Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver Campus Master Plan (CMP):

Transcription

1 Revision Number 0 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver Campus Master Plan (CMP): Feasibility Study (FS) Guide November November 2014

2 Disclaimer This document and its contents are for the private information and benefit only of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver (RCAV), for whom it was prepared. The contents of this document are not to be reused in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without prior adaptation by, and the prior specific written permission of RCAV.

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Background 1 2 CMP: Feasibility Study Objectives and Requirements Objectives Requirements 2 3 CMP: Feasibility Study - Team 5 4 CMP: Feasibility Study Process 8 Appendix 1 Campus Master Plan: Feasibility Study Template Appendix 2 Glossary

4 1 Introduction 1.1 Background In July 2012, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver (RCAV) undertook a seismic engineering study of all their building facilities in the Lower Mainland to determine their structural capacity in a significant earthquake. This study was completed in April 2013 and summary reports showing buildings ranging from needing little to no work, to those requiring extensive structural upgrades, were released to each Campus. Following this, each Campus has been asked to demonstrate by November 30, 2015 that they have begun planning for Infrastructure Renewal (IR), with a particular focus on further improving seismic safety for school children and their parishioners. To help facilitate IR Planning, the RCAV has developed two Campus Master Plan (CMP) Programs: Campus Master Plan: Parish Needs Assessment (CMP: PNA): A questionnaire developed by RCAV which asks Campuses to consider their demographics, neighbourhood context and finances in preparation for undertaking a more comprehensive Feasibility Study and completing a building project (if necessary). Campus Master Plan: Feasibility Study: (CMP: FS): A comprehensive study to address seismic deficiencies and unmet functional needs and future challenges of the campus through the development of IR options and the recommendation of a preferred option that serves the needs of the campus. The RCAV recognizes that each Campus is unique; each has different needs, means and objectives. To address this, the CMP: PNA has been developed as a precursor to the more comprehensive CMP: FS. The CMP: PNA questionnaire is available online at rcav.org and can be completed in-house at minimal/no cost. This Guide focuses on the CMP: FS and as a result the CMP: PNA is not discussed in detail here. This document has been developed for Campuses to guide them through the CMP: FS process and to allow them to determine their needs and to establish practical IR objectives. This Guide will serve as a working framework outlining the key elements, CMP: FS milestones and processes that should be adhered to in order to ensure successful CMP: FS implementation as outlined in Sections 2, 3 and 4. 1

5 2 CMP: Feasibility Study Objectives and Requirements 2.1 Objectives The objective of the CMP: FS is to address reported seismic deficiencies, functional needs and future challenges of the campus through the development of options and the recommendation of a preferred option that will serve the future needs of the campus. 2.2 Requirements To achieve objectives set out in Section 2.1, a number of key assessments must be completed and specific IR Options should be explored. This section documents the key items to be delivered as part of the CMP: FS Assessments Site Assessment This assessment examines the current use of the campus site. It includes municipal considerations such as zoning, planning, utilities, traffic and parking, environment and potential for future development. Facilities Functional Assessment This examines the current use of the facilities on campus to determine whether campus community needs are currently being met. This includes new facility needs, and future school and parish enrolment. Facilities Condition Assessment This examines the current condition of the facilities on the site. It includes architectural, HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems as well as building code compliance. This may also include hazardous material testing and building materials testing if required. Seismic Risk Assessment This involves the review of the previous Seismic Risk Assessment and Retrofit Considerations Study (Seismic Study) completed in 2013; all buildings that were rated either Medium or High risk must be reassessed in more detail. Once the assessment is completed and Medium or High Risk confirmed, then a practical retrofit strategy should be produced (more information on the level of detail required in Section 4). It is preferable to have both the assessment and conceptual retrofit upgrade design completed in accordance with the performance based Ministry of Education s (MoE) Seismic Retrofit Guidelines 2 nd Edition (SRG2) Infrastructure Renewal Project Options A minimum of two options are required to be developed for the CMP: FS. These options include: Option 1 Stand Alone Seismic Upgrade This option involves the seismic upgrade of all Blocks deemed to have either Medium or High Seismic Risk in the 2013 Seismic Study and confirmed in the reassessment as noted in 2

6 Upgrade concepts should be developed by the structural engineer for all such buildings and the Option should include the input of the civil, mechanical and electrical engineers and an architect. The architect will also examine any requirements or voluntary desires for code upgrades. A cost estimate is to be prepared. Option 2 Full Replacement This Option involves the complete replacement of all Campus Buildings on the site. It is typically developed by an architect in conjunction with a planner. This option is also costed (usually based on a unit area rate). Typically this Option is quite expensive, but may have value should all or the majority of existing Campus Buildings either be functionally inadequate or costly to retrofit. It forms a reference to gauge the relative cost of the other options. Options 3 and 4 Combination Seismic Upgrade and New Build Usually two additional Options are developed (at the discretion of the Campus Representatives). These Options can be an amalgamation of Options 1 and 2. These Options may include the seismic upgrade of the existing buildings along with functional changes as required; depending on the needs of the Campus, some new construction may be required (for instance if the school enrolment or church attendance numbers are forecast to increase). All Options are costed to approximately ±30% accuracy. Once a preferred Option is chosen by the Campus Representatives that Option is refined and a detailed phasing plan is developed that best suits the Campus needs. The Phasing plan is to be developed in collaboration with the Campus Representatives, and costs should be assigned to phase in a manner that allows the Campus to develop a tentative funding plan and implementation schedule. Figure 1 shows the makeup of the CMP: FS team and professionals to have input to each Option. 3

7 Figure 1 Recommended Teams of Professionals for each upgrade Option 4

8 3 CMP: Feasibility Study - Team The IR Options are outlined in Section 2. Each Option requires different teams of professionals and varying levels of effort. This section describes the roles of all parties involved and gives the Campus guidance as to how they might establish their CMP: FS team. The composition of the team is decided by the Campus Representatives or a committee organized to complete the CMP: FS. The Campus has a number of options. They may approach a professional firm to act as prime consultant to organize the entire team and facility the CMP: FS. The prime consultant will then form a CMP: FS team and guide the Campus through the CMP: FS process. Alternatively, the Campus may create their own team using in-house resources. Finally, the Campus could supplement an external consultant s team by utilizing in-house Campus professional resources with the capabilities required to complete the services if a Prime Consultant is retained, they will be responsible for overseeing the project management/coordination duties and will have ultimate responsibility for all sub-consultants and delivery of the CMP: FS report, incorporating all Campus and RCAV input during the course of the CMP: FS. The CMP: FS team is required to include the following professionals: Campus Representatives The Campus Representatives play a vitally important role in the development of a CMP Feasibility Study. The Campus representatives are the driving force behind the development of IR options. In the early stages the planner or Prime Consultant facilitates discussion and guides the Campus Representatives but ultimately it is the needs and objectives of the Campus representative s that dictates the options and their evaluation. As the project moves forward, the Campus Representatives continue to collaborate with the CMP: FS team to develop realistic, meaningful options. Typically the Campus Representatives are the Parish Pastor and key members of his Parish Finance/Building Committees and School Principal. RCAV Representatives The role of the RCAV Representatives is to help facilitate the CMP: FS process by explaining Archdiocesan policies, procedures and requirements for the successful completion and approval of the CMP: FS. RCAV Representatives attend at a very minimum, Meeting #1 and subsequent meetings when possible. Typically the RCAV Representatives are the Buildings and Properties Planner and Archbishop s Delegate for Infrastructure Renewal and Property Stewardship. Depending on whether or not a school building is involved, a Representative from the CISVA may also be in attendance. RCAV Representatives can also include staff from the Office of Project Management and Archdiocesan Finance Office (when necessary). Planner The Planner works closely with Campus Representatives to facilitate discussion to develop an understanding of their needs and desires from the outset of the project. Based on the information gathered the Planner, in collaboration with the Campus Representatives and 5

9 CMP: FS team develops high-level functional requirements for each IR Option that may be developed further by other members of the CMP: FS team. Architect The Architect works closely with the Campus Representatives and Planner to develop upgrade/renewal strategies that meet the needs of the Campus. This involves the development of single line sketches, simple elevations/ renderings and input into the text of the CMP: FS report. The Architect or Architectural Firm should have experience with institutional and school projects. The architect should also be familiar with the requirements of the municipality in which the campus is located as municipal requirements and processes can vary and have a significant impact on the project cost and outcome. Structural Engineer The Structural Engineer will perform a detailed seismic risk assessment of all buildings on the Campus that were found to be of either Medium or High Seismic Risk in the Seismic Study completed in He/she will develop seismic retrofit concepts, illustrated with sketches that allow a cost estimator to develop construction costs to ±30% accuracy. A brief seismic report should be written and should be signed and sealed (as per APEGBC requirements). The Structural Engineer is required to be a licenced Professional Engineer in British Columbia and preferably has experience in Seismic upgrading and institutional buildings. Certification in and the use of the Ministry of Education s (MoE) Seismic Retrofit Guidelines (SRG2) is recommended. Mechanical Engineer The Mechanical Engineer will perform a condition assessment of the existing facilities on Campus and develop a report which examines the existing mechanical systems on site, identifies any systems that require upgrade based on code/condition and recommends changes that may benefit occupants. A brief mechanical report should be written and should be signed and sealed (as per APEGBC requirements). The Mechanical Engineer is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer (P.Eng) in British Columbia and should have experience with institutional buildings. Electrical Engineer The Electrical Engineer will perform a condition assessment of the existing facilities on Campus and develop a report which examines the existing electrical systems on site, identifies any systems that require upgrade based on code/condition and recommends changes that may benefit occupants. A brief electrical report should be written and should be signed and sealed (as per APEGBC requirements). The Electrical Engineer is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer (P.Eng) in British Columbia and should have experience with institutional buildings. Civil Engineer The Civil Engineer will perform a condition assessment of the existing site services on Campus and develop a report which examines the existing systems on site, identifies any 6

10 systems that require upgrade based on code/condition and recommends changes that may benefit occupants. A brief civil report should be written and should be signed and sealed (as per APEGBC requirements). The Civil Engineer is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer (P.Eng) in British Columbia and should have experience with institutional buildings. Cost Estimator The Cost Estimator should be familiar with school and institutional construction, and seismic upgrade projects The following professionals may be required at some Campuses. Usually, the requirement for such services is discussed in the initial CMP: FS team meeting and a consultant may be either hired directly by the Campus or the sub-consultant or be available using in-house resources: Geotechnical Engineer In situations where existing geotechnical data is unavailable and in the Structural Engineer s judgement obtaining such data is essential to develop the seismic retrofit concept, the Campus may arrange for a Geotechnical Engineer to complete a preliminary study of the affected area. The Geotechnical Engineer is required to be a licensed Professional Geoscientist (P.Geo) in British Columbia. Material Testing Specialist In situations where existing structural/architectural drawings are unavailable, and in the structural engineer s judgement conducting material testing is important to develop the seismic retrofit, the Campus may retain a Material Testing Specialist to complete a preliminary study of the affected area. Hazardous Material Testing Specialist In situations where no previous hazardous material testing have done on the Campus, or one of the options significantly affects areas containing hazardous materials, the Campus may retain a Hazardous Material Testing Specialist to complete a preliminary study of the affected area. Other professionals as required. 7

11 4 CMP: Feasibility Study Process The procedure recommended for performing and completing the CMP: Feasibility Study as a follow up to the CMP: PNA is outlined concisely in the flow charts below; each step is expanded upon in the pages that follow. Note: the steps outlined in this Section form a recommended process; each project is unique and in some cases additional steps may be required. This work flow plan is not a rigid framework, instead it should be used as a guideline by each Campus to develop their own project schedule, and they may add, remove or change steps at their discretion. Phase1 CMP: Parish Needs Assessment CMP: PNA-Phase : The Campus is to complete the CMP: PNA questionnaire which is available online at The PNA is a newly developed IR program developed by RCAV and is a Campus led process to perform the preliminary planning for future projects. 8

12 Phase 2 CMP: Feasibility Assessment Step 1 Formation of Team - The team is to be formed by the Campus Representatives and should include professionals or specialists described in Chapter 3. All relevant existing documents should be made available to CMP: FS team members. 9

13 Step 2: Meeting #1 This is the initial kick-off meeting and should be attended by the Campus Representatives, the RCAV Representatives and the CMP: FS Team key members. The purpose of this meeting to listen to the needs of the Campus Representatives, facilitate the planning discussions, establish the functional requirements based on the CMP: PNA and discuss the implications of the 2013 Seismic Study. Key project items such as the availability of construction documents should be discussed and a CMP: FS schedule should be determined. A decision on whether additional resources such as geotechnical / materials / hazardous materials testing specialists are needed should be made as early as possible in the process, preferably during this meeting. Step 3: Assessment The Structural Engineer performs a site visit, reviews available documentation and conducts a seismic risk assessment based on his or her findings. If the re-assessment confirms Medium or High seismic risk per SRG2, he or she then develops a seismic upgrade concept that is practical and constructible. The remainder of the CMP: FS team visits the site to familiarized themselves with existing conditions. Step 4: Meeting #2 This meeting is to be attended by the Campus Representatives and the CMP: FS Team key members. It may be attended by the RCAV Representatives if requested by the Campus Representatives. The purpose of this meeting is two-fold; to discuss the results of the seismic assessment and any renewal implications; and to discuss possible upgrade and or other building options that would allow the Campus to fulfill their functional needs. It must be emphasised that this is a truly collaborative process and that the function of the planner or Prime Consultant is to facilitate the discussion, and to develop Options that meet these needs. Step 5: Development of Options - The CMP: FS Team is to perform the conceptual design, including the development of simple drawings to illustrate each option. The designs must be practical and feasible, taking into account constructability; all options are to be costed. Step 6: Assessment The CMP: FS Team perform further site assessments taking into account the impacts that seismic upgrade concept and other options will have on existing building systems. At this stage the CMP: FS Team will collaborate with the cost estimator to develop costing for each of the Options being developed. Step 7: Meeting #3 - This meeting is to be attended by the Campus Representatives and the CMP: FS Team key members. It may be attended by the RCAV Representatives if requested by the Campus Representatives. The CMP: FS team is to present the completed conceptual designs, including sketches and costs to the Campus Representatives. Based on discussions, the Campus Representatives are to choose the preferred Option. Step 8: Enhancement of Preferred Option The CMP: FS Team will refine the schematic design and cost estimate for the Preferred Option. A construction project schedule and phasing plan (split up based on years) is to be developed. Step 9: Meeting #4 - This meeting is to be attended by the Campus Representatives and the CMP: FS Team key members. It may be attended by the RCAV Representatives at if requested by the Campus Representatives. The CMP: FS Team is to present the final plan for the Preferred Option. Final questions and concerns are to be discussed and the Campus Representatives are to approve the final CMP: FS results. Step 10: Finalization of the Study The CMP: FS Team is to complete a draft report to be reviewed and commented on by the Campus Representatives. The final report is to address Campus Representative comments; all technical reports are to be signed (and sealed) as required. The Campus Representatives are to sign the Final CMP: FS report and submit it to the Buildings and Properties Planner for formal Archdiocesan approval. 10

14 Appendix 1 Campus Master Plan: Feasibility Study Template Appendices

15 Appendix 2 Glossary Infrastructure Renewal Parish Campus CMP: Feasibility Study (FS) CMP: Parish Needs Assessment (PNA) Demographics Parish Profile Site Use Assessment Functional Assessment Since the June 2013 release of the Seismic Risk Assessment Reports, a longterm program of Infrastructure Renewal as part of the Archdiocese s Three- Year Strategic Plan has been initiated. As part of Stewarding God s Gifts one of three major priorities outlined in the Archdiocese s Three-Year Strategic Plan, all Parishes have been asked to develop detailed Infrastructure Renewal plans by November 30, 2015 to renew or rebuild their schools, churches and other buildings to meet the latest earthquake building codes. According to Canon Law (Can ), a Parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop. A term used to refer solely to the collection of buildings and/or properties administered by a Parish. The terms Parish and Campus are often used interchangeably though Campus is meant to refer specifically to the physical infrastructure. A comprehensive study/report prepared by a team of professionals with input from the Parish community which details the most logical project(s) options, scopes, budgets and phasing. A strategic planning document developed by RCAV which asks Parishes to answer questions about their Parish community (demographics), neighbourhood context and finances in preparation for/and prior to undertaking the more detailed and formal CMP: Feasibility Study (FS). Population studies based on factors such as age, race, sex, level of education, income level and employment, among others. Demographics are used by governments, corporations and non-government organizations to learn more about a population's characteristics. A one-page presentation of a Parish s demographic information and the municipal context in which it is located. Parish profiles are produced annually and are used to identify and forecast demographic trends. The data used to create the profiles has been sourced from: The National Household Survey (NHS) 2011, 2006 Canada Census, BCStats, Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Projections (2011) and RCAV Spiritual Report Submissions ( ). Examines the current use of the campus site. It includes municipal considerations such as zoning, planning, utilities, traffic and parking, environment and potential for future development. Examines the current use of the facilities on campus to determine whether campus community needs are currently being met. This includes new facility needs, and future school and parish enrolment. Appendices

16 Condition Assessment Seismic Risk Assessment P.Eng. Seismic Retrofit Guidelines 2 nd Edition Examines the current condition of the facilities on the site. It includes architectural, HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems as well as building code compliance. This may also include hazardous material testing and building materials testing if required. The review of the previous Seismic Risk Assessment and Retrofit Considerations Study (Seismic Study) previously completed; all buildings that were rated either Medium or High risk are reassessed in more detail. A professional who has achieved the Professional Engineer designation with Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists in British Columbia (APEGBC). The Seismic Retrofit Guidelines 2 nd Edition are an innovative, cost-effective performance based approach to seismic retrofit developed by the Ministry of Education of British Columbia through a cooperative agreement with APEGBC and UBC. Appendices