HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 280-06City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS1 2
JUNE 26, 2006 CMR:280:06
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL 1) ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL
OF THE PUBLIC SAFE:TY BUILDING BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS; 2) APPROVAL TO BEGIN PRELIMINARY
DISCUSSIONS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION WITH OWNERS OF
PREFERRED SITE FOR TH~ PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING;
3) DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BRING BACK FINANCING OPTIONS; 4)
DIRECTION TO STAFF TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO RECOVER COSTS INCURRED PRIOR
TO ANY DEBT ISSUANCE; 5) DIRECTION TO STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
A CONSULTANT AMENDMENT WITH ROSSDRULISCUSENBERY,
ARCHITECTS TO PROCEED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
PROJECT PE-98020
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the City Council:
1.Accept and approve the June 19, 2006 Mayor’s Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task
Force Report recommendations.
2.Direct City Attorney to begin preliminary discussions for property acquisition of the preferred
site for the proposed public safety building.
3. Direct staffto bring back financing options for the project in December 2006 or Jm-luary 2007.
4.Direct staff to return to Council with a Resolution of Intent to recover costs incurred prior to
any debt issuance.
5.Direct staff to negotiate a contract amendment with RossDrulisCusenbery, Architects to
proceed with an Environmental Assessment and Schematic Design for the Public Safety
Building Project PE-98020..
BACKGROUND
Since 1985, staff has identified the need for and has been discussing options with Council for a
new public safety building. In February and May 2005, two colleagues memos presented to the
CMR:280:06 Page 1 of 5
City Council from Mayor Burch and Council members Beecham and Cordell suggested that as
much as $5-6 million could be saved by considering a "turn-key" police building project
allowing the Police Department to remain operational and move into a new facility rather than
incurring additional costs associated with reconstruction of the existing police building at the
Civic Center.
Because of the additional costs associated with the renovation and expansion of the existing
facility, as well as the concerns raised by the need to exceed the 50’ height limit in the
Downtown, the City Council directed staff to temporarily discontinue design of the renovation
and expansion of the existing police building and proceed with a preliminary evaluation of a
downtown site that included a partially City-owned parking lot behind the Post Office.
On August 8, 2005 (CMR:349:05), City Council directed staff to issue a Request for Statements
of Interest (SOI) for a "turn-key" police building and return with a comparison of the "turn key"
proposal to the previously approved plan to renovate and expand the existing police building.
On November 21, 2005 (CMR:428:05), Council evaluated three SOI proposals and determined
that th~fe may be another option.for a new police facility that wduld involve a Santa Clara
County-owned parcel of land neat’the pal~5 Alto Courthouse in the California Avenue area.
Because of this additional option the Council decided not to pursue any of the SOI proposals
submitted and directed staff to assess the potential of siting the new police building on the
County-owned parcel. The Council also directed the Mayor to appoint a community-based Blue
Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate the need, size, cost and site for a public safety building
and asked that the results of this evaluation be presented in a report to Council by June 2006.
DISCUSSION
The BRTF, co-chaired by former Mayors Vic Ojakian and Lanie V~rheeler, met 13 times from
January 5, 2006 to June 1, 2006. With the participation of 13 other community members with
diverse backgrounds and the support of staff, the BRTF put in many hours of hard work
conducted thorough research, and gave thoughtful consideration to its charge from the Council.
Staffis extremely grateful to the BRTF for its excellent work on behalf of the City and the City’s
Police Department. The BRTF report to the City Council on the Public Safety Building Project
is attached (Attachment A). Staff agrees with the BRTF report and its recommendations.
Evaluation Process
The BRTF examined and discussed the previous reports and feasibility studies prepared by staff
and various consultants over the last 15 years and began its assessment of the need for a new
public safety facility by conducting site tours of the existing police building and new facilities in
adjacent cities. The BRTF then performed a space needs assessment and determined that the
new building would require approximately 49,600 square feet including warehouse space. The
BRTF reviewed this building size in relation to 28 potential sites within Palo Alto including the
County-owned parcel. The County officially informed the City that it is not interested in
participating with the City on this site. The BRTF considered options ranging from do nothing,
renovating the existing building, using the existing building with off’site space, and constructing
a new public safety building. The BRTF determined that Palo Alto should construct a new
building that meets current codes and should expeditiously resolve the regulatory concerns,
overcrowded conditions, and privacy/security issues that exist within the current building.
CMR:280:06 Page 2 of 5 "
Staff, with the assistance of RossDrulisCusenbery Architects, provided the BRTF with
comparable project cost ranges. It is important to note that these ranges are estimates and will
undergo changes as further work on design, environmental, and negotiation on land acquisitions
occurs. The three possible public safety siting scenarios as follows:
¯For a building on private land
¯For a building on a publicly owned parking lot
¯For reconstruction and additions to current facility
$38 to $45 million
$45 to $50 million
$50 to $55 million
With this information, the BRTF unanimously recommended a new public safety building
totaling 49,600 square feet. The BRTF further concluded that the Park Boulevard site is the least
costly scenario and meets the top three siting criteria established by the BRTF, namely:
i) The site is of adequate size to provide for building and associated parking for official
vehicles, staff autos and visitor convenience
2) The site should not be subject to ground instabi!J_ty __
3) The site provides access on at least two sides
The BRTF and staff recommend that Council accept and approve the Blue Ribbon Task Force
report recommendations.
Preliminary_ Discussions with the Property Owners
Staff recommends proceeding with preliminary discussions about potential acquisition of the
preferred site. City Council approval is required to enter into discussions and potentially
exclusive negotiations between the City and the land owners. Purchase of the site requires
Council to consider various funding options. These options include:
¯A deposit for an option to purchase the property so as to hold the land as the City
completes the EIR, design, and the election process
¯Use of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to acquire and "land bank"
the property "
Resolution of Intent prior to issuance of debt financing, so as to be able to recoup
project costs incurred prior to construction
¯Sale or land-swap of other City-owned property to defray the cost of land
acquisition such as the four acres soon to be freed up from the Colorado
electric substation site
Upon Council direction, staff will begin preliminary discussions with the property owners, order
property appraisals, and return with a status report.
Financing Options
Given the magnitude of anticipated capital costs for this project, a General Obligation (GO) bond
or a new revenue source to pay for Certificates of Participation (COPs) will be required. Task
Force discussions have focused on these two financing mechanisms as well as a potenti!l parce!
tax that could be used to pay for the COPs. Upon Council direction staffwill evaluate financing
options for a new public safety building and bring them back to Council by December 2006 or
CMR:280:06 Page 3 of 5
January 2007 in accordance with the Council’s approved Top 3 priority schedule for the public
safety building. In addition, staff will return to Council with a Resolution of Intent to issue debt
so that costs associated with the project prior to construction can be recouped through a bond
issuance.
To minimize the impact of taxes on the public, staff is identifying all available resources to offset
capital or debt service costs. These include: a revenue source such as State or Federal grant;
rental savings that would result from moving Information Technology and Utility staff into the
Civic Center site vacated by the Police Department; and contributions from Stanford University
for its share of capital costs associated with its agreement with the City for communications
services.
The 2006-07 Budget includes $1.0 million for work such as preliminary design, environmental
review, legal costs, and cost estimating. These costs will be borne by the Genera! Fund.
Optimally the City would be able to await the outcome of an election and the issuance of bonds
before major expenditures such as the final purchase transaction for the !and. However, the
property owners may be unwilling to delay use of their property until mid-2008.
Consultant Amendment
A contract amendment to the City’s current contract with RossDrulisCusenbery Architects
(RDC) will be needed to complete the preliminary design and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) in order to maintain the Council Top 3 priori~ schedule for the new public safe~ building.
The amendment scope of work will include preliminary design, cost estimates, and an EIR for
the new public safety building on the Park Boulevard site. The design scope will also include
green building elements, consideration in the building design to allow for future expansion of the
building if needed. Upon Counci! direction, staff wi!! negotiate a contract amendment with RDC
and bring the amendment, along with a detailed scope of work, back to Council for consideration
in the Fa!!.
Staffing Needs
The current Infrastructure Management Plan (~¢IP) project workload necessitates additional
resources to manage this project, as was the case with the Library bond project. Staffwill return
with the mid-year budget with resource requests.
RESOURCE IMPACT
As stated above, $!.0 million is included in the 2006-2007 Capital Improvement (Project PE-
98020) budget for costs associated with design and environmental review of the Public Safety
Building. E~imates of the costs of this project are shown in Appendix 6 of the BRTF final
report, Attachment A. Cost estimates will obviously be updated as the project progresses.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with Council direction to staff on its Top 3 priorities and to
the BRTF.
CMR:280:06 Page 4 of 5
ENVlRONNENTAL REVIEW
.am E!R wi!! be prepared for this project in accordance with the California Enviromnema! Quality
Act (CEQA). The preliminary negotiations for the property acquisition of the Park Boulevard
site are not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements as it is not a
project under CEQA.
ATTACtlMENTS
Attacttment A: BRTF Report to the Palo Alto City Council on the Public Safety Building Project
dated June 19, 2006
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
~N
E~H,~,RISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:280:06 Page 5 of 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum-
June 19, 2006
TO:
SUBJECT:PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE
REPORT
The attached Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) report is a culmination
of information gathering, analysis and deliberations held during the BRTF public meetings
over the last six months. City staff provided information as requested by the BRTF and
hosted a website and community bulletin board to convey the progress made at each meeting.
During this study session, the BRTF wishes to discuss their recommendations, receive
feedback and answer any questions you may have before action is taken, by the City Council
on the meeting scheduled for June 26, 2006.
MEMO PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
EMiL-~ HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE
Report to the
Palo Alto City Council
On the
PUBLIC SAFETY
BUILDING PROJECT
June l9,2006
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 2
The Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) respectfully submits this report to the City Council
in answer to its charge that we make an independent study of the need for a Public Safety
Building (PSB) and potential responses to that need. The Task Force has sought to
represent the interests of Palo Alto’s residents, business community, police, and other
public safety officials and staff by reviewing the case for a new or renovated building tO
replace the one now housing the Police Department, the City’s Emergency Operations
Center (EOC), and the 911 Emergency Dispatch Center. The Task Force placed primary
emphasis on emergency preparedness, preserving public safety, safeguarding justice, and
stewardship of taxpayers’ funds. This report is comprised of five sections: need, size,
location, cost, and financing. Appendices are attached that provide useful detail.
Executive Summary
The Task Force recommends in the strongest possible terms that the City proceed
expeditiously to build a new Public Safety Building. Until it does, Palo Alto cannot be
assured of an effective response to major natural or man-made emergencies. Moreover,
its public safety functions, with emphasis on police services, the EOC, and all 911 calls,
are compromised by a facility whose inadequacies have become increasingly manifest
over the nearly forty .years since it was designed. Among the current building’s more
serious deficiencies are limitations on its technical capacity to handle hi-tech crime,
ability to assure the integrity of the chain of custody of evidence, and capability to
provide for the security of those who work there. Such deficiencies threaten community
security and employee safety and expose the City to liability in several areas. Though
most Palo Altans are unlikely to deal directly with the police, all Palo Altans are
indirectly dependent on the ability of the City to maintain safety, good order, and
emergency response capacity. Therefore, while no single Palo Altan knows whether or
when they may end up needing police services, the well-being of every citizen depends
on a functional Public Safety Building.
Need
The current facility strains to provide a working environment that is at best only
marginally adequate for the critical people and functions it houses: the Police
Department, the Emergency Operations Center, and the Emergency 911 Communications
Center that serves the City and Stanford, Palo Alto and Stanford Police Departments,
Stanford Fire, Palo Alto Public Works, and Utilities. It was built before current
earthquake building codes were set and it no longer meets the standards established for
buildings that provide "essential services." (The "essential services" designation requires
such facilities to be constructed in a manner that substantially increases the probability
that they will be able to function after a major earthquake.) The current facility’s serious
limitations risk the safety of officers and staff, security of evidence, protection of
equipment, and relationships of trust and respect with the community. Employee morale
suffers as a result of the rundown and crowded conditions within which such demanding
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 3
work must be carried out. The City lags several neighboring communities in regard to
working conditions, operational capacity, and the message the building conveys to the
current officers and those who enter the recruiting pool. The building’s inadequacies
represent an. ongoing, negative signal regarding .the place of public safety, police and
emergency preparedness in the daily life, security, and welfare of Palo Alto.
Building Size
To assure the prudent and economical use of public funds for a PSB project, the Task
Force examined in great detail the initially proposed staffing and space needs. The Task
Force reviewed each space as to its function, priority, size, code and other technical
requirements it must meet. That list of needs was identified in 2000 through an
assessment process implemented by the City, the Police Department, and
RossDrulisCusenbery, Architecture Inc. (RDC). That space needs assessment resulted in
a proposed building of approximately 58,076 total square feet compared to the current
building’s size of 24,190 square feet. A subcommittee of the Task Force, and eventually
the Task Force itself, re-examined the initial proposal on a room-by-room, space-by-
space basis. As a result of this questioning and a careful reassessment by staff, the size
was reduced to 49,600 square feet. This process resulted in a reduction of 15 percent of
the proposed building area from the initially proposed space needs. This number
represents the smallest possible size Public Safety Building consistent with present and
longer term functional need.
Site Location
Identifying a site for the new Public Safety Building in an essentially built-out city
continues to be a challenge. The Task Force initially reviewed twenty-eight sites and site
variations provided by City staff. These sites were preliminarily evaluated against
criteria established by the .Task Force, including size, location, neighborhood
compatibility, and cost. Twenty-four sites were eliminated on various grounds
summarized in the body of this report. The remaining four sites were ranked from most
to least desirable as follows: 1) Park Boulevard; 2) Gilman Street; 3) California Avenue;
and 4) renovation and expansion of the existing site. All four sites can accommodate a
building of the proposed size and the parking that would accompany it. The Park
Boulevard site is the unanimous first choice of the Task Force. It is centrally located and
close to arterials, is the least physically complex and encumbered, is large enough to
accommodate a significant proportion of the required parking in surface lots, and would
enable the most rapid construction schedule. The second- and third-ranked sites, though
each has some positive attributes, are substantially less desirable. Reworking and
expanding the current site, the fourth-ranked and least desirable alternative, is likely to be
the most expensive,, complex, and protracted option. The BRTF strongly recommends
the Park Boulevard site.
Proiect Cost
City staff, working with Michael Ross of RDC, provided the Task Force with estimated
cost ranges of three options to enable us to compare the relative project expense but not
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 4
to calculate probable project budget numbers. These options are: 1) for a building on
vacant privately owned land; 2) for a building on a publicly owned parking lot; and 3) for
reconstruction and expansion of the current facility. Project budgets cannot reliably be
estimated at this stage because of the large number of unknowns (such as site
characteristics, environmental impact mitigations, construction costs, possible site
acquisition costs, etc.). Using general cost factors and the recommended size of 49,600
square feet, the building on the most favorable site with the least impediments during
design and construction (the Park Blvd. site) would not likely cost less than $38 million.
The most difficult site (renovation and expansion of the current building) would not
likely cost more than $55 million. (These estimates do not include financing costs.) The
Task Force, in presenting these numbers to denote an approximate cost range, at the same
time recommends that, at the appropriate time, the City Council convene an expert panel
to perform a peer review and evaluation of the project documents and estimates.
Financing
The Task Force defers to the City Council regarding financing alternatives. Because the
PSB is one of a number of Palo Alto municipal infrastructure needs, the method chosen
to fund it would necessarily be part of an overall financial strategy developed by the City
to address infrastructure projects. The Task Force reviewed financing issues and options
in a general manner and presents those findings in the body of the report.
Conclusion
An adequate and well-functioning PSB is a community asset whose vital importance
cannot be overestimated. The Task Force has respected Palo Altans’ expectation to be
safe and secure in normal times and well protected and responded to in abnormal times.
We understand and also respect the public’s equal expectation that expenditures made for
the common good should be prudent and make the best use possible of tax revenues. We
believe a new Public Safety Building based on the findings of this Task Force is an
essential long-term investment for the safety, good order, and well being of Palo Alto.
Continued reliance on the existing, seriously substandard facility unnecessarily, unwisely,
and inexcusably places at risk the professionals who work there and those who depend on
them.
I
The Need for a New or Renovated Building
The current facility at 275 Forest Avenue was designed nearly forty years ago (1967) as
part of the City Center complex. As early as 1985, overcrowding was evident, and a
needs assessment was completed as were two more between then and 1998. (CMR
349.05, August 8, 2005, p. 1.) The third study followed the 1997 Council direction to
staff "to initiate the formal process needed for site selection and construction of a new
public safety building." That action was informed by a report by Ekona Architecture and
Planning that had identified "numerous deficiencies with the current police facility."
Among them were failure to conform to current State legal standards and state and local
building codes; programmatic needs relating to property and evidence, detention, facility
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 5
support and warehouse functions; and deficiencies in prisoner processing, evidence
processing, handling, and storage. (City Manager’s Report 498:04, December 6, 2004)
A May 24, 2004 report by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury focusing on evidence and
property handling confirmed the previously identified deficiencies.
As time passed, conditions incrementally and steadily worsened. The continued decline
of the building’s adequacy led to a renewed sense of urgency and the charge to the BRTF
for this study. At 24,190 square feet, the current building is roughly half the size of
police or public safety buildings in several neighboring communities. Since the building
was first occupied in 1970, a number of things have changed that explain the worsening
situation:
cl A higher risk of catastrophic events caused by nature (e.g., earthquake, flood),
disease (e.g., avian flu), or terrorists. (We note this first not because such events
are highly probable but because, should they occur, they affect the greatest
numbers of citizens and make maximum demands on response capacity.)
[] New or newly recognized types of criminal activity, most notably computer
fraud and identity theft, which afflicts Palo Altans in greater numbers than
surrounding communities’ and national averages; and also sexual predators
using the Internet and elder abuse.
[] New law enforcement obligations including safeguarding of DNA evidence (for
crime fighting and assuring justice for the innocent) requiring special facilities
and equipment; longer periods in which evidence must be retained in a secure
manner; a timed parking system in the downtown area (requiring a staff of
seven officers and vehicles); and additional paperwork requirements.
[] New health and safety regulations and recommendations pertaining to such
things as fume hoods for working with chemicals, separate air circulation
systems (where pathogens may be associated with evidence or chemical fumes
may be present), and secure facilities related to terrorism threats (such as secure
mailrooms in case biological agents are introduced into the building through a
mailed package).
[] The upgrading of building codes, including earthquake codes, leaving the
current building deficient in key respects.
[] The growth of the City by 10 percent. The resident population was 56,040 in
1970, and is approximately 61,700 now. The additional daytime population of
the City (people who work, study, and shop here but live elsewhere), a statistic
of significant relevance when calculating the need for police protection, traffic
monitoring, and related matters, comes to another 47,000 in 2006. (Data not
available for 1970.)
[] The overall staffing of the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) housed in the
building has increased 28 percent since the current facility was built. The
authorized staffing levels of the Police Department (including the 911 Dispatch
Center) grew from 119 in 1969-70 to 152.5 in 2006-07. Sworn staffing levels
increased from 88 to 93 while civilian staffing increased from 31 to 59.5.
Civilian staff has increased as a result of the transfer of the parking enforcement
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 6
function from another department and the additional work load requirements
associated with property and evidence, community policing, and technology. In
addition, the Department now includes more than 40 volunteers compared to
none in 1969-70.
From these facts and the prior needs assessments, we knew that the record was long and
the confirmation of need was amply documented in that record. But confirmation in the
record, while clearly important, was not what we looked at first. We needed to be
convinced by our own assessment, so we undertook our own study. It included:
A close examination of the current building and probing conversations with
those who work in it.
Highly informative comparison tours of four neighboring police or public safety
buildings (Redwood City, Mountain View, Fremont, and Santa Clara). These
were built between the late 1970s and 2000.
Presentations by public safety officials; city staff, and the architect, Michael
Ross, who is consulting with the city on this project.
Research in City documents and on the Internet, and comparative statistical
analyses.
Comparisons of the current facility with general standards for such facilities.
It is the combination of all of these that led us to our recommendation that the city needs
to act without delay on a building that will make Palo Alto safer on a day-by-day basis
and in the case of a large scale or catastrophic event. (See Appendix 1, the Problem
Statement that has been placed on the BRTF Web site for public perusal since April 7,
2006; and Appendix 9, Fact Sheet, prepared for the public meeting of May 25th.)
We surveyed 2004 crime statistics in order to compare relative law enforcement activity.
(Data are available on the Web from "Area Connect" and are based on 2004 FBI data.)
We looked at the numbers for eight nearby communities: Cupertino, East Palo Alto,
Fremont, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Redwood City, Santa Clara, and San Jose. The
crime categories were murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny theft, and auto theft. The data were normalized per 100,000 population. To keep
the data from becoming distorted by unusually high numbers, we excluded the largest
value in each crime category before calculating averages. The results were as follows:
In one category Palo Alto was considerably above average, at 140 percent of
average for larceny theft (computer crime, fraud, identity theft, etc.); in another
it was somewhat above average, at 125 percent of average for murder.
For two categories, Palo Alto was considerably below average, at one-third the
average for aggravated assault and two-thirds the average for auto theft.
For the remaining three categories, Palo Alto numbers were within 13 percent of
the average, twice on the low side (forcible rape and robbery), once on the high
side (burglary).
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 7
Data such as these have multiple explanations, and we are not attempting to draw any
conclusions from them, save one: that the PAPD is, on average, equivalently stressed by
criminal activity as are neighboring cities and needs to be as well equipped and prepared
as they to prevent and fight crime. (See Appendix 7 for additional comparative crime
statistics.)
Since 1970, the scope of the public safety responsibilities of the PAPD has increased.
[] The substantial growth in Palo Alto as a destination (for people visiting
Stanford, the Stanford Shopping Center, neighborhood commercial centers,
restaurants, and businesses) has brought more traffic, parking issues, and other
activity obliging increased patrols and responses to calls requesting or requiring
a police response.
[] The growing number of restaurants in and around University Avenue and
California Avenue tend to generate alcohol-related police activity.
[] Homelessness is likewise a relatively new phenomenon in the City.
[] Increased commercial activity increases shoplifting arrests.
[] Palo Alto residents expect a high level of service from the PAPD, and calls for
service to the police average 146 per day, 365 days per year. This equates to
roughly 0.86 police calls for service per year per resident. Comparable numbers
are: Redwood City at 0.80, Santa Clara at 0.58, and Fremont at 0.28.
These several factors place demands on the Department that in mm put pressure on
space, such as hiring more officers and staff, acquiring and parking more police vehicles,
and the increased record keeping that goes with these rising levels of activity.
When designed, the current building did not include spaces and features that are now
considered essential, such as a secure Sallyport (an enclosure in which a prisoner can be
taken from a police vehicle into the building safely); reasonably sized, re-assuring, and
"soft" spaces providing a humane environment for interviewing victims or witnesses who
have been injured, frightened, or otherwise traumatized; access for the disabled; certain
high-tech equipment used in detective work and in departmental operations and an
electrical system capable of supporting such technology; a sufficient number of holding
cells to assure safety for officers and enable the separation of juveniles and adults, as
required by law (so that the juvenile cannot later be recognized by the adult and perhaps
drawn into further difficulty); and equivalent locker, shower, and toilet facilities for
female officers (there were no female officers in 1970). Sleeping space for officers
coming off night duty and scheduled for court appearances a few hours later is
improvised and inadequate. Segregated storage space for firearms seized in evidence
does not exist.
Crowding has consequences in addition to those noted so far. After a period of
increasing crowding, operational inefficiencies began to grow, such as locating people
and functions in available space rather than in relation to other units with which they
regularly work; jeopardizing the integrity of evidence when it must be stored in
suboptimal locations; placing lockers in hallways, thus depriving those who must use
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 8
them of privacy; storing records in under-secured spaces; holding conversations or
interviews between employees or with the public in lobbies, shared offices, or other open
space in general use, thus compromising confidentiality; having to use spaces distant
from the facility for police functions, e.g., the Citizens Police Academy; etc. [Note: the
Department maintains some offsite storage space and may in the future; in most cases,
this is desirable since it allows use of lower-cost facilities.]
When surrounding jurisdictions form task forces to work on regional crime trends,
different police departments must take turns housing such efforts for their duration. Palo
Alto has difficulty meeting its obligations; when it can meet ~em, it is only at the cost of
short-changing the regular functions that must be temporarily displaced. When the
PAPD hosts meetings of regional associations and invites professional working groups
such as high-tech investigators, county police chiefs, robbery/homicide detectives to
collaborate on regional issues appropriate space must on occasion be rented because of
lack of suitable space in its own building.
Several surrounding communities have, since the late 1970s, built new public safety or
police buildings incorporating up-to-date technologies, responding to the changes in
legal, building code, and environmental safety requirements, growth in their
communities, changes in the nature of criminal activity, and other relevant factors. The
four nearby facilities visited ranged in size from 44,000 to 70,000 square feet. The best
police men and women and civilian staff--the kind we want in Palo Alto-have their
pick of where to work. New or upgraded facilities advantage other cities in recruitment
for new officers and retention of already trained and experienced officers. (See Appendix
7 for comparable data on facility size, community census, and number of officers and
other staff.)
Very little has occurred that would diminish space needs, though the future holds more
promise for that than the past provided. Compressible shelving can make better use of
evidence storage and file storage space (but cannot be retrofitted into the current
building); information technology will in the future require less space for storage of
records; appropriate remote storage in less costly facilities releases pressure on the main
facility; some functions can be outsourced to commercial, county, or regional facilities
(though much of this has already been done); etc. These factors are taken into account in
the assessment of building size discussed in the next section.
II
Necessary Size
The starting point for turning functions and needs into square footage was the study by
the firm of RDC from 2000, which proposed the needed overall size to be 58,076 square
feet (compared to its existing 24,190 square feet). Other estimates since that time include
the Keenan proposal for a turnkey building, at 59,000 square feet for comparable public
safety needs, and a staff estimate from February of this year that came to 56,646 square
feet. The initial study (from 2000) intended to cover needs through the year 2020. Its
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 9
conclusion was consistent with standards for such facilities. The BRTF reviewed this
study, raised a number of questions about justification, and undertook an exacting
examination through a subcommittee with the goal of assuring the prudent and
economical use of public funds for a PSB project. It examined in great detail the initially
proposed space needs, questioning each space as to its function, priority, size, and the
code and other technical requirements it must meet. The period under consideration was
extended to 2026 to provide limited flexibility into the future. That subcommittee
worked with Chief Johnson and other members of the City staff, raising questions such as
these:
1.Where could needs be merged and spaces be used for multiple purposes (e.g.,
using the Emergency Operations Center, which must be at all times equipped and
ready but is activated only as needed, for tactical weapons training, departmental
meetings, and other large group functions)?
2. Where could less-than-standard square foot allocations be tolerable even if not
optimal?
3. How many needs could be warehoused and relocated to alternative, less costly
space, such as records storage, property not involved in open cases, and the like
(as long as these remained under departmental control)?
4. Where could program elements be efficiently located in relation to each other to
minimize circulation, storage, and other potentially duplicative spaces and thus
their size implications?
These questions and the results they produced challenged the initial proposal room-by-
room and space-by-space. As a result of this examination by the subcommittee and
ultimately by the Task Force itself, and thanks to the candid and forthcoming responses
by staff, the size was reduced to 49,600 square feet, a reduction of 15 percent from the
initially proposed space needs (See Appendix 2, Space Needs Assessment.) Note should
also be taken of the core/satellite relationship (Appendix 8) showing which core functions
must be housed within the same building as the Police Department and which might be
located differently. Some (e.g., multi-purpose room, some portion of evidence storage)
must be close but would not necessarily be governed by the same "essential services"
code requirements. Other functions (EOC and Emergency 911 Communications) do
require an "essential services" level construction and so should be within the PSB.
Roughly 1,500 square feet could be in cheaper-to-build warehouse space not necessarily
in or near the principal building.
Paring size to the minimum required for the present and 20 years beyond was a key--but
not only--task. In addition we noted that at 49,600 square feet the building would also
need to be flexible enough to respond not only to growth but also to shifts in functions
and internal relationships. If size were wound too tight, so to speak, flexibility would be
a certain casualty. Within the total, we provide an allowance for "Green Building"
attributes, especially in light of their potential to repay this allowance in operating
savings and building characteristics that enhance its quality as a place to work.
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 10
As a final test of whether the PSB would be neither smaller nor larger than necessary, we
subjected the resulting number to the discipline of asking what would be the first space to
be eliminated, if square feet had to be reduced, or added, if the square feet could be
increased. The proposed multi-purpose room would be the one next to be cut, and the
Task Force considered such a move to be a serious loss to the building. Such a space,
with its many potential uses,.would provide a space for the community to come together
in the presence of uniformed police to enhance the positive and defuse the negative
connotations of law enforcement, particularly for minority residents; permit school
classes to learn about public safety issues; provide community briefings; provide space
for the Citizens’ Police Academy and PANDA training; enable Palo Alto to play its role
in regional public safety and law enforcement issues by hosting meetings with
neighboring jurisdictions; use as sleeping quarters for police, public works, and utilities
staff who will be first responders in a major disaster; and the like. (Moreover, if this
space should be eliminated, other conference room spaces in the building would need to
be enlarged to serve some of the functions that a multi-purpose room would have served.)
First to be added back would be slightly increasing the size of the interior spaces, an
option that would greatly improve the building’s flexibility. As a result of this
hypothetical cut-and-add analysis, we believe that the proposed size of 49,600 square feet
optimally meets the objective of prudent size and effective function.
In addition to the building itself, 192 secured police and unsecured parking spaces (for
staff and visitor vehicles) must be provided, requiring approximately 91,000 square feet.
How this is to be done wit! depend on the site. In some cases, parking structures not now
contemplated may be needed, adding to project cost.
III
Site
Finding a suitable location for a vital building in our essentially built-out city continues to
be a challenge. Beginning with twenty-eight sites and site variations provided by City
staff, the Task Force reviewed them against the following criteria:
1.Site is of adequate size to provide for building and associated parking for official
vehicles, staff autos, and visitor convenience;
2.Site should not be subject to ground instability (e.g., liquefaction) or flooding;
3.Site provides access on at least two sides;
4.Site is in proximity to related public safety functions enabling possible joint use
(e.g., County courthouse, City Hall, etc.);
5.Site is centrally located to enhance ability to serve entire community;
6.Site does not place an excessive burden on surrounding neighborhoods--
residential and commercial; and
7.Site does not unduly add to the costs of construction, parking, environmental
mitigations, or operations.
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 11
Criteria 1-3 had to be satisfied. Criteria 4-7 lay in a judgment zone and were weighed in
a holistic assessment of any particular site. In applying these criteria, we also considered
the cost of new construction vs. the cost of renovating existing structures; the cost of land
(we do not believe possible sites should be limited to those already publicly owned); the
cost of replacement parking, where applicable; and the cost of temporary relocation if a
renovation of the current PoliceDepartment were to be considered. We also discussed
whether existing vacant buildings might be considered for purchase. Since buildings
developed for commercial use are not built to "essential service" code standards and
retrofitting would not be cost effective, they would not meet our requirements. We
eliminated this as an option.
Applying the above criteria tO the twenty-eight options, we eliminated twenty-four on
various grounds. (See Appendix 3 for a list of the sites and, where applicable, the reason
for elimination.) The BRTF gave particularly careful attention to two initially plausible
sites before eliminating them. One was the site of the downtown library, a site that we
were ultimately convinced should remain as a library. The other focused on two parking
lots on Emerson, between University and Lytton. Use of these sites would substantially
impact a crowded section of the main business district, remove parking from a place
where it is needed, and oblige a split building. The combination of problematic factors
seemed to us to constitute more than sufficient grounds for elimination.
The BRTF then ranked the remaining four from most to least desirable as follows: 1)
Park Boulevard; 2) Gilman Street; 3) California Avenue; and 4) renovation and
expansion of existing site. All four sites can accommodate a building of the proposed
size (including provision for limited expansion if and when needed) and the parking that
would accompany it. (See Appendix 5 for Architectural Stacking Diagrams of these four
sites.)
The Park Boulevard site is centrally located and close to arterials, is the least physically
complex and encumbered, places the least burden on the surrounding community, could
provide surface lots for much of the required on-site parking, and would enable the most
rapid construction schedule. Reworking and expanding the current site is likely to be the
most expensive, complex, and protracted option requiring a duplication of facilities
during construction to keep all functions fully operational at a cost of several millions of
dollars that would provide no long-term benefit to the City. Each of the other two sites
has substantial pros and cons. Both are on public land but both are primarily current
parking lots and would thus incur the cost of replacement parking. Both are well located
but complex sites that would cause considerable disruption during construction. The
California Avenue site in particular is in a commercial zone that is a destination for
customers, i.e., most come there deliberately rather than in connection with other errands
or business. Impediments such as construction disruption could, the merchants fear,
cause these customers to go elsewhere, establish other shopping patterns, and then not
return when construction is completed.
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 12
IV
Cost
Though the Task Force was acutely aware of the significance of cost and, therefore, of
the need to keep it as low as possible, our main contribution in that .respect was in
assuring that the size of the building was adequate but no larger than necessary for the
present and approximately twenty years into the future. Cost is difficult to estimate at
this stage because of the large number of unknowns (such as site characteristics,
environmental impact mitigations, construction costs, possible site acquisition costs, etc.).
The City’s consulting architect on this project, Michael Ross, provided the Task Force
with industry estimates of cost ranges for different project elements and contingency
factors for a building that meets the %ssential services" regulations. Covered by this
requirement are functions that are most essential to a community in a major emergency:
fire departments, hospitals, police, and the EOC and 911 communications functions
currently housed in the Palo Alto Police Department building. An essential services
building requires specialized, design, engineering, construction and inspection processes.
Such buildings are designed to remain operational following an earthquake or other
natural disaster. They also require more robust design and construction for both structural
and nonstructural components including, but not limited to, structural systems,
communications systems, main transformers and switching equipment, and emergency
backup systems. These systems are essential to facility operations and require adequate
consideration during the design and construction process to assure, insofar as practical,
continued operation of the building after a disaster. All of these factors-increase
construction cost well above those for standard commercial construction. Using these and
the recommended size of 49,600 square feet, rough cost ranges were calculated for three
different situations. These estimates include building construction, associated parking,
and land costs, if any, but do not include financing costs. They are as follows:
[]For a building on vacant private land
[]For a building on a publicly owned parking lot
[]For reconstruction and additions to current facility
$38 to $45 million
$45 to $50 million
$50 to $55 million
The range rims from the Park Boulevard site, where project costs would not likely run
less than $38 million, to the most difficult building to build (renovation and expansion of
the current building) that would not likely cost more than $55 million. The middle
category applies to the Gilman Street and California Avenue sites. (See Appendix 4,
Preliminary Project Relative Cost Comparisons.) These cost ranges are estimated based
on anticipated costs for beginning construction as of May 2009. We recommend, at some
point during the design and when building drawings are developed, the convening of an
expert panel of architects, contractors, project managers, and possibly others to advise on
the probable cost of any specific project.
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 13
v
Financing
As one among other Palo Alto needs, the PSB must necessarily be part of the financing
strategy the City adopts to respond now and over time to the City’s infrastructure
priorities. The Task Force, therefore, defers to the City Council in determining the most
appropriate approach to financing a new PSB.
The Task Force reviewed two of the most common means of using debt in the financing
of public needs. General Obligation (GO) bonds are the most secure and straightforward
funding mechanism for major projects. They are tax exempt and are repaid through an ad
valorem tax against real property, two characteristics that cause them to be favorably
viewed by the bond market and that result in lower interest costs compared to other
options. GO bonds can be used only for the acquisition and improvement of real
property. In this case, that would exclude furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E), an
expense estimated at between $1.3 and $2.0 million. GO bonds require a two-thirds
favorable vote. As a consequence of Proposition 13, an ad valorem tax will cause the tax
burden of a GO bond to be distributed unevenly depending on when a taxpayer acquired
his or her property.
Certificates of Participation (COP) are a vehicle well known in the investment
community that can cover acquisition, construction, and FF&E expenses. They do not
require voter approval; neither do they raise a new revenue source for payments to
holders. This obliges the City through its budgeting process to designate the sources from
which payments to Certificate holders can be made over the Certificates’ life. By City
Council policy, such sources must be available within a balanced budget. Any new tax
revenues raised to cover COP expenses would be a "special tax" and, therefore, would
require a two-thirds favorable vote.
A Parcel Tax, for example, could generate revenue to pay COP expenses through a flat
levy on each property or parcel within the City. Parcel tax revenue also can be used for
FF&E and operating expenses, though in the present case we do not anticipate any action
regarding operating expenses. Parcel taxes typically have a sunset provision, after which
they expire unless reauthorized by the voters.
As a pro forma exercise, we asked City staff to calculate repayment costs over a thirty-
year period based on the high end of the range of our three cost comparisons calculations,
namely, $45, $50, and $55 million. These are the approximate numbers:
With GO bonds, the range of annual debt retirement cost would range from
roughly $3.0 to $3.7 million depending on project costs.
For COPs, the range of annual payments would range from roughly $3.5 to $4.3
million, also depending on project costs. (See Appendix 6, Public Safety
Building Financing Options Analysis.)
BRTF Final Report
June 19, 2006
Page 14
The Task Force recommends to Council that any rent savings generated by City staff
moving into vacated police space be dedicated to refurbishing existing police space and
to offsetting debt service on a new police building. Candidates for such a move include
Information Technology staff located at 300 Hamilton Avenue and Utility staff located at
Elwell Court. In addition, the Task Force recommends that Council direct staff to begin
discussions with Stanford University for an appropriate contribution to offset the capital
costs associated with the Communications Center in the PSB. Stanford contracts with the
City for dispatch services, and language in this agreement discusses both operating and
capital payments.
To discourage the too-early concretizing of broad and general estimates, we reiterate that
all of the above numbers are based on comparative costs and assumptions and should be
treated as very early and rough approximations.
For the reason noted above, we do not make a recommendation on financing.
List of Appendices
1. Problem Statement as it or earlier drafts appeared on PSB Web page since April
7, 2006
2. Final Space Needs Assessment Report dated June 8, 2006
3. Inventory of Potential Sites dated June 8, 2006
4. Preliminary Project Relative Cost Comparisons dated June 8, 2006
5. Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams by Michael Ross, dated June 12, 2006
6. Public Safety Building Financing Options Analysis by Joe Saccio, dated June 13,
2006
7. Comparable police dataJstats on building size, crime - comparing Palo Alto with
Redwood City, Santa Clara, Fremont, Mountain View, and San Mateo dated June
13, 2006
8. Core and Satellite Functions by Michael Ross dated May 25, 2006
9. Fact Sheet dated May 25, 2006
10. Summary of BRTF’s process and copies of all meeting notes
APPENDIX 1
POLICE BUILDING PROJECT
Blue Ribbon Task Force
Problem Statement
This or Earlier Versions Appeared on the PSB Web page since April 7, 2006
The job of the BRTF is to represent the interests of Palo Alto’s citizens, police,
and City staff by reviewing--with emphasis on preserving public safety and
safeguarding justice--the case for a new or renovated Police Department
building and advising the City Council on its size, character, location, .cost, and
financing. This paper deals with the first of those elements.
I. The Case for a New or Renovated Building
Summary:
The current facility is severely overcrowded and inadequate, placing at risk the
safety of officers and staff, security of evidence, safety of equipment, and
relationships with the community. Emergency preparedness, response, and
recovery capacity in the face of an environmental or other disaster cannot be
assured in the current facility. Employee morale and operational efficiency are
compromised. The PAPD lags several neighboring communities in regard to
working conditions, operational capacity, and the message the building conveys
to the candidate pool for recruiting officers. Finally, the building’s inadequacies
send a negative signal to citizens regarding the place of the Police Department in
the life, security, and good order of the community.
Information and Analysis:
The Palo Alto Police Department facility at 275 Forest Avenue was designed
nearly forty years ago (1967) as part of the City Center complex. At 17,000
useable square feet (25,000 total including hallways, stairwells, restrooms, etc.),
it is roughly half the size of police or public safety buildings in the several
comparable communities we visited. Since the PAPD first occupied the building
in 1970, a number of things have changed, among them:
New or newly recognized types of criminal activity, most notably
computer fraud and identity theft, where Palo Alto exceeds surrounding
communities and national averages; sexual predators using the Internet;
elder abuse; and terrorism.
New law enforcement obligations including introduction of DNA
evidence requiring special facilities and equipment to secure it; longer
periods in which evidence must be retained in a secure manner; a timed
parking system in the downtown area (requiring a staff of seven officers
and vehicles); and additional paperwork.
BRTF Problem Statement~ Part I
This or Earlier Versions Appeared on the PSB Web page since April 7, 2006
Page 2 of 4
New health and safety regulations pertaining to such things as fume
hoods for working with chemicals, special air circulation systems (where
pathogens may be associated with evidence), and secure facilities
related to terrorism threats (such as secure mailrooms in case biological
agents are introduced into the building through a mailed package).
The upgrading of building codes, including earthquake codes, leaving
the current building deficient in key respects. As determined by a
consultant in the early 1990s, it is highly uncertain whether the current
building, which includes the 911 dispatch center and emergency
operations center, would be functional in the event of a natural or other
disaster.
The size of the City has grown by 10 percent. The resident population
was 56,040 in 1970, and is approximately 61,700 now. The daytime
population of the City, a statistic of relevance when calculating the need
for police protection, traffic monitoring, and related matters, is another
47,000 in 2006. (Data not available for 1970.)
The overall size of the Palo Alto Police Department has increased 28%
since the current facility was built. The authorized staffing levels of the
Police Department (including the Dispatch Center) grew from 119 in
1969-70 to 152.5 in 2006-07. Sworn staffing levels increased from 88 to
93 while civilian staffing increased from 31 to 59.5. Civilian staff has
increased as a result of the transfer of the parking enforcement function
from another department and the additional work load requirements
associated with property and evidence, community policing, and
technology. In addition, the Department now includes more than 40
volunteers compared to none in 1969-70.
We surveyed 2004 crime statistics in order to compare relative law enforcement
activity. (Data are available on the Web from "Area Connect" and are based on
2004 FBI crime statistics.) We looked at the data for eight nearby communities:
Cupertino, East Palo Alto, Fremont, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Redwood City,
Santa Clara, and San Jose. The crime categories were murder, forcible rape,
robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, and auto theft. The data
were normalized per 100,000 population. To keep the data from becoming
distorted by unusually high numbers, we excluded the largest value in each crime
category before calculating averages. The results were as follows: In two
categories, Palo Alto was considerably above average, at 125 percent of average
for murder and 140 percent of average for larceny theft (computer crime, fraud,
identity theft, etc.). For two categories, Palo Alto was considerably below
average, at one-third the average for aggravated assault and two-thirds the
average for auto theft. For the remaining three categories, Palo Alto numbers
were within 13 percent of the average, twice on the low side (forcible rape and
robbery), once on the high side (burglary). Data such as these have multiple
BRTF Problem Statemenq Part I
This or Earlier Versions Appeared on the PSB Web page since April 7, 2006
Page 3 of 4
explanations, and we are not attempting to draw any conclusions from them,
save one: that the PAPD is, on average, equivalently stressed by criminal
activity as are neighboring cities and needs to be as well equipped and prepared
as they to prevent and fight crime.
Since 1970, the scope of PAPD responsibilities has increased. The substantial
growth in Palo Alto as a destination (for people visiting Stanford, the Stanford
Shopping Center, neighborhood commercial centers, restaurants, and
businesses) has brought more traffic, parking issues, and other activity obliging
increased patrols and responses to calls requesting or requiring a police
response. Restaurants in and around University Avenue tend to generate
alcohol related police activity. Homelessness is likewise a relatively new
phenomenon in the City. Increased commercial activity increases shoplifting
arrests. Palo Alto residents expect a high level of service from the PAPD, and
calls for service to the police average 146 per day, 365 days per year. This
equates to roughly 0.86 police calls for service per year per resident.
Comparable numbers are: Redwood City 0.80, Santa Clara 0.58, and Fremont
0.28. These several factors place demands on the Department that in turn put
pressure on space, such as hiring and providing space for more officers,
acquiring and parking more police vehicles, and the increased record keeping
that goes with these rising levels of activity.
When designed, the current building did not include spaces and features that are
now considered essential, such as a secure Sallyport (an enclosure in which a
prisoner can be taken from a police vehicle into the building safely); reasonably
sized and reassuring spaces for victims or witnesses who have been injured,
frightened, or otherwise traumatized; access for the disabled; certain high-tech
equipment (and appropriate housing for it) used in detective work and in
departmental operations; a sufficient number of holding cells to assure safety for
officers and enable the separation of juveniles and adults, as required by law;
and equivalent locker, shower, and toilet facilities for female officers (there were
no female sworn officers in 1970). Sleeping space for officers coming off night
duty and scheduled for a court appearances a few hours later is improvised and
inadequate. Segregated storage space for firearms seized in evidence does not
exist.
After a period of increasing crowding, operational inefficiencies began to grow,
such as having to use spaces distant from the facility for police functions, e.g.,
the Citizens Police Academy; locating units in available space rather than in
relation to other units with which they regularly work; jeopardizing evidence if it
must be stored in suboptimal locations; placing lockers in hallways, thus
depriving those who must use them of privacy; interviewing victims, witnesses,
and suspects in cramped and hard-edged spaces; storing records in under-
secured spaces; holding conversations or interviews between employees or with
the public in lobbies, shared offices, or other open space in general use, thus
compromising confidentiality; etc. [Note: the Department maintains some offsite
BRTF Problem Statement~ Part 1
This or Earlier Versions Appeared on the PSB Web page since April 7, 2006
Page 4 of 4
storage space and may in the future; in most cases, this is desirable since it
allows use of lower-cost facilities.] When surrounding jurisdictions form task
forces to work on outbreaks of related crimes, different police departments must
take turns housing such efforts for their duration. Palo Alto has difficulty meeting
its obligations; when it can meet them, it is only at the cost of short-changing the
regular functions that must be temporarily displaced. When the PAPD hosts
meetings of regional associations to which departmental staff belong and in
which they may play leadership roles, appropriate space must on occasion be
rented because of lack of suitable space in its own building.
Several surrounding communities have, since 1970, built new police or public
safety buildings incorporating up-to-date technologies, responding to the
changes in legal, building code, and environmental safety requirements, growth
in their communities, changes in the nature of criminal activity, and other relevant
factors. The Task Force visited four of these facilities built between the late
1970s and 2000 (Mt. View, Fremont, Redwood City, and Santa Clara). They
range in size from 44,000 to 70,000 square feet. Having new or upgraded
facilities advantages these departments in recruitment for new officers and
retention of already trained and experienced officers.
Very little has occurred that would diminish space needs, though the future holds
more promise for that than the past provided. Compressible shelving can make
better use of evidence storage and file storage space (but cannot be retrofitted
into the current building); information technology will in the future require less
space for storage of records; appropriate remote storage in less costly facilities
releases pressure on the main facility; some functions can be outsourced to
commercial, county, or regional facilities (though much of this has already been
done); etc.
APPENDIX 2
Final Space Needs Assessment Report
June 8, 2006
The Space Needs Assessment Committee of the Blue Ribbon Task Force was
charged with reviewing the preliminary space needs assessment prepared by
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc., consultants to the City of Palo Alto. The
Preliminary Space Needs Assessment document had been reviewed several
times by staff and by the BRTF members. This Committee was appointed by the
BRTF co-chairs to further validate the space assumptions and provide a third
level of scrutiny of the document. The attached, revised Space Needs
Assessment Summary Sheet reflects the Task Force’s recommendation of space
needs.
The attached summary report encompasses the analysis of each line item
including parking. That analysis included thoughtful questions and discussion
about space requirements and the comparison of those requirements to current
work space and parking square footage in the existing building. The summary
page of the space needs document shows the revised number of staff and the
departmental gross square feet (DGSF) for each function. The DGSF square
footage is the "Work Space" plus circulation area.
The major increase in work space area, compared to the existing square footage,
occurs in Property and Evidence (increase of 4,092 sq. ft.) so that proper
handling and storage of evidence will occur, Patrol and Community Policing
(increase of 3,302 sq. ft.) because of increased focus on community policing,
Field Services - Detention (and increase of 3,013) to accommodate separate
and secure entry and detention facilities for juvenile and adult suspects as
required by law, and the inclusion of a multipurpose meeting/community room
(2,125 sq. ft.). The uses for this "public" space include: large community
briefings; provide space for school classes to learn about public safety issues;
provide space for the Citizens’ Police Academy and PANDA training; enable Palo
Alto to play its role in regional public safety and law enforcement issues by
hosting meetings with neighboring jurisdictions; use as sleeping quarters for
police, public works, and utilities staff who will be first responders in a major
disaster.
It was determined after careful review that 192 parking spaces would be required
for all vehicles based on the projected staffing. The 192 parking spaces include
all police vehicles, visitors and employees with a shift overlap calculation. The
total square footage for parking is 90,938.
Growth projections - Our approach was to look at the current staffing of the
Police Department, currently 152 sworn and non-sworn personnel and, with the
help of staff projections, considered how much to allocate for growth over a 20-
6/14/2006 Final Space Needs Assessment Report Page 1 of 2
year period. That projection is an increase of 10 sworn and/or non-sworn
personnel.
Offsite facilities - There is potential to move some functions offsite as long as the
police maintain security over the facilities. This would include various storage
needs, the property warehouse, and some records. As noted in attached
summary page, space for a large meeting/multi-purpose room would be
necessary if the building site is located a significant distance away from the Civic
Center. There may be other efficiencies realized depending on the site location.
The idea of using space for multiple uses or sharing space of other city-owned
facilities was pursued vigilantly during this review. It should also be noted that
some space is designed to accommodate multiple uses; conference rooms can
be used as small training rooms; the emergency operations center, when not
used in an emergency, can also be used for tactical weapons training,
conferences and other activities. Other shared space may be accommodated
depending on the recommended site.
Summa~
After careful review and revision of the police department space needs
assessment, the Blue Ribbon Task Force recommends acceptance of the
revised square footage assessment as shown in the attached spreadsheet.
The total Department Gross Square Feet (39,897 sq. ft.) plus the Building
Support Area Allowance (8,280 sq. ft.) is estimated to be 48,177 sq. ft. If the
warehouse (1,423 sq. ft.) is included in the new building, the total square footage
would be 49,600.
The total parking area of 90,938 sq. ft. accommodates 54 police vehicles, one (1)
radio maintenance van, one (1) Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) vehicle,
seven (7) motorcycles, two (2) radar trailers, five (5) Cushmans, 122 employees
(shift overlap) included and visitors. The radio maintenance van, SWAT vehicle,
and the two (2) radar trailers can be located to an off-site facility thus reducing
the parking square footage needs.
6/14/2006 Final Space Needs Assessment Report Page 2 of 2
Zz_
~Ec~-£ o~z
z
>-n~
0
i,I
z
0
qD
._. ._.
o~
o
o
APPENDIX 2
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
8-Juno06
Summary 5/09/06 BRTF RECOMMENDATION 2/15/06 STAFF ASSESSMENT CHANGES GILMAN SITE PROPOSAL CHANGES
2026 Staff DGSF 2020 Staff DSGF STAFF DGSF 2020 Staff DSGF STAFF DGSF
ROSS DRULIS’S 2000 STUDY CHANGES
2020 Staff DSGF STAFF DGSF
100 Administration, Personnel and Training 10 2,494 10 4,484 0 -1,990 N/A 2,681 N/A -187200Communications233,306 25 3,757 -2 -451 N/A 2,995 N/A 311300EOC12,913 1 3,420 0 -508 N/A 3,420 N/A -508400Records and Ihformation 13 2,758 13 3,946 0 -1,188 N/A 3,835 N/A -1,077500Field Services - Patrol and Community Policing 71 6,219 71 7,197 0 -978 N/A 5,786 N/A 433600Field Services - Detention 0 3,299 0 4,198 0 -899 N/A 3,817 N/A -518700Traffic/Parking 23 1,503 23 2,012 0 -509 N/A 1,532 N/A -29800Investigative Services 19 3,807 19 5,105 0 -1,298 N/A 5,418 N/A -1,611900Property and Evidence . 24,816 2 6,905 0 -2,089 N/A 5,518 N/A -7021100Multi-purpose Room"0 2,125 0 3,330 0 -1,205 N/A 2,995 N/A -8701200Staff and Facility Support 0 5,258 0 6,482 0 -1,225 N/A 5,995 N/A -7381400Exterior5004928Green Building/Atrium 900
Total Staff 162 164 -2 N/A NIA.Subtota Building Area 39,897 51,328 -12,331 43,992 -5,495
1300 Building Support Area Allowance 8,280 0 8,280 12,285 -4,005
(E) POLICE BUILDING
(E) Staff DSGF
CHANGES
STAFF DGSF
Total Gross Building Area 48,177 51,328 -4,051 56,277 -9,500
15 3,213 -5 -719 8 1,184 2 1,310293,086 -6 220 23 2,500 0 70503,156 1 -244 0 !,161 1 1,752142,888 -1 -130 !3 2,061 0 697805,807 -9 412 71 2,917 0 3,302
0 3,879 0 -580 0 286 0 3,013281,732 -5 -229 18 1,221 5 282
26 4,725 -7 -918 17 2,697 2 1,11035,590 -1 -774 2 724 0 4,092
0 0 0 2,125 0 0 0 2,I2509,916 0 -4,659 0 3,288 0 1,97041090258242
195 -33 152
44,402 -5,495 18,397
8,798 -518 5,109
53,200 ~,013 23,506
1000 Property Warehouse 1,423 5,318 -3,895 2,601 -1,178 4,876 -3,453
56,646 58,878"’*98,076
124,589 -33,752 234 Stalls -~ 72183""18,7551500
Total Square Footage Building Need 49,600
Pa~’king - Secured & unsecured police vehicles and employees 90,938
584
24,190
77,172
Abbreviations:
DGSF =Departmental Gross Square Feet: NSF plus a departmental internal circulation area.
Assumptions:
This program is non site specific. For the purpose of this Space Needs Assessment, building support areas are represented as an allowance. These areas represent approximate!y 20% of the total DGSF identified. The actual amou’nt of building support areas
will vary depending on the size of the site, number of stories, location of mechanical equipment, Iocation of secure parking and other factors.
¯ If polica building s ocated a significant distance°~y from the Civic Center, then include in program.
*’Square footage recommendation was pdor to additional of patrol & dispatch shifts that necessitates more parking
**’The total square footage is 63,043 if Information Technology scace is included in the building.
10
20,358
3,171
23,529
739
13,756
APPENDIX 5
Admin, Personnel and Training
Communications
EOC/Training
Records and Information
Field Services - Patrol and Community Policing
Field Services - Detention
Traffic/Parking
Investigative Services
Property and Evidence
Multi-Purpose Room
Staff and Facility Support
Building Support Area Allowance
Property Warehouse
Parking/Core/Lobby
Legend
Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams - June 12, 2006
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
I-
I
I
I
PUBLIC
ENTRY
I
I
I
I
LEVEL A
HAMILTON AVE.
FOREST AVE.
.
EXISTING
CITY HALL
HAMI LTON AVE.
MEZZANINE LEVEL
PODIUM LEVEL
Existing Pofice Building
Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams - June 12, 2006
Palo Alto Pubfic Safety Building
~RKB~D.
IRE
ENTE R SE :URE
RKII IG
PUBLIC
ENTRY
BIRCH ST.
BASEMENT LEVEL FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
Cafifomia Avenue
Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams - June 12, 2006
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
ENTER SECURE
PARKING PUBLIC
ENTRY
ENTER GARAGE GILMAN STREET
BASEMENT LEVEL FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
Gilman Street
.Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams - Juhe 12, 2006
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
BASEMENT
SECURE
PARKING
ENTRY
PAGE MILL ROAD
!NTE’
!,ECUR~
PKG.
FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
Park Boulevard
Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams - June 12, 2006
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
BASEMENT
SECURE
PARKING
ENTRY
PAGE MILL ROAD
FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
Park Boulevard
Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams - June 12, 2006
Palo Alto Pubfic Safety Building
SECURE
PARKING
ENTRY
,,;
><[
Z
0
ALLEY
EMERSON ST.PUBLIC
ENTRY
EXIT
SECURE
PARKING
BASEMENT FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
Parking Lot A
Preliminary Program StackingDiagrams - June 12, 2006
Palo Alto Pubfic Safety Building
EMERSON STREET
ENTER
HIGH STREET
FIRST FLOOR
ENTER
SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR FLOORS 4-7
Parking Lot 0
Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams - June 12, 2006
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
o
APPENDIX 7
iPopulation - Resident (1)
I Non-ResidentJDaytime population
change due to commuting (2)
Non-Resident Population - Daytime
Building Size
Number of Sworn
Number of Civilian
Total Employees (3)
Sworn Employees Per 1000
Population
Resident
Daytime
Part I Crimes (3)
Violent Crime
Murder
Forcible Rape
Robbery
A~g_gravated Assault
Property Crime
Burglary
Larceny
Auto Theft
Arson
Part II Crimes (4)
Total Part I and Part II Crimes
Calls for Service (5)
Police
Fire/Paramedic
Stanford Police
Utilities/Animal Services
Misc
Vehicles
Marked Patrol/Traffic
Unmarked Patrol
ISD Vehicles
Other Staff/Pool
iMotorcycles
Cushman/Scooters
SWAT Van
Radar Trailers
COMPARABLE POLICE DATA
Alto
61,67~[
47,707!
109,381i
24,190t
93.01
59.5i152.5i
1.511
0.85i
2,05oj
8912!121
371
1,947J
29011,5261
14t
6,777i
7,827i
87,134i
53,34217,2221
13,375i
1,757i
281
13!
717~
51
641
Redwood j
City j Santa Clara
75 9861 109,1061
13,698.64,448t
89,684!173,5541
44,2241 50j000
47i
185!
I
1.201 1.26i
1.Ol1 o.8o!
3191 239!
18J 37!
601 521240i14~
I
1,7381 2,4291
376i 3711
I221
4,9751 2,880i
7,7891 6,394i
61,0731 63,255158718,2021
Fremont
210,445t
-4,810
205,635t
70,000
192ilO813ooi
o.911
0.931
6,198i
454i
5!
241165i
2601
5,7231
9391
3,903i
8811
21j
5,388!
11,5861
59,7251
59,7251
1) Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties
2000 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2005. www.dof.ca.gov
_2_) Source: www.city-data.com
Mountain
View
72,033
18,972
91,005
44,2001
461
1411
1.321
1.041
2,246~
263i
1,973]
229t1,542i2o2t
lOt
3,293i
5,539 !
81,6261
76,8o31
4,8231
3,1o1!
San Mateo
94,212
-735
93,477
28,000
106
39
145
1.13
1.13
6,884
3,509
4
24
137
3,3~
3,344
398
2,632
314
31
52,338
52,338
and the State, 2001-2005, with
3) Source: 2004 FBI UCR Reports. www.fbi.gov (Note: Palo Alto includes all dispatch staff and excludes Animal Services staff)
4) Source: 2005 as reported by cities. Offences include Other Assaults; Forgery and Counterfeiting; Fraud; Embezzlement; Stolen
Property - buying, receiving, possessing; Vandalism; Weapons - carrying, possessing; Prostitution; Other sex offenses; Drug
violations; Gambling; Driving Under the Influence (DUO; Offences against family and children; Liquor laws; Drunkenness; Disorderly
Conduct; Vagrancy; All other violations of state and or local laws except those listed above and traffic offenses.
5) Source: 2005 as reported by cities
6/14/2006 1
APPENDIX 8
Emergency Communications-- .......-)1 E¯ -- " ""i ()
EOC
(E)
I
l---
~Multi-Purpose
Room
1 _J
Warehouse
I Property
Evidence
Storage
I
I
I
I
Vehicle SallyPort (E) ~ ~Secure Parking
Seized Vehicle , ,(E)
Processing I I
Locate Secure Parking
and Sallyport near the
~4~-- Main Building. Provide
~direct, separate and
~secure access to these
_.-J areas
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING - Core & Satellite Functions
Estimated Gross Building Area
E= Essential Facility
49,000 GSF*
* Assumes all satellite and core program areas include their pro rata share of total
required building support area. Should some satellite functions be located separately
from the main police building, the actual amount of Building Support Area associated
with that relocation may vary depending on the location and type of facility they are
associated with.
SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT MAY 25, 2006
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
APPENDIX 9
Palo Alto Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafetybuildingff
Fact Sheet - May 25, 2006
"Keeping Palo Alto Safe Today and Tomorrow"
The BRTF has nearly concluded its study of Palo Alto public safety facilities, and
would like to get public input on the issue before making final recommendations
to the City Council. Tonight’s public meeting gives interested citizens a chance to
ask questions of the Task Force.
DRAFT Summary of recommendations:
1. Do we need an improved public safety building, and why?
BRTF recommendation: YES.
The current building does not meet current public safety building codes and
standards, and has other inadequacies that impede police, firefighters and
paramedics’ ability to keep us safe.
The current building doesn’t meet current seismic design standards,
meaning 911 Emergency Dispatch Center and the City’s Emergency
Operation Center (EOC) may not remain operational following a major
earthquake or other disaster.
¯The 911 Emergency Dispatch Center is too small and does not have
adequate ventilation
¯New law enforcement mandates require special facilities and equipment
to process, secure and store DNA and other biological or chemical
evidence collected at crime scenes.
¯The inability to maintain the chain of evidence recovered from seized
vehicles can compromise the prosecutor’s ability to convict criminals of
their crimes as the officers caimot testify that evidence found in the
vehicles has not been contaminated.
¯Ventilation is inadequate for safe evidence handling and processing
(hazardous evidence materials), which can compromise the health and
safety of the public and staff.
¯Electrical wiring and computer infrastructure are outdated and
inadequate for modern crime-fighting technology, especially the growing
need to catch Internet sexual predators and combat identity-theft and
fraud, which is 140% higher in Palo Alto than the surrounding area.
BRTF Fact Sheet 5/25/06 Page I of 3
¯There is not a safe, secure and comfortable interview room for victims or
civilian witnesses.
¯There is no secure way to transfer prisoners from police vehicles into the
building, or to keep juvenile and adult offenders separate during the
booking process, which as required by law.
The existing building requires security upgrades, is severely overcrowded
and is inadequate to support modern law enforcement services. This
places officers, staff and the community at risk. Many more officers, first
responders and volunteers use the building than when it opened in 1970.
Concurrently Palo Alto public safety officials" responsibilities have
increased along with the area population (especially during the day). The
crowded facility impedes officials’ ability to prevent and fight crime.
¯Officer recruitment and retention is affected by the facilities offered the job
candidate. Palo Alto’s ability to compete with other neighboring
communities (which have new police buildings) for qualified police
personne! may be hampered by the lack of modern facilities.
2.How large should an improved facility be? (Size impacts possible
locations and construction costs.)
BRTF recommendation: approximately 49,000 square feet, based on public safety
needs
The BRTF closely analyzed the current building and its problems, and reviewed
space recommendations from staff, an architect who specialized in public safety
facilities and other local experts with relevant experience. The BRTF also
compared data and facilities in other commtmities.
The BRTF recommendation reduces the building size by 15% from earlier
estimates, and is based on improving the building’s key public safety functions
to help keep Palo Alto safe now and in the future.
3. What is the preferred location for a public safety facility?
BRTF recommends Council consider four sites, in the following order:
Preferred Site
-Park Blvd., privately-owned vacant land (BRTF’s unanimous top choice)
Alternative Sites
-Existing public parking lots on either Gilman Ave or California Ave
-Renovate and expand the existing building
BRTF Fact Sheet 5/25/06 Page 2 of 3
The BRTF evaluated sites that are public, private and combination of public-
private ownership, based on extensive criteria, including:
¯How well does the location meet public safety needs, including access for
officers and civilians, cost-efficient operations and proximity to related
public safety functions?
¯What is the impact on the neighborhood?
¯What is the likely cost of construction, based on factors like land
acquisition, replacement of existing parking, foreseeable environmental
mitigation and temporary housing of current public safety departments?
Relative cost was a major factor in ranking possible sites. Utilizing and replacing
existing City owned parking lots may cost as much or more than acquiring
private land. Renovating the existing site requires the additional costs of creating
a large temporary Police Facility, redundant Police Department move costs and
the need to create a duplicate Dispatch Center. These temporary facilities and
associated costs are required to allow for the continued provision of public safety
services during the construction period. Additionally the existing building
would require costly seismic strengthening if renovated as a modern essential
facility. Unforeseen problems with the current building may not become clear
until demolition begins and drive renovation cost even higher.
Project Costs
The BRTF has identified a project cost range for each site. These preliminary cost
estimates are to be used for site parameter comparison purposes only. Due to
the rapidly-changing nature of factors like construction costs, land
value/acquisition and the future availability of state or federal matching funds
these cost ranges are subject to change.
Private Site $38 - $45M
Public Parking Lot
Reconstruct Existing Facility
$45 - $50M
$50 - $55M
BRTF Fact Sheet 5/25/06 Page 3 of 3
Summary of the BRTF’s Process
APPENDIX 10
Prior to the BRTF’s first meeting of January 5, 2006, each task force member was
provided with two notebooks full of background information on the topic of a new Public
Safety Facility so that he or she could quickly assess the context for the task. In total the
BRTF met thirteen times from then until June 1. Most meetings were two hours long;
two were approximately three hours in length; and two were four hours. Though all of
our meetings were open and fully noticed, two of them, on April 6 and May 25, were
explicitly for the purpose of receiving public input.
In addition to regular meetings, BRTF members visited other Police or Public Safety
Buildings. Three subcommittees--on need, size, and outreach--were formed and met
several times as well as engaging their members in many hours of offline study and
conversation with City staff and residents.
Whatever work the BRTF put in, that of City officers and staff matched our effort. We
made numerous requests of them that they fulfilled quickly and well. We had much
assistance from specific people, among them Chief Lynne Johnson, our principal liaison
Elizabeth Ames, Steve Emslie, Emily Harrison, Pete Hazarian, Tarun Narayan, Hung
Nguyen, Glenn Roberts, Joe Saccio, and Mike Sartor, and many others who work with
them. We greatly appreciate their solid and responsive support. We als0 wish to express
special thanks to architect Michael Ross of RDC who provided us with expert advice on
construction options, applicable regulations and costs, and was a singularly lucid teacher
to us and our public audiences about the issues surrounding construction meeting the
"essential services" criteria.
Following this note on our process are the several sets of meeting records of our
sessions. The notes from the meetings of April 6 and May 25 summarize public input.
Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Kick-off Meeting for Proposed Police Building
Cubberley Commtinity Center, Room H-5
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
January 5, 2006 at 7:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Committee Members:
Lanie Wheeler (Co-Chair)
Vic Ojakian (Co-Chair)
Denise Lee
Ray Bachetti
Harold Boyd
Jay Boyarsky
Veronica Tincher
John King
Loren Brown
John Northway
Karen White
Peter Stone
Paula Collins
Margo Dutt0n
Staff.
Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager
Gary Baum, City Attorney
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Glenn Roberts, Director Public Works
Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of Administrative Services
Pete Hazarian, Sr. Administrator Police Department
Tarun Narayan, Sr. Financial Analyst Administrative
Services
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer Public Works Engineering
Welcoming Remarks: Lanie Wheeler
Introduction and Remarks from Former Mayor, Jim Burch and Vice Mayor, Judy Kleinberg
Introduction of BRTF Members who gave a brief statement about themselves
Introduction of staff
The Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) kick-off meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with a
full quorum. Co-Chair, Lanie Wheeler welcomed the committee and especially wanted to thank
those members who said yes when being asked to join the committee. Lanie mentioned this is a
very important job for the community and states that this project has been under discussion in the
City for 20 years and it is time that we came to a conclusion on this subject.
Oral Communications:
Rules for oral communications will follow the same rules as City Council. Members of the
Public who wish to speak will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker and the total time allocated
will be 20 minutes.
No one spoke under oral communications.
Page 1 of 4
PURPOSE AND GOALS OF .TILE BRTF:
Before a task force was selected Vic Ojakian submitted a list of criteria for the Blue Ribbon
Committee selection and process and said these are some of the areas and expertise that they fek
was important. Mayor Jim Butch, LaDoris Cordell, and Vic Ojakian agreed on the criteria they
wanted for those to join the BRTF Committee. The list was submitted to full council and council
agreed that a good job was done. On December 12, 2005, Council voted to approve this
approach.
The committee can look at types of services and square footage (s.£) needs, sites, what we can
afford to do and what the community is willing to accept. The task force can evaluate what
services are required in a police building and after getting an idea come back again to determine
(s.f.) needed to accommodate that particular service. Once the task force has done that, we will
have ideas of services and square footage that is required and then look at sites that we can
afford. As we go through the information and reports that have come out we can determine
options to look at and report back for council decision by end of June or early July.
Options to Consider:
Option 1 - renovating the existing building
Option 2 - construct a new building
Option 3 - do nothing
Option 4 - use existing building along with offsite space
Outcome of the committee could be as follows:
¯Combination of using 1 or 2 of the options can be presented to council
¯Designating space based on services
¯Reviewing site and possible locations
¯Producing a recommendation report to council by end of June or early July
Lanie passed out new informational material consisting of a Grand Jury Report and a matrix of
nearby bay area Police facilities chart. The matrix is a work in progress and ideas of what local
communities are doing in the area.
Overview of the Brown Act - Gary Baum
Gary Baum states the task force is subject to the Brown Act as it is a subsidiary body (legislative
body) appointed by Council and they must comply with these requirements. The Brown Act was
passed in 1953 and updated numerous times but does not reflect technology changes such as
email. The task force is not allowed to make decisions in private. The Government Code
54952B covers meetings, agenda and conduct. The Brown Act does not apply to staff and no
more than half of the task force members, now seven, can meet and a sub-committee can be no
more than six members.
¯The Brown Act governs the agenda and the task force can’t discuss anything that is not
on agenda
¯All regular meetings are noticed 72 hours ahead of the meeting time
¯All special meetings are noticed 48 hours ahead of the meeting time
¯Oral communications must be an item on the agenda at every meeting
Page 2 of 4
Meetings broadly defined is exchanging information or gathering that has anything to do
with the Police Building pro or con
To exchange emails and for any type of communication use staff - When one task force
member talks to another and then a 2nd, 3rd and 4t~ member and so on to the 7tu member,
then that member who started the communication would be violating the Brown Act as
that person essentially met with a majority of the task force. Field meetings should be no
more than 7 people as it is difficult for public to be involved.
Questions from Committee to Gary_ Baum regarding the Brown Act
Q.Karen White: If we want a visit can it be noticed7
A.Gary Baum: It is very difficult for press and public to be involved
Q Harold Boyd: What are the consequences violating Brown Act?
A.Gary Baum: Individuals may be prosecuted .and any actions taken may be nullified.
Rarely a violation gets prosecuted. The task force committee could create a sub-
committee of less than 6 members.
Subcommittees
Gary Baum stated the task force could create ad hoc subcommittees of limited scope which is not
subject to the Brown Act. In the event that the BRTF decided to create standing subcommittees
with fixed schedules, that last over six months the subcommittee would be subject to the Brown
Act, require an agenda and need to allow for an oral communications period.
If over six members you must have social gatherings to take place in public’s eye.
Break 7:45 - 8:00 p.m.
Discuss Work Objectives
How would we organize?
There are two ways to organize to accomplish this task. We can go over all subjects together or
the other alternative is to divide subject matter into subcommittees. The Task Force determined
that it would prefer to meet as a committee of the whole at this time.
Objectives are:
1) Review facility and what is within the space, 2) site evaluation and selection, 3) evaluate
financing alternatives and recommendations, and 4) reporting back to full task force and
the council on what was discovered.
Ground Rules
How should the task force conduct business and have agreements?
¯Come to the meeting prepared
¯Stick to business
¯Listen to each other
¯Respect differing opinions
¯Start and end meeting on time
Future Schedules
The task force prefers to meet twice a month for now.
Page 3 of 4
Action Items
Elizabeth Ames Show progress and design an interactive website for the Police Building
Project - Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Elizabeth Ames Email Blue Ribbon Committee Selection and Process criteria to the BRTF
Elizabeth Ames
Lanie Wheeler
Set-up tours of the existing Police Building and other various police
building sites such as police buildings located at Redwood City, Fremont
and Sunnyvale
Set date and time committee will meet for future meetings
Confirm 1n Thursday and 3rd Wednesday works
Meetings start at 7:00 p.m. at the same place located at Cubberley
Community Center, 4000 Middlefield Road, Room H-5
Meeting Adjourned 9:20 p.m.
Page 4 of 4
Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Kick-offMeeting for Proposed Police Building
Cubberley Community Center, Room H-5
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
February 2, 2006 at 7:00 PM
Committee Members:
Vie Ojakian (Co-Chair)
Lanie Wheeler (Co-Chair)
Ray Bacchetti
Jay Boyarsky
Harold Boyd
Paula Collins
Margo Dutton
Dan Dykwel
John King
John Northway
Pete Stone
Veronica Tincher
Karen White
Staff Liaison:
Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Senior Engineer
Staff:
Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Pete Hazarian, Sr. Administrator Police Department
Tarun Narayan, Sr. Financial Analyst Administrative Services
Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of Administrative Services
Mike Sartor, Assistant Director Public Works Engineering
Val Briggs, Staff Secretary
Roll Call and Introductory Remarks
The Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum of members present.
Co-Chairs welcomed and introduced a new BRTF member, Dan Dykwel.The
It was noted that a total of three members have left the committee to date. Two members
Michael Clossen and Lakiba Pittman withdrew at the last meeting due to other
commitments and Loren Brown withdrew tonight due to a conflict of interest.
Approval Of Meeting Notes
Karen White suggested amending the meeting notes to add a fifth BRTF objective to
gauge community support by including public input during the evaluation process. On
motion of Ray Bacchetti and seconded by Karen White, the motion passed unanimously
to approve the meeting notes of January 5, 2006 with Karen White’s amendment. Please
see the attached Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Objectives dated February 2,
2006 which includes the fifth objective.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 2/02/06 page 1 of 5
Future Agenda Topics
It was mentioned that it would be a useful exercise to state what the problems are at the
beginning of the meeting and then work on the solutions and include this as the first item
on the agenda. All BRTF members were satisfied with the future agenda topics with the
assumption that public input will be included. A January 31, 2006 memo by City
Attorney Gary Baum was mailed to the BRTF members regarding contracting and
financing information for the police safety building. The memo will be discussed at one
of the April 2006 meetings on funding alternatives.
Overview of Police Services
Lynne Johnson stated that significant changes are occurring in technology, the war on
terror and the plans for dealing with terrorists. We must look into the future for the next
20 to 30 years. She mentioned that over the last 10 years, crimes know no boundaries
and agencies are frequently pulling resources together ranging from serial rapist task
forces to cell phone rings including half a dozen county- wide task forces. Lynne
distributed a Police Work Space handout to the task force that included all types of police
services and associated work space typical of a police department and used this as the
basis for prioritization of police services and space needed for Palo Alto.
Review of Police Work Space handout -Chief Johnson gave an overview ofPalo Alto’s
police services and work space as follows:
future space needs for each type of service totaling 55,000 square feet excluding parking
rating of each component of high, medium or low depending on the service need
whether or not there are legal requirements for the services provided
whether or not some components of the Police Department can be off-site
pros and cons section with comments noting what specific space function could
consist of and other pertinent information
Chief Johnson mentioned that the community needs have changed over the years, the
specialized teams noted in the handout such as hostage negotiations, specialized traffic
accident reconstruction, evidence teams, etc. were not considered when the existing
police facility was constructed. Other areas Chief Johnson noted are as follows:
¯Records needs to be in a separate room currently the existing record room is not
code compliant.
¯Officers need sleeping quarters as they travel long distances to work and have to
attend court the next day.
¯Police services could not be provided without the volunteer’s help.
Committee Comments
The following are BRTF comments and/or questions to staff at the meeting:
¯What is the square footage and where did the numbers come from? It was stated
that the building is approximately 55,000 square feet and that includes 5,000
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 2/02/06 Page 2 of 5
square feet of warehouse. The square footage came from the future space needs
noted in the Project Definition Document’s architectural program prepared by
Ross Dmlis Architects. This does not represent the existing building area of the
Police Department.
Is the Neighborhood Watch active? Chief Johnson stated no, but there is a
renewed interest in starting the program up again.
The BRTF would like to see a range of which functions could be reduced and
discussed at next meeting.
How much impact does volunteer and citizen’s academy have on needing their
own space? Chief Johnson stated it may not be a real need for them to have their
own space.
Why is it important to have communications on-site? Chief Johnson stated the
job conditions are stressful and more personal connections are developed on-site
as officers and communication personnel share their experiences.
Does the EOC have to be under the Police Department? Chief Johnson stated no
and that Stanford or the School District may be interested in pursuing a joint EOC
off-site.
How does the current building condition affect recruits? Chief Johnson stated
they have never been fully staffed for the last .15 years and currently there are 4
vacancies.
How important is the exercise room? Chief Johnson. stated it is important to keep
the off~cers fit due to the stressful nature of their work. Officers are not required
to pass annual physical exams except for the SWAT team.
What are the security space needs since post 9/117 Have we done an update?
Mike Sartor mentioned the building may have to include blast zones on the
exterior as protection against terrorists. Chief Johnson stated no work has been
done on the program to include post 9/11 security space needs.
The following is a "Problem Statement List" developed by co-chair, Lanie Wheeler
during the meeting:
¯Buiiding deficiencies affect morale
¯Current buildings is a "hovel"
¯Cost of capital infrastructure vs. long term operational
recommended structure)
¯Storage space for equipment/records storage
¯Evidence/Property Storage Area inadequate
¯Inhumanity of facilities in current building
¯Absence of natural light
costs (adequacy of
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 2/02/06 Page 3 of 5
Public perception/reaction to "Trophy" building vs. functional building
Public perceives good service delivery out of current facility
Public doesn’t see inadequacies of current building
Debrief on Police Building Tours
All task force members toured the existing Palo Alto facility and some went to the Police
Departments of City of Redwood City, .Fremont and Santa Clara. The following are
some comments and observations from the tours.
It was mentioned that storage space and a covered parking lot to protect motorcycles be
considered.
Some spaces can have multiple functions like a community room, EOC, sleeping
quarters, etc.
A comparison matrix identifying crime statistics, city population, police building sizes
would be helpful.
It was mentioned that daylighting and the ability to interview people in a soft interview
room is important. Emily Harrison said a commitment has already been made any new
facility will be a green building.
The feeling is we should do things correct the first time around and it may be better to
have everything on-site rather than off-site. Operational costs may exceed building costs
in the long term if separate’services are located in different buildings.
Oral Communications
Wayne Martin stated the meeting time allotted is too short and that he doesn’t feel the
committee can accomplish everything in six months. He would like to see a website,
police commission, long term capital needs, imaging software, binders with up to date
information and he feels that 1997 report is inadequate and would like to see it re-written.
Action Items
Elizabeth Ames
Elizabeth Ames
Elizabeth Ames
Elizabeth Ames
Issue a press release with BRTF website and Community Bulletin
Board web address
Meeting notes will be distributed to the BRTF before each meeting.
Continue to set-up tours of the existing Police Building and police
building tours located at Redwood City, Fremont and Sunnyvale
for those who were not available to attend.
Communicate to staff that no memos, documents, etc. should be
issued until co-chairs and assigned staff have discussed it first
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 2/02/06 Page 4 of 5
Lynne Johnson Provide task force with a data sheet for next meeting which may
include size of current force (broken out by sworn and non-sworn
officers), turnover rate, number of cars (marked, unmark, etc.
communicate to work radius (percent from 10, 20, 30 and so on
miles away , number of officer required to sleep over night per
some internal (monthly, quarterly, so on), salary scale.
BRTF At the next meeting, start developing a problem statement.
The next meeting is schedule for Wednesday, February 15th.
Meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 2/02/06 Page 5 of 5
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Cubberley Community Center, Room H-5
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
February 15, 2006
ROLL CALL
Committee Members:
Lanie Wheeler (Co-Chair)
Vic Ojakian (Co-Chair)
Ray Bacchetti
Jay Boyarsky
Harold Boyd
Paula Collins
John King
Denise Lee
John Northway
Peter Stone
Veronica Tincher
Karen White
Staff Liaison:
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer, Public
Works Engineering
Staff:
Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Mike Sartor, Assistant Director, Public
Works Engineering
Hung Nguyen, Associate Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Tarun Narayan, St. Financial Analyst,
Administrative Services
Barbara Teixeira, Administrative Assistant
Introductory Remarks
The BRTF meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with a full quorum of
members present. Co-Chair Wheeler began by welcoming everyone and
mentioned the full agenda. Community members who were in attendance
introduced themselves.
Approval of Meetinq Notes
Karen White would like to review the Council meeting tape for the verbatim
motion, which could change Objective #5. Karen will review and email the Co-
Chairs if it is necessary to make a correction. Otherwise, meeting notes were
approved without comment.
Problem Statement List
A subcommittee will work on a draft problem statement including other items and
suggestions as necessary. Volunteers for the subcommittee include: Ray
Bacchetti, Jay Boyarsky, John Northway. The subcommittee shall meet and
bring a draft problem statement to the next meeting.
Su.q.qestions
¯Veronica Tincher suggested the addition of projecting for technological
changes for the future.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting, February 15, 2006 Page 1 of 7
¯John Northway asked if we are limited to GO bonds and suggested
exploring all funding options available.
¯Ray Bacchetti suggested define the difference between a "trophy" building
vs functional.
¯Jay Boyarsky added how the community is impacted by the administration
of justice.
¯Karen White added the competing demands for public funds.
¯Denise Lee asked for clarification on the "inhumanity of facilities"
statement. Lanie Wheeler explained the contrast between the current
building and the other facilities that were toured. Some examples given
were: we don’t have proper interview rooms for children and/or victims
(soft interview room); very sterile, cold; holding area is bare bones at best.
Paula Collins suggested adding a sleeping area so officers wouldn’t have
to sleep in their chairs.
¯John Northway asked if the location of the building is a problem. Are there
site constraints? Increase in operating costs?
Karen White asked if the problem statement could be modified over time with
input from the community and the response was yes.
Review of Handouts
PAPD Travel, Salary and Comparative Data
The handouts included travel distance information, benchmark salary
information and comparative data from other agencies (Redwood City, Santa
Clara and Fremont) Due to the amount of information, these documents will be
and agendized to a future meeting.
Denise Lee asked what period of time the data is from, and Chief Lynne Johnson
responded that each chart is preceded by a cover page which gives the various
dates depending on the information. Denise asked if the information is available
for the past five years (back to 2000), and Lynne we could get the information for
Palo Alto and attempt to get it from other agencies, but that some cities may be
difficult to obtain. Co-Chair Vic Ojakian said that Palo Alto’s information is
available on the web site.
Karen White asked if the building size of 25,000 square feet includes parking,
and Lynne responded that it does not include parking and that the useable size is
19,000 square feet.
Jay Boyarsky said the number of calls for service would be interesting to talk
about when discussing services. Lynne said other agencies do not include the
same information that we do so statistics are not like comparing apples to apples.
Lynne also said that other agencies don’t respond to all the calls that we do such
as barking dogs and alarms.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting, February 15, 2006 Page 2 of 7
Ray Bacchetti asked for clarification on the fire and paramedic calls for service
and that there aren’t any numbers listed for the other agencies. Lynne said that
we do fire and paramedic dispatching whereas other agencies don’t. Fremont is
the only other agency that has an Animal Services Division. Ray confirmed that
Police means "police" only.
Space Requirements
The handout, "Summary of Police Building Size," is a revised/enhanced version
from the last meeting and lists square feet for services and functions within the
building and is a working document intended to start the BRTF’s evaluation
process. Michael Ross, the police building consultant, did work on the project
several years ago and will add his expertise to any questions and/or concerns
the committee may have at the next meeting.
Mike Sartor suggested the first step is going through and trying to understand
each area’s function and then going back to prioritize the list. Elizabeth Ames
said that Lynne Johnson, Pete Hazarian and Michael Ross revised this from the
last spreadsheet, and the document includes the entire program, reductions in
staffing and includes space comparisons to the1999 International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) space standards, based on national averages. The
BRTF went through the entire building program with the following comments:
Ray Bacchetti asked about the year 2020 future capacity. He suggested re-
estimating for another 20 years out to determine real numbers. Lynne said the
actual numbers are 20 years from wherever we are today not the year 2020.
Lynne said the space is not directly proportionate to the number of employees.
For example, there are four chief dispatchers but they work shifts so there are
not four on at one time.
John Northway said that ultimately we’re going to ask the public to write the
check but we don’t have the knowledge and expertise to conduct a rigorous
examination of the numbers. John said we need to decide what is the budget
and what is needed. John suggested not reviewing the square footage but focus
on needs, which the police are the experts.
Vic Ojakian said the agendas and process are set to discuss building size, cost
and then financing. Lanie said the committee will make tentative decisions with
the data received and that some costs may be dependent upon the site selected,
for example, the cost of surface parking on a site of 4-5 acres vs. underground
parking on a small site.
Denise Lee asked if a decision has been made to build at the existing site, and
Lanie responded that there has not been a decision made and Council has asked
the task force to start with a clean slate.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting, February 15, 2006 Page 3 of 7
Ray Bacchetti said there are two parties of interest: employees and the public.
Will the committee recommend to Council on the building size and budget? Will
the City inform the public or will the committee? Lanie said the public would be
informed and educated within the timeframe of the committee’s meetings. Ray
said we would need to make decisions quickly to get feedback from the public.
Another suggestion was to have a website and a counter. Mike Sartor
responded that the website is up and running and we’ll look into the counter.
A survey was also mentioned where the BRTF does the groundwork explaining
the different scenarios to gauge what the community would support. John
Northway spoke about a survey conducted by a school committee and the cost of
the project was $160 million but the survey only supported $143 million. Lanie
mentioned a recent City survey that was conducted prior to any
recommendations being made. Vic said that a survey could be a
recommendation by the BRTF, and the committee doesn’t have any funds or
budget for the process.
Vic asked if the Property and Evidence had to be in the building. Lynne
responded that there are two parts: warehouse (which could be off site) and
property/evidence processing. Depending on the .location, there could be a
waiting area and the storage size could be reduced. Lanie asked what gets
stored in the warehouse. Lynne used as an example, a homicide case that had
been adjudicated but the Department is required to keep everything. Anything
that would not require constant access could be stored in the warehouse.
Admin/Personnel Areas:
John King asked about the high priority rating for most items and suggested
looking at the low needs as well. Ray Bacchetti questioned why our numbers are
lower than the IACP standard and wanted to know the consequences with the
lower numbers. Lynne feels that the projections are doable. Staff mentioned
that the numbers are based on the architect’s experience and are more realistic.
Lynne mentioned that staff have various functions and have collateral duties.
Karen White asked if space for multiple functions could be highlighted for the
committee. Lynne said that internal affairs could be shared as a watch
commander’s office and a firearms simulator could be housed in a conference
room. Mike Sartor requested a revised list from Lynne for the next meeting.
Peter Stone asked if this is a wish list and Mike responded that this list has been
trimmed down from the last program. Lynne said that the list is not extraordinary
but not bare bones either.
Communications:
Mike Sartor spoke about Santa Clara Police Department (PD) having their
Communications Center off site but is now in the process of moving it back to the
PD. Lynne said they would have saved $2 million dollars if it had been built
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting, February 15, 2006 Page 4 of 7
along with the new building. Lanie said that having the Communications Center
off site from the PD has created some negativity due to the close working
relationship between dispatch and patrol and being separated. When they are in
close proximity of each other, they work better as a team.
Karen White raised the issue of including space for Fire Administration with
Police. VVith the City’s priority of emergency response and preparedness, a
public safety building would resonate better than a police building. Karen asked
what the square footage of the current Fire Administration area is. Staff will get
the square footage and bring back to the next meeting. Lanie said the
information is in the first program.
EOC:
John King asked if the current EOC could be left where it currently is. Lynne said
that based upon the infrastructure, it would not survive a major earthquake. The
EOC needs to be relocated or substantially rebuilt.
Lanie Wheeler said that essential services is why we need a new building and
essential services relate to police, fire and hospitals. Mike Sartor said that it is
also in the uniform building code and have certain structural requirements. John
Northway said essential services buildings are built to higher standards. Michael
Ross will explain in more detail at the next meeting. Lynne also said that due to
terror threats EOC’s and police facilities are built at a higher standard.
Veronica Tincher as why some EOC stations were highlighted and Mike Sartor
will follow-up on that.
Karen White mentioned that some facilities use their EOC as a training room.
Lynne said that we have done that in the past. In the case of the flood, it took
three to four hours to become operational due to the extensive use.
Karen White also mentioned the possibility of a mobile EOC, which would a
back-up to a permanent EOC, and asked if it is within the co’mmittee’s purview to
recommend one. Lanie responded that the focus is on the police building, but
can be discussed if the committee feels it’s necessary.
Vic Ojakian said we need to be creative and maximize the utilization of this
space, but also to be functional when needed.
Lynne suggested that we could use the space along with adjacent cities but that
it wouldn’t save money. It would double the size due to doubling the amount of
people.
Vic Ojakian said that Mountain View uses their EOC as sleeping quarters for
officers. Lynne responded that we use our EOC more frequently than Mountain
View as we also use ours in the event of special operations and events. Our
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting, February 15, 2006 Page 5 of 7
average use is one time per month. Vic then suggested renaming the space so
that the public is aware of the frequent use. A suggestion was made to also put
names and supplies behind doors so they are not disturbed when being utilized
for other events.
Ray Bacchetti suggested dedicating part of the 3,000 square feet to emergency
use only. A suggestion was made to use it as a training room and Lynne said
that is a possibility.
Vic Ojakian reiterated maximizing the use of the EOC space and recommended
to staff and the committee to think about other creative uses. Staff will also
check with Michael Ross for suggestions.
Records:
Lanie Wheeler mentioned that when touring Fremont PD, there were no more, or
very little, paper records. Is this something we should consider now? Was
paperless taken into consideration with the original program? Staff will check
with Michael Ross.
George Browning questioned the locker area square footage and circulation
factor. John Northway said this is a standard program but there may be some
double-multiplying. After some discussion, John confirmed there was an error in
the calculations. Staff will check with Michael Ross.
Field Services (FSD):
Lanie Wheeler confirmed that due to patrol shifts there are only shared spaces.
Lynne confirmed that police officers do not have dedicated work stations and
share a report writing area.
Investigations (ISD): There was some discussion and clarification on the various
types of interview rooms. Ray Bacchetti noted there were no space allocations
for the last group listed and Lynne said that those are collateral duties and not
personnel.
Lynne spoke about the evidence warehouse and if we were to lease space it
would need to be under PD staff control.
Parking:
Mike Sartor spoke about parking allocation would be dependent upon the site
selected. Jay Boyarsky raised the issue of underground parking under police
buildings due to terrorism threats. Lynne said that this is a concern and police
employees would only be allowed to park underneath the police building.
Other Questions:
Lanie Wheeler then asked the committee that if there are questions between now
and the next meeting, to please email them to herself, Vic or Elizabeth Ames.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting, February 15, 2006 Page 6 of 7
Committee Communications:
The memo from John Northway and Karen White was discussed. Lanie Wheeler
explained that the committee needs to understand the full range of funding
options before going back to Council with recommendations. Mike Sartor said
that Council has not made a commitment on the type of funding for the project
and at some point, Administrative Services Department, ASD, will be brought in
to discuss the various options.
Oral Communications:
Pat Burt asked if there are some portions of the building or does it all fall under
the essential building standards. Lynne responded she believes that Records
should be included and is where the majority of staff would be. Staff will check
with Michael Ross. Mike Sartor said it would be difficult to build part of the
building to essential building standards.
Pat Burt asked that the date of construction for the other police buildings listed.
Also, what does "ideal" mean or what does it come from? Michael Ross will
discuss industry standards at the next meeting.
Action Items
Elizabeth Ames Inquire if the BRTF website can include a counter to
measure number of visits to the site
Elizabeth Ames Provide Fire Administration’s square foot needs
BRTF Subcommittee Develop/refine the project statement list
Lynne Johnson Refine the data for the comparative cities handout to show the past 5 years
Lynne Johnson
Michael Ross
Identify the areas that can be consolidated into multiple functions or uses
Provide information on building size, industry standard sizes, multiple/creative
uses of space, changes in technology and essential service building
standards
BRTF Review the space requirements and the Summary of the Police Building Size
handout and emai! questions to Elizabeth Ames or the Co-Chairs prior to the
next meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting, February 15, 2006 Page 7 of 7
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Cubberley Community Center, Room H-5
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
=March 2, 2006
ROLL CALL
Committee Members:
Vic Ojakian (Co-Chair)
Lanie Wheeler (Co-Chair)
Ray Bacchetti
Harold Boyd
Paula Collins
Margo Dutton
Dan Dykwell
John King
Denise Lee
John Northway
Veronica Tincher
Karen White
Staff Liaison:
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer, Public
Works Engineering
Staff:
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Pete Hazarian, Sr. Administrator,
Police Department
Mike Sartor, Assistant Director, Public
Works Engineering
Hung Nguyen, Associate Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of
Administrative Services
Introductory Remarks
The BRTF meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with a full quorum of
members present. Co-Chair Vic Ojakian welcomed everyone and provided an
overview of the agenda. Returning community members who were present were
acknowledged and new attendees introduced themselves.
Approval of Meeting Notes
The meeting notes from February 15, 2006 were approved.
Subcommittee’s Status Report on Problem Statement List
The subcommittee met and developed the draft problem statement. Ray
Bacchetti distributed and provided an overview of the document. The
subcommittee will analyze the following issues:
¯The case for new or renovated facilities.
°The size and character of new or renovated facilities.
¯The location of new or renovated facilities.
¯The cost of new or renovated facilities.
°The financing of the cost.
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/2/06 Page 1 of 4
Ray suggested the subcommittee meet with staff to find out what’s changed
since the last program was developed.
Information will continue to be made public and the committee will refine the
problem statement as we go. Any comments regarding the problem statement
should be forwarded to the subcommittee.
Committee Contact List
John Northway asked if it’s possible to get a list of committee members and
contact information. Co-Chair Vic Ojakian responded some members don’t want
all information public. It was decided an email would be sent to committee
members asking what contact information they would prefer to publicize.
Continued Discussion on Overview of Police Buildinq Size and Standards
Co-Chair Vic Ojakian introduced Michael Ross of RossDrulisCusenbery
Architecture, Inc. Michael Ross spoke about his involvement in past program for
the public safety/police building. During that time, he analyzed staffing and
space to determine the functional program and needs of the Police Department.
Michael is now a resource to the committee to provide as much.information as
possible. RossDrulisCusenberry has analyzed and built many EOC’s and police
departments. They are currently working on a substation for San Jose Police
Department in the south end of the city.
These four questions will be looked at following the space presentation:
1)
2)
3)
4)
What core functions, key functional areas, do we absolutely need?
What square footage do certain functions need?
What can be shared functional space?
What services or functional areas can be serviced in a different way?
Michael then conducted a PowerPoint presentation with various information such
as explanations of various abbreviations included in the preliminary space needs
document.
Michael explained the size of the building is dependent upon the amount of
shared space. There aren’t any national space standards for police departments,
which is why a local formal needs assessment process occurs. Michael spoke
about space use and functional flexibility and "future proofing" the building.
Michael then reviewed the Core and Satellite Functions document. In an ideal
police department, there needs to be a balance of openness and security.
Operational efficiency is a priority when building and appropriately sizing the
building to accommodate an increase in staffing levels.
In some recent programs, the 9-1-1 centers are co-located with the EOC. The
more split facilities, the more the program grows.
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/2/06 Page 2 of 4
Michael then explained essential service facilities (ESF), which require special
engineering and design codes. ESF building codes are very detailed and strict
and increase the cost of the building.
Michael explained that following the September 1 Ith terrorist attacks, other
emerging issues are now included in some programs. These might include:
threat and risk assessment, blast engineering, site perimeter protection (car
bombs), airborne contaminants and special mail facilities.
Michael will email his PowerPoint presentation to staff for dissemination and
posting on the Website.
Mike Sartor then distributed and spoke about the revised space needs
assessment spreadsheet. A recommendation was made to staff to include page
numbers on the spreadsheets and also if we could use a minimum number of
terms and consistency with the same language.
Elizabeth mentioned that staff and the consultant, Michael Ross, further reduced
the police building size by eliminating or consolidating functions and reduced the
gross building factor to assume a 2 story building rather than a 3 story building
with a basement parking structure. Michael Ross mentioned the building gross
factor will increase or decrease depending on lot size and lot configuration. The
parking area remained the .same.
COI~IMITTEE COMMENTS
Dan Dykwell is concerned of how we can disseminate this information when the
committee members are not the experts. A response was that observing other
buildings may help with opinion of building size. John Northway said the police
are the experts and suggested that a subcommittee be formed for those who
would feel more comfortable going to the space summary with staff.
Michael Ross reminded the committee that the location will impact the cost of the
building. Karen White suggested changing the order of the process: looking at
sites then cost. Mike Sartor said that we could start the site discussion at the
next meeting by reviewing preliminary information and the pros and cons of some
sites.
Ray asked if certain functions were located off site if that would lower the cost of
the building (i.e., storage for police personnel). Lanie mentioned that Fremont
has a remote storage facility that is on the same site but separate from the police
building, which was probably a cost decision.
Volunteers for this space subcommittee were: Margo Dutton, Karen White, and
Dan Dykwell. If there are others who are interested, please let the co-chairs
know.
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/2/06 Page 3 of 4
John King asked about the correlation between the number of sworn officers in
relation to population. What is the square footage per officer? The square
footage per officer is calculated at 250 sq. ft. Vic Ojakian said that size by
population is a key factor but not the only one and should not be used as a basis
for sizing. We also need to look at other major facilities and major roadways.
George Browning spoke about some areas he recommended could be reduced
in size. Vic asked George to email his recommendations to the subcommittee
chair, Margo Dutton.
Hillary Freeman asked if there had been a space layout done of the current
building and Michael Ross responded that a very detailed layout had been done.
Hillary also suggested a phased approach be done for the building leaving a shell
only in certain areas. Due to time constraints, Hillary was asked to email her
remaining questions to the co-chairs.
At the next meeting, the subcommittee will come back with a space summary
and we’ll begin discussing site reviews.
Karen White will miss the next meeting and asked if it’s possible to record it for
her review. Staff will discuss and make a decision.
Person(s) Responsible Action
Michael Ross/Elizabeth Ames Provide PowerPoint and post on BRTF
website
Elizabeth Ames Arrange for police building tours for
those who have not attended
Elizabeth Ames Email BRTF members what contact
information they want to share publicly
and consider audio taping the next
BRTF meeting
BRTF Space Subcommittee Review space needs assessment
provided by staff, validate and/or find
areas that can be shared or reduced
BRTF Problem Statement
Subcommittee Further develop/analyze the key issues
outlined and refine the problem
statement if necessary
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30.
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/2/06 Page 4 of 4
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Cubberley Community Center, Room H-5
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
March 15, 2006
ROLL CALL
Committee Members:
Lanie Wheeler, (Co-Chair)
Ray Bacchetti
Harold Boyd
Paula Collins
Dan Dykwel
Margo Dutton
John King
John Northway
Dave Ross
Peter Stone
Staff:
Emily Harrison, Asst. City Manager
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Glenn Roberts, Director, Public Works
Mike Sartor, Asst.Director, Public
Works Engineering
Pete Hazarian, Sr. Administrator
Bill Fellman, Manager, Real Property
Hung Nguyen, Associate Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Taran Narayan, Sr. Financial Analyst
Administrative Services
Barbara Teixeira, Administrative
Assistant .
Special Meeting
The special meeting was called to order at 6:50 p.m. with a quorum present. Co-
chair Lanie Wheeler introduced new task force member, Dave Ross. Dave is a
past Architectural Review Board (ARB) member and is in the construction
business.
Lanie explained the reason for the special meeting, which is a result of Council’s
action to have the police building and library as a ballot measure for the
November 2007 election. A revised schedule has been developed working back
from November 2007 to complete the work of the task force and also conduct an
EIR. The task force will need to gear up their schedule to meet this new timeline
and have recommendations ready for Council in June 2006.
Harold Boyd asked if, aside from the Internet and the library, there are other
avenues to get information (education) to the public prior to the April 24th public
meeting. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said that advertising, the media,
the Web and press releases are alternatives. Emily also said that with her
experience from the past storm drain issue, people don’t have the time to read
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/15/06 Page 1 of 6
materials and some attend public meetings for information but it wasn’t a very
effective tool.
Dan Dykwel clarified that even though we are making recommendations to
Council in June, we still have until November 2007 to educate the community.
Dan asked for clarification on the purpose of the April 24th public meeting. Lanie
explained that there will be comments made by task force members on various
aspects of project and to also solicit feedback from community members.
John Northway said this is a work in progress and we’ll solicit feedback but there
needs to be a point where we stop asking questions and make decisions.
Public Works Director Glenn Roberts explained that the bulk of the information
will be during the EIR phase.
Lanie mentioned that the need may come up for the task force to do a half-day
session to allow more time to be spent on this.
Emily said the City Attorney will attend the next meeting to discuss EIRs and
other topics as necessary.
Planning Director Steve Emslie said the EIR should be done prior to Council
making a decision to go forward with a ballot measure.
John N. suggested the task force try to meet the timeline but in the end may not
be comfortable with the product. Several members feel the committee can do its
work but there is concern about the other work that needs to be done. The task
force was encouraged to speak about their concerns at the April 3rd Council
meeting. Dave Ross made a motion to accept the first part of the revised
timeline but caution Council that there may not be enough time to review
recommendations and allow the contractor time to complete the EIR. John N.
seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to accept the motion.
Dave recommended that subcommittees be formed to work on various tasks with
committee oversight. Ray said there needs to be buy-off from the whole group to
"own" the report.
Re.qular I~leetinq
The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Co-Chair Lanie Wheeler
asked first-time attendees to introduce themselves. Lanie also mentioned that
index cards were available for anyone to write down questions/comments and
name and these would be discussed at the end of the meeting.
Approval of Meetin.q Notes:
> Dan Dykwel asked for his name to be spelled correctly (one "L").
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/15/06 Page 2 of 6
John King referenced his question relating to the square footage per
officer (250 sq. ft.). He wanted to add his follow-up question of how much
each square foot is, which is $300 and this was confirmed by Michael
Ross.
Dan asked that under "Committee Comments," the change be made from
"disseminate" to "validate."
The notes were approved as corrected.
Status Report on Problem Statement List Obiectives
Ray Bacchetti distributed a document listing changes since the original police
building was built in 1967. Ray provided an overview of the document and its
summary.
Peter Stone made a motion to accept the document with a change to the
summary. Peter recommended changing "substantially" to "severely." Also the
message that it sends to the community is also sent to recruits.
Glenn Roberts commented that it is a good document but we may want to
include an element of emergency response to a natural disaster and that it may
not be functional.
Emily Harrison suggested adding more detail regarding non-sworn employees.
John Northway said that Ray deserves major kudos for putting this document
together.
Dave Ross seconded the motion to accept the document. Dave also mentioned
that the summary could be a great opening statement as well and could be
placed at the beginning of the document.
A vote was taken and it was unanimous to accept the document.
Status Report on Space Needs Assessment
Margo Dutton reported that the subcommittee has met with staff and they are
working with the assumption that the building will be two stories. Margo
acknowledged George Browning for reviewing the last spread sheet and
providing some questions to ask staff. Margo said that there was some
redundancy in the last spreadsheet and they wanted to look at some areas of
concern. Some follow-up will be done in relation to some supervisors’ offices
having lesssquare footage than the recommended IACP standards, some offices
are at the max or middle, and a focus on areas of assisting the public. The
subcommittee will meet again with staff to clarify questions. At the next meeting,
the subcommittee will submit their final report, which will include final square
footage.
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/15/06 Page 3 of 6
Dan Dykwel added that the subcommittee will look to see what square footage is
reasonable and take into account for growth in the next 20 years. Dan also
thanked staff for their assistance.
Potential Sites
There were four documents distributed relating to potential sites:
Questions to consider for the decision making process.
Matrix of potential sites.
Minimum lot size.
Maps showing the potential sites.
Dave Ross said that #3 (California Avenue site) seemed to be the best option
and the others have overriding negative constraints. Dave also mentioned that
#22 (Page Mill Agilent site) may be worth looking at as it is similar to #3.
Ray Bacchetti asked about the site size of 2.16 acres for #3 and Michael Ross
responded that it is due to the parking structure, which also adds to the cost.
Michael also mentioned that this site had significant opposition from the
merchants in that area (CAADA-California Avenue Area Development
Association). Ray also asked about the ground shaking (violent vs.strong)
notation on each site’s list of constraints. Michael explained that hazards overlay
maps are used and this is how these determinations are made. Michael said that
a seismic analysis would need to be done on any site that is selected.
John Northway mentioned that for #3 there is a plume from a nearby research
park that has some degree of contamination and that is not on the list of
constraints. A suggestion was made to add the CAADA opposition to the list of
constraints as well.
Confirmation was provided that the City has received a formal response of no
interest from the County regarding #17 (County Courthouse and Jail), and the
property owner of #21 (Gilman Street) is no longer interested.
Dan Dykwel asked if the City has taken into consideration of swapping the land
at El Camino and Arastradero (auto dealership) and relocating the dealership out
to the East Bayshore auto row space. Glenn Roberts didn’t know if that would
work as it would then be a three-way swap. Emily said if these sites were taken
into consideration there would be land costs and then we’re back to City-owned
property.
Lanie Wheeler asked if privately-owned property would fit with our timeline. Bill
Fellman feels it would be tough to do if we’re going out for a bond. We would
need to negotiate the cost to hold the land while going for a bond and then we
risk losing the money.
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/15/06 Page 4 of 6
Margo Dutton confirmed that #3 could be put back on the table and the answer is
yes. CAADA’s main issue of concern was the loss of surface parking.
John Northway noted that #4 and #11 are both on the housing comprehensive
plan, so it would be a constraint to buy the land and build. Steve Emslie said that
housing units would need to be found elsewhere.
Paula Collins asked what "RM" meant and it means residential multifamily.
John Northway asked about Stanford as a possibility since we assist with their
special events. Emily Harrison responded that proposals have been made
regarding an EOC but have not gone any further.
Michael Ross mentioned utilizing the library site with a larger package. Lanie
mentioned moving the Library to the Roth Building, but there would significant
costs with renovation.
Michael Ross said that if the building shares other City resources then it reduces
the cost (parking, meeting space, essential services, annex building).
John Northway spoke about a letter to the editor regarding closing Forest Avenue
and building a pedestrian crossing/tunnel between the library and City Hall.
Glenn Roberts said there are old designs for closing off Forest so we could revisit
this option (add this as 2A).
John King suggested removing #24 (Hanover) from the list as it would cost
money to relocate Fire. Dave Ross suggested removing #1 (current site) and
#24 (Hanover), but that #3 (California Avenue) is usable.
John Northway suggested inviting CAADA representatives to discuss their issues
or concerns with the task force. John King suggested narrowing down the list to
two sites and then getting feedback or objections from the community.
Lanie Wheeler suggested we include the University South Neighborhood group if
the library is incorporated into a plan in order to get direct feedback and facts.
Emily Harrison also mentioned including the Forest Hill Homes’ families in any
discussions.
Glenn Roberts mentioned the Forest Avenue options: 2 - current Police
Building; 2A - retain the Library and incorporate Police; 2B - move Library and
Police Building on Library site. Michael Ross said we would need to re-stack the
building due to the small site.
Ray Bacchetti mentioned that the Christ Science Church at Forest and Bryant
may be interested in selling and the Library could possibly move to that site. Bill
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/15/06 Page 5 of 6
Fellman said that, except for the north side of the building, it is a historical
building.
Additional information from staff is needed on the following: 1) using the Forest
Avenue area, and 2) revisit the California Avenue site. The following
stakeholders will be invited to the next committee meeting: CAADA, Palo Alto
Central Homeowners’ Association, University South Neighborhood Group and
the Library Advisory Commission (LAC).
Glenn Roberts said staff will separate sites and costs. John Northway asked if
we’d be able to determine the square footage for each site and Michael Ross
responded yes. Lanie Wheeler suggested including other costs as well such as
moving the Library, building a parking structure and underground tunnel on
Forest Avenue.
Dan Dykwel clarified the reason for inviting the groups is to voice their concerns
and information gathering for the task force to better provide information on the
recommendations.
Paula Collins asked if we needed to have a separate meeting to do this rather
than at a regular meeting. John Northway suggested allowing a specific time,
possibly half the meeting and then moving on to other agenda items.
John King asked whether or not the Police Department would want to be located
on California Avenue with the constraint of "violent" ground shaking and there
would no longer be cohesion to City Hall. Is it worth pursuing? Police Chief
Lynne Johnson responded that it is an ideal site as it is centrally located and
suspect detention could be done at the court facility.
Committee Comments
There were no committee comments.
Oral Communications
Len Ely attended tonight to see where the task force has ended up to date. Mr.
Ely suggested building a bridge from the second story of the Police Department
to the Library. Parking is already available. He also suggested building a new
Library with a second floor and putting the Police Department’s Administration on
the top floor. Mr. Ely also asked about the 56,000 square foot mezzanine on the
current police building. Mr. Ely expressed his appreciation to the task force on
the work and time being put into this project.
George Browning expressed that for the common good the community may have
to give up a little bit.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 3/15/06 Page 6 of 6
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Cubberley Community Center, Auditorium
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
April 6, 2006
Committee Members:
Vic Ojakian, (Co-Chair)
Lanie Wheeler, (Co,Chair)
Ray Bacchetti
Jay Boyarsky
Harold Boyd
Paula Collins
Dan Dykwel
Margo Dutton
Denise Lee
John Northway
Veronica Tincher
Karen White
Staff Liaison:
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Staff:
Emily Harrison, Asst. City Manager
Mike Sartor, Asst. Director, Public
Works Engineering
Pete Hazarian, Sr. Administrator
Hung Nguyen, Associate Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Gayle Likens, Transportation Projects
Manager, Planning and
Community Environment
Paula Simpson, Library Director
Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of
Administrative Services
Barbara Teixeira, Administrative
Assistant
Roll Call and Introductory Remarks
Co-Chair Vic Ojakian called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken
and a quorum of committee members was present. Vic provided an overview of
the meeting agenda. Vic welcomed members of the community and
representatives from the following groups: California Avenue Area Development
Association (CAADA), University South Neighborhood Association, Library
Advisory Commission (LAC), Palo Alto Historical Museum and Palo Alto Central
Condominium Association (no response on attending).
Approval of Meetinq Notes
Dan Dykwel noted in oral communications Mr. Ely .spoke about the mezzanine
square footage. Dan corrected the square footage amount to be 9,000 rather
than 56,000. Staff will make the correction and a unanimous vote was taken to
approve the notes as corrected.
Subcommittee’s Status Report on Problem Statement
Ray Bacchetti explained that the problem statement has been approved and is
on the Web for public access.
Police Building BRTF 4/6/06 meeting Page 1 of 8
Vic explained that any documents that are part of this process are posted on the
Web for review.
Continued Discussion on Potential Sites
Vic said that staff has been working on different variations of the police building
and library sites on Forest. Elizabeth Ames then provided an overview of the
maps showing the different variations and locations. Mike Sartor clarified that
Site 2A is a split facility (Police and Library).
Vic explained that project costs will be discussed at the April 19th meeting (starts
at 6:00 p.m.). Vic then went through the meeting schedule and topics through
June 2006.
John Northway asked if Site 2A included a connection under Forest Avenue.
Mike Sartor responded that there would be no need to close or build a tunnel and
that a bridge is possible but not essential.
Karen White asked to have the Park Boulevard site put back on the potential
sites list. Co-Chair Lanie Wheeler said that it had and staff is developing a matrix
that will include Park Boulevard, as well as the Palo Alto Bowl site.
Elizabeth explained that in each of the variations for the Police-Library options,
the proposal is for a two-story building with basement parking.
Discussion with Stakeholders
Co-Chair Vic Ojakian explained that key stakeholders will be given 10 minutes to
speak and other community members will be given three minutes.
John Northway explained to potential speakers that the committee is in a fact-
finding mode and being specific about concerns is most helpful. John also
explained that information presented will be part of the committee’s evaluation
and decision-making process.
Library Advisory Commission - Sanford Forte, LAC member, said that the LAC
has not yet had a discussion of police/library building site option but is scheduled
for the meeting of April 13. Sanford spoke about the library survey results and
the commitment to five library locations. Sanford’s personal opinion is that
whatever the decision there remains a downtown library. Sanford said that the
LAC has not discussed the potential state funding source. Veronica Tincher said
that there will be a State bond measure on the June ballot. Library Director
Paula Simpson said that jurisdictions that were highest in the last round will be
considered first in the next round. Sanford mentioned that he has interest in a
store on California Avenue and he is not supportive of using the California
Avenue lots for a police building site.
Police Building BRTF 4/6/06 meeting Page 2 of 8
Dan Dykwel expressed his concern there is a lack of input from the LAC and that
this was the purpose of this meeting. Sanford reiterated that the item is
agendized for the April 13th LAC meeting and they will be discussing ways to
coordinate with the BRTF on this issue. Written documentation will be provided
to the BRTF as to the discussion of the LAC meeting.
University South Neiqhborhood Association - Elaine Meyer spoke on behalf the
board. The board recommends the police building be located in a commercial
area and the neighbors oppose the library site as an option. Recommendations
of other sites to consider were: electric substation on Alma (City-owned); West
Bayshore for offsite storage if not included in main building; commercial land in
the California Avenue area. The board recommends removing the library from
the potential sites list.
Karen White asked what the proposal was seven years ago when the library site
was being considered. Elizabeth Ames said there was a buffer on all sides, with
18,000 square feet per floor, two floors above and one below.
John Northway asked Elaine if Site 2C, the Roth Building, is an acceptable site
for relocating the library. Elaine responded that it’s not large enough, sound
enough and not enough parking.
California Avenue Area Development Association - Terry Shucat spoke and also
submitted for public record a petition signed by 150 people. Terry is the Parking
Chair for CAADA and they are opposed to using the parking lots for the police
building. Terry recommended Park and Page Mill as the most desirable and
least expensive option. The owners are now known and they are interested in
talking with the City. The California Avenue parking lots are paid for by the
parking assessment district. Visitors to the California Avenue area prefer
convenient, on-street parking or parking on the first level of the parking garage.
Businesses in the area want to have the best parking they can have and a multi-
story parking garage is not what they want. Construction for a new parking
garage would take at least four years and would be a detriment to the businesses
and a loss of sales tax. Points of opposition: contaminated water if plume is
disturbed; not built in residential area; most expensive option due to a multi-story
parking garage and a loss of business.
Jay Boyarsky raised the issue of the longer term economic benefit with visitors to
the police department also stopping in the area businesses. Terry feels that
police employees would not have the time to visit businesses and he doesn’t
believe there would be any increase in business.
Co-Chair Lanie Wheeler asked what the difference would be if the police building
was built on the Park Boulevard site, and Terry feels that the construction won’t
have an effect on the California Avenue area. Lanie asked if CAADA supports
Police Building BRTF 4/6/06 meeting Page 3 of 8
the Park Boulevard site and Terry responded yes. Terry also said that the Park
Boulevard site is less expensive.
Dan Dykwel asked if the plume is a designated clean-up site and are there plans
to mitigate the problem or do we just acknowledge that it’s there. Mike Sartor
responded that is monitored on a regular basis.
Jay said the police department is a victim of success providing excellent police
services and no crime in the city. If the police department was located in the
California Avenue area there would be "security" to the businesses in that area.
Terry responded there is no public safety benefit as the police officers drive
around and do not stay in the building.
Ray Bacchetti recommended everyone read the problem statement on the Web
as it provides statistics that Palo Alto is not a crime-free community.
John Northway spoke about the EOC and dispatch center in the current building
and if a major seismic event were to occur, they would not be functional. If an
earthquake occurs during off hours, there would be limited staff working and we
would not be able to dispatch officers to events within the city.
Vic said it will be difficult to determine the best option between City vs private
owned properties.
Palo Alto History Museum - Robin Robinson, President, provided some history
relating to the museum. Robin also provided an overview of the lease option for
the Roth Building from the City. Changes have been made to the draft
agreement and returned to the City Attorney’s office. The Roth Building is the
right location for the museum as it is centrally located, it’s an existing historic site,
is ideal for a museum, and they have neighborhood approval. There is a lack of
parking for the library to be relocated there and it is not structurally sound to
house heavy loads and books. Donations have been received for the museum
and they are awaiting the final lease option from the City.
John Northway asked if there is a time limit for raising money and Robin
responded two years and there would not be a problem with raising the funds
and the time limit.
Dan Dykwel questioned why the Roth Building is a potential site for the library
when there is a lease pending. Assistant City Manager responded that the lease
is pending due to the bad shape of the Roth Building and it has been vacant
longer than expected due to the problems. Mike Sartor is developing cost
estimates for repairs so that a request can be presented to Council.
Dan asked if parking would not be an issue like the library and Robin responded
that they would have the same problem.
Police Building BRTF 4/6/06 meeting Page 4 of 8
Any further questions should be directed to the Co-Chairs.
Feedback from Community Members
Bob Moss, Orme Street - said the same ideas are recurring and he’s glad that
we’re looking at private property as well.
David Bubenik, Homer Avenue - said this is the third time he has had to speak to
defend the library against the police building. Council removed the library from
the list in 1999 and when it needed a 2/3 vote in an election in 2000, it just faded
away. It still needs to go to an election. He suggested the committee and
community come up with a solid proposal to agree on.
Richard Geiger, E. Charleston Road - suggested the police department staff be
dispersed throughout the community. Include housing in the area when disasters
and/or emergencies occur. The police are needed within a community. Richard
also suggested the City require a certain percentage of police officers live within
the city.
Winter Dellenbach, La Para - feels that a new police building in the California
Avenue area would add to the critical loss of businesses in that area. She also
feels that it is wrong for a police department and library to share the same
building and for the police to displace the library. Winter feels the community will
not support the effects to the museum and library.
Martha Schmidt, Forest Avenue - is a neighbor of the library and is opposed to
moving the library and the police and library sharing a building. The library is
surrounded by a residential area, trees, is a valuable asset in the neighborhood
and an important community resource. The last time the library was on the list a
petition was circulated and there is a new one in progress. Martha feels the City
will encounter strong opposition and we should consider other options that the
library.
Jessica Roth - is a fourth generation California Avenue business owner. Jessica
feels that a police building would bring about change in that area in an unhealthy
manner. Currently there is convenient parking and shoppers don’t want to park
on the second level of the parking structure. Construction would have a negative
effect on the area.
Joette Farrand; Bryant Street- has been a library neighbor for 30 years. She is
tremendously effected by police operations and already hears sounds from the
building. Joette feels it’s not appropriate to have a police building in a residential
area. In 1999, the library was removed from the list. In 2000, itwas back and
removed again. The impact to the neighbors is a massive building with parking.
There are currently 37 trees on the library site, some of which are protected.
During the last process, 23 letters were written in protest and 18 people spoke at
Police Building BRTF 4/6/06 meeting Page 5 of8
Council. She suggested removing the library site from the list as the community
will not allow it to happen.
Jeff Levinsky, Hamilton Avenue - is President of the Friends of the Library
Organization. Jeff expressed concerns of combining a police and library facility.
There would be a loss of gardens and trees. During construction, where would
the library relocate? There would be ongoing pressure to have the building taken
over, such as additional police space while reducing the library space. Jeff
spoke about the library survey where one in five residents use the downtown
library. Jeff expressed the value of the downtown library.
Vic Befera - has lived in Palo Alto for 55 years and loves the branch libraries.
The library site has been shot down twice by public outcry and it will be difficult to
continue. Please remove from potential list.
Joe Durand, Hawthorne Avenue - feels that the City commitment is spotty at
best and we should leave the library site untouched. Joe recommended looking
at other sites as this one will fail again.
Arthur Keller, Corina Way - suggested taking two sites off of the list as opposers
will come on board if it continues. "RM" (residential multifamily zoning) is not a
reason to remove from the list and suggested no more housing.
James Schmidt, Forest Avenue - is President of the Ramona Townhouse
Association, which is across from the library. The Board and association
members are opposed to the police building being relocated to the library site.
James’ opinion on a joint use facility is that library to library is okay, but a library
to police department is a disaster.
Paul Crowl, California Avenue business owner - sees no long term benefit of
locating a police building in that area. During the four or five years of
construction would reduce clientele and is damaging to business. Construction
would result in a loss to or end of business in that area.
Robert Katzive, Middlefield Road - spoke on behalf of the Museum of American
Heritage. The museum is opposed to the relocation of the library to the Roth
Building. Robert spoke about.two issues: cultural - the area between Bryant
and Waverly could be developed as a historic plaza; practical - parking has
serious limitations and staff and visitors would have trouble finding parking
spaces.
Carol Kiparsky - feels that the committee does not represent the people of Palo
Alto due to the potential sites on the list. Residents have made it clear to keep
the library open. She suggested reusing the current site rather than replacing. A
police building should not be located in a residential area.
Police Building BRTF 4/6/06 meeting Page 6 of 8
George Browning - said the committee must make a recommendation to Council
on limited choices. There are problems with each site but it affects the
community as a whole. A decision needs to be made for the common good for
the entire community. George encouraged opponents to present sound
alternatives to the committee.
Joy Ogawa, College Terrace - suggested reducing the proposed building size to
be more realistic in order to get public support. She also suggested increasing
options such as including the Alma substation as it wouldn’t need to be re-zoned
and parking at 800 High Street could offset the parking required for the Police
Department. Joy said the City and Police Department need to understand that if
they propose a smaller building they’ll have within five years. The City and
Police Department need to understand what is reality and what can get done.
Vic then clarified to Terry Shucat that during the last process he did vote
opposing the California Avenue site. Vic wanted to be clear to everyone that the
committee will do the best they can on this process and making a decision.
There are various backgrounds among committee members and they will do a
thoughtful job and present an unbiased report to Council. Police building tours
help with comparing what we will propose now. The current building is an OSHA
accident waiting to happen and it puts us at risk when prosecuting suspects to
get convictions. The committee needs to keep this in mind and balance against
the community’s needs.
Lanie thanked the stakeholders for attending and presenting their concerns. She
explained the committee is in an information gathering phase and appreciated
their comments. Lanie also said the last thing intended is to displace the library
or museum. If the plan ends up to be with the downtown option, it will not be
recommended to close the downtown library or make it impossible for the
museum to exist.
Community members are encouraged to visit the BRTF Web page and read the
background papers and tentative decisions on the web site
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/policebuilding/. The web site is also interactive and
messages can be emailed to staff and the committee at the "BOOKEM" link or go
directly to http://www.cityofpaloalto.orq/bookem/which also serves as the
community bulletin board.
Community members are encouraged to attend the large public meeting coming
up in the next month or so.
Karen White proposed a site alternative: renovate the current building utilizing
the mezzanine space and moving out to Forest Avenue making it a contiguous
space, closing the street to vehicles and pedestrians and there wouldn’t be any
impact to the library. This will be agendized for the next meeting.
Police Building BRTF 4/6/06 meeting Page 7 of 8
Ray Bacchetti expressed his appreciation for the public’s input. Ray asked how
definitively staff can check on other sites by June (real rather than speculative).
Vic will speak with staff about this and looking at other sites such as public vs
private.
Lanie Wheeler confirmed there is some work being done on the potential three
sites. Mike Sartor verified they are looking at the Forest Avenue site building up
not out and he is unsure of any availability on privately-owned sites. The
substation site is owned by Utilities and will be relocating to Quarry Road. The
site is slated for housing and staff will check the status.
Jay Boyarsky thanked the public for their comments and indicated they would be
helpful to the committee. Jay also encouraged community members to visit the
website and read the problem statement.
Future Meetings
Vic spoke about future meetings and the new schedule that was distributed.
April 24th is a special financing meeting and May 10th or 11th will be the public
meeting. John Northway suggested revising the meeting schedule since we
haven’t selected a site and it’s unrealistic. Vic said that there may need to be
extra meeting in order to meet the deadline.
John Northway said that the size of each building needs to be included in order
to make recommendations.
The Co-Chairs will review the meeting schedule to see if any adjustments need
to be made. They will meet with staff regarding preliminary work on sites.
Formation of Public Outreach Subcommittee
Lanie Wheeler spoke about the formation of a public outreach committee to
develop various ways to reach out to the community and provide the public with
information prior to the public meetings. The subcommittee will also work with
staff. Volunteers were Karen White, Ray Bacchetti and Lanie Wheeler. If
anyone else is interested, please let Lanie know.
Subcommittee’s Status Report on Space Needs Assessment
Margo Dutton reported the subcommittee is comparing the existing list of
services recommended vs what is. The subcommittee will be meeting again and
presenting a report soon.
Meeting Adjournment
The next meeting is on April 19 at 6:00 p.m., where some items from tonight will
be discussed as well as costing.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Police Building BRTF 4/6/06 meeting Page 8 of 8
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Cubberley Community Center, Room H-1
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
April 19, 2006
Approved by Co-Chairs
BRTF Website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafetybuilding/
ROLL CALL
Committee Members:
Lanie Wheeler, (Co-Chair)
Vic Ojakian, (Co-Chair)
Staff Liaison:
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Ray Bacchetti
Jay Boyarsky
Harold Boyd
Paula Collins
Dan Dykwel
Margo Dutton
John King
John Northway
Peter Stone
Veronica Tincher
Karen White
Emily Harrison, Asst. City Manager
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Glenn Roberts, Director, Public Works
Mike Sartor, Asst. Director, Public
Works Engineering
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Hung Nguyen, Associate Engineer
Public Works Engineering
Tarun Narayan, Sr. Financial Analyst
Administrative Services
Don Larkin, Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Karen Davis, Administrative Assistant
Roll Call and Introductory Remarks
The special meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. with a quorum present. Co-
chair Lanie Wheeler introduced two special guests, Steve Emslie, Director of
Planning and Community Environment and Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City
Attorney. Lanie asked them to provide an overview of the sites. Lanie stated
that cards were available for anyone to write down questions/comments and to
identify their name, so that they could speak at the end of the meeting.
Approval of Meetin.q Notes
The meeting notes from April 5, 2006 were approved with the amendment. Jay
Boyarsky corrected the notes to state he did not say Palo Alto is crime free rather
Jay said the police department is in some ways a victim of the success it has
achieved in providing excellent police services in that many people do not feel
there is any crime in Palo Alto and thus don’t appreciate the need to invest in
public safety infrastructure. The notes were approved with this correction.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 1 of 13
Continued Discussion of Potential Sites
Steve Emslie directed members to the handout labeled "Police Building Public
and Private Opportunities and Constraints Matrix". He reviewed the criteria
noting that for a public site there is no cost for land acquisition and financing is
easier needing no upfront costs to buy the land. Also, the City owns many sites
close to downtown. The constraints of building on public sites are there are
limited sites to choose from and there likely will be a community opposition to
change the land use.
Steve stated that for privately owned sites there is an opportunity to build-to-suit
with a public/private partnership. The City would have to gain control of the
property, lease or finance the land purchase at market rates with cooperation
from the property owner. Potential risks are that the site could be tied up with
another proposed development, the property tax would not be assessed once
becomes publicly owned, and the City in compliance with State law could slate
private property as a housing opportunity site. Also, fronting money to hold the
property would be non-refundable pending the election process. If the property
owner is not in agreement to sell the property, eminent domain is a difficult
process and the City has only done this a few times in the past.
Steve referred to the handout labeled "Public Safety Building Potential Sites -
Preliminary Comparisons not to be used for Design". He also referenced the site
map to discuss the new sites under consideration as follows:
Alma Substation
The Alma substation, Site #25 is the smallest of the three and the site has
no frontage along Alma. The police department finds this site
unacceptable due to security concerns of having only one ingress/egress
using a public easement designated in the underground garage at 800
High Street, a residential building. There is no room for parking on this
site. Amending the zoning and the comprehensive plan is required and
adds a degree of complication to this project.
Lots A and O
Downtown City Lot O, Site #27, is a good site for a parking structure and
was rated as "good" in the evaluation of the City’s Downtown Parking
Structure Feasibility Study. A major issue in developing this site is that
several businesses have rear access currently used for deliveries and
garbage pick-up. An easement to allow access for these services would
likely be needed if a garage were constructed at this location.
Downtown City Lot A, Site #28, could accommodate the police building
and requires a Planned Community zone change. It has two
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 2 of 13
ingress/egress points on Lytton and Emerson. Lost parking on Lots A and
O would need to be replaced and all relocated to Lot O.
Committee Discussion
Harold Boyd asked to explain the eminent domain option and how it relates to
property values increasing or decreasing. Steve stated that the property would
be based on market value, highest and best use, and the City would have to
justify an urgent need. The property acquisition via eminent domain is no more
than 90 days. However, sometimes litigation can go on for years.
Steve explained the process and stated that it’s rare that the City exercise its
power of eminent domain. This adds costs because of litigation. The law
requires that any land occupied, City will pay for alternate location (rents
including moving expenses, "good wilr’0.
John Northway asked if sites are zoned for housing could the City use housing
funds to buy the site early on. Steve stated there are many ways the City can
buy land using reimbursement through bond, but doesn’t know of any housing
funds the City could use. Don stated that he would look into it.
Karen asked if the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) could be used
specifically for the Park Boulevard site. Karen asked if the City could do a land
swap for the Park site to eliminate cost of land.
Steve said the City has to identify where housing is going and if Housing is
designated for the Park site then it could eliminate the cost of land by transferring
these rights to another site within Palo Alto.
Jay asked if the Park site #4 next to railroad tracks could be negative. Steve said
it could be positive/attractive because it’s close to transportation.
Jay asked if the GM zoning is on housing land. Steve said there is a land/housing
zoning conflict as the Park site is zoned GM, General Manufacturing. The zoning
would need to be amended if Council wants housing placed there.
Ray asked why do sites vary so much in size. Steve said that a ½ acre site may
be too small and 1.5 to 2.7 acre parcel is approaching an optimal size. The
downtown sites are more urban and can accommodate a low parcel size, more
square footage, have less setbacks and increased building heights. The
downtown allows buildings up to four stories up to 50 feet where all other areas
are limited to 2 to 3 stories up to 35 feet high.
Ray asked if the City could build out onto Forest and out onto Bryant and
Ramona Streets. Mike said we could build in and around current facility but need
to relocate City Council during the construction. Glenn Roberts looked at Civic
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 3 of 13
Center several years ago. Chambers is structurally attached to the Civic Center
tower and the police wing. These are two separate structures and it is difficult to
transition between them. Also, the Civic Center plaza can’t take additional load
and you’d have to remove and replace the deck. It’s better to look at moving out
towards Forest Avenue and it’s not viable to build towards the Council Chambers
John wondered if we can build basements given ground water concerns and the
resistance from Public Works to allow basement construction. What does Public
Works require? Glenn said Public Works does not encourage basement
construction where ground water levels are high. Public Works requires a boat
type structural design preventing ground water pumping and a waterproof
surface.
Ray asked if a hazardous plume prohibit pumping because groundwater is
contaminated. Mike said we have to look at that - and we show it as a constraint.
Lanie asked clarification on steps to acquire a private parcel. Do we indicate our
interest to the property owner, negotiate and then do environmental studies? In
what order do the steps take place?
Glenn said the BRTF could provide a recommendation on preferred site and
request Council to begin negotiations if it were privately owned. Council would
review these recommendations on a preferred site and simultaneously.approve
to start negotiations.-The City has allocated money in the budget next year to
begin design and environmental studies on a preferred site to be determined by
the Task force and finally Council.
Lanie asked if the City would launch into environmental studies before knowing
where the land owner stands? Glenn said no.
Dan asked if West Bayshore sites were eliminated for environmental reasons.
Elizabeth stated there are flooding and liquefaction concerns in this general area
not conducive for an essential service facility. Dan asked if this area includes San
Antonio. Steve agreed that the liquefaction and flooding areas are east of
Middlefield including San Antonio, and it is best to stay west of Middlefield for an
essential service building.
John King asked if we are considering more sites or two sites only? Lanie replied
that all site options are open for discussion to convince ourselves and members
of the public all areas were evaluated,
John King asked if the Gilman Street site - is it off the table? Lanie said perhaps
but there’s been discussion that it may be re-examined. Karen White was told a
hotel is interested in the Gilman site. Margo asked about the adjacent land use
compatibility. Lanie stated the Police building didn’t remove developers building
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 4 of 13
plans or his ability to develop Part of the Gilman site is currently on City-owned
property.
John King asked what’s the situation at the Senior Center - Avinedas? Is it
public or does the City own it? Lanie said yes it is a City-owned public facility.
John King asked if there is a possibility to move the Senior Center to a
newer/better facility with a better cafeteria? Glenn stated it was extensively
renovated in the 90’s with the exception of the cafeteria. Lanie mentioned there
was considerable money spent on this and Lynne stated it’s an historical
building.
Jay asked if the Park Blvd. site was owned by Essex properties and do we have
an appraisal of the land. Steve said it was recently purchased at $7.4 million
about 1 ½ years ago. A preliminary submittal for a housing development was
submitted. There are no vested rights on this property.
John Northway stated we’ll need Michael Ross’ expertise and need his input on
specific sites by an expert. Ray agreed that Michael is needed to identify what
else could happen and to identify impacts of the surrounding areas of each site.
Lanie totally agrees and tonight’s accomplishment is to go through the site matrix
and eliminate some that are not feasible. Mike Sartor said Michael has reviewed
the site matrices. Staff will work on the cost estimates and it will vary from site to
site. .
Dan asked if a public acceptability column needs to be added to the site
matrices.
John King said we need a sketch so people can understand visual volume of the
building on each site. Mike Sartor said there are no Sketches for Park Blvd., Cal.
Ave. Gilman and the Civic Center from the previous program done by Michael
Ross. There are no sketches for Lots O and A.
Jay stated, "In most places, the police building is located near the courthouse
and that creates "synergy." There are political benefits to moving to the southern
part of Palo Alto because of the need to have police awareness. This also
applies to the Park Blvd. Site.
Veronica suggested we rate the sites, "10" is most wonderful place, and "5" or
below we won’t even talk about that site any more.
Karen asked that we consider lack of public opposition.
Lanie suggested site criteria be developed. The task force agreed to the
following site criteria to narrow down the potential site list as follows:
Site Criteria
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 5 of 13
*Lack of organized public opposition
*Site sufficient size to accommodate core program
*Cost of parking
*Availability of parking
*Sufficient access points
*Proximity to related functions (city, county, court)
*Possible joint use of space
*Minimize geological/environmental constraints
*Optimal relationship between capital and operating expenses
Lanie opened the discussion to talk about the sites under consideration.
Ray asked that there could be automatic disqualifiers to help eliminate sites.
Civic Center Sites # 2, 2A, 2B and 2C
John Northway said Civic Center sites #2A, #2B, #2C should omit using the
library - did you look at closing Forest? Mike Sartor said that closing Forest
maybe possible.
Harold asked if Site #2 has public parking under the Civic Center - can it be
restricted to police cars only? Mike said he talked to the Police Department’s
Senior Administrator Pete Hazarian and Chief Lynne Johnson about this issue
and they use up 130 employee spaces for a total of about 200 spaces including
city vehicles. The Civic Center parking garage may not allow for these spaces to
be restricted.
Lanie stated the City pays into the assessment district for the Civic Center
parking spaces.
John King supports removing sites #2A, 2B & 2C. Mike Sartor stated the
Communications Center has to be relocated costing $1M. Former Mayor Jim
Burch wrote a memo regarding this additional expense of moving Police staff out.
Paula asked if Police parking is in a secured location but not Civic Center.
Lanie asked if parking on Level C can be secured. Lynne said we’ve looked at
that as a possibility. Jay thought the parking should be separate and secured.
Glenn mentioned parking is open for all except a small secured garage directly
under the Police Department on level A. Lanie said that is a constraint.
Paula mentioned the Mountain View remodeled their facility and it’s doing fine.
BRTF unanimously moved to approve the following:
¯ Remove Sites 2A, 2B and 2C from further consideration
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 6 of 13
¯Accept Site 2, the renovated and expanded Civic Center Site as a
potential site
California Avenue, Site #3
Paula asked if the parking structure could be build first to mitigate construction
impacts. Mike said yes the project could be phased first for the parking garage
and then the building on the adjacent lot.
In 1993 when the Ted Thompson garage was built there was no real opposition
from the public, but the construction occurred not in the best economic times and
this could have impacted the businesses. Permit parking for employees is on the
top level.
John King asked if someone could park from California to Jacaranda Lane - and
if it is available for access to Police Building. Elizabeth and Mike Sartor
confirmed the lane would be allowed for ingress/egress and could be available
for the proposed building.
Lanie asked if the lane is in the public Right of Way. Elizabeth stated yes the
lane is used for deliveries and garbage pick-up. Mike mentioned it could create a
"Timothy McVeigh" scenario if this alley is next to the police building.
John asked if there are setbacks. Elizabeth stated yes, but possibly could be
built without setbacks if a zoning variance was allowed.
John Northway asked if this site had underground parking and could it be built
first? Mike said yes there is. underground secure parking and could be built first
before the Police building. Parking would have to replace current spaces and the
structure may be three stories above ground.
Paula asked if the California Avenue site has a three-story garage with a
basement. Elizabeth and Mike Sartor said yes, the structure would be bigger at
Cal. Ave due to replacement parking.
John King asked what are the parking restrictions on California Avenue. Lanie
said it’s two hours.
Are there any constraints with #3? If not, it stays on the list.
The BRTF unanimously accepted California Avenue lots as a potential site.
Park Blvd. Site # 4
John Northway wanted to know where the access points were from the street.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 7 of 13
Mike Sartor stated the design would finalize this and seems all street frontages
could accommodate deliveries.
Margo wanted to know the cost of relocating. Mike mentioned it is around 1
million. Margo said she would rather see us buying the land than spending
money on the police relocation needed at the Civic Center as these dollars would
go towards nothing.
Lanie tried to make contact with Homeowner’s Association and Park Central’s
immediate past President.
Karen White asked what’s the cost of adding parking structure. Mike said it adds
at least $3-$5M to the project.
Lanie said the attraction to this site is that it’s a big enough parcel for possible
surface parking rather than in a structure.
Veronica does not think we should eliminate the Park Blvd. site.
Margo prefers to keep the site as opposed to building a parking structure.
John Northway asked if the Planning Department regards the current zoning as
the basis for the highest and best use. John King asked if there are there any
zoning decisions?
Lanie said her guess is that if we get into an eminent domain issue then it’s
assessed at its proposed/highest and best use regardless of zoning.
Glenn Roberts said Lanie’s description is accurate. Lanie said she would ask
Steve Emslie to confirm.
Peter stated that it’s not that easy to determine the price. If there are a lot of
constraints then you may not have to pay as residential. The price could be
based on what is the current zoning the City would accept on that site.
Dan stated the property is next to the railroad tracks and wondered if this was an
issue now that we are post 9/11. Lynne stated that it’s not ideal but it’s probably
not a non-starter either.
Vic came in at 7 p.m.
Vic said research needed if you’re going underground due to the hazardous
ground water plume. Karen said this could be an opportunity to get LEED credits
as you get points for cleaning up a brown field site. Also, we can possibly get
federal/state dollars that could contribute to clean up efforts.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 8 of 13
Lanie said this clean-up could add to the costs and would need the results of
environmental study if it’s a group favorite.
The BRTF unanimously accepted Park Blvd as a potential site.
Bowlinq Alley Site #10
If the site is privately owned - has owner been contacted? Elizabeth said no, the
owner hasn’t been contacted.
Lynne said a fatal flaw is that it only has one access at El Camino Real and the
site backs up to residential.
Lanie said the site is not centrally located.
Karen said if the only access is El Camino Real, I suggest we strike it.
The BRTF unanimously removed the Bowling Alley site from further
consideration.
Gilman Site # 21
Has there been opposition to this site? Lynne stated the.Farmers Market wanted
to move from this area, but that some residents adjacent to the proposed parking
garage have stated some concerns about the potential for noise and car fumes
next to their windows.
Lanie asked if there a way to build the facility without private land? Glenn said it
would be hard because of the property line locations and we would need both
private and public land for the building footprint. We could reduce private land,
but not completely eliminate the need.
Mike said this site is close to the Civic Center and there is an opportunity to use
off-site warehouse at the underground portion of the Bank Building next door or
on can use Civic Center’s A level where the existing secure garage is located.
Vic said this project was brought up to the Council and potential exists that
there’s some vacant storage could be used at 300 Hamilton Avenue.
Lanie said the owner, Chop Keenan, plans to redevelop.
The BRTF unanimously accepted Gilman as a potential site.
Alma Electric Substation Site # 25
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 9 of 13
Lanie said the Electric Substation was added because of public comment from
the last meeting.
Karen said it was too small with one limited access under a residential building.
Veronica questioned the need for a split facility.
The BRTF unanimously removed the Alma electric substation from further
consideration.
Lots A and O, Sites # 27 & 28
Mike Sartor suggested we look at Lots A and O together if there’s an interest.
Lanie asked where would the police building go. Mike Sartor said the building
would go on Lot A and the parking garage on Lot O.
Glenn said one unique possibility is that 130 employee spaces in Civic Center
garage may possibly be traded with another garage if the location is in close
proximity to the Civic Center garage.
Vic said this idea might be like a land swap. It’s tough to get land in this city. If
we can make up for the parking in downtown then maybe swapping works as it
may defray costs. Vic said keep this on the table for now.
Harold said trading sounds intriguing - do we have any trading partners?
Vic said he does not have anybody in mind. The City has valuable parking lot
property in a valuable place in Palo Alto and it’s attractive.
Glenn said if Police personnel moves out then those spaces become available
and assessment district.
Lanie thought in terms of numbers, Glenn’s scenario works. However, on the
issues of proximity to the lost spaces on Lots O and A, there might be objection
from the Downtown Parking Assessment District.
Vic said we’ll have to look into it. Mountain View and San Mateo have done it.
It’s going to be difficult to pay for the building. Harold said it’s a good idea.
The BRTF unanimously accepted Lots 0 and A for further consideration.
No other sites were discussed or deemed as requiring further consideration due
to sites not meeting the site criteria established.
Project Costing!
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 10 of 13
Elizabeth referred to handout labeled City of Palo Alto Police Building, April 18,
2006, Preliminary Project Relative Cost Comparisons - NOT TO BE USED FOR
BUDGETING PURPOSES. It shows the breakdown of various project costs that
could be encountered for this project.
Glenn stated the costs are preliminary and can only be used for the purpose of a
relative comparison.
John Northway asked for explanation for eliminating public leased spaces. Mike
said if the Police Building is moved it opens up space available for leasing.
John Northway wanted overview/costs of the five sites at a future meeting.
Mike said we have preliminary costs but they were not available by
Monday’s meeting.
next
Lanie asked if we have enough information to meet on Monday.
Glenn said we have a value of sites preliminary/conceptual costs that can be
provided by Monday. The cost estimate is not actual because we can’t do that
until all work is done. It doesn’t mean it’s our project budget or project cost. I
don’t want to read in the paper years later that the costs were blown.
Karen asked what are the costs of retrofitting current police building? Vic said it
depends on who moves in, for example, the Development Center.
Lanie said the Development Center (DC) is self-supporting. Glenn said the
tenant improvement costs for the Civic Center could be recovered by the DC
fees.
Glenn said the costs are according to what goes in not the project going out.
Mike said Glenn is correct. It’s the responsibility of the project going in to cover
costs would not be added to the Police Building’s project cost.
John Northway wanted costs analysis by Michael Ross.
Lanie asked if financing could be ready for Monday, 04/24/06 rather than
05/04/06. Tarun will check with Joe Saccio and get back to Elizabeth.
Lanie said if it’s not feasible, we’ll send e-mail out to let members know of
meeting date for next week, if Monday is on or not.
Mike Sartor referred to Attachment 5 - There are eight cost areas to be used for
each site. (Mike discussed and explained each component).
Glenn said $50K per parking space is a figure used for the downtown.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 11 of 13
Mike said if a private site has an existing business, the City could be required to
move them
John King asked if we purchase private land - I don’t see that as a cost? This is
an unknown cost but could be assumed at current market value.
Lanie said the government doesn’t pay property tax but loses revenue.
Vic mentioned that, given where we are now, the building would costs $20-$30M.
Glenn said if we’re costing out sites - we need to use a number for each site -
maybe could go up to $40 or $45M.
Future Meetinqs
Lanie said we will likely switch topics on Monday if we do Financing. We’ll meet
at 7p.m. in CCR. Elizabeth will find another room.
Lanie asked that all members to please be present for Committee Deliberations
Mike Sartor said the future meeting of 05/09/06 is a budget hearing night. Emily,
Glenn and I are not available to meet that date.
Public Outreach Subcommittee
Lanie said Veronica has graciously offered to chair these meetings.
Veronica said a consultant will determine steps of Task Force
outreach and the subcommittee will begin meeting next week.
What is the purpose of consultant and have they been identified?
Lanie said staff is finalizing the scope of services.
in terms of
Status Report on Space Needs Assessment
Margo said we’re almost there. We’re working with staff regarding savings and
confirming savings. The building SF for now can be 45,000 square feet for now
is a good ballpark figure. The report is coming soon.
Oral Communications
Card received from Public:
1 )Karen White (had to leave but spoke with co-chair Wheeler)
2)George Browning had the following comments:
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 12 of 13
a. Shorten deliberations
b. Prioritize needs of police building
i. Avoid cost of relocation ($6-8M) to Park Blvd site
ii. $7M
iii. Maintenance/security
iv. Location near City’s population
v. Good egress/ingress
vL Not close to City Hall
Look at Park Boulevard Site and check with owner. If he’s not feasible, fall back
on California Avenue site - most are renters/not organized - most merchants
don’t live in Palo Alto and don’t vote -Cut down staff time and increase efficiency.
Lanie asked if there are other comments from anyone?
Karen asked to check with Loren Brown regarding purchase or TDR swap.
Jay said to keep California Avenue site; Lot O & A sites are intriguing; - Gilman
site - is it realistic? Should we check with realtor? Emily will contact the owner.
Jay amended page 4 of 8 paragraph 3 of the 4/5/06 meeting notes.
Lanie thanked all for coming to the meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. sharp.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 4/19/06 Page 13 of 13
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Cubberley Community Center, H-5
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
April 24, 2006
ROLL CALL
Committee Members:
Vic Ojakian, (Co-chair)
Lanie Wheeler, (Co-chair)
Ray Bacchetti
Jay Boyarsky
Harold Boyd
Paula Collins
Dan Dykwel
Margo Dutton
John King
John Northway
Veronica Tincher
Staff Liaison
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer
Public Works Engineering
Staff:
Glenn Roberts, Director of Public Works
Mike Sartor, Asst. Director, Public
Works Engineering
Pete Hazarian, Sr. Administrator
Hung Nguyen, Associate Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of
Administrative Services
Tarun Narayan, Sr. Financial Analyst
Administrative Serves
Nellie Ancel, Senior Assistant City
Attorney
Ruth Interiano, Administrative
Specialist
Approval of Meeting Minutes
Approval of meeting minutes from April 19, 2006 were postponed.
Role Call and Introductory Remarks
Co-Chair Vic Ojakian called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Vic said the topic
of this meeting would be on the subject of Finances and on the Space Needs
Assessment and introduced Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of Administrative
Services and Tarun Narayan, Sr. Financial Analyst.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page ] of 10
Introduction to Financinq City Facilities
Joe began with the introduction of financing new City Facilities. He stated that
there are two financial prerequisites. You must identify the instrument such as a
bond to borrow money for a project and, just as important, you must identify a
source of funds to repay the lenders or the investors owning the bonds. Payment
over a period of time is called "debt service" which is usually paid twice a year for
large projects; a "pay as you go" process is used for smaller ones. The City of
Palo Alto does not issue a lot of debt. They only have the General Fund and a
Utilities debt. The City has an AAA rating with Standard & Poors and Moodys
and each time a new project is begun, the approval system begins all over again.
GO Bonds are generally the most secure funding mechanism for major projects.
They raise a new revenue source with the approval of 2/3 of the electorate. The
bonds are tax exempt if they are used for a public purpose, and are typically of a
high credit quality because the issuer promises to levy taxes at whatever rate or
amount is necessary to pay debt service. Once the bonds are issued, a tax is
levied against real property, thereby raising new funds annually to pay the debt
service to bond investors. Residential and commercial property owners do bear
the tax which is a separate line item on the county’s annual property tax bill.
These bonds can only be used for the acquisition and improvement of real
property and fixed equipment. There are some disadvantages of GO bonds.
The election process is lengthy (approx. 158 days) and 2/3 approval by voters is
difficult to obtain. Proceeds cannot be used for furniture, fixtures, equipment
(FF&E) and maintenance
COPS
An alternative is issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs) which do not
require voter approval. COPs must be approved by Council and are commonly
used by local governments, and are well known in the investment community.
COPs are not bonds but they do raise capital like bonds for major projects and
are similarly repaid on a regular schedule. COPs represent an interest in lease
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page 2 of 10
payments payable by the City under a tax exempt lease. The lease is entered
into by the City and a non-profit entity or another City agency. The agency to the
lease, usually a non profit corporation, working with the City, undertakes
construction of the project and leases the improved site to the City. A trustee,
acting on City’s behalf, receives lease payments from the city for distribution to
COP investors. The city lease payments are similar to debt service payments in
that investors of the COPs, who lent the corporation money, are being paid
principal and interest.
COPs provide a flexible financing t0ol provided that local jurisdiction has an asset
to establish credit and resources to pay lease obligations or debt service. COPs
can be used to finance FF&E. Some of the COPs maturities, however, would
have to mature earlier than those associated with a building or fixed equipment.
A major disadvantage of COPs unlike GO Bonds, is that they do not raise a new
revenue source to pay the lease payments. A jurisdiction must identify a new
revenue or use existing sources to meet obligations. A new revenue source
could be an increase to an existing tax, such as a parcel tax or business license
tax. If it is a general tax, then it requires a majority voter approval. If it is special
tax then it requires a 2/3 vote. COPs represent an obligation of the General
Fund. If an existing resource were to be used with a current balanced budget, it
would require reducing current services to free up resources to pay annual lease
payments. Such a reallocation would require Council approval and
implementation through the budget process.
Parcel Tax
A Parcel tax is not a debt instrument. It would represent a new revenue source.
A fiat tax is assessed on each parcel regardless of size or value. They are
typically placed on a ballot for special purposes such as paying library, police or
fire services. Statutory authority for leveling parcel taxes is usually cited under a
government code section relating solely to special taxes. Monies from parcel
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page 3 of 10
taxes are usually used to pay operating expenses. A common characteristic of
this tax is to have a sunset provision.
The advantages of a Parcel Tax is that it is a new source of revenue, it is
somewhat familiar to voters, and is relatively simple to administer. The
disadvantages are that it requires 2/3 approval; can be perceived as inequitable
because of flat fee structure and may include sunset clause provisions. A sunset
is a problem where services or debt service extend beyond the sunset date, the
costs continue, and a new vote is required.
Mello-Roos District Bonds
Mello-Roos District bonds is another municipal financing instrument. Under
Mello-Roos, a special district can be formed upon 2/3 voter or landowner
approval. By forming the district, voters agree to a levy of taxes for specific
purposes. Taxes are paid via property tax bill. The tax revenues can be used to
issue bonds for the acquisition of land and the construction of facilities. In
¯ addition, they can be used for the provision of incremental services or services
that are not currently being provided. Mello-Roos bonds are used almost
exclusively for new residential developments where new, incremental services
are required such as streets, libraries, and parks. These districts are rarely
created for projects of general benefit in a fully built-out city.
The advantages of a Mello-Roos is that a special tax represents a new source of
revenue like GO bonds and the tax can be used for capital and new operating
expenses. The disadvantage is a "rate and method" or formula for allocating the
special tax that would be determined and approved by Council. This makes
implementation of the tax somewhat more cumbersome than a GO bond which
has a predetermined formula. General unfamiliarity with the tax is a
disadvantage. It is similar to a GO bond in that 2/3 approval is difficult to obtain.
Assessment Bonds
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page 4 of 10
These bonds were used to finance the downtown garages. To fund a capital
project an assessment is placed on each property owner according to a special
allocation formula. This formula must follow Proposition 218 requirements
whereby each property is assessed according to the special benefit it receives
from a project. If there is a general benefit to the public or a benefit that cannot
be ascribed to a property owner, then the assessment must be covered by the
General Fund.
Both staff and City consultants that an Assessment District is infeasible given the
general benefit a police facility would be to provide. Unlike the benefit of a
garage to downtown businesses, the benefits of a police facility would be difficult
to allocate via a formula to property owners.
Combininq Instruments
Using multiple financing instruments is a viable option provided resources are
available. The City of San Mateo, for example, combined redevelopment bonds
with COPs. It is important to note, however, that when you issue two different
instruments, you incur legal costs for each.
Rental Expenses
Combining rental expenses from off-site City departments such as Information
Technology currently at Hamilton Ave. and Utilities Engineering at Elwell Court,
could provide six to seven million in total debt costs if these two entities moved to
Civic Center.
Fixed versus Variable Rate Financinq
Cities like San Mateo have used variable debt to finance capital projects. This
method has been chosen because historical variable rates have been low and
interest costs are consequently less. Variable rates have stayed low but could
go up and exceed the fixed rates. Following a conservative financial policy, the
City has not issued variable debt to date.
Information Resources
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page 5 of 10
The Budget in Brief document issued 1 year ago shows an operating statement
of revenue and expenses that is nearly in balance. This shows that there are no
significant, available resources to pay for a new facility. Currently, the City has
$1.22 million debt service which is very low and represents .07% of City’s
assessed valuation. The long range financial plan for the next 10 years shows,
like the Budget in Brief- that there is not a lot of financial flexibility for new
projects; hence the need for new funding sources.
Committee Discussion
John Northway asked about the former parcel on Gilman Street. Would it be
possible to do a "lease buy back"? It is possible but we would want to look at it
and speak with the Financial Advisor. We still need a revenue source and
control of the property before tax exempt bond could be used.
Ray Bacchetti asked how can you fund FF&E if you go with a GO Bond? GO
bonds cannot be used for FF&E. Either new or existing resources would have to
be identified to fund these items. Additional operating and FF&E using existing
funds, grants, homeland security is possible, but staff has not looked into this yet.
Stanford could help with dispatch and EOC funding per Pete Hazarian.
Veronica Tincher asked will there be an effficiency/savings if it is a new building.
Glenn Roberts said there might be a slight reduction with an improved building.
Vic Ojakian said we could use existing funds for computers and re-use existing
furniture. If you go above that base funding, then the FF&E will need additional
dollars. Glenn said that since FF&E will be needed, and we need to look for
these funds so that we don’t have to stop and look later.
Dan Dykwell said we should have a spreadsheet showing the operating financing
among all the other City needs. What about voter acceptance, libraries, school,
streets, etc? Mike Sartor said maybe the library project would be combined with
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page 6 of 10
Police as it is a top priority with the Council. The Council needs to make this
decision.
Glenn Roberts said Council may have to figure out the school district funding
timing with the Police project. Staff is revisiting priorities to put $3 million a year
into infrastructure in 2007/08. Flood Control Solution’s bulk of funds is coming
from Army Corps and Santa Clara Valley Water District parcel tax.
Lanie Wheeler said that Council agreed that the City’s school committee liaison
will coordinate with the school district but their plan was still not finalized.
Dan Dykwell said we have identified the needs. It would make sense to
coordinate with the School District plan. We need to move ahead and should
create a matrix to handle the work and projects ahead. How are we going to
pay for all these things?
Vic Ojakian said that we have a policy that if it was existing infrastructure, the
City would pay for them, e.g. streets, bridges, etc, from the reserve that was set
up for this group of projects. If you wanted something new, that would require
new revenue.
John Northway asked what would be the revenue needed for a project of $40
million dollars - Joe stated that $3 or $4 million dollars a year to fund $40 million
dollars would be needed as a new revenue stream.
John King noted that the Infrastructure Reserve has gone down and asked if
there was a threshold.
Vic Ojakian said it goes back to policy - we can’t draw down the Infrastructure
Reserve since it is for maintaining existing infrastructure.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page ? of 10
Glenn Roberts said he felt we should not be discussing these issues at this point
in time in this meeting. Vic Ojakian said that perhaps we need to make more
than one recommendation. Vic said that maybe we should rent or lease another
building. It was pointed out that there are no other ones that meet the Code
requirements.
Feedback from Community Members
Wayne Martin suggested selling assets -it is possible and could create a
revenue stream and asked if COPs are pay as you go?. Joe Saccio replied that
all sources are pay as you go and that $26 million dollars is the total project debt
for 30 years. The cash flow is $6-7 million at 6% - $18M could be pulled andthat
will get freed up if Police pull out. Budget Stabilization Reserves are at $22
million currently and $16 million in the Infrastructure Reserve.
Phillip Kirkoby asked if the City has decided on city owned property or Stanford
land for a site. Stanford could offer similar opportunities like the Mayfield mall
along El Camino Real.
Lanie Wheeler said we have not looked at any Stanford land.
Vic mentioned that Council prefers not to reduce the Budget Stabilization
Reserve which is targeted to equal18.5% of the Operating Budget. Stanford
contributes 16% of the cost to use the City dispatch services which could
contribute to the cost of the design for the Police Building.
Subcommittee’s Status Report on Space Needs Assessment
Margo Dutton reported on behalf on the space subcommittee. She first wanted
to thank all the City staff for their work. The process they used was to take all the
square footages line item by line item. They looked at the condensed version of
usable space and focused on space compared to existing. Property and
Evidence (P& E) and EOC were the biggest increases from .the Police Building. A
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page 8 of 10
couple of points of interest; the Community Room is included only if the building
does remain in the Police Department. Parking may need some clarifications
dependant on the site.
John King asked if property and evidence can be located offsite. Margo stated
the P&E needs to be regulated especially for murder cases and then can be
stored offsite.
John King asked about 1423 square feet warehouse - is that additional? Some
of this could be done offsite. Fremont and Santa Clara have done that.
John Northway said all this has to be built.
Mike Sartor said the next step is sizing the building.
building concept and project costs associated with it.
be covered further at the next meeting
Each site will have a
Clarification of space will
Feedback from Community Members
Wayne Martin asked about out-sourcing to a private company for traffic officers
and to consider automatic cameras as this could reduce the number of traffic
officers.
Margo Dutton said they had not looked at that specifically and have looked into
the advances being used in technology.
Wayne asked why the records and information space increased so much. Dan
said all the records are in the hallway. Margo said existing space requirements
for holding paper records and paper trails still needs to be accommodated in the
program for legal purposes.
Oral Communications
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page !) of 10
No speakers
Future Meetinqs:
The May 9th meeting will be Cubberley Community Center starting at 6:00 p.m.
May 15th meeting will be a morning meeting
May 24th meeting will probably be at Mitchell Park
Meetinq Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
Police Building Blue Ribbon Task For Meeting, April 24, 2006 Page ]0 of10
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Cubberley Community Center, Room H-5
4000 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
May 9, 2006
www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafetybuildingi
Roll Call
Committee Members:
Vic Ojakian (Co-Chair)
Lanie Wheeler (Co-Chair)
Staff Liaison:
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer, Public
Works Engineering
Ray Bacchetti
Jay Boyarsky
Paula Collins
Margo Dutton
Dan Dykwel
Veronica Tincher
Karen White
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Steve Emslie, Director, Planning and
Community Environment
Mike Sartor, Assistant Director, Public
Works Engineering
Pete Hazarian, Police Senior Administrator
Tarun Narayan, Sr. Financial Analyst,
Administrative Services
Special Meeting
Co-Chair Vic Ojakian called the meeting to order at 6: ! 0 p.m. Roll call was taken with a
quorum present. Vic explained there would not be any official action taken at this
meeting. The finance portion will be postponed. Vic provided an overview of tonight’s
meeting and the goal is to try to make sure we have all our information together for
Friday’s deliberations and to make a recommendation to Council in June.
Approval of Meeting Notes
No minutes for approval.
Subcommittee’s Status Report on Space Needs Assessment
Margo Dutton thanked everyone who worked on the assessment. The subcommittee took
the number of city vehicles and employee staffing by time of day to assist in determining
parking requirements. The number of parking spaces has been reduced. The proposed
size of the new building (excluding parking and warehouse) has been reduced and is now
at 46,477 square feet (sq. ft.). This does not include the addition of a property warehouse
(1,423 sq. ft.) and secured and unsecured parking for police vehicles, employees and
visitors (90,938 sq. ft.). The community room might not be needed if it’s located near
City Hall, making the new square footage for the building about 2,000. sq. ft. smaller.
Other vehicles such as vans, motorcycles, radar trailers, etc. can be located off site.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/9/06 Page 1 of 7
Vic wanted to thank everyone for all the work done on the assessment as well. Vic said
he did not make one-on-one comparisons with other Cities but based comparisons on
what police building tours he attended at Mountain View and others and compared the
building size results to what City of San Mateo has which is about 50,000 sq. ft. Vic
accepted what the Committee presented and would go to Council with it.
Dan Dykwel expressed concerns with the numbers being tight and lean for future growth.
Ray Bacchetti is concerned that there is very little fat in this account. Ray also said it
might be a good idea to make a comparison to what we started with and showing the
consequences of the reductions would be helpful. Can we ask if this is an optimum or
minimum number? Is this the right number for 20 years down the road? If we don’t have
an accurate budget - then what? Margo said it is a minimum number and there is space
for 10 positions and not a lot of"fluff" but we could prioritize space. Karen said that
Community room could be eliminated, and Dan agreed the community room would be
the easiest to dispose of. Margo said that the community room or a larger room is
needed, if not at City Hall, since space within the City is at a minimum.
Vic said that at Friday’s deliberations, we should: 1) compare to where we were
originally during this process, and 2) prioritize a fallback position to downsize or upsize
the facility. Ray suggested discussing the reductions would be helpful. Lanie agreed
with the subcommittee’s assessment that the facility is going to be adequate in the future.
Karen White said space is effective/efficient not lowball or minimum and is well
moderated. Margo said that reduced building size is reasonable, and is not passing on an
undersized facility onto the next generation that is not in the best interest for the City and
even for those questioning this process. Margo said we were asked to plan something
10ng range. Vic asked about the original Gilman building proposal, which was 60,000
square feet and that it be used as a reference. Project Architect Michael Ross spoke about
designing for LEED certification. He proposed providing a natural lighting/ventilation
atrium in the new building. This option could be explored during the design phase. If
selected this feature would enlarge the building size through the inclusion of an open
natural light well/ventilation atrium. The floor area for this feature is not included in the
current program. Vic said that the City was recently considering LEED designs and
would have staff begin the comparison.
Continued Discussion on Potential Sites
We have five sites currently being considered and the entire building and parking
program can be accommodated on each site.
Michael Ross said he tested the total program of the 48,000 sq. ft. building and associated
parking on each site. He reviewed how the site affects the building and referred to the
Preliminary Program Stacking Diagrams. He color coded each functional area and
created a building prototype for each the site.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/9/06 Page 2 of 7
Civic Center: This site has one basement (A-Level) and two stories above street level
shown in expansion area out to the face of curb adjacent to Forest Ave. In the past, this
option was going to be three stories. The current building footprint has a basement with
some secure parking and includes property, evidence and the warehouse. The areas in
white on the podium and mezzanine levels allow for expansion. The construction is a
combination of tenant improvements and a new building that is shown on the expansion
area out to the curb face along Forest Ave. Michael said it is difficult to construct post-
tension (PT) slab, and you can’t just cut the floor as the PT cables would be disturbed.
Each cable needs to be located and secured before demolition. A seismic upgrade would
be required to meet essential service standards, and the Council Chambers roof requires
seismic isolation from the Civic Center tower to prevent structural damage in a major
earthquake. To seismically upgrade the facility, a number of columns extending down to
the basement and footings would need to be retrofitted. Due to these improvements and
other requirements, the construction cost of utilizing this site is twice that of building a
new Public Safety building on a private purchased lot.
Karen asked what kind of improvement would happen if a tenant moved into the vacated
civic center. Mike Sartor said that an Americans with Disability Act (ADA) building
improvements would be needed. Michel Ross noted the City’s Chief Building Official
would have to decide what other improvements would be necessary, but assuming the
current use (B Occupancy) remained the same, seismic upgrades would not be extensive.
California Avenue: This site on one of the lots will accommodate the 48,000 sq. ft.
building and has one basement with secured parking availability for 60 cars. The first
floor would consist of staff, records, and a community room and the second floor would
consist of investigations. We would replace the 422-stall parking structure on the lot next
door with an above ground two or three level garage. We don’t have to pay land cost but
we would have to construct a large parking structure. Mike Sartor spoke with the City’s
Environmental Compliance Division Head and it is likely that we would only need to
dewater into sanitary sewer if ground water were encountered during construction.
Park Boulevard: This site would have the same 48,000 sq. ft. building requirements and
would have full parking. Public entrance could be from Park Blvd. or Page Mill. There
would be some traffic difficulty at Page Mill and would need to be resolved. Mike Sartor
said the Sheridan Street frontage road could be closed and could expand the building or
garage (about another 1/4 acre available). Michael Ross said this site would be less
costly to build a parking structure as opposed to building with downtown parking
standards. Steve Emslie did not think that would be possible given the Architectural
Review Board standards. Veronica Tincher asked if others have nearby spaces for public
parking. Mike Sartor stated there is parking further down by the train station. Michael
Ross mentioned that parking for visitors is included. Karen asked if there were savings
with taking Sheridan and Steve Emslie said possibly yes as Sheridan could be closed.
Gilman Street: The proposal consists of basement level underground secure parking with
parking under the building, connecting under Gilman Street to the underground parking
lot proposed across the street and it would consist of 60 total spaces. The building would
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/9/06 Page 3 of 7
be two stories above and one story below. Karen asked if this is just making use of
public land, and Michael Ross responded no that this concept assumes some private land.
Mike Sartor said we have to replace the parking lot that the building sits on as well. The
developer wanted additional parking on top of that. Karen said the developer might want
additional parking spaces. Vic said that this project triggered the development of the
Task Force. The developer can list anything they want and anything is negotiable.
Veronica asked if we could have staff park at the Civic Center and staff thought this was
possible.
Lot A and Lot O: The full program and parking layout is only preliminary. On Lot O,
the multi-level garage is condensed due to easement next to existing buildings and the
embedded property, evidence and warehouse included in this garage. Property and
evidence warehouse is slightly larger to include bathrooms. Vic said that property and
evidence warehouse is not an essential facility and could be located in another building.
Margo said that property and evidence at City Hall could be problematic and not doable
but the warehouse could be at City Hall.
At Lot A, some parking would be under the alley to get the minimum of 60 secured
spaces under the building.
Michael Ross said that all sites were suitable for the location of a new Public Safety
Building. The facility program fits on each site. The comparative cost study indicated that
some sites are less costly than others and some will be less difficult to construct.
Ray said a 48,000 sq. ft. building does not have an natural lighting/ventilation atrium. If
it is not included in the program now, we may not get it back in. He said he was
impressed with the natural lighting/ventilation atrium concept and we may pay a price if
we take it out now. Michael Ross said that over time, you may experience a life cycle
cost reduction through the incorporation of this feature making possible the down sizing
of the HVAC system and associated lower energy costs. Karen said she would like to
see a payback period study and atrium for Green Building design. Margo said we would
include 900 sq. ft. and provide a description in the space needs working with staff.
Michael Ross said that adding a 30x30=900 sq. ft. allowance for a natural
light/ventilation atrium space is sufficient at this stage. When properly designed with the
other building systems, this feature may translate into cost savings in the long run. The
BRTF agreed to include an additional 900 sq. ft. to allow for natural ventilation and day-
lighting atrium within the building.
Continued Discussion on Proiect Costing
Vic said the preliminary report on detailed costs is not ready for deliberation at this point.
Mike Sartor said there are three scenarios based on size and site information: 1) a new
building on a vacant private land; 2) building on City-owned parking lots (Gilman site
fits closely to this), and 3) reconstruct the existing facility. Mike referred to the
Preliminary Project Relative Cost Comparisons -Not to be used for Construction
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/9/06 Page 4 of 7
handout. He stated there are 4 criteria to compare, the cost of raw land could be less than
building a parking structure, the cost to build replacement parking could be more
expensive than to buy land, the cost to retrofit the existing facility and the cost to
temporarily move the police department from the existing building is very expensive.
Mike Sartor stated that we have detailed cost comparisons and we are only using the
bottom line figures to show relative differences. The cost estimates are based on
estimating which Michael Ross did so far.
Michael Ross said that line item number two, Building Cost Range excluding Parking
and Land, is based on a 48,000 sq. ft. building, times a basic construction cost number
ranging from $240 to $400/sq. ft. The low range is for a one story, inexpensive building
and the high range is for a more complex project. There are numbers not shown, but
included, such as architectural, engineer, construction management fees, design and
construction contingencies. The bottom line, Total Project Cost Range, has a range of
costs in the millions from $38 to $55 million that includes design fees, contingencies and
escalation factors of 5% compounded annually for 3 years to the mid-point of
construction in year 2009. These are working numbers and are only a snap shot in time.
Only after the design of the building, can the numbers be more accurate. Sometimes a
factor of 1.4 to 1.5 times the base construction cost is used to approximate the overall
project cost.
Karen asked about Transfer Development Rights and selling furore rights but Chair
Ojakian responded that the parking district would not want to sell these rights. Paula
asked if the calculations to 2009 take into account the spikes in copper and steel.
Michael Ross said the five percent per year is compounded, so this should cover spikes in
prices as we currently understand them. However construction cost inflation has been
wildly erratic in the past five years and therefore all costs and escalation factors are
subject to change.
Michael Ross said 400 sq. ft. is an approximate space for a parking stall and could be
used as a rough figure (10x20 =200 for the car space plus the back-out drive isle equals
about 400 sq. ft.). Space for exit stairs and other building support areas would need to be
included.
Karen and Ray felt that Lots A and O will be a real stretch to build on. Veronica said the
Gilman site has the same problem located in a very congested area like Lots A and O and
negotiations would be needed with the developer.
Jay Boyarsky arrived at 7:50 p.m.
The BRTF asked Chief Lynne Johnson what sites she preferred. She said Park Boulevard
and California Avenue are best due to the close proximity to the Court House and there is
no need to move twice and also to build a temporary communications center. If we built
on the existing police building site, we would need to move and relocate to a temporary
Communications Center.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/9/06 Page 5 of 7
The committee prioritized the sites using a rating score of 4 being the best and 1 being
the least favorable as follows:
Existing 7 Votes
Gilman 23 Votes
California Avenue 21 Votes
Park Boulevard 36 Votes
Everyone rated Park Boulevard the best. It will be revisited again on Friday’s
deliberations and this is just a straw vote. Vic said Park Boulevard is desired due to cost,
easy access, two-way streets, and the ease of the building layout as it is not compact.
Lanie said to keep the Civic Center site on the table as a fall-back position. Gilman has a
complex land deal, but this is straw poll only and not considered a decision yet until
deliberations occur.
Dan said that if Park Boulevard does not pan out, California Avenue parking lot is baron
and similarly Gilman is an unused spot begging for development. These sites are under
utilized and should remain on the list.
Karen asked what would be the true timeline if property is acquired.
Vic said he had a preliminary discussion with owner for the Park Boulevard site. He is a
housing developer interested in re-zoning and needs to see a timeline for that process
before he could answer that question. The City would need to look at this timing if the
Park Blvd. site is a recommendation.
Mike Sartor said Council will need to direct City staff to start negotiations and part of
BRTF process could ask Council on how to proceed which may be done in a closed
session.
Lanie asked about a rumor of Park Boulevard site having a project in the pipeline, but
this is only in the preliminary stages. The BRTF could proceed to Council asking to get
control of property. Vic said the Park Boulevard site has a potential to be purchased.
Dan asked if the City has the ability to front the money. Vic stated the Council would
have to decide and authorize an expenditure.
Future l~,Ieetinl,,s
Minutes wil! be reviewed at the meeting on Friday, May 12th. At that meeting,
deliberations on justifications, size, locations, priority of locations, cost and financing
will be discussed in preparation to the presentation to Council. At the public meeting, the
BRTF will share ideas from the deliberations and possibly do a powerpoint presentation
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/9/06 Page 6 of 7
with some written material. Karen did not want to hone in on a recommendation until we
hear from the public.
Subcommittee’s Status Report on Public Outreach
Veronica, chair of the public outreach subcommittee, discussed planning for the public
meeting. She mentioned to try to discover or look for as many public sector groups and
media groups to get the information out. The subcommittee will be developing a fact
sheet, discuss how to frame the public meeting, how to display the four sites after other
sites have been rejected and discuss how we rank the top four. We are aiming at May
24th public meeting to organize information to be shared.
Oral Communications
Carl Anderson has lived in the City for 50 years. He does support the Police building.
The Police location at Park is more central, has access roads and is near the Court House.
California Avenue site would kill retailers and the lots are full. The word Police carries a
negative connotation. Public Safety is a better name for perception purposes. He
thanked the people for all the work they have done on this project.
Kevin Ball, 365 Forest,. President of the Homeowner’s Association made comments
months ago. Gilman is a tree-lined residential street surrounded by large multi-unit
condos, residential buildings, a historic chateau and a heritage oak near the chateau.
Closing Gilman has large traffic impacts. Farmers Market is thinking of moving, but the
neighbors nearby would not like to see it moved.
George Browning - the building should be called a Public Safety Building. This
perception is quite different from Police. The 911 center involves everyone and serves
Stanford. Public outreach should include itemized reasons of the need and should be
short and succinct. I have been impressed with the Committee’s work.
Margo said we need to justify rewording to Public Safety. The BRTF voted unanimously
to use the work Public Safety instead of Police and directed staff to re-title the agenda,
the website and the BRTF’s name.
Meeting adjourned- 8:30 p.m.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/9/06 Page 7 of 7
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
May 12, 2006
BRTF Website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafetybuilding/
Committee Members:
Vic Ojakian, (Co-Chair)
Lanie Wheeler, (Co-Chair)
Jay Boyarsky
Paula Collins
Margo Dutton
John Northway
Veronica Tincher
Karen White
Staff Liaison:
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Staff:
Emily Harrison, Asst. City Manager
Mike Sartor, Asst. Director, Public
Works Engineering
Hung Nguyen, Associate Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of
Administrative Services
Taran Narayan, Sr. Financial Analyst,
Administrative Services
Nellie Ancel, Senior Assistant City
Attorney
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Carl Yeats, Director, Administrative
Services
Glenn Roberts, Director, Public Works
Barbara Teixeira, Administrative
Assistant
Roll Call and Introductory Remarks
Co-Chair Vic Ojakian called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. Vic provided an
overview of the meeting agenda and the BRTF’s deliberations to provide the City
Council with the verification and justification for a new public safety building.
John Northway clarified that both the Library Advisory Commission and the Blue
Ribbon Task Force are going to Council with their recommendations on the same
night, June 26th and this was confirmed. Co-Chair Lanie Wheeler also said the
BRTF has a study session scheduled with the Council on June !9th.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 1 of 12
Approval of Meetinq Notes
The meeting notes of April 24, 2006, were submitted for approval. Karen White
asked for Dan Dykwel’s name to be correctly spelled with one ’T’. The notes
were approved with this correction.
Committee Deliberations, Public Communications/Outreach and Financing
Vic explained the end goal of the task force is to produce recommendations to
Council. Vic has developed a list of questions for review/discussion, which the
BRTF will run through to help shape the report and determine the attachments
for the report to Council.
1) Justification: The need is explained in the problem statement.
Karen suggested amending question #1, "Is there a need for a new and
expanded facility" to include new or renovated due to the need of more space.
Lanie responded it’s a new building whether it is built on a new site or at the
existing location because the current building would be taken down to the
ground. Jay Boyarsky is concerned of narrowing the description of the
building and suggested to not use "renovated." Paula Collins agreed the
current site would be a "new" building which could be expanded at any
location.
Karen suggested using "public safety" facility rather than police building.
Lanie said we would need to explain why we consider it a public safety
building when the task force is the police building task force. The building has
more services than only police services, such as dispatching for Fire, Public
Works, Utilities. The building will also include an EOC, which will be the
safest building in the community and remain standing during a large disaster.
It’s about more than delivering police services as it also provides protection of
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Veronica said we would need to revise the problem statement to reflect the
change from police building to "public safety."
Vic addressed crime stats and the new forms of crime such as elder abuse,
hate crimes and identity theft. Vic also said there is now a different set of
crime and requirements. Crime in Palo Alto is no less than in other
jurisdictions. Jay said we have a secure and safe community due to the good
work of the police but we should not ignore their needs. Veronica said the
public will continue to ask why there is a need for a new facility, so we should
summarize in the report what has happened over the years with crime and
what is currently happening. Veronica suggested including in the report
changes since the current building was built.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 2 of 12
Karen suggested updating the existing square footage in the problem
statement and should go back to the subcommittee. Karen also
recommended focusing on public safety not solely on crime. Vic mentioned
including additional requirements/codes for public safety buildings. The
subcommittee will handle changes and staff will post the revised document on
the website.
Vic stated the problem statement should emphasize public safety, reflect on
concepts that were learned and developed for a new and expanded facility,
justify the "public safety" name change and crime and code changes the
police need to meet. The problem statement should then be attached to the
report to Council.
Jay suggested including an opening line regarding a high priority or urgency
for the project. Karen said it is already a Council priority. The committee
agreed the need to validate that it is a priority. The building also ties in with
another Council priority, emergency preparedness. Lanie mentioned that the
report to Council should note the building ties in with 2 of the 3 Council
priorities.
Statement for Report: Build a new and expanded facility in existing location
or a new site.
Attachment: Problem Statement.
Proposed Public Safety Building Size:
Margo commended staff (Elizabeth, Hung, Pete and Lynne) on the work they
did in documenting changes to the building size throughout past reports.
Margo provided an overview on the "Palo Alto Public Safety Building Space
Needs Assessment" document. This summary breaks out square footage at
various stages of the process. The property warehouse shows a reduction in
square footage and is spread throughout other program functions. Parking
has an increased square footage due to additional shift changes.
Karen asked if the community room could be located offsite along with the
warehouse. Margo explained that we need the community room for large
meetings and it provides potential expansion space. Should we eliminate the
community room then larger conference rooms throughout is necessary of
about 1,000 square feet. We can’t simply take out 2,100 square feet. This
community room may appear frivolous, but this room can be used as a build-
out area for potential expansion. Also, there is not enough space for large
groups. As an example, using the Council Chambers for this meeting is not
an appropriate meeting place. There is a need for a large community meeting
room for large meetings such as emergency preparedness, pandemic flu,
neighborhood watch, public safety issues, the citizens’ police academy, as
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 3 of 12
well as training. This can also accommodate additional sleeping areas for
officers in the event a disaster occurs. Clearly training can go into the EOCI
but other types of meetings can’t. A community room would allow
neighborhood groups to be a part of the building. Included is also volunteer
work space.
Vic said the revised space needs assessment is very helpful. Vic spoke
about the multi-purpose function of the room: community and training,
sleeping quarters and a spillover room if there is a pandemic flu situation.
Margo reiterated the necessity for a large room to conduct joint meetings
(police structured) with other jurisdictions. The largest room currently in the
PD holds !2 people. Margo and the other subcommittee members are
confident with these space needs numbers and feel they are reasonable and
useful.
Vic asked if we had to reduce the square footage of the facility, would we
reduce the community room. Margo said staff would reduce the warehouse
first and then the community room.
Margo said staff realistically for functionality would increase patrol space for
staff doing front line work or relating to work with the public.
Vic asked Police Chief Lynne Johnson if we will have a problem in ten years
with space. Lynne responded that it is definitely adequate now and the
foreseeable future. Margo said we could build for unforeseen expansion and
did add 900 square feet for a green building atrium for energy efficient
daylighting.
Karen said a community room would have to go to the voters and
recommends not doing a bond if we don’t need to. Paula Collins supports the
community room as it will be used constantly as seen in touring other police
facilities. Veronica suggested re-labeling the community room to "multi-
purpose" room, especially since interagency meetings are held and locate
within the facility or nearby. Veronica said if we include that we can do
without it, we may be taken up on that and it be eliminated.
Jay said we need to balance and cater to current constraints and be visionary
to the future. We don’t want to ask for too much or cut it too close. We
shouldn’t spend all of this money and then end up with a cramped building.
Jay feels the community room is critical to public safety and not in a secured
portion of the building, which benefits community involvement, such as the
citizens’ police academy.
Veronica suggested including the numbers from the November 2005 meeting
and use gross estimates.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 4 of 12
Vic wants to be sure the building is designed to accommodate additional
space for future staffing changes. Vic also wants to be cautious about
technology changes and can’t assume less work, less staff, as technology
can create new problems. Margo said that shifting space and needs can be
accommodated in the building. John said the building design can be multi-
free standing with no bearing walls to free up space.
John agreed with everyone and commended the subcommittee for doing an
excellent job since February. John agreed we should rename the community
room and it is important to leave in. We’ve reduced the building size by
12,000 square feet and have completed the function of the committee.
Lanie said we need to speak to the real function and need in the report as it is
not readily understandable to the public. Lanie feels there is a good case to
keep the multi-purpose room. She also feels we’ve pared it down adequately
to meet today’s needs and the future’s.
Attachments:
Space needs assessment with footnotes. Margo and the
subcommittee with clean up the language and rename the community
room. Margo asked the committee to look at this document as if they
were the public with no background to ensure it’s easy to read and
understand. Lanie said this version looks good, but need to put into
Margo’s words for explanation. It was suggested to have Ray work on
the wording.
Comparative Police Data document that was distributed at February
15th meeting, which includes daytime populations. Include similar size
cities: Mt. View, Menlo Park and San Mateo.
Veronica suggested including an updated "Core and Satellite
Functions" document from Ross Drulis (distributed at March 2°d
meeting). Margo suggested a clearly stated note that it is not the
building design.
Statements for Report:
Ensure Council knows space subcommittee developed reductions.
Include November 2005 program the Council considered - staff will
check to make sure we’re doing this right. John suggested adding
"Council last saw" date, which is November. Karen agrees the building
size of around 60,000 square feet in 2005 is a known number.
Cautious statements regarding technology and can’t assume if there is
less work, less space is needed.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 5 of 12
John recommended statements relating to unique building
requirements (green building) and be sure to include critical points
relating to essential safety facility (Vic has this listed under"location").
Vic said there is unanimous agreement of what the right size of the building
should be and the space assessment report is not biased.
Veronica said "existing" square footage is missing from the space
assessment report and Margo will add it showing the gross square footage.
Vic wants to ensure when the design is done, it’s done to accommodate
additional space.
3. Location, Location, Location:
Vic spoke about building site selection and retrofit issues. Why haven’t we
looked at the Agilent Building? This type of question should be addressed in the
report. A retrofit of any existing building would be required to meet essential
service criteria. John mentioned Hospitals are investing billions in upgrades to
comply with current essential service standards.
Karen asked if the Co-Chairs have had contact with Essex Properties regarding
the Park Boulevard site. Lanie and k/ic have had a brief conversation to get a
feel of what they are thinking. Karen said zoning could add to the cost of that
site. Lanie said the PTOD rezoning is not approved yet. The developer is
arguing for the PTOD at this site. Once the BRTF report goes to Council then
Council would need to move quickly.
Karen recommended leaving the existing site on the list as well as Gilman due to
the possible additional costs of the Park Boulevard site. Vic said if there is a
concern of cost and a particular site has a strong desirable need then we should
include a statement to that affect to Council. The committee can’t negotiate with
the land owner and can’t speculate on the final land cost. Margo said we’re not
at a point of eliminating anything yet and we need the Civic Center to fall back
on.
John mentioned we could propose a land swap for a downtown lot. Vic said Lots
O and A were dropped for various reasons, one being the configuration. The
votes last week for the sites were: Park was the highest; Gilman and California
Avenue in the middle, and the existing site was at the bottom.
John commented on the list of 24 potential sites and all of the history with that
and the thorough review of looking at those sites. Jay mentioned the comments
on the website about the tons of empty buildings. Vic said we have done a
thorough job and narrowed down the list to a certain set of criteria and some
appeared to be better than others. Renovation is expensive, buying land is
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 6 of 12
expensive and replacing parking is expensive. There are risks of building an
essential service facility for sites with issues of liquefaction, flooding and
egress/ingress like properties along West Bayshore. John feels that public
acceptance is important and needs to be added in report.
Lanie said what we revisit the original site selection criteria and Park Boulevard
could be translated to other private sites that we didn’t look at, and Council could
apply to others as well. There might be underutilized City sites that are not in the
flood zone.
Vic said there is no need to need to have the public safety building as part of City
Hall building similar to what other cities have done. The site should be centrally
located and not in one part of town.
John suggested a specific site recommendation but an analysis of all of the sites
and include the prioritization. Karen recommended including, "based on facts we
knew at the time." Margo also recommended "depending on land cost and
availability of land," but acknowledge that Park is the top choice. Karen
rephrased, "based on careful consideratiod of criteria known to the committee
prior...
Veronica suggested starting with the preferred location and then speak about the
rest. Jay said to list the most important first.
Lanie asked if the space subcommittee would beworking on the other sections
as well or staff. Vic said the committee would develop the basic statements and
staff would write the report. Co-Chairs will review the draft then it will be
presented to the committee for review on June 1st. John suggested asking Ray
Bacchetti how much of the writing he is willing to do.
The question was asked about the timing of the PTOD and Nellie said there
would need to be an appraisal but she doesn’t think that zoning will make a
difference. She feels it would be okay to include the recommendation in the
report and Council would make the decision. Lanie said that Emily Harrison said
the PTOD would not occur until after the Council vacation and our report will be
out prior to that time.
Lanie asked about a joint EOC with Stanford. Jay said that Arrillaga is donating
a new public safety building to Stanford. Lynne said she would find out if an
EOC would be built.
Attachments:
Design of four sites (include looked at closely and why eliminated)
Statements for Report:
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 7 of 12
Criteria should include expansion and essential building facilities
Looked at sites.
Some not looked at: East Bayshore - difficult to build out there
(liquification, flooding issues, ingress/egress issue like West Bayshore).
Build to essential facilities, retrofit is expensive
Stanford land: Why would they want to provide it?
Include we’re not going to find an ideal site and it’s a difficult situation.
Vic asked the committee if we should include, "strongly encourage staff to
start negotiations with Park Boulevard," and everyone agreed.
The committee took a break at 11:00 a.m. and resumed the meeting at 11:10
5. Financin.q:
Joe Saccio introduced Sohail Bengali who is the City’s Financial Advisor. Joe
distributed a "financing options" document which included financing cost
estimates using Certificates of Participation (COPs) and GO Bonds. GO Bonds
would raise revenue and COPs would require a separate source of funding that
would need to be determined in advance of issuing COPs.
Jay asked if the City has a balanced budget or can General Fund be used. Joe
said General Fund (GF) could be used, but that would mean a reduction in
services or an increase in resources given current, balanced budget. Council
would need to make that determination. Jay asked if that was a legal
requirement or a City procedure. Sohail said the City would need to identify a
source of funding prior to issuing COPs. Jay asked if other cities use COPs and
Sohail said yes, but they pay for COPs from sales tax or other GF sources.
Karen stated, "Current Council policy states that new infrastructure must be
funded through new sources of funds. Should the Council decide to fund the
facility through a COP, I believe that a policy change would be required."
Joe went through the financing options document. He said information on Mello
Roos bonds, an Assessment District and Parcel Tax information from last
presentation were eliminated. Karen confirmed a parcel tax would be a revenue
raising mechanism and the revenue could be used to pay the lease. Karen
asked what the amount per parcel would be. Sohail estimated that with 20,000
parcels it would cost approximately $150 per year per parcel based on estimated
costs for a police building.
Jay asked if a parcel tax would require a 2/3 or a majority and the response was
a majority if the tax was for general purposes. Nellie said there isn’t much case
law relating to Prop 218. There would be a risk in designating parcel tax funds
going into the general fund but using those funds for a police building.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 8 of 12
Sohail explained that with COPs payment can not be forced on City until you
have use and occupancy. Therefore, you have capitalized interest requirements
for two years or until you move in. With GO Bonds, you make payments from
day one.
Joe has asked Pete to look at the Stanford contract and to verify they have paid
for capital improvements. Stanford’s new public safety building does not include
a Communications Center.
Vic asked if we can earmark savings in rental costs and utilities to put towards
the new building. Nellie doesn’t see a legal problem with using rental payments
as a source of funds for the new building. Veronica suggested the rental savings
could go against the debt service.
Lanie asked for per parcel taxes based on estimated costs as well as the lien on
real property based on current valuations if GO bonds were used. Lanie said
answers are needed from the Attorney’s Office regarding funding options prior to
writing the report. Discussion followed on the County’s use of A and B
Propositions in a tax election. Nellie will look into Prop 218 and a 2/3 vote
requirement.
For the current site, it was recommend that City oPerational efficiencies (such as
rent payments saved by staff moving to the police site in the Civic Center) be.
applied to financing once refurbishing costs are paid.
Staff could discuss/negotiate with Stanford to pay part of capital costs. Karen
also suggested discussing a shared EOC.
Lanie asked about the option of a lease/purchase. Nellie will have to discuss
with City Attorney Gary Baum before Friday’s meeting.
Vic asked if a parcel tax can be applied to operational costs and Joe said yes the
funds go into the general fund for capital and operational needs. Lynne said that
the Atherton Police Department is supported with a parcel tax.
Vic suggested reviewing and recommending the most effective financing
mechanism. Karen said a parcel tax allows for staff increases and operational
and capital costs. Lanie is concerned about being specific on funding with the
library recommendations going on the same night.
John asked if a matrix could be done with each funding source and the pros and
cons of each.
Karen asked about the TOT and Joe responded that-an increased TOT can raise
revenue as a source of funding.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 9 of 12
Vic said Council will see the different ideas and mechanisms available to pay for
this and looking at the City’s current assets.
Jay asked if additional fees could be added to our booking fees and fines. The
fee is currently $210 when someone is arrested. Joe said the money would go
into the general fund. Nellie will look into this for funding.
We’ll hold off on including parcels available to assist with financing. As long as
we provide information on the various funding options, we would not be providing
an incomplete product if we don’t make a specific recommendation on financing.
Statements for Report:
The least expensive option which is preferable is the GO Bond rather than
COPs and a lower cost approach would be a private site versus the Civic
Center site
Make recommendation to Council that savings from leased space should
be used for financing with Stanford paying their portion for
Communications services
Add GO Bond/COP information, include statement "looking at various
options."
Also add, "continue to explore different mechanisms."
Include the most effective way of paying. Also mention potential property
that might be "excess."
Attachments:
Add parcel tax with the amount charged for the average homeowner to the
GO Bond/COP matrix
Matrix with funding sources and pros and cons
4. Cost Factors:
The cost of the Gilman project in November was $48 million.
Mike Sartor said that actual costs won’t be determined until an EIR is completed
and staff is comfortable with the ranges that have been provided. Everyone
agreed to provide the ranges with a qualifier, "these are ranges, additional work
needs to be done for cost and financing mechanism."
Attachments:
Cost matrix (provided by Michael Ross at May 9th meeting).
Statements for Report:
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 10 of 12
Explain why retrofitting is more expensive and the cost of private land is to
be determined. Cost of building and parking garage verses buying land.
Include statement that estimates are not for budgeting purposes but for
comparison only.
6. Council Report and Public Outreach:
Lanie said a writing assignment is needed. Vic mentioned that the report should
identify how often the BRTF met.
John asked about Council Member Cordell attending a meeting to be briefed.
Lanie said she purposefully didn’t attend meetings and she and Vic will meet with
her.
Veronica will develop a Powerpoint presentation with high points in a larger
public outreach document. A summary presentation will be given to Council.
John is glad about the public safety aspect and the EOC focus as an emergency
preparedness center. It’s been 100 years since we had a major earthquake and
questioned what would happen if the City’s vital facility could not respond. We
need to get the public engaged and change the focus away from just fighting
crime.
Veronica said the public meeting is moved from May 24th to Thursday, May 25th
and the public outreach subcommittee is working on the structure of the meeting.
Attachments:
All meeting notes
Statements for Report:
Number of meetings (total meeting hours)
Tours of buildings
Subcommittees
Public meeting/stakeholder meeting
Website
Future l~leetinqs
Lanie explained the deliberations meeting on Friday, May 19th will be the same
as today but will include members who could not attend today. The May 19th
meeting will be held at the Lucie Stern Community Center, Fireside Room, from
1-5 p.m. Everyone is welcome to attend but it is not mandatory.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 11 of 12
Oral Communications
George Browning thanked the committee for their time and work on the project.
George suggested that the BRTF website address be included on all documents
and for the committee to be specific as often as possible on the need of a new
building. George also recommended providing the City Council with an
advanced copy of the report to allow review time and questions ahead of time.
George said for anything that is offsite would be anything that is not needed right
away such as evidence. Everything else should be on site, especially hazardous
materials equipment. George also recommended it not be a split facility.
Vic commended George for being a dedicated resident. Lanie thanked George
for his help with things the committee may not have thought of.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/12/06 Page 12 of 12
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Special Meeting
Lucie Stern Community Center
Fireside Room
1305 Middlefield Road
May 19, 2006
Approved by Co-Chairs
BRTF Website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafetybuildinq/
Roll Call
Committee Members:
Vic Ojakian, (Co-Chair)
Lanie Wheeler, (Co-Chair)
Ray Bacchetti
Harold Boyd
Margo Dutton
Dan Dykwel
John King
Peter Stone
Karen White
Staff Liaison:
Elizabeth Ames, Sr. Engineer,
Public Works Engineering
Staff:
Mike Sartor, Asst. Director, Public
Works Engineering
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of
Administrative Services
Barbara Teixeira, Administrative
Assistant
Introductory Remarks
Co-Chair Lanie Wheeler called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Lanie explained this
meeting is the same agenda as the May 12th meeting and Harold, John and Peter were
not able to attend that one. The committee has moved quickly in research various
elements over the last few months and also made some decisions at last Friday’s
meeting. We need opinions and insights on the recommendations. If the committee
does not feel comfortable for any reason, there is still time to change decisions. Lanie
explained that after today’s meeting, the report to Council will be drafted and Ray has
agreed to take on that responsibility. The committee will then reviews and refine the
draft at the June 1St meeting.
Approval of Meetin_q Notes
Since only three committee members from the May 12th meeting were present, it was
decided to postpone the approval until the next meeting. (The May 9th and 12th meeting
notes need approving.)
Committee Deliberations, Public Communications/Outreach and Financinq
Lanie spoke about the questions that Vic has developed and the committee has been
addressing starting from early this year. From these questions, we can determine
whether we agree with the conclusions and flesh the thoughts out you want to convey to
Council. This will lead the committee to its recommendations to Council. Committee
members who are present today will review and determine preliminary conclusions for
the purpose of drafting the report to include thoughts to convey to Council. Lanie
continued to discuss the amount of detail that has been reviewed. The report needs to
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 1 of 9
be our story to Council and needs to be readable. The report will also consist of many
appendices and attachments and would like the committee to decide what attachments
would be valuable.
1 ) Justification
Lanie explained that for this section of the report we would refer to the problem
statement explaining the need for a new and expanded facility.
John King feels the problem statement clearly demonstrates the need for a new and
expanded facility.
Harold Boyd asked if we have a sufficient amount of information to support the
recommendation and also suggested including the public’s pros and cons. Lanie
responded the Public Outreach Subcommittee will be getting this type of testimony at the
May 25th public meeting. The subcommittee would also like to have professionals
(probation officers, other personnel from other agencies) who from their point of view
have worked in the current facility to speak at the meeting as well. This type of
information could be incorporated into the report for personalization.
Peter Stone said that a substantial part of the community questions the need for a new
and expanded facility and Lanie agreed that most are probably unaware of the problem.
Peter recommended adding a streaming video onto the Website for the public to view.
Lanie mentioned a virtual tour would be helpful. The photos that were published in the
Weekly may perceive the problem as a "housekeeping" issue and until someone has
actually walked through the building they are not able to understand.
Margo Dutton asked about the possibility of scheduling public tours and Police Chief
Lynne Johnson agreed that this could possibly be done. Margo suggested the virtual
tour be the second option. Margo agreed with the idea of having professional testimony
providing definitive reasons why the current building doesn’t work.
Co-Chair Vic Ojakian said that meeting notes would be included as attachments to the
report and we need to have notes taken at the upcoming public meeting. Vic suggested
first stating the justification including the reasons we have for doing this.
Lanie mentioned that in addition to attaching the problem statement we will attach an
expanded version of the crime stats document adding Mountain View, Menlo Park and
San Mateo to the spreadsheet. Between now and then we’ll get as much information as
possible.
Attachment:
Problem statement
Expanded version of crime statistics document to include Mountain View, San
Mateo and Menlo Park.
2)Proposed Public Safety Buildinq Size:
Margo spoke about the proposed size being the final, minimum building size. The matrix
in the packet today is not the final version as it was expanded at the last meeting but
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 2 of 9
wanted committee members to work from the same document. Margo again
commended staff (Elizabeth, Hung, Mike, Lynne and Pete) on their hard work. They
have been cooperative, responsive and have done an excellent job.
Margo spoke about the proposed 48,177 sq. ft. building and that it does not include the
property warehouse, which could be offsite.
Margo also explained that if the public safety building is at City Hall then the
community/training room may not need to be included. Margo feels the community is
not just a nice thing to have and would be accessible by the public and would be large
enough to conduct the citizens’ academy sessions, as well as multi-agency law
enforcement-related meetings. The multi-purpose room would make the Police
Department more available to the public; more user friendly and could be used for
neighborhood meetings. If we do not include the community/training/multi-purpose
room, then we would need to increase the size of the existing conference rooms.
Margo then explained that the property warehouse square footage has decreased due to
certain pieces of that being separated out into other areas. Staff feels that the space is
appropriate.
Margo spoke about the parking square footage increases as the changes are in line with
patrol scheduling from 3 to 5 shifts and there were staffing changes.
Dan Dykwel suggested adding additional criteria to include a community room and not
just dependent upon the location of the building. Dan said there could be other locations
for large meetings such as the libraries. Dan feels that we include the large room it will
add to the expense of the building if built to essential services standards.
Lynne feels it is important to include a large community room especially when there is a
crime spree occurring and we’re meeting with other agencies. This has become a more
frequent occurrence and our existing conference rooms are not large enough and it is
not appropriate to meet at other locations besides meeting at City Hall.
Dan said when he visited other agencies that their rooms were not used frequently and
were "nice to .have." Margo responded that space is not at such a premium as it is in
Palo Alto.
Harold said that a community room could also accommodate future growth and allow for
positive interactions with the community.
John is in favor of the community room and saw other agencies use their rooms to
accommodate 40+ officers in a training session. The room could also be used for
educating student groups to learn about law enforcement. Lynne said we currently use
our lobby when we have student groups come into the Police Department.
Vic said the community room was included in a prior spreadsheet. Ray suggested the
spreadsheet have a comparison of where we started to now.
Margo said that if the room is eliminated, it would not reduce the square footage by
1,200 square feet and the size of the other conference rooms would need to be
increased and would not be accessible to the public.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 3 of 9
Lanie said the green building (atrium) square footage is a City standard for new buildings
and is a cost factor, but after it is constructed and being used there is a payback due to
the use of natural resources.
Dan asked for clarification on the parking changes. Margo explained the difference
between the Ross Drulis report to now. Patrol has transitioned from a three-shift
schedule to five shifts where there is currently more overlap. Dan questioned the
decrease in parking structure square footage. Margo clarified the parking reduction was
due to a refinement on the number of parking spaces. She stated that 10 less patrol
vehicles and10 less employee spaces were required, so that’s why it reduced from
approximately 125,000 square feet to approximately 90,000 square feet. Margo said that
Pete did an analysis of actual vehicles and recalculated the number of parking spaces
needed. We’ll also add the Keenan square footage proposal.
Lanie asked if the recommended size accommodate unforeseen growth in space needs.
After some discussion, all agreed that a portion of the community room space could be
flexible and used for future staff. Michael Ross has also incorporated exterior balcony
space which would permit construction of future walls.
Mike Sartor said an essential service facility (ESF) outlined in the building code clearly
identifies emergency response buildings (police, fire, hospitals) and requires the building
to have 25 percent higher shear resistance and 50 percent increase in structural
elements to withstand seismic forces. This equates to approximately a 50 percent
increase in construction costs above what a standard building would cost.
Ray asked if this applied to the total structure or just part of the building. Mike said it
could be applied to only Communications and the EOC. Mike will provide Ray with a
copy of the code to assist with writing the report.
Dan asked if the expense for the ESF building and parking underground would be offset
by having it separate from the facility. Mike said the parking structure could be next
door, which is the way Michael Ross showed the layout.
Lanie also said we would add the comparative building sizes for Mountain View, Menlo
Park and San Mateo, as well as the acreage comparisons. Dan recommended showing
the size of the parcel each city has as a comparison.
Statement in Report:
¯Include in report what is required in essential facility standards.
¯Need to answer questions of why we can’t buy a vacant building.
Attachment:
Spreadsheet to include one more column with the November 15th Council
meeting project (Keenan proposal). These are the last figures Council has seen.
¯Chart with comparative data of facilities toured (add Mountain View, Menlo Park
and San Mateo). Dan recommended adding the actual acreage of the lot.
¯Core and Support Services document from Ross Drulis.
¯John suggested including photos of facilities that were toured. We’ll try to do
this.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 4 of 9
3) Location, Location, Location
Lanie spoke about the exercise at the May 9th meeting. Michael Ross provided picture
of various sites and the building layouts. Lots A and O were eliminated as they were too
complex and problematic to construct a building and parking on these sites. The
committee ranked the sites as follows:
1 - Park Boulevard (unanimous)
2 - Gilman Street
3 - California Avenue
4 - Forest Avenue (current site)
Lanie asked Harold, John, Peter and Dan for their input on the rankings since they were
not at the May 9th meeting.
Harold said he did not disagree with the rankings but he would have put California
Avenue at #2 even with the large vocal group opposing that site. Lanie said this was a
political decision that weighed more heavily.
John agreed with the rankings due to the additional cost with replacing the parking.
Lanie said that Gilman and California Avenue have the same parking costs that result in
a bigger expense. John asked what the number of parking spaces on the Gilman site
would have to be replaced. Mike responded approximately 50 and the parking would be
replaced with a four-level parking structure. The developer’s proposal wanted additional
parking that would need to be negotiated. The Civic Center parking may provide spaces
for those who occupy a new building at Gilman.
Peter agreed with the rankings.
Vic said that drawings provided by Michael Ross show that buildings can be constructed
on the sites. Lanie said the designs are two-story buildings with underground parking.
John mentioned that the CalTrain station parking lot is half empty all the time. Lynne
said some of that parking is permit parking.
Lanie mentioned if we reclaim the right of way on Sheridan Avenue then we could add
more surface parking. Mike said if we do take that area we could use the retaining wall
as part of the police structure.
Lanie said we do have site criteria that we will include in the report.
John asked about the ability to negotiate with the Park Boulevard land owner. Lanie
explained they have had preliminary discussions with the owner and the committee can
recommend to Council to initiate a conversation with the owners as soon as possible.
The owners have plans for housing but have not acquired the zoning yet.
Dan asked if it is re-zoned will that increase the cost of the property. Lanie said the
appraisal would be for the best/highest use anyway regardless of the zoning. Mike feels
that our cost ranges are good.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 5 of 9
Peter said that if eminent domain were used it would take a long time before court
proceedings would begin and attorney’s fees would increase the cost even more, so a
negotiated price is the best option. Lanie said it would be Council’s decision whether or
not to use eminent domain. Vic said it has been used a couple of times in the past.
Vic asked for a correction to the May 12th notes, page 8, "strongly encourage staff and
Council to start negotiations." Peter feels this statement could affect the property cost
going up or down. Mike has met with City Attorney Gary Baum regarding the steps for
land acquisition and he recommended directing staff to begin "a property acquisition
process based on an appraisal and review the environmental status of the site." At
some point we can have a closed session with Council regarding cost implications. Mike
will have this statement available prior to the June 1st meeting. Gary Baum and Carl
Yeats will review the report.
Lanie has learned that if the Park Boulevard site doesn’t work out then Council can take
the information provided on private land and apply it to other sites.
Lanie also said the committee discussed rejected sites as well due to seismic and
geologic considerations (East and West Bayshore). We would need to include
information on why we chose not to look closely at those sites (flood zone, liquefaction).
There was also discussion about Stanford land and that Stanford is in the process of
building a new public safety building as a result of a private donor (Arrillaga). Peter
asked if we had approached the private donor and Lanie said not yet. Lanie also
mentioned that other private funding could be obtained. Ray asked about a joint building
at College and El Camino (Escondido Village) and Lanie responded that that site is
slated for housing.
Vic said we need to make clear in the report that we have closely looked at various sites.
Margo suggested including an attachment with the rejected sites, including Stanford.
Vic said that Park Boulevard has an advantage of acquiring 25 acres of public land and it
is centrally located. Lanie also mentioned Jay’s comment that it is close to the
courthouse, which could reduce operating costs for booking and time driving back and
forth.
Attachments:
¯Large attachment from Michael Ross of sketches for each site (distributed at May
9th meeting).
¯List of eliminated sites
4) Cost Factors
Lanie said it has been determined that private land is the most cost-effective option.
Ray said it doesn’t matter where they start and location has some meaning but they
police patrol throughout the city and is indifferent to location unless you do business in
the building. Vic clarified location meaning it’s the right site versus the actual place.
Margo asked if there would be a problem with access to Oregon if traffic is backed up
and Elizabeth said that Lynne stated that was a constraint and is identified on the site
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 6 of 9
matrix. Dan asked what traffic might be like when the Agilent building becomes
populated. Lanie said there would need to be some consideration to a traffic solution.
Ray asked if a dedicated road across the tracks to the facility and Elizabeth responded
the railroad would not allow at grade crossings. Ray asked if Oregon overpass is built at
earthquake standards and Mike wasn’t sure.
Attachments:
¯Cost matrix dated 5/9/06 completed by staff
5) Public Safety Buildinq Financin.q:
Joe Saccio said the most challenging task of the project will be how to pay for it. Joe
reviewed the financing options document, which provided cost information on GO Bonds
and Certificates of Participation (COPs). GO Bonds raises a new revenue source,
requires a 2/3 vote, and can’t be used for the acquisition of fixed equipment. COPs do
not require voter approval but do require a revenue stream or cutting City expenditures
to pay for this. With the matrix showing various options (public, private and Civic
Center), the GO Bonds appear to be less expensive. Staff would need to meet with
Stanford to discuss Stanford’s contribution towards the communications center
improvements. Also, the City could off-set debt service from off-site rented facilities if
they relocate into the Civic Center and after you recover costs of the refurbishing.
Dan asked why Council is asking the committee to look at this when it is a political issue
and not a facilities issue. Lanie said that the charge of the committee is vague but that
we can provide information and it would be their decision. Lanie said the best the
committee can do is lay out the options/possibilities as Council is also looking at libraries
and the $3 million per year infrastructure funding. Council will have to make the
decisions but we can give them a range of options only.
Ray mentioned if we’re vague and the libraries are direct then it looks like we didn’t do
our work. Ray asked if BRTF and LAC could construct similar recommendations. Betsy
Allyn mentioned that staff rejected the LAC’s recommendation to build a new building as
they only want to improve the existing one.
Lanie said as a result of the May 12th meeting, Financial Consultant Sohail Bengali wil!
provide the financial impact on a typical Palo Alto homeowner for both the GO Bond
financing and parcel tax.
Peter said the committee is not capable of making a funding recommendation. Margo
agreed that the information would be an educational tool for the public and Council.
Mike met with Gary and the parcel tax would require a 2/3 vote but he is unsure about a
City sales tax and TOT. Auto sales tax would apply only to Palo Alto residents.
Lanie said the June 2008 election is Council’s target date for a GO Bond. John asked if
the committee should rank the funding options. Harold said no and Karen seconded it.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 7 of 9
Lanie said we will provide all of the information to Council and the range of options. Joe
said the committee will have the parcel tax information next week and the GO Bond cost
per parcel.
Peter raised the issue of absentee property owners and whether or not non-resident
property owners should pay the parcel tax as a GO/parcel tax in Santa Clara County is
causing settlements.
Statement in Report:
¯Speak about freed rent space to offset cost of refurbishing costs
¯Contribution from Stanford for Communications services only. The
Department will discuss with Stanford
¯Include "looking at various options and exploring funding mechanisms"
Police
6) PA Council Report and Public Outreach
Ray has agreed to write the report and there will be many attachments. Ray will write a
two page summary.
Lanie and Vic will be meeting with each Council Member to reinforce reading beyond the
summary.
Karen spoke about the public outreach subcommittee. The public meeting is next
Thursday, May 25 and hopefully most, if not all, of the committee can attend. An outline
will be provided to the public showing where we started and what we’ve come to. A fact
sheet will also be distributed and Elizabeth will send that out today to members. Dan
suggested starting with the original charge of the task force. Karen said they will start
with where everyone agrees and work from there. Dan suggested including a
roadmap/schedule for a bond in 2008.
Advertisements have been sent to the Daily and Weekly and a press release will be
done. Karen has sent meeting notifications to her neighborhood list group. Karen said
there are two other big meetings occurring the same night.
Distribute at Public Meetin,q:
¯Powerpoint
¯Fact sheet
7) Other Considerations
¯Updates to the Website reflecting the change to "public safety."
Karen said the emphasis should be on public safety (flood, earthquake) first before
crime.
Lanie mentioned to the extent you can plan/design the building that we allow for
rearranging of interior spaces as this will help us with changes in technology.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 8 of 9
Doris Dahlgren spoke about an avian flu scenario where officers’ equipment is stored off
site and officers are quarantined. Margo responded that there would be onsite storage
for some equipment as well as sleeping quarters. Doris also mentioned how important it
is for people to feel comfortable interacting with police officers. Doris appreciated
Harold’s comments regarding positive interactions with officers as welt.
Dan asked where Fire Administration is located and he was told at City Hall. Mike said
Fire has the lead role in the EOC. Vic said there aren’t any changes planned for Fire
Administration at this time. Some fire stations have already been renovated and three to
be replaced but can continue operations until that time.
Ray said the committee needs to be protective of public safety and the taxpayers’ money
or they’ll lose credibility.
Betsy said the library survey included questions about new technology and should be
included for public safety building as well.
Dan said we should include functions that are not included in the new facility such as a
firing range and any other regional police functions/exercises. The report should also
note the limited number of holding cells, etc.
Vic mentioned the report should note there are a lot of advantages with technology, but
identity theft and similar white-collar crimes have increased. There is a public perception
that the technology is a panacea.
Future Meetin.qs
The public meeting is Thursday, May 25. The next committee meeting is on June 1st
and will review the draft report. Ray will have the draft to Elizabeth by May 30.
Oral Communications
No speakers present.
Meetin.q Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Public Safety Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/19/06 Page 9 of 9
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)
Special Public Meeting
Lucie Stem Community Center
Community Room
1305 Middlefield Road
May 25, 2006
Approved by Co-Chairs
BRTF Website: www.ci _tyofpaloalto.org!publicsafetybuildin~
Roll Call
Committee Members:
Vic Ojakian, (Co-Chair)
Lanie Wheeler, (Co-Chair)
Ray Bacchetti
Jay Boyarsky
Harold Boyd
Paula Collins
Margo Dutton
John King
Veronica Tincher
Staff:
Mike Sartor, Asst. Director, Public
Works Engineering
Lynne Johnson, Police Chief
Pete Hazarian, Police Senior Administrator
Hung Nguyen, Associate Engineer
Public Works Engineering
Consultant:
Michael Ross, Principal Architect
RossDrulisCusenbery, Architecture Inc.
Introductory Remarks
Vic Ojakian called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and welcomed the people from the
public. He said the purpose of this BRTF meeting was to report on the study of a Palo
Alto Public Safety Facility, and would like public comment before presenting its final
recommendations to the City Council. Tonight’s public meeting gives interested citizens
a chance to ask questions and give comments to the Task Force.
This meeting comes as a result of the City Council’s authorization to form the BRTF,
comprised of a cross section of volunteers from the community. The City Council
identifies a Public Safety Building as a top priority. Meetings have been conducted from
January through May to evaluate the needs, sites, review costs and bring those
recommendations to City Council in June, 2006.
Task Force Presentation
Please refer to the attached slides "Keeping Palo Alto Safe Today and Tomorrow"
prepared by the BRTF. The first speaker for the evening was Ray Bacchetti and his topic
deals with "Safety Inadequacies". Ray said the current facility at 275 Forest Avenue was
designed nearly forty years ago (1967) as part of the City Center complex. As early as
1985, overcrowding was evident, and a needs assessment was called for, as were two
more between then and 1998. The third of them followed the 1997 Council direction to
staff "to initiate the formal process needed for site selection and construction of a new
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/25/06 Page 1 of 7
public safety building." That action had identified "numerous deficiencies with the
current police facility." Among them were failure to conform to current State legal
standards and codes; programmatic needs relating to property and evidence, detention,
facility support and warehouse functions; and deficiencies in prisoner processing,
evidence processing, handling, and storage. A May, 2004 report by the Santa Clara
County Grand Jury confirmed the evidence and property handling deficiencies.
From these facts and the prior needs assessments, we knew that the record was long and
the confirmation of need was amply documented in that record. But confirmation in the
record, while clearly important, was not what we looked at first. We needed to be
convinced by our own assessment so we undertook our own study. It included:
A close examination of the current building and probing conversations
with those who work in it
Highly informative comparison tours of four neighboring police or public
safety buildings (Redwood City, Mountain View, Fremont, and. Santa
Clara). These were built between the late 1970s and 2000.
Presentations by public safety officialsl city staff, and the architect,
Michael Ross, who is consulting with the City on this project
Research in City documents and on the Internet, and comparative
statistical analyses
Comparisons of the current facility with general standards for such
facilities
It is the combination of all of these that led us to our recommendation that the City needs
to act without delay on a building that will make Palo Alto safer on a day-by-day basis
and in the case of a large scale or catastrophic event.
Ray said there are eight points we need to discuss.
1. Disaster Response would be at a minimum. One of the biggest concerns in California
is earthquakes. Public safety buildings must now meet what is called "essential facility"
standards. It is required by code that the building is still able to function following a
major earthquake. The current building does not meet these standards. 9-1-1 emergency
response, dispatch and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) could be unavailable in
the event of a major earthquake or other disaster.
2. The 9-1-1 Dispatch area is too small with inadequate ventilation.
3. DNA Evidence was not a part of police investigations when the original building was
designed. DNA is now a major element of crime fighting. These elements often need
refrigeration and special facilities and equipment to secure and store it for long periods.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/25/06 Page 2 of 7
The current building does not meet the legal standards for processing this type of
evidence.
4. We should have a separate air handling system.
5. Wiring and computer infrastructure is outdated and inadequate for modern crime-
fighting technology. The electric power is very outdated. We need much more than we
ever contemplated when this building was built. We live on the edge and need much
more power in a newer structure.
6. Transfer of Prisoners - There is no secure way to transfer prisoners from vehicles into
the building, or to keep juvenile and adult offenders separate at certain stages of the
booking process, which is required by law. Most places have a SallyPort to hold
prisoners to be moved to a holding cell. We do not have this Port. Holding cells need to
be separated to avoid congestion and gives greater chance for escape. We have a
crowded situation here.
7. There is no room at the present to interview victims or witnesses who have been
injured, frightened, or otherwise traumatized, in a safe, secure, private and comfortable
area. Locating a private space to interview identity theft victims is a major concern these
days. Currently, people are interviewed in the public lobby of the Police Department.
This is a very inadequate method and leaves the City very vulnerable at this time.
8. The facility is very overcrowded and operational layout poorly organized for modern
crime fighting. Cramped facility makes recruitment and retention of officers
problematic. This also places the City of Palo Alto at a great risk. The City needs a
better, larger, and brought up to codes facility - the sooner the better.
The next speaker was Margo Dutton regarding size assessment. The BRTF closely
analyzed the current building and its functionality and determined that the building does
not meet current needs. There is not enough functional square footage to service the
people for the City of Palo Alto. Figures were taken from earlier studies, reviewed them
and then did our own due diligence. Our analysis confirmed that the existing building is
severely overcrowded, and poorly organized. Special thanks to Chief Lynne Johnson, her
staff and Public Works staff, we have established a size for the future of 49,000 square
feet, which is appropriately sized for now and into the future. The BRTF size
recommendation is 15% less than the original estimate. The big issues in the near future
are High tech crime such as computer and identify theft and community policing which
must be dealt with. Community policing is a concept that was not used when the current
building was first designed. We also did meet with other local experts and toured their
public safety facilities. We on the BRTF significantly reduced size by 15% from earlier
estimates.
Michael Ross from RossDrulisCusenbery, Architecture, Inc. (RDC) has been working
with City staff on the project for 8 years. RDC acted as a facility planning resource to the
Task Force during the study process. The Task Force’s study process was largely
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/25/06 Page 3 of 7
independent from RDC. RDC provided input on an as needed basis. RDC provided input
to the Task Force on the requirements of the California Building Code’s Essential
Services Building Act regarding the design of Essential Service Buildings. Essential
Services Building means any building which is designed to be used as a fire station,
police building, emergency operations center, CHP office, sheriff’s office or emergency
dispatch center. By definition the new Palo Alto Public Safety Building is an essential
services building. An essential services building requires specialized, design,
engineering, construction and inspection processes. Essential services buildings are
designed to remain operational following a major earthquake or other natural disaster.
Essential service buildings require more robust structural, mechanical and other building
systems.
Another study completed by the Task Force was the identification of the "Core" and
"Satellite" Police Building functional areas. This study was developed to help establish
the optimum building size. This study identified the primary components of a Police
Station and the related components that do not necessarily need to be directly adjacent to,
or on site with, the main Police Building. Core functional areas require co location with
in an essential facility. Satellite components do not require co location with the Core
functions. Some areas (property and evidence warehouse for example) do not require
essential service design. Satellite functions can be located remote from the main police
facility. Michael Ross provided a slide which identified the typical functional areas found
in a Public Safety Building. These areas include: Administration, Patrol, Records,
Investigations, Traffic, Property and Evidence and Detention. These areas are typically
considered Core Police functions and are located in an essential facility. Other functions
such as 911 Emergency Communications, Emergency Operations Center, Property and
Evidence storage and warehouse and the multi-purpose room can be remotely located.
The benefits of co location of like functions include: sharing of costly essential facility
building infrastructure, sharing of specialized seismic engineering systems, sharing of
emergency generators and other building systems. Some jurisdictions have adopted a
split facility approach for their Police Buildings. In particular property and evidence
storage, the bulk warehouse and other ancillary functions can be located separate from
the main building. The Community Room is an important function but could be located
offsite if necessary. Some jurisdictions do not include a community room in their police
building if that function can be located near by. Michael Ross recommended
consolidating as much of the Public Safety Building functional areas with in the essential
facility and on one site if feasible.
Lanie Wheeler spoke on the Site Assessment Process. Lanie asked where will we place
this facility? There was a list of 20 sites over the years.
We developed criteria which we measured against each site to try to leave no piece of
property unturned in the City and added a couple of sites on our own. We added an
adequate size as the smaller the site the less you are likely to accommodate everything in
one location. We applied the necessary criteria to each site? Such as requiring vehicular
access on at least 2 sides of the building, etc. Another criteria we included was the
proximity of the new building to other public safety related sites. For example, locating
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/25/06 Page 4 of 7
the new building near the North County Courthouse, allows officers to access to the
Court more efficiently. In addition, we looked at the ability of the police to service the
entire community. The police adequately serves the community from the present
location, but could be better if they were more centrally located. We evaluated the
impact of the location on the surrounding neighborhood, impact on our business
community and finally we looked at relative cost of each of the site locations.
A new or renovated facility is going to cost quite a bit of money, and we looked at some
criteria and several cost factors such as new construction versus an older building and
remodeling. The task force thought it was worth it to at least look at a piece of property
that was in private hands. Replacement of current parking is required at the California or
Gilman site parking lots. It would be the obligation of the City to not only replaces the
parking that would be lost to merchants, but maybe even enhance the parking provided.
The current facility has a cost of temporarily relocating the 911 communications center as
well as the police functions which would have to keep going. There are currently no
State or Federal matching funds available to help defray cost of new building. There
might be some in 2 or 3 years. The task force and the City Council will keep looking for
those funds. It is difficult to give figures for a project 2 or 3 years down the road.
Figures are not finalized before they are actually real. It appears the lowest cost
alternative could be the use of the private site, particularly if that site is vacant or under
utilized at the moment. California Avenue and Gilman Parking lots are the most
expensive alternatives along with staying at the current site and trying to rebuild - These
are the least cost effective solutions.
Public Comment:
The process for drafting the report will begin at our next meeting is on June 1st. The task
force is meeting with the City Council on June 19th and on June 26th. The June 26th
meeting is the formal hearing at City Council and they will either accept our report or
send us back to do more work. At the present time, what we need is to hear from you.
There are several people here tonight to address the concerns of the people. Lynne
Johnson will be the timekeeper and we will jot down information that you wish to share.
Let’s keep the comments at about 5 minutes per person. Lanie said that this is the finest
group she has worked with in a long time.
Let’s start with Tony Montooth: Tony is representing California Avenue. Tony said that
he first heard about this possibility a long time ago and since has spoken with many of
the merchants of California Avenue district. He said the general consensus is that it
would devastate business. Merchants would not be happy about this at all. Park Avenue
seems the perfect spot to him - best place to put the building and it would be a benefit to
all. However, when you finally make the decision, everyone should rally behind and
support this new building because a lot of work has been done by this Committee.
Terry Holzemer spoke next. He is the President of the Palo Alto Central Residential
Association in the California Avenue neighborhood. Terry thanked the BRTF group for
all the work done. One little quick comment about the Task Force is that Terry wished
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/25/06 Page 5 of 7
that our neighborhood had a representative on the Committee. He is a supporter of
businesses and residents in California Avenue. There are tremendous problems in this
area and we also have some concerns about Park Blvd. Could there be some groundwater
contamination issues? Also, homeowners always have concerns about traffic. This
comer already has a tremendous amount of traffic and wanted to know how this will
affect the flow and how this will impact our neighborhood. No one really objects about
the Police Building itself- that is needed - it is the parking. California Avenue is a
residential area also and the people live in that area. Just keep that in mind and keep us in
the loop as you progress to the final.
Lanie interjected at this point to say that she assured everyone who is concerned about
groundwater contamination and traffic that when the Council takes their actions and
before they begin a design these issues will be addressed in the environmental studies and
then will be reviewed again by the boards and commissions.
Peter Katz addressed the Committee and stated that he was a brand new merchant in
California Avenue. He said when he first heard about this and everyone was so excited,
he actually started to lose some sleep. We choose this area because it is a great area and
would hate to see it change. He said he would be devastated by this and the impact that it
would have on a small businesses. He is not in favor of California Avenue location. He
is worried that "dead zone" can come there. When you get too much heaviness it will kill
the businesses. He supports the other merchants and said Park Blvd. site is better.
Lanie invited other speakers to come forth. Julie Downey asked if the property on Park
Blvd. was actually available. Lanie said she did not have the answer. We can have a
negotiated agreement with a private owner - we don’t know that it is available. That part
is done by the City Council. The City also has the right to eminent domain that the Task
Force would not recommend. We have done the homework to look at a privately owned
site; and then that can be our homework and conclusions that can be applied to another
site that does have a willing owner.
Jessica Roth spoke next. She is a 4th generation small business owner on California
Avenue. She is really not for this police station on our street. Having all these and other
businesses in one area and having construction for 2 years - choose Park Avenue Site.
She is in favor of a new station but not on California Avenue.
George Browning - First I want to mention that Police Department needs a more modem
structure. He has attended all the meetings so far and has followed the questions and
answers from the Committee. You have been very thorough; conclusions are focused and
well considered. Not everyone will be satisfied with whatever is decided. It will be done
on what is good for the community. It is again for the benefit of all. When you have
made the decision, everyone should rally behind and support this new building.
Vic closed the meeting by making sure everyone had the website address:
http://www.CityofPaloAlto.org/publicsafetybuildin~
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/25/06 Page 6 of 7
Vic and Lanie are available after the meeting for those who wish to speak with them
individually.
Oral Communications:
No speakers present.
Ad,[ournment:
Meeting attendance included 34 people (17 public members, 8 committee members, 7
staff and 2 reporters).
Though he didn’t speak, one of the Park Ave. property owners (Loren
Brown) was in attendance.
On behalf of the Committee, Vic thanked everyone for coming. Meeting adjourned at
8:25 p.m.
Public Safety Building Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 5/25/06 Page 7 of 7
uJ
~ 8 ~
I
I
J. _L .......
II
1
II
II
l,l,l