26 October 2012

Central Kitchen/Catering Services/Woodshop

RELOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
University of Oregon Housing
1
University of Oregon Housing Central Kitchen/Catering
Services/Woodshop Relocation Feasibility Study
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary 3

2.0 Background and Process 4
2.1 Background and Process
2.2 Advisory Group
3.0 Program and Project Goals 8
3.1 Program
3.2 Site Selection
3.3 City Zoning and Land Use
3.4 Campus Plan
4.0 Design Considerations 11
4.1 Staff Access
4.2 Deliveries to Site
4.3 Deliveries to Campus
4.4 Infrastructure Improvements
4.5 Open Space Framework
4.6 Neighborhood Compatibility
4.7 Development Options
4.8 Future Development
5.0 Project Implementation 15
5.1 Design/Build Approach
5.2 Project Costs
5.3 Schedule
5.4 Next Steps
Appendices 13

2
3
University of Oregon Housing Central Kitchen/Catering
Services/Woodshop Relocation Feasibility Study
1.0 Executive Summary
The intent of this study is to assess the feasibility of locating University Housings
Central Kitchen, Catering Services and Woodshop on a new site in the East
Campus area, by identifying site development issues, project costs, a project
schedule, and the steps for project implementation. The study has confrmed the
following conclusions:
- The preferred site is adequate to support the relocation of the identifed
functions, which will consist of approximately 19,000 square feet of
space for a combined facility for Central Kitchen and Catering Services,
approximately 6,000 square feet of space for a new woodshop, and
supporting site and infrastructure development.
- The proposed use is compatible with the University campus planning
policies and City of Eugene land use requirements.
- Development of the site for the relocated functions can be achieved with
the budget of $8.5 million.
- Housings desire is to have all functions operational by mid-June of 2014.
The preferred implementation method of design/build can meet this
schedule.
- To meet the schedule, Housing should move forward immediately with
the frst steps required for project implementation, including seeking
authorization from University of Oregon administration and developing
design/build performance specifcations.
4
2.0 Background and Process
2.1 Background and Process
In the Spring of 2012, the University began planning for the relocation of
University Housings Central Kitchen, Catering Services and Woodshop functions
into a new site on or near the campus. Several sites, all east of the core campus
area, were examined for their potential to house these relocated services. A
preferred site, located mid-block between Columbia Street and Moss Alley and
south of 17th Avenue, was identifed for further study.
In the Summer of 2012, the University retained Robertson|Sherwood|Architects
pc to assist with preparation of a feasibility study examining the preferred site in
further detail, to identify pros and cons for development of the site and develop
conceptual site plans,estimates, and schedules.
A series of three meetings with the Advisory Group were held to refne project
goals, generate development options, and assess needs and next steps for the
project.
2.2 Advisory Group
University of Oregon, Campus Planning & Real Estate:
Fred Tepfer Project Planner
Chris Ramey University Architect
University of Oregon, University Housing:
Michael Griffel Director of Housing
Allen Gidley Senior Associate Director of Housing
Tom Driscoll Associate Director of Housing/
Director of Food Services
David Opp-Beckman Interim Facilities Capital Projects
Manager
University of Oregon, Student Affairs:
Gregg Lobisser Assistant Vice President for Capital
Projects

Robertson|Sherwood|Architects pc:
Scott Stolarczyk, AIA, CDT, LEED AP BD+C
James Robertson, FAIA, FCSI, CCS
5
University of Oregon Housing Central Kitchen/Catering
Services/Woodshop Relocation Feasibility Study
3.0 Program and Project Goals
3.1 Program
The stated program consists of two main components:
University Housing Central Kitchen and Catering Services
This will be a centralized kitchen facility that would replace two separate
and aging campus kitchens into a single larger production kitchen. The
new kitchen would replace the 9,000 square foot Central kitchen which
is currently in the basement of Carson Hall and the 7,000 square foot
Catering Kitchen which is currently in Bean Hall. According to University
Housing, the existing facilities are in very poor condition and with an
outdated layout that signifcantly hinders production capacity and does not
have the required amount of cold and dry storage for current and future
demand.
The proposed new Central Kitchen would be approximately 19,000-
20,000 square feet and will include a multi-bay loading dock, dry storage,
refrigerated storage, kitchen production facilities and offces. The facilities
will produce foods for both the residential dining system as well as campus
catering operations.
Refer to the appendices of this report for a more detailed program document
prepared by University Housing staff.
University Housing Woodshop
A woodshop is desperately needed for the University Housing operation.
Currently, carpentry and cabinet repair/replacement activities are spread
throughout the residence halls and adjacent support buildings, tucked into
spaces that are not conducive for activities of this nature (limited ventilation
for dust collection, fnishing; insuffcient storage and work space; etc.).
According to University Housing, Campus Environmental Health and
Safety personnel have expressed concerns regarding the current locations
of these activities which are under 50 year old residential living facilities
that were not constructed to accommodate uses of this nature. Additionally,
the one shop site not located in a residence hall is failing structurally and
will soon need to be demolished and replaced.
A wood shop of roughly 5,000-6,000 square feet will provide more effcient
use of resources, higher productivity, and allow for the current staff to
assume the additional workload generated from increased housing
capacity and renovation of current dated housing facilities.
Refer to the appendices of this report for a more detailed program document
prepared by University Housing staff.
Funding for this project will come from currently existing fund balances within
University Housing. No bonding or general fund resources will be used in this
project.
Existing Central Kitchen at Carson Hall
Existing woodshop
6
3.2 Site Selection
Campus Planning & Real Estate (CPRE) staff analyzed several sites in the East
Campus area prior to identifying a preferred site. Locations included:
- Former ODOT site at Orchard Street and Franklin Boulevard.
- North of 15th Avenue between Villard and Moss Streets.
- South of 17th Avenue on either side of Columbia Street.
Other University-owned property in the East Campus neighborhood that met
some of these criteria were not considered as viable sites for the project since
they have already been identifed for future projects, both for University Housing
as well as for University related academic programs.
The sites were assessed against key project goals, including:
- Distance to Barnhart Residence Hall (being farthest from campus).
- Access to the core campus area via small service vehicles (basically golf
carts).
- Access from Franklin Boulevard for deliveries.
- Matching building size with development height potential based on zoning.
- Room for expansion.
Refer to the Site Exploration Matrix in the appendices for an evaluation of how
investigated sites met the selection criteria.
The preferred site, at a mid-block location south of 17th Avenue and between
Columbia Street and Moss Alley, best ft the listed criteria found in the matrix. The
preferred site is recorded on Tax Map 18-03-05-11, Lots 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000
and 2400.
3.3 City Zoning and Land Use
Per the City of Eugene Land Use Code (Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code, or EC),
the preferred site has a base zoning of PL (Public Lands). The total area of the
preferred site has an overlay zoning of /EC (East Campus) and the northern tax
lots of the preferred site have an additional overlay zoning of /SR (Site Review).
The project will also need to address the policies of the Fairmount/U of O Special
Area Study Policies (EC 9.9570). Policies especially applicable to this project
include:
- Policy 3, encouraging PL zoned lands to be developed with energy and
space effcient structures and land use patterns.
- Policy 5, encouraging the consolidation of non-residential uses into areas
reserved for institutional use.
- Policy 9, requiring Site Review for properties within 100 feet of the one
privately-owned, owner-occupied parcel within the East Campus Overlay
District.
Views of site from Columbia Street
7
University of Oregon Housing Central Kitchen/Catering
Services/Woodshop Relocation Feasibility Study
Building height restrictions of a maximum of 30 feet apply to portions of the site
along the south end and at the northeast corner due to proximity to R-1 zoned
properties.
As part of the Site Review process, detailed information regarding stormwater
treatment management will need to be included in the application, as described
in EC 9.6791 through EC 9.6797. This requirement may have some impact upon
what information is required as part of the design/build proposals, in order to be
most effective with the overall project schedule.
3.4 Campus Plan
The Campus Plan, East Campus Development Policy and related University
documents and standards will apply to the project. Relevant Campus Plan
Policies, including a list of design patterns, will be part of a package of
information given to participants in the Design/Build selection process.
The East Campus Development Policy places some specifc criteria to site
design, such as:
- Building Height: The site sits within the area designated for Limited High-
Density Residential/Limited Institutional. For this area there is a height
restriction of three stories and 45 feet, although portions of the site are
limited to 30 feet due to proximity to R-1 zoned land. The sub-area that the
project site is within (Sub-Area 36), has a maximum Floor-to-Area Ratio
(FAR) of 0.5 and a maximum coverage of 0.3. This applies to the whole
sub-area and not exclusively to the project site.
- Open Space Framework Plan: An open space framework plan needs to be
developed as part of this development project. The extent of the framework
that needs to be developed would be for the project block only (East
17th Avenue to East 19th Avenue, and Columbia Street to Moss Street).
Campus Planning & Real Estate staff will coordinate the preparation of this
framework in parallel with the building design process.
- Establishing and Constructing Designated Open Spaces: The proposed
building size of 25,000 gross square feet (gsf) will require an area of at
least 3,000 square feet to be constructed within a designated open space
either within the development site, adjacent to the development site or
within a designated open space elsewhere on campus. The amount of
designated open space required to be constructed varies with the size of
the building and is set by categories of size. If this projects building size is
smaller than 25,000 gsf, it will drop to the lowest category and be required
to construction a lower proportion of its size (10%).
8
4.0 Site Considerations
4.1 Staff Access
Staff parking will remain unchanged from current practices. Staff currently park at
various campus parking lots. The preferred site is within easy walking distance of
several existing campus parking lots. It is possible that some staff may be able to
use existing parking lots and be closer to the preferred site than they are to their
current place of work.
4.2 Deliveries to Site
There will be an average of 7-9 deliveries to the Central Kitchen daily, consisting
of a mix of semi trucks and small box trucks. Incoming deliveries to the
woodshop are more infrequent, and will probably average about 2 deliveries per
week. Incoming deliveries come to the current facility locations primarily from off
Franklin Boulevard.
East bound traffc turns south onto Agate Street and then branches off to various
locations on campus. West bound traffc turns from Franklin onto East 13th at
the intersection to the east of Agate Street. From here vehicles then branch off to
locations on campus.
Delivery vehicle traffc through the campus and adjacent neighborhoods to the
new facility will remain virtually the same as current conditions since many of
these delivery vehicles stop at multiple locations on campus and at businesses
located within the surrounding commercial areas at the present time.
Refer to the itemized delivery schedule in the appendices for further detail on the
type and frequency of vehicle deliveries
4.3 Deliveries to Campus
An important consideration in the design of the project will be to not increase
(and decrease if possible) delivery traffc using the low density residential streets
immediately to the east and the south of this part of campus.
University Housing delivers fnished food product to campus primarily through
box trucks, vans or golf carts, depending on the quantities and locations.
Deliveries to residence halls and food service venues run on a regular set
schedule each day and average about 24 deliveries by box truck or van and
20 deliveries by golf cart. These outgoing deliveries would stay primarily on
University owned property, and would not impact the neighborhood east of
campus.
Catering deliveries to campus vary day by day depending on program needs.
Refer to the itemized delivery schedule in the appendices for further detail.
9
University of Oregon Housing Central Kitchen/Catering
Services/Woodshop Relocation Feasibility Study
4.4 Infrastructure Improvements
It is anticipated that the utility infrastructure for water, electricity, gas, sanitary
sewer, and stormwater sewer will need to be upgraded as part of development.
The site is generally served now by infrastructure for utilities with the notable
exception for stormwater. Per City records there is no stormwater sewer line
running in Columbia Street or Moss Alley adjacent to the site.
It is anticipated that the 20 foot right-of-way of Moss Alley will need paving
improvements from the site to the north end of the alley at 17th Avenue. It is to
be confrmed with the City whether alley improvements can extend to only the
loading dock location or if they will need to extend to the southern extent of the
project site. In addition, some development scenarios may necessitate a need to
widen the alley paving section to about 22 feet to 24 feet to accommodate two-
way delivery truck traffc.
4.5 Open Space Framework Plan
Earlier East Campus studies identifed a preliminary open space framework for
the area around the project site. The primary designated open space components
will be the street right-of-ways. In addition, potential pedestrian routes/designated
open pace running east west across the project block were identifed.
One route runs along the northern end of the project site and another runs in
the lot to the south of the project site. These east/west routes provide mid-block
pedestrian paths running from VIllard Street to Agate Street.
4.6 Neighborhood Compatibility
Compatibility with the residential character of the neighborhood is of importance
to both the University and neighborhood. Specifc design strategies were not a
part of this study, but requirements will need to be carefully spelled out in the
performance specifcations to go to design/build proposers.
In addition to architectural character, another key neighborhood compatibility
issue will be traffc patterns for incoming and outgoing deliveries. Consideration
of the improvements to Moss Alley and the loading dock function should also be
spelled out in the design guidelines, and not increase (and decrease if possible)
delivery traffc using the low density residential streets immediately to the east
and to the south of this part of campus.
View of Moss Alley
10
4.7 Development Options
The original scope of work was to look at three development scenarios; the
central kitchen and woodshop on the preferred site, the central kitchen only on
the preferred site and the woodshop on a different site. It was determined during
advisory group meetings though that the preference was to have both functions
on the preferred site, and development scenarios instead focused on looking at
different organizations of the components on the site.
The scope of this study was limited to look at building design using large program
areas only and did not include study of interior layouts. Therefore design options
generally kept the building footprint as simple and regular as possible, with some
articulation shown to illustrate concepts that might be applicable to land use or
Campus Plan requirements, such as orientation and placement of main building
entrances.
4.8 Future Development
The site area is somewhat constrained in the ability to accommodate future
building expansion and will also be infuenced by the fnal design confguration.
Future expansion is an important criteria for the central kitchen since future
needs and food production methods cannot be easily identifed now. A possible
scenario for expansion of the central kitchen would be to design the woodshop
for easy conversion to additional kitchen functions and relocate the woodshop to
another site.
11
University of Oregon Housing Central Kitchen/Catering
Services/Woodshop Relocation Feasibility Study
5.0 Project Implementation
5.1 Design/Build Approach
The preferred contracting method for this project is Design/Build. This is a
different contracting method than recent University projects (which are done
as Design/Bid/Build or by Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC)
methods), but is reasoned to be a good ft for this project given the size and
scope, and desire to fnd methods to reduce initial costs and time in the schedule.
In a Design/Build process, the key to a successful project will be the development
of a comprehensive set of documents that design/build proposers respond
to. The documents should cover design guidelines, a list of program spaces,
performance specifcations, cost, schedule and process. Some of these, such
as the design guidelines, may be produced by University staff. Others, such as
performance specifcations and the program space list, may be produced by an
outside consultant.
5.2 Project Costs
Total project costs are not to exceed $8.5 million. The project will be funded
entirely by existing University Housing reserves. This project budget includes all
funds that have been expended on project planning efforts to date.
Cost estimating for the building portions of the project were developed using
Means Cost Data for a brick clad warehouse as a baseline cost. Incremental
cost increases were added to refect the more intensive mechanical, electrical
and plumbing systems associated with a commercial kitchen and to refect
the energy performance requirements of the Oregon Model of Sustainability
(requiring improved energy performance over the Oregon Energy Code and
the State Energy and Environmental Design (SEED) guidelines.) The general
square footage costs in this report provides fexibility in what building materials
and systems could be incorporated by Design/Build proposers.
Standard costs per square foot for site development costs (parking, landscape,
etc.) used by the University for early planning estimating were used in the project
budgets.

Refer to the appendices for preliminary project budget spreadsheets for the three
development options included in this report. Note that the spreadsheets are
formatted assuming a CM/GC approach. Modifcations to the allocation of parts
of estimate may vary under a Design/Build approach
5.3 Schedule
The woodshop is to be open no later than mid-March 2014 in order for staff to be
able to be ready for their busier work season that runs from mid-March to mid-
October each year. The central kitchen is to be open by mid-June of 2014, after
12
the 2014 Spring term ends and before the IAAF World Junior Track and Field
Championships starts on campus at the beginning of July 2014.
Full details of the project schedule will be developed by the successful design/
build proposer, but there are some key items that will infuence the success of the
project, including:
- Site demolition and on-site construction cannot begin until after July 1,
2013 to allow for current lease agreements for the housing units to expire.
- The City of Eugene will typically not start review of building permit
applications until after a Site Review submittal has been approved. The
time needed to gain Site Review approval and receive a building permit
reduces the amount of time available for construction to 9 to 10 months.
- Demolition of the existing woodshop that is on the project site cannot
start until after mid-October 2013. Phasing of on site construction should
be mindful to minimize the amount of time that the woodshop is not in
operation.
5.4 Next Steps
The following tasks are to be tracked and completed as the project moves
forward towards selection of a design/build team:
- Determine the process and time requirement to gain central administration
approval to allow the project to move forward with design.
- Confrm that a design/build contracting approach is compliant with Oregon
Administrative Requirements.
- Gain approval from the Oregon University Systems Board. Approval is
required since the projects costs exceed $5 million.
- Create an RFQ for selection of a consultant to assist with development of
design/build performance specifcations.
- Develop a talking point document that includes a brief description of the
project, needs for project, funding for project, anticipated schedule, and
steps to be taken.
- Create a neighborhood outreach program.
- Meet with the City of Eugene traffc/transportation engineer to review the
delivery and distribution routing and frequency to confrm feasibility of
approach. Verify that a traffc impact analysis will not be required.
- Complete the open space framework plan for the project block (17th to 19th
Avenues and Moss to Columbia Streets).
- Develop design/build process and requirements; staff approach, user group
make-up, contract templates, etc.
- Submit request to the City of Eugene if an expedited Site Review process
and/or building permit review process is possible.
13
University of Oregon Housing Central Kitchen/Catering
Services/Woodshop Relocation Feasibility Study
Appendices
A. Advisory Group Meeting Notes
A1 Meeting 1- August 23, 2012
A2 Meeting 2- September 25, 2012
A3 Meeting 3 -October 8, 2012
B. CPRE Site Evaluation Diagrams
B1 Commissary Site Selection Diagram
B2 Housing Biennium Project Diagram
B3 East Campus Open Space Framework Diagram
B4 East Campus Open Space Framework/Housing
B5 Projects Diagram
B6 Commissary Exploration Matrix
C. City of Eugene Zoning Maps
D. Program Documents
D1 Central Kitchen and Woodshop Project
Descriptions
D2 Program Area Summary
D3 Woodshop Layout Diagram
E. Central Kitchen Delivery Schedule
F. Vicinity Map
G. Site Analysis
H. Development Options
H1 Option A
H2 Option B
H3 Option C
J. Project Budgets
J1 Option A Budget
J2 Option B Budget
J3 Option C Budget
J4 Preliminary Kitchen Equipment Costs
Spreadsheet
K. Project Timeline
14

Page 1 of 3
Housing Central Kitchen Relocation Feasibility Study
University of Oregon
August 23, 2012, 8-10 a.m.

Advisory Group Meeting 1 Notes:

1. Present:

Michael Griffel University Housing
Allen Gidley University Housing
Tom Driscoll University Housing
David Opp-Beckman University Housing
Chris Ramey Campus Planning & Real Estate CPRE
Fred Tepfer Campus Planning & Real Estate CPRE
James Robertson Robertson/Sherwood/Architects RSA
Scott Stolarczyk Robertson/Sherwood/Architects RSA


2. Planning/Site Selection:

a. Chris outlined the purpose of this study, which is to identify the pros, cons, issues, and steps
needed to allow the project to be implemented.

The project is to consist of a new approximately 18,000 square foot central kitchen and
approximately 5,000 square foot woodshop. The preferred site is located on mid block between
Columbia Street and Moss Alley and 17
th
and 19
th
Avenues. These will replace existing facilities
that are old and outdated and too small for current needs.

b. Chris gave an overview of the reasons for development of campus planning and some details on
the specific policies of the UO Campus Plan.

Pertinent planning documents will include the Campus Plan, the East Campus Development
Policy (ECDP), the Oregon Model for Sustainable Development (OMSD), etc.

c. The project will be funded through on hand reserves that Housing has. No bonding will be
necessary. Chris noted this simplifies some of the steps required to gain approval for moving the
project forward.

d. Housing would like to have the central kitchen operational by June 13, 2014.

e. Housing has looked at other large commercial kitchen spaces as precedents. The closest to their
vision was the new Market-of-Choice production kitchen in west Eugene, though the Housing
version is somewhat different, being a hybrid between a kitchen and production facility.

f. Tom has the names of a few food service consultants he has spoken with. He will share this
information with RSA.

g. A question to be researched; is the project large enough to trigger a need for enhancement of
the existing campus open space framework plan?

h. Since Housing owns the houses current on the preferred site, there is no need to move or replace
the displaced housing units. There is no on site parking that is being displaced.





Appendix A1

Page 2 of 3
i. Chris shared some past CPRE planning studies where various sites within the East Campus
boundaries and within the neighborhood east of campus were analyzed. Issues pertinent to site
selection included;
- Distance to Barnhart residence hall (being farthest from campus).
- Access to campus via small service vehicles (basically golf carts).
- Access from Franklin Boulevard for deliveries.
- Height, matching building size with development height potential based on zoning.
- Room for expansion.

j. Housing has plans for developing another 800 beds in the 2013/2015 biennium, through
construction of a residence hall and apartment style housing.

k. The study name was originally calling it a commissary, but central kitchen is more appropriate
to its function and focuses that it needs to be on campus, not located on some remote site in
Glenwood or west Eugene.

l. Locations at the center of campus were not considered, being deemed inappropriate given issues
with access for delivery vehicles, in the way of academic programs, and bringing in more cars to
the center of campus.

m. Room on site for future expansion is important to identify.

n. Chris noted what he thought were some of the more important planning issues for the project;
- Open Space Framework Plan: Is this project responsible for developing a framework for the
entire superblock, and also will it be required for all or some of construction costs of this
framework? Or is the current planning diagrams done sufficient to allow the project to keep
moving forward?
- Heights: Clearly identifying height limitations, as stated in the ECDP and City zoning.
- Sustainability: To meet the OMSD requirements, the building will need to be 35% more
energy efficient that current State code, and be LEED Gold certified. The functional lifetime
of the central kitchen at this location may not be 100 years, but consideration should be given
on how to maximize the life span of the building through future repurposing and retrofits.
- Transportation: Current thought is that delivery vehicles will come down Agate, turn east on
17
th
Avenue, and south into Moss Alley. Delivery traffic needs to be discouraged from
coming down Villard and through the adjoining neighborhood. Also, pathways on the site and
through adjacent sites should be considered as multi-modal (pedestrians, bicycles, golf
carts).
- Phasing: The existing woodshop is on site and operation needs to be maintained as long as
possible. It is possible it can be out of commissioning for a short period (60-90) days, but
definitely needs to stay in operation during the summer.

o. Neighborhood issues that should be noted in the report and addressed in the design include;
- Neighborhood Parking: While the Arena Parking District boundaries to not extend to site, it is
a sensitive issue for nearby residents.
- Matching this institutional development with the residential neighborhood. This would be the
first institutional development on the block, though there has been some planning efforts for a
new ADR building that will work in conjunction with the Law School, sited north of the
preferred site for this project.
- Traffic through the neighborhood.
- Building a warehouse in my backyard.


3. Building Program:

a. Opportunities to share a loading dock between the central kitchen and woodshop are preferable.
A dock leveler is desired.


Page 3 of 3
b. For the central kitchen, the basic flow diagram is; incoming deliveries, storage, production,
outgoing deliveries. Large amounts of product go out a few times a day (6-8). Smaller quantities
of catering goods go out many times a day (up to 120 depending on demand).

c. The receiving dock does not need to be sealed, but a cover is required.

d. Dry storage could be like high pile storage, with fork lift access. Fork lift access at cold storage is
desirable, also.

e. Sizes listed in program developed by Housing is based on existing conditions, not any specific
design.

f. Golf carts used for some deliveries are electric. Some delivery trucks could become electric in
the future. For now, exhaust at loading areas should be considered. Power for truck refrigeration
is needed at parking areas.

g. Currently fill 2-3 dumpsters a day.

h. There is a need for a large dedicated recycling and separation area. Recycling and composting
are important part of operations.

i. Consider possibility of a trash compactor, though currently not make a significant amount of solid
waste. Cardboard compacting and bundling would be a valuable function.

j. Oversight, control and food safety are critical (food temperature, etc.). This will be federally
certified to be a production kitchen. Tom can provide references to the programs under which
certification would occur. Actual certification of the kitchen can be obtained after move in has
occurred, so this will not be a critical item to the overall schedule.

k. There are about 25 employees plus student employees at any given time. There is not expected
to be an increase in personnel.

l. Back-up generator is required for refrigeration.

4. Next Meeting:

a. Development options review meeting; September 25, 2012, 2:00 p.m. at Housing offices.

Page 1 of 2
Housing Central Kitchen Relocation Feasibility Study
University of Oregon
September 25, 2012, 2-4 p.m.

Advisory Group Meeting 2 Notes:

1. Present:

Michael Griffel University Housing
Allen Gidley University Housing
Tom Driscoll University Housing
David Opp-Beckman University Housing
Chris Ramey Campus Planning & Real Estate CPRE
Fred Tepfer Campus Planning & Real Estate CPRE
James Robertson Robertson/Sherwood/Architects RSA
Scott Stolarczyk Robertson/Sherwood/Architects RSA


2. Neighborhood/Site Issues:

a. West bound traffic from Franklin Boulevard will need to turn south before Agate Street, which
does not allow for a south turn. Currently delivery vehicles turn onto 13
th
Avenue one block
before Agate, since they are going towards Carson. Neighbors will not want traffic going south on
Villard past 15
th
Avenue. Are existing traffic calming devices installed at this intersection as part
of the arena construction sufficient? Should signage be added directing truck traffic to turn west
onto 15
th
? Tom noted that they can write delivery directions into their contracts with vendors.

b. There is no planned increase in the amount of vehicle traffic. Trucks will be rerouted to a different
location then where they currently go on campus. Some trucks deliver just to the central kitchen
but there are many vendors who make stops at multiple locations on campus.

c. Greg raised concerns with the number of housing units impacted by development of the site, all of
which are generating income right now. Does this have impact to the financial viability of the
project?

d. A question was raised if this project and the law school ADR could be flipped to place the central
kitchen closer to 17
th
Avenue? This would minimize the amount of alley that must be improved as
part of this project. However, this places a potentially large and blank building elevation along
15
th
. Greg thought that the ADR was not an approved project yet, but Chris said it has received
early approval and is a gift-funded project so development could occur sooner rather than later.
Also, moving the central kitchen closer to 15
th
Avenue could trigger a requirement from Campus
Planning for higher quality exterior features and materials, which could offset cost saving from
reduction in the amount of alley improvements.

e. Truck traffic going through to 19
th
Avenue is problematic and probably not viable given narrow
width of 19
th
.

f. Mike stressed that this project needs to be a financially and programmatically deliverable project
for Housing.

g. Items to include in final report; outline extents of campus boundaries in the vicinity map, provide
simple diagram exploring swapping central kitchen and ADR sites, show zoning and sites of
private ownership in site analysis.


3. Development Options:

a. The woodshop functions could be down for up to 3-6 months. It can be down for the longer
period of time as long as shut down occurs between October 15
th
and March 15
th
.
Appendix A2

Page 2 of 2

b. Could parking be placed off site, either across the alley or on the ADR site?

c. Separating incoming and outgoing deliveries from one another may be a good feature. Incoming
could come to a loading dock. Outgoing deliveries can be through an at grade overhead door,
with a roof covering. Delivery truck have loading ramps.

d. Some advantages with Option A: shared loading, separate distribution from north, easy
expansion. Could this option be flipped on site to shorten the amount of alley improvements?

e. Schemes to move forward for continued refinement: A, C, E.

f. Woodshop needs to be operation by May 15, 2014.

g. Ideal to have kitchen operational by June 2014. The Junior World Track Championships are
occurring July 2014 and food services will be very busy then. There is some flexibility in this
date. If June 2014 is not possible, Housing would look for the next convenient point for a
transition.

h. Martina Bill will be back from maternity leave November 15
th
, 2012.

i. Central administration approval is required to move project forward. Not sure on timeframe
needed to gain approval. Chris will verify

j. The Campus Planning Committee Meeting One, to gain approval on site selection, could occur in
January 2014, after an RFP is issued for design team selection.

k. There is potential to consider a core and shell approach to design and construction, to give
Housing more time to develop interior layout.

l. Housing would like to consider the project as a design/build project instead of CM/GC?
Advantages to a shortened schedule and possible cost savings? To go with a design/build,
Housing will probably want ot hire a consultant to develop a performance specification. This
would cover programmatic, cost, and schedule issues, as well as issue for addressing Campus
Planning requirements.

m. Tom noted that some food service consultants he has spoken with include Curtis Restaurant
Equipment out of Springfield and Stafford Design Group out of Seattle.


4. Next Meeting:

a. Development options review meeting; October 8, 2012, 3:00 p.m. at Housing offices.

Page 1 of 2
Housing Central Kitchen Relocation Feasibility Study
University of Oregon
October 8, 2012, 3-5 p.m.

Advisory Group Meeting 3 Notes:

1. Present:

Michael Griffel University Housing
Allen Gidley University Housing
Tom Driscoll University Housing
David Opp-Beckman University Housing
Chris Ramey Campus Planning & Real Estate CPRE
James Robertson Robertson/Sherwood/Architects RSA
Scott Stolarczyk Robertson/Sherwood/Architects RSA


2. Neighborhood/Site Issues:

a. Outgoing deliveries from the Central Kitchen should be shown on the vicinity map. For clarity,
outgoing deliveries should probably been shown on a separate drawing from incoming deliveries.
Identify routes that have been approved by EHS for golf cart traffic.

b. Incoming traffic is to not come down Villard Street. Vehicles should cross Franklin Boulevard at
current locations and come down Agate Street

c. Tom provided a spreadsheet on the quantity and types of truck deliveries that currently come to
the Central Kitchen and Catering Services. Most incoming deliveries are in the morning.
Outgoing deliveries run on a fixed schedule throughout the day, at least for deliveries to food
venue locations. Catering deliveries changes day to day.

d. Many food vendors are making stops of other locations in the area, not just to the Central
Kitchen. Locations include Global Scholars Hall, Moss Street child care center, the law school
cafe, the Living Learning Center, Eugene City Bakery, Beppe & Giannis, etc.

3. Final Report:

a. The final development options are to be relabeled as A, B, C.

b. Site layouts should be sure to identify some area as a boneyard, for dumpsters, chemical rags,
dust collection, etc.

c. Consider approaching the City about designating some parking on Columbia as business parking,
or short term metering? This strategy might be a way to designate some short term visitor
parking that does not need to take up space on site. However, visitors may spend up to 45-60
minutes at the facility, so business designation (typically about 15 minutes) would not work.

d. There should be 3-5 visitor parking spaces at a minimum. This amount of spaces may not be full
throughout a day, but there do tend to be peak usage times where these many are needed.

e. Final report narrative to note the project budget is not to exceed $8.5 million. This needs to
include any money spend on planning work to date.

f. The final report should note that the central kitchen is to be operational by June 2014.

g. The final report should note that design/build is the contracting approach to be used.

Appendix A3

Page 2 of 2
h. The level of design detail needed for Site Plan submissions needs to be confirmed. It may need
to include more detailed information on stormwater management and other items that might not
typically be done during the proposal development phase by design/build proposers

i. A critical path item for the schedule will be to get administration approval. An RFQ for a
consultant to help with the performance specifications should not be issued until this approval is
given.


4. Next Steps:

a. RSA to issue a draft copy of the study report for review; target date of October 19th.
Appendix B1
Appendix B2
Appendix B3
Appendix B4
Appendix B5
City of Eugene - Base Zoning Map
CIty of Eugene- Overlay Zoning Map
UO - East Campus Central Kitchen Relocation
Zoning Maps
26 October 2012
Project
Site
Project
Site
Appendix C
Commissary/Catering Kitchen
23 August 2012
(prepared by University Housing)

Design Overview

This facility will accommodate and combine our existing Commissary Kitchen operations in
Carson Hall (9.022 sq ft currently) and our Catering operations in Bean Hall (12,163 sq ft
currently). By combining these two operations in one space we expect to reduce redundancy and
gain efficiency in production and delivery of product. The needs of these operations are best
described as a large scale production kitchen. The estimated square footage needed for this
combined kitchen operation areas are listed below.

Loading Dock and Service Areas

Loading Dock = (3 Trucks)
The loading dock and bay for the trucks would need to have enough for at least 3 trucks to be
loaded at once ( between Central and Catering), besides deliveries and garbage pickup.
Provide enough space for a fork lift to maneuver pallets and wide doors
All exterior doors should include Air Curtains for pest control
Delivery trucks can be full semi size (45 truck/trailer?)
Covered for rain protection at dock

Vehicle Parking/Storage
5 trucks, 4 golf carts, 2 vans
Both gas and electrical charging golf carts

Recycling & Garbage Areas = 400 sq ft
Pulping Scrapping area = should be adjacent to dishwashing area
Can Washing =
Garbage =
Recycling =
Composting = Use pulper to breakdown compostables?
Oil Recycling =

Staging Area = 1,000 sq ft
Adjacent to main cooler and loading dock allow staging of hot/cold carts prior to loading on
trucks and delivery
Should include power for hot carts

Food Storage Areas

Dry Storage Areas = 1,500 sq ft
Main Dry Storage = 1,200 sq ft
Soda/Beverage Storage = 200
Alcohol Storage = 100

Cold Storage Areas = 4,800 sq ft
Main freezer = 2,000 sq ft (or broke down into 2 freezers, which would probably be better)
Main cooler = 1,800 sq ft (Coolers should have some reach in doors built along the sides of
some for energy saving and accessibility)
Thaw Cooler = 300 sq ft
Coolers Freezers should have doorways large enough to accommodate pallet size loads.
Coolers should use Sliding shelf units to maximize space usage
Appendix D1
Blast Chiller = 300 sq ft
Vegetable cooler of 200 sq ft
Bake shop cooler (w/small Freezer section) 200 sq ft
Total cooler/freezer space = approximately 4,800 sq ft.

Food Preparation Areas
Food Prep areas = 5,100
Bakery = 27x 35 = 1000
Catering Kitchen = 30 x 30 = 900
Main Commissary Kitchen = 28 x 44 = 1,500
Bread Rack Storage Area = 200
Beverage Prep Area for Catering Coffee, Juice, Water prep = 300
Cold Food Prep Refrigerated Preparation Space for all Cold Prep = 1,200 sq ft
Sandwich Prep = 20 x 30 = 800
Vegetable Prep = 20 x 18 = 400


Equipment for food prep areas
1 Roll in Blast Chillers
1 Cook Chill System tumble chiller, 2 60 gal kettles, clipper, etc
1 Steamers *
Vacuum Tumble Marinater
Roll in coolers (for dough could be made part of walk-in)
Reach in coolers (for use is prep areas for frequently used items bases, spreads, cold cuts,
sushi, etc)* Could also be made part of walk-in.
3 Sandwich/Sushi prep tables *
Prep tables w/ drawers, bins, bakers tables*
Hand sinks
Utility sinks
2 60 gallon steam kettles
2 30 gallon steam kettle
4 30 gallon tilt skillets
4 Alto sham 20 pan Combi ovens
2 Alto sham 10 pan Combi ovens (existing)*
2 stacked Convection ovens
2 6 burner gas range
2 6 Gas Grills
2 2 Compartment Fryers
2 Pressure fryers
1 Bulk Slicer
2 Rotary Baking Ovens
2 1500lb Ice Machine
4 Mixers*
Ample Power for equipment with power to add on
Power drops for hot carts in various locations

Dish Washing and Storage Areas


Dishwashing Pot & Pan Cleaning and Storage = 1,500 sq ft
Pulping Scrapping area =
Pot Sink & Dishwashing = 750
Pot and Pan Storage = 750 sq ft
Pressure Washing area for cart cleaning =


Equipment Storage Areas = 1,600 sq ft
Linen = 20 x 20 = 400
Catering Equipment (table & Chair) = 1,000
Quack Pack Storage and prep = 200

Office Areas and Employee Areas

Office Areas = 2,000
Office Kitchen Chefs and Office support staff = 400 sq ft
Chefs office in Kitchen
Chefs Table / tasting room adjacent to Catering Office
Office for Catering/Conference staff = 1,300 sq ft
Staff locker and storage areas =

Wood Shop

Design Overview

Below are the components/elements that should be included in the Woodshop project. In
an effort to not have the space physically designed, staff stuck strictly to articulating the
necessary components that is desired to be available in the space.

Necessary for Well Functioning Woodshop Facility
5000 sq ft
Level and flat Concrete floor
Access to loading dock (could be shared) w/ access to fork lift
3 phase wiring available
Capacity to create spray room w/ appropriate ventilation and Exhaust
Built in exhaust & dust collection system w/ability to attach equipment throughout the
space
Exhaust should be distinct, and non-conflicting with Commissary exhaust if in same
building or an immediately adjacent structure.
Sound Insulation throughout
Significant storage racks for not only raw lumber and plywood but also for storing tables,
chests, beds and drawers that are being repaired.
Heating system integrated with supplied outside air
Sprinkler system tied to Food Service sprinkler system.
Fire alarm system for detecting and alerting DPS to fires or smoke, again tied in with
Food Service.
Perimeter security system to monitor door and window intrusions.
Up to date telecom services
Minimum 10 ft high perimeter walls
Adjacent location interior or exterior for storage of hazardous waste (finishes, chemicals,
used rags, etc)

Desired elements
8-10 large skylights to provide as much natural light as possible.
Perimeter security system to monitor door and window intrusions.
!"##$%&'()!&*+'$,-)!+,*'&.)/$*01+,)&,2)3""2)41"5
467!8)9:4;
!"#$%&'%() *+)$,%&'%()
9"&2$,-)<"0= --
>+1$0.+)6&'=$,-?4*"'&-+ --
@+0(0.$,-?A&'B&-+)7'+& .// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4*&-$,-)7'+& 01/// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
<'()4*"'&-+ 012// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3$45%6"7% 018// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&+9$:;#<#"$=# 8// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
!,>+?+, 0// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
!".2)4*"'&-+ .1@// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
("##A#" 81/// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
B++,#" 01@// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*?$C%B++,#" D// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
;,$E)%B?4,,#" D// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
F#=#)$G,#%B++,#"% 8// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
;$H#%B++,#" 8// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
C""2)6'+5+'&*$",) 210// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
;$H#"7 01/// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
B$)#"45= I// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
B+JJ4E$"7 01K// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
;#<#"$=#% D// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
B+,9%(++9%L"#M 018// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
<$%1D&%1$,-
LN,M45= 012// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
L+)%&45H K2/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
L+)%O%L$5%&)+"$=# K2/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
L"#EEN"#%P$E?45=
8EF$5#+,*)4*"'&-+) 01Q// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
R45#5 .// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*$G,#E%O%B?$4"E% 01/// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
L"+ME 8// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
GHH$0+)45&0+ 81/// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
B?#SE%TSS4>#%O%&NMM+")%&)$SS .// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
B$)#"45=%O%B+5S#"#5>#%&)$SS 01D// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
R+>H#"E% 02/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&)+"$=# 02/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3""2)41"5 21/// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
;"*&. 881I// %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23 August 2012 (prepared by University Housing)
Appendix D2
Proposed Woodshop Layout
(prepared by University Housing)
Appendix D3
Centra| k|tchen and Cater|ng k|tchen De||very Schedu|e
3 CcLober 2012 (prepared by unlverslLy Pouslng)
Incom|ng De||very Cutgo|ng De||very
Day Vendor Veh|c|e 1ype 1o Un|ts and Lvents Veh|c|e 1ype
Monday Allan 8ros Coffee van CenLral lood uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 8 dellverles
Alsco Llnen SLep van - uS SLyle CaLerlng 1ruck uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 10 dellverles
8akemark Seml - 43 fooL CaLerlng van uellverles van - 6 dellverles
lranz 8akery SLep van - uS SLyle Colf CarL uellverles Colf CarLs - 20 uellverles
lSA Seml - 43 fooL
Pumble 8agel van
aclflc CoasL lrulL Seml - 43 fooL
upqua ualry 8ox 1ruck - Large 33 fooL
Day Vendor Veh|c|e 1ype 1o Un|ts and Cater|ng Veh|c|e 1ype
1uesday Alsco Llnen SLep van - uS SLyle CenLral lood uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 8 dellverles
Chllders MeaLs 8ox 1ruck CaLerlng 1ruck uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 10 dellverles
Confluence larms van CaLerlng van uellverles van - 6 dellverles
Pumble 8agel van Colf CarL uellverles Colf CarLs - 20 uellverles
Ccean 8eauLy 8ox 1ruck
aclflc CoasL lrulL Seml - 43 fooL
epsl Seml - 43 fooL
Sprlngfleld Creamery 8ox 1ruck
Sysco Seml - 43 fooL
1oby's 1ofu van
upqua ualry 8ox 1ruck - Large 33 fooL
uS loods 8ox 1ruck - Large 33 fooL
Day Vendor Veh|c|e 1ype 1o Un|ts and Cater|ng Veh|c|e 1ype
Wednesday Chln's lmporLs Seml - 43 fooL CenLral lood uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 8 dellverles
aclflc CoasL lrulL Seml - 43 fooL CaLerlng 1ruck uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 10 dellverles
8L Schrelber van CaLerlng van uellverles van - 6 dellverles
Sysco Seml - 43 fooL Colf CarL uellverles Colf CarLs - 20 uellverles
umpqua ualry 8ox 1ruck - Large 33 fooL
uS loods Seml - 43 fooL
Day Vendor Veh|c|e 1ype 1o Un|ts and Cater|ng Veh|c|e 1ype
1hursday Alsco Llnen SLep van - uS SLyle CenLral lood uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 8 dellverles
uave klller 8read SLep van - uS SLyle CaLerlng 1ruck uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 10 dellverles
lranz 8akery SLep van - uS SLyle CaLerlng van uellverles van - 6 dellverles
lSA Seml - 43 fooL Colf CarL uellverles Colf CarLs - 20 uellverles
Pay 8ales larm van
Pumble 8agel SLep van - uS SLyle
Pummlngblrd Wholesale 8lke
Marsee 8akery SLep van - uS SLyle
aclflc CoasL lrulL Seml - 43 fooL
eLerson loods Seml - 43 fooL
Sunrlse MarkeL SLep van - uS SLyle
upqua ualry 8ox 1ruck - Large 33 fooL
uS loods Seml - 43 fooL
Day Vendor Veh|c|e 1ype 1o Un|ts and Cater|ng Veh|c|e 1ype
Ir|day 8read SLop 8akery van CenLral lood uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 8 dellverles
Chllders MeaLs 8ox 1ruck CaLerlng 1ruck uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 10 dellverles
lranz 8akery SLep van - uS SLyle CaLerlng van uellverles van - 6 dellverles
Pumble 8agel van Colf CarL uellverles Colf CarLs - 20 uellverles
aclflc CoasL lrulL Seml - 43 fooL
SuraLa Soy loods van
Sysco Seml - 43 fooL
upqua ualry 8ox 1ruck - Large 33 fooL
uS loods Seml - 43 fooL
Day Vendor Veh|c|e 1ype 1o Un|ts and Cater|ng Veh|c|e 1ype
Saturday uave's klller 8read SLep van - uS SLyle CenLral lood uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 8 dellverles
Pumble 8agel van CaLerlng 1ruck uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 10 dellverles
aclflc CoasL lrulL Seml - 43 fooL CaLerlng van uellverles van - 4 dellverles dally
Sunrlse MarkeL SLep van - uS SLyle Colf CarL uellverles Colf CarLs - 20 uellverles
Day Vendor Veh|c|e 1ype 1o Un|ts and Cater|ng Veh|c|e 1ype
Sunday none CenLral lood uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 8 dellverles
CaLerlng 1ruck uellverles 8ox 1ruck 12' - 2 dellverles
Colf CarL uellverles Colf CarLs - 3 uellverles
Appendix E
Walton
Hamilton
Bean
LLC
LLC
Carson
GSH
future
future
future
Potential Open Space
Framework Paths
Housing properties
Primary Vehicle
Route to Site
ADR
Campus Boundary
West Bound Vehicles
East Bound Vehicles
Privately Owner Property
Current vehicles routes
to existing central kitchen
and catering services
Existing
Central
Kitchen
Existing
Catering
Services
Existing
Woodshop
Functions to be
located at new site
Additional nearby
food vendor delivery
locations
Primary route for golf
cart vehicle deliveries
Appendix F
PRIMARY TRUCK ACCESS ROUTE
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
Appendix G
Appendix H1
Appendix H2
Appendix H3


26 October 2012
unit multi total total for section
direct construction costs:
new structure
Central Kitchen 19,000 165 3,135,000 Assumes LEED Gold, plus 35% energy
Woodshop 6,000 150 900,000 efficiency beyond code baseline building
Loading Dock 900 100 90,000
demolition 7,000 14 98,000
replacement costs 0 0 0
relocation costs (temporary facilities) 0 0 0
100 design contingency 10% 422,300
1 building cost estimate 4,645,300 sub-total
site development 28,000 15 420,000
des. open area site development
(% of new construction) 3,108 15 46,620 10% of new gsf up to. 24,999, 12% if larger
building replacement costs 0 0 0
parking replacement costs 0 3,733 0
100 site utilities, connections, extensions
Moss Alley improvements 8,300 10 83,000 Improve from loading dock to 17th
Stormwater infrastructure 375 220 82,500 Extend through alley up to 17th
2 site cost estimate 632,120 sub-total
inflation (cumulative):
01.11 to 01.12 0.030 Inflation numbers per RLB
01.12 to 06.12 0.015
06.12 to 01.13 0.015 79,161
01.13 to 01.14 0.030 160,697
100 Inflation Costs 0.045 239,859
3 direct construction total 5,517,279
associated costs:
800 Part A
4 furnishings/equipment/special systems 1,385,518 Curtis Equipment estimate + 3% of construction
Building Permit, plan reviews
System Develop. Charge
SEED Program
CPS
OUS Cap. Improve. Support fee
900 EWEB fees/rebates
5 construction-related permits/fees 5% 275,864
LEED Certification 150,000
OMSD training 10,000
600 Art
700 HazMat
BOLI
960 Temporary utilties
960 Telecom/Data
930 Facilties Services Support
6 other constuction-related indirects 2% 270,346 % does not include LEED & OSMD costs
Part B
300
7 Architects/Engineers 9% 496,555
University Housing Central Kitchen/Woodshop Project Budget - DEVELOPMENT OPTION A
Appendix J1


26 October 2012
unit multi total total for section
direct construction costs:
new structure
Central Kitchen 19,200 165 3,168,000 Assumes LEED Gold, plus 35% energy
Woodshop 6,000 150 900,000 efficiency beyond code baseline building
Loading Dock 900 100 90,000
demolition 7,000 14 98,000
replacement costs 0 0 0
relocation costs (temporary facilities) 0 0 0
100 design contingency 10% 425,600
1 building cost estimate 4,681,600 sub-total
site development 27,800 15 417,000
des. open area site development
(% of new construction) 3,132 15 46,980 10% of new gsf up to. 24,999, 12% if larger
building replacement costs 0 0 0
parking replacement costs 0 3,733 0
100 site utilities, connections, extensions
Moss Alley improvements 8,300 10 83,000 Improve from loading dock to 17th
Stormwater infrastructure 375 220 82,500 Extend through alley up to 17th
2 site cost estimate 629,480 sub-total
inflation (cumulative):
01.11 to 01.12 0.030 Inflation numbers per RLB
01.12 to 06.12 0.015
06.12 to 01.13 0.015 79,666
01.13 to 01.14 0.030 161,722
100 Inflation Costs 0.045 241,389
3 direct construction total 5,552,469
associated costs:
800 Part A
4 furnishings/equipment/special systems 1,386,574 Curtis Equipment estimate + 3% of construction
Building Permit, plan reviews
System Develop. Charge
SEED Program
CPS
OUS Cap. Improve. Support fee
900 EWEB fees/rebates
5 construction-related permits/fees 5% 277,623
LEED Certification 150,000
OMSD training 10,000
600 Art
700 HazMat
BOLI
960 Temporary utilties
960 Telecom/Data
930 Facilties Services Support
6 other constuction-related indirects 2% 271,049 % does not include LEED & OSMD costs
Part B
300
7 Architects/Engineers 9% 499,722
University Housing Central Kitchen/Woodshop Project Budget - DEVELOPMENT OPTION B
Appendix J2


26 October 2012
unit multi total total for section
direct construction costs:
new structure
Central Kitchen 19,200 165 3,168,000 Assumes LEED Gold, plus 35% energy
Woodshop 6,000 150 900,000 efficiency beyond code baseline building
Loading Dock 1200 100 120,000
demolition 7,000 14 98,000
replacement costs 0 0 0
relocation costs (temporary facilities) 0 0 0
100 design contingency 10% 428,600
1 building cost estimate 4,714,600 sub-total
site development 27,500 15 412,500
des. open area site development
(% of new construction) 3,168 15 47,520 10% of new gsf up to. 24,999, 12% if larger
building replacement costs 0 0 0
parking replacement costs 0 3,733 0
100 site utilities, connections, extensions
Moss Alley improvements 11,550 10 115,500 Improve from loading dock to 17th
Stormwater infrastructure 525 220 115,500 Extend through alley up to 17th
2 site cost estimate 691,020 sub-total
inflation (cumulative):
01.11 to 01.12 0.030 Inflation numbers per RLB
01.12 to 06.12 0.015
06.12 to 01.13 0.015 81,084
01.13 to 01.14 0.030 164,601
100 Inflation Costs 0.045 245,685
3 direct construction total 5,651,305
associated costs:
800 Part A
4 furnishings/equipment/special systems 1,389,539 Curtis Equipment estimate + 3% of construction
Building Permit, plan reviews
System Develop. Charge
SEED Program
CPS
OUS Cap. Improve. Support fee
900 EWEB fees/rebates
5 construction-related permits/fees 5% 282,565
LEED Certification 150,000
OMSD training 10,000
600 Art
700 HazMat
BOLI
960 Temporary utilties
960 Telecom/Data
930 Facilties Services Support
6 other constuction-related indirects 2% 273,026 % does not include LEED & OSMD costs
Part B
300
7 Architects/Engineers 9% 508,617
University Housing Central Kitchen/Woodshop Project Budget - DEVELOPMENT OPTION C
Appendix J3
uC Pouslng CenLral klLchen - rellmlnary klLchen LqulpmenL 8udgeLlng
CcLober 2012
(developed from lnformaLlon for CurLls 8esLauranL LqulpmenL)
LqulpmenL LsLlmaLe
Cook Ch|||
1umble Chlller 66,000.00 $
2 - 60 Callon Cook Chlll keLLles 110,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $
ump and Cllpper 23,000.00 $
Alr Compressor 3,000.00 $
kett|es
2 - 60 Callon keLLles 32,000.00 $
2 - 30 Callon keLLles 20,000.00 $
4 - 30 Callon 1llL SkllleLs 13,300.00 $
2 - 40 Callon 1llL SkllleLs 34,000.00 $ $17,000 each
rep
8oll ln Coolers 4,000.00 $ each
6 Sandwlch/Sushl prep Lables 27,000.00 $ $4,300 each
1 - 8ulk Sllcer 3,730.00 $
6' SS rep 1able 1,200.00 $
6' Wood 1op 8akers 1able 2,000.00 $
Moble 8lns 230.00 $
Pand Slnks 800.00 $
uLlllLy Slnk draln boards 2,300.00 $
uLlllLy Slnk wlLh 6' Lable 1,800.00 $
Cvens
6 - AlLo Sham 20 pan Combl Cven 240,000.00 $ $40,000 each
2 - AlLo Sham 10 pan Combl Cven - $ exlsLlng
4 - uouble sLack convecLlon ovens 8 LoLal ovens 36,000.00 $ $9,000 each
1 - Slngle 8oLary 8aklng Cvens 20,200.00 $
1 - uouble 8oLary 8aklng Cven 26,000.00 $
1 - Slngle 8oll ln roofer 8,000.00 $
Cook|ng
2 - 6 8urner Cas 8ange wlLh SLandard Cven 8ase 3,600.00 $ $1,800 each
2 - 6' Cas Crllls on 8eferlgeraLed 8ases w/urawers 32,800.00 $ $16,400 each
SLeamer 23,000.00 $
Iryer
4 - 30 # lryers wlLh fllLer 37,200.00 $ $9,300 each
1 - ressure lryer 130 lb 30,200.00 $
1 - ressure lryer 43 lb 14,300.00 $
Ice Mach|ne
2 - 1,300 lb lce Machlnes 10,200.00 $ $3,100 each
2 - 1,330 lb uump lce 8ln w/1rollles 16,200.00 $ $8,100 each
2 - 1323 lb lce 8ln 6,000.00 $ $3,000 each
M|xers
1 - 80 CuarL Mlxer 14,000.00 $
2- 60 CuarL Mlxer 23,940.00 $ $12,970 each
1 - 40 CuarL Mlxer 7,300.00 $
Appendix J4
Coo||ng and Ireezers
Maln lreezer 2,000 sq fL - 2 Chambers 116,330.00 $
Maln Cooler 1,873 sq fL - LlecLrlc Slldlng uoors & 10 slde reach ln doors 82,710.00 $
Maln Cooler 1rack Shelvlng 19,000.00 $
1haw Cooler - 300 sq fL - 21,730.00 $
vegeLable Cooler 200 sq fL 18,380.00 $
8ake Shop Cooler 200 sq fL w/ small freezer secLlon 26,330.00 $
Cold rep 8oom 600 sq fL (Sandwlch/Salad assembly) 28,730.00 $
UO- Housing Central Kitchen/Woodshop Relocation
Project Timeline- Design/Build Process
26 October 2012
2012 2013 2014
Oct. Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 7 14 21 28
Planning/Management
Complete Feasibility Study
UO Administration Approval
Performance Specifications
Create RFQ
Advertize
Proposals due
Contract
Prepare Performance Spec
Survey, geotech, etc.
Design/Build Selection
Create RFQ
Advertize
Proposals due
Short List
CPC Meetings
Neighborhood Outreach
Design/Build
Design/Build Proposals
Proposal development Costs presented
Interviews
Contract
Site Review
Prepare application
Completeness Review
City review and approval
Building permit review
Design/Build (13 months)
Site demo Woodshop demo Woodshop closed Central kitchen opens
Woodshop opens

Appendix K