HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-28 City Council Summary Minutes
7/28/97 −76
Special Meeting
July 28, 1997
1. Interviews for Planning Commission.....................84-78
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................84-79
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.........................................84-79
1. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Bluhon
Planning Group for Facilitation and Conceptual Design Services
for the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility..........84-79
2. Amendment to Right of Entry Agreement between the City of Palo
Alto and Stanford University, Including a Contribution for a
Sound Wall Near the Intersection of Page Mill Road and Foothill
Expressway.............................................84-79
3. Ordinance 4436 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification
of Property Known as 390 Lytton Avenue from CD-C(P) to PC”84-79
4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the
proposed construction of a new, detached single-family dwelling
on an existing vacant flag lot parcel of 2.6 acres for property
located at 920 Laurel Glen. The dwelling will consist of 5,220
square feet with a 3-car garage, swimming pool and exterior
decks. (continued from 7/21/97)........................84-80
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Weed Abatement Charges ...............84-91
6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional
Appropriation for the Refund of Planning and Building Fees for
the American Heritage Museum...........................84-91
7. Needs Analysis and Recommendation for Approval to Initiate
Formal Process for the Building of a New Public Safety Building
.......................................................84-92
7/28/97 −77
8. Initiative Petition Regarding Sand Hill Road Project
Alternative...........................................84-114
9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........84-114
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m............84-115
7/28/97 −78
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Conference Room at 6:12 p.m.
PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Huber, Kniss,
McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler
ABSENT: Andersen
SPECIAL MEETINGS
1. Interviews for Planning Commission
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
7/28/97 −79
Regular Meeting
July 28, 1997
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum,
Schneider, Wheeler
ABSENT: Andersen
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding traffic problems in Palo Alto
which could throw the entire national transportation system
including air and rail off schedule.
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic duty
(letter on file in the Clerk’s Office).
Tom Taylor, 123 Sherman Avenue, spoke regarding the Tower Well.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the Minutes of June 30, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3.
1. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Bluhon
Planning Group for Facilitation and Conceptual Design Services
for the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility
2. Amendment to Right of Entry Agreement between the City of Palo
Alto and Stanford University, Including a Contribution for a
Sound Wall Near the Intersection of Page Mill Road and Foothill
Expressway
3. Ordinance 4436 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification
of Property Known as 390 Lytton Avenue from CD-C(P) to PC”
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 1 and 2, Andersen absent.
7/28/97 −80
MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 3, Schneider “not participating,”
Andersen absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the
proposed construction of a new, detached single-family dwelling
on an existing vacant flag lot parcel of 2.6 acres for property
located at 920 Laurel Glen. The dwelling will consist of 5,220
square feet with a 3-car garage, swimming pool and exterior
decks. (continued from 7/21/97)
City Manager June Fleming reported on the meeting that was held with
the property owners and the response that was received.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber
apologized for the confusion that occurred at the last meeting which
was based on inaccurate information in the staff report (CMR:331:97).
The staff report indicated that the impervious surface met what the
ordinance allowed. The confusion regarded the pole of the flag lot,
which was the driveway out to Laurel Glen. In that calculation of
the area, the impervious coverage exceeded what was allowed in the
OS District. The applicant’s civil engineer met with members of
the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Planning Division
and demonstrated to City staff a technique for building the road
with a pervious surface that would satisfy the Fire Department’s
needs regarding the ability to support heavy vehicle loads. It would
allow water to soak through the surface into the ground. That was
summarized in a memo to June Fleming from Jim Harrington, Public
Works Department, and Nick Marinaro, Fire Department, of which the
Council received a copy. A condition was added which indicated that
the pole section of the driveway would be constructed of a pervious
surface material subject to the approval of the Fire and Public Works
Departments. A second issue raised by Herb Borock in his letter
regarded landscaping in relation to Arastradero Preserve. He
referred to a map on the overhead projector which showed the existing
landscape plan that went through Planning Commission review and was
recommended by staff and the Planning Commission for approval.
Staff identified the possibility of adding seven large trees that
would filter the views from Arastradero Preserve and allow some views
from the house which would soften the visual impact of the structures
down slope. A condition was added that the applicant plant the seven
new trees as identified in the overhead and that the trees be box
trees between 36 inch and 60 inch. The final location of the trees
would be determined at the time of planting by the City’s Planning
Arborist and the applicant’s landscape architect. The trees would
be planted prior to construction of the house because the size of
the trees would make it difficult to move them onto the site once
7/28/97 −81
the house was constructed. A letter was included in the packet from
Lynn Chiapella regarding grading on the site and a 50-foot difference
in elevation. He explained that the grading on the site for the
house involved a five- to seven- foot cut with the soil distributed
to other areas on the site. The value of the cut would create a
more buildable area and lower the height of the structure. The site
design review concluded that the amount of cut and fill would not
be excessive for a site of that size. By lowering the building pad
for the structure, there would be off-site benefits in terms of visual
impacts.
Council Member Schneider asked if it would be possible for the
applicant, at a later date, to apply for different material to be
used on the driveway.
Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said it would be possible but would
require a variance if it were an impervious surface.
Council Member Schneider asked if the Council would specify that
a variance would not be granted in the future. The materials used
would look better and would make the impact of the house on the lot
less with the impervious surfaces.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the decision would be up to a future
Council. The related issue was that the ordinance addressed
impervious surface and the solution would deal with permeability
and ability of water to get through it. It was conceivable that
the impervious surface part of the regulations was aimed at
preventing open spaces with permeable paving. There would be no
way to preclude a variance in the future.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said his major concern was regarding
the landscaping. It was unclear from the diagram on the overhead
projector which side was the preserved border and which side was
the neighbor’s. He viewed the site and noted that the next door
neighbor, Mr. Altman, was required to plant a large number of trees,
36- and 24- inch box trees, but the trees looked like shrubs. It
was difficult to know what the site would look like from the preserve.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the permanent trees on
the site did not provide any kind of screening for the house because
the house was 580 feet and the trees were planted at 514 feet. There
was 60 to 80 feet of no screening. The placement of the new trees
would be very important. Since some large trees would be removed,
they could be replaced below the obvious area which faced the
preserve.
7/28/97 −82
David Hopkins, 954 Laurel Glen Drive, said he was in agreement with
Condition 44, but Condition 43 was a surprise. That screening seemed
excessive. He asked the Council to consider moderating the full
proposal of seven large trees or allow him to work with the City
arborists and Planning Department with regard to the impact of the
trees.
Council Member McCown asked about the logic of the trees on the plan
located between the properties of the applicant and neighbor and
how the three proposed new trees related to screening the house from
the Preserve.
Ms. Grote said the proposed trees were suggested as a possible way
to provide screening between the two properties as well as any other
place that might be above the site. It had less screening potential
than the other four trees.
Council Member McCown asked about the intention of the four trees
below the house that would have a greater impact on views from the
Preserve and noted that one was a California buckeye.
Ms. Grote said that was to provide diversity to attract and facilitate
other types of creatures that lived in and around trees.
Council Member Wheeler said one of the tricks of success of the trees
meant to screen the views from the open space preserve was that they
be adequately maintained. Page one of the report presented to the
Council addressed the installation of irrigation which she assumed
was intended for the health of the trees; however, the wording of
Condition 43 did not mention installation of irrigation systems.
She asked whether it was contained in other conditions.
Ms. Grote said a condition could be added which required maintenance
of the trees; in the past, there was difficulty in accepting
maintenance bonds that would be held for some time.
Council Member Wheeler said there was nothing mentioned that at the
time of planting an irrigation system should be installed to insure
the long-term health of the trees.
Ms. Grote said that could be added to the condition.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to
approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendation that the
City Council approve the Negative Declaration and Site and Design
application for construction of a new single family residence and
associated improvements, in accordance with the following findings
7/28/97 −83
and conditions, with the addition of Condition Nos. 43 and 44 as
follows:
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW
1. The project will not have significant environmental impacts
as indicated by the proposed Negative Declaration for this
project and that the proposed dwelling has been designed
consistent with the Open Space Criteria adopted by the City
Council to mitigate the impacts of development in the foothills
area of the community;
2. The proposed design of the dwelling will be orderly, harmonious
and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining
property, in that the proposed use and improvements are similar
in size, scale and design with other uses in the area and the
project has been designed and will be sufficiently screened
so as not to impact the neighbors' privacy or enjoyment of their
property;
3. The project will maintain desirability of investment in the
same and adjacent areas, in that the proposed design and size
of the residence and related improvements are generally
consistent with existing residences on Laurel Glen Drive and
nearby roads, and that construction of the residence will be
governed by the current Uniform Building Code and other
applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of
development;
4. The proposed design will observe sound principles of
environmental design and ecological balance, in that the design
of the structure will follow existing contour lines to minimize
site grading and a significant number of mature trees will be
retained on the site;
5. The proposed use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, in that the proposed residential use and
related improvements comply with the OS zone District site
development regulations and conform to the intent of the Open
Space/Controlled Development land use designation to allow
limited residential development on larger sites to minimize
physical impacts of development.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Utilities Engineering
7/28/97 −84
1. If electrical service requirements exceed 200 amps at 120/240
volts single phase, the applicant shall provide space on-site
for a pad-mounted transformer (approximate pad size: 5" x 6').
The location of any transformer shall be indicated on building
plans and shall be approved for aesthetics and screening by
the Planning Department.
2. All electrical substructure from the designated service point
(the high voltage vault between 929 and 927 Laurel Glen Drive)
shall be installed by the applicant per utility standards for
installation.
3. The new electrical service shall be undergrounded and shall
be indicated on building plans. Utilities Rule and Regulation
#19-G(1).
4. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities will be performed at the cost of the person
requesting the relocation.
5. Each dwelling unit, parcel or place of business shall have its
own water, gas meter and sewer lateral connection. Only one
electrical service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities
Rule and Regulation #19-G(2).
6. A new 2-inch water service line installation for domestic usage
is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load
sheet presented with this project.
7. A new 6-inch water service line installation for fire system
usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in
the load sheet presented with this project. The exact service
location will be determined when the fire sprinkler system are
submitted to the Engineering Department.
8. An approved single detector check valve shall be installed for
the existing or new water connection for the fire system to
comply with the requirements of the California Administrative
Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7606, inclusive. The
Detector Check shall be installed on the owner's property
adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities Cross
Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between
the city connection and assembly.
9. A new 1-inch gas service line installation is required to
furnish the customer's demand specified in the load sheet
presented with this project.
7/28/97 −85
10. A new sewer lateral installation is required, with the size
to be determined by the Engineering Department. A sanitary sewer
clean out must be installed at the back of curb per Utilities
Standard SD-02.
Fire Department
11. An NFPA 13D (1996) Residential Sprinkler System shall be
installed per PAMC, Section 15.04.170 (dd).
12. The Fire Department access road/driveway for emergency vehicle
access shall be designed in accord with the Uniform Fire Code.
Central Station monitoring shall be required if over 100
sprinklers are installed.
13. An on-site hydrant will be required if any portion of the new
dwelling is located more than 150 feet from a public water
source.
14. Roof covering of the structure shall be shown on building plans
and shall be of Class A or Class B fire retardant
15. Residential smoke detectors shall be shown on building plans
and installed for bedrooms and hallways with battery backup
in accordance with the UBC.
16. Spark arresters shall be shown on building plans and installed
in all chimneys as part of project construction.
Public Works Engineering
17. Any changes to submitted plans, other than those provided in
this review, must be approved by the Public Works Engineering
Division.
18. The applicant shall integrate the recommendations of the Soils
Engineer as presented in the report "Geotechnical Investigation
for the Proposed Single Family Dwelling at 920 Laurel Glen
Drive, Palo Alto" dated October 6, 1996, into the final design
of the excavation, grading and foundation in the Building Permit
submittal.
19. The project requires an approved Grading and Excavation Permit
issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division. Included
within this permit shall be an erosion control plan for the
performance of this work during the rainy season. This season
starts at a minimum on October 15 and ends on April 15, or when
the rainy season actually begins, whichever is earlier.
7/28/97 −86
20. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a
copy of the plans for fire protection system, including all
Fire Department requirements. The exact location and
installation of all underground fire service and the single
detector check valve with a detector meter must be shown on
site.
21. Submitted plans have been reviewed for compliance with
applicable codes, but the design remains the responsibility
of the architect/engineer who prepared such plans.
Planning Department
22. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown
on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences,
utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. The
Planning Department shall approve the final glazing material
for the dwelling.
23. Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and
off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be submitted
to and approved by the Planning Department.
24. Prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit, the
project arborist shall notify the Planning Arborist in writing
that a field inspection has occurred and that required
protective tree fencing has been installed.
25. Trees 1,3,5,6 and one unnumbered 15-inch tree at the "y" drive
intersection are approved for removal as noted in the Arborist
Report for this project dated 3/21/97. All other trees listed
in the Arborist Report shall be preserved and receive treatments
as outlined in the Report including, but not limited to,
pruning, rot pruning in proximity to grading, fertilizing and
spraying. The City's Planning Arborist shall be notified in
writing that each phase has been accomplished.
26. To ensure protection for the coastal live oak (tree #7 on
arborist report dated 3/21/97), the following shall occur:
a. The final grading plan for the driveway shall indicate
that grading activities shall not occur within ten feet
from the base of the tree, as per the project arborist
report;
b. The tree crown may require minor elevating to accommodate
sufficient clearance as part of project construction.
7/28/97 −87
27. While protective tree fencing is not needed for a majority of
the trees due to safe proximity to construction, the following
trees or grouping of trees shall be protected by fencing on
the driveway side only: 2, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 25, 26 and 27-30.
Where needed, silt fencing shall be used. These trees shall
be protected with six-foot high chain link fences mounted on
two-inch diameter galvanized iron pipe driven into the ground
to a depth of at least two feet, with posts no more than ten-foot
spacings. Fences shall be erected prior to construction and
remain in place until final inspection of the building permit,
except for work specifically required in the approved plan to
be done under trees to be protected (see Public Works Department
Standard Specification Detail 505). The Planning Arborist shall
be notified in writing that tree protective fencing is in place
prior to demolition and construction permit issuance, unless
otherwise approved by the Planning arborist.
During Construction
Utilities Engineering
28. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and
approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the
Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utility
Rule and Regulation #19-A(1).
29. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall
be inspected before backfilling. Rule and Regulation #17-A214.
Public Works Engineering
30. It is unlawful to discharge construction debris (soil,
concrete, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or
other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. The
Permittee shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP's)
for stormwater pollution prevention into all construction
operations. Typical BMP's are outlined in a series of brochures
published by the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution
Prevention Control Program and are available from the City of
Palo Alto Engineering Department.
31. Construction within City rights-of-way (i.e., curb cuts) must
have a Permit for Construction in the Street, which is
obtainable from the CPA Public Works Department prior to the
commencement of work.
32. The Permittee is responsible for the maintenance of the
integrity, including the usefulness, health and safety of
adjacent properties.
7/28/97 −88
33. No storage of construction materials or vehicles is permitted
in any City right-of-way.
34. The applicant shall be responsible for the upgrade of any
utility facilities and boxes that will be relocated in the
proposed driveway. This upgrade could include the replacement
with a standard traffic-rated box.
35. Any construction within CPA right-of-way, easements or other
property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform to
standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for
the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department.
Planning Department
36. All neighboring trees that overhang the project shall be
protected from impact of any kind.
37. All trees to be retained on the site, as noted in the Arborist
Report dated 3/21/97, shall be protected during construction.
All recommendations included in the Arborist Report shall be
included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any
modifications to such requirements shall be approved, in
writing, by the City's Planning Arborist. All trees to be
retained shall be shown on the tree inventory and protected
during the construction process. The following tree
preservation measures shall apply to all trees during
construction:
a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment
shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.
b. The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered,
except as specified in the arborist report.
c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
38. After grading, the project arborist shall inspect the protected
trees to determine if fill has accumulated near the base of
any trees. If so, then a root collar excavation shall be
performed to return grade to a safe level.
39. The following tree inspections shall occur during construction:
a. On a monthly basis, unless needed otherwise, the project
arborist shall monitor protective fencing, tree health
and note changes and developing situations that may
7/28/97 −89
require action in written form forwarded to the Planning
Arborist.
b. The Planning Arborist shall be notified in writing o
inspect and approve rough grading, including compaction,
cut and fill, drainage and trenching, and, if required,
aeration systems, tree wells, drains, special paving and
cabling.
40. Irrigation of all new trees on site shall include a minimum
of two bubblers, each on a separate valve from other shrubbery
and ground cover as per Palo Alto Water Efficiency Guidelines.
Prior to Finalization
41. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit
prior to finalization of the permit. All off-site improvements
shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
After Construction
42. All activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City
of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10.
43. The applicant shall plant seven (7) new trees, a mix of coastal
live oaks, valley oaks and California buckeye, on the westerly
and northerly portion of the lot to provide additional screening
of the dwelling from public open space areas. The additional
trees shall be 36- to 60-inch box size. At time of planting,
an irrigation system serving the trees shall be installed.
The final location of the trees shall be determined at the time
of planting by the City’s Planning Arborist and the applicant’s
landscape architect.
44. The “pole” section of driveway shall be constructed of a
pervious surface material, subject to the approval of the Fire
and Public Works Departments.
Council Member Schneider said the project met the open space
criteria, but she expressed concern about the future of the area.
She hoped it would serve as a precedent in how the City approved
projects in the Open Space area in the future.
Council Member McCown questioned whether all seven trees would
accomplish screening of views of people who used the public Open
Space areas and whether the condition should state “up to seven new
trees” and the phrase at the end “to provide additional screening
of the dwelling from publicly accessible open space areas.”
7/28/97 −90
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE
SECONDER to add “up to seven (7) new trees...” to Condition No. 43.
Council Member Kniss said she was sympathetic with the applicant
who suddenly discovered he would have an arbor. She was concerned
that there be a more streamlined method of dealing with it. It was
disconcerting for the applicant to discover that he had to plant
a number of trees and maintain them.
Council Member Fazzino said in light of the frustration of the last
meeting, he was pleased that staff did everything it could to resolve
the application and allow the applicant to move forward with the
construction schedule.
Council Member Eakins said the only concern she had with the
irrigation was it should not be permanent but enough to get the trees
started. Too much irrigation on established native trees could
damage the trees.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Weed Abatement Charges
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. He received no
requests from the public to speak and declared the Public Hearing
closed.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt
the Resolution.
Resolution 7701 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost
of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective
Properties Herein Described”
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
ORDINANCES
6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional
Appropriation for the Refund of Planning and Building Fees for
the American Heritage Museum
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to adopt
the Budget Amendment Ordinance rebating $9,820 of Planning and
7/28/97 −91
Building fees charged to the American Heritage Museum for work
associated with the Williams House property.
Ordinance 4437 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98
to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Refund of
Planning and Building Fees for the American Heritage Museum”
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
7. Needs Analysis and Recommendation for Approval to Initiate
Formal Process for the Building of a New Public Safety Building
City Manager June Fleming said the item before the Council related
to the organization’s ability to continue to provide quality that
was imposed on the organization by criteria and authorities which
were beyond Palo Alto’s control. Specifically, it was the ability
to provide safety services in a manner that would meet internal
standards and standards that were imposed on Palo Alto by other
agencies that were inherent to providing safety services to the
residents of the state and the City. Palo Alto’s Police and Fire
Services were among the most important responsibilities that the
City assumed in governing the community. For those services to be
efficiently and effectively carried out, one of the key ingredients
was the manner in which the Council chose to house those services.
The facility where the City attempted to house the safety services
was in excess of 20 years old. At the time the facility was designed,
many of the techniques that the safety personnel currently used were
not even in vision. From the day that the first police and fire
personnel moved into the facility, it was known that there were
some conscious omissions. The reasons for the omissions were sound
at the time, but times changed, and the premises on which those
decisions were made were no longer valid. No provision was made
beyond the needs of the existing staff; there was little room for
growth. Palo Alto functioned as a team with other jurisdictions
and agencies. That was done as a matter of expediency and
effectiveness. It was impossible to work in the regional approach
because of the limited facilities in the City. The City could not
accommodate the related space and support needs that were necessary
to keep up with the current technological essentials. The manner
in which the City stored evidence was appropriately tightened, and
the City had exhausted capacity to meet current standards. It was
not thought at the time the current facility was designed that fire
and police would function in many areas more efficiently if there
were cooperation. That possibility was precluded by the way the
facility was constructed. Staff found that closer proximity of the
administrative functions of both units would be more effective and
7/28/97 −92
efficient if they were housed together. It was demonstrated in
Mountain View where a safety facility was constructed which housed
both fire and police. Palo Alto could no longer meet the current
needs and would violate future inevitable needs for safety
administration. Financial constraints might face the City in the
future; reductions might need to be made. One of the services that
would never be sacrificed was the safety of the community. It would
be the intent to plan a facility with a future in mind but not to
plan for excessive growth. She charged the staff to evaluate the
adequacy of the current physical facilities. The results were
currently before the Council. She requested the Council’s approval
to move forward with the necessary detail work to give the Council
options and to address issues such as where a safety facility would
be constructed. Issues that needed to be addressed included public
reaction and acceptance of the concept, financing a new safety
facility, and prioritizing such a proposal in light of the Council’s
determination to build an infrastructure plan for the entire City.
As the City continued to look at infrastructure, it was the staff’s
opinion, that safety was the number one infrastructure priority.
Staff believed that to address the issue at the present time, while
technically out of the planning time for infrastructure, would
not negatively impact the infrastructure planning. It was time to
address the needs for a safety building and acknowledge that what
might compete with the need was possibly the result of the library
master plan. When the master plan was reviewed by the Council, the
option could be made to package the library and safety buildings
together or address which should go first. She requested the Council
approve in concept the need for a new safety facility and authorize
her to continue to pursue a proposal to be brought back to the Council
after review by the community and Council appointed committees.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said in response to Council
concerns regarding the City’s infrastructure, staff began in the
Spring 1996 to develop a comprehensive long-range plan to address
rehabilitation and maintenance of the City’s aging infrastructure.
The plan identified the potential backlog of capital improvements
and included recommendations on long term financing options to meet
the identified needs. The plan was divided into four modules:
Buildings and Facilities; Traffic and Transportation; Parks and Open
Space; and Bridges, Parking Lots and Public Art. The first two
modules had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Finance
Committee. Module 1, Building and Facilities, identified $30
million of needed General Fund capital investments over the next
ten years. Module 2, Traffic and Transportation, included streets,
sidewalks, bikeways, pedestrian facilities, medians, and traffic
management systems and identified another $43 million which would
be required over the next ten years from the General Fund or Street
Improvement Fund. Preliminary estimates for Module 3 for Parks and
7/28/97 −93
Open Space showed an additional $35 million might be required over
the same ten-year period to address deferred maintenance and
replacement requirements. That brought the needed capital
investment from the General Fund to address the City’s current
investments in buildings, traffic and transportation facilities,
and parks and open space to $108 million. That number did not include
any new traffic management projects, new buildings, or other new
or expanded facilities. Given the findings, it was important for
staff to make clear why it felt it was appropriate to bring forward
the proposal for the public safety building at the present time rather
than incorporating it into the infrastructure prioritization.
Staff was pursuing the development of a multi-faceted financing
proposal for the needed infrastructure investments since it was clear
the $5-$6 million per year of General Fund Pay As You Go Financing
would be inadequate to meet the identified needs. One element of
that strategy had already been put in place. During the 1997-98
Budget, staff proposed and Council approved creation of an
infrastructure reserve fund for priority projects, generally over
$1 million each and identified as part of the infrastructure backlog.
The projects would not lend themselves easily to debt financing.
That reserve was budgeted at $7.1 million and might be even higher
after the 1996-97 fiscal year end close. The Council adopted a debt
policy with the 1997-98 Budget which stated, “while a rigid dollar
parameter should not be established, a General Fund project that
exceeds $2 million and which could not be phased over several years
of funding would be a likely candidate to consider for debt
financing.” In accordance with that policy, the Council provided
the Finance Committee with a preliminary recommendation that $10
million of Certificates of Participation could address a major
portion of the building and facilities rehabilitation needs. Staff
intended to recommend that any needed new facilities as well as major
renovations required by programmatic and service level requirements,
were financed using General Obligation Bonds. That would include
the proposed public safety building as well as if it would proceed
with a new joint city/school/library facility on the Gunn campus
or major expansion or renovation of the current library system.
It would also be the proposed funding source for a new center for
the performing arts, if that became a policy direction of the Council
in future years. General Obligation Bonds did not require that
current support for City programs which included infrastructure
replacement be reduced in order to fund needed new facilities. Staff
believed that a careful strategy of allocating current revenue
sources to address the infrastructure backlog and maintenance needs
matched with creating new revenue sources for new initiatives would
allow the City to address its long-range infrastructure needs.
Acting Director of Administrative Services Melissa Cavallo said the
financing mechanism recommended by staff for the project was general
obligation (GO)bonds. GO bonds were often used to finance public
7/28/97 −94
facilities such as public safety buildings, city halls, schools,
parks, and libraries. Proceeds of GO bonds were used to finance
land acquisition and the construction of a public facility. They
provided a new source of revenues for the City, so there would be
no impacts to existing City programs or services. A GO bond
represented a general obligation of the City as a whole and,
therefore, was one of the most secure forms of financing that offered
attractive interest rates. The issuance of the bonds required
approval of a two-thirds majority of those voting in a local election.
To repay the principal and interest on the bonds, a levy would be
placed on the property tax bill of all residents and businesses in
Palo Alto. The amount of levy would be based on the assessed value
of the property.
Deputy Fire Chief Judith Jewell said the presentation included the
information gathered during a feasibility study of the new public
safety building. Based on that information, staff sought Council
approval to proceed to the next phase of the project. That phase
included an evaluation and site recommendation. It involved a
complete and detailed architectural program, which included an
assessment of operations, technical support, security, and what the
architects called adjacency. That was how rooms and functions were
brought together to serve the people in a more efficient and effective
manner. There would be a draft concept design which would look at
the rooms, their functions, and how people would flow. Parking would
be addressed. During the concept design phase, exterior finishes
would be addressed and reviewed with the neighbors to let them know
how the building would look in their neighborhood. With Council
approval, staff would return in the following weeks with a request
for a Budget Amendment Ordinance to proceed with the project and
enter into the next phase of the program.
Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said staff asked Council for
conceptual approval to proceed. Staff used the analogy of starting
down a highway. The preliminary needs analysis provided the map
and showed the direction to proceed. With Council approval, staff
would turn on the car’s ignition and shift into gear. Along the
highway, there were many off ramps that would be available for the
Council to take. She acknowledged the work done on the project by
John Carlson and Elizabeth Ames from the Public Works Department.
City staff was fortunate to work with representatives from EKONA
Architecture and Planning, the consultants. They had an extensive
background in public safety needs analysis and building design.
Their projects included the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety,
Concord and Pasadena Police Departments, and police and public safety
building projects in Berkeley and Santa Clara. An overview was
created by Tim Craig of EKONA. Copies of the slides were distributed
to the Council and members of the public. Actual pictures were shown
as part of the presentation.
7/28/97 −95
Tim Craig, EKONA Architecture and Planning, 501 Second Street, said
he was pleased to present and share the summary and findings of the
Palo Alto Public Safety Feasibility Study. At the beginning of the
project, goals were established by which the success of each option
developed would be measured. The Summary included the goals that
were established by the project team. They wanted to provide an
efficient and safe staff work environment and appropriate space for
staff to perform their jobs. They wanted to meet the current code
and regulatory standards and improve the public environment in the
public safety building. They wanted to minimize disruption to
current operations, upgrade systems and extend the building life.
They wanted to provide appropriate parking space. The next steps
in the study included an operational review of systems and facilities
and a review of the demographic characteristics of the City of Palo
Alto. EKONA prepared space standards for each office type and
auxiliary space need. The team determined the space needs for the
present and the future. The total current need was about 38,000
square feet for the Police Department and 8,000 square feet for the
Fire Department, for a total of 46,000 square feet. The future need,
twenty years out, would be 40,000. That would be an additional 2,000
square feet for Police and an additional 2,500 square feet for Fire
for a total of 50,500 square feet. The current building area was
26,000 square feet for Police and 3,000 square feet for Fire. That
left an expansion need if the existing space of 12,000 square feet
for Police and 5,000 square feet for Fire were reused. In twenty
years, the anticipated need would be 14,000 square feet for Police
and 7,500 square feet for Fire, for a total of 21,500 square feet.
In addition, there was a need for City vehicle and employee
parking. Current need was for about 172 cars for Police and 25 cars
for Fire. Future need was 200 for Police and 34 for Fire, for a
total of 234 cars. The areas of highest priority were the detention
area; property, evidence and laboratory; dispatch; emergency
operations center/conference and training areas; office space needs
for Fire administration; sally port and secure vehicle parking;
warehouse space for storage of property and evidence; and general
upgrade of police and fire administration operational efficiency
due to poorly distributed space. He showed pictures depicting the
Concord Police Department’s accessible and organized storage area
and Palo Alto’s overcrowded storage area; the Fremont Police
Department’s clean, open and adequately equipped laboratory space
and Palo Alto’s inefficient, outmoded equipment; Concord’s
compressible, organized records and file storage area and Palo Alto’s
storage area which doubled as an office. Los Altos had an enclosed,
secure garage that protected vehicles; Palo Alto used tape. That
could lead to a compromise of evidence. Bicycle storage areas were
7/28/97 −96
located in a separate area in Fremont; in Palo Alto, bicycles were
stored in the police parking area and off-site. Interview rooms
were an essential part of detective work. In Fremont, the interview
rooms were safe and available; in Palo Alto, the rooms were used
as office space. Holding areas had to conform to the Board of
Correction Standards. Los Altos conformed; Palo Alto did not. In
Palo Alto, the holding areas were on the semi-public corridor of
the Police Department, next door to the evidence lockers. Concord
had appropriately sized lockers with electrical outlets for
recharging batteries and adequate dressing area. Palo Alto had
small lockers and a small dressing area. Adequate, accessible, and
secure parking was in Fremont. In Palo Alto, the Police used the
non-secure Civic Center parking garage for overflow of official
vehicles. The existing building conditions were reviewed. The
existing structure was upgraded and was adequate to resist seismic
forces called for in the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Some areas
required additional investigations; some required further upgrades.
A new roof was installed the previous year. Fire sprinklers were
installed in 1994. The fire alarm systems were upgraded in 1993.
Vertical expansion of the building was possible, but the small
building floor plate of 9,600 square feet made it difficult to plan
it efficiently. The existing building systems at the Civic Center
were at their limit and had no capacity for expansion. There was
limited off-site utility capacity, especially electrical. Plumbing
and piping were in good condition but were not compliant with the
Americans For Disabilities Act. Heating and ventilation systems
needed to be upgraded in order to provide capacity for new space.
The existing electrical, emergency, and uninterruptible power
supply systems needed to be enlarged to meet new space needs. The
lighting and electrical systems needed to be upgraded to be more
energy efficient. In response to the needs, three options were
developed. Option 1 was an addition/renovation which was a vertical
expansion of the existing Police building. Option 2 was a new
building on a new site. Option 3 was to make no changes to the
existing facilities. Concept Option 1 involved seismic and
structural upgrades of the foundation and structures in Levels A,
B, and C of the existing building to accommodate vertical expansion,
and renovation of the existing Police building podium and Level A
for a total of 21,000 square feet and 23 secure parking spaces.
Vertical expansion of the building included use of the mezzanine
and adding two floors for 29,000 square feet. Land would need to
be acquired to build an off-site warehouse. The plan diagram
illustrated the expansion of the existing building. The area shown
in yellow on the diagram was additions. The blue area remained the
same. Additions were made over the existing Police building. The
stacking diagram of the functions placed those areas with the
greatest public access at the podium level: records, lobby, and the
field services units. The second or mezzanine level contained
lockers and fitness area. The third level housed Police
7/28/97 −97
administration, dispatch and detectives. The top floor contained
Fire administration and emergency operations center. Some issues
that were resultant of Option 1 were that only 59 of the required
parking spaces would be met on-site. There was not enough space
to build the required warehouse on-site. There might be further
erosion of the parking due to structural upgrade requirements. The
Police Department would have to vacate the site in order to accomplish
the building. The Council Chambers would be impacted during
construction. Zoning Regulations would require payment in lieu of
meeting the parking requirements. Concept Option 2, Scope of Work,
involved acquiring a new site for a building and construction of
a building of 50,000 square feet with a 5,000- square-foot warehouse,
a parking lot for City vehicles, and parking for employee vehicles.
The plan diagram for Option 2 depicted a separated warehouse
building on a hypothetical site. There would be two stories above
ground. The smaller the selected site, the taller the building would
be. For example, a smaller site of three quarters of an acre would
require a three-story building with a smaller footprint at the ground
level and two stories below grade. The two-story stacking diagram
showed lobby, records, staff support spaces, and field services unit
on the ground floor. The second floor contained Police and Fire
administration, detectives, dispatch, and emergency operations
center. The first level below grade housed detention, property and
evidence, and secure City vehicle parking. The lowest level
contained parking. The issues related to Concept Option 2 were that
the space vacated in the existing Civic Center buildings by the Police
and Fire departments would revert back to City use after the
completion of the new building, which would provide 29,000 square
feet of space. The Police and Fire departments would stay in their
existing space during construction. The size of the site available
would determine the configuration of the new building, and there
would be a cost to tie the new building back to City Hall for telephone
and data links. Concept Option 3 would require minor maintenance
and renovation to respond to required needs without a major project.
The issues of Option 3 were that the more than twenty operational
deficiencies identified in the report would remain. The impact
included potential safety, regulatory, and operational
inefficiencies which would impact the level of service to the
community. The Cost Estimate was reviewed which compared Option
1 and Option 2. The land cost was $200,000 for the warehouse on
Option 1 and $10.2 million on Option 2. Construction cost was $13.5
million for Option 1 and $19.6 million for Option 2. Equipment cost
equaled for both projects at $1.7 million. Relocation costs applied
to Option 1 required $1.6 million to rent space during construction.
Additionally, $2 million would be required for in lieu of fees for
not meeting the parking requirements, bringing the total to $19.177
million for Option 1 and $31.5 million for Option 2. If there were
no land costs, the $10.2 million would be deleted, and two projects
would be produced with a difference of $2.2 million. The Options
7/28/97 −98
were evaluated. The pros of Option 1 were that no major land purchase
was required, the space used by Fire in the existing building would
be returned to the City, project costs were lower, Police and Fire
Administration at the Civic Center would be retained, and the current
building investment would be extended. The cons included major
disruption to Police operations during construction, lack of secure
vehicle parking, operations inefficiencies due to small footprint,
limited expansion capabilities in the future, and higher
construction costs per square foot. The pros of Option 2 included
the least disruption to the ongoing Police and Fire operation,
provided the best facility for Police and Fire, returned space within
the Civic Center to the City for other uses, and allowed for future
expansion of all City facilities. The cons included higher project
costs, City land acquisition, and potentially difficult site
identification process. The pros of Option 3 included minimal
capital expenditure. The cons included operational deficiencies
related to risk management, operational effectiveness, and
regulatory requirements. The conclusions of the study confirmed
the need to improve size and organization of the existing Fire and
Police facilities including 50,000 square feet of building plus
related warehouse and parking area. The study recommended Option
2, New Building, as the best alternative to meet the Police and Fire
needs. Additional investigation was required to define an
appropriate site, prepare a detailed architectural program of design
and space requirements, prepare concept studies on a new site, and
develop detailed cost estimates.
Ms. Fleming said Ms. Johnson gave the Council the actual pictures
which demonstrated some of the deficiencies that the City faced.
Council was requested to consider and ultimately approve proceeding
to the next step.
Council Member Fazzino asked if any radical options had been
evaluated that would leave public safety employees downtown and move
administrative staff elsewhere.
Ms. Fleming said radical approaches were looked at but that was not
necessarily one. The staff in the City Hall building was ready for
the Police and Fire to move out so they would be able to have the
space. There was a number of things, like one-stop permitting, that
could not presently be done. Staff had gone as far as it could.
If the Council wanted staff to look at other alternatives, that
could be done. Her initial discussion with EKONA and staff was that
the configuration of the City Hall building was not conducive to
being a Safety building. The building had inherent problems. It
could be done, but it would not be efficient or cost effective.
Mr. Craig said that Public Safety buildings were required to come
up to a higher seismic standard than most buildings. He thought
7/28/97 −99
it would be difficult to bring that building to that standard. Part
of the higher cost per square foot for expansion was basically to
address that type of issue. He did not believe staff would want
to do it for the whole building. Option 2 met the need.
Council Member Fazzino said there was some discussion in the press
about alternative sites. One of the sites suggested was by Rinconada
Park, and those people who were around in 1965 recalled the 1965
election, which swept three residentialists as Council members into
the Council, had much to do with the proposal for a police/fire
building. Before holding significant hope for the possibility of
a Public Safety Building in a residential area, the history of the
issue would be considered, particularly with respect to 1965 and
the serious concerns of the neighbors. It led to a mini-revolution
at City Hall.
Ms. Fleming said that was why a site was not presented to the Council
at that time. Information regarding City-owned lands was given.
She emphasized that there was no site chosen. Any site that would
be given consideration to, if it displaced a service, would be a
place for that service to go.
Council Member Fazzino supported the concept of a new Public Safety
facility. It was very important that the impact of a proposed
structure in any part of town, whether it was commercial or
residential, be carefully weighed. The information would be given
to people immediately so they would not be surprised later on in
the process.
Council Member Rosenbaum said it seemed there had been some
significant changes in both the recommendation and proposed
financing developed since the staff report (CMR:342:97) came out.
He questioned the City Manager’s language for the recommendation
which was different than that of the staff report.
Ms. Fleming said her report was based on the latest information that
she gathered from staff. She admitted that new and different
information was found as inquiries were directed to staff about
financing. She and Ms. Cavallo worked on it very closely and were
trying to outline what seemed the most feasible options. That was
why the Council was not being asked to make a decision that evening;
staff was only presenting the options.
Council Member Rosenbaum said there were two issues. One was the
actual language. He expressed concern about sending that to
Committee rather than using the words “direct staff to formally
initiate the process.” It seemed that the City Manager did not use
those words but indicated a process in which recommendations would
be made by the Committee.
7/28/97 −100
Ms. Fleming clarified that she came to the Council without a specific
proposal. Staff requested approval of the concept to pursue further
a proposal for a Safety building. When that was done, as part of
the process, it would be worked through with the community and the
Council’s various committees. It was not the intent to bypass the
committees. It was purposeful to bring it to the Council at that
time and not ask for a referral to Committee. She believed it was
an issue which the Council would have to address. It was staff’s
intent to get approval of the concept, put together a plan to proceed,
and return with whatever budget amendments were needed to put that
plan in place. As the plan was put in place, it would go through
both a public process and a Council Committee process.
Council Member Rosenbaum said Ms. Harrison suggested using General
obligation bonds. The staff report stated that had not been done
recently, and it required a two-thirds vote of the public. Everyone
would be concerned with the costs and the choices.
Ms. Fleming said it was a changing picture. Staff was trying to
present to the Council what seemed like a possibility at the present
time but realized that might change.
Ms. Harrison said it was envisioned that the major new facilities
needs would probably be debt financed. Staff realized it could not
try to put other needs aside to accommodate several million dollars’
worth of debt service on a new building. It would not be fair to
the City’s current investment and infrastructure for not only
buildings but also traffic and transportation, parks, and open space
needs. That was why staff solidified its approach in looking at
new revenue sources for new buildings and facilities needs.
Council Member Rosenbaum said Council Member Fazzino brought up the
issue of alternative sites. The chance of putting a new police
building in a residential area on land that was generally thought
of as reserved for expansion of the library was remote. He thought
that the likelihood of putting a police station on the other side
of Highway 101 was remote. He questioned knocking down a library
to put up a new police station and knocking down the police station
to replace the library. It was hard to do a site selection until
the library problem was resolved.
Ms. Fleming said it was not easy but doable, and she knew that building
probably better than anyone, other than Mary Jo Levy, at the meeting.
That building as it existed was a compromise building. The original
plan for the library did not materialize. Some compromises were
made to construct what was there. The library had functioned from
day one with those compromises, and it had done an admirable job
of trying to meet reduced needs and a revised concept. That building
7/28/97 −101
was built to house originally both the library and recreation. That
was the first assignment she had when she came to work for Palo Alto.
She recognized and acknowledged that there was a Master Plan to
be done. The proposal before the Council would not compromise that
plan. If the library were chosen as a site for the Safety building
and if library services were recommended and approved by the Council
in the geographic area, it would easily be moved into the building
on the first floor and be an enhanced and improved service over what
was currently there. The plan would not disrupt or displace library
services where they needed to be provided.
Council Member Eakins questioned the sally port.
Mr. Craig said the sally port was a double gated structure used in
medieval castles. It was used in prisons and detention facilities
so when one gate was opened, the other stayed closed. There was
a secure environment for the vehicle to enter.
Council Member Eakins said she wanted to pursue the other sites.
She thought location was very important. There had to be a
commitment to the discussion about location, including alternate
sites and creative ways to acquire sites. She favored a location
where the most calls for service were. She wanted to see South El
Camino surveyed for a Public Safety building. She questioned the
lot size that would be adequate.
Mr. Craig said the shape of the site might not be as important as
the size of it. If it were irregularly shaped, more site would
usually be needed. The shape of a site for Police was more driven
by parking than anything else.
Council Member Eakins asked whether one acre was considered a
minimum.
Mr. Craig said an acre and a half would be closer.
Council Member Eakins asked what facilities would be shared between
Fire and Police.
Mr. Craig said it would be evidence storage, locker rooms, community
rooms, training facilities, fitness area, conference room, and
emergency operations center. Dispatch was already shared.
Council Member McCown said it was not clear whether the possibility
of reusing the existing building remained in the analysis or whether
the concept was only Option 2, the new building option.
Ms. Johnson said the recommendation was for the Council to give
approval to proceed with Option 2 which would be to build a new site.
If that were successful, a decision would have to be made at a later
7/28/97 −102
time as to how the space vacated by both Police and Fire would be
used.
Council Member McCown asked about the difference in length of time,
cost, etc., if Option 1 were kept, that was replacing the existing
with a new facility. She appreciated all the issues identified about
the pluses and minuses but asked how it would affect the time line
of the analysis and potential cost of doing the analysis if both
options were kept in evaluation to a next stage.
Ms. Johnson assumed that the time line would be similar. From an
operational perspective, the biggest problem with Option 1 would
be the site to relocate the entire Police Department for a period
of 18 months. It could be a matter of moving to another building
or closing down streets around the Civic Center and putting up
trailers. That was what other cities did when they remodeled their
existing facilities. It would depend on those options and how fast
relocation would occur prior to the building and construction of
the remodel on the current site. From an operational perspective,
that would be probably the biggest glitch that would determine the
length of time.
Council Member McCown said the staff recommendation stated
completion of a detailed needs analysis, architectural program, and
concept design and site selection. That was estimated to take a
little more than a year. She asked if there was a way to keep both
concepts moving forward with some further level of evaluation
analysis.
Ms. Johnson said it would be possible to do a simultaneous needs
analysis. It would probably cost more as far as consultant services,
but it could be done.
Mr. Craig said it was not a problem to do site selection, needs
assessment, and program work concurrently. Identifying the site
within limited constraints might take some time, and getting
community support and buy-in was very crucial.
Council Member McCown referred to Council Member Fazzino’s question
regarding relocating other city services out of the building. She
wanted the Council to look at both Options before the conclusion
was reached that a new building was the best way to go. She asked
if there was any concept for a joint use opportunity for the Santa
Clara County courthouse building at California Avenue.
Ms. Fleming said that was not specifically pursued. She was aware
of one informal contact about a use for the building that would not
be compatible with safety. It was not looked at, but as other sites
were looked at, that could be pursued.
7/28/97 −103
Council Member Wheeler commended the staff for the presentation.
It answered many of her questions. She referred to the issue of
funding and the determination to use general obligation bonds. She
said Ms. Cavallo talked about other projects, most notably the
Library, potential joint library between the City and the Palo Alto
Unified School District, and the potential for a performing arts
center. It was important at some time during the following year
to answer the question, together with the more comprehensive
infrastructure discussion. Her guess was that the opportunities
to go to the public to ask for approval on general obligation bonds
were limited in time and number. The City might need to go to the
public with a package that included as many of the realistic facility
improvements or new construction that could be thought of. She asked
if the City would reach a point in the coming year where a project
would be packaged.
Ms. Cavallo said she expected within the next year to have information
from the infrastructure management plan as well as more knowledge
regarding the current project to be able to package a group together.
Ms. Fleming said there would be a longer process because of the long
initial step of finding a site and determining cost. Regardless of
what the recommendation was regarding the libraries, the City Council
would not have to face that but would be faced with the decision
if that were what was recommended and approved for the libraries.
It would not involve that much lead time up front; therefore, the
projects would be able to come together. The City Council would
get the recommendation in the Fall regarding libraries. There was
still plenty of time to select a site for Public Safety.
Council Member Wheeler asked if the Council approved the motion to
proceed and an existing piece of property were used, which would
displace some use, whether the scope of consultant’s work or staff
work would include what would be done with that use and what the
space in City Hall would be utilized for.
Ms. Fleming did not believe that could be done within the first year.
With approval to construct a new facility somewhere else, the City
would start a process to determine what the priorities were for
relieving the space needs in City Hall. There would be a smooth
transition, and the City Council would know what the entire financial
impact would be before making a commitment.
Council Member Wheeler asked if that would be known before going
to the voters.
Ms. Fleming said it would have to be known.
7/28/97 −104
Council Member Wheeler said the Fire Service was currently located
in civil facilities throughout the community. Her assumption was
that they were located mostly in fire stations.
Ms. Jewell said that was correct. There were two deputy chiefs and
a battalion chief located at Station 6, the EMS Chief at Station
1, and the Stanford SLAC Chief at Station 7.
Council Member Wheeler said that Ms. Jewell felt there were
disadvantages having the chiefs scattered, and the reason they were
scattered was that of space consideration. She asked if there were
advantages to having them closer to the day-to-day operational staff.
Ms. Jewell said it depended on the individual functions. For
example, shift battalion chief was located at Station 6 where he
could interact with the battalion chief aide and other people. At
times, there was an advantage but much of what was done in the Fire
Service involved getting all the team members together to do planning
and interact. The way they were spread out at the present time was
logistically very difficult. They spent much time driving from one
station to another station or one station to City Hall. They could
not get everyone together to do planning.
Council Member Wheeler asked Ms. Jewell if she would realize
efficiencies if the Chiefs were together.
Ms. Jewell said the Fire personnel would still interact with the
people in the field. The battalion chiefs would still have an office
at Station 6. The SLAC Chief would still have an office at Station
7. It was difficult to conduct business over the phone or via fax
with for the deputy chiefs both being at Station 6 away from City
Hall, away from clerical support, and away from the people who needed
to interact with them on a day-to-day basis.
Council Member Wheeler said she recalled one of the facilities in
the California Avenue area that the County had talked about
abandoning was the medical facility. That might be another
possibility to look at.
Ms. Fleming said that was another example of the City’s need to look
at sites. Every year there were rumors about what was going to happen
there. If she had the authority to proceed, she could have serious
conversation about various sites, and that site would be included.
Council Member Schneider said the background information stated that
the current facility no longer provided an efficient code or legally
compliant environment. She asked what would be the repercussions
of the building’s not being code or legally compliant.
7/28/97 −105
Ms. Johnson said there could be numerous repercussions. For
example, the Police was out of compliance with the Board of
Corrections as outlined in the report when it came to separating
juveniles and adults. There were certain situations such as the
recent Kay homicide in which three adults and two juveniles were
arrested that presented a serious problem for the Police Department.
To date, the Board of Corrections had not levied any sanctions
against the Police Department. That sanction would be something
like precluding the Police Department from bringing a juvenile into
the holding facility if an adult were already there. That could
result in operational and logistical problems. Other situations
were outlined, especially in the property evidence area, as well
as concerns regarding employee safety. Fortunately, those
problems had not been experienced. Some of the ramifications would
be injury to employees, for example.
Council Member Schneider asked, if the general obligation bonds went
to the public, a two-thirds vote were not received, and the funds
were not available, what would happen to the facility that was not
code or legally compliant.
Ms. Fleming said serious decisions had to be made. She was unable
to say exactly what would be done. The staff would have to go back
and decide about the level of service to be provided. That was not
accepted jargon, but the City was a full service safety department
that did more than just Police. She believed that one option would
be to cut back the level of service provided because, as she
understood from staff, if there were requirements for basic services,
those had to be met.
Council Member Kniss thanked the City Manager for reminding everyone
that the City existed primarily to provide safety. That was the
very first issue. As concerned as she might be for the library,
it was a compromise situation. She found the City Manager’s
assessment shocking and was surprised the public had not picked up
more on it. What was contained in the report was frequently seen
in the paper which indicated that public safety people could not
do their job well.
Ms. Fleming said the community had been able to receive the same
high level of service and willingness thanks to the type of staff
Palo Alto had. She had been to other places that had upgraded their
police stations. The Fire Department had heard a hue and cry from
its employees about the conditions under which they worked. When
City Hall moved into the current building, a gender integrated police
department was not thought of. There was not adequate facilities
to house the type of staff there was. She had known for the past
7/28/97 −106
two or three years that things were not as they should be. The Police
Department was extremely cautious about how it processed evidence
and how it handled people who came in for conferences. The Police
Department’s dedication and belief in what it was doing had allowed
it to be successful. The Police Department worked under very
strained conditions, and she would be remiss if she did not bring
it to the Council.
Council member Kniss said it seemed there would hardly be a question
that the Council need to move forward. She did not know how much
more the Manager needed from the Council. While it might seem to
the Council that there were obvious answers, she was sure some would
be discovered that were not as obvious.
Council Member Fazzino said the Downtown Library and near Rinconada
Park were mentioned as possible sites. He asked how many realistic
sites were available.
Ms. Fleming would be remiss to answer that question definitely.
Conceptually, the discussion about the Downtown Library would
probably work. The comments she heard from the Council about other
places to look at, such as the southern part of the City or the County
facilities, had not been looked at. Staff only looked at City-owned
property. She had not thought seriously about the County
Courthouse, but that could be looked at.
Council Member Fazzino asked whether it was viable to consider any
sites other than public facilities, such as South El Camino where
the land was in private hands. The City Manager mentioned other
public facility options including the Courthouse and the Mental
Health facility. He asked if it were realistic to even consider
those properties.
Ms. Fleming believed in order to finance the project, the support
of the community was needed. She did not believe the community would
give its support unless the City demonstrated that it had pursued
every option and the one presented to the public would be the most
effective, efficient, and cost-effective one. The City had right
of eminent domain, but that might not want to be used.
RECESS: 9:30 p.m. - 9:45 p.m.
Warren Kallenbach, 1248 Harriet Street, said those responsible for
building the proposed Public Safety building should conduct enough
public hearings so that they could learn what a significant number
of the people in the community felt about the concept and the location
because that would be the big issue. Over thirty years prior, some
of the residents formed the Community Center Neighborhood
7/28/97 −107
Association to keep Rinconada Park as a public park and not have
a Public Safety building there. The election was won, but it was
not enjoyable. It took much of every City Council members’ and
residents’ time. The residents were not invited to discuss the
issues before or after the Council took action. The public
discussions should help decide the location of the Public Safety
building. As a former President of Friends of the Palo Alto Public
Library, he would regret the loss of a library, particularly the
Downtown Library. He did not believe the Public Safety building
should be near a library or park. He did not know what golfers would
feel about a Public Safety building near the golf course, but they
should be heard.
Mark Skubik, Manager, Palo Alto Community Garden, 735 Middlefield
Road, said it was brought to his attention that the City of Palo
Alto was considering a new building for Fire and Police. He thought
it was great because he was one of their major supporters. The report
referenced that a certain property on Embarcadero adjacent to the
City’s Main Library was a possible site. That certain property was
Palo Alto’s main Community Gardens. The City Manager and staff
brought to the Council’s attention that no sites had been taken to
the public, but he said it had been brought to the Community Garden’s
attention. The Community Garden was about 60,000 square feet of
gardens with about 140 leases. There were about 250 families who
participated in the organic gardening program. It had been going
on for about a quarter of a century and represented collectively
about 2,500 years of communal gardening in the City of Palo Alto.
It represented flowers, tomatoes, cucumbers, and zucchini that time
of year. It was a place for folks to walk their dogs, get together
and enjoy the vestige of what used to be called the valley of hearts
delight, Santa Clara Valley. It was a place to grow and nurture
children and teach them the real values of community and humanity,
and that was in sharing and hard work. He urged the Council to come
out and visit the garden to find out what a wonderful resource it
was for the community. It had come up from time to time again that
people were interested in constructing a building or parking lot
or expansion of the library on to the public garden. He thought
that was a poor judgment because the Community Garden gave many people
a wonderful outlet to get involved with the City, nurture it, and
make it something of one’s own. He said he represented approximately
500 Palo Altans who enjoyed digging around in the dirt next to the
library, and while the process moved forward, he assured the Council
that they were paying attention and wanted to be involved with any
decisions the Council made. Until those decisions were made, the
Council would be hearing from the residents.
Tony Spitaleri, President, Palo Alto Professional Firefighters,
Local 1319, said the City Council and citizens of Palo Alto had been
blessed with an extremely skillful and dedicated staff in the Police
7/28/97 −108
and Fire Department. They had used the space given them efficiently.
The space issue with the Fire Department had been an issue for over
15 years, had acceded to two fire chiefs, and was currently in the
lap of the current Fire Chief. It was an issue of a labor dispute
with the Fire Union. It was brought to the negotiating table. It
was an issue that went to arbitration before the City Manager, and
through her efforts, the Fire space on the sixth floor was redesigned
to make it a little more comfortable than it was previously. The
Fire Department was running out of spaces again by mandated programs
by the state and by the service levels that were continually improved
to the citizens of Palo Alto. As Deputy Chief Jewell pointed out,
the deputy chiefs were spread throughout the City trying to make
the Fire Service work. The Fire Department hoped and waited for
the light at the end of the tunnel. The current proposal was the
flickering of the light at the end of the tunnel. The Fire Department
urged the Council’s support for Option 2. The City needed to move
forward and find adequate space for the police and firefighters if
the Council and citizens expected continuing expert service.
Scott Wong, President, Palo Alto Peace Officers Association, 275
Forest Avenue, said the Association supported the initiation of the
formal process for the building of a new Public Safety building.
Based on his experience involving the major investigation mentioned
by Chief Johnson, the limited space and design of the current Police
building adversely affected its investigation abilities especially
when taken into account the fact that there were six suspects
involved. There was only one interview room available that was
equipped adequately to conduct thorough investigations, and as
mentioned previously, it was difficult to separate both the juvenile
and adult defenders with the limited space available. Private
offices as well as storage areas had to be used. That was one example
that hindered some investigations. He believed that a new building
would enhance existing operations of each department, reduce the
potential liabilities, and increase the efficiency and productivity
that the men and women of the Police and Fire Departments proudly
provided to the community. On behalf of the Peace Officers
Association, he respectfully requested that the Council support the
concept of a new Public Safety building and take whatever action
was reasonably necessary to make it a reality.
Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, said she had been to three
Council meetings in the past four weeks. The first two related
to traffic, parking and development, and the same concern at the
present meeting. Four weeks before was the parking report from the
Police Department which she thought was the most successful because
of the great deal of time spent on developing, evaluating, and
updating the 13-point parking plan with many opportunities for public
input. The second time was 390 Lytton at which Jim Baer apologized
for not reaching out more into the neighborhood. She supported the
7/28/97 −109
Police and Fire Departments and their need for more space. She
worked closely with the Police Department, both serving on the
Parking Committee and coordinating and updating the colors on the
parking brochure. When she read the City Manager’s report
(CMR:342:97) regarding the agenda item, she realized even more the
need for additional space. She said she was a NIMBY (not in my
backyard) and the location at Newell and Embarcadero was not an
appropriate location for a 50,000-square-foot building, plus
30,000-square-foot underground parking, plus 5,000-square-foot
warehouse. It needed to be in a more urban setting, not in a
neighborhood.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct
staff to formally initiate the process needed for site selection
and construction of a new public safety building, with the proviso
that staff keep the potential of consideration of the build-out of
the Civic Center as a possible alternative in accordance with Options
1 and 2.
Council Member Kniss said she was very surprised to read the Manager’s
report(CMR:342:97) because not only was the written word rather but
also the pictures were even more convincing. She hoped the Council
would move forward with as much dispatch because Palo Alto was the
kind of community that not only valued its houses, trees, lawns,
and schools but also placed the safety of its residents at a very
high level. As much as she loved libraries and schools, when she
called 911, she did not want to be referred to a book. She wanted
someone to handle her fire or her burglar. It was the Council’s
responsibility to make it as easy on the safety offices as possible.
She hoped it would move forward rapidly and that staff looked to
the Council for guidance but not wait as it went along with the
investigation of where the Safety departments should be put or how
it should be funded. It was an excellent report, and a number of
issues was brought to light that she had not looked at previously.
She was very surprised that complaints had not been heard from either
the Fire or Police Departments. She thanked those present at the
meeting for not having complained in the past and having done their
work so well.
Council Member Wheeler said that the very reason local governments
existed was to provide for the public health and safety of their
communities. There were many communities in the country and County
where just about all they could afford to do was to provide for the
public health and safety; they funded police and fire, and that was
about it. Palo Alto was fortunate to be able to do many other things,
but a prime reason for being was to protect the citizens and those
who provided the services. She hoped that the notion of the motion
was intended to keep alive the very important point that Council
Member McCown made in her remarks. She believed that the Council,
7/28/97 −110
at least in the initial examination phases, should keep the potential
open for working within the existing building and not so quickly
discard it on the basis of the information received.
Council Member Schneider said it was almost disappointing that Palo
Alto needed to build new buildings to protect the citizens. It meant
there was more crime, but with an older city, there was more potential
for fire. The good part was that when it finally came to the Council
with financing in place, there would be a building Palo Alto would
be proud of. She anticipated having to work hard to raise the money
and to get a two-thirds majority. It would be a task that everyone
would be involved in. She would look to her colleagues when the
time came to pound the pavements and let the community know how
important the issue was.
Council Member McCown said one of the reasons to take both concepts
forward further was that part of the community outreach needed to
be the receptivity of the community to the two ideas. If there were
concern about a completely new building and more support for
figuring out how to build what was needed on the existing site,
that needed to be evaluated before taking it to the voters. It was
an iterative process and a testing process of getting community input
and feedback. It was not only what the Council thought was the best
solution but also what two-thirds of the voters of Palo Alto, assuming
that was the financing approach, agreed was the right solution.
Council Member Rosenbaum said the point about keeping Option 1 in
the mix was very important. He suspected the City would have to
buy a site if there would be a new site. The cost of that site plus
the cost of refurbishing, which had not been looked at as compared
to simply building a new building where the current one was would
make Option 1 more attractive when it went to the public. He
suggested amending the motion to eliminate from consideration the
site next to the Main Library.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND
SECONDER that the site next to the Main Library be eliminated from
the site selection process.
Council Member Fazzino said the case was very compelling to move
forward with the planning for the new Public Safety facility. The
need for a new facility had been obvious for quite some time. Just
as important as the location of a site and the financial plan was
the need to build public support for the concept. There was no
question that the community was very supportive of Public Safety.
She agreed with Council Member Kniss’s comment that there was a
general feeling that police and fire services were the most
important. Palo Alto was very supportive of the need to adequately
house and fund the critically important public safety functions,
7/28/97 −111
but it was extremely important to involve the public in the process
as early as possible. He did not agree with Council Member
Schneider’s comment that the crime was up. He recalled being in the
Chambers about two months after it opened in 1970 and watching police
officers move through the back of the Chambers with 75 to 100 people
under arrest. It was a facility issue. The facility was woefully
inadequate. That was the reason to move forward to build a new
facility. It did not have to do with the crime rate, although
everyone was concerned about crime in the City. He referred to the
mini-revolution mentioned by Council Member Fazzino that occurred
in 1965. He did not believe that anyone wanted that exercise
repeated. It made no sense to place the facility in the middle of
a residential area. It was possible to consider a location along
major arterials adjacent to residential areas, such as in the case
of South El Camino Real. It was appropriate to eliminate sites that
would only cause problems and confusion. He strongly applauded the
staff and said it was a very important exercise in long-term
infrastructure planning. He could not think of a greater
infrastructure need for the City than a new Public Safety facility.
Mayor Huber said the Council was going into a major South of Forest
(SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan and to the extent the existing facility
or library was looked at, the Council was also looking at SOFA and
Coordinated Area Plans as a means of putting City capital improvement
funds along with the guide the Council wanted. It might very well
be that Library facilities or something in that particular area might
work.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
8. Initiative Petition Regarding Sand Hill Road Project
Alternative
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to direct
the City Clerk place the initiative on the ballot of a special
election to be held at the time of the November 4, 1997, General
Municipal Election, and return on Monday, August 4, 1997, with a
resolution calling for the special election.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS
9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Council Member Eakins said she objected to racial and ethnic insults
that had occurred during Oral Communications.
7/28/97 −112
Council Member McCown asked staff about a newspaper article which
reported on a homeowner’s deck which was sawed off and asked if there
was any staff action that was in order.
Mayor Huber requested staff to discuss the issue with the District
Attorney and to report back to the City Council.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne responded that the staff would provide
a mini-report on August 11, 1997.
Council Member Fazzino said he was troubled by the action of the
behavior of that particular individual.
Mr. Calonne responded to Council Member Fazzino’s concern.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo
Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council
and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose
of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings.
City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90
days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for
members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.