Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 374-06TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCI~& CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 CMR:374:06 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT C9102718 WITH ROSSDRULISCUSENBERY ARCHITECTURE INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,037,490 FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND COST ESTIMATING FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT PE-98020 AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Staffrecommends that the City Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached contract amendment in a not-to-exceed amount of $1,037,490 for engineering and architectural design services for the Public Safety Building Project, CIP Project PE-98020 including $943,190 for basic services and $94,300 for additional services (Attachment A); 2.Approve a Resolution of Intent declaring the City’s intention to reimburse expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City (Attachment B). BACKGROUND In December 2005, Council directed the Mayor to appoint a community-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate the need, size, cost and site for a public safety building and asked that the results of this evaluation be presented in a report to Council by June 2006. The BRTF, supported by staff and RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc., assessed the need for a new public safety facility; examined and discussed the previous reports and feasibility studies; conducted site tours of the existing police building and new facilities in adjacent cities; established site criteria; and reviewed size and programmatic needs. On June 26, 2006, the BRTF presented its findings (CMR:280:06) to Council. At that meeting, the BRTF unanimously recommended a new public safety building totaling 49,600 square feet and further concluded that the Park Boulevard site was the least costly scenario and meets the top three site criteria established by the BRTF, namely: 1)The site is of adequate size to provide for building and associated parking for official vehicles, staff autos and visitors convenience 2)The site should not be subject to ground instability 3)The site provides access on at least two sides CMR:374:06 Page 1 of 4 Council ® then directed staff to proceed with the next steps on the Public Safety Building project: Begin preliminary discussions with the Park Boulevard site property owners Evaluate financing options for a new public safety building and bring them back to Council by December 2006 or January 2007 in accordance with the Council’s approved Top 3 priority schedule for the public safety building. Negotiate a contract amendment with RossDrulisCusenbery Architects (RDC) to perform preliminary design services and prepare an EIR for the project. DISCUSSION Consultant _Amendment In June 1998, the City entered into a contract with RDC to provide architectural services which included project definition, evaluation of programmatic needs, assessment of the existing facility, and preparation of massing diagrams. The contract has since been amended three times (May 1999, June 2000 and November 2001) to provide additional services for the next phases of the project including site studies, split facility analysis, comparative cost analysis, and public outreach. Under its current contract, RDC started schematic design work for renovation and expansion of the Police Building at the existing civic center, provided design support during the BRTF process and is in the process of completing the phase one environmental assessment for the Park Blvd. site needed to complete property appraisals for these sites. In order to maintain project history and cost effectiveness, RDC’s contract provides for future amendments for each subsequent phase as the City desires. Contract Amendment No. 4 to the City’s current contract with RDC is needed to complete the preliminary design to a 25% level, prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and reallocate the previous RDC budget and scope in order to meet the Council Top 3 priority schedule for the new public safety building. An additional Amendment No. 5 will be needed to design the public safety building to a level to proceed with a June 2008 bond election. This will require refining the design to a 35% level, updating the cost estimate, and preparing building renderings and other information needed to inform the public on the project. This amendment is not included in this recommendation but will be brought to Council for its approval with the 2007-08 Budget. The scope of work (Attachment A) to be performed under contract Amendment No. 4 will include: *Conceptual and schematic design services to a 25% level *Preparation of an EIR for the a public safety building on the Park Boulevard site o Development of Leadership Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and sustainable green building elements . Consideration in the building design to allow for future expansion of the building if needed o Preparation of cost estimates In December, staff will bring back a status report on the progress made on the Public Safety Building EIR and design efforts. Schedule The schedule included in the scope of work (Attachment A) is as follows CMR:374:06 Page 2 of 4 Complete 25% design, cost estimates June 2007 Complete the project EIR including project scoping, EIR studies and public meetings January 2008 Staff anticipates bringing Amendment No. 5 to City Council with the 2007-08 Budget to design the public safety building to a level to proceed with a June 2008 bond election. The Council-approved schedule to conduct a bond election for the project is: Complete EIR January 2008 Council approves resolution for ballot measure March 2008 Election June 2008 Resolution Of Intent When a City anticipates undertaking a major capital project that relies on bonds (such as General Obligation bonds) to finance that project, a "Resolution of Intent" must be passed by its Council to reimburse expenditures made for the project prior to the issuance of bonds. This procedure is required by Federal income tax regulations. Given the City’s intention to build a new Police Building, to buy the land upon which the facility will be built, and to conduct the studies necessary for construction, staff recommends that Council approve the attached: "A Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expenditures from The Proceeds of Bonds to Be Issued by The City." This will allow the City to recoup costs related to the project (e.g., purchase of land) and made prior to the issuance of bonds. It should be noted that the City has three years from the date funds are deposited in escrow for the purchase of land to the date bonds are issued to allow repayment for the land from bond proceeds. RESOURCE IMPACT One million dollars is included in the 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Program Project PE- 98020 funding for costs associated with design and environmental review of the Public Safety Building. In addition there is approximately $161,000 remaining in the current RDC contract that will be reallocated to the Phase 4 contract amendment as work continues on the project. There will be additional project costs this year associated with the Public Safety Building including a $75,000 encumbrance for outside counsel supporting the Park Avenue property acquisition process, and about $20,000 will be needed to cover property appraisal costs. Staffwill continue to identify all available resources to offset capital or debt service costs. These include: a revenue source such as State or Federal grant; rental savings that would result from moving Information Technology and Utility staff into the Civic Center site vacated by the Police Department; and contributions from Stanford University for its share of capital costs associated with its agreement with the City for communications services. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with Council direction to staff on its Top 3 priorities. CMR:374:06 Page 3 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An EIR and special studies will be prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the amendment with RDC. ATTACttMENTS Attachmem A: Amendment No. 4 to Contract C9102718 with RDC solu iono nt n PREPARED BY: ELIZT~ETH AMES Senior Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD: GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Chief of Police ~SON Assistant City Manager CMR:374:06 Page 4 of 4 ATTACH[ AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. C9102718 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ROSSDRULISCUSENBERY ARCHITECTURE, INC. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES This Amendment No.4 to Contract No. C9102718 ("Contract") is entered into , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc., a California Corporation, located at 18294 Sonoma Highway, Sonoma, California, 95476 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, on June 8, 1998, the parties entered into the Contract for the provision of professional consultant services for the Public Safety Building, Phase i, Project Development as described therein; WHEREAS, on May 24, 1999, the parties entered into that certain amendment entitled "Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C9102718 between the City of Palo Alto and Ross/Drulis Architects & Planners for Consulting Services" ("Amendment No. i") to amend the Contract to provide for professional consultant services for the Public Safety Building, Phase i, by adding a Project Development Split Facility Study, a Fiscal Impact Analysis, and additional Public Outreach and Community Process Meeting services as described therein; WHEREAS, on July 17, 2000, the parties entered into that certain amendment entitled ~Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C9102718 between the City of Palo Alto and Ross/Drulis Architects & Planners for Consulting Services" ("Amendment No. 2") to further amend the Contract to provide for professional consultant services for the Public Safety Building, Phase i, by adding a Project Development Architectural Program Reduction Study, a Downtown Library Site Analysis, conceptual design services, and additional Public Outreach and Community Process Meeting services as described therein; WHEREAS, on November 13, 2001, the parties entered into that certain amendment entitled ~Amendment No. 3 to Contract no C9102718 between the City of Palo Alto and the Ross/Drulis Architects & Planners for Consulting Services" to prepare Conceptual Design plans and cost estimates for the renovation and expansion of the existing Police Department Building at the Civic Center site, complete the environmental documentation required by the California Environmental Quality Act, provide green building and public art programming, provide architectural programming and 060918 syn 0130003 1 coordination services to develop four preliminary plan schemes and one conceptual design, and undertake additional public process meeting servlces as further described therein; only a portion of the work to be performed under Amendment 3 was completed because the project was put on hold; WHEREAS, the City deslres Consultant to prepare Conceptual Design plans and cost estimation for a proposed public safety building at 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard, complete environmental documentation required by the California Environmental Quality Act, provide green building and public art programming, provide architectural programming and design for two schemes and ultimately one preferred design, and undertake additional public process meeting services, all as further described in Exhibit "A" to this amendment; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract to provide for the new servlces; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provi-sions of this amendment, the parties agree: SECTION i. The introductory paragraph of the Contract is amended to reflect the new name of the Consultant, RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc., and the Consultant’s new address, 18294 Sonoma Hwy, Sonoma0 CA 95476. SECTION 2. The first zwo sentences of Section 3.3 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Consultant will assign Michael Ross, Principal, as the pro3ect manager and coordinator who will represent Consultant duging the day-to-day work on the Project. SECTION 3. The first sentence of Section 5.1.1 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: "In consideration of the full performance of the Basic Services, including any authorized reimbursable expenses, City will pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed $1,721,188." ~SECTION 4.Section 5.1.2 of the Contract is hereby amended by deleting the first two sentences and adding the following language: "The CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services not to exceed $94,300.00 only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the 060918 syn 0130003 rates set forth in Exhibit B-I. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. Work required because the following conditions are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: Hazardous Materials studies or abatement, presentation models, site- specific seismic design, base isolation foundation system and design, construction documentation beyond 25% completion, bidding, contract administration, construction management, geotechnical inspections during construction, costs of permits or fees, and production of as built documents." SECTION 5. Exhibit "A" of the Contract is hereby amended by adding the scope of services and schedule of performance listed in Exhibit "A" of this amendment which is incorporated in full by this reference. SECTION 6. Exhibit "B" of the Contract is amended by replacing the rate schedule with Exhibit "B-I" of this amendment entitled Rate Schedule and by replacing the reimbursable expenses with Exhibit "B-2"of this amendment entitled "Reimbursable Expenses." SECTION 7.Exhibit "C" replace exhibit "C" of the Contract. of this amendment shall SECTION 8.Exhibit "D" replace exhibit "D" of the Contract. of this amendment shall SECTION 9. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. // // // // // // 060918 syn 0130003 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: Director of Administrative Services Assistant City Manager ROSSDRULISCUSENBERY ARCHITECTURE, INC. By:~ Title: Director of Public Works Insurance Review Name Taxpayer Identification No. 91-1758710 Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B-I": EXHIBIT "B-2". EXHIBIT "C". EXHIBIT "D": (Compliance with Corp. Code §313 is required if the entity on whose behalf this contract is signed is a corporation. In the alternative, a certified corporate resolution attesting to the signatory authority of the individuals signing in their respective capacities is acceptable) SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE RATE SCHEDULE REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES INSURANCE CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION 060918 syn 0130003 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE 060918 syn 0130003 18294 Sonoma Highway Sonoma CA 95476 TELT07996 8448 FAX707 996 8542 ARCHITECTURE EXHIBIT A September 14, 2006 Elizabeth Ames, P.E., Senior Engineer City of Palo Alto Public Works Department 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Reference:RevisedPr~~~sa~f~rArch~tectura~~EngineeringandE~RC~nsu~tantServices:Pa~~A~t~Pub~ic 5aj~ety Building Dear Elizabeth: RossDrulisCusenbery, Architecture. Inc. (RDC) is pleased to submit this proposal for Architectural/ Engineenng (A/E) and EIR Consultant Services for the City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building. RDC’s proposal is based on the following: Project Description: A new, two-story, 49,600 GSF Public Safety Building, 60-stall secure basement parking garage and adjacent and/or above grade parking structure (sizeto be determined via parking study by City). The Project includes facilities for Police Department Headquarters, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, and the City’s Emergency Operations Center and will be designed to accommodate build out in future years. ¯The ProJect is defined in The City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building Architectural Program Docu- ment, dated June 29, 2006. ¯Site: The project will be located at the Park Boulevard Site, 2747/2785 Park Boulevard, Palo AltO, CA. ¯Site size is approximately 1.5 acres (may include street frontage). ¯Essential Facility Design Criteria per UBC and NFPA 1221. ¯Importance Factor 1.5 per essential facilities standards for the entire facility, Public Art Integration ¯LEED Silver Certification - One staff scoping meeting (one checklist, one application) Associated site utility, civil engineering and landscape improvements. ¯Preliminary Estimated Construction Cost, inclusive of Parking and Site Construction Costs. (See attached.) Construction costs may range from $26 to $30 million. ¯Assessment and sizing of adequate utility infrastructure RDC will PrOvide the following services: TASK I ¯Basic AlE Services: Basic services shall be as described in the consultant services agreement, Contract No. C9102718, dated June 9, 1998, Exhibit A, Scope of Work as modified to complete 25% Basic Services. RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. September 14. 2006 Page 2 of 5 Basic services shall include: Architectural Design Structural Engineering Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engineering Civil Engineering Traffic Consultant Communications Systems Design Criteria Audio/Visual Systems Design Criteria Acoustic Design Criteria Low Voltage and Security Electronics Design Criteria Landscape Design Concept Cost Consulting LEED Sustainable Design Consultation and Checklist Value engineering to keep cost in estimated construction costs Exclusions this Contract: Additional Haz-Mat studies or abatement, presentation models, site-specific seismic design, base isolation foundation system and design, construction documentation beyond 25% completion, bidding, contract administration, construction management, LEED certification documentation, construction management, geotechnical inspections during construction, costs of permits or fees, and production of as built document s no.t included. Design Phase Summary Scope of Work Design Phase Kick-offMeeting: Meet with the City and Police Department representativesto verify architectural program, adjacency, operational assumptions, and budget. Products: Incorporation of client revisions Revisions to Architectural Program as required Review A/E work plan Review schedule Schedule future meetings Conceptual Design: Develop uptothree preliminary plan schemes for discussion with client, users, and Department of Public Works. Products: Sketch format conceptual plan layouts and departmental adjacencies Rough order of magnitude cost construction cost and total project estimates Selection of two preferred design concepts for further development After selection by the City, two schemes will become the chosen options to be developed in greater detail for preliminary review by ARB during the Schematic Design process. Schematic Design: Develop two designs for Police Department a nd City review. Preliminary Review with ARB and the Planning Commission. Incorporate ARB and Planning Commission comments as design progresses. Products: Two Preliminary Site Plans Two Preliminary Floor Plans Two Preliminary Elevation Studies Two Context Rendering Sketches Incorporation of Comments and selection of preferred concept Consistent with PTOD zoning and Green Building standards RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. September 14, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Select and revise one concept (of the two studied) which, upon City review and approval, shall become the approved concept for the project. Products: Site plan Floor plans Building sections (two primary axes) Roof plan Exterior elevations Color renderings Civil drawings Structural drawings and written design criteria Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, drawings and written design criteria Fire and ire safety written design criteria Low voltage and security electronics written design criteria Outline specifications Preliminary furniture fixture and equipment layout Cost estimation for total project Soils report LEED checklist and application TASK2 Design Phase Meetings and Presentations Program Verification 1 Project kickoff meeting Conceptual Design 2 Design meetings Schematic Design 5 Design meetings (inclusive of one LEED meeting.) 2 City Council presentation meetings or workshops Products Presentation graphics and documentation Meeting attendance and facilitation Meeting summaries TASK3 CEQAIEIR Consultation Services: Provide required environmental (CEQA) EIR Study and documen- tation services per attached schedule. Products: Initial staff meetings and field surveys Initial data collection and review to investigate and verify site conditions Develop ProJect Description and complete City’s initial study checklist Jurisdictional Review of Above EIR Subconsultant Studies (see attached scope of work) Transportation and Circulation Noise Visual SimulationslShadow Study Hazardous materials impact assessment based on previous reports Preparation of Administrative Draft Notice of Preparation for City Review RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. September :14, 2006 Page 4 of 5 Distribution of Notice of Preparation EIR Scoping Meeting Receipt and Review of Subcontractor Reports Submittal of Administrative Draft EIR Receipt of City Staff Comments Submittal of Screen Check Administrative Draft EIR Receipt of City Staff comments on Screen Check Submittal of Public Release Draft EIR Public Hearing Draft EIR Deliver~ of Admin. Draft Final EIR Process City Staff Comments Circulation of Public Release Final EIR Public Hearing to Consider Final EIR Public Hearing to Certify Final EIR TASK4 Estimated Reimbursable Expenses RDC Total Color Printing :1,7OO.O0 Plots 4,000.00 Re prod uction 2,000.00 Express Delivery 835.00 Long distance telephone 80.00 Faxes 70.OO Model/Dresentatio n materia Is ~.35o.oo Total RDC $:10,O35.OO Consultants Total Structural :1,25o.oo MEP :1,475.oo Civil 1,o5o.oo Other Specialty Consultants 750.00 Total Consultants $4,525.00 Total Estimated Reimbursable Expenses $14,560.O0 Basis of Fee: Basis of Fee: Gross Construction Cost $26,494,378 x :10.5% Fee Basis = $2,781,909 for 100% Services. Plus reimbursable expenses and specialty consultants. Fee for 25% Complete Basic Services (1OO% Design Development): 25% x $2,781,909 1OO% Fee Basis = $695,477 for Basic Services this contract. Future fees will be based on the approved cost estimate developed during this scope of work. Fee Summary: Task :1 Basic A/E Services 25% Complete:$695,477 Task 2 Meetings and Presentations $29,248 Task 3 Specialty Consultant Services Topographic Survey:$20,625 RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. September 14, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Task 4 Task 5 Geotechnical Survey: Subtotal Specialty Consultants EIR Consultant Services: RDC CEQA Coordination: Subtotal EIR Consultant/CEO_A Coordination Reimbursable Expenses Allowance: Total Fees This Phase: $21,0OO $I28,010 $34,270 $41,625 $162,280 $14,560 $943,190 Please contact me should you require clarification of this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to offer services to the City of Palo Alto on this important civic project. Sincerely, Michael B. Ross, AIA Attachments: Wagstaff Associates CEQA Consultant Services Scope of Work, Revised 9114106 Crane Transportation Group EIR Circulation & Parking Analysis Scope of Work, Revised 9/14/O6 REVISED PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES AND FEE ESTIMATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING AT PARK BOULEVARD Submitted to the Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture and the City of Palo Alto by WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners in Association with The Crane Transportation Group, Transportation Consultants Environmen{al Vision, Visuh] SimuIation Consultants September 14, 2006 0603 H:~AMESISAFTEY~ROSDRULI\0603 revised CEO,a proposalfinal, doc Wagstaff and Associates Urban and Env~ronmentcfl Plc~nning 2512 Ninth Street. Suite 5 Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 540-0303 FAX (510) 540-4788 September 14, 2006 Mr. Michael Ross, AIA Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture 18294 Sonoma Highway Sonoma, California 95476 RE:REVISED PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES TO PREPARE AN EIR FOR THE PROPOSED CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING AT PARK BOULEVARD Dear Michael: Wagstaff and Associates is pleased to submit this revised proposed scope of services, budget and schedule to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building project at Park Boulevard. The revised proposal incorporates the changes requested by City staff and received from your office on September 12, 2006. The attached CEQA work scope has been designed to provide the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) documentation necessary for City action on all anticipated discretionary approvals for the project. The scope is based in large part on our earlier identification of potential environmental impact and mitigation needs for the Park Boulevard site which were documented in the report, "Palo Alto Public Safety Building Program--Environmental Comparison of Four Site Options" prepared by our office in August 1999. As you may recall, we intentionally prepared that comparative evaluation of the four candidate Public Safety Building sites in a CEQA Guidelines- based Initial Study "checklist" format for use in scoping the CEQA document for the selected project site. Wagstaff and Associates will perform as prime contractor with overall responsibility for all aspects of the EIR preparation and processing program. To address the traffic and noise effects of the project, we will be assisted by two locally experienced subcontractors: The Crane Transportation Group, transportation consultants to conduct the EIR traffic analysis; Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., noise consultants, to assist us in .identifying any project-related noise impact potentials; and H:~AMESISAFTEY~ROSDRULII0603 revised CEQA proposalfinal.doc Mr. Michael Ross, AIA September 13~ 2006 Page 2 ¯Environmental Vision, visual simulation consultants, to complete computer- generated visual simulations and shadow diagrams for the proposed project design. Our estimated total contract fee has been revised from $128,010 to $145,708 to incorporate the work scope refinements requested by City staff, including the addition of computer-generated visual simulations (two) and shadow diagrams (four) by Environmental Vision, visual simulation consultants. Please also note that the attached Crane Transportation Group revised traffic analysis scope, dated August 9, 2006, incorporates changes in response to comments received from City staff (Elizabeth Ames) on July 28 and July 31, 2006. The cost of new counts is included in the current fee estimate. It appears at this preliminary point that the City’s annual count program for the Congestion Management Agency may provide most of the updated traffic count information requested by City staff. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this revised proposa and look forward to completing this CEQA compliance program with you.and City staff. Sincerely, WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES John Wagstaff JW:sr\0603 Enclosures: Revised Proposal for Services and Fee Estimate H:tAMESISAFTEY~ROSDRULI\0603 revised CEOA proposalfinal.doc Wagstaff and Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo AltoSeptember 18, 2006 Revised Proposal for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Page i CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH 1-1 1.1 Proposed Project 1-1 1.2 Background 1-1 1.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 1-2 1.4 Required Approvals 1-2 1.5 Environmental Documentation Approach 1-2 1.6 Key Environmental Issues 1-3 RECOMMENDED WORK PROGRAM 2-1 H:~AMEStSAFTE Y~ROSDRULII0603 revised CEOA proposalfinaL doc Wagstaff and Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo Alto September 18. 2006 Revised Proposal for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Page 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH 1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The City of Palo Alto has selected a site and associated architectural design program for a new Public Safety Building. The new building is intended to provide consolidated space for the Palo Alto Police Department and a state-of-the-art emergency command center. The proposed project site is an approximately 1.44-acre, irregularly shaped lot located at Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road, just east of the Oregon Expressway. The site is relatively level and bordered by Park Boulevard, Page Mill Road, and Sheridan Avenue. The site consists of two parcels. The smaller parcel lying on the west side of the site and is currently developed with a single- story commercial structure. The larger parcel lying on the east side of the site is "L" shaped, undeveloped and the former location of a concrete batching plant. The architect’s preliminary design program indicates a two-story above grade Public Safety Building with an additional floor below grade. The structure would have a floor area total of approximately 50,000 square feet and a site footprint of approximately 25,000 square feet. The building’s major street facade would be on Park Boulevard. Onsite parking would be provided in an approximately 60-stall secure parking basement beneath the Public Safety Building, and an adjoining 122-stall, three- level parking structure at the rear of the site, with two levels above ground and one basement (subgrade) level. Vehicular access would be from Page Mil Road and Sheridan Avenue. 1.2 BACKGROUND The Palo Alto Police Department currently occupies the Police Services wing of the existing downtown Civic Center complex at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Current operations of the Police Department are physically fragmented, resulting in efficiency and communications deficiencies. The City has been engaged in planning for a new Public Safety Building since 1996. By the year 2000, an initial list of ten previously-identified Public Safety Building site possibilities in the City had been reduced to four remaining options. The four options consisted of a Civic Center option (the southwestern portion of the Civic Center bloc now occupied by the Police Services wing), a California Avenue option (two City-owned parking lots), a Park Boulevard option (two vacant lots at Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road), and an El Camino Real option (a vacant lot at the western quadrant of the El Camino Real/Page Mil Road intersection). In July 2002, City staff presented the City Council with an analysis of the comparative operational fiscal and environmental differences among the four site choices, and initially selected the Civic Center site option for further design study. Subsequently in the fall of 2002, in response to a City economic downturn, the City halted the Public Safety Building planning and design process until the City’s financial condition improved and/or new funding sources could be identified.1 1City Manager’s Report to the City Council on "Update on Police Bu Iding Capital Proiect": April 19. 2004 (CMR:224:04). H:~AMES,SAFTEY~ROSDRULII0603 revised CEQA #rooosalfinal, doc Wagstaff and Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo Alto September 18, 2006 Revised Proposal for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Page 1-2 In Ju~y 2004, a community-based Palo Alto Police Foundation was established to support and assist with funding a first response emergency mobile command center and, secondarily, to assist in building community and launching a funding campaign to help finance the new Public 1Safety Building program. In June 2006, based on community input and staff recommendations, the City Council directed its project architect, Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture, to develop a schematic design and solicit an associated proposal for consultant services to complete the necessary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance documentation for the Park Boulevard site option. 1.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING Existing land uses surrounding the Park Boulevard site include light industrial and transportation uses. Light industrial and office/industrial uses are adjacent to the site on the east and south: these include auto-related light industrial use, a new Hewlett-Packard building, and a two-story commercial building. The Oregon Expressway passes the site in a below grade cut to the west, and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks lie immediately to the north. Multi-family residential units lie west of the Oregon Expressway 1.4 REQUIRED APPROVALS The current zoning designation for the Park Boulevard site is GM. City PTOD guidelines will also apply to the project design. Under the project architect’s schematic design total site coverage would be approximately 41,000 square feet or 65 percent of the approximately 1.44- acre site and the project FAR would exceed 0.50. In consultation with City staff, the consistency of these and other project characteristics with current applicable zoning provisions and PTOD guidelines will be evaluated and described. Project implementation may also require City Council action on an appropriate financing ballot measure and voter approval of the measure. In addition project implementation will require design review by the City’s Design Review Board and Planning Commission These and any other local approval requirements will be verified and described in consultation with City staff. The environmental documentation scope and process described in this proposal is intended to achieve CEQA compliance for al anticipated City approvals and any other local and state approvals or permits ultimately required to implement the project. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION APPROACH As set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the intent of the CEQA evaluation will be to consider all aspects of project planning and operation, and to confirm and explain which aspects of the project may and which aspects may not cause a significant effect on the environment. 1City Manager’s Report to the City Council on "Update on Police Building Capital Project"; April 19, 2004 (CMR:224:04). H:~AMESISAFTEY~ROSDRULII0603 revised CEOA proposalfinaLdoc Wagstaff an~ Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo Alto September 18 2006 Revised Proposal for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Page 1-3 Those "focus topics" determined to have a "potentially significant impact" on the environment will be further analyzed, and associated mitigation measures will be identified The City, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed Public Safety Building schematic design for the Park Boulevard site (the "project") warrants completion of an Initial Study evaluation, pursuant to section 15063 (Initial Study) of the CEQA Guidelines to determine the appropriate supplemental CEQA compliance approach for the project--i.e., whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR is required If unmitigable impacts are identified, an EIR will be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15081; if no unmitigable impacts are identified, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.1 This proposal for services describes a recommended scope of services schedule, and associated budget for preparation, of a limited-scope EIR. 1.6 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES It is anticipated that the following six "focus topics" will receive emphasis in the CEQA documentation program: Aesthetics. Project aesthetic (visual) impacts and associated mitigation needs are expected to be an mportant community concern. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan2 identifies the Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road corridor as a "major view corridor." This designation applies in both directions along the roadway corridor. It appears at this preliminary point that the project would not be highly visible from this view corridor. The proposed Public Safety Building design concept will be evaluated by the CEQA consultant to: (1) verify the degree of potential project visibility from the Oregon Expressway; (2) describe project visual compatibility with adjacent light industrial, office/institutional and commercial uses, and with nearby residential neighborhoods; (3) describe project potentials for creating a significant new source of evening exterior illumination and associated light and glare; (4) describe impacts on the Emerson neighborhood across Alma Street and the railroad tracks (especially nighttime light and glare impacts); and (5) describe project consistency with applicable City design policies and guidelines. Mitigation measures necessary to address any identified potential visual incompatibilities or policy inconsistencies will be identified. Visual and Shadow Simulations. To support the visual analysis, computer-generated "before and after" photomontage visual simulations of the project as seen from two (2) representative surrounding vantage points will be prepared by Environmental Vision. Multiple-season shadow studies will also be diagrammed by Environmental Vision. Viewpoints to be simulated will be finalized in consultation with City staff. To prepare the visual simulations and shadow studies, Environmental Vision would complete the following subtasks: Site Photography. After preliminary consultation with Wagstaff and Associates and City staff, Environmental Vision would conduct a site visit and complete a 1City Manager’s Report to the City Council on "Update on Police Building Capital Project"; April 19, 2004 (CMR:224:04). 20ity of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010, adopted July 20, 1998. H:~AMESISAFTEY~ROSDRULII0603 revised CEOA proposalfinal, doc Wagstaff and Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo Alto Se ptember 18, 2006 Revised Proposa for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Page 1-4 photo inventory of the project site. The site would be photographed from the various candidate vantage points suggested by Wagstaff and Associates and City staff. Visual Simulations. Using advanced computer modeling and rendering techniques in combination with digitized photographs, computer-generated visual simulations would be produced to portray representative "before and after" visual conditions from the selected vantage points. The simulations would document the general appearance of the proposed project design scheme. Anticipated landscaping would be shown at a five-year maturity level. Shadow Diagrams. Using conventional computer modeling and mapping techniques, the maximum shadow effects of the project for each season wil be diagrammed. Biological Resources. Preliminarily, it appears that there would be no project-related loss of sensitive biological habitat; however, project construction could result in the loss of several existing mature trees on the Park Boulevard site. Potentials for project-related loss or damage to existing mature trees, the relationship of such effects with existing city policies and ordinances regarding tree protection and replacement, and associated mitigation (protection and/or replacement) measures will be described. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Park Boulevard project site was once used as a concrete batching plant. It may also have once been in agricultural use. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments have been completed for the site by the current property owner. These and any new reports will be reviewed by the EIR consultant and any identified significant environmental impact potentials and associated mitigation needs will be described. Land Use/Planning. In consultation with City staff, the relationship (consistency) of the project Public Safety Building design with current zoning, and any associated zon=ng action requirements, will be evaluated and described, The EIR will also describe these project re.lationships to adopted General Plan provisions and will evaluate the compatibility of the proposed Public Safety Building use with surrounding land uses. Project relationship to City PTOD guidelines will also be addressed. Noise. Potential project compatibility with and impacts on the local noise env ronment will also be described, with the assistance of Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., noise consultants One of the principal existing noise sources is the Southern Pacific railroad line adjacent to the project site to the north. Based on field measurements by Illingworth & IRodkin, the EIR will describe associated potential noise intrusion impacts and any need for associated noise reduction design measures. The possibility and anticipated frequency of police emergency dispatch activities from the Public Safety Building and associated impacts will also be evaluated, as well as the potential for noise impacts on adjacent uses from such day-to-day operations as trashcompactors and HVAC equipment. Potential construction period noise and vibration impacts and associated mitigation needs will also be described including noise impacts on the Emerson neighborhood across Alma Street and the railroad tracks. H:V~MESISAFTEY~ROSDRULI~0603 revised CEQA proposalfinal.doc Wagstaff and Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo Alto September 18, 2006 Revised Proposal for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Page 1-5 Transportation/Traffic. The Crane Transportation Group, in consultation with Wagstaff and Associates and City transportation staff, will complete the Transportation/Traffic section of the EIR. Direct (contiguous) access to the site itself is available via Park Boulevard or Page Mill Road Direct accessfrom the north and west is precluded by the presence of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and the Oregon Expressway. Park Boulevard is a pnncipal east-west street, designated as a "collector" in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway is a principal north-south street, designated as an "expressway" in the Comprehensive Plan. Other important streets in the project vicinity include Alma Street, an east-west running "expressway" north of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks (which can be reached via the Oregon Expressway) and El Camino Real, an east-west "arterial" three blocks to the south. The area is reasonably well served by transit: a multi-modal transit station is located on Park Boulevard at California, served by Caltrain and regional bus routes. A detailed transportation and traffic analysis work scope for CEQA compliance purposes by the Crane Transportation Group is attached (see amended Attachment 1). As indicated in the attachment, the Crane Transportation Group will complete a traffic and circulation study to evaluate the potential operation and safety impacts of the project on local streets and intersections, and identify any associated off-site improvement needs. The study wil include anticipated daity and peak period employee, operational and visitor vehicular trip generation and distribution and associated impacts on the local roadway system Proposed project access prowsions will also be evaluated and any associated design revision or refinement needs will be identified. H.’~AMESISAFTEY~ROSDRULI~0603 revised CEQA proposalfinal.doc Wagstaff and Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo Alto September 18~ 2006 Revised Proposal for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Page 2-1 2. RECOMMENDED WORK PROGRAM Specific tasks and subtasks proposed to complete either one of the limited-scope Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are listed below, Note re: Formal Determination: During Task 2. 1.5 below, a final determination will be made in consultation with City staff whether the environmental document shall. (1) take the form of an MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15070; or (2) take the form of a limited-scope EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15081. Initial Scoping and Project Description Task 1.1.1 Task 1.1.2 Task 1.1.3 Task 1.1.4 (a) Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task (b) 1.1.5 Initial Staff Meeting--Work Program Refinement (with City staff) Field Survey Project Description Preparation of Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study Checklist (IS) Preliminary Draft NOP/IS (incorporating the Initial Study Checklist prepared in Task 2.1.4) Public Release NOP/IS Public Scoping Meeting Description of Setting, Impacts, and Mitigations 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Aesthetics Air Quality Biologica Resources Cultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use and Planning Noise Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems Trans portationFFraffic/Parking Project Consistency with Local and Regional Plans 3.1 City of Palo Alto General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Other Local Plans 3.2 Pertinent Regiona Plans Task 4.1 Task 4.2 Task 4.3 Task 4.4 Task 4.5 CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions Growth-Inducing Effects Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Irreversible Environmental Changes Cumulative Impacts Effects Found Not to be Significant H:~AMESISAFTEY~ROSDRULI~0603 revised CEQA #roDosalfinaLdoc Wagstaff and Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo Alto September 18, 2006 Revised Proposal for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Page 2-2 5.Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives to the Proposed Action Task 5.1 Identification of Alternatives (do nothing, site used for housing, site used for the public safety building, environmentally preferred site) Task 5.2 Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives (at least 4) =Task Task Task Preparation of the Draft EIR 6.1 Administrative Draft EIR 6.2 Screen Check Draft EIR 6.3 Public Release Draft EIR 7.Preparation of the Final EIR (Responses to Comments) Task 7.1 Administrative Draft Responses to Comments/Revisions to Draft EIR Task 7.2 Final Responses to Comments/Revisions to Draft EIR 8.Meetings and Public Hearings Task 8.1 Additional Staff Meetings (up to 4) Task 8.2 Public Hearings (up to 2) 9.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist Task 9.1 Administrative Draft MMR Checklist Task 9.2 Final MMR Checklist. H:~AMESISAFTEY~ROSDRULII0603 revised CEOA proposalfinal.doc Wagstaff and Associates Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture/City of Palo AltoSeptember 18. 2006 Revised Proposal for Services Palo Alto Public Safety Building EIR Attachment 1 : Crane Transportation Group, Palo Alto Police Service Building EIR Circulation Analysis Scope of Services September 14, 2006 H:~AMES~SAFTEY~ROSDRULII0603 revised CEQA proposalfinal.doc CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP PALO ALTO POLICE SERVICES BUILDING CIRCULATION & PARKING ANALYSIS SCOPE OF SERVICES OVERVIEW EIR We are proposing to divide the traffic and parking scoping into two distinct phases. The proposed use wil be unique in its AM and PM peak hour trip generation characteristics, its circulation impacts at locations away from the immediate site area (i.e. many project vehicles are already on parts of the Pa o Alto roadway system), and in its hourly parking demand. There is no historical trip generation or parking data for the use in question. Therefore, Phase 1 of the study will clearly determine project trip generation and distribution from the new site as well as parking demand, by hour (for staff, visitors and City vehicles). Once this data is established, Phase 2 of the study will determine off-site traffic impacts and any expected on-site parking impacts from the project, based upon the project parking demand and the proposed supply of parking spaces. A tentative scope of work is included for Phase 2 in this proposal, although it may require adjustment based upon the Phase 1 findings. Phase 1 project trip generation projections and Phase 2 off-site impact analysis will be conducted for the peak traffic hours within the weekday AM and PM peak periods (between 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM). Phase 2 analysis will tentatively entail the following evaluation (at the request of City of Palo Alto staff and advisory consultants). a.Scenarios to be evaluated will include: ¯Existing °Near term horizon Base Case (year of Project completion) ¯Near term horizon Base Case + Project ¯Long term horizon cumulative (2015) The long term horizon will. correspond to the current year 2015 Comprehensive Plan traffic modeling projections. The City will need to determine what, if any, development was assumed for the project site in the Comprehensive Plan projections. Near term horizon Base Case volumes (for the year of Project completion will be interpolated from existing and comprehensive plan 2015 traffic projections. d.Analysis will be conducted at the following intersections, or as dictated by CMA Guidelines: h. Page Mill Expressway/Foothill Blvd. Page Mill Expressway/Hanover Street Oregon Expressway/El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway Page Mill Road/Park Boulevard Oregon Expressway/Middlefie d Road El Camino Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Analysis will be conducted for the following freeway segments: US.101 (between the Oregon-Embarcadero and University interchanges, northbound and southbound) U.S.10! (between the San Antonio Road and Oregon-Embarcadero interchanges, northbound and southbound) Existing PM traffic counts and operating conditions wil come from existing studies and worksheets to be provide~ by the City of Palo Alto. New AM counts will be conducted at all locations listed in item "d" and new AM peak hour operating conditions will be determined based upon the new counts. Based .upon findings from the Phase 1 trip generation study, a determination will be made regarding whether peak hour project trip generation levels are high enoughto require preparation of traffic analyses to meet CMA requirements. EIR significance criteria will need to be provided by the City. SCOPE OF SERVICES o PHASE 1 Attendance will be made by a Crane Transportation Group (CTG) principal at a startup scop~ng meeting with City staff. A working meeting will be conducted with Police Department staff to develop weekday AM and PM commute peak hour trip generation projections for the proposed project. Projections will be developed for existing activity to be transferrec~ to the new facility in addition to any programmed growth in staffing/visitors/City vehicles. Trip generation for a worst case situation (based upon seasonal and day of week variations) will be developed. Hourly parking demand projections for the proposed project will be developed at the same working. meeting for aii existing vehicles to be transferred to the new facility as well as for any programmed growth in staffing/visitors/City vehicles. Parking demand for a worst case situation (based upon seasonal and day of week variations) will be developed. Optional Item #1: Weekday peak period trip generation surveys will be conducted of existing activities to be transferred to the proposed project. Optional Item #2: Hourly parking surveys will be conducted of existing vehicles to be transferred to the proposed project. A draft Phase 1 memo report will be prepared with the findings of the trip generation and parking demand projections. It will be sent by e-mail to the prime consultant, City staff and Police Department staff for review. A final Phase 1 memo report will be pre0ared after incorporation of all agreed-to changes in the Phase 1 Draft Report. Three hours principal time plus support staff time has been included for preparation of the final Phase 1 report. This report will be included as an appendix in the EIR circulation analysis. o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. PHASE 2 Attendance will be made by CTG principal at a City Council scoping hearing. A final circulation/parking scope of services will be prepared for the project and submitted to the prime consultant and City based upon findings of the Phase 1 study, input from the Planning Commission hearing and in order to meet all CMA traffic impact study requirements (if applicable). A registered traffic engineer will field survey all roadways, intersections and freeway segments selected for analysis in the EIR as well as all proposed project access locations. Observations will be made to determine whether existing Operating conditions are reflected by the theoretical TRAFFIX level of service results (to be supplied by the City) during one peak traffic hour. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities in the project area will be tabulated. Weekday PM peak period traffic counts will be obtained for the six intersections selected for analysis from the Park Plaza Transportation Impact Analysis by Fehr& Peers, May 2006. New AM peak period (7:00 - 9:00) traffic counts will be conducted at the six intersections and the AM peak hour traffic will be determined for each location. Existing U.S.101 traffic volumes for the segments of freeway to be evaluated in the study will be obtained from the VTA. Existing PM peak hour levels of service will be obtained from the existing TRAFFIX worksheets at each of the six analysis intersections while AM peak hour levels of service will be determined for the six locations based upon the new counts. Peak hour signal warrant analysis will also be conducted at the unsignalized intersection in close proximity to the project site. Existing U.S. 101 freeway segment level of service will be obtained from the most recent VTA Monitoring and Conformance Report. Near term horizon Base Case (without project) traffic volumes will be determined at the six analysis intersections based upon interpolation between existing and comprehensive plan 2015 volumes. Base Case AM and PM peak hour levels of service will be determined. Base Case freeway volumes will be obtained based upon available traffic model data and freeway operating conditions determined. Weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation and distribution projections for the proposed project will be obtained from the Phase 1 report. Near term horizon Base Case + Project AM and PM peak hour volumes and operating conditions will be determined at all six analysis intersections and on the four freeway analysis segments. Year 2015 Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes and operating conditions will be determineo at all six analysis intersections and on the four freeway analysis segments Project access will be evaluated for any potential operating or safety concerns. Project on-site circulation and proposed parking will be evaluated in the context of City code criteria good traffic engineenng practice and the Phase 1 parking demand findings. Project impacts to local area pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities will be determined. Construction traffic impacts will be evaluated qualitatively to the extent information is provided by the City. Measures will be proposed to mitigate any significant project impacts to a less-than-significant level. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 One additional staff meeting will be conducted during the course of the Phase 2 analysis. An admin draft EIR circulation section will be prepared and e-mailed to the prime consultant. A draft EIR circulation section will be prepared after incorporation of all agreed-to changes and e-mailed to the prime consultant. Eight hours principal time plus support staff time has been allocated to producing a draft EIR circulation section. Responses will be provided to all public and jurisdictional comments. Twenty hours principal time plus support staff time has been allocated to this task. Attendance will be made at two public hearings. Two copies of a technical appendix with capacity worksheets will be prepared and provided to the City. Exhibit A SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services listed in Exhibit A of this Amendment No. 4 so as to complete each milestone within the number of Weeks specified below. The time <o complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the pro3ect managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Design Milestones Duration Timeline Complete 25% design Public Safety Building Sep<. 06 to June 07 I0 monZhs EIR Milestones Duration Project Scoping, EIR Studies and Public Meetlngs Sept. 06 to Jan. 08 Public Release of Draft Notice of Preparation EIR scoping Meeting First Administrative Draft EIR to staff (allow 6 week review) 2nd Administrative Draft EIR to staff (allow 5 weeks review) Timeline 17 months October-06 November-06 January-07 April-07 Public Release of Draft EIR 45 day review period June-07 City Council Public Hearlng on Draft EIR Publk.c Circulation of EIR ends Administrative Final EIR responses allow 5 weeks ~eviewl Release of Final EIR City Council Certifies EIR July-07 Au<~-u st- 07 October-07 December-07 January-08 EXHIBIT B-I RATE SCHEDULE 060918 syn 0130003 EXHIBIT B-1 Hourly Rates RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. Principals St. Architects ProJect Managers Architects Job Captain Designers Drafters Clerical/Adm in Rutherford & Chekene Principal in Charge ProJect Engineer Staff Engineer Ruth & Going office std-/ Engineering, Surveying or Planning Manager Sr. Engineer, Surveyor or Planner Associate Engineer, Surveyor or Planner Assistant Engineer, Surveyor or Planner Jr. Engineer, Surveyor or Planner Sr. Engineer Technician Engineering Technician Jr. Engineering Technician Engineering Aide Technical Typist Administrative Manager Field Services 2-Man Field Crew 3-Man Field Crew with Apprentice Field Engineer Sr. Field Engineer Flack & Kurtz President Sr. Vice President Vice President Sr. Associate Associate Engineer Design Engineer Designer CAD Operator Administration CAD Manager Simon & Associates, Inc. Principal Sr. Associate $200 $15o $15o $135 $120 $120 $90 $60 $180 $150 $9O $164 $143 $130 $115 $102 $115 $102 $84 $63 $63 $92 $225 $262 $115 $143 $350 $275 $225 $180 $16o $13o $11o $95 $9O $85 $125 $175 $135 RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc.Proposal for AlE Services for Palo Alto PSB Page On Line Consulting Services Principal Project Manager CAD Office/Admin Kleinfelder, Inc. ProJ:essional 3ta2~ Construction Inspector I Construction Inspector II Professiona I Professional II Construction Engineer Staff Professional I Staff Professional II/Project Manager I Constructoin Manager Office Engineer Assistant Resident Engineer Resident Engineer Sr. Construction Manager ProJect Professional/ProJect Manager II ProJect Executive Sr, Professional/Sr. ProJect Manager CM Program Manager Principal Professional Program/Client Manager I Program/Client Manager II Sr, Principal Professional Sr, Program/Client Manager Administrative/Technical Administrative I Project Administrator I Project Administrator I Technician I Technician II Technician III Sr. Technician Supervisory Technician Draftsperson CADD Operator Designer Wagstaff & Associates Principal Sr. Planner Draftsperson Crane Transportation Group Principal Engineer I Engineer II Technician Graphics Field Crew Chief Field Crew Admin/Word Processing $150 $150 $85 $85 $105 $116 $121 $133 $144 $144 $156 $156 $156 $156 $162 $162 $167 $190 $19o $202 $213 $213 $226 $226 $237 $86 $97 $110 $87 $95 $1o5 $116 $128 $98 $116 $128 $175 $155 $85 $180 $12o $1oo $85 $80 $80 $4O $60 RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc.Proposal for AlE Services for Palo Alto PSB Page 2 EXHIBIT B-2 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 060918 syn 0130003 EXHIBIT B-2 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for reimbursable expenses not to exceed fourteen thousand five hundred sixty dollars ($14,560.00). Expenses and nor to exceed amounts for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A:Color Printing $ 1,700.00 B.Plots $ 4,000.00 C.Reproduction $2,000.00 D. Express Delivery $835.00 E.Telephone $ 80.00 F. Faxes $70.00 G.Models/Presentation Materials H.Structural Consultanz I.MEP Consultant J.Civil Consultant s K.Other Specialty Consultant $1,350.00 $1,250.00 1,470.00 1,050.00 $750.00 All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information.Any expense anticipated to be more than $14,560 shallbe approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. EXHIBIT C INSURANCE CERTIFICATE 060918 syn 0130003 Client#: 50557 ACORD. CERTIFICATE OF PRODUCI~R HRH Professional Practice Insurance Brokers, Inc. 10 California Street Redwood City, CA 94063-1513 ~NSURED RossDrullsCusenbery Architrcture’ Inc 18294 Sonoma Highway Sonoma, CA 95476 COVERAGES IN! R I~DD’LLT ~ NSR A D ROSSARC2 DATE (MM/DD/~LiABILiTY INSURANCE I 09/19,06 THI~ CI=RTIFICATI= IS ISSUi::D AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER A: Fidelil~ and Guaranty Insurance Undw INSURERS: St. Paul Protective Insurance Co. INSURER C: Ace American Insurance Company INSURER D: F’idelity.and Guaranty Insurance Comp iNSURER E: NAIC # 25879 1643 22667 ’ 35386 THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR C~NDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES, AGGREGATE LIMR-S SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, pOliCy EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATIONTYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE (MMIDD/YY)DATE (MMIDD/YY)LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY BK01585569 01/17/06 01117/07 EACHOCCURRENCE $1,000,090 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY DAMAGE TO RENTED $300,000PREMISES lea occurrence) GEN’L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POL,= [--1 PRO- I----] LOOJ~CT MED EXP (Any one person) PERSONAL & ADV iNJURY GENERAL AGGREGATE PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG Sl0~000 $1 ~000~000, $2,000,000 s2~000~000 AUTOMOBILE LIABIUTY X ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS X HIRED AUTOS X NON-OWNED AUTOS GARAGE LIABILIT~~ANY AUTO EXCEl/UMBRELLA LIABILITY -’--]OCCUR [~ CLAIM~, MADE ~DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETO PJPARTNI~R/EXECUTIVEOFFICEPJMEMBER EXCLUDED? lfye~, describe underSPECIAL PROVISIONS below C OTHER 3A02101701 BW02199036 06/01/06 09/01/06 Professional EONN00917898 10/30/06 Liability DESCRIPTION OF OPERA1]ONS I LOCATIONS I ~/EHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS 06/01/07 09~01107 10130107 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT(Ea acCidenl) BODILY INJURY(Per per=m) BODILY INJURY(Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE(Per accident) AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT OTHER THAN EA ACC AUTO ONLY;AGG EACH O~3URRENCE AGGREGATE WOSTATU-’X I TORY LIMIT~ E.L EACH ACCIDENT E,L, DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT H,000,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ sl,000,000 $1,000,000 ~1000,OOO $1,000,000 Per Claim $2,000,000 Aggregate General Liability only: The City of PaiD Alto and its affiliated entities (See Attached Descriptions) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION T~n Day Notice for Non-Payment of Premium SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANC ELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION City of Paid Alto Public Works Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue 6th Floor PaiD Alto, CA 94301 DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ~i~l~l~X~. MAIL ~ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICETOTHECERTIFICAT~HOLDERNAMEDTOTItELEFT, ~ . -_----_- _- .- "-- - ~-’. -_ .....RT,3~R~XN~;~N3~~=: :- :_ - :- - ~UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WLA O ACORD CORPORATION 1988ACORD 25 (2001/08) 1 of 3 #M366602 EXHIBIT D CERTIFICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION 060918 syn 0130003 EXHIBIT 13 CERTIFICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION FORM 410 Certification of Nondiscrimination: Certification of Nondiscrimination: As suppliers of goods and/or services to the City of Palo Alto in excess of $5,000, the firm, contractor or individual(s) listed below certify that: they do not and in the performance of this contract they will not discriminate in employment of any person because of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person; and further certify that they are in compliance with all Federal, State and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in em ployment. CITY OF PALO ALTO PAGE 1 OF 1 Rev. 12/03 ATTACHMENT B ****NOT YET APPROVED**** RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WHEREAS, the City proposes to undertake the pro3ecr referenced below, to issue general obligation bonds or other obligations (the ’~Bonds") ro finance such pro~ect, and use a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse expenditures made for the project prior to the issuance of the Bonds; WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 provides generally that proceeds of tax-exempt debt are not deemed to be expended when such proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such debt unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a requirement that (with certain exceptions), prior to the payment of any such expenditure, the issuer declares an intention ro reimburse such expenditure; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declares its official intent to reimburse the expenditures referenced herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION I. TO the extent the City elects to acquire land located at 2747/2785 Park Blvd., between Sheridan and Page Mill Road, to be used as the site of a new public safety facility (the ’~Site"), the City intends to cause the Bonds to be issued for the purpose of paying the costs of: (i) acquiring the Site and 2) designing, developing and constructing on the Site a two szory (with basement) building of approximately 50,000 square feet, to be used as a police station, and a parking garage (together, the ’~Project"). SECTION 2. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects (i) to pay certain costs of the Project prior to the date of issuance of the Bonds and (ii) to use a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds for reimbursement of expenditures for the Project that are paid before the date of issuance of the Bonds. SECTION 3. The maximum principal amount of the Bonds is expected to be $46,000,000. 060919 cjs 8260314 ****NOT YET APPROVED**** SECTION 4. The Council project under the California Environmental Quality Act therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: finds that this is nor a and, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services 060919 cjs 8260314