To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Steve Potter, City Manager
Prepared By: Nancy Weiss, Executive Project Manager
TITLE:
Title
Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project, Including Buildings for City Offices, Meeting Spaces, and Related Facilities for Public Safety, General Government Administration, Fire Station No. 1, and Public Parking
LABEL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Recommendation
1. Provide direction to the City Manager to: (a) prepare alternative project configurations for a proposed Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project, based on the Program Update & Site Analysis Report presented to City Council on July 23, 2019, and (b) return to City Council at a future public meeting to evaluate the proposed alternative Project configurations.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (“ENA”) for the Civic Center and Downtown West End Gateway Project with Plenary Properties Napa, LLC; to suspend deadlines for performance under the ENA, during the evaluation of alternative Project configurations, through January 31, 2020.
Body
DISCUSSION:
I. Overview and Project Background
The fundamental goal of the proposed Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project (previously called the “Civic Center Project”) is to replace undersized City offices, meeting spaces, and related facilities that are currently located in buildings that are beyond their useful life, experiencing significant deferred maintenance, and inefficiently spread throughout the City. The proposed Project includes facilities to serve public safety functions (Police Department, Fire Department command and Emergency Operations Center), general government administration (all other non-safety City departments, as well as the City Council Chambers), Fire Station No. 1, and project-related parking.
City buildings for public safety and administration are in need of upgrades and expansion to accommodate the City’s current and future operational administration, public safety, and disaster response needs. Most of the buildings where City staff work are ill-suited to City functions and some are over 50 years old and in need of substantial upgrades to meet modern building codes and standards and support the city’s operational needs and ability to respond to and recover from disasters. Many lack technology and energy efficiency resulting in higher costs and locating within multiple leased and owned buildings makes integration of new technology energy efficiency difficult and costly. In addition to the need for significant renovation and modernization to provide critical services to the community, additional space and co-location of services is needed to address the operational needs of the City to provide a high level of day-to-day customer service. Increasing costs to operate, repair, and maintain our current outdated facilities is a growing concern and public expense.
Due to a succession of earthquakes, floods, and wildfires in recent years, Napa is acutely aware of the need for public safety and administration facilities, (which includes the City’s Emergency Operations Center) that can better serve our community before, during, and after these emergencies.
As with other major capital infrastructure projects, over the years, beginning in 2009, the City has explored various options and opportunities for upgrading and replacing these city buildings. Considerable time has been spent evaluating costs, community engagement, and technical review of strategies for developing and financing replacement of city facilities.
In September 2017, City Council approved an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (“ENA”) with Plenary Property Napa LLC (“PPN” or “Developer”) which defines the terms by which PPN and the City will negotiate the design, financing, and construction of the proposed Civic Center Project. The ENA initially contemplated that the public safety and general government administration functions would be located on the current site of the Community Services Building (“CSB Site”), Fire Station No. 1 would be relocated to the current site of the offices of the Housing Authority of the City of Napa (“HACN Site”), and public parking would be provided in a new parking structure to be constructed on the current surface parking lot at 1511 Clay Street combined with a proposed acquisition of private property at 1042 Seminary Street (“Parking Site”).
On December 11, 2018, staff shared an update on the project with City Council, which included changes to the project team, a financial forecast overview, and a discussion of project options. The City Council requested that staff perform a deeper analysis on project options for some version of a Public Safety and City Hall Facilities project and return with these options for review. Council formed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Vice Mayor Scott Sedgley and Councilmember Mary Luros to work directly with staff, and also directed staff to prioritize communication with the community and City employees.
At City Council’s direction, since the December 11, 2018 meeting, considerable work has been done to assess project goals and needs, review financial issues and capacity to finance a future project and to revisit existing space needs and site analyses. Additionally, based on feedback from the community/staff, and lessons learned from prior process, the City has made a number of changes to how we are approaching this project from a technical analysis as well as project management, communications and engagement process perspective.
On March 5, 2019, staff returned to City Council to review project goals set forth by the City Council when the original project request for proposals was issued in 2017. Council carefully reviewed and affirmed each goal, added two additional goals - which were to increase communication and community involvement, and develop a project that is within the City’s financial capacity to support. Council also unanimously committed to moving forward with implementing a process for evaluating various project alternatives for updating public safety and City Hall facilities including:
• Update the Program to address staff and community needs for delivering accessible and efficient service to the community every day and especially during emergencies;
• Analyze potentially feasible projects sites for a proposed project within a geographic boundary approved by council within which to locate a future campus;
• Evaluate the City’s current financial forecast to better understand what options will be affordable and how best to balance the costs associated with either maintaining or upgrading current facilities, and/or building new facilities;
• Assess the condition of current facilities that are in need of repair or upgrades and lack current technology, then determine the best way to address these issues; and
• Engage the community and staff in the project planning process.
II. July 23 Meeting Actions Summary
At the July 23, 2019 meeting, Staff will present the Program Update & Site Analysis Summary Report (see Attachment 1, which is identified herein as the “Summary Report”) providing information and analysis related to the direction provided at the March 5, 2019 council meeting. This report is organized in the following sections:
• Executive Summary
• Updated Project Program
• Potential Sites Alternatives Analysis: detailed information and technical analysis on potential sites and evaluation criteria for development of Project Alternatives in the next phase of analysis
• Financial framework and outline for how project alternatives will be analyzed in future phases to determine costs, affordability, development timelines and other considerations.
• Communications Summary for outreach process and feedback from staff and community members
Based on the information provided, Council will be asked to:
1. Provide direction regarding proceeding with analysis of alternative project configurations for a proposed Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project, based on the Program Update Report and Potential Sites Analysis presented at this meeting; and return to City Council at a future public meeting to evaluate the proposed alternative Project configurations; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (“ENA”) with Plenary Properties Napa, LLC to suspend deadlines for performance under the ENA, while the City evaluates alternative Project configurations, through January 31, 2020.
III. Next Phase Project Alternatives Analysis
Using the site(s) selected by Council for further analysis in the July 23,2019 meeting, City Staff and its Consultants will analyze a spectrum of development options, along with financial implications for each. These options will fall on a spectrum ranging from a “status quo” scenario (i.e., in lieu of new facilities, the City spends money to maintain and repair current facilities, continues to expend its lease footprint to accommodate staff growth over time) to scenarios that include the construction of completely new facilities that incorporate all future needs reflected in the Updated Program. Information from a third-party “facilities conditions assessment” study (FCA), which will be complete in August 2019, will be incorporated in financial projections for the scenarios that include the utilization of existing facilities, including the “status quo” scenario.
The below Development Spectrum represents likely options to be considered.
Each development option that considers renovation and new development will utilize the Updated Project Program to inform the options massing, adjacencies and overall square feet.
A. Updated Project Program
In early 2019, the City Manager established a Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project Delivery Team (PDT) and launched the Alternatives Analysis Phase. As part of that effort, staff reviewed space needs and developed a recommended Updated Program that describes the project’s design criteria and space needs.
The Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project includes the following:
• Administration facility for the City Council offices, the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance, Human Resources, Parks and Recreation Services, Community Development, Public Works, and Utilities Departments, the Fire Prevention Division, and associated public and support spaces including the Council Chambers;
• Public Safety facility for the Police Department and Fire Command and associated public and support spaces including the Emergency Operations Center (EOC);
• Public Plaza;
• Fire Station No.1 facility; and
• Parking for city fleet, staff, and visitors.
Eleven staff groups provided input on the update. The Advisory Group (TAG) was composed of members who represented the needs and concerns of their department or employee group. TAG met six times, including a full day tour of other office facilities, and gave input on what a successful City of Napa workplace environment could be. Ten Technical Working Groups (TWG) were composed of members with knowledge of and perspectives on specific program topics. Depending on the complexity of the topic the groups met two to six times to review concerns and unanswered questions from the previous design phase and made recommendations to address those concerns. The PDT reviewed the TAG and TWG recommendations and finalized the recommended Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project Updated Program. The Technical Working Groups, made up of knowledgeable professionals from City staff, included:
• Police
• Fire
• Storage
• Technology
• Development Counters
• Public Counters
• Large Spaces
• Security
• Emergency Operations
• Parking Operations
The recommended Updated Program (Section 2 of the Summary Report) describes the project design criteria and space needs. It will be used in the Project Alternatives Analysis-the next step in this phase-to test how the City’s needs can be met in one or more new buildings on one block or a couple nearby blocks. It also will be used to test renovating existing buildings. Renovations typically require compromises in design criteria and space needs because existing buildings have space or infrastructure limitations. Once the City selects a preferred project alternative, the Updated Program, or in the case of renovation, a modified Updated Program will be used to define the design criteria and space needs for that project.
The recommended Updated Program includes the following key changes:
• Administration
o More public services at the main entry including self-serve kiosks, greeter/revenue counter, and conference rooms; and
o Consolidated staff support spaces including a central breakroom and wellness area, floor resources, and a mix of floor and department storage. Floor resources include touch down/informal meeting area, copy/print room, kitchenette, and restrooms.
• Public Safety
o More growth space in each suite.
• Fire Station No. 1
o Additional space for additional engine and longer truck to replace ladder truck
• Entire Project
o More conference rooms;
o The recommended Updated Program assumes that the City will invest in archiving and technology now so departments can move into new building(s) with 30% less file/drawing storage than they currently have, and over time convert more storage space to workstation space accommodate staff growth; and
o The recommended Updated Program assumes that the City will consistently replace old computers and telephone handsets with laptops or tablets and soft phones, so all staff have mobile equipment when they move into new building(s).
B. Potential Sites Alternatives Analysis
In early 2019, the City Manager established a Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project Delivery Team (PDT) and launched the Alternatives Analysis Phase. As part of that effort, staff reviewed various alternative locations for the Project. City staff identified twenty-six properties (“potential sites”), varying in size and ownership, which included the following:
1. Systematic review of City-owned properties, including parking areas;
2. Consideration for sites identified by community members as potential alternatives; and
3. Properties considered for inclusion in the Project as of December 2018.
These sites vary in size, ownership and attributes; however, a few of these sites were large enough to accommodate the whole of the Updated Program. Therefore, sites were grouped together into “Consolidated Campus Areas” due to their proximity to other potential sites. These groupings resulted in four Consolidated Campus Areas, which consist of sites that, when clustered together, provide sufficient size to build facilities to fit the Updated Program.
Figure 1: Consolidated Campus Areas in the Downtown Core. “Consolidated Campus Area A” roughly correlates to existing facilities site, “Area B” to the former Safeway and Community Services Buildings site, “Area C” to the former location of the Cinedome, and “Area D” to the current County of Napa facilities. The other sites analyzed within the core of downtown Napa are not large enough to independently locate the Project or close enough to other sites of significant size to function as part of a consolidated campus.
The following matrix outlines the evaluation of the 26 sites according to key criteria: within geographic boundary (the boundary specified in the 2017 Project RFP, and confirmed by City Council March 5, 2019, and defined in Figure 4 below), Fire Station No. 1 Service Area (not required for the entire Project, but required for collocating with Fire Station No. 1), and that the Project fits within a “Consolidated Campus Area” (i.e., the site is large enough to accommodate the Project program as defined below, or is located proximate to other sites that as a combined area can physically accommodate a consolidated campus). Additional Evaluation Considerations include flood zone considerations, site access, and swing space. These are described in detail in Section 3 of the Summary Report.
Figure 2: Potential Sites Key Criteria Matrix. Each of the identified 26 sites, with their performance in the Key Criteria. Together with the map of Consolidated Campus Areas, this matrix illustrates how sites for potential inclusion in the next stage of analysis were determined. Each of these sites are detailed in Site Identification Sheets, as well as the Consolidated Campus Area summaries or the List of Potential Sites Eliminated from Further Consideration & Rationale, within this section of the Summary Report.
The following matrix summarizes the pros, cons, and other key considerations related to each Consolidated Campus Area identified in this analysis. This matrix is intended to inform decision-making related to which Consolidated Campus Areas should be utilized for the development of potential Project Alternatives in the next stage of the Alternatives Analysis Phase. The right-hand column states staff recommendations pertaining to each Consolidated Campus Area.
Figure 3: Analysis Summary Matrix of Consolidated Campus Areas.
|
Potential Consolidated Campus Area |
Key Pros |
Key Cons |
Other Key Considerations |
Recommend |
|
Area “A” - Existing Project Area |
• Largely City-Owned Parcels • Within Downtown Core • Central -location for Police & Fire • Outside of both 1:100 and 1:500 flood zones |
• May require disruption to existing offices (“swing space”) during construction • Potential additional costs related to “swing space” |
• Clay Street garage currently also shared with downtown businesses |
City staff recommends proceeding with the development of the Alternatives |
|
Area “B” - Safeway & CSB |
• Partially vacant today • No “Swing Space” required • Close to Downtown Core • Central location for Police & Fire • Outside of both 1:100 and 1:500 flood zones • Visible site with easy access off Jefferson |
• Acquisition of vacant Safeway parcel required • Environmental cleanup required (dry cleaner) |
• Timing and costs related to site acquisition and environmental cleanup unclear • Existing lease on property |
City staff does not recommend proceeding with the development of the Alternatives |
|
Area “C” - Cinedome Focus Area |
• Partially vacant today • No “Swing Space” required • Close to Downtown Core • Central location for Police & Fire • Visible site with easy access along Pearl/Soscol |
• Within 1:100 flood zone and portions within floodway • Some land acquisition likely required and cost to demolish pump station would likely be significant |
• Need to incorporate replacement public parking as a part of the Project • Inconsistency with Cinedome Master Plan • Future Flood Project construction to complete floodwall along property |
City staff does not recommend proceeding with the development of the Alternatives |
|
Area “D” - County Properties on 3rd |
• Within Downtown Core • Central location for Police & Fire • Outside of 1:100 flood zone (not outside 1:500 however) |
• Sites currently utilized by County, with no current interest in relocation • Market value purchase from County would be required (if County agreed to transfer) |
• Location next to County Jail may limit site access options • Facilities on site are significantly aged • Sullivan parcel has development constraints (view corridor of church) |
City staff does not recommend proceeding with the development of the Alternatives |
o Area A: City staff recommends proceeding to utilize this area for development of Project Alternatives, noting that this area consists largely city-owned parcels, is located within Downtown Core, presents a central -location for Police & Fire, and is outside of both 1:100 and 1:500 FEMA flood zones. Staff recognizes that important considerations around ‘swing space’ will need to be addressed in the Project Alternatives stage.
o Area B: City staff does not recommend proceeding to utilize this area for development of Project Alternatives, noting that the former Safeway site carries significant risk related to environmental cleanup at the Safeway Site, including high cost, uncertain timeline before development could occur, and ongoing liability. In addition, site acquisition (particularly given an existing leasehold on the site) adds time and cost.
o Area C: City staff does not recommend proceeding to utilize this area for development of Project Alternatives, noting that it is located largely within the FEMA 1:100 flood zone, constraining City’s emergency response during peak flood event. Even if facilities were designed and constructed to withstand such an emergency, the surrounding roads would likely be impacted to-and-from the site during an emergency. In addition, there would be a need to incorporate replacement public parking as a part of the Project (Cinedome Area Master Plan utilizes this Area to locate 500 public parking spaces)
o Area D: City staff does not recommend proceeding to utilize this area for development of Project Alternatives, noting that the sites are currently fully utilized by County--The City’s plans to use any of the County’s land at this location would be contingent on the County’s desire to relocate or redevelop the facilities currently occupying the site. The County’s timeline for relocation of the jail and administration functions does not align with the City’s Project timeline.as it is either unknown or several years in the future. Further, in the event the City utilized the Sullivan Block for some or all of the Project, the Project would likely need to include replacement parking for its functions as part of the City’s Project.
C. Financial Analysis
As is the case with most significant City infrastructure projects, the City currently does not have sufficient reserves set aside to finance all new construction required to accommodate the Updated Program. However, the cost of new development would be partially offset by savings resulting from the City moving out of leased space; through the elimination of expenditures on the operations, maintenance and capital renewal of existing facilities; and, potentially, the revenue derived from disposing excess properties. Taken together with potential future reprioritization of current expenditures, a variety of financial options will be available depending on the Project Alternative. These will be more fully explored in the next phase of the project as specific development options are created and their associated costs are quantified. Because of the variances associated with each Project Alternative there will likely be different financial requirements and opportunities associated with each Alternative.
D. Communications and Outreach
The overall objective of the Napa Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project Communications plan is to give City staff members and community members information about the planning process, including timelines, goals and costs, and to provide opportunities for timely input on the major decisions that will be made by City Council. The communications plan for internal and external audiences includes multiple strategies and communication mechanisms such as traditional and social media, internal and public City websites, feedback and open comment surveys, in-person forums, and outreach to stakeholder groups. These efforts are outlined below:
Internal Communications Activities
o Department Head engagement in this project processes has been increased whereby they have been informed of project information and responsible for sharing with their specific department members;
o In addition to The Advisory Group (TAG) being responsible for helping share and shape ideas to help inform the program, this group of department representatives was also responsible for sharing project information to their colleagues and bringing questions to the project team; and
o The communication plan also included a Staff Survey that received 255 responses (72% response rate). Questions related to awareness of project goals and information sharing techniques.
External Communication & Outreach Activities
o To date, the team has had a successful Editorial Board meeting with the Napa Valley Register, updated the City project website, implemented an electronic community survey and held a community open house to give input on the City Council’s goals for the project. The May 30th Community Open House collected valuable feedback on City Council project goals.
Key Themes of Community and Staff input thus far
o Transparency in process and opportunities for input. This goal was added by City Council and our project communication plan includes specific tactics to address this issue. People desire ways to communicate directly at community meetings and obtain good information at their convenience (i.e. project repository on the internet, meeting recordings);
o Community residents count on and highly value information and response from Fire and Police during natural disasters;
o Attendees were in favor of co-location of City services and facilities that are welcoming and easy to navigate;
o Sound quality, access for people of all abilities is important at Council meetings;
o People agree that current City facilities are outdated, too spread out, inefficient and not easy to access;
o Environmental values in design were very important to most attendees; and
o Future need to update processes, tools and technology in order to achieve goals for a modern work environment and providing public services in a convenient fashion (i.e. accessibility in public facilities and online services).
The Communications Plan immediate next steps include:
o Contacting community stakeholder groups to set up meetings and presentations for late summer and fall;
o Organizing a Community Forum to get input following the July 23rd Council presentation of the Summary Report on updated facilities program, potential sites, and finances;
o Updating the City website with the new information from the July 23rd Council meeting; and
o Staff forums for Q&A before and after July 23rd City Council meeting; Ongoing communications via The Advisory Group and Department leaders.
IV. First Amendment to the ENA
The existing Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“ENA”) between the City and Plenary, approved by Council on September 5, 2017, provided an initial two-year “Negotiating Period” (through September 5, 2019), with authority for the City Manager to extend the Negotiating Period for 180 days (through March 3, 2020). During the Negotiating Period, the ENA requires both parties to perform specified obligations that are identified as “Performance Milestones,” which include completion of the detailed design for the Project, executing contracts for all required financing for the Project, and executing contracts to construct and maintain the Project.
As noted above, following presentations by City staff and Plenary at the City Council meeting of December 11, 2018, the City Council directed City staff to negotiate with Plenary regarding potential amendments to the Project design. In order to implement this direction, the City Manager executed a Tolling Agreement with Plenary by which the Negotiating Period was extended until March 3, 2020, and the parties agreed to a “Tolling Period” beginning on December 11, 2018 and ending on August 1, 2019. During the Tolling Period, the parties agreed to suspend activity under the ENA related to the previous design approach (which included General Government Administration, Public Safety, and Council Chambers all on the CSB Site), and to consider alternative configurations for the design of the Project.
Staff is recommending that Council approve a First Amendment to the ENA which will extend the Tolling Period until January 31, 2020 and will extend the Negotiating Period for 270 days after the end of the Tolling Period. (October 27, 2020). The extension of the Tolling Period will provide time for City staff to continue to pursue the steps summarized in this staff report, including the discussions with Plenary regarding potential modifications to the previous design approach for the Project. As summarized above, City staff plans to return to City Council prior to the end of the Tolling Period in order to present alternative Project configurations on particular Sites, and (at that subsequent Council meeting) staff will recommend that Council approve a Second Amendment to the ENA which will more particularly identify the timing and parameters for negotiations with Plenary regarding the terms for implementing the design, financing, construction, and maintenance of the alternative Project. If, prior to the end of the Tolling Period, the City is not able to establish with Plenary mutually agreeable terms for a Second Amendment to the ENA, then the Tolling Period will expire, and the rights of the City and Plenary will revert back to the terms of the underlying ENA, with 270 days remaining in the Negotiating Period (this would be substantially equivalent to the position of the parties on December 11, 2018, at which time there were 268 days remaining in the Negotiating Period, which ended on September 5, 2019).
V. Summary of Findings and Next Steps
During this phase of the analysis a number of key issues were addressed that will inform the City as it continues to explore options for the development of a City Hall, Public Safety Facility, and new Fire Station 1. These include:
1. The Program of requirements for all aspect of the Overall Project were updated through a process that was highly inclusive, included representatives from all City departments and included over thirty meetings. As a result, the City now has an Updated Program that better defines the needs of the City to address both common and department needs as well as improved ways to support citizen access to services. Because of the inclusive nature of the process, it provided ample opportunity for all City staff to have a say in the process and an understanding of the resulting Updated Program.
2. Twenty-six individual sites were analyzed, which derived four Consolidated Project Areas that can support all of the City’s Updated Program. Each Consolidated Project Area was then further analyzed using common criteria, which resulted in staff recommending that Council select Consolidated Area “A” to be used in the next stage of the analysis to explore various Project Development Alternatives.
3. Staff and Consultants have developed an inclusive process that has derived:
a. A clear Updated Program developed with expert guidance and deep staff involvement. This Program can be applied to every Project Alternative except a “status quo” alternatives;
b. Deep analysis of many sites using a common analysis criterion, which has resulted in an objective staff recommendation for a preferred Consolidated Development Area; and
c. A comprehensive plan for ongoing community outreach and have already conducted one early outreach event and survey.
Next Steps: The next stage of the Alternatives Analysis Phase, “Development of Project Alternatives & Analysis”, will utilize the Updated Program from this report, as well as the sites selected by City Council for further investigation, as the basis for development of conceptual “Project Alternatives.” These Project Alternatives will test basic massing of the Updated Program over the selected sites, identify strengths and weaknesses of each Project Alternative, as well as conceptual costs, development timeline, and other considerations. As stated above, along with Project Alternatives that contemplate “new build” scenarios, staff will also develop, analyze and present alternatives representing partial or complete renovation, expansion of current facilities, and a “status quo” alternative demonstrating impacts of simply continuing current facilities expenditures and investments into the future. This stage will conclude with a presentation of the Project Alternatives and analyses to City Council in early Fall 2019 and will proceed to a public engagement period for feedback on these alternatives.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The Recommended Action #1 in this item will result in additional expenditures of City funds to evaluate the proposed alternative project considerations. There is sufficient budget within the City Hall Consolidation CIP project # FC15PW02 to accommodate the costs associated with this next phase of analysis. The Recommended Action #2 in this item suspends certain deadlines contained in the ENA but does not have a financial impact.
CEQA:
The Public Works Director has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Staff Report is not in-and-of-itself a “project” (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378) since it does not result in a physical change in the environment.
However, the Recommended Action is a part of a larger “project” that will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA at the “earliest feasible time” prior to “approval” consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15004 and 15352. The larger “project” is “to Design and Build a New Public Safety and City Administration Building as well as to Develop Excess City Land with Private Uses,” and staff plans to bring back a CEQA analysis of that project to Council prior to approval of the Project Agreements that commit the City to construction of the Project.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
ATCH 1 - City of Napa Public Safety and City Hall Facilities Project - Program Update and Site Analysis Summary Report
ATCH 2 - First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (“ENA”) for the Civic Center and Downtown West End Gateway Project with Plenary Properties Napa, LLC
NOTIFICATION:
None.