CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 7
opportunity to comprehensively advance multiple objectives, leveraging existing and potential funding sources, and retaining and expanding highly valued community amenities.
Existing Condition of the Police Department Building
The need to replace the existing Police Station has been extensively studied and considered by the City Council in prior years. EMG performed a Facility Condition Assessment Report in July 2020 that demonstrated the anticipated 10-year cost of continuing operations and maintenance at $1.2 million.
The following is a brief description of some of the previously noted challenges.
A. The Police Station was permitted and constructed in 1970 under jurisdiction of the 1967, Uniform Building Code, UBC code.
B. The existing facility is Type V construction.
C. The existing buildings lack fire sprinklers and do not have a fire alarm system.
D. Multiple alterations have been made since 1970.
E. The building does not meet current seismic codes, lacks rated exit paths, building systems are old and lack smoke/fire dampers.
In addition to these concerns the police department’s modern functions and staffing can no longer be accommodated within the space available in the existing building. These conditions and the overall space needs were extensively studied in the Dewberry 2020 report, and the space needs per division were validated by HOK as part of the current project scope of work as will be described further below.
3. CITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through a comprehensive planning effort over the past ten years the City of Garden Grove has identified multiple objectives for the Civic Center property. The City strives to:
Create a consolidated holistic campus
Inspires Visitors, Users, Employees and Community (Recruitment & Retention) Inviting connection to the Community (Community Pride) Integrate and enhance Civic Center Park
Ease of access for everyone (Building and Parking)
Secure, efficient and functional
Sustain for the next 50+ years
Plan for future expansion and flexibility
Retain existing fire station and OCFA Admin offices
Integrate GGPD Memorial and design for community events Meet industry standards
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 8
Replacing and potentially relocating the Public Safety building elsewhere on the Civic Center campus will allow the city to consider infrastructure, transit, transportation, open space, housing, public art and memorials, and public access and use of the civic center properties. There is an opportunity to consider the Civic Center Park itself, and surrounding properties to leverage funding and as a secondary benefit meet the City’s objectives for preserving and enhancing open space and creating affordable housing.
4. PROJECT DEFINITION – SPACE NEEDS AND VALIDATED PROGRAM The Team worked with Garden Grove Police Department staff to examine the Dewberry study program.
This effort resulted in some refinement of the overall staffing growth estimates by division and ultimately reduced the identified space requirements as illustrated below. Table 1 provides a comparison of the Dewberry and HOK program validation.
Space and Parking Program Validation
Staffing 252 385 385 302 302
Space
Identification
Number
Current
Space
Dewberry
Scheme 4
Space Needs
(Bldg. Gross
Sq. Ft)
Projected to
2039
HOK 2022 Validation Projected
to 2039
HOK recommended space as a
function of staff numbers
City
recommended
space as a
function of
revised staff
numbers
HOK Total
Parking
Validation
Overall Building
Gross SF (BGSF) 53,206* 121,509 111,488 87,000 -
Total Parking 480
448
*Data from 2020 Dewberry Report
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 9
Consequently, the space allocation per employee was also reduced from the prior study. The Team reviewed the per employee space allocations in detail and by division. As will be illustrated later in this report the space allocation per person is a significant factor in driving the overall cost of the new facility.
The total parking considered the need for both secure patrol and employee parking, again adjusted for staff growth.
Parking Analysis
As noted in the table above, Dewberry estimated that the Police Department would need 480 parking spaces for 385 staff with personal vehicles, patrol vehicles and equipment, and visitor parking. Staff projections drive the estimates for secure parking. In the Dewberry report visitor parking was considered for those community members accessing the Public Safety building. The PFAL team scope of work and parking analysis was based upon the prior Dewberry study. As the staffing estimates were modified through the PFAL and City team analysis the overall parking need was similarly reduced from 480 to 448 vehicles.
Dewberry 2039 Future Parking Needs Estimate
Staff Vehicles
Secure Parking
Patrol Vehicle
Parking Visitor Parking Total
Regular Stall 300 84 60 444
Accessible Stall 30 NA 6 36
Total Stalls 330 84 66 480
HOK 2039 Future Parking Needs Estimate
Staff Vehicles
Secure Parking
Patrol Vehicle
Parking Visitor Parking Total
Regular Stall 265 83 60 408
Accessible Stall 34 NA 6 40
Total Stalls 299 83 66 448
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 10
It is important to note that the Dewberry parking analysis did not include City Hall or Community Center parking needs. From the Downtown Parking Plan the existing 11 publicly-owned and 8 privately-owned off-street parking lots can serve 1402 spaces. In addition, there are 1384 on-street parking spaces in the surrounding area. The future need for parking in the downtown was estimated at 2281 spaces, with a gap of 897 spaces. The City may want to consider serving a portion of this need by increasing the size of the proposed new parking structure. Given that the parking demand generated by single driver gasoline powered vehicles is changing, the City may also want to consider allocating a number of spaces for electric vehicle charging and potential autonomous vehicle passenger drop-off areas within the new parking structure. The Phase 2 scope of work will continue to right-size the new parking structure given these trends, available financing, and site constraints.
An additional consideration for the City is whether to design and construct the new parking structure such that it could be adapted to office use in the future. A level-floor multi-level structure would accommodate potential conversion to office space. A traditional garage has sloped floors. Based upon City feedback the PFAL team’s cost estimate for the project budget included a level-floor parking structure.
Space and Program Validation Square Feet Per Staff
Dewberry
Current
sq ft /FTE in 2019
Dewberry Scheme 4
sq ft /FTE Projected to
2039
HOK
sq ft /FTE Projected to
2039
Square Feet 243 316 290
The team also reviewed comparable new police and justice facilities to normalize the space requirements.
The following table summarizes this work product. It should be noted that each of the cities studied had a smaller police department than the City of Garden Grove. The space allocation per police department varied with some office sizes equal such as the Chief of Police, but otherwise office sizes split 50/50 with Garden Grove having higher space or lower space allocations than the comparable cities.
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 11
Program Comparison
Garden
Grove
Manassas (VA) Oswego
(IL)
Commerce
City (CO)
University
City (MO)
Chambers
County (TX)
AVERAGE
Space Types SF SF SF SF SF SF
Chief of Police
(Sheriff)
300 350 250 300 300 300 300
Deputy Chief of
Police
240 - 195 250 150 225 212
Captain,
Commander
240 150 180 200 225 225 203
Offices (Lieutenant,
Manager,
Supervisor)
150 150 120 180 120 144
Offices (Sergeants) 120 120 120 180 (Sharing
offices)
64 Workstation
(Supervisor, Officer,
Investigators,
Technicians)
64 50 64 64 48 64 59
Workstation (CSO) 48
Workstation (Flex,
Specialist)
36 Detectives 80
Building Occupants Police
and Jail
EOC, Police,
Emergency
Dispatch, Fire
and Rescue
Admin, City IT
Police HQ
and
Training
Police,
Emergency
Dispatch,
and
Municipal
Court
Police and
Municipal
Court
Police and
Jail
Total Staff Planned 302 173 166 373 128 154 198.8
Total Building GSF 67,048 (Main
Bldg) 85,062
(Aux, Parking,
and Main Bldg)
72,000 142,477 40,708 138,302 98,372
Construction
Completion
Dec-22 Aug-18 Study In-Design Masterplan
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 12
The current space does not adequately serve the existing staff. The Team was directed to use Dewberry’s 2019 staffing numbers which in turn were based upon population growth and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s recommended staffing officers/10,000 population. In order to meet national standards, given Garden Grove’s 172,800 population as of 2020 the Police Department should have 1.61 officers/person. A twenty-year projection with anticipated population growth would increase the recommended officers from the current 250 to 385 or a 35% increase. In consultation with City staff, the team re-examined the staffing projections as the significant jump in staffing was not considered realistic. City internal discussions resulted in a new staff total of 302 given the 2039 projection. The reduction in staffing when applied with HOK’s 290 square foot per employee implies a building size of 87,580 square feet.
Therefore, care was taken to ensure that the new facility would be designed to ensure sufficient space per em2034
ployee given the assumed staffing growth and equipment space needs projected out to the year 2039.
Further design work may help to inform how best to create adaptive space that will enable different City Police Department divisions to adjust their adjacencies and grow or shrink space as needed over time.
The final step in the space and program validation process was to consider affordability and right-size the space given these constraints. The team performed a design charette and a value engineering exercise to further reduce the overall space need by 24,488 square feet to a new total of 87,000 square feet. This reduction was accomplished by reducing office sizes, reducing dedicated conference rooms and moving to a shared conference room model, reducing dedicated wellness areas, and eliminating the community room and planning to use the Purcell building community room as an alternative. The Team recognized the importance of establishing space standards, building consensus in further change management practices, and City leadership communications.
Once the space allocation and overall size
of the new public safety building was
quantified the team then was able to
evaluate alternative sites. This workstream
considered the needs for both the police
department building as well as parking. The
Team evaluated multiple sites as well as
considered the alternative of retrofitting
the existing building.
New building target size is about
87,000 square feet assuming 302
staff by 2039
New building target size is about
87,000 square feet assuming 302
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 13
5. SITES AND COSTS
Multiple sites within the Civic Center were evaluated to fully explore siting options consistent with the City’s goals and objectives of maximizing the potential of the entire property while replacing the police department building, providing more park amenities, and developing housing.
Starting from the diagram below, the team divided the property to focus the justice related facility options within area A and B, housing in parcels E and 57, and then considered how these configurations might allow for park improvements in areas C and D. The team did not consider use or reuse of the City library property in area A, nor the Community Center in area C. In addition, the team considered whether the City owned property across Acacia, marked F in the diagram below could potentially be used as a new police department property
2. And finally, the team considered whether the existing police department building could be reused instead of completely replaced. Parking for the police department, city staff and the public were considered in all of the various configurations studied.
Police Department Building Site Evaluation
Under City staff direction the following criteria were considered to evaluate each of the police department site options:
Building and site security
Perception of openness to the public
Location of the building and interface with streets
Size and opportunities to program new park area
Need for additional surface parking,
Retention of the entire Fire Department station and administration offices Site access and turnaround
Sufficient secure parking for police vehicles and employees, and public parking
As previously noted, the team reviewed and confirmed the space requirements needed for the police department. Based upon this analysis the team determined that an 87,000 square foot building would meet the program existing and future forecasted growth needs of the police department to 2039
3. 2 Per City staff, approximately 15,000 square feet will be available on the 2nd floor of the Purcell building by 2025. 3 The 2020 Dewberry study forecasted growth to 2039.
F
N nottosale
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 14
5.1 Reuse of the Existing Building
The concept of reusing the existing building was eliminated given the deficiencies in the existing structure as these were extensively noted in the Dewberry report. In addition, based upon the team’s experience reuse of the existing building would be prohibitively expensive and such reuse would fundamentally not meet the program needs of the police department. However, the team did consider potential reuse of the existing police building in a phased approach to provide a temporary ‘swing space” location for the Senior Center. Evaluating the redesign of the police building to serve the community services use was outside the project scope of work.
Building and site security
Perception of openness to the public
Location of the building and interface with streets
Size and opportunities to program new park area
Need for additional surface parking
Creation of civic space for the fallen officer
memorial and events
Retaining entire Fire Department station and
administration offices
Ensuring site access and turnaround lanes
Sufficient secure parking for PD, employees and
public parking
Prosram validation exardses
conflnned the need for a new
87,000 square foot Police
Department bulldlna t.o meet
exlstlna and future space.
personnel. and technology
requirements throup 2039.
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 15
5.2 New Police Department Site Options
Two possible site massing options were provided to City staff for further discussion and consideration.
Both sought to provide secure parking proximate to the building, albeit in a standalone structure, and primarily sited the new facility to utilize the south-west corner of the Civic Center property on Euclid and Acacia. The size of and the need for a large parking structure was extensively discussed. The PFAL team recommends the City consider an adaptable design for the parking garage such that it could potentially be converted to office space as parking needs and space requirements change in the future. The team sought to retain as much of the open space between existing buildings and create new programmable park space. The resulting site layout is represented in the diagram below.
Stanford Ave.
Future Housing
(Site El
~----..... ~-------';..-:.. -----:.. -:_, ) I
NewParlt
2.3 +/ ~ acres
I
I
I Future Housing
: (Site 57)
I
J_ ' ,-------------'
I
ffi PROPOSED SITE DIACRAM
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 16
The PFAL team generated massing studies to consider the building elevations in comparison to proximate structures. These studies although not representing final designs are illustrated below.
SOUTH AERIAL
New Park
New Structured Parking
! SOUTHWEST AERIA ~
Opportunities:
• Re:imagined Civic
Center Park
concludes Civic
Center Drive axis
• New Public Safety
Building and parking
massing create new
outdoor spaces for
staff and public.
• Existing OCFA fire
station and admin
offices to remain.
Opportunities :
• New Public Safety
Building proposed to
anchor Acacia Pkwy
and Euclid Street.
• New Public Safety
Building creates
community space and
opportunity for future
police memorial
location .
• New structured
parking massing is
setback to create
landscape frontage.
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 17
6. NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
After evaluating the space needs program and the site fit, the team launched a preliminary visioning process to describe some of the desired design concepts. This effort will be expanded upon in the Phase 2 and Phase 3 scope of work. Initially the following concepts were discussed with examples provided to illustrate each; transparency, interior lighting and views, exterior courtyard with memorial artwork and landscaped spaces, use of contrasting and different materials to soften exterior walls. These design elements are intended to create the perception of a welcoming public facility, one that honors fallen officers and the importance of the public safety function, and that provides and maximizes natural light into the interior of working spaces in order to create a pleasant working environment.
• I) IFA:-:,L P,ojo« Piomo
I.:-'. ' L ' Ad ... i1ory Ltd.
2022 PFAL
Project Feasibility
Goa ls, Values & Criteria
Program Validation
Site Considera tions
Site Massing
Prelim Costs
SITE MASSINC OPPORTUNITIES
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 18
7. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
The project team evaluated the design, construction and financing costs for the 87,000 square foot public safety building, new parking structure, and park improvements based upon 2022 cost data and with projected cost escalation to the mid-point of construction. The preliminary feasibility analysis is presented below in comparison to the 2020 Dewberry assessment.
The team estimated that the total project design and construction cost for Phase 1 (Public Safety Building, parking, and park improvements) would total $108 million. Construction cost escalation due to pricing for lumber, steel and labor has been significant in the past several years since the Dewberry study adding between 6 – 10 % on an annual basis to overall project costs. The PFAL cost estimate includes upfit of the new facility with furniture and information technology infrastructure but does not include individual workstation IT equipment which would be provided by the City. Also excluded from the Feasibility analysis cost estimate are any unforeseen site environmental challenges. Finally, the team recommended that the housing proceed on a separate path following the Surplus Land Act process as described below.
• D If A;"":"'IL Projoct Finance
~ \ L • Advl1ory Lid.
W_II
[©li1
2022 PFAL
Project Feasibility
Goals, Values & Criteria
Program Validation
Site Considerations
Site Massing
Prelim Costs
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
2020 Dewberry
Assessment and
Conclusions
Option 1
Reno and Addition
t-
96,310 SF
2020 Est. $74.9M
Option 2 (Low)
New Construction
t-
96,310 SF
2020 Est. $72.2M
't
Option 3 (Middle)
New Construct ion - 102,646 SF
2020 Est. $79.6M
Option 4 (Full )
New Construction
- 121,509 SF
2020 Est. $92.9M .,
P31 Phase 1
Feasibility
Analysis
New Construction
f- Public Safety
Building
!87,000 SF
f-
New Parking
Structure
448 spaces
Re:lmagine
~ Civic Center Park
±_2.3 acres
Estimated Project
Construction Costs
~
! S108M"
*exclusions
P31 Phase 2
Housing
Assessment
Housing Mandate
f- 2024 timeframe
(Acacia Adult Day
Care Center)
f- Surplus Land Act
Process
-
Separate Project
Schedule
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 19
8. OPEN SPACE/PARK
The PFAL team was tasked with evaluating the operating costs of the existing park, providing comparative benchmarking data for urban parks, and providing an analysis of possible governance structures that serve to leverage funding sources and maintain park amenities. The report is summarized below. Further analysis is recommended once a full concept design has been defined in order to refine the capital, operations and maintenance costs
necessary for budgeting and financing
the project.
The existing park is approximately 5
acres in size. Based on data provided by
the City, the routine O&M costs for the
Civic Center Park are approximately
$432K annually or approximately $86K
per acre, with trimming being the largest expense at 65% of the costs. We understand pro-rated costs for security, programming, and management and administration for the Civic Center Park on top of the $432K for routine O&M, are currently minimal. It is worth noting that the $86K per acre for routine O&M of the Civic Center Park alone is already 45% higher than the $57K per acre average of actual citywide parks allocation for park related services including, O&M, security, programming, and management and administration. The pro-rated programming and management cost from the city on top of the $86K/acre routine O&M cost is approximately $6.8K/acre and $18.5K/acre, respectively. Any additional spending on park programming from the Garden Grove Community Foundation is currently minimal, no more than a few thousand dollars a year, as the events they host are primarily located at other parks in the city.
HR&A analyzed a handful of programmed urban parks ranging from half an acre to 12 acres in size as precedents for a potential order-of-magnitude operating budget for a high-quality park with community serving amenities at the Garden Grove Civic Center. Park size, location, level of programming, and availability of information were all
factors in identifying the best
reference projects to use as
benchmarks for developing cost
scenarios for the Civic Center Park.
8.1 Factors Driving Level and Distribution of Park O&M Costs
Based on the three scenarios studied we expect the annual O&M cost for the Garden Grove Civic Center Park to range between $96K and $387K per acre, depending on a combination of the elements that form the park and its design, as well as the management and governance structure, and the programming level. Routine operations and maintenance expenses not including staffing, typically generated between 38% to 88% of the overall annual operational costs, while programming ranged from zero to 44%.
Currently, there is no programming provided at the Civic Center Park.
Top tier benchmarked urban parks typically spent 38% of their overall operational expenses on maintenance and
44% on programming.
Compared to the current Civic Center Park 88% of annual operational expenditures on maintenance and zero on
programming.
O&M costs for the Civic Center Park are $83,000 per acre, 45% higher than the per acre average of all citywide parks.
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 20
8.2 Park Governance
Two governance structures were considered by the PFAL team. Either a partnership structure or a non- profit led structure based upon a business improvement district model.
Governance Structure 1: City Park Department with discrete partnership with non-profit Under this model the City Community Services Department with a non-profit partner would be in charge of operating and maintaining the park. The City’s Community Services Department would be responsible for operation, maintenance, and management of the park with the majority of funding coming from the City’s annual budget. The non-profit would maintain its scope and responsibilities of fundraising and programming, but under a formalized agreement that clearly delineates roles and responsibilities. Such agreement would require defining the type of programming and fundraising targets and responsibilities as well as incentives and penalties for the non-profit. Further exploration is needed to determine whether there are appropriate non-profit organizations with the internal capacity and/or willingness to take on responsibilities such as enhanced programming.
Governance Structure 2: Not-for-Profit Led Structure
An alternative approach is to form a business improvement district, such as exists in Bryant Park or Klyde Warren Park. Under such structure there could be more opportunity to leverage alternative revenue streams, such as earned income.
Finally, it is important to note that the future O&M costs will depend on the governance structure that the City chooses. If the City partners with a not-for-profit with an increased role more so than that of GGCF today, then the estimated management costs may be more similar to those in the medium and maximum scenarios, ranging between $100,000 and $300,000 per year. That would be the result of the partner possibly employing new additional workers dedicated to fundraising, programming, and overall park management.
If the City continues with its current governance structure and responsibilities, then costs would be spread out through the Community Services Department, with likely no workers fully dedicated to managing the Civic Center Park, and as a result, management costs specific to the Park would likely remain under $100,000 per year.
9. HOUSING
The HR&A analysis provided a preliminary housing development feasibility analysis as part of the Civic Center redevelopment project, including:
Evaluation of the opportunity for housing development on publicly owned sites; and Market, financial, and delivery implications of 100% market rate, mixed-income, and 100% affordable housing, as well as related tradeoffs of each development scenario.
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 21
The City identified two potential sites available for housing development as part of the Civic Center project. Initially these two sites were considered as unique, standalone housing development opportunities. As the discussion below indicates neither site alone was viewed as generating sufficient revenue to assist in the overall Civic Center redevelopment. The Team therefore considered the potential alternative option of consolidating both sites and recommended separating the housing development opportunity from the Public Safety building DBF solicitation process. This recommendation was based upon PFAL’s industry experience and knowledge that the development markets for housing vs public buildings are unique. Past public private development projects, such as the City of Long Beach’s civic center have demonstrated that separating the housing opportunities is a best practice.
Parcel E
Parcel E is a 2.2-acre lot on the northeast portion of the site that currently houses the Credit Union of Southern California and Civic Facilities. The site is zoned CC-3 with a maximum allowable density of 60 units per acre or approximately 125 units in total. With the recent legislative changes regarding the Surplus Land Act, at least 25% of the total housing units developed on any publicly owned surplus property should be affordable for lower income households. Meanwhile, all housing projects with affordable units can take advantage of the State Density Law with up to 50% increase in project densities depending on the amount of affordable housing and level of affordability provided.
HR&A studied the following development scenarios as comparison:
198-unit development that receives 150% State Density Bonus by providing 50 units (25%) of affordable housing for low-income households (60% of AMI). This scenario is compliant with the Surplus Land Act requirements.
198-unit development that receives 150% State Density Bonus by providing 31 units (15%) of affordable housing for very low-income households (50% of AMI). This scenario is not compliant with the Surplus Land Act requirements but is provided as a benchmark. 132-unit development with 100% market-rate units and no State Density Bonus. This scenario is not compliant with the Surplus Land Act requirements but is provided as a benchmark.
Scenarios 2 and 3 are not compliant with the Surplus Lands Act and therefore were rejected as non- feasible. Scenario 1 with a 198-unit development would not generate sufficient revenue to provide an offset to the Civic Center redevelopment as a whole.
Site 57
The Site 57 is a 1.57-acre site owned by the Garden Grove Housing Authority that currently houses the Acacia Adult Day Care for a potential 100% affordable housing development as a benchmark reference.
The site is also zoned CC-3 and has a maximum allowable density of 60 units per acre or approximately 94 units in total. The constraints on Site 57 limit the opportunity to generate revenues sufficient to provide an offset to the Civic Center redevelopment as a whole.
Given the constraints on both sites the team recommended the City consider offering both parcels together for housing development. This approach may create a larger development opportunity enabling the construction of a mixed use, affordable and market rate master-planned complex. The
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 22
recommendation from the PFAL team was to offer these development opportunities in a separate solicitation and phase from the Public Safety building and park improvements.
9.1 Civic Center Site Summary Comparison
Consolidating the existing five public safety buildings into a single new building with an adjacent parking structure optimizes the Civic Center land use. The five existing buildings are spread across 4.5 acres with surface parking. While convenient surface parking is a suboptimal land use in an urban city. The City’s civic center property assets can be put to a higher use if a parking structure is created to replace the existing surface parking, and when combined with a new building the overall land required is reduced.
The following chart describes the current property uses compared to the preferred siting options studied for the police department building.
Garden Grove Area Use Comparison
Current Option 1 Option 2
Public Safety 4 acres + 2.5 acres (annex) 4.5 acres 2.75 acres Open Space/Park 5 acres 3.5 acres 5.7 acres
Affordable Housing 0 4 acres 4 acres
10. CONCLUSION
With the combined analysis of validation and site considerations, the team concluded that the existing Civic Center Park area combined with the adjacent parking lot would be sufficient to accommodate a new Public Safety Building totaling 87,000 square feet, along with a multi-level parking structure to contain approximately 448 spaces which will accommodate secured police fleet vehicle parking, staff personal vehicles, and some public parking.
The feasibility analysis prepared by the PFAL team estimated a preliminary project budget to be approximately $108 million for construction of the new building, Civic Center Park, and a level-floor parking structure that could later be converted to office space if required. This estimate is intended to provide the City with an opinion of likely cost at a feasibility level, reflective of local market rates and conditions in Orange County at prevailing wages. Given the limited scope of design in this Phase 1, adjustments to program cost estimates are expected and will be further refined through next stage of the P3 process.
PFAL explored a series of project delivery funding options to advance a new Public Safety Building. The project delivery funding considered: risk assessment, project lifecycle, traditional delivery, alternative delivery, and project timing. In summary, the project delivery funding options are described as: 1) Design Bid Build (DBB) would take approximately 24 months to construction; 2) Design Build Finance Operation and Maintenance (DBFOM) would take approximately 18 months; and, Design Build Finance (DBF) would be in the range of 12-15 months.
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT – SUMMARY REPORT 23
Based on feasibility analysis conducted by PFAL, the team recommends that the Council advance the Design-Build-Finance (DBF) option for the following reasons:
A future site location has been identified.
Preliminary Public Safety Building program has been validated. Retain asset operations and maintenance responsibility. Streamlined project schedule.
Ability to optimize risk transfer to Developer.
Guaranteed price and performance per negotiated contract.
The next phase of work (Phase 2) will include performing CEQA, developing a Request for Qualifications package, market sounding, and finalizing a funding plan. Staff will return to the Council for further discussion and direction as appropriate. Finally, Phase 3 work will entail posting the RFQ, evaluating responses and selecting a developer, reviewing and providing community input on proposed design, finalizing development agreements, obtaining financial close on the proposed project, and issuing a notice to proceed. Phase 2 and 3 are anticipated to conclude under a Design-Build-Finance delivery method with contract award in the 3rd quarter of 2024.
1 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
AMENDMENT NO. 2
Project Finance Advisory Limited
This Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement ("Amendment No. 2 ") is made and entered into on January ______, 2023, by and between the CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ("CITY") and PROJECT FINANCE ADVISORY LIMITED ("CONSULTANT").
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT previously entered into that certain Professional Services Agreement dated July 12, 2022, for CONSULTANT to provide project feasibility and project management consulting services for the Garden Grove Civic Center Project and implement Phase 1 of the Scope of Services (the “Original Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment No. 1 to increase the contract price in the amount of $18,145.00 to cover additional services; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 incorrectly stipulates that the $18,145.00 increase was an annual compensation rather than an addition to the total not to exceed contract amount; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement, Amendment No. 1, and this Amendment No. 2 are hereby referred to collectively herein as the “Agreement;” and
WHEREAS, through this Amendment No. 2, CITY and CONSULTANT wish to proceed with implementation of Phases 2 and 3 of the Scope of Work to develop a Request for Qualifications/Proposals to select a preferred developer for the implementation of the Garden Grove Civic Center Project and finalize the design, build and finance agreement with the selected developer.
Now, therefore, it is mutually agreed, by and between the parties as follows:
1. Amendment to Section 2 of the Agreement. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the Phases 1 and 2 services identified in Attachment A herein.
2. Amendment to Section 3 of the Agreement. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the total compensation under the Agreement to the not to exceed amount of $1.3 million to cover the additional costs to implement Phases 2 and 3 of the Scope of Work pursuant to Attachment A.
3. Clarification as to Amendment No. 1. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that Amendment No. 1 increased the original contract amount by $18,145.00.
3. Except as expressly amended by Amendment No. 1 and this Amendment No. 2, all terms of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed by their respective officers duly authorized on the dates set forth below.
“CITY”
“CONSULTANT”
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
PROJECT FINANCE ADVISORY
LIMITED
By: __________________________
Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
Date: ________________________
By: __________________________
Name: ________________________
Title: _________________________
Date: ________________________
ATTESTED
______________________________
City Clerk
Date: _________________________
If CONSULTANT is a corporation, a
Corporate Resolution and/or Corporate
Seal is required. If a partnership,
Statement of Partnership must b e
submitted to CITY.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_____________________________
City Attorney
Date: ________________________
3 PHASE 2 AND 3 BUDGET
The procurement process to be carried out in Phases 2 and 3 have been informed by the conclusions and recommendations in Phase 1 and the decisions of City Council on the preferred procurement methodology.
For purposes of this BAFO, we have focused specifically on describing the process to identify a developer to design and build the Public Safety Facility, parking structure, and revisioned Civic Center Park.
Throughout Phases 2 and 3, PFAL will perform project management and coordination, provide strategic input and advice, maintain an issues list and meeting schedules, and assist in protecting the City’s interests.
The important deliverables during Phase 2 are:
Evaluation Criteria PFAL will work with the City early on to develop the evaluation criteria that will be used to assess qualifications and proposals. Putting this work at the front of the procurement helps to align stakeholder views about what the City is looking for in its P3 partner and how they will be selected. It also is helpful to have this information to hand prior to initiating a marketing process for the project.
Marketing
Collateral
PFAL will develop a 1-pager and press release to share with industry participants and publications to assist in summarizing the project to the market so that teams can begin to form prior to the initiation of the procurement.
Procurement
Documents
PFAL will work in close conjunction with the City’s engineer, technical staff, lawyers and external counsel, and the end users of the facility to help the City define and draft the RFQ and drop-down documents such as Technical Requirements and performance specifications. These documents will shape the procurement and impact the competitive dynamics that will drive value.
Draft DB contract Ideally, this document will allocate financial and technical risks to the Project parties best able to manage those risks. The team, along with the City’s lawyers and possible external counsel, will play an active role in ensuring that the City’s interests are protected while looking to allocate delivery risks in the most efficient manner.
Draft Design and
Technical
Specifications
The team will describe, in narrative form, the project elements that are required to be included in the final design.
The important deliverables during Phase 3 are:
Final Exclusive
Negotiation
Agreement, Design
Build Agreement
PFAL will support and lead negotiations with the Developer to finalize the exclusive negotiation agreement and design build agreement including all design and technical components. PFAL will advise of any issues under the terms of the Negotiation Agreement.
Financing Plan PFAL will review the developer’s financial plan and address and risks and concerns prior to execution. PFAL will also oversee and monitor the financial close process to ensure compliance with the approved financing strategy.
Project Cost
Update and
Transition
The PFAL team will update the Project’s cost model and develop materials to assist the City in managing the construction process.
4 DBF Delivery Method – Expected Timing
Timing of Initiation DBF – Exclusive Negotiation Agreement Delivery PHASE 2
Month 0 CEQA review begins/preferred site identified
Month 1 Draft evaluation criteria, RFQ, and design and technical specifications for all facilities
Month 1 Stakeholder engagement - coordination with Placeworks, Presentations to City Council, etc.
Month 1 Finalize feasibility work and funding plan
Month 2 Market outreach, RFI and convention circuit to gather feedback and publicize project
Month 4 Develop Performance Specifications, Room Data Sheets, Department Adjacency Diagrams
Month 4 Optional Task: Site visits/tours
Month 6 City Council Approval
Month 6 Procurement marketing and pre-bid meeting
PHASE 3
Month 7 Initiate Exclusive Negotiation Procurement – RFQ release Month 8 Approve ENA RFQ shortlist
Month 8 Shortlist, Interviews, Select Developer
Month 8-9 CEQA review ends, site confirmed
Month 9 Negotiate, approve, and execute PDA with selected Developer Scope and budget adjustments as needed
Month 9 Negotiate design build contract, finalize design and guaranteed max price Month 10-14 Scope and budget adjustments as needed
Month 14 Finalize DBF Agreement
Approve and execute DBF Agreement
Month 15
ENA Phase Work ends
Financial Close
Notice to Proceed
Design & Construction Commences
Month 33 Occupancy DATE TBD (based on construction period)
5 Project: Garden Grove PSF P3 Estimated Project Cost $108,000,000 Consolidated Budget/Stage 2 (A) Stage 2 Budget
$ Phase 2 Phase 3 Total
PFAL 242,372.00 385,593.00 $ 627,965.00 HOK 110,550.00 68,300.00 $ 178,850.00 Altus 32,730.00 68,580.00 $ 101,310.00 Dharam 35,700.00 50,680.00 $ 86,380.00 HR&A 17,640.00 66,520.00 $ 84,160.00 Total 438,992.00 639,673.00 $ 1,078,665.00 (B) Task Budget (Without Legal)
Phase 2 -
Procurement
Preparation
and Launch
Task Description Task Parameters Phase 2
1 Project management over 6
months, strategic advice on
procurement and approvals
Weekly calls with City, subcontractor team,
invoicing, issues list maintenance, schedule
maintenance and coordination, strategic advice on
procurement and approvals
$ 25,632.00
2 Develop Evaluation Criteria, RFQ,
City Council approval of documents
One workshop; presentation; procurement
strategy memo and updated schedule; coordinate
with legal counsel, subcontractors, to develop
RFQ; assumes no more than 5 turns of the RFQ;
develop Project Agreement Term Sheet
$ 142,788.00
3 Market outreach, RFI and
convention circuit to gather
feedback and publicize project
Assist in developing marketing materials (one-
page project description), develop questions,
attendance at conference (agenda setting,
schedule coordination) or market sounding by
phone/questionnaire, review market sounding
responses and make recommendations on items
to add in to RFQ, present findings to City project
team or City Council
$ 28,404.00
4 Two Workshops
Workshops with relevant personnel to discuss key
issues (i.e. risk allocation, delivery methodology,
design and performance criteria, financing
strategies, etc.)
$ 28,106.00
5 Finalize feasibility work, research
alternative funding sources
Funding plan finalization, Confirm Legal Authority
for solicitation approach, finalize project definition
and review CEQA documents
$ 20,920.00
6 Procurement marketing including
pre-bid meeting, prepare data
room
Press releases, pre-bid meeting including site visit $ 10,234.00 7 Stakeholder engagement -
coordination with Placeworks,
Presentations to City Council, etc.
Presentations and participation in community
workshops, study sessions, city council meetings $ 13,014.00 8 Develop Performance Specifications
Including design and technical input to
procurement documents, performance
specifications, develop technical evaluation rubric
$ 122,004.00
9 Room Data Sheets To be included in RFQ or Project Agreement $ 15,350.00 10 Department Adjacency Diagrams To be included in RFQ or Project Agreement $ 14,300.00 11 Optional Task: Site visits/tours 3 facilities tours with HOK and PFAL personnel $ 18,240.00 Total $ 438,992.00
• p If A~L Proj~cl Finance
a.;_: ~ L • Adnsory Ltd.
6 Phase 3 - RFQ, ENA, and Financial Close Phase 3
12 Project Management over 9 months
Weekly calls with City, subcontractor team,
invoicing, schedule maintenance and
coordination, strategic advice and maintain issues
list
$ 38,841.00
13 Launch RFQ Support RFQ launch, provide schedule updates and review RFIs $ 50,192.00
14 Respond to RFIs - not to exceed
hours All parties $ 49,260.00
15 Attend one round confidential
meeting (2 days) HOK only $ 16,500.00
16 Attend 3 rounds confidential
meeting (6 days) PFAL $ 88,756.00
17 Review and evaluate qualification
packages/facilitate selection
Review bidder submittals, prepare presentation
materials, present to staff and City Counsel $ 25,673.00 18 High-level proposal compliance
review for design intent HOK review $ 32,300.00 19 Stakeholder buy-in including
preliminary schematics
Updates to public, city council, city departments,
etc $ 9,654.00
20 Develop Design Build Contract and
Financing Agreements
Coordinate with legal counsel and subs to develop
full suite of documents $ 72,788.00
21 Technical input to procurement
documents, performance
specifications, technical evaluation
Negotiation of technical elements of the DB
contract $ 7,722.00
22 Manage dataroom Update files, monitor access, review and triage RFIs, prepare draft RFI responses $ 20,437.50 23 Negotiate DBC, final design,
financing agreements with bidder
Assume 7 weeks of active negotiations, includes
technical and cost input $ 133,968.00
24 Update Project Cost ROM and
proposed construction schedule Cost oversight and verification $ 6,435.50 25 Review and evaluate final
proposal/facilitate selection
Review final proposal, cost implications, financing
strategy $ 58,760.00
26 Financial close process oversight
and coordination
Review closing process and procedures, provide
commentary $ 16,122.00
27 Transition training Compliance monitoring spreadsheet, white paper post close, lessons learned summary $ 12,264.00 Total $ 639,673.00
Total Budget for Phase 2 and 3 $1,078,665.00
7 Phase 2 Schedule
Month Number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Project management over 6 months, strategic advice
on procurement and approvals
Develop Evaluation Criteria, RFQ, City Council
approval of documents
Market outreach, RFI and convention circuit to gather
feedback and publicize project
Two Workshops
Finalize feasibility work, research alternative funding sources
Procurement marketing including pre-bid meeting,
prepare data room
Stakeholder engagement - coordination with
Placeworks, Presentations to City Council, etc.
Develop Performance Specifications
Room Data Sheets
Department Adjacency Diagrams
Optional Task: Site visits/tours
Phase 3 Schedule
Month Number 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Project Management over 9 months
Launch RFQ
Respond to RFIs - not to exceed hours
Attend one round confidential meeting (2 days)
Attend 3 rounds confidential meeting (6 days)
Review and evaluate qualification packages/facilitate
selection
High-level proposal compliance review for design
intent
Stakeholder buy-in including preliminary schematics
Develop Design Build Contract and Financing
Agreements
Technical input to procurement documents,
performance specifications, technical evaluation
Manage dataroom
Negotiate DBC, final design, financing agreements
with bidder
Update Project Cost ROM and proposed construction
schedule
Review and evaluate final proposal/facilitate selection Financial close process oversight and coordination
Transition training
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
AMENDMENT
NO. 1
GARDEN GROVE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT This Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement is made and entered into this ______ day of January, 2023 by and between the CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and PLACEWORKS, INC., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT".
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT and CITY entered into contract, dated January 19, 2022 for public outreach and community engagement services to explore opportunities in the C
ity of Garden Grove civic center area for improved amenities and also evaluate the need to replace and modernize the public safety facilities to better meet the needs of the community (the “Existing Contract”).
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT and CITY desire to amend the Existing Contract as provided herein.
Now, therefore, it is mutually agreed, by and between the parties as follows:
Section 2. Services to be Provided shall be amended pursuant to the scope modification and budget amendment included in A ttachment “A”, incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3. Compensation shall be amended as follows:
The contract price is hereby i ncreased by $100,000.00 to a new total contract Firm Fixed Price of $150,000.00. This increase covers costs associated with ongoing or future public outreach and community engagement activities relating to the Civic Center Project as described in Attachment A.
Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the terms and conditions in the Existing Contract remain in full force and effect as originally executed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Existing Contract to be executed by their respective officers duly authorized on the date first written above.
Date: _____________ "CITY"
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
By: ____________________________
City Manager
ATTESTED:
____________________________
City Clerk
Date: _______________________
"CONSULTANT"
PLACEWORKS, INC.
By: ______________________________
Name: ___________________________
Date: ____________________________
If CONSULTANT is a corporation, a
Corporate Resolution and/or
Corporate Seal are required. If a
partnership, Statement of
Partnership must be submitted to
CITY.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Garden Grove City Attorney
________________________
Date
Attachment “A”
Scope Modifications and Budget Amendment
1 | Page
Phase II - Outreach for Garden Grove Civic Center
The City of Garden Grove kicked -off a multi- phase outreach plan to garner input from the community regarding the redevelopment of the City’s Public Safety building and redesign of the Civic Center open space. As a part of phase two, the city would like to continue community education on the project and gather feedback on the following:
Massing and configuration of the new public safety facilities building Amenities and design of new open space and park facilities Park programming priorities related to accessibility and safety Affordable housing in the civic center area
In order to successfully implement a second phase of outreach, the city will utilize information learned and input gathered during Phase I to develop a second robust and meaningful round of outreach.
Outreach Tools Menu
PlaceWorks has experience utilizing various tools and strategies to successfully engage community members. Below is a summary of the available outreach tools and programs PlaceWorks provides. The tools may be used on any combination, not to exceed the budget limit of $100,000.
Workshops
Community workshops provide opportunities for
the community to contribute, to serve as sounding
boards for ideas, and to ensure the transparency of
the planning process and create space for dialogue.
Workshops can be hosted in person or virtually and
allow the city to share important details about the
project as well as give residents an opportunity to
ask questions, engage in the process and share
their thoughts and opinions. PlaceWorks can plan,
coordinate, develop materials and facilitate
workshops in the city or virtually using zoom.
Estimated Cost: $10,000 - $15,000 per workshop, cost of duplicative or virtual workshops and re- use of designs and materials may result in reduced costs.
Stakeholder Meetings and Interviews
Stakeholder interviews are one of the best ways for the team to quickly assess perspectives on project issues, opportunities, and challenges as well to solicit input on the best ways to reach various members of the community, stakeholder organizations, and the city at large. Stakeholders could include local business owners, developers, students, educators, faith- based organizations, nonprofits, and government leaders. PlaceWorks can consult with City staff to develop a list of
2 | Page
stakeholders to interview, coordinate meeting schedules, facilitate interviews, and create a summary identifying major themes from the discussions.
Estimated Cost: $2,000 - $3,500 per interview, subsequent interviews may result in reduced costs per interview.
Pop-ups
Pop-ups are a fun, quick, and sometimes spontaneous way to interact with the public, usually in an environment where people naturally gather and are most comfortable. We
recommend pop-up events at popular local destinations—
commercial or retail centers, parks, schools, and colleges or during annual City events. Pop- up events can both
provide information to community members and gather
feedback through surveys, conversations, boards and other interactive methods. Pop-ups can also be semi-permanent in spaces where people regularly gather and will interact with on more than one occasion.
Estimated Cost: $3,000 - $15,000, cost range can vary based on type of pop-up, from simple materials and touchpoints with the city to semi-permanent structures and more complex pop-up plans. Estimated cost may include materials, more elaborate designs may have additional associated costs.
Outreach Materials and Flyers
Diverse digital marketing and social media strategies are an effective tool to engaging the community and ensuring that information is available to residents. Outreach materials can include print flyers and fact sheets, or content for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, NextDoor, content for the City’s newsletter, discussion boards, and other social media tools . Good outreach materials encourage community participation at project events.
Estimated Cost: $1,500- $3,000 per new set of materials, includes printing. Duplicate sets of materials for multiple events may reduce costs.
Surveys
Surveys are an important tool for gathering data on public interest and opinion for future use.
Surveys can be online and available in print at libraries, city hall or community centers. PlaceWorks can develop and implement a variety of surveys using tools like ArcGIS StoryMaps, SurveyMonkey, Google Forms and more. Surveys are an efficient method to gather data over an extended period and can help in displaying key data points for feedback.
Estimated Cost: $3,500 - $5,000 per survey
3 | Page
Balancing Act – Online Simulation
Balancing Act 1 is an easy and engaging way for
residents to learn about public budgets and the
choices public officials face in the budgeting process.
It allows participants to try allocating fund, expressing their priorities and preferences, but also requires them to balance spending and revenue. The city can utilize
Balancing Act to identify areas of priority for residents when it comes to park amenities and accessibility. The
simulation provides residents with a deeper
understanding of the decision -making process and
will encourage them to highlight their desires and
interests in the Civic Center.
Examples of the tools can be viewed for Riverside, CA
2 and St. Paul, MN3.
Estimated Cost: $8,500 – $18,500, estimated cost is dependent on tools purchased, use of interactive maps and additional service add-ons.
Translation Services
Translation services are often an essential component of outreach, particularly for diver se communities. Spanish translations services can be provided by PlaceWorks for small group discussions, materials, surveys, and workshops to ensure that all residents feel included and comfortable participating. For live translation at workshops and additional language translations (materials, small group discussions, surveys, etc) , PlaceWorks can outsource and coordinate translation services.
Estimated Cost: $1,800- $3,000 per event, including materials.
Total Cost Estimate
The city may select any combination of tools to implement Phase II, at a cost not to exceed $100,000.
1 abalancingact.com/
2 https://riverside-ca.abalancingact.com/city-of-riverside-parking-rates-and- hours?preview=fd3d8d6e9a78e1ff48195e10022f734d
3 https://anytownv2.abalancingact.com/city-park-improvement
You are balanced .
Where the Money Goes
---------,o1w:.c..-: ====-~ .... I :::::.~--~·-·· g C ,_.'--==- •• "'Cioi$ion" S'°,ooco
Revenu e
-........ -......... --.. ·-·-·"'·""-"" ...... _ _ ,...,,....,._ ........... .,_,_c>t,.....,., .. - .. , ..... _ _,