HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-19 City Council (13)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
APRIL 19, 2004 CMR:224:04
UPDATE ON POLICE BUILDING CAPITAL PROJECT
This is an informational report and no Council action is required at this time.
BACKGROUND
Staff has been worldng on a public safety building project since 1996. The original
feasibility studies examined a number of viable sites throughout the city, but the Council
directed staff to focus on building gout at the current site, given the prohibitive cost of
acquiring land for a new site. On July 15, 2002, staff provided the City Council
(CMR:314:02) with an analysis of four preliminary options for a public safety building at
the current Police Department site. Staff weighed the advantages and disadvantages,
including the estimated ongoing operational and construction costs for each option, and
selected an option based upon programmatic considerations, costs, sustainability factor
flexibility, and operational efficiencies. This option would entail the demolition of the
existing structure, the expansion of the first floor and mezzanine levels and the addition of a
second floor. The estimated cost at that time ranged from $38 to $45 million. Council
approved a Capital Improvement Program project to complete the schematic design phase of
the project in order to determine a definitive level of funding required for the project.
When staff met with Ross/Drulis/Cusenberry Architects (RDC) in the fall of 2002 to begin
schematic design phase, it was becoming apparent that the City would be entering into the
third year of an economic downturn. The City’s Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP)
projected a General Fund structural imbalance for the near term. The State of California
was experiencing a weakness in revenues and was threatening to take local tax dollars. Palo
Alto voters had just turned down a General Obligation bond proposal for the libraries.
Other competing interests included a school parcel tax, improving Mitchell Park and
Children’s Libraries in the absence of bond monies, and the aggressive replacement of the
City’s aging infrastructure. For these reasons, staff decided to halt progress on the project
until the City’s financial condition improved or new funding sources were identified.
CMR:224:04 Page 1 of 3
Due to recently identified potential funding options, staff has resumed with the schematic
phase of the project. Staff is planning to hold a study session with the Architectural Review
Board, and provide information to the Planning and Transportation Commission and
Council for review within the next six months. This report provides as a status report on the
project.
DISCUSSION
Community Support
Staff has been working with two community members who are actively pursuing the
cr.eation of a Palo Alto Police Foundation. This Foundation is being established to support
the Police Department’s critical needs that are beyond the abilities of local, state, or federal
funding. Once established, the first priority of the Foundation would be to substantially
fund a "First Response Mobile Command Center," which could cost as much as $600,000.
This vehicle would be deployed in situations such as a fire, earthquake, or other incidents
such as a SWAT call-out or terrorist attack. The Foundation’s second priority would be to
assist in a marketing campaign to build community support for a new police building and to
launch a major funding campaign that would result in the Foundation’s ability to
significantly help .subsidize the construction of the building. The formalization of the
Foundation is anticipated to be completed this summer.
Mayor Beecham and Councilmember Cordell have expressed interest in advocating and
assisting in ensuring that this project goes forward. They have indicated a willingness to
work closely with the Foundation and staff as the project progresses.
9-1-1 Service Fee
Palo Alto, along with the other cities within Santa Clara County, is reviewing the feasibility
of an ordinance that would impose 9-1-1 service fees. The City of San Francisco has had 9-
1-1 service fees in place for nine years to subsidize the construction of a new 9-1-1
Communications Center. The County of Santa Cruz and the Cities of Santa Cruz and
Watsonville have recently adopted similar ordinances. Under these ordinances, local
telephone subscribers are required to collect fees from customers and remit to the cities.
Staff is working with other Santa Clara County agencies to determine the fiscal and legal
impacts of imposing such a fee. Revenue from a 9-1-1 service fee may possibly be used to
finance the construction of the 9-1-1 Communications Center portion of the public safety
building.
CMR:224:04 Page 2 of 3
RESOURCE IMPACT
At this time, no additional funds will be required for the schematic design phase. Staff will
be requesting an additional $75,000 from the Infrastructure Reserve for additional staff
support for the project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This direction is consistent with prior Council direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Complete CEQA documentation will be completed as part of the schematic design phase.
An Initial Environmental Study will be prepared in conjunction with the initial designs to
determine the potential for environmental impacts. If no unmitigated impacts are found, it
would be appropriate that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepared.
ATTACHMENTS
CMR:314:02
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
L~ JOHNSON
Police Chief
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
AssiStant City Manager
CMR:224:04 Page 3 of 3
City Mar ager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMAgNT: POLICE
PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JULY 15, 2002 CMR:314:02
INFORMATION REGARDING THE SELECTION OF THE
OPTION SELECTED FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN AT TPA~ CIVIC
CENTER SITE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
This is an informational report and no Council action is required at this time.
REPORT IN BRIEF
For the past six years, staff has been working on a public safetybuilding project. On July 2,.
2001, the City Council gave approval to proceed with the conceptual design for four potential
options for. the expansion and renovation of the current police facility. Since then, considerable
analysis has been completedon the four options.. Specifically, seismic evaluations, operational
and logistical reviews, Cost estimates, and potential environmental impacts have been completed
on each option.
Initial projections at the beginning of this project included space needs of over 66,000 square
feet at costs ranging from $52-.to $66 million dollars. Staff has reduced the space needs to
approximately 50,000 square feet, the minimum anaount of space that would meet the full
pro~ammatic requirements for the next 20 to 30 years. The associated cost estimates have also
been reduced to a range of $38 to $45 million.
After a review of the information on the four options, only one option meets the pro~ammatic
needs of the Police Department. This option is also estimated to be the least costly of the four.
Staff is therefore going to proceed with the schematic desig-n of that option.
Although the source of funding for this project has not yet been determined, staff is proceeding
CMR:314:02 ,Page 1 of 12
with the. schematic design phase of the project in order to develop a 30 percent design that
would determine the level of funding actually required for this project. Additionally, the need.
for the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the 9-1-1 Emergency Dispatch Center
(9-1-1 EDC) to remain Operational after a disaster has taken on even greater significance after
September 11, based upon the increased responsibilities for the Police and Fire Departments.
CMR:314:02 ~Page 2 of 12
BACKGROUND
The first needs assessment for this project was completed in 1985. In 1996, a second needs
assessment was initiated. Ekona Associates was hired in 1997 to complete this assessment and
the findings were presented to the Council. The findings determined that the facility was: 1) too
small tO meet current programmatic needs; 2) operationally and technologically deficient; and 3)
did not conform to current codes and standards for a public safety facility. These deficiencies
create security issues, health and safety risks, evidence tracking constraints, confidentiality
problems, inefficiencies, and potential legal concerns.
Based upon the Ekona findings, in 1998, the Counci! approved a $275,000 contract with
Ross/Drulis/Cusenbery Architects (RDC) for Phase I of the project. Phase I consisted of site
survey and selection, architectural program development, conceptual drawings, cost estimates,
preliminary environmental assessments, and initiation of community outreach. The scope of the
project involved an architectural program that included space for the Fire Deparmaent
administrative offices. With staff support, RDC completed the architectural program that
projected the needs of the Police and Fire Departments for the next 20 years. At that time, a
need for over 66,000 square feet was identified:
Community outreach meetings were conducted during 1998 and 1999 to share the need for a
new facility and to obtain feedback from residents regarding potential site selections. Ten
potential sites were discussed at these meetings. Based upon feedback from these meetings,
together with information about the inadequate size, private ownership, and location of some of
the sites, the list .was reduced to four: the existing location at the Civic Center, 2700 Park
Boulevard, Page Mill Road!El Camino, and 251 Sherman. At Council direction, a split-facility
study was also conducted to determine the costand feasibility of other alternatives that would
not require the purchase of property or the construction of a full public safety building. The
original estimate of 66,000 square feet was reduced to 52,790 square feet.
Preliminary environmental assessments, economical impact studies, preliminary conceptual
designs and cost analyses were completed for each site together with the split-facility study. A
decision was made not to present the findings to the Council until the City’s long-range
financial plan was discussed by the Council. At the time of the financial plari discussion,
Council tentatively approved in concept the inclusion 0fa public safety building, together with
funds for library upgrades, in a possible March 2001 bond election.
In 2000, the City Manager decided to go forward with a project that would include only a police
facility, the EOC, and the 9-1-1 EDC. The findings of the above studies on the four sites were
presented to Council, with cost estimates ranging from $51.8 million to $66 million. Council
CMR:314:02 ’Page 3 of 12
directed staff to complete preliminary review of the potentia! use of the Downtown Library site
at that time.
In October 2000, the Council determined that the Downtown Library site was not feasible due to
strong neighborhood concerns regarding the compatibility and the size and configuration of the
lot. The site was removed from further consideration.
A $400,000 CIP proposal was approved as 15art of the FY 2001-2002 CIP budget for the purpose
of completing the analysis of potential site options and to develop cost figures that would be
required for financing the project. On July 2, 2001 Council approved, in concept, the current
Police Department building site for the project and directed staff to proceed with the conceptual
de.sign of four potential preliminary options at the existing location.
DISCUSSION
Since July 2001, RDC and staff have been working on more detailed information on each of
four options at the existing Civic Center site. This report provides the results of these studies:
the pros and cons, the estimated ongoing operational costs and construction costs for each
option; justification that resulted in the decis.i.on to move forward with additional work on one of
the options; and an explanation of the work that will follow in the schematic design phase of the
project. " .
Description of Four Options
While only one of the four options meets the full programmatic requirements of the Police
Department, the following provides a description of exterior changes and the pros and cons for
each option:
1.Option A- "Up Only"
This option would expand the police facility upward, build out the mezzanine and add a
second floor. This is the only retrofit option and would not require the demolition of the
building because the changes would be made within the existing building exterior.
Square..footage:48,000.Estimated cost:$39,080,000
CMR:314:02 ’,Page 4 of 12
Advantages:
~Allows for the retention of current building exterior.
¯Retains the current Council Chamber’s roof.
¯9-1-1 EDC and the EOC could be located on the same floor.
Disadvantages:
Results in the highest new construction cost due to retention of existing building.
Does not accommodate full program needs.
Would require the property/evidence function to be relocated off-site resulting in higher
ongoing operational costs.
Extensive seismic retrofitting would be required below first floor in order to retain
existing structure.
Provides the least seismically sound or predictable option.
Height constraints between existing floors would result in less efficient design and
placement of mechanical systems.
Provides less flexibility for green building features.
Requires. addition of a new level, which may be a neighborhood issue.
2.Option B - "Out" One Level
This option would expand the first floor out to columns on the surrounding arcade area.
The arcade area is that space between the existing exterior walls and the columns. This
option would entail the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new
one.
Square footage:42,000
Advantages:
o No additional floors would be added.
Estimated cost:.$42,446,000
Disadvantages:
-Results in a severe shortfall in programmatic space needs.
¯Property/evidence function would need to be relocated off-site resulting in higher
ongoing operational costs including additional staff.
CMR:314:02 ~Page 5 of 12
o
Design flexibility is limited resulting in less efficient design of mechanical systems, shaft
and stair placement.
Significant overcrowding would occur due to the "shoehorn" approach that would be
needed to cover operational needs.
New roof over expanded first floor and connection to existing roof present design and
construction difficulties.
Provides the least flexibility for green building features.
Option C - ’,’Out" Two Levels
This option would expand the first floor and mezzanine level out over arcade area.
The demolition of the current structure and the construction of a new one is included in
the scheme.
Square footage:
Advantages:
47,000 Estimated cost:$44,667,000
No additional floors would be added.
9-1-1 EDC and the EOC could be located on the same floor.
Disadvantages:
o
Most expensive option.
Property/evidence function must be located off-site resulting in higher ongoing
operational costs including additional staff.
Design flexibility is limited, resulting in less efficient desig-n of mechanical systems,
shaft and stair placement.
New roof over expanded first floor and connection to existing.roof present design and
construction difficulties.
Some overcrowding exists.
Less flexibility for green building features.
Represents the most costly of the options.
Option D - "Up and Out’!
This option would expand both the first floor and mezzanine levels out to the arcade and
add a smaller second floor. This option would also entail the demolition of the existing
CMR:314:02 ’Page 6 of 12
structure and the construction of a new one.
Square footage:50,000 Estimated cost:$38,325,000
Advantages:
Only scheme that allows full accommodation of program and service requirements.
Least costly option.
9-1-1 EDC and the EOC may be located on the same floor and could be restricted or to
prohibit public access.
Greatest flexibility for green building features.
Provides for most efficient operations (i.e., property/evidence function located on-site).
Disadvantages:
Requires the addition of a new level.
Staff is proceeding with Option D to schematic design. The recommendation is based upon
programmatic considerations, cost, sustainability factor flexibility, and operational efficiencies.
Option D would entail the demolition of the current structure and the construction of a new
building that would create some traffic and noise issues during construction. However, based
upon the seismic upgrading that is required for an "essential facility," it is easier and less costly
to build a new structure as opposed to retrofitting an existing one. The benefits of removing the
current facility and-replacing it:~ with a lightweight steel structure include a simplified
construction process, enhanced Seismic performance, more efficient HVAC layouts, and less
structural impact and thus less associated parking space elimination in the Civic Center garage.
This option also provides the most square footage and allows for the ~eatest flexibility on the
use of space, making it the only option that meets the Police Department’s progarmaaatic needs.
The additional space would allow for the property!evidence function or the processing and
storage of all except large evidence items to remain on site. Other options would necessitate
moving this function to another location and would result in the need for additional staff with
corresponding increased ongoing costs, as well as the loss of productive time as officers and
staff would have to travel to/from the off-site location for property/evidence storage and
retrieval.
The additional square footage and configuration of Option D would a!low for more
opportunities for the introduction of sustainability strategies. Strategies that wi!l be studied as
CMR:314:112 ~Page7 of 12
part of the schematic design will include natural ventilation, high levels of day lighting to
interior spaces, and other energy saving and stress mitigating approaches. Option D will
provide the interior space required to accomplish some of these ideas and will provide the
flexibility to study orientation of individual programmatic elements to optimize day lighting
exposure.
Key Issues
There are several key issues that staff and RDC will be working to resolve as part of the
schematic design phase of this project.
Pa.rking - As a result of the seismic upgrade needed for the building, there would be associated
impacts to the Civic Center garage, and corresponding impacts on number of available parking
spaces during the construction period. The exact number of spaces cannot be determined until a
30 percent schematic design of one option is completed. Additionally, the zoning requirement
for additional parking spaces associated with the increased square footage cannot be determined
until a more detailed design is completed. RDC has included in-lieu parking fees in the cost
estimates for each option. The parking and transportation studies that have already been
initiated will be completed during the next phase of the woject.
TemporaIT Relocation During Construction - Police Department services and staff, including
the City’s EOC and the 9-1-1 EDC would need to be temporarily relocated during the
construction period (estimated 24-mc~nth period).
It would be impossible to carry on the day-to-day operations in the building during construction.
Staff anticipates that the 9-1-1 EDC could be relocated to the City’s SCADA building during
this time. Costs associated with the installation and operational costs of moving the EDC are
included in the total Woject costs. Staff has just begun studying the possible locations where the
Police Department and the EOC could be moved to during construction. Results of this study
would be presented to the Council at a later date.
Council Chambers Roof- As a result of the Council Chambers roof attachment to the Police
Department wing and the associated modifications that would be required for the seismic
modifications, the City Council Chambers would be unusable during a portion of the
construction period and the City Council would need to be temporarily relocated during an
estimated 12-18 month period. Council meetings would need to be conducted in other facilities
such as Cubberley or the Art Center. Preliminary indications are that it may be more cost
effective and enhance the seismic performance of the roof if it was replaced completely. The
cost est, imates for Option D includes projections for the roof replacement, but do not include
CMR:314:02 ’Page 8 of 12
relocation costs for Council and other meetings. Staff will be reviewing several funding
opportunities associated with photovolcaic that may be available for this part of the project
Off-site Warehouse - All options would require the lease or acquisition of an off-site warehouse
for the storage of large property/evidence items including bicycles.. A!I options would allow for
the storage of money, weapons, and narcotics at the police facility. Space for the
property/evidence function or the actual processing of evidence would only be available in
Option D. Off-site space in addition to the warehouse would be needed for the
property/evidence function for the other three options.
Mechanical Equipment_..Room - Similar to the other options, Option D would require the
inclusion of a mechanical equipment room on the roof of the new police facility.
Historical Significance - Architect Edward Durrell Stone desig-ned the Civic Center, including
the police wing. Staff has done some preliminary review to determine if there would be any
potential historical impact resulting from this project. Significant changes have already been
made to the Civic Center, including the remova! of the arcade that previously surrounded the
Civic Center complex.
Use of LevelA Space - Level A of the Civic Center currently includes an employee lunchroom
and the City’s mailroom/print shop. The square footage of each is similar. All the options
would require the use of one of these spaces. Staff has evaluated the feasibility of relocating the
mail room/print shop and determined that it not only would be very expensive, but it would
result in sig-nificant disruption and inefficiencies for City staff. Staff has also assessed the
possibility of eliminating the employee lunchroom. The size of this room has already been
reduced in size by one,half as the space needs of the Police Department have increasedover the
years. While every attempt would be made to provide some "break" space for use by City
employees, the preliminary conclusion is that the lunchroom as it currently exists would be
removed.
While some City staff may be concerned about the closure of the lunchroom, RDC and staff
have been directed by the City Manager to include if possible, space in the project design that
would allow for a workout area that could be used by all City employees. Council may recall
that about five years ago, due to security reasons associated with the design of the current
facility, the Police Department had to change the use of the gym area to only Police and Fire
employees. As a result, the City has been helping to subsidize non-public safety City
employees’ use of a private facility in close proximity to City Hall. Further evaluation on this
issue will be completed during the next phase.
CMR:314:02 ’Page 9 of 12
NEXT STEPS
The following are the steps that will be completed as part of the schematic design phase:
Preliminary building systems’ design
Full schematic layout of the building
Energy load evaluations
Green building element scoping
Preliminary integration of public art into the design
Parking/transportation studies
Review of po~entiai relocation sites
Detailed cost estimation for funding proposal
Upon completion of these tasks, staff plans to hold a second study session with the ARB. At the
point of 30 percent design, staff will provide the information to the Planning and Transportation
Commission and to the City Council for review. Staff believes that prior to this point there
would not be enough concrete information available on which the Commission and Council
could provide specific direction, but that it is early enough in the process for the Council to
make any changes.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Since 1996, a total of $515,024 has already been spent .on this project..
No additional funds will be needed for the schematic design of Option D. The Council, as part
of the FY2001-2002 budget, approved the Public Safety Building Capital Improvement Project
#19820 in the amount of$400,000, which will bring the total project costs to over $857,000.
The funding mechanism needed for this project has not yet been identified. Staff is proceeding
with the schematic design work needed to achieve a 30 percent design. The information
obtained by developing this level of design will determine the level, of financing required for the
project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This direction is consistent with prior Council direction.
CMR:314:02 ’ Page 10 of 12
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Complete CEQA documentation wil! be compieted as part of the schematic design phase.
Attachment D provides a draft summary of environmental findings that have been developed to
date.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Atiachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
PREPARED BY:
Massing Model Renderings for Each Option
Cost Summary Comparisons for Four Options
Detailed Cost Summaries for Each Option
Draft Summary of Key Environmental Findings
LYNNE JOHNSON
Assistant Police Chief
LESLIE JENN~NGS
Police Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEADS:
PATPdCKDWYEPJ ~Chief of Police
GLENN ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CMR:314:02 ~Page 11 of 12
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ........
Assistant .City Manager
CMR:314:02 Page 12 of 12
ATTACEIM2ENT A
O~
<~o
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme A
Palo Alto, California
BASIS OF COST PLAN
Cost Plan Prepared From
Drawings issued for
Floor Plans, 1 sheet
Discussions with the Project Architect and Engineers
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Dated Received
01/28/02 03/1302
Conditions of Construction
The pricing is based onthe following general conditions of construction
A start date of April 2005
A construction period of 24 months
The general contract will be competitively bid with qualified general and main
subcontractors
There will not be small business set aside requirements
The contractor will be required to pay prevailing wages
There are no phasing requirements
The general contractor Will have full access to the site at all hours
Conceptual Cost Plan Page I
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
’Civic Center Site, Scheme A
Palo Alto; California
EXCLUSIONS
Excluded from Construction Cost, Included in Project Cost
Owner supplied and installed furniture, fixtures and equipment
Loose furniture and equipment except as specifically identified
Security equipment and devices
Audio visual equipment
Design, testing, inspection or construction management fees
Architectural and design fees
Scope change and post contract contingencies
Assessments, taxes, finance, legal and development charges -
Builder’s risk, project wrap-up and Other owner provided insurance program
Land and easement acquisition
Excluded from Project Cost
Cost of relocating City Council during construction period
Work to other buildings or facilities on .the campus
Hazardous material handling, disposal and abatement
Compression of schedule, premium or shift work, and restrictions on the contractor’s working
hours
Environmental impact mitigation
Cost escalation beyond a start date of April 2005
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Conceptual Cost Plan Page 2
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme A
Palo Alto, California
0 VERALL SUMMARY
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Added Upper Floors
Seismic Improvements/Renovation to Existing
Gross Floor Area $ / SF $xl,000
9,220 SF 409.89 3,779
39,190 SF 294.83 11,554
SUBTOTAL Building & Sitework Construction June 2002 15,334
Escalation Factor 15.00%2,300
TOTAL Building & Sitework Construction April 2005 17,634
Temporary Relocation of Occupants
Relocation
Temporary modular buildings 9n city owned land
Duplicate Dispatch Center
1LS 120,000 120
20,000 SF 140.00 2,800
1 500,000 500
Parking Replacement Fee
4 cats/1,000 SF of new area 74 Car 50~000
PD displaced parking replacement 9 Car 50,000
(Note: this does not include public parking displaced as a result of seismic retrofit within Parking Levels A, B, and C)
3,700
45O
Additional Leased Facility Costs
Warehouse
Capitalized Lease Cost, $3.00/SF/mo
Tenant Improvements
4,450 SF 514.00 2~87
4,450 SF 30.00 134
TOTAL Associated Development Cost ApriI.2005 9,991
[I Allowance for Green Building/Public Art April 2005 1,323
Page 3
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme A
Palo Alto, California
0 VERALL SUMMARY
Move Allowance
Fees
Architecture & Engineering
Specialty Consultants
Construction Management
Administration, Printing & Testing
Funishings & Equipment
911 Communications Equipment
Security Equipment
F.F. &E.
Permits & Inspections
Construction Change Order Contingency
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
6O
10%1,763
2%353
4%705
200
500
150
$351GSF 1,694
2%353
10%3,473
[[ Total ’Soft’ Costs April 2005 9,251
1] Land Acquisition April 2005 0
}J Total April 2005 38,198
Bidding Contingency 5.00%882
11 Bidding Contingency April2005 882
Note: Temporary .occupancy assumes a 5 year minimum lease under current market conditions. Actua!
lease negotiations may secure a 3 year lease term and the cost could be reduced accordingly.
Capitalized lease costs calculated based on a 7% discount factor
please refer to the Inclusions and Exclusions sections of this report
Page 4
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme B
Palo Alto, California
BASIS OF COST PLAN
Cost Plan Prepared From
Drawings issued for
. Floor Plans, 1 sheet
Discussions with the Project Architect and Engineers
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Dated Received
01/28/02 03/1302
Conditions of Construction
The pricing is based on the following general conditions of construction
A start date of April 2005
A construction period of 24 months
The general contract will be competitively bid with qualified general and main
subcontractors
There wig not be small business set aside requirements
The contractor will be required to pay prevailing wages
There are no phasing requirements
The general contractor will have full access to the site at all hours
Conceptual Cost Plan Page 1
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme B
Palo Alto, California
EXCLUSIONS
Exeluded frora Construction Cost, Included in Project Cost
Owner supplied and instslled furniture, fixtures and equipment
Loose furniture and equipment except as specifically identified
Security equipment and devices
Audio visual equipment
Design, testing, inspection Or construction management fees
Architectural and design fees
Scope change and post contract contingencies
Assessments, taxes, ~’mance, legal and development charges
Builder’s risk, project wrap:up and other owner provided insurance program
Land and easement acquisition
Excluded frora Project Cost
Cost of relocating City Council during construction period
Work to other buildings or facilities on the campus
Hazardous material handling, disposal and abatement
Compression of schedule, premium or shift work, and restrictions on the contractor’s working
hours
Environmental impact mitigation
Cost escalation beyond a start date of April 2005
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2062
Conceptua! Cost Plan Page 2
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme B
Palo Alto, California
0 VERALL SUMMAR Y
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
New Building
Gross Floor Area $ / SF $xl,000
21,565 SF 352.74 7,607
Seismic Improvements/Renovation to Existing 20,692 SF 259.21 5,364
SVBrOTAL Building & Sitework Construction J’ttne2002 12 97O
Escalation Factor 15.00%1,946
14,916 IITOTAL Building & Sit’work Construction’April 2005
Temporary Relocation of Occupants
Relocation
Temporary modular buildings on city owned land
Duplicate Dispatch Center
1LS 120,000 120
20,000 SF 140.00 2,800
1 500,000 500
Parking Replacement Fee
(4 cars/1,000 SF of new area)53 Car 50,000
PD displaced parking replacement 9 Car 50,000
(Note: this does not include punic parking displaced as a result of seismic relzofit within Parking Levels A, B, and C)
Additional Leased Facility Costs
Warehouse/Proper~, & Evidence
Capitalized Lease Cost, $3.00/SF/mo
Capitalized property.& evidence operational cost.
Tenant Improvements
2,650
450
8,450 SF 514.00 4,343
$290,000/yr 19.60 5,684
8,450 SF 30.00 254
TOTAL Assoeiated Development Cost April 2005 16,801
Allowance for Green Building/Public Art April 2005 1,119
Page 3
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme B
Palo Alto, California
0 VERALL SUMMAR Y
Move Allowance
Fees
Architecture & Engineering
Specialty Consultants
Construction Management
Administration, Printing & Testing
Funishings & Equipment
911 Communications Equipment
Security Equipment
F.F. &E.
Permits &/_nspections
Construction Change Order Contingency
10%
2%
4%
$35/GSF
2%
!0%
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
6O
1,492
298
597
200
500
150
1,479
298
3,~91
If total ’solt’ Costs April 2OOS ,s6s 1]
II Land Aequisition April2005 0 [1
[I Total April2005 41,700 I1
Bidding Contingency 5.00%746
]l Bidding Contingency April2005 746 I1
Note: Temporary occupancy assumes a 5 year minimum lease under current market conditions. Actual
lease negotiations may secure a 3 year lease term and the cost could be reduced accordingly.
Capitalized lease costs calculated based on a 7% discount factor
Please refer to the Inclusions and Exclusions sections of this report
Page 4
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme C
Palo Alto, California
BASIS OF COST PLAN
Cost Plan Prepared From
Drawings issued for
Floor Plans, 1 sheet
Discussions with the Project Architect and Engineers
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Dated Received
01/28/02 03/1302
Conditions of Construction
The pricing is based on the following general conditions of construction
A start date of April 2005
A construction period of24 months
The general contract will be competitively bid with qualified general and main
subcontractors
There will not be small business set aside requirements
The contracto~ will be required to pay prevailing wages
There are no phasing requirements
The general contractor will have full access to the site at all hours
Conceptual Cost Plan Page 1
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme C
Palo Alto,, California
EXCLUSIONS
Excluded from Construction Cost, Included in Project Cost
Owner supplied and installed furniture, fixtures and equipment
Loose furniture and equipment except as specifically identified
Security equipment and devices
Audio visual equipment
Design, testing, inspection or construction management fees
Architectural and design fees
Scope change and post contract contingencies
Assessments, taxes, fmance, legal and development charges
Builder’s risk, project wrap-up and other owner provided insurance program
Land and easement acquisition
Excluded from Project Cost
Cost of relocating City Council during construction period
Work to other ~buildings or faciiities on the campus
Hazardous material handling, disposal and abatement
Compression of schedule, premium or shift work, and restrictions on the contractor’s working
hours
Environmental impact mitigation
Cost escalation beyond a start date of April 2005
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Conceptua! Cast Plan Page 2
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme C
Palo Alto, California
0 VERALL S UMMAR Y
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
New Building
Gross Floor Area $ / SF
26,308 SF 323.54
$xl,O00
8,512
Seismic Improvements/Renovation to Existing 20,692 SF 259.21
SUBTOTAL Building & Sitework Construction June 2002
Escalation Factor 15.00%
TOTAL Building ," Sitework Construction April 2005
Temporary, Relocation of Occupants
Relocation
Temporary modular buildings on city owned land
Duplicate Dispatch Center
1LS 120,000
20~000 SF 140.00
1 500,000
P arking Replacement Fee
(4 cars/1,000 SF of new area)63 Car 50,000
PD displaced parking replacement 9 Car 50,000
(Note: this does not include punic parking displaced as a result of seismic retrofit within Parking Levels A, B, and C)
Additional Leased Facility Costs
Warehouse/Property & Evidence
Capitalized Lease Cost, $3.00/SF/mo
Capitalized property & evidence operational cost
Tenant Improvements
5,364
13,875
2,081
15,957
120
2,800
500
3,150
45O
8,450 SF 514.00 4,343
$290,000 iyr 19.60 5,684
8,450 SF 30.00 254
TOTAL Associated Development Cost April 2005 17,301
Allowance for Greet, Building/Public Art April 2005 1,197
Page 3
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme C
¯ Palo Alto, California
0 VERALL SUMMAR Y
Move Allowance
Fees
Architecture & Engineering
Specialty Consultants
Construction Management
Administration, Printing & Testing
Funishings & Equipment
911 Communications Equipment
Security Equipment
F.F, &E.
Permits & Inspections
Construction Change Order Contingency
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
60
10%1,596
2%319
4%638
200
500
150
$35/GSF 1,645
2%319
10%3,988
Land Acquisition April2005 O [
Total ApriI 2005 43,869[
Bidding Contingency 5.00%798
Bidding Contingency April 2005 798
Note: Temporary occupancy assumes a 5 year minimarn lease under current market conditions. Actual
lease negotiations may secure a 3 year lease term and the cost could be reduced accordingly.
Capitalized lease costs calculated based on a 7% discount factor
Please refer to the Inclusions and Exclusions sections of this report
Page 4
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme D
Palo Alto, California
BASIS OF COST PLAN
Cost Plan Prepared From
Drawings issued for
Floor Plans, 1 sheet
Discussions with the Project Architect and Engineers
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Dated Received
01/28/02 03/1302
Conditions of Construction
The pricing is based on the following general conditions of construction
A start date of April 2005
A construction period of 24 months
The general contract will be competitively bid with qualified general and main
subcontractors
There will not be small business set aside requirements
The contractor will be required to pay prevailing wages
There are no phasing requirements
The general contractor will have full access to the site at all hours
Conceptual Cost Plan Page I
Palo Alto Public Safety Building "
Civic Center Site, Scheme D
Palo Alto, California
EXCLUSIONS
Excluded from Construction Cost, Included in Project Cost
Owner supplied and installed furniture, fixtures and equipment
Loose furniture and equipment except as specifically identified
Security equipment and devices
Audio visual equipment
Design, testing, inspection or construction management fees
Architectural and design fees
Scope change and post contract contingencies
Assessments,. taxes, finance, legal and development charges
Builder’s risk, project wrap-up and other owner provided insurance program
Land and easement acquisition
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Excluded from Project Cost
Cost of relocating City Council during construction period
Work to other buildings or facilities on the campus
Hazardous material .handling, disposal and abatement
Compression of schedule, premium or shift work, and restrictions on the contractor’s working
hours
Environmenta! impact mitigation
Cost escalation beyond a start date of April 2005
Page2Conceptual Cost Plan
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme D
Palo Alto, California
’0 VERALL SUMMAR Y
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
New Building
Gross Floor Area $ / SF $xl,000
29,308 SF 311.85 9,140
Seismic Improvements/Renovation to Existing
SUBTOTAL Building & Sitework Construction
Escalation Factor
20,692 SF
June 2002
15.00%
259.21
TOTAL Building & Sitework Construction April 2005
Temporary Relocation of Occupants
Relocation
Temporary modular buildings on ci{y owned land
Duplicate Dispatch Center
1LS 120,000
20,000 SF 140.00
1 500,000
Parking Replacement Fee .
(4 cars/1,000 SF of hera, area)84 Car 50,000
PD displaced parking replacement 9 Car 50,000
(Note: this does not include public parking displaced as a result of seismic retrofit within Par’king Levels A, B, and C)
Additional Leased Facility Costs
Warehouse
Capitalized Lease Cost, $3.00/SF/mo
Tenant Improvements
5,364
14,503
2,175
16,679
120
2,800
500
4,200
450
4,450 SF 514.00 2,287
4,450 SF 30.00 134
11 TOTAL Assoeiated Development Cost April 2005 10,491
[[ Allowance for Greet, Building/Public Art April 2005 1,251 ]]
Page 3
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme D
Palo Alto, California
OVERALL SUMMARY
Move Allowance
Fees
Architecture & Engineering
Specialty Consultants
Construction Management
Administration, Printing & Testing
Funishings & Equipment
911 Communications Equipment
Security Equipment
F.F.&E.
Permits & Inspections’
Construction Change Order Contingency
lO%
2%
4%
$351GSF
2%
!0%
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
6O
1,668
334
667
200
500
150
1,750
334
3,408
ro,al ’SoZ,’ Cos,s Apr. 2005
Land Aequisition April2005 0
Total April 2005 37,492
Bidding Contingency 5.00%834
Bidding Contingency April 2005 834
Note: Temporary occupancy assumes a 5 year minimum lease trader current market.conditions. Actual
lease negotiations may secure a 3 year lease term and the cost could be reduced accordingly.
Capitalized lease costs’ calculated based on a 7% discount factor
Please refer to the Inclusions and Exclusions sections of this report
Page 4
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Palo Alto
July 9, 2002
Envirorrnental Evaluation
Site Summary Matrix
Page I
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
,Key Environmental Considerations
General Ran and Zoning
Land Use Compatibility
Aesthetics/Visual
Traffic/Circulation
Cultural and Historic Resource
Irnplicatic~s
SiTE 1: Civic Center
The project would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation of Ihe site-"Major
Institution/Special Facilities,"
The site’s PF (Public Facilities)zoning district perm
a 1.00 maximum FAR, 50-foot maximum building
height (35 feet within 150 feet of a RM or PC district),
and a maximum FAR of 1.0 (30% maximum site
coverage). The proposed four-story building (40-45
feet high) would be within the height limit and would
probably be within the overall FAR limit (1.0) for the
site (this latter finding wou Id require verification).
The expansion of the existing police facilities structure
to become a larger Public Safety Building would
represent an intensification of existing civic center
uses, but would .be generally corn patibte with
surrounding public, commercial, and residential land
uses.
The city’s Civic Center is a prominent feature of Palo
Alto’s downtown. The Civic Center structure itself, and
structures on surrounding blocks are recogn~_ed for
architectural and histodc importance. If designed with
special emphasis on architectural compatibiity, the
proposed expansion of the existing Police Services
comport ent to become a new four-story Public Safety
Building could be implemented in a manner that would
limit the impact of the project on the architectural
integrity of the existing Civic Center complex, on the
existing downtown vistas along Forest Avenue, Bryant
Street, and Ramona Street, and on the overall visual
character of the downtown Civic Center subarea, to an
acceptable (less than slgnificart) level.
The "worst-case" daily and peak hour traffic increment
associated with the proposed expansion would not be
substantial in relation to the existing surrounding traffic
loads and roadway capacities. Nevertheless, the
project-generated traffic increment could exacerbate
existing congestion conditions in the downtown area.
The site is near, but not on, cro~stown arterial streets.
The Civic Center complex currently does not meet the
CEQA definition of an =historic resource." The
WPg,O\626\MATRIX.626 "
Ptazardous~eriais
.Impacts~:~=
Environmental Evaluation
Site S~ mary Matrix
Page 2
alternative would not directly affect any~the
numerous historically lisled properties in the site
vicinity. Therefore, the project (Option 1);~wilt not have a
significant histerical resources impact.
The two existing levefs of subgra d~ parkin~jbenea th
the Police Services wing would be retained. A more
detailed parking.evaluation will be completed prior to
project finalization (parking space ~-~igr,,ments,
access, convenience, security, sharing, etc.), to ensu re
that proje~ i’npactson civic center area parking
conditionswi|l be:less-than-sig nificanL
Site 1 -is within an identL~d dam failure inundation
area.
No hazardous materials concerns have been ldentified.
"[l~re-project would be "normally acceptable" in the
existir~.and future no ise environment.
The. pn~ect could result in signifi~nt tempo ran]
cm’~ruction noise impacts on the civic center vicinity.
"l-~e.associated temporary relocation of the Police
Department during project c6nstructJon could also
resut{~ in temporary (con~ruction)period tratfic, parking
and noise impacts, depending upon the location and
duration of the interim use..
W, Pg. 0\626 \MA TRIX. 626