Palo Alto’s long and tortuous path toward a new police headquarters took another frustrating twist Tuesday afternoon when city officials learned that the latest proposal for a new facility is unlikely to meet the needs of the police department.
The newest wrinkle, which the council’s Infrastructure Committee discovered Tuesday night, could shake up the city’s drive toward a November 2014 bond measure for infrastructure. It could also throw a wrench into a proposal by San Francisco-based developer Jay Paul to build a dense development at 395 Page Mill Road, a project that includes two 71-foot-tall office building and a new public-safety building at a nearby site.
Since last fall, police department officials have been working with a consulting architect and Jay Paul to hash out the design of the proposed police building. Recently, the city’s consulting architect, Michael Ross, indicated that the proposed site may not be operationally feasible, Police Chief Dennis Burns told City Council’s Infrastructure Committee Tuesday night.
“We’ve continuously tried to make this work,” Burns said. “We’ve come to a conclusion that it’s more difficult than we thought. We thought it would be a solution we can all work with. It doesn’t appear to be the case.”
The problem, he said, is the site’s configuration, which makes it difficult to program the department’s operations. Ross, of the Sonoma-based firm Ross Drulis Cusenbery, is scheduled to appear in front of the committee on May 7 to explain in detail why the Park Boulevard site isn’t a good fit.
Ross’ finding could have a profound influence on the Jay Paul proposal, which figures heavily into the city’s aggressive drive to upgrade its infrastructure. To underscore the importance of the development proposal, the committee and planning staff have come up with an accelerated time schedule for reviewing and possibly approving Jay Paul’s application. The expedited process includes cutting back on the number of reviews in front of land-use boards (each would get one shot at the project rather than the typical two) and getting to a final vote by next spring so that the council would have time to decide whether the police building should be placed on the November bond measure.
Councilman Larry Klein suggested Tuesday that if Jay Paul’s project were approved along the lines currently proposed, the city wouldn’t need a revenue measure.
But Burns’ comments about the architect’s recent findings changed the game and appeared to catch the committee off guard.
“This comes as a surprise to all of us,” Klein said, a comment no one refuted.
A new police building has been a top priority for Palo Alto for at least a decade, with numerous citizen commissions, consultants and city officials concluding that the existing facility is too small and seismically deficient. Most recently, a 17-member Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission identified it as a top priority and described the current facility in City Hall as “unsafe and vulnerable.”
Past attempts focused on purchasing sites on Park Boulevard and expanding the department’s City Hall presence by using a mezzanine for police operations. The first plan fizzled in 2009, when the council decided that it would be cost prohibitive to retain a purchase option on the properties. The second died after consultants determined that the mezzanine is too small to accommodate the department’s needs.
Jay Paul’s proposal offered the latest glimmer of hope. The company offered the new police building as a “public benefit” in exchange for permission to build two office towers at 395 Page Mill Road, site of AOL’s Silicon Valley Headquarters. The two buildings would contain about 311,000 square feet of office space, making the development one of the biggest “planned community” projects in Palo Alto. Because it would significantly exceed the zoning regulations at the site (which, under existing law, is already built out to the limit), approval would require a package of negotiated benefits, with the police building topping the list.
The Jay Paul proposal has already undergone several changes since the developer made his pitch last September. Initially, Jay Paul had offered to pay for a shell of the new building, with the city footing the bill for interior improvements. More recently, the company offered to swallow most of the bill for the project, which is expected to cost more than $40 million.
Under the plan the company unveiled in September, the new police building would be located at 3045 Park Boulevard. It would be stationed close to Jay Paul’s new office buildings and it would be connected to a parking garage, which would be shared by the police department and the commercial developments.
But the stumbling block in this case isn’t the funding but the location. Burns said that while the department is still working with Jay Paul in hopes of making the proposed police building work, he is concerned that the city may be “shoehorning” things together to make it happen.
One possible resolution from the city’s standpoint is having Jay Paul build the new police headquarters at a different site. The developer has recently purchased two properties on the 2700 block of Park Boulevard, the very sites that the city has previously considered for a new police building. During a February review, Planning and Transportation Commissioner Arthur Keller argued that this would be better option for the police department.
Burns concurred on Tuesday night that such an option would be well worth considering.
“If they can be responsible for financing a building in another location that would be more suitable for us, we’d be interested in that,” Burns said.
Members of the council committee stressed on Tuesday night that the city needs to move quickly to determine whether a public-safety building is feasible at the site Jay Paul proposed. If it isn’t, the city should inform Jay Paul as soon as possible so that the application can be revised, Mayor Greg Scharff told Burns.
“If it’s not operational on that site, you have to be very blunt with Jay Paul (about what would work),” Scharff said
Even as they tacitly approved an accelerated timeline for reviewing the Jay Paul application, council members were adamant that the project remains far from a done deal. Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd said she wouldn’t want to have a badly designed project just to get a new police building. And Councilman Marc Berman offered an assurance that even though the city is “getting creative with the process” it’s not losing any quality.
“We’re still taking the same steps we’d normally do, we’re just doing them on an accelerated time frame,” Berman said,
Berman also agreed with his colleagues that it would be important for council members to hear from Ross as soon as possible so that they can be better understand their options for infrastructure improvements.
“Given that we’ve gone this far, if the decision is to abandon the project — it’s a big deal,” Berman said.
The article says “And Councilman Marc Berman offered an assurance that even though the city is “getting creative with the process” it’s not losing any quality.
“We’re still taking the same steps we’d normally do, we’re just doing them on an accelerated time frame,” Berman said,
Please don’t take the same steps that has given us the JCC, 801 Alma, the Lytton Gateway, Alma Village/Plaza, Arbor Real. Every project that has been granted a “PC” zoning variance has been terrible. Do extra steps, NOT the normal steps. Show the residents you can get one project right.
Hey, How about the corner of El Camino and Page Mill road??
You know, the site with two plastic soccer fields? That would be a perfect spot for the station, right on the corner, easy access, and the city pays Stanford a couple dollars a year for it..
The City already spent hundreds of thousand of dollars evaluating a police station on the other Park Boulevard site owned by J. Paul including a complete environmental impact report. It is a larger site and has already been proven to be a good location for the police project.
> “We’re still taking the same steps we’d normally do, we’re just
> doing them on an accelerated time frame,” Berman said,
Mr. Berman is relatively new to the process at City Hall. How would he know anything about past practices?
Seems that Mr. Berman is good at making claims that he can’t possibly prove–like most politicians.
Almsot ALL of Palo Alto is on the EAST side of the railroad tracks. In case of an earthquake or other incident and the Page Mill overpass is damaged, the PAPD is stranded on the ‘wrong side of the tracks’. East of 101 is another example. These previously proposed sites are not good for the community. Yes, I know there will be strong contrary opinions to this post, but just think about it. Also emergency communications centers might be better served in a ‘mobile unit’. The city will be hard pressed to get a bond issue passed because of its profligate spending ways.
> In case of an earthquake or other incident and the Page Mill
> overpass is damaged, the PAPD is stranded on the
> ‘wrong side of the tracks’.
This is not a realistic concern. The probability of such a collapse is almost zero. But even if the Oregon underpass were to collapse, the at-grade crossings at Churchill, East/West Meadow and East/West Charleston would still be open. There would be no “stranding” of those folks living on the east side of the tracks.
Moreover, it would not be that hard to create any number of temporary crossings over the tracks in order to facilitate east/west traffic.
“Councilman Marc Berman offered an assurance that even though the city is “getting creative with the process “it’s not losing any quality.”
1) Chief of Police says “proposed site may not be operationally feasible”.
2) Berman says we are “not losing any quality.”
3) Council Infrastructure Committee is evaluating what is feasible.
How can Berman say the proposed sire is “not losing quality”?
Someone isn’t considering the facts!
Why do the voters in Palo Alto elect Council Members that are attractive, articulate and inexperienced that represent real estate interests rather than those of the citizens?
Why aren’t we building on land that the City already owns? The gardens behind the Main Library/Art Center (or perhaps we shouldn’t have renovated the Art Center and put a safety building there instead. What about the Baylands, using the Downtown Library Site, the Main Library site instead of renovating that?
Palo Alto…gettin’ things done 😉
Has anyone considered TWO sites for Police and Emergency Operations? Does everything have to be in one building? Why? Is there a way to accomodate PAPD and emergency services between two sites–some at the new site and some at a renovated and seismically upgraded City Hall site?
Perhaps this has been considered and eliminated as an option, but it seems like it might work. Seems to me that completely physically separating PAPD from City Hall might not be entirely a good thing. “Out of sight, out of mind.”
This is taking too long.
Public Safety and the building and emergency plans — all this stuff should be top priority. Seems to me there are endless commissions and studies.
The City Council should resolve to accelerate the efforts to get this done. Otherwise, I am concerned what will happen if there is a public emergency or major earthquake. What have other cities done in terms of suitable facilities?! Yes, I know land is scarce here and it makes a difference where the police are located in terms of overpasses pancaking and whatnot. But, it is time to get this done. EVerything takes too long with the “Palo Alto process.”
The City Council is too often distracted with utter nonsense like rainbow flags and hiring costly, unnecessary “communication officers.”
I am increasingly sympathetic to the public safety officers and staff in this city nd the conditions they have to operate in(the longer I live here) and also getting concerned about their effectiveness should the big ‘quake hit us…
Bill thinks the underpass is no problem. Try driving under it in a heavy rain without an amphibious vehicle. Temporary crossings? Maybe we can get our savvy Council members out there with wire cutters and picks and shovels?
As for the grade crossings, doG forbid an emergency happens during crosstown commute hours on the single-laned Charleston Road.
Palo Alto–all fluff, out of touch with reality.
> Try driving under it in a heavy rain without
> an amphibious vehicle.
Heavy rains occur during December, January and February–only. The time that traffic through this underpass is impaired can be counted in minutes. It is a shame, however, that the City/County can not come up with a working pumping system for this structure–and keep this structure passible all the year round.
As to the construction of temporary crossings–this is so simple that even our P/W people could do the work.
What is missing from this scenario is a meaningful emergency plan for the City. The City Manager hired an Emergency Services Manager a year, or two, ago. So far, what has he produced in terms of anything concrete? It would be very interesting to see how many City Officials (including Council Members) have read, and understand, any emergency plan that might currently exist.
But hey! Our City Council seems to have time to promote Gay Marriage–one of the most pressing issues of our time!!!
All these proposed buildings at Park and Page Mill will create a traffic nightmare for the area. Ingress and egress are already a mess and very dangerous for bicyclists. Park Blvd and Cal Ave are major north/south and east/west corridors for bicyclists going to and from downtown and Stanford campus. This is a residential area — both north and south of the proposed new buildings — and the increased traffic any new buildings will bring will make life more miserable for us. We already have dangerous cut-through traffic that zips through our neighborhoods, trying to avoid the back up and long waits to turn onto El Camino from Oregon Expy. We are real people — grad students and young professionals who have children, working adults and retirees. These are our neighborhoods that border Oregon Expy. Yet the City seems unconcerned with our safety and quality of life as they consider and promote zoning changes that will allow large projects that will inevitably bring even heavier traffic to our residential neighborhoods.
I agree with using land the city already owns. Maybe the main library area? Good size and it once was city hall before it was turn into a art center. The city needs to build a new fire station across the street too. Maybe they could use both sites for a new fire station and safety building?
> I agree with using land the city already owns.
> Maybe the main library area?
A long time ago, if memory serves, there as a law passed that restricts the use of City parks for police department use. If the land is part of the park system, this might not be possible.
This law was passed back in the 1970s, so maybe it could be rescinded, or put to a vote, if necessary.
Close fire station two (Page Mill and Hanover) and build the safety building there. Great location, middle of the city. El Camino Real and Page Mill/Oregon Expressway right there for quick access to other parts of the city.
The Geographical center of the city is Park Blvd and Oregon/Page Mill where it meet the Train Tracks. The actual place is the Best. the Problem is that maybe the Chief of Police wants to Stay downtown until retirement? Don’t worry it will take another 3 to 4 years until the PA process and construction is completed. I guess we are going to wait for the next Police Chief and finally he will agree to have an earthquake proof building for the PAPD and the Fire Officers as well.
To echo Cal Ave. resident, I completely agree that the idea of trying to locate this building at 395 Page Mill is crazy. There is already a traffic back-up twice daily at this site as cars, bikes, and pedestrians jockey to get onto or past the Oregon Expressway on- and off-ramps. Bikes and peds have already been hit at this area. Imagine the scene with the additional traffic coming out of a 71-foot building. Not only would it be dangerous and a nightmare for those of us who live in the neighborhood, I don’t believe that police vehicles could move through the mess quickly in case of emergency. If the building has to be in this area, the site further along Page Mill, near El Camino, would be better. At least there isn’t a bike boulevard there.
More uninformed comments by people who have not read the IBRC analysis, nor know of efforts by police dept. personnel and architects who investigated more than 20 alternative sites in the past 6 or 7 years. Rebuilding portions of the present City Hall were also considered.
None were perfect, but the nearby 2700 Park Blvd. site previously considered is the best when all factors are weighed.
Fire, police, the City’s emergency offices and dispatch center should be located in one seismically safe building. Planning and coordination prior to and after a disaster will far better serve our community.
This project would really benefit greatly with the added help of the Cities new “Chief Communications Officer”.
If they keep reducing the number of police officers as they have been they won’t need a new building! or when it is built it can be used to house the City Managers ever expanding number of fabricated positions and managers he’s added to the payroll!
Even reduced lung function does not reduce amount of hot air and self promotion in this area.
I live on the wrong side of the tracks??????????????
> Fire, police, the City’s emergency offices and
> dispatch center should be located in one seismically
> safe building.
This is one approach, It has been popular with the tax-and-spend crowd. There has never been any meaningful thought given to a decentralized approach—which utilizes smaller, less expensive, buildings to provide the same functions, however. The current model seems to be to build a big fort/palace for the public safety people—even though this facility will do nothing to increase public safety, in the long run.
> Planning and coordination prior to and
> after a disaster will far better serve our community.
This sentiment is often tossed out for public consumption, but there is very little evidence that anyone in Palo Alto can predict all of the possible catastrophes that might befall the city, and plan for their avoidance in a public safety building that seems more like a fort than a service center.
Other than the occasional earthquake that is of magnitude larger than 7.0, there are not many catastrophes that Palo Alto is likely to encounter. If the US were to be the target of a nuclear attack, with the Silicon Valley perhaps being the target of ICBM-delivered bombs, will this new police station be impervious, and continue to operate amidst the devastation that will no doubt be across the face of the land?
All of this sensationalistic hype about “catastrophes” needs to be taken with a grain of salt—and ignored.
Other solutions than a fort/palace for Palo Alto public safety services needs to be considered.
Amazingly, no mention is made of the superfund site UNDER the proposed location. How do you protect the workers, neighbors, and eventually building occupants from the VOCs during and after construction?
The Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) webpage is http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ibrc.asp and includes a link to their final report. A video of their presentation to the city council is the last segment at http://midpenmedia.org/watch/pacc_webcast/January/PACC_011712.html
People who are concerned with the state of our city’s infrastructure may be reassured to know that Council Member Marc Berman served on the IBRC so he is better versed than most in the city in regards to these needs and challenges.
Regular amount of backed up traffic this morning on the Oregon and El Camino Page Mill intersection, the new communications office and the staff of 2 should get on it and tell us how it isn’t so.
Plenty of room for more offices and crammed up houses in the area.
Maybe even a hotel or a grocery store as a public benefit!