th e ga ra ge

-W ou ld re qu ire re nf ig ur at io of os t c ur ve d ro ad s

-V al et p ar ld re tu rn ug h th e so ut he as hw es os ed si te

Ho sp ita l, Bu ild in g

Ap pr ox im at e fo ot pr in t o f t in g ga ra ge b lu e

-E nt ra nc e th ro ug h th e so ut he as hw es t

-V al et p ar ld re tu rn ug h so ut he as t an d so ut hw es t

-L ea st a m ou nt o f re co nf ig ur at io of ex ist in g ro s pi ni on o f C os ts

Re ce nt b id s f or p ar ki ng g ar ag es h av e ra ng ed be tw ee n th e

$1 0, pe r p ar ki ng sp ac e fo r

“b ar e bo ne s” p ar ki ng st ru ct ur es to ap pr ox im at el y $2

5, p er p ar ki ng sp ac e fo r hi gh le ve l f in ish es

Lo w e nd p ar ki ng g ar ag e co st w ou ld b e

$4 .3

6M ; h ig h en d w ou ld b e $1

0.

M

Q st io

Basis of Design and Assumptions‐Focus Group Meeting Minutes and Slides

16 August 2016 Focus Group Meeting Slides

Minutes

Focus Group

AE Construct Visitors’ Parking Garage, Project 674-280 Construct Visitors’ Parking Garage

16 August 2016

1. Attendee sign-in sheet is included at atch 1.

2. The meeting was opened by Ms. Kelly Garcia, Architect. A presentation was given by Homer

Guy, the project manager for HFS, the company developing the RFP for subject project.

Powerpoint slides from the presentation are included at atch 2.

3. The bulk of the discussion centered on the siting and orientation of the parking garage to maximize parking spaces and optimize traffic flow through the central part of campus. It was decided that an East-West parking garage orientation would best benefit the visitors’ parking experience and that HFS would explore siting options to refine traffic flow on the site and present at the next Focus Group meeting.

4. The following questions were posed to the group or Ms. Garcia during and after the meeting.

HFS’ understanding of the answers are included. Those areas requiring further action or discussion are highlighted in yellow.

RFP QUESTIONS

A. What level of design development do you want for the RFP and how much latitude do you want to allow the D-B contractor? – A: Suggest areas

B. Administering the D-B contract

a. Who provides day-to-day inspection during construction? A: The VA

b. Who approves technical design and how many reviews? A: VA staff

C. Construction details

i. Staging area – A: Mark on drawings

ii. Limits of construction: A: Mark on drawings

iii. Haul routes: A: Mark on drawings

iv. Specifying temporary visitors’ parking during construction (recommend: to the north; D-B contractor provides walkway and temporary signage)

v. Who pays cost of temporary (construction) power? A: The VA

D. RFP design requirements:

a. What findings should be corrected by the traffic study? A: As a minimum, in/out parking and narrow/confusing entrances.

b. Minimum floor to ceiling height? A: Design for accessible van clearance; minimum clearance 8’-3”

c. Design for ambulance clearance? A: No.

d. Design for dualies? A: No. Add signage to restrict dualies to surface parking.

e. Design for tow-truck clearance? A: According to the manufacturer, light duty tow trucks (i.e. light duty [F-550 and comparable chassis]) are approximately 79” tall with an 8” light bar and are not as tall as an accessible van at 8’-3”.

f. Plan for vertical or horizontal expansion? A: Plan for horizontal expansion

g. Confirm parking garage axis direction. A: East-West

h. Is reconfiguration of the curved drives acceptable? A: Yes, especially to avoid traffic flow through the parking garage and counter to pedestrian traffic.

i. Do you want concrete wheel stops (bumper blocks) or curbs or bumpers along the reinforced wall? A: wheel stops

j. Diagonal or straight-in parking? A: Diagonal, one-way traffic except on the ramp

(straight-in/two-way traffic).

k. Height of the perimeter walls, especially at the top floor; any safety or fenestration desires? A: Screening is required above ground floor. Minimum 6 ft screen height at the top floor; screening shall not allow a toe-hold. No screening necessary on ground floor; in fact, perimeter wall facing hospital is not required. Openings in the screening shall comply with Life Safety Code. Minimum 2 square feet of opening per linear foot of screen. Propose ideas or specify minimum requirements

l. Do you want more than two entrances/exits on the parking garage? A: Depends on the traffic flow

m. Location of two elevators: A: Southwest corner, nearest the entrance to the hospital

n. Covered walkway into hospital? A: Additive bid

o. Specific landscaping desires? A: Xeriscaping or irrigated landscaping

p. Special Lighting? A: None; however, provide 30 footcandles of illumination (and use LED lights) in the parking garage

q. Wayfinding within the garage. A: Propose a system

r. Rain-protected lobby on top floor? A: Yes, and covered area for stairwells

s. “Best” brand locks? A: Ms. Garcia will confirm Best (brand) 8-pin cores with Delbert

King.

t. Hardware finish? A: Brushed Stainless steel

u. Is there a Temple VAMC signage standard? A: Use Temple VAMC and VA standard.

v. Smoking area required? A: no

w. Open stairwells preferred? A: yes. Stairs should be minimum rise per tread length

x. Accommodate an Evacusled system near stairwell: Evacuation chair? Storage?

One per each upper floor? As equipment, who provides? If VA provides, the RFP should state the model or storage space requirements. Should Evacusled storage be locked?

y. Elevator preferences?

i. Specific brand? A: No.

ii. Size: recommend 4000# elevator as that is the minimum size to get a gurney inside. A: Agree.

iii. Type: Hydraulic or traction? A: No preference; however, Hydraulic would probably be cheaper. Use vandal/graffiti-resistant frames and doors and cab interiors.

iv. Lexan panel on outside of the elevator cab to aid with visual orientation, lighting and provide some visual security? – A: Add as an alternative bid item

v. One-year service agreement after beneficial occupancy?- A: yes

z. Fire protection:

i. Dry pipe sprinkler system? A: yes

ii. Who provides fire protection services and what are their requirements?

City of Temple provides fire protection and firefighting services.

iii. Fire Department Connection (Siamese?): A. standard requirements

aa. Electrical requirements:

i. Any receptacles required away from the elevator/stairwells? A: Provide 30Amp, GFCI circuits midway (approximately half of the traffic aisle) to aid housekeeping.

ii. Any electric vehicle recharging stations required? A: no

bb. Security and surveillance requirements

i. What are the requirements?

ii. Who provides the security cameras and installs?

iii. Where do security and surveillance systems connect with monitoring?

cc. Emergency telephones: any special requirements? where, besides elevators, should they be located? A: Located only in the elevators

dd. Any medical equipment (e.g. defibrillator, etc.) located on each floor?

E. Design-Build (D-B) Guide Specification RFP Questions:

a. How should proposed changes to the VA’s Design-Build RFP guide specification be addressed? A: Prefer tracked changes on the draft RFP to help show where changes/ suggestions have been proposed.

b. How do you want to select the Design-Build contractor?

i. What selection criteria would you like and importance given to the Selection

Criteria? A: make recommendations

ii. How much design information do you want to see from the D-B designer?

A: make recommendations

iii. Do you want interviews as part of the selection process? A: no.

iv. Do you want to pay stipends to use features of the “best design/proposal not selected?” A: no.

c. Will the name/project number for the construction project be the same as the AE project? (i.e. project 674-280 Construct Visitors’ Parking Garage)? A: yes

d. What construction period would the VA prefer? A: 300 days

e. The VA’s Standard guide specification for RFP for Design-Build projects calls for submittal with a SF 1442 (Solicitation Offer and Award form). A: Include in the RFP

f. Who would be the contracting officer to be listed on this form (information for the

SF 1442)? A: TBD; the Contracting Officer information can be added as the VA builds the contract package.

g. Section B Selection Criteria: This section may require buy-in from the contracting officer as the VA RFP guide specification places a higher emphasis upon price than upon other criteria and limits the ability of the D-B contractor to provide (additive bid) enhancements that Temple would like to have (e.g. landscaped paths, elevator enhancements, canopies at top floor, etc. We may want to modify the guide specification to give Temple VAMC more flexibility to select a best value. This probably deserves a face-to-face discussion; could we discuss after the Focus Group meeting? A: To be discussed.

h. The RFP guide spec does not really call for a bid schedule; however, we recommend one to help evaluate additive bids. A: Propose bid schedule.

i. How many design reviews from the D-B design team do you want and at what intervals? A: Follow VA Guide specification.

F. $1.2 million in additive bid items is to be included in the RFP package. A discussion of potential bid alternatives identified the following as potential additive bid items. The prioritization of additive items will be discussed at future focus groups:

a. Wi-fi; many patients access their appointment information electronically and need access to the internet while in the parking garage.

b. Covered walkway from the garage to the hospital

c. Extra elevator(s)

d. Conduit for future fiber optics from parking garage to hospital

e. Lexan panel on outside of the elevator cab

f. Air conditioning in the elevator cab(s)

g. Emergency generator power for lighting and elevator

5. The focus group adjourned at 11:30 hours. The next scheduled focus group will be held on Thursday, 8 September. Anticipated presentation and discussion topics include: Review of minutes; revised site and floor plans; and review of draft RFP Statement of Work features and additive bid items.

Homer Guy

HFS project manager

Attachments

1. Sign in sheet

2. Presentation tr uc t V isi to r P ar ar ag e

Fo cu s G ro up

M ee tin g

A ug us t 2

M s.

K el ly

G ar ci a, V A

Pr oj ec t M an ag er Ho m er

G uy

, H

FS

(C on tr ac to r)

P ro je ct

M an rv ie w

In tr od uc tio ns a nd si gn in

Re m ar ks M s.

K el ly G ar ci a

Pa rk in g

Ga ra ge P ro je ct D el iv er ab le s

Ho m er G uy

Tr af fic S tu dy re su lts Ho m er

G uy

Pr op os ed P ar ki ng G ar ag e fe at ur es Ho m er

G uy

Ac tio n ite m re vi ew a nd n ex t m ee tin g da te M s.

K el ly

G ar ci ar ks

-M s.

K el ly G ar ci a, P ro je ct

M ag er

•A pp re ci at e yo ur p ar tic ip at io n •W hy p ro je ct is im po rt an t •W ha t w e as k of y in g

G ar ag e

Pr oj ec t

De liv er ab le s

•T ra ffi c st ud y •D es ig n- Bu ild S ta te m en t o f W or k fo r a p ar ki ng s p ac e Vi sit or s’ p ar ki ng g ar ag e

Pr e-ca st c on cr et e pa rk in g st ru ct ur e

Si te w or k in cl ud in g ac ce ss ib le p at h to th e m ed ic al c en te r

St ai rs a nd e le va to rs

Li gh tin g an d fir e pr ot ec tio n

Bi d al te rn at iv es to m ax im ize th e m on ey

T em pl e

VA

h as a v ai la bl e

•R en de rin g of th e pr op os ed p ar ki ng g ar fic S tu dy

R es ul ts

Tr af fic

S tu dy P ro ce ss

Ill us tr at e fin di ng s u sin g ph ot os he re a re th e po in ts t h at n ee d to b e m ad e:

So m e ea sy to c or re ct c ha ng es d ur in g ro ut in e m ai nt en an ce

So m e tr af fic ro ut es a nd c ho ic es a re c on fu sin g;

n ea r m iss es ev er y 1.

ho ur s;

c or re ct ab le

Re pe at c us to m er s a re fa m ili ar w ith w he re th ey a re g oi ng a nd ho w to g et th er e an d th at im pr ov es sa fe ty

A m aj or ity o f t he d riv er s a re m id dl e-ag ed o r y ou ng er

Dr iv er s a re w el l-m an ne re d an d ob ey th e tr af fic la w s

Ea st -W es t t ra ffi c ro ut e be tw ee n pa rk in g lo t a nd e nt ra nc e to ho sp ita l n ot e as ily re lo ca te d

Va le t p ar ki ng p ro vi de s a se rv ic e th at n ee ds to b e ac co m m od at ed in th e pa rk in g lo t d es ig in g

G ar ag e

Si tin g an d tr flo

Pa rk in g Ga ra ge d es ig n go al s:

M ak e it sa fe

Re ad ily u nd er st an da bl e pa th in to a nd th ro ug h th e pa rk in g ga ra ge

Se pa ra te p ed es tr ia n an d ve hi cl e tr af fic a s m uc h as p os sib le

Si m pl ify e nt ra nc e/ ex it to th e su rf ac e pa rk in g lo t a nd th e pa rk in g ga ra ge

Ac co m m od at e ea st -w es t “ th ro ug h” tr af fic

Ac ce ss ib le

M in im um c le ar an ce is v an h ei gh t

Ke ep c ur re nt n um be r o f a cc es sib le p ar ki ng sp ac es

Ea sil y ac ce ss ib le e le va rs

Ac co m m od at e la rg er v eh ic le s ( ke ep e xi st in g pa rk in g lo t sp ac g) in g

G ar ag e

Si tin g an d tr in se rt m ap o f t he E as t-W es t o rie nt at io n w ith p ro s an d co in g

G ar ag e

Si tin g an d tr in se rt m ap o f t he N or th

-S ou th o rie nt at io n w ith pr os /c on s) in g

G ar ag e

Fe at ur es

-G ro un d flo or p la n in se rt p ro po se d pl an s o f t he p ar ki ng g ar ag e sh ow in g ve hi cl e an d pe de st ria n tr af fic fl ow s f or ea ch fl oo r) in g

G ar ag e

Fe at ur es

-S ec on d flo or p la n in se rt p ro po se d pl an s o f t he p ar ki ng g ar ag e sh ow in g ve hi cl e an d pe de st ria n tr af fic fl ow s f or ea fl in g

G ar ag e

Fe at ur es

-T op

(3 rd flo or p la n in se rt p ro po se d pl an s o f t he p ar ki ng g ar ag e sh ow in g ve hi cl e an d pe de st ria n tr af fic fl ow s f fl in g

G ar ag e

Fe at ur es n on

-p ar ki ng g ar ag e pa rk in g sp ac es re m ai n (o ut sid e)

6% sl op e on th e ra m p;

a

2f t f lo or to fl oo r h ei gh t w ou ld ha ve a ra m p th at is fe et lo ng

(i n pl an

Th re e-st or y st ru ct ur e;

to p (3 rd ) l ev el a t a pp ro xi m at el y ft ab ov e gr ad e

M in im um o f 4 p ar ki ng sp ac es in th e ga ra ge

Ex ist in g 9f t x

8f t m in im um (p er pe nd ic ul ar

) p ar ki ng sp ac e w ith a pp ro xi m at el y ft la ne a llo w s t w o-w ay tr af fic

St ai rs a nd e le va to r l oc at io ns

Sa fe ty m ea su re s

AL

TE

RN

AT

IV

E

BI

D

IT

EM

S?

os ed

P ar ki ng

G ar ag e fe at ur

(p ot en tia l d isc us sio n/ de cis io n ite m s)

De sig n fo r a m bu la nc e cl ea ra nc e?

De sig n fo r t ow

-t ru ck c le ar an ce el ev at or s-

-g la ss o n on e sid e to h el p w ith o rie nt at io n?

Co nf irm n or th

/s ou th a xi s a lig nm en t

W ha t f in di ng s s ho ul d be c or re ct ed b y th e tr af fic st ud y?

re co nf ig ur at io n of th e cu rv ed d riv es

Bu m pe r b lo ck s, c ur bs di ag on al o r s tr ai gh t-i n pa rk in g he ig ht o f t he p er im et er w al ls, e sp ec ia lly a t t he to p flo or

; a ny sa fe ty o r f en es tr at io n de sir es

M or e th an tw o en tr an ce s/ ex its

Co ve re d w al kw ay in to h os pi ta l

Sp ec ifi c l an ds ca pi ng d es ire s

Sp ec ia l L ig ht in g?

W ay fin di ng w ith in th e ga ra ge

O th s?

n Ite m R ev ie w xt m ee tin g da te

Basis of Design and Assumptions‐Focus Group Meeting Minutes and Slides

8 September 2016 Focus Group Meeting

Minutes

Focus Group

AE Construct Visitors’ Parking Garage, Project 674-280 Construct Visitors’ Parking Garage

8 September 2016

1. Attendees: Ms. Garcia, Mr. Leckie and Mr. Guy attended.

2. The meeting was opened by Ms. Kelly Garcia, VA Architect and COR. A presentation was given by Homer Guy, the project manager for HFS, the company developing the RFP for subject project. Powerpoint slides from the presentation are included at atch 1.

3. The parking garage will be oriented East-West with horizontal provision for expansion. The bulk of the discussion centered on diagonal parking, screening and prioritization of additive bid items. The following decisions were made:

a. 8’-3” clearance from floor to bottom of the deck will accommodate small (heavy-duty truck chassis tow trucks).

b. Forty-five (45) degree parking on the level areas with 9ft x 20ft parking spaces, 16ft wide aisles and one-way traffic was selected. On the ramp (sloped parking), 9ft x 18 ft parking spaces, two-way traffic and 90 degree parking will be specified.

c. Wayfinding: A combination of color and graphics unique to each floor

d. Evacusled Evacuation Chair and Evacusled: One Evacuation chair and one Evacusled will be placed on each upper floor. Both pieces of equipment will be hung in a niche to prevent a tripping hazard. The VA will provide the Evacusled equipment.

e. Security and surveillance requirements: HFS will require security cameras and conduit in the SOW; location and type to be directed by VA.

f. Screening: Screening will provide fall-prevention and will allow at least 40% free area.

Top floor screening will extend six (6) feet above the parapet wall.

4. The Alternative Bid items in priority order are:

a. #1 Covered Walkway from the Garage to the Hospital

b. #2 Fabric Cover for top floor parking

c. #3 Elevator improvements (lexan panels in elevator cab and air conditioning in the elevator)

d. #4 Additional elevator

5. The follow-on meeting with Ms. Garcia and Mr. Guy reviewed the draft RFP. Changes/edits are attached (see atch 2).

6. The focus group adjourned at 11:30 hours.

Homer Guy

HFS project manager

Attachments

1. Presentation, 8 September 2016

2. Draft RFP (with changes from meeting) tr uc t V isi to r P ar ag e

Fo cu s G ro up

M ee tin g

S ep te m be r 2

M s.

K el ly

G ar ci a, V A

Pr oj ec t M an ag er Ho m er

G uy

, H

FS

(C on tr ac to r)

P ro je ct

M an rv ie w

Si gn in sh ee t

O pe ni ng Ke lly G ar ci a

Re ca p ou r l as t m ee tin g Ho m er

G uy

Re vi ew o f m in ut es a nd a ct io n ite m s

Ho m er G uy

De sig n pr ef er en ce s

Re vi se d sit e pl an Ho m er

G uy

De sig n el em en ts

Ho m er G uy

Ad di tiv e bi d ite m s a nd p rio rit ie s Ho m er

G uy

Ac tio n ite m re vi ew a nd n ex t m ee tin g da te Ke lly G ar ci ca p of o ur

Au gu st m ee tin g

Di sc us se d ba sic d im en sio ns o f t he p ar ki ng g ar ag e

Cl ea ra nc e of

’-3 be tw ee n flo or a nd

“c ei lin g” ac m m od at e ac ce ss ib le v an s ( an d st an da rd to w tr uc ks

Es ta bl ish ed p re fe rr ed si tin g as

E as t-W es t o rie nt at io n an d ho w w e pr ef er to tr av el th ro ug h th e sit e

Ke ep a s m an y tr ee s a nd su rf ac e pa rk in g sp ac es a s p os sib le

An gl ed p ar ki ng a nd o ne

-w ay tr af fic o n th e fla t/ le ve l p ar s d eg re e pa rk in g an d tw o-w ay tr af fic o n th e ra m ps

M ak e it us er fr ie nd ly a nd sa fe

(i .e

. i nc re as ed li gh tin g, lo slo pe st ai rs

, s cr ee ni ng , e tc vi ew o f 1

Au gu st m ee tin g m in ut es •P le as e se e ha nd ou ts

M in ut es in cl ud e di sc us sio n du rin g an d af te r t he

Au gu st

F oc us G ro up m ee tin g

An y c or re ct io ns

•S om e ar ea s w ill b e di sc us se d in th e O pe n ac tio n ite m (n ex t s ec tio

n) fo r c la rif ic at n ite m

Dk

Po te nt ia l Sc re en in g so lu

Po nt ia l W al l f in ish

W al l a nd in te rio r f in ish n ite m s fr om fi rs t m ee tin g

•P ar ag ra ph

Dq

W ay fin di ng w ha t i s t he p re fe rr sy st em

(e

.g . c ol or s, si gn s?

•P ar ag ra ph

Dx

. E va cu sle d Ev ac ua tio n

Ch ai r •P ar ag ra ph

Db b:

S ec ur ity a nd su rv ei lla nc e re qu ire m ts

•P ag ra ph

Dd d:

A ny m ed ic al e qu ip m en t l oc at ac h flo er d es ig…