|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Having seen plans for a brand new police building collapse in a financial downturn, Palo Alto officials are now considering the next best thing: a refurbished police headquarters expanding out from its current location behind City Hall.
But the less expensive options come with their own pitfalls and controversies, the City Council discovered Monday night as it reviewed a new analysis of design alternatives. And even remodeling and expanding the present headquarters could cost many millions of dollars.
An expanded Police Department could require the city to reduce the number of parking spaces at City Hall; appropriate part of the Downtown Library (a longtime political hot potato); and use the Council Chambers for police functions.
The council reiterated its commitment to improving police facilities, which are undersized and seismically unsound. But as in the past city officials disagreed over whether Palo Alto should continue to think big or whether it should settle for more manageable, incremental changes.
The city has been dreaming of a new public safety building for close to two decades and has conducted numerous studies on the subject. Last year, the city’s latest bid for a new building faltered because of a financial downturn, which forced the city to terminate its purchase options on two Park Boulevard properties that would have been the site for a new $68 million headquarters building.
The new report estimates that a new building would now cost about $48 million, not counting the cost of the land. That’s about $10 million more than expanding the current facility, the report states.
Given the economic realities, which include a projected $7.3 million gap in fiscal year 2011, several council members said they would favor considering a more “incremental” approach to improving the police facility.
Mayor Pat Burt compared the city’s 17-year quest for a new police building as a case of a “greyhound chasing a mechanical rabbit” and said the city should pursue building a new Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as soon as possible.
The EOC, which is one of central components of the new police facility, could be constructed at City Hall, at an offsite facility or next to the existing police building on Forest Avenue, according to the study by the engineering firm Hohbach-Lewin, Inc., and its consultant, Stoecker-Northway Architects.
“Without an Emergency Operations Center, in the event of a major catastrophe we can be in real trouble,” Burt said. “If we were to rank the priorities that are associated with the police building, we have a lot of needs that are unmet, that’s probably the highest one.”
Councilman Greg Scharff agreed and proposed including a new Emergency Operations Center in the city’s capital-improvement budget. Scharff said it’s important for the city to “get off the dime and do something after 17 years.”
The Hohbach-Lewin report suggested one idea might be expanding the facility into the site of Downtown Library, across the street from the police building. Vice Mayor Sid Espinosa was the only council member who said he would oppose any plan that would rely on library space, calling such a plan “not an option.”
A more likely alternative would include expanding the police headquarters into Level A at City Hall, an area currently occupied by the city’s print shop, cafeteria, mailing room and filing area.
City Manager James Keene said the Palo Alto’s financial struggles have forced the city to reexamine and possibly change the way its departments function — changes that could create new opportunities for an expanded police building.
The city, for instance, is already considering laying off workers at its print shop and outsourcing printing to save money.
“There are potential for opportunities that haven’t been there in the past,” Keene said. “We’re having to rethink and re-look at everything we do.”
Councilwoman Gail Price argued against the incremental approach and said she would still prefer to see a brand new police building on a new site. She said she would be concerned about “jury-rigging” something as crucial as a police building.
The new building is one of the most glaring items on Palo Alto’s growing infrastructure backlog, which is currently estimated to be about $510 million. The council last month agreed to appoint a new citizen task force to study the backlog and consider ways to fund the most urgently needed items. The city’s website is advertising 18 openings on the task force for interested residents.
Palo Alto officials have long complained that the current police facility is too small for the department and is noncompliant with the state’s seismic codes, while violating state standards for interview rooms and retention of records. Many of the department’s files, for example, are stored in filing boxes stacked against a hallway wall.
In 2006 the city appointed a citizen task force to study the department’s needs and evaluate possible locations. The group concluded that a new police facility would need about 49,600 square feet of space to meet the department’s needs. Earlier task forces back into the 1990s concluded the department’s space was inadequate at the present site.
Lanie Wheeler, co-chair of the 2006 task force, criticized the new study and its proposals to expand the current facility. The report doesn’t consider, for instance, the loss of parking spots that an expansion of the existing police facility would entail or the ongoing costs of maintaining the existing facility, she said.
“You can’t put lipstick on a pig,” Wheeler said. “This study proves to me you can’t make this building work to meet either today’s or future needs of our Police Department.”
“I think we have a commitment to the community to really build forward the future and really prepare and develop and fund a project that would be meaningful,” Wheeler said.
The council took no action Monday night, but reaffirmed its commitment to improve the city’s police facility.
Councilman Larry Klein called the public safety building the “lead item” in the city’s infrastructure backlog. But he said the new Infrastructure Task Force should not be charged with tackling this project, which has already undergone major studies and which is the most complex item on the infrastructure list.
“Eventually we’ll reach a consensus because half of the population of Palo Alto has participated in such studies,” Klein said. “It’s time for the council to grasp the mettle and provide some leadership and guidance to decide where it’s going.”
How about the Police consider some of the empty retail space, like Diddams?
Would Downtown retail outlets be up to todays seismic standards; would they be impervious to bomb blasts a necessary safety feature required after 9/11?
The State requires a lot of up grades like individual interview rooms and toilet facilities for males, females and juveniles. A secure and large enough evidence collection site, evidence very often includes vehicles and building materials. Secure parking facilities for patrol vehicles and officers private vehicles, Most importantly a secure and bomb proof dispatch center.
After the citizen’s committee worked for over a year to provide recommendations to them, your council still can’t make a decision?
All Palo Alto citizens commmissions should just disband (and I mean all – art, planning, architectural review board, etc.) Let council decide everything, down to the minutia.
They like making decisions that overrule citizens recommendations, and at 1 o’clock in the morning. Remember the library commission director that resigned in disgust after years of work by her committee were disregarded by council in one fell swoop?
This council likes to spend your money unwisely too. Keep in mind this is the same group that just voted to spend $90K to hire emmployees to work on the High Speed Rail, something that may not even happen, and to remodel the first floor of City Hall. It figures this big decision would stump them. Your council is amusing. For the rest of the nation, they are a great example of what not to do.
Putting the PAPD in Diddam’s former space is a great idea. In fact, with all the business leaving Palo Alto, there should be plenty more spaces opening up too.
Yes! Expand and upgrade the present City Hall.
Wouldn’t building a new library be cheaper if the present one would go?
Or, better yet, how about housing the library in an existing building?
There are other areas of Palo Alto that have long done with no library. Maybe this is a chance
for them to have one.
Easy fix: built it at the airport site. It’s city land, there’s lots of room to expand, it’s near the Municipal Services Center, and it’s way underutilized.
What about after a major earthquake? How long will it take to determine
City Hall is safe to re-occupy? We need a dedicated safety/emergency
services site. – Ronald
I also remember that library commissioner who resigned because she felt unappreciated. The council did not overturn the commission’s work, you are mis-remembering. They only asked the commission to reconsider one small part of the plan.
That commissioner apparently was not familiar with how the city works, and that the council very often does not take the advice of its commissions.
Funny thing happened last night, I watched online. She came to the council to speak about the hospital project. Once again she displayed ignorance about city process. The meeting was about the Draft EIR and she had nothing to say about it. Just that she wants the hospital to be built. She knows what she wants and doesn’t seem interested in how things work.
To “Paul” –
Uh, Paul – the Airport is in the flood zone, for both creek and tidal flooding. You don’t really want a safety facility that would get flooded, do you? Plus – the County controls the site until 2017 through their lease to operate the Airport. Nice try, ‘tho…….
Remembering says: “That commissioner apparently was not familiar with how the city works, and that the council very often does not take the advice of its commissions.”
Does this mean that those selfless souls who will be spending hours on the City’s latest task force: “The Blue Ribbon Task Force for Infrastructure” may be wasting many hours of their own valuable time? Yes!!!
Funny, I went to the library across from the police station not too long ago and it was closed for rennovation. It seems like something is amiss if you ask me..
An idea – move the main library to city hall. Move the art center there too. Build a new public safety building on the site of the main library and art center.
Is the MSC considered to be on flood zone to?
The MSC is definitely in a flood zone. Anyway that location is way too far away from PA. Think of all the gas Officers would use up just driving over to the east side of H.101.
Here’s another idea. The City needs to cutback on both firehouses and fire fighters. How about locating a new Safety Building where fire station 1 is at Everett and Alma.
How about locating a brand new Council Chambers and conference rooms on the Downtown Library site, then rebuilding the present Council Chambers as a new Police Building.
“Uh, Paul – the Airport is in the flood zone, for both creek and tidal flooding.”
Surely you jest. All those expensive airplanes could get flooded??? Do their owners know that? OK, a park makes much more sense there.
Then maybe it’s time to rethink our city hall, which has always been much more an expression of Babbittian civic vanity than a useful facility. Maybe it’s time to consider replacing it with a practical, attractive structure that actually has enough space for its users and is also safe to be in.
Stop the presses! Why didn’t anybody think of this before?
Let’s convert the High Street parking structure into a police station. Being of recent construction, it surely meets seismic standards. It has enough space for a basic facility and a good location directly across the road from our major crime center. Plus, BIG PLUS, the city already owns it.
We need a new police facility. We don’t need a parking garage encouraging automobile use in the heart of our “transit-oriented zone,” right across the street from our spanking new Transit Center.
How about the area over on the east side of HWY 101. Over by the animal shelter and the City of Palo Alto’s vehicle maintainenece yard.
This area is controlled and (I think) owned by the City of Palo Alto.
A new police buidling in this area would be ideal for the Officers. Much like the City of Redwood City’s Police department. The police in Redwood City have a serene location that looks out over a major undeveloped area. Yet it their building is very close to the 101 freeway which gives quick accesss to the populated areas.
If the City of Palo Alto would consider the afore mentioned area, IMO it would be very good for the officers, in that a wonderful view to the eastern terrain could be in put place from a well designed building . The east side of the 101 would seemingly be less expensive to break ground upon.
If your not sure what I mean, please take a visit to the Redwood City PD.
How about a precinct at each fire station? A cable interconnection could allow closer communication that the sneaker net of a single HQ building plus the redundancy desired for public safety buildings.
how about having santa clara county provide police services to palo alto and eliminating redundant services. we save $40,000,000 right off(!) not to mention the countless future blue ribbon committees required to discuss future(?) HQ locations. it is time to stop the nonsense. if city council is unable or unwilling to make a decision it is time to move forward using common sense.
It’s would seem that many suggestions above are offered with tongue in cheek. Or, if they are serious, it’s obvious the writers have not read the 2006 Blue Ribbon Task Force Report. All of the above suggestions for location of a Public Safety Bldg. plus 20 more were considered.
The primary needs are given above by “Necessary List”; the Task Force Report outlines many more. At Monday night’s Council meeting, Council Member Klein had it right. We don’t need more studies to simply duplicate the still relevant 2006 Report.
None of the present options are ideal, but our Council must take action now; it’s what we elected them to do. They can no longer postpone the tough decisions as our Sacramento Legislature does.