HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-15 City Council (9)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JULY 15, 2002 CMR:314:02
INFORMATION. REGARDING THE SELECTION OF THE
OPTION SELECTED FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN AT THE 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 safety building 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 completed on 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 amount of space that would meet the full
programmatic 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 programmatic
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 design 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
.4
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 safetyrisks, evidence tracking constraints, confidentiality
-problems, inefficiencies, and potential legal concerns.
Based upon the Ekona findings, in 1998, the Council 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 Department
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 cost and 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 plan discussion,
Council tentatively approved in concept the inclusion of a 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 staffto complete preliminary review of the potential 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 part 0fthe 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 staffto proceed with the conceptual
design 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 decision 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.
Disadyantages:
¯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.
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:
Advantages:
42,000 Estimated cost:$42,446,000
¯No additional floors would be added.
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:
¯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 design 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.
4.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
Advantages:
Estimated cost:$38,325,000
¯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 greatest flexibility on the
use of space, making it the only option that meets the Police. Department’s programmatic 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 allow for more
opportunities for the introduction of sustainability strategies. Strategies that will be studied as
CMR:314:02 Page 7 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.
Keg 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.
Parking - 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 project.
Temporary 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-month 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 project 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 Cubber!ey 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. estimates 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 includingbicycles. All 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 designed 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 removal 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 mailroorn/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 significant 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 increased over 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 potential 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. Staffis 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 will be completed 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:
Attachment 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
Assistant Police Chief
Police Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEADS:
Chief of Police
GLENN ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CMR:314:02 Page 11 of 12
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: .......
F.MILg-I-i~SON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:314:02 Page 12 of 12
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 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 1
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme A
Palo Altor 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 SUMMAR Y
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Gross Floor Area $ / SF
Added Upper Floors 9,220 SF 409.89
Seismic Improvements/Renovation to Existing 39,190 SF
I Building Construction June 2002SUBTOTAL&Sitework
Escalation Factor 15.00%
I[TOTAL Building & Sitework Construction April 2005
294.83
Temporary Relocation of Occupants
Relocation
Temporary modular buildings on city owned land
Duplicate Dispatch Center
$xl,000
3,779
i 1,554
15,334 II
2,300
17,634 II
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 74 Car 50,000
PD displaced parking replacement 9 Car 50,000
(Note: this does not include public parking displaced as a resialt of seismic retrofit within Parking Levels A, B, and C)
3,700
450.
Additional Leased Facility Costs
Warehouse
Capitalized Lease Cost, $3.00/SF/mo
Tenant Improvements
4,450 SF 514.00 2,287
4,450 SF 30.00 134
TOTAL Associated Development Cost . April 2005 9,991 l]
[ Allowance for Green Building/Public Art April2005 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
10%
2%
4%
$35/GSF
2%
10%
II Totat ’Soft’ Costs Aprit 2005
¯DLA 98/4499
May.31, 2002
60
1,763
353
7O5
2O0
500
150
1,694
353
3,473
1 Land Acquisition April2005 o11.
[I
II
Total April 2005
Bidding Contingency 5.00%
Bidding Contingency April 2005
38,198 [I
882
882 II
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 B
Palo Alt% California
BASIS OF COST PLAN
Cost Plan Prepared From
Drawings issued for
Floor Plans, I 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 1
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme B
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 con~actor’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 B
Palo Alto~ California
OVERALL SUMMARY
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
[SUBTOTAL Building & Sitework Construction June 2002
Escalation Factor 15.00%
I 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
Parking Replacement Fee
(4 cars/1,000 SF of new area)53 Car 50,000
PD displaced parking replacement 9 Car 5.0,000
(Note: this does not include public 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
12,970
1,946
14,916
TOTAL Associated Development Cost
120
2,800
500
2,650
45O
8,450 SF 514.00 4,343
$290,000/yr 19.60 5,684
8,450 SF 30.00 254
April 2005
I Allowance for Green Building/Public Art AprH2005 1,119
Page 3
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme B
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
10%
2%
4%
$35/GSF .
2%
10%
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
60
1,492
298
597
200
5OO
150
1,479
298
3,791
]1 Total ’Soft’ Costs April 2005 8,865
[I Land Acquisition April 2005 0
[I Total April2005.41,700
Bidding Contingency 5.00%746
[I Bidding Contingency April2005 746
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, i 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 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, fLxtures 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
Environmental impact mitigation
Cost escalation beyond a start date of April 2005
Conceptual Cost Plan Page 2
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme C
Palo Alto~ California
OVERALL SUMMARY
New Building
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
Gross Floor Area $ / SF $xl,000
26,308 SF 323.54 8,512
II
[I
Seismic Improvements/Renovation to Existing 20,692 SF 259.21
SUBTOTAL Building & Sitework Construction June 2002
Escalation Factor
TOTAL Building & Sitework Construction
15.00%
Aprit 2005
Temporary Relocation of Occupants
Relocation
Temporary modular buildings on city owned land
Duplicate Dispatch Center
1 LS 120,000
20,000 SF 140.00
1 500,000
Parking 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 public parking displaced as a result of seismic retxofit 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 II
2,081
15,957 II
120
2,800
5O0
3,150
450
8,450 SF 514.00 4,343
$290,000/yr 19.60 5,684
8,450 SF 30.00 254
11 tOtAL Associated Development Cost April 2005 17,301 II
I Allowance for Green Building/Public Art April 2005 1,197 I]
Page 3
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme C
Palo Alto~ California
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
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
10%
2%
4%
$35/GSF
2%
10%
6O
1,596
319
638
200
5OO
150
1,645
319
3,988
11 Total ’Soft’ Costs April2005 9,415 l[
II Land Acquisition April2005 0 11
II Total April2005 43,869 11
Bidding Contingency 5.00%798
!1 Bidding Contingency April2005 798 II
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°/o. 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 1
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme D
Palo Altor 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 ~harges
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, prernium 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 D
Palo Alto? California
0 VERALL SUMMAR Y
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
New Building
Gross Floor Area
29,308 SF
$/SF
311.85
$xl,000
9,140
II
II
[I
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 city 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 new 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 Parking Levels A, B, and C)
Additional Leased Facility Costs
Warehouse
Capitalized Lease Cost, $3.00/SF/mo
Tenant Improvements
5,364
14,503 II
2,175
16,679 [I
TOTAL Associated Development Cost
120
2,800
5OO
4,200
450
4,450 SF 514.00 2,287
4,450 SF 30.00 134
AprH2005 10,491
l" Allowance for Green Building/Public Art AprH2005 1,251
Page 3
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
Civic Center Site, Scheme D
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
10%
2%
4%
DLA 98/4499
May 31, 2002
60
1,668
334
667
200
500
150
$35/GSF 1,750
2%334
10%3,408
Total ’So ’ Costs AprU 2OOS 9,071 l]
[I Land Acquisition April2005 0 l[
[I Total April2005 37,492 I]
Bidding Contingency 5.00%834
][ Bidding Contingency April2005 834 [I
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
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Palo Alto
July 9, 2002
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
Key Environmental Considerations
General Plan and Zoning
Land Use Compatibility
Aesthetics/Visual
Traffic/Circulation
Cultural and HIstodc Resource
Implications
Envirownental Evaluation
Site Summary Matrix
Page 1
SITE 1: Civic Center.
The project would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation of Ihe site-’Major
InstitutionlSpecial Facilities."
The site’s PF (Public Facilities) zoning district perm its
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 I~nit (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 patible with
surrounding public, commercial, and residential bnd
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 recognized for
architectural and historic im portance. If designed with
special emphasis on architectural compatibiity, the
proposed expansion of the existing Police Services
component 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 significant) level.
The "worst-case" daily and peak hour traffic increment
associated with the proposed expansion would not be
substantial in re lation to the existing surround ing 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, crosstown arterial streets.
The Civic Center complex currently does not meet the.
CEQA definition of an =historic resource." The
WPg. 0~628~MA TRIX.626
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Palo Alto
July 9, 2002
Parking
GeologylHydrology
Hazardous Materials
Noise ¯
Temporary ConstrucUon Period
Impacts "
Enviror~nental Evaluation
Site Summary Matdx
Page 2
alternative would not directly affect any of the
numerous historically listed properties in the site
vicinity. Therefore, the project (Option 1) will not have a
significant historical resources impact.
The two existing levels of subgrade parking beneath
the Police Services wing would be retained. A more
detailed parking evaluation will be completed prior to
project finalization (parking space assignments,
access, convenience, security, sharing, etc.), to ensure
that project knpacts on civic center area parking
conditions will be less-than-significant.
Site 1 is within an identified dam failure inundation
area.
No hazardous materials concerns have been identified.
The project would be "normally acceptable" in the
existing and future noise environment.
The project could result in significant tempo rary
construction noise impacts on the civic center vicinity.
The associated temporary relocation of the Police
Department during project construclion could also
result in temporary (construction) period traffic, parking
and noise impacts, depending upon the location and
duration of the interim use..
wPg. 0~626\MA TRIX. 626