Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12021986 - 1.75 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS elk> v ' FROM: Phil Batchelor Contra County Administrator Costa DATA: November 13 , 1986 Courty SUBJECT: West County Justice Center. Progress Report #4 (October, 1986) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION- Acknowledge receipt of report from O'Brien-Kreitzberg and Associates, Inc. (Project and Construction Managers) on the activities relating to the West County Justice Center for the month of October, 1986 . BACKGROUND: See attached report. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C`O,M_r2MITTEE/! X APPROVE /J _ OTHER S I GNATURE l S 1: m-Cxim'hA�lh1/[ ACTION OF BOARD ON December 2, 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT '� AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED _ DEC 2 1986 Sheriff-Coroner —-- PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY !/ DEPUTY \M382/7-83 PR Contra NOV 1 2 1986 Costa County WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER PROGRESS REPORT NO, 4 OCTOBER 1986 O'BRIEN-KREITZBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project and Construction Managers O ' BRIE - KREITZBERG & h3PSOCIATES , INC . Bayside Plaza 188 The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94105 415-777-0188 November 4, 1986 Mr. George Roemer Director, Justice System Programs Office of the County Administrator County Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER Contra Costa County Progress Report No. 4 Dear Mr. Roemer: Enclosed for your information is the West County Justice Center Progress Report for October 1986. Sincerely, O'BRIM-KREITZBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. Gerry MacClelland, AIA Project Manager GM:SJ Enclosure San lose, CA Los Angeles, CA Merchantville, NI New York City Washington, D.C. WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER PROGRESS REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY P. Batchelor - County Administrator G. Roemer - Director, Justice System Programs R.- Rainey - Sheriff-Coroner J. Mitosinka - Sheriff's Department L. Ard - Sheriff's Department J. Robinson - Sheriff's Department C. Kizziah - Criminal Justice Programs R. Rygh - General Services Department B. Baba - General Services Department T. Mann - General Services Department S. Marchesi - County Counsel's Office C. Zahn - Community Development Department DWORSKY-DESIGN PARTNERSHIP J. Smith - Los Angeles J. Kibre - San Francisco O'BRIEN-RREITZBERG A ASSOCIATES F. Kreitzberg I. Gilboa R. Robinson W. Proctor G. MacClelland I I i j W E S T C 0 U N T Y J U S T I C E C E N T E R PROGRESS REPORT O C T O B E R 1 9 8 6 C O N T E N T S Page I. P R O J E C T DEVELOPMENT 1 II. P E N D I N G A C T I O N I T E R S 4 III. A R E A S O F CONCERN 6 IV. COST REPORT 7 V. S C B E D U L E 9 I _ � I 1 a i i I i 'WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER OKA PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 OCTOBER 1986 I. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT A. Current Status 1. Design The Schematic Design submittal was received as scheduled on October 15. The submittal included a set of drawings, a report from the Architect, the 25% draft of the Integrated Security Plan and a report on the project's control and communications systems concepts. The cost estimate for this submittal was received on October 29. Members of the County Project Team meet with the Architects on October 20 and 30. The first meeting gave the Architects an opportunity to present the submittal material, much of which had not been available during the earlier design workshops. A number of design and program issues were identified and discussed. Specifically, there were several areas that exceeded the programmed square footage requirements, the site plan had not been adequately modified to reflect the comments made in the third workshop, there were problems with the functional design of the administration building (which includes administration, operations, intake, transportation, staff facilities and services), and some of the architectural design elements and finishes needed refinement. During the second design review meeting, the Architect presented revised drawings reflecting the comments made at the October 20 meeting. The second meeting focused on the schematic level estimate, which is approximately $7 million over budget. The revised design reflected a 22,000 square foot reduction in program space, simplified the architectural forms and details, and modified the traffic/parking area. These changes will reduce the cost estimate approximately $2-3 million. The major remaining cost differences between the project budget and the schematic estimate appears to be the cost of site development. This cost includes grading, paving, fencing, landscaping, etc. The submittal has been distributed to members of the design workshops with comments due the week of November 3. Two sets have also been sent to the Board of Corrections for their review and comment. f -1- WFST. COUNTY JUSTICh ..'ENTER ORA PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 OCTOBER 1986 2. Community Participation The WCJC Advisory group held its monthly meeting on October 22. Based on the proposal from the Employment and Training Committee, the members approved a Minority and Women Business Enterprise Program policy statement. This proposed statement will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for consideration in establishing a County Affirmative Action Policy for consultants and vendors. Related to this policy, the Advisory Group also recommends that the WCJC Architect and Project Management consultants be encouraged to use local MBE/WBE's where possible. As presented by the Design Committee, the Advisory Group approved a resolution to the Board of Supervisors commenting on the project design and recommending mitigation measures to the project's impact on the adjacent park use. The resolution also recommends County endorsement of a new Regional Shoreline Park entrance along the north side of the County site. The Related Facilities and Services Committee has established their goals and will focus their immediate attention toward implementing a West County patrol substation at the WCJC. This committee is also reviewing the existing County detention programs. 3. Site Acquisition The two consultant final appraisals were originally due the first week in November. The scope of these appraisals has expanded, resulting in a request for a time extension. 4. Environmental Review County Counsel and the Community Development Department reviewed . the six complaints in the property owners legal challenge of the WCJC environmental impact report. The County had until October 24 to respond to the claims. The Court granted a time extension for this response until after County Counsel met with the plaintiff's attorney on October 30. To date, this statement has not had any impact on the project or its schedule. -2- WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER ORA PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 OCTOBER 1986 B. Upcoming Activities 1. Design The Schematic Phase design presentation to the Board of Supervisors has been rescheduled from November 18 to December 2. This time will give the Architect and County staff additional time to make design changes necessary to bring the project within budget. . Presentation to the Board is contingent on budget resolution. This two week delay is on the critical path. If the design and budget issues are adequately resolved during this phase review, there is a reasonable chance that the lost time can be made up during the contract documents phase of design. 2. Community Participation The Advisory Group will meet on November 12 and will include reports from each of the group's committees. Chairman Lloyd Madden is scheduled to appear before the Board of Supervisors on December 2 to present the motions •and resolutions passed at the Advisory Group's October meeting. 3. Site Acquisition There is no revised submission date for the two property appraisals. At present, it appears that the reports will be three 'to four weeks late. This will result in a one to two week delay in making a formal purchase offer to the current property owner, Pinole Point Properties. If limited to a few weeks, this delay can be recovered during the later stages of site acquisition. The acquisition schedule can be further impacted by the environmental lawsuit, should the plaintiff seek and receive a restraining order stopping the acquisition process. 4. Environmental Review As part of the design process, the Architect included the EIR environmental mitigation measures as part of the project design effort. Conformance to these mitigation measures will be checked as part of each design submittal.. County Counsel and the plaintiff's counsel will continue to periodically meet as they seek a settlement to the environmental lawsuit. A second settlement meeting is scheduled for November 25. With agreement of the plaintiff's counsel, the County's time to respond to the petition and complaint is extended to a time to be set at the next settlement meeting. -3- WEST -COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER ORA PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 OCTOBER 1986 II. PENDING ACTION ITEMS A. Define the Site Boundaries Problem: The selected project site is a portion of a larger site. Before an offer can be made, the site boundaries, site area and new easements and rights-of-way must be surveyed and defined. This information is also needed by the appraisers before they can complete their work. Action: The County's consulting surveyor defined the site boundaries (bearing- and distances) and furnished this information to the Architect. The Architect's Civil Engineer, in turn, has described the proposed off site roads and required rights-of-way. Preliminary drawings of the site boundaries and area calculations have been given to the appraisers. Once the final determination of the road rights-of-way are calculated, a new set of area calculations will be made. These areas will describe the site itself, new road rights-of-way and the existing rights-of-way to be abandoned as city streets. These final calculations are expected by November 20. B. East Bay Regional Park District Objections Problem: During the project Environmental Impact Report process, the East Bay Regional Park District expressed concern about the impact the jail project will have on Point Pinole Regional Park. These concerns are based on a variety of environmental (site drainage, endangered species, noise and land use) issues. Action: The Park District is represented on the WCJC Advisory Group's Design Committee. Their environmental concerns are being addressed as part of the design review process. During the Schematic Design Phase, the Park District's attention was focused on perimeter screening/landscaping, distance of the proposed buildings and parking from the park entrance and building height. Facility lighting and noise will also be evaluated during the next design phase. Design modifications have been made in response to these concerns. The Park District eventually plans to establish a new park entrance using the old E1 Sobrante Avenue. This new access would be along the north side of the site. The project's north boundary will be fully landscaped and will not have an adverse impact on the proposed new entry. The Park District has asked the county to endorse their new entry concept and the related park land acquisition west of the WCJC site (on the west side of the SPRR tracks). -4- ' 0 WEST COUNTY JUSTICe ..ENTER OKA PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 OCTOBER 1986 C. Construction Budget Problem: The Schematic Design Phase construction cost estimate totalled $40,288,243, approximately $7 million over budget. Action: The Architect started making design adjustments shortly after submission of the Schematic Design Phase documents. Their first adjustment reduced the buildings' sizes a total of 22,000 net square feet to conform with the approved design program. In addition, both the architect and Project Manager are developing lists of additional design and building system changes that can bring costs down further. If this. value engineering process does not bring the project within budget, cuts will be made to the original design program. These adjustments will be determined prior to the project presentation before the Board of Supervisors on December 2. -5- WEST C01fiM JUSTICE _.&TER ORA PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 OCTOBER 1986 III. AREAS OF CONCERN 1. Site Acquisition The site acquisition process, which includes the environmental lawsuit, continues to be a major concern. This is mainly due to the difficulty in controlling a schedule dependent on the actions of a variety of people, many of whom are external to the County. The single major impact to the timely possession of the site is the pending environmental lawsuit and the potential for a condemnation suit, should the owner reject the County's purchase offer. Because of the project size and political sensitivity, the entire acquisition process needs to be done thoroughly and carefully. The appraisal reports must be comprehensive and defensible. Completion of the appraisal reports is still a high priority. Despite the pressure to accept these reports as quickly as possible, acceptance should only be after careful review of the reports. If revisions are needed before acceptance, they of course must be made. The site acquisition schedule appears to be approximately three weeks behind schedule. Some of this time can be recovered during later stages of the acquisition process, assuming that no other problems develop that will also cause delays. In all probability, the acquisition process will continue to experience problems. These delays, if limited, will impact the award of the off-site construction contract; however, a limited delay will not impact the contract award and construction of the facility itself. 2. Construction Budget During the County's Schematic Design Submittal review, the Architect is continuing to refine the design as part of his effort to bring the construction estimate within budget. The schematic phase estimate of $40 million exceeded the budget by approximately $7 million. This increase is mainly due to higher than anticipated site development costs, i.e., grading, utility lines, paving, perimeter security system and access tunnels. The cost reductions will be brought about through corrected estimating assumptions, reduction in building area, changes in architectural details, finishes and building systems. The Project Team will meet with the Architect, as necessary, in November in order to identify the best means to reduce the budget prior to the project presentation to the Board of Supervisors on December 2. -6- WEST. COUNTY JUSTICh CENTER ORA PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 OCTOBER 1986 IV. COST REPORT The total project budget for the West County Justice Center is $48,760,695, of which $36,507,521 is to be provided by the California Board of Corrections. Section 12 of the project predesign program, approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 8, provides a cost breakdown for design, construction, site acquisition and miscellaneous costs. The following cost summary is based on this cost breakdown and shows authorized funding, contractual obligations and County expenditures to date. During the last budget reporting month (September 12 - October 13), $109,275 in payments was issued. County appropriations to date total $7,588,1691. Based on current projections, a cumulative total of approximately $2,478,000 will be spent for project consultants, supplies and County staff reimbursements as of June 1987, the end of this fiscal year. The remaining $5,110,000 is available for the site purchase and off-site development planned for Spring 1987. The actual purchase price of the site will determine the remaining available funds for site development. Estimated land cost ranges from $4,750,000 to $5,250,000 and the County portion of the off-site construction has an estimated cost range of $1,250,000 to $2,000,000. Through the use of Public Facilities Corporation funds earmarked for this project and the reprogramming of a limited amount of other County funds, it appears that an off-site contract can be awarded this fiscal year. Should this contract be delayed until July, when the 1987-88 year funds become available, it would not delay the next phase of construction. 1The total appropriation does not include any funds from the County's Public Facilities Corporation. -7- Cl In o o In o N4j O � 1 1 O 1 Oho 1 % 1 N i 1 CD 1 1 O 1 [n M tR v U 10 O O N O O O O O 00 u1 V1 W 41 O O C% O O N n O ID CO Oh 4 M O O J O O N .r O J m 10 U O C O O O Cl; n O N O O 6) N O J In O In n O r` r, IO 11 n n CD .--i J %D N 00 h E-4 PV N .--i In C4 f4 .-' 0 V* �1! Go j 4 O n In J .�-1 Ln Q J 00 00 / r 00 1 1 r O w w 1 1 w 1 1 1 0 14 Ln Ln Cli C4 QQ (' 11 14 K N 44- mei .�~WWrj1 \ CD h In N 1n M O1 0% Co CO y �MaC4 1 r ww 1 1 1 1 1 O PddFC \ Co 14 .r OI4j Cn C4 GO M -F4 u 41 OI 000 In Nr. . w CIO Co 010 U yO O O C A O O 144j 1-4 N Z Ln E rr ri M F d In In 00 In n en o� H (,� 10 � U Ln � 1 1 O 1 14 1 41 w w w w 1 1 w 1 w 1 A (� I n .�-1 O h N J 00 IPL7Z4 !'+ OD 14 14 N .ti .y n O �Aj V vs h N O h n O O O O J O O O O OI Co n O O O O n O O O O 10 C � OI O O O O N0 O O OV-4 00 10 00 0% C In n O C O O O Lr CC b . 1 Co h Co J O n O CO J n N O N .r in K n M O Co N O O O O O O In &n 10 0) O %D OI O O N O O n 00 01 goo 11 � O J J O O N O O .-a n IO Fi w w w w w w w C C N O Ow O O O C N h J /n Co to rl O CO r� %C w yJ 11 In 10 n O 14 J ID 0% 00 h .n.4 M N .ti J C n rl CO p`tl M .r► n M 02 W O .-1 r) 41 C M M W IC IC M C W M ++.W N O N CD H C M C O W 01 4-1 0) +4 O C O O 4,1 41 O ++ Co M M IN U �p N .4 4.1 U C C ' 4 +r 4.1 C m C ij 1 M N id 41 C U ai V-4 :0%l M E , k v aj C 6 N +4 P+ +t 00 m e0 O ++ 41 i+ P4 N ++ •+ [4 r ) 1 1C 00 1C +4 " W M 0 :3 M C 01 E JJ +d U O U M O C C 1A 01 C O b .0 ►+ Orn 64 64 0 Co a U a U Cr 1°a aI U rsU ON 94 -e- HEST COUNTY JUSTICE i.. erER ORA s PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4 OCTOBER 1986 V. SCHEDULE The Schematic Design Phase submittal was received on schedule. The County's review period was extended two additional weeks in order to schedule an acceptable time to present the project to the Board of Supervisors (December 2). This two week delay can possibly be recovered during the eight month contract documents phase of design. One of the consulting appraisers has requested additional time to complete his work. The report was due the first week in November. It now appears that the report will not be submitted before the end of November. If this delay cannot- be made up during the site acquisition period, it will cause the off-site construction contract award to be delayed from May until June. This delay will not impact the award of the major construction contract scheduled for award in May 1988. I -9- :4�'wJ rn rn W F— f Z — W U _ Z co OD 0 0) — rn H Z • � LLI F— r, LL) C) F— — Z :D — O U Q O co r U °) 0) — Q 7 I 0 U a z o 3 z cr H w z CL CO H O o_ H > H D z D w t- U 0 a H U (9 D 0 Cf) az >- zcr- w . C9 F-- H t— w O wHz0fnU) ts1 � I-- (!) OOz < ocHHw0H0.= -io-. o_ w �nOvmUa � .,I 6 Ui � CD� % t\ ul J _ U a g g 46\ 2 O 7 0 cir. C6 i $ - %� U ■ © m k% U d « W M. �o « 0 C \ U 9© %3 & ■s to & 0° V. us �t C � crz � in.0. o . 14 o§ t© #» w# §$ %% • . o g0 t �g %dIL 01 ■ ■ kk , . § r ! l . ® d � � kk 0 . . k %% k $ J m %» d 4 �� $#