The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - June 5, 2002 I-04,a ro COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONC�kORa`P AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Resolutions Certify Negative Declaration and Awarding Contract for New Police Building (approx. $11,500,000); and Appropriate Funds for the Project MEETING DATE: June 5, 2002 PREPARED BY: Public Works Director The bid opening for the above project was Thursday, May 23, 2002. Staff is reviewing the bids and developing recommendations on the bid and alternates. Assuming there are no problems with the bids, a recommendation for award and request for appropriation will be presented at the Council meeting. The Negative Declaration, prepared by the Community Develo ment Department, is attached. Richard C. Prima, r. Public Works Director RCP/lm attachment cc: Randy Hays, City Attorney Jerry Adams, Police Chief Rad Bartlam, Community Development Director Dennis Callahan, Fleet and Facilities Manager Gary Wiman, Construction Project Manager APPROVED: kz H. Dixo Flynn -- ity Manager CAWARD&CERTNEGDEC 05/30/02 AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Resolutions Certifying Negative Declaration and Awarding Contract for New Police Building to McCarthy Construction, of Sacramento ($10,894,400); and Appropriate $12,400,000 for the Project. MEETING DATE: June 5, 2002 PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the negative declaration; and adopt a resolution awarding the contract for the above project to McCarthy Construction, of Sacramento, in the amount of $10,894,400; and appropriate funds in accordance with the recommendation shown below. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Plans and specifications for this project were approved on March 6, 2002. This project includes furnishing all labor, material, tax, equipment, and services necessary for the construction and completion of the new Lodi Police Building, a two-story, 60,000(±) - square -foot police department facility, and associated improvements. Project includes: site demolition, site utilities, fiber optic cabling, concrete, masonry, structural steel, single -ply roofing, elevators, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, Type I jail, dispatch center, voice and data cabling, security electronics, landscape and irrigation, curb, gutter and sidewalks, demolition and replacement of streets, and all associated work as described in the project plans (drawings) and specifications, all in accordance with the specifications and working details and other contract documents now on file with Public Works, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi. The project also includes replacement of storm drains and a water main funded by the utilities main replacement accounts. Bids were opened on May 23, 2002. The City received nine bids for this project. The bid tally sheet (showing all bids received) and a breakdown of the award recommendation are attached. The bid included several bid alternates: Alternate 5: Add covered parking over the northern (alley side) 37 parking stalls. Alternate 7: Delete the specified evidence refrigerator and replace with a standard 6 -cubic -foot refrigerator. Alternate 8: This alternate is for the selection of the HVAC control system. Facilities Maintenance requested this alternate to perform an evaluation of potential control systems. Staff is requesting funding for Alternate 8A, which matches the system at City Hall. However, we are still studying alternatives and may issue a change order for a less expensive system. Alternate 9: Delete thin brick veneer from the perimeter site wall at the alley. The wall will be constructed of a less expensive decorative block material to the approval of the Community Development Director. Alternate 10: Delete the roof screens at the HVAC units. They will not be visible from Elm Street so the screens are unnecessary. Alternate 11: Delete all operable exterior windows in favor of fixed windows, which will allow the HVAC to function properly. The total appropriation includes the construction contract, construction contingencies, estimated testing and inspection services, dispatch furniture and equipment, office furniture and equipment, and estimated moving expenses. It also includes cost of the remaining property being acquired. FUNDING: Requested Appropriation: Total Project Cost: Bid Opening Date: Funding Available: Richard C. Prima, J Public Works Director General Fund Certificate of Participation $12,400,000 $13,900,000 (including this and prior appropriations) May 23, 2002 OJAJO. !tl i Vicky McAt ie, Finance Director A Prepared by Gary R. Wiman, Construction Project Manager attachments cc: City Attorney Community Development Director Police Chief Jerry Adams Chief of Police APPROVED: H. Dixon Flynn -- City Manager CAWARDBNEGDEC NEWPOLICEBLDG 06/05/02 Lodi Police Facility Bid Tally May 23, 2002 2:00 p.m. * one of Alternate #8 must be selected for the completion of the Building 613/02 Replace Delete Operable Add Covered Evidence 'LONWORKS Delete Sitewall Delete Roof Exterior AWARD: TOTAL of Parking Refrig ' Novar HVAC HVAC *Trane HVAC Thin Brick Screens Windows Base Bid & Alts Bidder Base Bid Alternate #5 Alternate #7 Alternate #8A Alternate #8B Alternate #8C Alternate #9 Alternate #10 Alternate 011 5, 7, 9, 10 & 11 McCarthy Construction 3320 Kiessig Ave. # 8 Sacramento, CA 95823 $10,770,000.0 $115,000.00 -$4,600.00 $187,000.00 $138,900.00 $119,200.00 -$60,000.00 -$80,000.00 -$33,000.00 $10,707,400.00 Flintco, Inc. 3480 Sunrise Blvd. Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 $10,930,000.00 $54,000.00 -$1,500.00 $188,000.00 $112,000.00 $106,000.00 -$20,500.00 4111,000.00 -$47,800.00 $10,803,200.00 Acme Construction 1565 Cummins Drive Modesto CA 95358 $11,345,000.00 $276,000.00 -$3,500.00 $200,000.00 $135,000.00 $94,000.00 -$30,000.00 -$55,000.00 -$35,000.00 $11,497,500.00 John F. Otto, Inc. 1717 2nd Street Sacramento, CA 95814 $11,777,000.00 $283,000.00 -$4,400.00 $190,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 -$17,700.00 -$97,000.00 -$80,700.00 $11,860,200.00 F&H Construction 4945 Waterloo Road Stockton, CA 95215 $11,806,000.00 $273,000.00 -$500.00 $204,000.00 $150,000.00 $129,000.00 -$29,000.00 -$140,000.00 -$38,000.00 $11,871,500.00 Allen L. Bender, Inc. 2798 Industrial Blvd. W. Sacramento, CA 95691 $11,943,221.00 $178,773.00 -$2,409.00 $194,831.00 $115,614.00 $108,120.00 -$14,662.00 -$122,692.00 -$44,265.00 $11,937,966.00 Roebbelen Contracting 1241 Hawks Flight Ct. EI Dorado Hills, CA 95762 $11,948,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $178,000.00 $107,000.00 $101,000.00 $20,000.00 $110,000.00 $41,000.00 $12,169,000.00 Lewis C. Nelson & Sons 3400 McCall, Ste. 100 Selma, CA 93662 $11,795,000.00 $170,000.00 $5,000.00 $195,000.00 $155,000.00 $160,000.00 $30,000.00 $150,000.00 $44,000.00 $12,194,000.00 Diede Construction, Inc. PO Box 1007 Woodbridge, CA 95258 $12,080,000.001 $124,000.001 $800.001 $207,777.001 $140,555.00 $98,875.001 $19,000,001 $115,000.00 $80,000.001 $12,418,800.00 * one of Alternate #8 must be selected for the completion of the Building 613/02 Lodi Police Facility Apparent Low Bid Award Recommendation * Bid Alternate #8 (HVAC Controls) must be selected for completion of the project 6/3/02 Replace Delete Operable Add Covered Evidence Delete Sitewall Delete Roof Exterior AWARD: TOTAL of Parking Refrig " Novar HVAC Thin Brick Screens Windows Base Bid & Alts Bidder Base Bid Alternate #5 Alternate #7 Alternate #8A Alternate #9 Alternate #10 Alternate #11 5, 7,8A, 9, 10 & 11 McCarthy Construction 3320 Kiessig Ave. # 8 Sacramento, CA 95823 $10,770,000.00 $115,000.00 -$4,600.001 $187,000.00 -$60,000.00 -$80,000.00 -$33,000.001 $10,894,400.00 * Bid Alternate #8 (HVAC Controls) must be selected for completion of the project 6/3/02 0 s NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 01-09 FOR CITY OF LODI POLICE FACILITY APPLICANT: City of Lodi Public Works Department PREPARED BY: CITY OF LODI Community Development Department P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CA 95241 November 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................................3 PROJECTDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM..............................................................................................4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS..............................................................................................10 DETERMINA TION..............................................................................................................................13 VICINITYMAP....................................................................................................................................14 2 • CITY OF LODI City of Lodi Police Facility PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The City of Lodi is proposing to construct a new Police Facility to replace the existing undersized and aged Public Safety Building that was constructed in 1967. Construction of the new Lodi Police Facility is necessary to bring the Lodi Police Department into compliance with current industry standards. The new building will provide the space required to operate efficiently and effectively. The new building will also provide a safer, comfortable, secure, and accessible environment for the officers, administrators, support personnel, and the public. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is to construct a 54,000 square foot 2 story building to house the City Police Department operations. The building includes: 5,600 square feet of type 1 jail, 1,000 square feet of dispatch center, 4,500 square feet of locker and exercise rooms, 10,000 square feet of expansion "shell" space for future departmental growth, staff offices and work spaces, property and evidence handling areas, storage and mechanical rooms. The site includes approximately 100 secure parking spaces for Police Department vehicles, a sally port for prisoner transportation and a garage structure for the Police motorcycles. The trash enclosure and emergency generator areas are also on the site. The project site is approximately 425 feet by 185 feet (78,625 square feet), and the building footprint is approximately 330 feet by 85 feet (28,050 square feet). The project site is made up of the following addresses and parcels: 207, 211, 217, 225, 303, 307 West Elm Street, which are parcels 043-022-08, 09, 10, & 11 and 037- 270-16 & 17. There is a 40 -stall City parking lot at 207 and 211 West Elm Street. The City's Fire Department Administration building, a small residence and small storage building occupy 217 West Elm Street. There is a one-story office building and associated parking lot at 225 West Elm Street. A house and small office and garage occupy 303 West Elm Street. Finally, there is a house and duplex at the alley at 307 West Elm Street. In order to construct the new police facility, the structures and/or facilities on each of the listed parcels will be removed. • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: City of Lodi Police Facility 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Lodi -Community Development Department Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 3. Contact person and phone number: Mark Meissner, Associate Planner, City of Lodi, (209) 333-6711 4. Project location: San Joaquin County, CA; City of Lodi, CA 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Lodi PO Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 6. General plan designation: DC, Downtown Commercial and O, Office. 7. Zoning: City: C-2, General Commercial and RCP, Residential Commercial Professional. S. Description of project: See attached description of project. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project area is made up of 6 parcels totaling 1.47 acres, and about 170 -feet of abandoned North Pleasant Avenue right-of-way. To the north are small offices, a newspaper printing facility, and single family and multi family residences. To the west is the San Joaquin County municipal court facility, an office, and residences. To the east is an office building, and across Church Street is a retail building and theater. To the south across West Elm Street is the City's current Public Safety building and municipal court. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a (Potentially Significant Impact" by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation p Public Services 0 Population and Housing ❑Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems ❑Geological Problems 0 Energy and Mineral Resources R1 Aesthetics ❑Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources ❑Air Quality 0 Noise 13 Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ❑ Potentially ❑ 0 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., ❑ ❑ Significant through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major Potentially Unless Less than Significant mitigation Significant No I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposed: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ 0 ❑ 0 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or 17 ❑ ❑ 0 farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ❑ g) Subsidence of land? ❑ ❑ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 community (including a low-income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 II POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ O ❑ 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ 0 ❑ 0 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from 0 excavation, grading or fill? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Subsidence of land? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 5 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in 17 13 ❑ 0 climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ Potentially H ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design feature, (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ 0 Significant intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially Unless Less than ❑ IV. WATER. Would theproposal result in: Significant mitigation Significant No e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of 0 0 0 0 surface runoff? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Cl 13 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as ❑ ❑ ❑ H flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality 17 I] ❑ 0 (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 1 ❑ ❑ El e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 0 ❑ ❑ 0 f) Change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or E3 ❑ ❑ 0 withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation or through substantial loss of ground water recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 ❑ ❑ 0 I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for M ❑ ❑ 0 public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in 17 13 ❑ 0 climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ H ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design feature, (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ 0 ❑ 0 intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? ❑ ❑ ❑ H e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., 17 I] ❑ 0 bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Cl 13 0 0 1.1 0 • FA Potentially Potentially Significant VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: P P mP Significant Impact Unless mitigation Less than Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not ❑ ❑ ❑ H limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)?. ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Wildlife dispersal migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan? G O ❑ 0 b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ❑ ❑ 0 0 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ I] 0 evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 ❑ ❑ 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposed have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ a 0 b) Police protection? 0 ❑ O 0 C) Schools? 0 ❑ O 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Other government services? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 FA XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a ❑ Potentially Significant ❑ 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following Potentially Unless Less than ❑ utilities: Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Power or natural gas? ❑ 0 ❑ 0 b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ H d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ H f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Create light or glare? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which would affect unique ❑ ❑ ❑ EI ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Historic Site? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other ❑ 0 ❑ 0 recreational facilities? b) Affect recreation opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 8 • XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre -history? 0 ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 0 ❑ ❑ c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ❑ ❑ ❑ E 0 E-1 ❑,. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS An explanation of items checked -off as Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated or Less than Significant Impact on the Environmental Checklist Form. Measures included in this summary shall be treated as mitigation where indicated. LAND USE AND PLANNING I. a.) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning. The zoning of the proposed project site currently consists of C-2, General Commercial Zoning and R -C -P, Residential Commercial Professional zoning. The proposed Police Facility is compatible with the two zoning designations; however, as with all public facilities the zoning will need to be changed to PUB, Public. In order to maintain consistency with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance the Community Development Department will perform a General Plan Land Use Amendment from O, Office and DC, Downtown Commercial to PQP, Public Quasi/Public. For consistency the Rezoning will be from R -C -P, Residential Commercial Professional and C-2, General Commercial to PUB, Public. The Community Development Department of the City of Lodi finds that performing the General Plan Amendment and Rezone, will eliminate the conflict the proposed project has on the current land use designation and zoning to less than significant levels. POPULATION AND HOUSING II. c.) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. As stated in the project description, the project area consists of six parcels and 11 structures. Use of the parcels consists of parking, office space, and residences. Five of the six parcels are owned by the City of Lodi, with the fifth in negotiations for purchase. Everything existing on the 6 parcels will be removed to create a bare site. Five of the 11 existing structures are residences. It is the intent of the City to find suitable locations to move many of the dwellings; however, it is not guaranteed that this will occur on property within the City or occur at all. In either case the dwellings are not affordable housing, and the possible loss of five dwellings is found by the Community Development Department of the City of Lodi to be a less than significant impact. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION VI. a.) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion. The 54,000 square -foot 2 -story Police Facility will create additional vehicle trips that may affect transportation patterns relative to existing traffic loads and street capacity in the immediate project area. The proposed Police Facility building is directly across the street from the existing Public Safety building, which was constructed back in 1967. As stated in the Project Purpose and Need section above, the City's Police Department needs a larger more up to date facility to accommodate its increase in personnel and equipment over the past 34 -years. 10 Staff finds that the traffic impact of the new Police Facility will be transferred from the south side of Elm Street to the new location on the north side of Elm. In other words, the patrol vehicles are currently parked in the lot between City Hall and the Public Safety building, and when the new building is completed will be parked in the 95 -stall parking lot between the north elevation of the new building and the Alley between Elm and Locust Streets. The project has the potential to create an impact on the new location due to the number of patrol vehicles, personal vehicles, and other public safety related vehicles that will be entering and exiting the parking lot. The proposed parking lot has three access points. The main entrance is at the southeast corner of the project site, and will be gated. The second entrance is into the Sally Port at the southwest corner of the project site. The third entrance is an emergency only access point to the alley on the north side of the project site in line with the Pleasant Avenue right of way. Essentially all police related traffic would be required to enter and exit the site to and from West Elm Street. It is the Community Development Department Staff s contention that the design and site layout of the new police facility will help to mitigate potential traffic impacts to less than significant levels. • The Police Department has approximately 72 vehicles in its fleet, which will now have a place to park, including parking for vehicles of police personnel. • The 95 -stall parking lot is secured by an 8 -foot tall decorative masonry block wall, which not only provides security, but also will enhance vehicle noise attenuation and reduce headlight glare. • The three entrances to the parking area are accessed from West Elm Street and the alley on the north; however, as stated earlier the entrance to the north is an emergency entrance only. There should be no traffic impact to the residents fronting West Locust Street or North Pleasant Avenue. • The only access points that will generate any traffic are the two driveways at West Elm Street where there are no residences or even businesses. The only uses on this block are public facilities. The majority of police related traffic onto Elm Street would come from North Church Street, which is an arterial designed for heavy traffic loads. North Church Street between Lodi Avenue and Lockeford Street is entirely commercial or public with West Elm Street being near the middle of this stretch. NOISE X. a.) Increase in existing noise levels. Staff finds that as with the traffic, the noise impact of the new Police Facility will also be transferred from the south side of Elm Street to the new location on the north side of Elm. The noise from the testing of sirens and horns will now take place within the 95 -stall parking lot between the north elevation of the new building and the Alley between Elm and Locust Streets. The impact 11 0 • will not be new to the area, just closer. The testing of sirens and horns involves short bursts from the patrol car's emergency sound systems. The tests take place on patrol cars typically during daylight hours and only when the vehicle is put back into service after an extended period of non -operation. Because the emergency sound system tests have a duration of a few seconds, that they typically take place during daylight hours, and that the noise is not new to the general area, the Community Development Department Staff finds that the noise generated from vehicle emergency sound system tests is a less than significant impact. AESTHETICS XIII. c.) Create light or glare. The parking lot lighting of the new Police Facility Building may create a significant impact on the neighbors to the north if design features are not incorporated to reduce light and glare. In order to reduce the impact of light and glare, the City will install an 8 -foot tall decorative masonry block wall around the 95 -stall parking lot. The City will also require the project to be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC). One of the 17 common design requirements is "that all exterior lighting be shielded or low-level to avoid glare on adjacent properties." The lighting will consist of typical parking lot lighting standards; however, City Staff will ensure that the lighting installed is in compliance with the SPARC condition for shielding to maintain the lighting on-site. With implementation of this condition the impact from lighting will be reduced to a less than significant level. 12 0 0 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE declaration will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets' if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that ar ed the proposed project Signature: Date: //—/i(— tg/ Printed NJ: Malc eissne For: City of Lodi 13 CL1320 o � 32 31 31 ^� o 2 1 11 09 05 0 U7 N M In 03 N 117 M n MV Na N V N O ID � V' N � 307 N KN n 301 H rn n u7 C1 - v 0 d v n N 12 1 6 'nOM C-4 -t c0 N N W O .t M OD 3p .�- MM M O M O M 2 1 11 09 05 0 U7 N M In 03 N 117 M n MV Na N V N O ID � V' N t0 N � N KN n 320 `� H n N 5 317 316 v C, Iv Iv I� I o MO O O M M M M 12: 108 102 N M M 407 406 E14 329 CNNT �- �^ O N a n 320 `� H o c 5 317 316 v 0 d 1 N 12 1 6 1 17 11 2 MO O O M M M M 12: 108 102 N M M 407 406 E14 329 CNNT �- �^ O M 325o a 321 320 `� 321 320 319 314 317 316 317 310 311 314 N M < OD M N N � Civic O 25 2 16 Cp tpp 13 1 g10 6 cNv N�- * PINE ST a_0 v o M M M ME 111� F 9 N 11 6 18 , VICINITY MAP t II lNI W l 11:/333 33h. 1:1 - 00 N O N N NN 1 O ANN N N N N N 6 11 111� F 9 N 11 6 18 , VICINITY MAP t II lNI W l 11:/333 33h. 1:1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE NEW POLICE BUILDING WHEREAS, the City of Lodi, is proposing to construct a new Police Facility to replace the existing Public Safety Building that was constructed in 1967; and WHEREAS, the project consists of constructing a 54,000 square foot two-story building to house the City Police Department operations; and WHEREAS, the building includes 5,600 square feet of type 1 jail, 1,000 square feet of dispatch center, 4,500 square feet of locker and exercise rooms, 10,000 square feet of expansion "shell" space for future departmental growth, staff offices and work spaces, property and evidence handling areas, storage and mechanical rooms; and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Community Development Director that the City Council certify the filing of a Negative Declaration as adequate environmental documentation for the new Police Building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council has reviewed all documentation and hereby certifies Negative Declaration No. 01-09 as adequate environmental documentation for the City of Lodi Police Facility, on file in the office of the City Clerk. Dated: June 5, 2002 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002-124 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held June 5, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Howard, Land, Nakanishi, and Mayor Pennino NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk 2002-124 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-125 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR NEW POLICE BUILDING AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT WHEREAS, in answer to notice duly published in accordance with law and the order of this City Council sealed bids were received and publicly opened on May 23, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. for new police building described in the specifications therefore approved by the City Council on March 6, 2002; and WHEREAS, said bids have been compared, checked, and tabulated and a report thereof filed with the City Manager as shown on the attached tally sheet marked as Exhibit A and made a part of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends award of the contract for the new police building be made to the low bidder, McCarthy Construction, of Sacramento, California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lodi City Council that the award of the contract for new police building be made to the low bidder, McCarthy Construction, of Sacramento, California, in the amount of $10,894,400.00; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funds in the amount of $12,400,000.00 be appropriated from a General Fund Certificate of Participation for this project. Dated: June 5, 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002-125 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held June 5, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Howard, Land, Nakanishi, and Mayor Pennino NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None �0�* M&I I �ffl Z SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk 2002-125 Lodi Police Facility Bid Tally May 23, 2002 2:00 p.m. one of Alternate #8 must be selected for the completion of the Building r� 613102 A` Replace Delete Operable Add Covered Evidence `LONWORKS Delete Sitewail Delete Roof Exterior AWARD: TOTAL of Parking Refrig • Novar HVAC HVAC `Trane HVAC Thin Brick Screens Windows Base Bid & Alts Bidder Base Bid Alternate #5 Alternate #7 Alternate #8A Alternate #86 Alternate #8C Alternate #9 Alternate #10 Alternate #11 5, 7, 9, 10 & 11 McCarthy Construction 3320 Kiessig Ave. # 8 Sacramento, CA 95823 $10,770,000.0 $115,000.00 -$4,600.00 $187,000.00 $138,900.00 $119,200.00 -$60,000.00 -$80,000.00 -$33,000.00 $10,707,400.00 Flintco, Inc. 3480 Sunrise Blvd. Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 $10,930,000.00 $54,000.00 •$1,500.00 $188,000.00 $112,000.00 $106,000.00 -$20,500.00 -$111,000.00 -$47,800.00 $10,803,200.00 Acme Construction 1565 Cummins Drive Modesto CA 95358 $11,345,000.00 $276,000.00 -$3,500.00 $200,000.00 $135,000.00 $94,000.00 -$30,000.00 -$55,000.00 -$35,000.00 $11,497,500.00 John F. Otto, Inc. 1717 2nd Street Sacramento, CA 95814 $11,777,000.00 $283,000.00 -$4,400.00 $190,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 -$17,700.00 -$97,000.00 -$80,700.00 $11,860,200.00 F&H Construction 4945 Waterloo Road Stockton, CA 95215 $11,806,000.00 $273,000.00 4500.00 $204,000.00 $150,000.00 $129,000.00 -$29,000.00 4140,000.00 -$38,000.00 $11,871,500.00 Allen L. Bender, Inc. 2798 Industrial Blvd. W. Sacramento, CA 95691 $11,943,221.00 $178,773.00 -$2,409.00 $194,831.00 $115,614.00 $108,120.00 -$14,662.00 -$122,692.00 -$44,265.00 $11,937,966.00 Roebbelen Contracting 1241 Hawks Flight CL EI Dorado Hills, CA 95762 $11,948,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $178,000.00 $107,000.00 $101,000.00 $20,000.00 $110,000.00 $41,000.00 $12,169,000.00 Lewis C. Nelson & Sons 3400 McCall, Ste. 100 Selma, CA 93662 $11,795,000.00 $170,000.00 $5,000.00 $195,000.00 $155,000.001 $160,000.00 $30,000.00 $150,000.00 $44,000.00 $12,194,000.00 Diede Construction, Inc. PO Box 1007 Woodbridge, CA 95258 $12,080,000.00 $124,000.00 $800.00 $207,777.00 $140,555.00 $98,875.00 $19,000.00 $115,000.00 $80,000.00 $12,418,800.00 one of Alternate #8 must be selected for the completion of the Building r� 613102 A` Lodi Police Facility Apparent Low Bid Award Recommendation * Bid Alternate #8 (HVAC Controls) must be selected for completion of the project ;rvo 6/3/02 AL Replace Delete Operable Add Covered Evidence Delete Sitewall Delete Roof Exterior AWARD: TOTAL of Parking Refrig * Novar HVAC Thin Brick Screens Windows Base Bid & Alts Bidder Base Bid Alternate #5 Alternate #7 Alternate #8A Alternate #9 Alternate #10 Alternate #11 5, 7, SA, 9, 10 & 11 McCarthy Construction 3320 Kiessig Ave. # 8 Sacramento, CA 95823 $10,770,000.00 $115,000.00 -$4,600.00 $187,000.00 -$60,000.00 -$80,000.00 -$33,000.00 $10,894,400.00 * Bid Alternate #8 (HVAC Controls) must be selected for completion of the project ;rvo 6/3/02 AL