Okay. Hello everyone. I am calling the
special meeting of the Rosstown Council
for Wednesday, August 26 to order.
Town Manager Johnson, has the agenda
been posted and are there any changes?
>> Yes, Mayor, it has been posted. No,
there are not changes. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, traditionally on a
special agenda, we include at the
beginning public comment, but I think it
makes more sense to take public comment
after item number four. So, the order
will be the presentation by staff and
Gendler. Council will ask questions,
then we'll take public comment, then
we'll bring it back to council for a
discussion and input on future
direction, and then we will adjourn.
Okay. So with that, I will turn it over
to number four, town council, to receive
a presentation from Gendler regarding
the validated civic center space
program, confirm the proposed program
and shared/common support spaces, and
provide policy direction regarding
planning scenarios to be included in the
draft amended facilities master plan.
Town manager Johnson,
>> David Kelly, our project manager, will
be giving the introduction this evening.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Manager
Johnson. Good evening, Mayor McMillan,
Mayor Prom Robbins, honorable council
members. I'm I'm uh David Kelly, your
project manager. I'd just like to take a
quick opportunity to introduce the
Gendler team this evening. Uh sitting
behind me and they're going to join here
at the de in just a moment is our
project manager Letha Zuber,
our project director Manan Sha
and our other Ginsler staff member Jake
Gilund. So they will uh all three of
them will be addressing you as part of
the presentation to council this
evening. Um but before turning the
presentation over to Gendler, I'd just
like to take a few minutes to explain
and provide a little bit of background
around the purpose of tonight's meeting.
Um and particularly in how we arrived at
this point in the process and address
some of the questions that I think have
been raised by members of the citizens
advisory committee as well as members of
the community. Uh I would like to
certainly acknowledge the contributions
to significant contributions of the
citizens advisory committee uh and the
work that they've contributed to over
the past year. They've done a a
tremendous amount of work in developing
the civic center concept which
ultimately the council adopted as part
of your uh preferred planning
alternative and gave direction to move
forward to staff. Uh as as as council
may recall, uh after accepting the CAC
concept as the preferred planning
direction, the council approved a
professional services agreement with
Gendler to prepare a facility master
plan amendment. The schedule for that
amendment process is 12 weeks. We are
currently in in week three of the
process. The purpose of that plan
amendment is to validate and refine the CAC concept through what I'd like to
refer to as a a very comprehensive
planning process. Uh specifically,
Gendzer was asked to undertake a number
of tasks. Uh that included starting with
and what you're going to hear tonight is
validation of the departmental space
program uh to uh also confirm
operational requirements with uh town
departments and to the extent that we
were able to do to uh discuss with our
partner agencies uh evaluate uh you know
kind of as part of the future work
evaluate say opportunities and
constraints. We'll talk a little bit
about that today and ultimately develop
updated cost information and
implementation strategies that will
result in a draft amended facility plan
and ultimately hopefully a final master
plan that will uh be considered by
council. Uh tonight's meeting, as you
may recall, uh is one of three really uh
special town council study sessions that
were added to their scope of work to
help provide for of course additional
transparency, but also uh provide for
council policy direction on key planning
issues as we move through the process.
Um at this stage, Ginsler is presenting
the validated space program. Uh, in
other words, they're confirming what
functions need to be accommodated before
developing alternatives showing how
those functions might best fit on the
civic center site. Um, in terms of the
purpose of tonight's meeting, I just
want to emphasize uh, you know, what this meeting is and what it is not.
It's it it's it's it's not about
selecting a preferred site plan. That's
down the road. That'll be at one of your
future study sessions. Uh it's not
deciding um whether the town will or
will not construct a fire station. It's
not about changing the council's
direction. Instead, it's really to
confirm the deva the validated
departmental space program, particularly
where there's uh proposed shared and
common support spaces and to provide
policy direction regarding the planning
assumptions that should be carried
forward. We don't want to get too far
along without your input. Uh in addition
the this will allow Gendler to proceed
with development of con conceptual
blocking and stacking. Again that's
going to be the presentation to come at
one of your next study sessions. Um the the schedule as part of this will be
reviewed with council tonight. You'll
see that on one of the the slide decks.
Uh those conceptual alternatives will return to council for discussion
before you know any recommendation is is
made regarding a preferred facility
master plan. So, I just kind of want to
set the stage for the discussion this
evening. Um, also like to just talk a
little bit about fire station
programming and address one of the
questions that I think has generated,
you know, considerable discussion by way
of public comment. Uh we we we've noted
that several community members have
expressed concern regarding the agenda
reports reference to evaluating planning
scenarios that include both a concept
with without a fire station and a
concept that preserves the opportunity
for a future fire station. Uh again, I
just want to emphasize that the
evaluating planning alternatives does
not predetermine council's ultimate
decision in any way. It's again seeking
your policy direction. Uh ultimately
it's it's really a standard planning
practice. It's intended to help you as
decision makers understand the
operational, physical and financial
implications of different approaches uh
before selecting, you know, a final
preferred action. Ultimately, council
retains the authority to determine the
final facility master plan, whatever
that may be. Um, another important point
that I'd just like to share with council
is, you know, is you'll see tonight a
fire station program, uh, and and wonder
how was that developed? Well, uh, for
purposes of validating the space
program, uh, Ginsler did not
independently establish fire station
requirements. Uh instead, Ginsler
utilized the town's previous programming
work that was prepared uh by Mary
McGrath and Associates, which evaluated
service model option that was a fire
station that um included three
firefighters assigned to the Ross Valley
Fire Department, a singlestory building,
which also uh housed and supported two
Ross Valley Paramedic Authority
personnel assigned to an ambulance along
with uh one trainee per shift. a total
of six people uh and reserve apparatus
uh and again this was all programmed in
an area of approximately 700 uh 7,600
square feet and you'll see uh that
discussed in the uh presentation by
Gensler tonight. um using the town's
previously completed planning work
provided a consistent and logical uh
starting point for validating the
program uh rather than creating a whole
new set of assumptions about what's the
square footage for a fire station.
Uh as as I've noticed, the council also
received a letter from me members of the the CAC expressing concerns about
evaluating a a planning scenario without
a fire station and suggesting an
alternative approach for future fire
service. And I think there's reference
to uh a nearby fire facility. Uh
specifically, the CAC suggests that a
combined firefighter and paramedic
facility will with shared living,
kitchen, and support spaces similar to
the recently completed Sleepy Hollow
fire station may require substantially
less square footage than the standalone
fire station previously program
evaluated by the town. As you will see
from Gendler's presentation, they
evaluated a facility that includes a
host of shared functions, and that's
part of the presentation tonight. Uh,
one of the objectives of the master plan
amendment is to provide the council with
sufficient information to evaluate
reasonable planning alternatives before
selecting a preferred direction. So
again, we're not seeking that tonight
and there's a lot more to come. We are
moving forward very aggressively within
a aggressive timeline of 12 weeks.
Again, we're we're only at week three
and this is opportunity for council to
check in. Um, from a planning
perspective, I I believe it is
appropriate for Gendler to evaluate the
operational the site planning and cost
implications of different approach so
that council can make an informed
decision based on objective analysis
rather than than just assumptions. It it
certainly doesn't commit the council to
any particular outcome. rather provides
additional information that may help
identify opportunities for greater
efficiency while preserving future
opses. Uh ultimately tonight's objective
is not to determine the final
configuration of the civic center. It's
to confirm the validated space program,
receive the council's policy direction,
and provide Gendler with clear direction
from the council as they begin
developing conceptual planning
alternatives. With that, I'd like to
invite u uh both Letha Zuber and Manan
uh up to the de and they're going to walk you through uh
quite a bit of detailed slides and
presentation on their their work to date
that on up.
>> Excuse me, mayor and council. I um
if I need to, I'm going to get up and
leave and go in my office. So, I'm not
running away. I'm just going to be there
so as not to distract you. Okay. Because
of your cough, right? Thank you,
Christa.
» Good evening.
>> Yeah, you I mean you could sit at the
table wherever you want to be.
>> This is fine. Just we're just gonna do
an introduction.
You You have to talk into the mic
because it's being recorded.
» All right, there we go. Yeah, it didn't
sound like it was on before. Perfect. Uh
good evening. Um thank you for your time
this evening. We're uh very excited to
be here to show our progress uh thus far
on the project to date. Um, this is
meeting one. So, this is really uh an
opportunity for us to gain your insight,
the collective insight of of the town
and the community uh on some optionality
that we're beginning to explore. And
we'll try to do our best to share our
thinking along the way and the things
that have led us to some of the
recommendations and decisions uh that
we'll make. Uh Letha is going to walk us
through a little bit of the agenda and
the the information that we'll uh
discuss and then Jake will walk through
some of the planning options um that
we'd like to get your feedback on in
terms of how we could best utilize the
site uh for the project. Um you know and again we understand that we're at
the beginning here and we really kind of
cherish the opportunity here to help
build consensus uh amongst the community
on the the preferred way to accommodate
all the program on this site. So with
that, Lita
There we go. Um, good good evening and
thank you for inviting us here. Um, I'm
going to go through the project schedule
initially. I'm not going to spend a lot
of time on it. Um, but it it is quite
detailed.
Can go ahead and
Oh, great. Yes. Sorry. So, what we're
going to do, um, I I I actually want to
start off by going through what we're
going to discuss today and then what
comes next. So, uh, today we're going to
talk about the program. Thank you, uh,
David for the very detailed description
of what we're going to go through. Uh,
we're going to talk a little bit about
the program. We've spent the last three
weeks validating the program and having
meetings with Christa D um David uh
Robera
going through the detailed program from
before and then you'll see that we have
also validated back and forth with
stakeholders have provided some comments
and then we have
allowed that what we get from that to
then get us into what we call shared
facilities, which is really a great way
to button up the program. Um, you have
multiple uh public safety facilities and
then you have what we call civic
facilities and they can share spaces.
So, we were able to consolidate some of
the program. So, we'll go through that a
little bit as well. Then, we're going to
go through today what we call the master
plan optimization strategy. lot of
words, but really this is now we're
looking at the site and how we might
configure that program in different ways
on the site and and Jake will go through
that with you
after we leave here today and you've
made some decisions. The next steps
we're going to go through uh a parking
and site um site circulation study. Uh
we also have a too site survey that
should be being performed any day now.
Um they're going to put that site plan
together and then they're also going to
establish what we call the 100year flood
plane that will help us as a design team
figure out how we're going to lay out
the site, what the possibilities are. Um
we also the next phase that we're in uh
right now and we're moving into is
blocking and stacking. Uh that is where
we're looking at the building more in
elevation and in more three-dimensional
how we configure things on the site and
within each building structure. So we've
got what we're discussing today and what
we're going to be discussing um in the
next few weeks.
Okay. schedule.
So this is a very and I apologize that
this is so small but because we are
working with 12 weeks we really want we
every day is important and so we really
have all every single day is on this
schedule because we we want everyone to
understand what the tasks are that we're
going through. Uh what you see right now
is um maybe a little bit crooked and
those of you some of you have uh some paper in front of you but we have
um designated like you see today where
you see the green arrow and I'm not sure
if this works but there we go the green
arrow that's where we are today um
giving this presentation town council
meeting we will have two more uh
presentations to town council after this
meeting and we also O have meetings on
the calendar. Uh the first one scheduled
with CAC on September 2nd at 5:00 p.m.
So you can take a look at this schedule.
I don't want to deep dive into it
because again it is 12 weeks long. Uh
but this is where we are in the process
right now. Once you take a look at the
schedule, you'll see a little bit of the
process that we're going to go through
uh to to get to this uh amended uh
master plan. Okay, I'm going to pass it
on to Ma.
» Good. So, as we start the process of of
understanding how best to fit the
program on the site, we went back to the
facilities master plan program. uh we
did not go back and redo the program
ourselves. We we took that information
and all the hard work and the dialogue
that had happened with various
departments took that spreadsheet and
began to analyze it. Um and so within
that program spreadsheet there was a net
square footage number of 12,780
ft uh that was indicated. Um, we went
back through uh with David and Christa
and refined that to some degree, asked
some questions, got some feedback on uh
minor modifications. In addition, uh, as
David described, we took the Mary
McGrath uh, program uh, for the fire
department. Uh, so we included that uh,
as part of the program and we did
receive some comments from the fire
chief. Um, as well, we also added a 30%
gross factor. So what that means is the FMP program that was built was in
net square footage. So it's really the
interior dimensions of rooms. We added
an additional 30% to accommodate um
rooms like storage rooms or HVAC rooms,
the thickness of walls, other things
that happen, corridors, the things that
are between um net spaces. And so
traditionally, you know, uh 30% should
be a good factor to then we call it
grossing up the net program. So there's additional area that's required
to to put all these functions in a
building. So we included that. And then
we also spent time and we'll have
another slide that'll talk specifically
about the strategies but looking at
where within the program we could find
some efficiencies between departments um
and where we could begin to develop some
sharing of program to help reduce the
overall square footage of the program.
So as it stands today the total program
area that we are trying to accommodate
on the site is gross square footage. So
gross square footage includes this gross
factor of additional space um at about
22,000 square feet. Um and so that's
what we're trying to accommodate on site
um and what you'll see in our uh site
plans as we move forward.
So the way that we began to look at this
shared facilities strategy and and I
think today again we're not going to get
into um you know 50 square feet here or
100 square feet here. There's there's a
lot of detail behind all of these
numbers, but we wanted to talk generally
about a strategy and then how that began
to to show itself on site. So there's
two groupings of program that are
related but also could be seen as
distinct. And so on one hand you have a series of program that are really
public safety oriented. Fire department,
the apparatus bay, the police station
and paramedics all call for essential
service uh level of facilities. all have
specific special requirements and
programmatic requirements associated
with them. Um, distinct from that, you
also have a series of uh administrative
and civic um program elements. So,
public works, the council chambers, uh
the administration and HR, and the
planning and building department. So,
those programs we looked at somewhat
independently of the two. and and you'll
see um some optionality of of how best
to mix or separate these programs to
provide the right operational kind of
efficiency within within uh the town's
program. Hope that makes some sense, but
I think it'll make a little bit more
sense as we show you the diagrams on the
site. Um but it's just a strategy of how
to think about the two different groups
that you have ultimately in your
program.
>> Go for it.
>> All right. Thank you.
So what we wanted to do is to take that
program and start to apply it to the
site so that we're really thinking how
we can best utilize the area that we
have, how we can uh really create uh a
master plan, a civic master plan that
feels uh a part of the town. Um so what
we want to start with is just to start
with the existing conditions and kind of
set the stage for what we're working
with. Um, so obviously we're looking at
our full site here, uh, town hall, we're
I'm standing right about there. Um, the
public safety building in the middle.
Um, and then the public works building,
which based on this study, the
assumption is that that building will be
demolished.
Um, so that kind of sets the scene of of
where our starting point is.
And so here we have the first kind of
layout of those spaces and it's really
the areas that we showed previously. Um
the other component that we need to
accommodate are nine affordable housing
units on the site. And so you'll see in
all of these diagrams that that is kind
of placed in the same location that was
uh done in the uh original master plan.
We kind of think that that's still a
really good spot for them. It makes a
lot of sense. So what you see here is um
how the programs start to uh uh lay
themselves out on the site. Um the town
of council chambers and the town hall
program stays here um and that stays in
as as part of the existing building. Um
the next kind of and the baseline of
really how we start to started to think
about this is that all of these new
programs or all of these uh other town
programs are part of a singular building
in the middle. And it's really uh uh the
idea of keeping the existing building
and doing additions to it in order to
accommodate that program. And it might
be a little hard to see, but you can see
how that area really stacks up. So the
existing area of that building is I
8,400 ft. Um we would need to add an
additional 11,300
square ft in order to meet the overall
program. And we have some pros and cons
on that, right? So pros of this is that
we're putting everything in one
building. So, it's reducing the
footprint of the overall building and
allowing for circulation to work really
a lot easier on site, which is very
important for these types of programs.
The other thing that's really good about
this is that there's no impact to the
town hall building, right? We would be
able to keep it as it is.
The cons to kind of the baseline program
here or the baseline strategy is that in
order to add kind of more than doubling
the square footage of the existing
building, we're looking at potentially
significant impacts, aesthetic impacts
to that building. Um that could be in
the form of having to go up potentially
a third floor. It could be um maybe
making larger modifications to the
existing building. And so it gives us uh
a little bit of pause and we wanted to
kind of think about how other ways that
we might be able to approach that.
The other thing this does is um you know
the the fire department program um being
brought onto site and and maybe
potentially being brought on in a future
date. Um this kind of assumes that it
would be accounted for uh day one and so
there's kind of a less flexibility and I
think we started to look at how that
might be uh adjusted in some of these
other strategies. So the first one we
want to talk about is uh what we call
study one.
So this is an adjustment to that to try
and solve some of those those ideas.
And we call this um study one which is
where all the uh administration program
can come into a new building where the
existing public works building is
currently sitting and we can kind of go
through the areas again. Uh for the town
hall the town hall program stays the
same. the council chamber stays the
same. The uh public safety current
public safety building now has the fire
department, the police department,
paramedics, and those shared spaces. And
that um would require about 5,350
ft of addition to that building, which
we think is a little bit more achievable
in maintaining the existing building and
the character of it. Then what this is
saying is that it's actually with the
strategy of adding a kind of a third
building on the site which we're calling
the north building and that would be
able to house the civic and
administrative program uh public works
HR
and what's really nice about that is it
um starts to you remember when we were
talking about the kind of shared space
it still takes on that strategy of using
shared space to create uh better
efficiencies on the site. So, the pros
of this one, again, no impact to the
town hall building and the public safety
and administration programs are grouped
uh together to shared space. The cons,
of course, um when we have public works,
depending on what's going on in the
workshop, may have an acoustic issue and
might need acoustic separation, which we
certainly could accommodate in a new
building.
Um the other thing is that by adding
this volume of building here, it starts
to potentially impact site circulation,
which is something we're going to study
in the future. um but it could be
something that makes it a little bit
more difficult to accommodate parking
and and some of the other circulation.
Now the other thing we found in this
strategy that we think is really
interesting is this next slide here
which is how we could kind of accomplish
something uh with phasing. So in this
phasing diagram, the first phase could
really be um if or before the fire
department program comes on site, you
can actually make modifications to the
existing building and how is the
administration and and civic program in
that renovated building. So day one,
there's not necessarily a fire
department on site, but you're able to
make the modifications to that building
that are needed and accommodate all of
our program that's that we're looking
for. And then when it comes to phase
two, what happens is all of these other
programs, these uh administration and
civic programs could go to the new
building and then the fire department
could come into the existing building.
So that gives a lot of flexibility if
fire the fire department wants to come
on in a later date. That gives you that
flexibility of doing that at a later
time. But a lot of that work has already
been done to to improve that existing
building.
So the next study that we have can this
phasing concept can work exactly the
same way. This is just looking at maybe
how these programs might want to find
themselves on the site in a little
different way. So here what we've done
is we've started to come up with the
idea that maybe in addition to this
building, the town hall building would
actually be really beneficial and it
could be where the current uh uh
portable building is right now and it
could accommodate the administration HR
planning and building and actually be
potentially connected or at least close
proximity to this building. So really
what we're doing when we were going back
to those two big bubbles now we've
really been able to collect those
programs together to create those
efficiencies that we're looking for.
The public safety building remains the
same um the same amount of additional
square footage that would need to be
added from the study one. So it has the
fire department, police department and
paramedic program. And then here we're
also looking at keeping the public works
kind of in the same location that they
are now. And that allows for layown area
to be adjacent to the building. you
know, all the all the program that they
need and space that they need. It allows
for that um to have a home. So, the pros
of this is, you know, town hall planning
and building administration program,
they're all coll-located
um on the on the south side of the site
here. Public works gets that separation.
Again, we would be, you know, having to
have a more constrained site by adding
another building volume there. But we
think that there's uh there's definitely
a benefit um and an opportunity to still
be able to work with circulation and
parking as needed.
There's another, you know, potential
cost impact for multiple buildings.
That's something we would want to
evaluate. Um and then also, you know,
obviously this building has its own
history that we want to maintain. And so
the impact to the town hall building um
if an if an addition is uh added, we'd
want to make sure we're being
architecturally uh thoughtful.
>> Yep.
>> Just a couple of more points on cost.
One of the benefits of splitting the
administrative program out of the public
safety building is that you're not then
having to put the essential service
additional structural requirements on
that building. So that building's less
expensive to build and you're not
spending that enhanced structure on a
larger building. So that's one of the
benefits of pulling that program out.
The other thing that this phasing
strategy allows us to do is to spend a
little bit more time right sizing the
size of the fire department. I know
there's some debate about whether this
needs to be a smaller station or a
larger station. And so as you think
about phasing, you're accommodating the
administrative functions in the building
on day one. As you rightsize the
program, you can build the right size of
next building based on where the fire
department ends up in terms of their
total program. and needs in that
building. So you can scale the size of
that second uh second building uh based
on this.
>> Great. And so uh I think this is just a
summary of the the strategies. So the
baseline strategy where all public
safety and administration building in uh
admin program in one building. Um and
then the two other options where we pull
the admin uh civic program off to either
an addition or to another building.
The uh the last site plan we wanted to
show was the potential of uh what would
happen if there was no firehouse program
on the site. Um so here what we would
recommend is um again keeping the town
hall and keeping that uh program as it
is. Um and then being able to locate all
of the uh admin and civic program along
with paramedics and police in the uh
public safety building that would
require slightly I believe a slightly
larger um addition to the gross floor
area um but still something that we
think would be manageable. And then here
again we're showing um the public works
program being part of its own separate
building. Um and so I think the last
slide is just a summary of all of or the
sorry it does not include the baseline.
We kind of are recommending maybe we
move away from the baseline option and
look at study one or study two and then
also the site plan with uh the without
the fire department.
» Yeah. or or I think if we want to pursue
the baseline option, we have to think
about ways to to reduce the total amount
of program in the building. I think
that's fundamentally there's a lot of
program in the 22,000 square ft to fit
via an addition on the existing
building. So
I think that's that's the end of our
presentation and I'll go ahead and leave
that.
>> Yeah. And so we're available for
questions if you have any.
>> Thank you. That was really helpful.
Um, I just have one question to start
out. Um, if all the services were in the
same building, what kind of magnitude
would the cost be to make the I assume
it the whole building would have to be
an essential services act building. So,
what kind of magnitude are you talking
about costwise just a general?
» That's a it's that's a difficult
question I think to answer. Um, I think
we have to, what we don't have is a
great solution for how we would exactly
accommodate all the program in the
building because you'd either go up to a
third story, which is possible, or you
could extend the building horizontally,
but that's beginning to impact our
ability to have circulation, or it would
come all the way out um to the street,
which we also don't. We want to maintain
the historic facade and the character of
that that architecture there. Um, and so
I I think once we once we determined how
to do that, we could get to a better um
understanding, but you know, an
essential service building
um
can be 30 to 40% more expensive um
because of the enhanced seismic
requirements of foundation. And then
when you're talking about renovating a
building, it gets more expensive because
you're doing more difficult foundation
work uh in an existing building. So it's
a significant cost premium I think um on
the additional space and if you go to a
third story or something then your
seismic becomes that much harder because
you're more vertical with the
construction. So it's it's a significant
order of magnitude.
>> Other questions?
>> I I didn't understand you said something
about reverting to the baseline program.
What what is baseline? I don't see
baseline here.
>> Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Oh, okay. So,
the the baseline is essentially I think
where we all started the the thought
process with the project, which is
>> So, the CAC plan is the baseline.
>> The CAC plan did not have the same sized
fire department program um in the So,
this is it's a modification of the CAC.
It's it's taking the full program that
we developed and putting it all into one
building. Yeah. which is an expansion of
the CAC program. Um
>> and so
>> but that that baseline is not an option.
Whatever
>> the baseline is not an op again the
baseline is an option. Um it's it's one
that we feel is more difficult unless we
reduce the program.
>> And you know I I know at one point it
seemed like a lot of the program it was
everyone's wish list but maybe it could
be reduced. Is is that a possibility to
reduce some things to make it fit?
>> It is a possibility to reduce program. I
think that that again we did not do
departmental interviews and and have the
direct conversations with the various
departments. And so we're relying on the
information of that work that was done
previously. Um and so you know the
nuance of of trying to reduce all that
program is something that I think we'll
have to we would have to dig into.
And then the um study one is doesn't
have a fire station up front. It phases
the buildings in. Is that correct?
>> Study one does have a fire station. Um
fire station is is in the public safety
building. It gives you the opportunity
to in the phasing plan build all the
requirements for the fire station.
If you if if it's not funded yet and
fire department's not on site yet, then
you can keep all the administrative
functions inside that building, it'll
fit. And then when that funding is
secured, then you can move build the
second building and move all that
program out and then accommodate the
fire department in the building that's
already built and constructed. So you're
not doing a second round of of
renovation.
>> So there's space, but it's not actually
intended to be used as a fire station
until a whole separate phase.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Um,
and then study two,
uh, is the one where you've added
administration to the current town hall.
>> Correct.
>> And then kept all of the public works in
the existing building.
>> We're recommending rebuilding that
>> not public works, but all of the public
safety.
>> Correct. Correct. It's a it's a it's a
variant of the same idea which is the
public safety sits in the existing
building and you either put the
administrative functions adjacent to
this property or on top of a public
works building um on the north end of
the site.
And this also allows you a phasing
strategy
uh the same phasing opportunity in terms
of of renovating the public safety
building including the administrative
space and then determining if if the
fire station funding and all of that
occurs then you build the administrative
building when that's secured and you can
move fire in.
>> So I I'm not quite sure why why are we
talking about phasing? Isn't it more
less expensive to build everything up
front all at once?
It is less expensive to build everything
all up at all at once. Absolutely. Um we
were asked to look at phasing as as part
of the options for the for the project.
Um
>> okay.
>> You know, our understanding is just that
there that there's some uncertainty
around the fire department, but again,
you you know,
>> yeah,
>> you'll know that better than my myself.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah.
Well, it seems like one of the
questions here is just how much space
would be required for the fire
department. At what point is that
considered and what would the process be
to consider that and is that a question
that comes back to the council at some
point?
>> It it's a really good question. Um I
think David tried to address a little
bit at the beginning that we have we
were given the prior uh Mary McGrath
who's a an architect that that does do
fire stations had developed a program
that was reviewed by uh the fire chief.
Um and so we were given that as the
desire for this station. Now there are
other models for fire service and I
think what we would what if you wanted
to shrink this this would be a really an
operational dialogue with the fire
department in terms of how they plan on
using this what specific requirements
they would have in that alternate model
of of of service. Um and then once we
determine that then you could reduce the
station. So there are are other models
of of fire service. Um,
>> but is that a discussion that would be
between your firm and the fire
department? Absolutely. Could be. I've
done a number of Yeah, I've done half a
dozen fire stations. So, yeah,
absolutely could help.
>> I was just I'm curious, how different is
this going to look from the uh beautiful
design that all of us loved several
months ago? How different will this
look?
>> Love it.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think in these studies,
study one and study two, the public
safety building it and its amount of
addition is very similar to the amount
of addition that the CAC presented. Um,
the variation here is that we're looking
at additions to other parts of the site,
right?
>> Um, you know, the way that we would
treat an addition to the town hall
building would be very respectful of the
architecture as well. Um, that would be
a singlestory addition. Um, it could
certainly fit within the same style of
architecture. um and I think would
actually be a compliment to the
building. Same thing could happen with
the public works building as well.
>> I have another question and that is the
um the building to the right for the
housing
>> um you've pushed it off to the very edge
is is that to be a problem?
>> So we've been we are trying to um keep
the setbacks as required when um dealing
with multif family housing. Um, right
now that's kind of an additional part of
the it's not actually part of our
program right now. Um, and so what
that's been sized is is about for for
the nine units that are required.
>> And we and we we we did move it over as
you note. Um, and that's really to allow
for the public works and the and program
and the yard to remain essentially where
it is. We we sort of believe given its
use and nature that that's a good
location on site
>> for that program and so to keep it there
sort of pushes the the housing over. I
think you know as we study this further
we can make sure that that that can
remain an independent parcel for
somebody to develop in the future which
I know is the intent.
>> I have one more question. Does the uh
this spacing does this give you some
concern about entry into the area,
parking into the area? You've got more
land use, so there's less. Is that a
problem? Is that
>> I'm not sure that it's a problem. We
certainly have concerns. um the site's
constrained and so there's going to be
some magic in terms of getting all the emergency vehicle circulation to
work as well as the parking program
which is rather robust
>> um to fit.
>> Okay.
>> And so that's that's a you know solve
this variable first and then attack the
second variable as well and they'll both interface with each other
but yeah site circulation and parking
will be a you know it'll be a challenge
on the site.
>> Yeah. Especially with the people who
live in the housing too.
>> Yes. Yeah. No, it's it's it it won't be
an easy um solution, but we'll
>> Okay, thank you.
>> We'll work the problem.
» So,
the first thing that I wanted to
acknowledge is are you aware that we we
had an operational fire station working
in this building?
>> Yes.
>> With the police and the paramedics?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, what I'm finding a surprise
here is that you're saying that the fire
department needs 3,400 square feet
and we have just reconstructed Sleepy
Hollow in our department and it's 2400
ft with 400 square ft of a shared gym.
>> Yeah.
>> So, how is it that Sleepy Hollow only
needs 2,000 square feet, but we need
3,400?
>> Yeah, please Kristen. Yeah,
>> thank you, Council Member Salter. I can
answer that question. The Sleepy Hollow
station has um room for three
firefighters.
Our facility needs to have if you for
fire and paramedics would need to have
three square footage. There's paramedics
atif at 1,900,500
of shared apparatus 3,100 and then the
police station 3,800. Mhm.
>> So, what I would like to know is that,
you know, sometimes if I go to my kids
and I go to the candy store and I say,
"How much candy do you want for
Halloween?" or on Halloween night,
you're you get a huge bag of candy and
they want it all.
>> Right?
>> But, you know, we have to approach this
practically. So, I think that Sleepy
Hollows and Fairfax said, "This is the
size of the building we have.
>> This is what we can build within it."
But the this plan looks like we went and
took all these inputs from a very old
study and said, "Oh, we have to build it
this way."
So, let me ask you, in your other
projects you were working on, did you
interview the the heads of the
departments? Did you work within
constraints of budget and size and
space, or do you just go to the
department heads and then whatever
square footage they they want, you
build?
>> Um, it's it's a back and forth. Um I
think that that departmental interviews
working with the departments is always a
part of of of a normal process and um
again I think we're stepping in and
inheriting somebody else's work that has
done that work and you know we're sort
of taking that um a little bit
>> want to do that if I mean I I don't know
>> well I think to solve this problem that
you're asking it's it's a solution which
is if if if the goal is to work within
the constraints of the existing building
and find a way to accommodate fire as
the baseline option, then there's a
dialogue in terms of fire operations
that needs to happen with the
department.
>> Yeah. And what about police? Why is why
is the the fire department only 34
3,400, but we need a police station for
3,800?
>> And I mean, if we're a small town here,
we've got two two officers on duty and
the chief sometimes. So,
>> why does the police station have to be
3,800 ft?
>> Yeah. No, again, you're you're asking
questions that that I understand why
you're asking them, but I I do think
that there's um that is dialogue that
can happen to say, "Hey, we'd like to
squeeze the department. You know, we've
got constraints relative to the building
and and you know, we need to reduce the
program. How can we do that and still
maintain your operations, right, within
some constraints?" And
>> and to be very crystal clear, the Mary
McGrath numbers you took was for a
separate building, correct? for a
standalone that you were just putting
those requirements here
>> because what I think we all need to
acknowledge is that everything was
operating in 2025 here. We actually did
it on this site in this even more
constrained than what you know you're
saying the existing square footage is
8,400 but you're saying we should move
to 13,000 square feet quite a big big
additions but we were operating with all
these departments here in 2025
>> we did only have two people to an engine
before
>> okay so we're adding one extra person
>> well you need sleep and
>> so there's a bedroom but and maybe some
locker space but I I I just we need to
be very what I want to make clear in
this project. I'm sorry they just handed
you all these things and said just use
what was previously done but the goal
here is to create a beautiful facility
that fits our town that fits within the
constraints that we have which include
our budget which not an unlimited budget
>> and I think that's a really important
consideration that has seems to have
been overlooked in this process.
>> We're going to we're doing questions
right now.
>> So that was a question
>> that wasn't a question. I' I'd like to
respond to council member Salter. So, um
the council, you are the ones that
directed us to have this done by the end
of October.
Gendler has come up with the 12 weeks.
And so, there are things that you're
going to get out of this and things that
you're not. So if you would like to have
uh we we can we can add more weeks work
with Gendler to add to their scope of
work so that we can delve more deeply
into um into the programming needs. We
can do that.
>> Great.
>> But you're not going to get it right now
on the 12week schedule.
>> I I I'm not asking that we
>> Yes, you are.
>> No, I'm I'm asking us to do the project
right.
>> That's what I'm asking us to do. Let me
step in here because this seems to
happen every meeting. Let's not
interrupt each other. Our rules are
really clear on that. This town manager
had the floor when she's done. You can
have the floor back at the mayor
recognizes you. Let's try to keep the
order as our rules intended.
>> So, thank you, town attorney. So, we we
can absolutely um have a a you know, a
standalone study session with the
council. We can go through I mean, we
have our police chief here. He is
absolutely can talk to the council about
any of your questions. You know, why
does he why does the police department
need this space? Why do need that space?
But Gendler in their in their 12 weeks
that the council insisted upon. This is
the this is what they do. They they took
what the town has already paid to have
done and this is what they're coming up
with. So if the majority of the council
would like to provide direction to do
that,
that's something that we can come back
with, but it will it will extend the the
timeline.
>> Okay. I have one last question, which is
the apparatus bays. Are you assuming
we're keeping those apparatus bays that
we have?
>> We are assuming that we're going to
modify those apparatus bays
>> in in what way?
>> Uh we haven't determined that entirely,
but we do need more space in the
apparatus space. So we'll probably
extend them,
>> you know,
>> to make them longer.
>> Yeah, we'll we'll certainly need to make
them longer to accommodate all the
apparatus. So we we need to determine
exactly we we have the the requirements
now from the departments in terms of the
vehicles that'll be there and then we'll
as we look at turning and how vehicles
are going to move in and out of of the
site. We have to see which vehicles can
drive through, which ones can back in
and and determine how big of an
extension we need to make to the
apparatus bay. But we expect it to be
modified significantly.
>> Sorry. And can you explain why? Because
again, we had the fire trucks in there
in 2025. So what what's
>> I don't know what like it to be honest,
I don't know what compromises the the
various departments dealt with when they
were previously in that building. That's
hard for me to assess. And so again,
when we're trying to plan for a new
station, we're trying to um meet their
operational requirements a little bit in a you know, you're starting a fresh
in a new. We didn't put a constraint
lens on it. And again, we can put a
constrained lens on it and say this is
all we have in terms of space. How do we
best utilize it? It's a slightly
different approach to the to the to the
question. Valid, but that's just not how
we've begun this process.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yep.
So I I'd like to just expand on that is
that um so the current bays were built
in the 90s and the standards for fire
engines and fire equipment and um
decontamination areas those have all lot
there's been a lot of new standards that
have come into place since the '9s when
that when those bays were constructed.
So Mary McGrath who prepared and it it
wasn't a long time ago. She did it in
late December and presented as part of
the election code report that was
presented to the council on January 8th,
2026.
So um those she she prepared the space
um the specifications
according to current um standards for
fire stations.
>> But didn't Sleepy Sleepy Hollow did not
uh destroy their bays? they kept their
bays when they redid the uh and their bays were from the same era and
the same size. So, I just want to be
very clear they there are actual
projects going on in the Ros Valley Fire
Department where they didn't demolish
the bays. They didn't expand the bays.
They kept the bays as they were and they
used them today in their project. They
only eliminated the residential and
redid the residential because they used
the constraints that they had. And so I
really encourage us in this process to
realize it's not an unlimited wealth of
money to take everything to the best
highest standards and that we're trying
to accommodate what the town needs
versus what maybe some consultant thinks
it should be.
>> And I just want to follow up on the bays
and maybe this is premature um given
your timeline um but have you considered
whether the bays need to be elevated out
of the flood plane?
Uh we have not evaluated that yet. Um we
are waiting for the survey and the
determination of where the 100 foot
flood plane is. Um and as we look at
modifying the bay, we can look at that
as as a potential alternative um to to
raising them. Obviously, there is there
is some variety of flood plane issues
that we know will be present there. And
so if we're able to grade the site and raise the building to deal with
that, then that's something we can
consider. Um, so we we need a little bit
more information um from the civil
engineer to to answer that question
which is coming.
>> So I know tonight is our opportunity to
give you input and feedback.
>> Yes.
>> But I would like to know what your
which of these of these plans which do
you think is the best one based on the
assumptions that you've been using?
And we can all kind of we we haven't nec
but but I I do think that the ability to
phase oh go ahead Lea you want to
>> sorry as the project manager. Um so what I will say is that um you know you
can ask the designer what is our
favorite but we are just in the
beginning stages of evaluating the site.
What I want to make sure that everyone
understands is that we do not have the
topo survey yet. We do not know where
the 100redyear flood plane lies. And
this is going to be very important. So
we can give you what our favorite is,
but it could be totally different the
next time we come in front of you. So I
just a reminder.
>> No, that's it's it's a good reminder. Um
yeah, I again I I I think
the given the program again we're gonna
start with the process that we're we're
in the middle of right now or at the
beginnings of uh which is the program
and and if if that's the given program
my feeling is that the ability to phase
the construction gives you some
flexibility as you move forward. Um, and
so the options where we peel out the
administrative building either to
something that's combined with public
works or as an addition to this gives
you some flexibility and allows us to
um, you know, potentially save some
money in the construction of of the the
administrative building because it's not
essential service and it gives you some
of that flexibility. Now, if we took a
different process and were able to work
to a constraint,
you know, then then you might arrive at
a different scenario because it is going
to be cheaper to build it all at once.
Um, and so, you know, it's an imperfect
answer. I apologize.
>> I don't know if you've got a different
thought. I agree.
>> Okay. So, let me just ask you tonight,
what exact feedback do you want from us?
I mean, I think this this fundamental
question um you know that that council
member uh Salter is is asking is an
important one for us to determine is is
whether or not we are trying to fit as
much program as possible for every
department in the existing public safety
building with the minimal amount of
modification that's you know that that's
reasonable. um or if we're trying to
accommodate the full program as it's
outlined and then if so then you know
which direction relative to the to the
site
feels appropriate so that we could
continue to study that um because our goal moving forward is to then take
one of these models and begin to look at
blocking and stacking. So we take the
individual program elements from the
departments and begin to look at them in
three dimensions as Letha said. So there
is a next step that we're moving forward
to. We're studying parking and
circulation, all that. So, we need a
little bit of a stable
set of feedback on on what we've
presented
or a direction to look at an alternative
approach.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Any Elizabeth? Um, shouldn't we
also be looking tonight at um the
question that's come up? Do do we really
want to keep trying to put this entire
full program into this site or should we
consider what trade-offs we might make
to keep um to keep everything in one
building and not phase? Uh but that's
not really sort of on the table right
now. It seems like it seems like um
you've been given a program and you're
trying to uh fit that program into the
site, but I don't think we've had a
chance yet to talk about well if we want
to keep the site more or less as it is
and it maybe just as one building uh
one-time construction,
what could where could the program be
trimmed to make that happen? Shouldn't
that be something we're talking about
tonight also? Otherwise, you're you're
you've kind of adopted a program that we
haven't really adopted yet.
» It's a good question. Um that is
something that we should debate tonight.
I don't know that we have the answer
because again that's not that was not
part of what we studied is where to cut.
So I don't have a list of potential
cuts. What we did look at is
departmental overlaps in terms of shared
spaces. So we did bring 10% of
efficiency to the program that we you
know that we were given in terms of of
various spaces, conference rooms and
other things that could be shared
between departments. But we didn't take
the approach of can we take the fire
department down by 50% and take the
police department down by 25% so that
they can better fit within one building.
That that is it's an important question.
That's not what we um answered as we
came today, you know, to this meeting.
That was not our that was not our
direction.
>> Um but what would it take to to address
that? I mean, it seems to me that that's
step one is is to figure out what our
program is and then how does it fit?
And you've been given a much bigger
program that I than we have right now.
And so it's not fitting. and with the
council and the community haven't really
talked about that yet.
>> Understood. Um, Mayor Prom Robbins, the scope of work for Gendler was
included
and attached to the staff report that
went to the council and this they were
very clear in their scope of work that
they would be using the current
programming for the facility master plan
and then adding in um the fire station
because the current facility master
plan, as you know, doesn't have it. So,
they're doing what their scope of work
um requires them to do. If the majority
of the council
would like um more effort put into this,
um we we can do that. I would be talking
with Gendler. What would that take? How
many weeks would it add to the scope of
work? What would the cost be? And those
kinds of things. And then I would bring
back an amendment to the council um for
your approval. And so that we can do
this. We can do what you're asking. I do
want to give just one um note to you is
that um the the fire chief does not have
authority from his board from their
governing body to spend a lot of time on
this. So, um he and he already um
indicated to me yesterday that he's he's
put about as much time into answering
questions um that he's he's feels
comfortable doing without getting
direction from his board. So, um, you
know, with the idea, I think that the
council, the vision is to have Ross
Valley Fire, you know, kind of can do
what what they had before where they
have a station here and a and a station
that's staffed. Um, he needs to be um he
needs to be a part of any discussion
about the programming needs for a fire
department. He is the chief. He needs to
be part of that. So that that
discussion, he needs to have authority
from his his board. Just like for us,
you we depend on chief on our police
chief to um we're not just going to be
able to go in there and say you get 25%
off, you know, 25% less square footage.
We're going to have to go through
because they've been in that department
for, you know, a hundred years. it does
not meet um standards that we were
required to have for a new station. So,
um but we can do that if the council
wants us to do that. Absolutely. I'll
spend time with Gendler starting
tomorrow and come back with it at your
um your next council meeting in October.
>> Well, I I think it'd be helpful to hear
um what community members think about,
you know, where should we move? Do we
look do we make some f some inquiries
about the program before we settle on a on a an a study plan or you know I be would be I would be interested in
what community members think about this
>> that's the next section public comment
um assuming nobody has any more
questions
>> so with the there was in the CAC plan
there was blocking showing different
square footage for each of the
departments. Did you look at that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. But then you you were told the
direction was go with what the Mary
McGrath and the previous
um studies that were done by KPA for for
the the square footage and not
acknowledge what the CAC did. Is that
correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And then did you look at Sleepy
Hollow?
We were aware that we just that the Ross
Valley Fire just did redid. You didn't
look at that.
>> I mean, we were aware of the project and
but that was not the program that we
were we were asked to use.
>> Okay. So, if we asked you to look at
that and what they and designed and how
they fit because even without the fire
chiefs, yeah,
>> we know he was a part of that redo, we
could use what they had done there to
inform what we could do here.
>> Is that a fair
>> Yeah.
>> approach? Absolutely.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, Fairfax Station 21
is also undergoing a pretty significant
remodel. So, that's probably another
>> another place to look.
>> I have one other question. Are is
speaking of the base, are we talking
about the same size fire engine going
forward as what we have now, or is there
something different?
>> Uh, I believe it's the same Well, does
is there's there's not a curtain engine
assigned here. Correct. These are
there's you may know
>> assumed to be a type one. Yeah, it's a it's a standard modern fire
engine. Yeah. Thanks.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, we'll open it up for public
comment. If you would come to the podium
and announce your name and then make
your public comment.
Good evening. I'm Paul Rustler, a
longtime Ross resident and candidate for
town council.
More than 400 residents signed an
initiative to restore fire operations in
Ross.
FORF withdrew it only after the council
unanimously
advanced the CAC plan, including a fully
functional firehouse.
Now, the town is considering two
different scenarios.
One with no firehouse
or a phase two that defers it to an
uncertain future.
Phase two is not a compromise.
It converts a committed part of the CAC
plan into an unfunded option that may
never be built.
Gendler is also being asked to use the
earlier Mary McGrath plan developed for
a much larger standalone station in
carrying a dramatically higher cost than
the rightsized CAC or FORF plans for
that matter.
Start with oversized assumptions,
add indefinite delay, and the firehouse
is designed out and budgeted out of the
project.
The town manager says Gendler is merely
asking whether to evaluate two
scenarios.
But who directed Gendler to present
those choices?
One eliminates the firehouse.
The other defers it.
Neither includes the complete CAC plan
as the baseline.
This is not merely program validation.
It is a fundamental policy change.
The council should direct Gendler to use
the complete CAC plan as the baseline,
not the McGrath plan. No firehouse
alternative,
no separate phase two.
Why is this being pushed through special
meetings immediately before an election?
Mayor McMillan has opposed restoring an
operational fire station.
Bob Herps and I support reopening it
with a financially responsible plan that
minimizes the burden on taxpayers.
Do not make the firehouse impossible
before residents have their say.
Let Ross decide with honest costs and a
council that respects their vote.
That is accountability.
That is transparency. Thank you.
» Hello everybody. You know exactly who I
am.
Um,
and this is mostly for I guess the
audience
as members of the citizens advisory
committee that created
the town hall and community center plan
that you all voted unanimously to
support. We wish to express our strong
objection to the current proposal to
modify that plan by creating a no
firehouse
option. Retaining optionality for the
future return of local fire service to
Ross, pardon me, to the Ross firehouse
has been and continues to be a critical
component of the CAC plan without which
the friends of the Ross firehouse and
their many supporters would not have
agreed in good faith to withdraw the
ballot initiative requiring the town to
maintain an operational firehouse.
Excuse me. We believe it's important to
keep in mind that the town hall
renovation plan with or without the
firehouse will require a large new bond
measure of 12 to$15 million that must
receive 67%
of the approval of Ross voters.
With PA taxpayer exhaustion from so many
new tax measures, particularly this
coming November, we believe this bond
measure is highly unlikely to pass
without all of us pulling together on
the same ore and supporting it. Friends
of the Ross Firehouse clearly will not
be a supporter to a no firehouse option.
As you know, the CAC offered our
volunteer services to be active
participants in a working group
subcommittee to help guide
implementation of the CAC plan.
Combined, we have over 350 years of
experience in real estate design,
development, construction, and finance.
Dan Wy and Joe, pardon me, Joey
Buckingham in particular, are talented
designers who have served
for many years on the town's design
review committee. Our offer of volunteer
assistance remains
and we truly hope you accept it as we
have only the best intentions
for our town being longtime residents of
Ross.
We have a relatively small 2.3 acre site
at the town center on which we are
trying to fit many requirements
including admin, public safety,
affordable housing and so on. Very
likely there will need to be
prioritizations and tradeoffs
particularly since we have allocated
about a half an acre of the northern end
of the site for a 9-unit
affordable housing project in order to
meet the statemandated ABG housing
requirements.
Probably no town department will get
their full, pardon me, their full wish
list in the final plan and that's okay.
We're a very small town with limited
needs and budget. It's okay for our
firefighters and paramedics to change
share a living room and kitchen space
thereby having those space requirements.
It's okay for all our town employees to
share conference rooms and gym space.
It's okay for the police to continue
parking their squad cars behind town
hall in an unsecured yard as they have
done for the past 60 plus years.
Maybe because of the affordable housing
units.
Excuse me one second. The public works
and perhaps even some off-site parking
somewhere for some of them and their
equipment.
As Voltater
is credited with saying, please don't
let the perfect be the enemy of the
good.
>> Thanks, Jeff.
» Uh, mayor, council, uh, persons, I'm
going to continue with the CAC letter.
Uh the CAC strongly believes that with
smart planning and smart tradeoffs,
working together, we can achieve a
beautiful vision for our town hall and
community center. Uh note, we don't call
it a civic center. We're not San Rafale.
We don't have 60,000 people. We have
2500 people. We're a small town. We need
a town hall and community center. That's
Dan Weiny's label for it. And I think
it's apppropo. Um that town hall and
community center should include a shared
space for paramedics and fire,
especially with retention of the
existing apparatus bays that were built
in 1995 with $3.5 million
of private donations from Ross
residents. Frankly, to consider tearing
that down is a slap in the face to those
residents in my opinion.
There now appears to be uncertainty
about how much additional square footage
will be required to allow for potential
future firehouse operations. The
previous master plan analyzed by the
town and we now know it's Mary McGrath's
9212 report plan actually um
contemplated a brand new standalone fire
station and that's simply not an
appropriate model to use for scoping the
CAC recommendation which is a combined
living space for paramedics and
firefighters along with retention of our
existing apparatus bay. The CAC
recommends that Gendler and town staff
review the recent Sleepy Hollow Fire
Station rebuild in order to determine
the needed square footage for our town.
We're another member of the Ross Valley
Fire District with the exact same
population as Sleepy Hollow. Why would
we need more space for a firehouse than
they do a firehouse that is literally
just rebuilt and finished six months
ago? Sleepy Hollow retained their
existing apparatus bay located in the
flood zone. By the way, the Santelmo
firehouse that also was just rebuilt
also stayed in the flood zone. Um,
they built a completely new 2400t
firefighter residence that includes a
large gym.
The actual living and functional space
for the firefighters is only about 2,000
square ft. Since paramedics can share
common area living spaces with the
firefighters, it should be possible to
achieve a combined firefighter paramedic
facility in our Ross firehouse utilizing
3,000 square ft of space or less.
Another benefit, and this has been
mentioned, of copying the Sleepy Hollow
plan, is that this is a recent approved
operational design for the Ross Valley
Fire Department. So, we know it works
for their needs. We don't need to waste
a lot of Chief Mahoney's time looking at
it. He just approved an exact station
for a similar town. In in summary, we
can do this together, guys. We urge you
to reject the no firehouse option as
it's only going to lead us back to where
we started when we launched the CAC,
which is a contentious, divided town
with no chance of passing a major bond
measure to renovate and update our
historic town hall and public safety
facility. Respectfully, members of the
RAW Citizens Advisory Committee, Jeff
myself, Dan Weiny, Joey
Buckingham, Jeff Kovaleck, Ed Dong, Tom
Gaffne, and Bill Poland. Thank you.
» Anyone else in the chamber for public
comment? Wayne.
Hello, my name is Wayne Halter.
>> Push it down. Wayne Halter and I may be
the barn door may be open so that my
question is already discarded. But I it
seems to me that everybody is twisting
themselves into knots to try to provide
a fire station
possibly to come back when the decision
of the town residents hasn't been
resolved about whether they would be in
favor of paying the ongoing operational
costs. Has that already been decided
that you want to wait and maybe put it
pay these extra costs in case a fire
department comes back without knowing
whether the residents would even approve
it approve for the parcel tax would have
to pay for it. That's my question.
>> Thank you. Anybody else in the chamber?
Anyone online? sack.
>> No one online. Mayor.
>> Okay. So, we'll bring it back for um
discussion.
» Mayor, if I can just to shed light on
because the question was has been asked
about the the Mary McGrath report. And
if I can just maybe address that that
issue.
uh staff is uh by providing that report
to Gendler, we're we're staff's not
advocating for a standalone fire
station. But what does what does that
report do? It does similar to what your
facility master plan did in terms of
identifying the key uh program space
that is necessary for a current and
modern fire station to meet the health
and safety standards of an operating
department.
uh it includes a number of elements that
are non-existent in the current
facility. Uh for example, the apparatus
bay does not include space for
firefighters to uh remove their
firefighting equipment once they return
from a fire. That is a current standard
and that's I think what we heard from
Manan in terms of would there be
additional space required? That's just
one example of additional space that
would be necessary to construct and add
to the apparatus bay to ensure the
health and safety of the firefighters
after they do their important work to
preserve the life of our residents. So
there's a number of examples of of that
u that are in Mary's report where there
are those critical uh safety elements
that are necessary again as part of a uh
operating fire station that are not part
of the station as it is here. So going
forward, if you council was to make an
investment, it would be our
recommendation to look at those
carefully. And I and I can almost
guarantee you that the chief is going to
say those are required for a number of
reasons, including OSHA and current
health and safety standards. There's
just no question they can't be built
without them when you make substantial
investments and improvements. Uh and so
that again, that study was a basis for
the square footage need for that space.
It wasn't advocating nor was the cost at
part of you know that we haven't even
got to that stage of work yet. It was
really to look at all those critical
uses. What is the square footage of
space that's required to include those
elements so that Gendler has something
to look at in terms of what are the
space needs for a fire station. The the
other element again to look at and this
was what was provided to Gendler uh was
the lease agreement with the paramedic
authority. The lease agreement is very
specific in terms of the square footage
that's allotted to the paramedic
authority. It's 2,50 square feet. So
that's that does not include the any uh
elements that are required of a uh of a
fire station. So I hear the term 3,000
square ft. That would mean you got
paramedics at 2,000 and you're going to
fit six firefighters doing shift teams
in 1,000 square ft. I don't think it's
operationally possible. Uh and that's
what Mary's report really addresses is
what are those space needs for a fire
station. So that's why that report was
provided as part of just doing the space
validation. It wasn't to advocate for
building a standalone station at the
cost that Mary McGrath estimated. So I
just wanted to explain that because I
think it's helpful. Uh it wasn't it
wasn't we directed Gendler to use this
study. It was this is the most
informative and available information
from a very wellrespected design
architect for fire stations that did a
analysis two times over five plus years
and including including very recently to to look at this issue in consultation
with the chief. That's the base best
information that we had available in the
short time frame to be able to help
inform Ginsa. Uh but what they did do as
part of that work is look at all of
those shared spaces uh that where there
was opportunities for efficiencies. So
that's you know we talk about the
fitness room, we talk about a shared
kitchen uh and and you know there's a
number of other shared space elements
again to try to be as efficient as
possible. I can tell you uh Christa was
very adamant with me and with Ginsler to
make sure we were as tight as possible
with respect to square footages for all
the departments as we were moving
forward and and and same with police. We
we've had multiple discussions with uh
previous chief, Chief Pota uh and and the most recent chief on again
looking at those square footage uh
elements and programs that are required
for the police department to meet
current health and safety standards. And
so that's what again informs that square
footage. So it it's uh you know again
many of those um requirements are set
forth now in the law that if you upgrade
you change you have to include these
elements and those are they're they're
more than just best practices. They're
really uh required even though they're
not existent today. So anyways mayor I
just wanted to offer that perspective uh
and and as to why uh uh the Mary McGrath
study was was referenced.
Okay.
Discussion.
Well, uh, listening to, uh, the speakers
that came up, it it I have a question.
So, can I ask a question?
>> I'm going to ask the staff.
>> Okay. Yeah, go ahead. I'm going to ask
the staff. So,
given that there's talk about
uh, the fire station in the plan or not
in the plan. So, what's what is the
value of evaluating the civic center
concept without a fire station? What's
the value of doing that?
>> That's that's a great question, Council
Member Dalling, and I think it's
integral to why that uh was included in
your agenda report.
>> Um, first of all, we we don't want to
assume that council has made an absolute
policy direction uh that uh we are going
to have a a fire department. uh it that
it's part of, you know, something that
we're going to evaluate in terms of
providing a a capital facility to
support a fire station.
>> Uh but it also goes to cost factors. Uh
ultimately, council is going to consider
uh possibly uh whether to put a ballot
measure. Um and it's it's helpful and
informative to uh have an option where a
fire station may not be included. So you
have that cost difference that that
differential between what it would what
it would require a taxpayer to fund in
terms of uh a new facility with a fire
station and without. And I think it's a it's a helpful uh decision point
for for uh in informing the voters. Uh
so that's that's a key element. And
again the at this stage it's really
about uh helping inform your your
planning around uh site circulation
uh and a host of other uh site issues
that are are going to really drive us
forward in different directions. and and
it's key to have that information so
that if if you decide down the road that
council doesn't uh determines that they
don't want to have a fire station, you
you're you're not backtracking uh to
restart the process. So, it's it's also
about timing and and whether you want to
preserve that opportunity uh at this
point in time.
>> Okay.
» So, I I have a couple of comments. Um
I mean one is um
I don't understand where staff got the
idea that we shouldn't that we should be
looking at a no fire station option. I
thought the whole point of this was
there are differences of opinion.
uh friends presented something plausible
in December in January and then the CAC
presented a plan and the council
unanimously endors endorsed it supported
it and it had a fire station and the and
it was never
um decided how it how the operations
would be funded but the entire council
agreed that this CAC plan uh brings the
community together works for everyone.
There's an option for a fire station and
that is what Friends of the Ross
Firehouse uh
would be would have been voting on in in
November except that because of the
town's commitment, the council's
commitment to hire Gendler to look at
the CAC plan, the friends
rightly felt that the town is committed
to moving forward with that plan. And it seems to me that town staff is has
been directing Gensler to look at a plan
without a fire station. And I mean I
don't understand where that even came
from because that isn't where I thought
we were starting on April 29 when the
entire council and you know and the
entire community thought great we have a
wonderful plan and there's an option for
a fire station and if we can make it
work we will. So that's my first comment
is I don't know how we even got here,
but I think we need to get back to where
we were with with the CAC/Gensler
plan from April and not even consider uh
this idea of no fire station. I don't
see how a bond measure will pass if we
don't have a fire station u uh included
in the plan. And even if you say, well,
we have money saved so we can do part of
this. Uh, you need goodwill of the
community to pass the next paramedic
tax, the me next, uh, public safety
parcel tax that we you can't just sort
of bait and switch and say, well, we can
phase this. We have the money. We don't
care about the bond measure. We really
need this whole building with the option
of a fire station and a bond measure in
the spring.
Um, the other comment is again I don't
quite get how town staff got the idea
that we can't trim down some elements of
the program. It sounds like Gensler has
been given uh a a lovely program but
it's quite extensive and they were asked
make this work uh but you can't make it
work easily. Um, and the next and and I
don't understand why we haven't looked
before we're trying to fit in the
buildings. I think we need to take a
look at the program to see are there
areas where we can cut, you know, make
changes like do we have to have a a um
uh a parking area for the for the police
cars? Are there some areas that can be
trimmed down? And um we're being asked
to choose, you know, study one, study
two based on a program that um the town
staff is comfortable with, but I don't
know that the council or the community
is because it it directs this whole
project in a in a direction that's
different from where I think uh we all
thought we were in April.
Um
I c I wouldn't uh be in favor of any
phasing because again um
the the if you phase you will risk
phasing the fire station out of
existence and I think the whole point of the of the CAC Gendler plan was to
have the option for a fire station. It
brought whole together the entire
community. It ended the divisiveness. it
seemed feasible and now it seems like
we're tearing the whole thing apart and
I really feel like that's what town
staff has directed Gendler to do but I
think that's the wrong step. So I would
say I think we should um take another
look at the program if that takes more
time that's fine and take a look at to
see what is the best way way to put
everything uh in one building or if it's
two not to phase it.
» Okay.
Um well I I I do support phasing. I
think phasing in this case is
particularly good. You know, we really
do have to keep in mind the paramedics
and making sure that that space is
available by January 2029.
So, and I think phasing might help in
terms of where staff work. Um, I'm not
sure how like so like like plant study
too. I'm not sure how that's going to
look and is it going to be as beautiful
and um will we be as proud of it as we
were at that meeting several months ago
when we all loved the concept. Um
I I would agree that I think it's worth
looking at Sleeping Hollow and Fairfax.
I think it would be worth it for uh
Gendler's team to do that. Um,
I I I also think I'm not sure why we're
rushing at this point because given at
the last council meeting, there was a
lot of discussion about what needs to
happen by when in order to be uh on the
ballot for some time in uh 2027.
I I think that we may have assumed that
we were just going to try to rush for
March, but I think if not rushing gives
us more time to actually look at sort of
the making sure that we're really
comfortable with the space, making sure
that we're really comfortable with
what's happening with the the fire chief
and what he thinks is appropriate
spacing. um and making sure that all of
our staff and the particularly the
police are going to be comfortable with
the space. I I'd say let's give
ourselves a sufficient amount of time to
do this. I wouldn't drag our feet, but I
would give us a little more time um to
move this forward and that'll give the
Gendler staff more time. I mean, it is a
tight time frame and I think that they
would appreciate having a little more
time too as as the staff because you're
all working so very hard. So, let's slow
it down a bit. Um,
that's it.
» I don't think we should have an option
with no firehouse. I think the plan
should be what we agreed on, including a
firehouse. I'm interested in phasing.
It's simply an alternative. If we're
going to have an alternative, it should
be phasing. It really depends on whether
the financing is going to come together
for the firehouse or not. But the CAC
plan recognizes
that there's really two parts to this.
First is get it built. And then the
second is see if the financing is there.
If the financing is not there and
there's an agreement, it just can't
happen or it's not going to happen, then
of course we don't just want an unused
space, it would be nice to be able to
use it for something else. But I but
again I at this stage I I think it would
just be a waste of time to come up with
an alternative that doesn't include a
firehouse. I appreciate staff's
comments, but that would be my take on
it. Um, and then I do think we need to
look at can this be downsized. I mean,
the bigger it is, the more it's going to
cost and we know that it's going to be
challenge financing this. And certainly,
we do want our police department and our
paramedics and our fire department, if
we were to have one, to be functional
and safe and effective
um for for our staff and and for the
public generally. Um, so but I I I
really think that that that is something
that that we should we should add on to
our contract and evaluation of this and
it may be that some additional expertise
is necessary if there's some uncertainty
about this particularly with regard to
fire. We have our own expertise in house
with our police chief but we don't have
that expertise now in house on a fire
station. Um, and I I'm not clear whether
Gendler has that has that ability on his
staff. I believe that Gendler has done
other work on public safety buildings.
So, if it has and it has those
resources, great. But I think we will
need some feedback on things like new
public safety um regulations. I do think
that we should take a close look at what
other stations in the Ross Valley Fire
Department have done. Presumably they
complied with current codes too in terms
of the different elements that go into a
firehouse uh what's required under the
modern codes and and so forth. Um but um
you know I I I I I definitely think that
is worth doing
and and I hope that's specific enough
for my opinion on guidance.
>> I'm the mayor. You you go ahead. I'll do
I'll be last.
>> Whatever you say. Um I would say the
first thing is this is just a total
failure of leadership. Um the fact that
we're here at this point after we had
come together with a plan to include a
fire station. It's every meeting is some
attempt to undermine the will of the
people. And the people want their fire
station. There's no doubt about it. And
we'll know that in November. And I don't
even know what who is directing the
staff to do these things. It makes no
sense whatsoever when we've already said
we are trying to solve this puzzle of
keeping our fire station and using the current facilities. So I I'm sorry
to the welcome to the party to the new
Gendler. Welcome. But this this is
already like why are we wasting all of
this time and energy? I don't know who
the director is. It's certainly not me.
Um because we have been very clear that
the goal was to build uh capacity for
the fire station and use the with within
the constraints we have. Taking the Mary
McGrath report for a single station and
then trying to push it in here is so
insane. I don't know why anyone would
recommend that. We have again Sleepy
Hollow and Fairfax construction to look
at within the fire department. You don't
have to go very far to see how to do
this. And then we also have Dan Weiny
and his team that actually already
worked on the CAC plan that could also
provide instruction. So the last meeting
we talked about why aren't isn't the CAC
meeting with staff and being a part of
this process and we're told no, they
shouldn't be a part of this process.
Well, you're wasting everybody's time by
not using the experts who've come up
with this beautiful plan taking their
input. We don't need Mary McGrath. We
don't need her. We've got experts right
here that are willing to help that
already have designed a beautiful plan
and they understand how to do this. So,
it's a complete lack of leadership. I
don't know who the secret whisperer is
the saying to do this. But, let me be
very clear. We can rebuild this fire
station. We can program this entire
site. There is no doubt about it. Mary
McGrath was the original person that
told everybody it was 14 million to
build the site and then it would be 28
million to add a fire station which was
it's just insanity. And at the time the
people who came forward and said this
plan is ridiculous because let me just
be clear those of us that have studied
this guess what the paramedics are?
They're firemen and then you have
firemen. So you're talking about firemen
and firemen sharing a kitchen, sharing a
gym, and then sharing a little area to
hang out with each other, and all of a
sudden you're going to double the cost
to add a couple bedrooms and some
lockers. So, you know, the absurdity is
we know what it takes because we have it
at Sleepy Hollow and Fairfax right now.
They're adding a third bedroom to add
the accommodation for the extra firemen.
And guess how much their project is? $2
million. Sleepy Hollow is $2 and a half
million dollars. Of course not. Julie
will shake her head. It's totally true.
You guys can look it up. It's in Sanoma
Records. How much it cost them to do it.
What this plan is, let's take the most
square footage, the wish list from
everybody and build a monstrosity that
we don't need for a fortune to try to
undermine the fact that say, "Oh, well,
we can't afford it. We can't afford it."
Instead of looking at what is our
budget, what are the needs of this
community? And what can we make happen?
I'm about the art of what's possible,
not what's impossible. So, let's stop
this little game of in of trying to come
up with reasons to not do something.
Let's do it for our people because this
is what they want. This is what they
need and we know we can do it.
>> So,
um
you know, I don't think this is failed
leadership at all. I think the staff has
been working really hard with Gendler. I
think there's an opportunity for
everyone to sharpen their pencil, not
just on fire. Um, and I agree, we made a
commitment. We need to have space, an
option for a fire station. Um, that's
our commitment. That's what we agreed to
on April 29th. That's what we agreed to
on May 6th when we um when we did the
resolution to amend the facilities
master plan. So, we need to abide by
that agreement and um you know, keep the
peace in town and hopefully position a
general obligation bond to pass later.
Um the the purpose of the meeting
tonight is to check in and give feedback
and give an opportunity to have feedback
and get feedback from the public and the
council. And I think the the purpose of
the meeting has been served. We have
looked at the presentation. We are
giving feedback. I agree that we need to
sharpen our pencils in terms of Sleepy
Hollow. Uh which is actually station 20
in Sanelmo. And uh that rem remodel cost
$5 million. 1.5 from Sleepy Hollow Fire
Protection District and 3.5 from
Sanelmo.
And we should also look at station 21 in
Fairfax and they are spending 1.6
million to remodel their kitchen and put
in a couple more bedrooms. So, I think
that would be helpful. Um, and I think,
you know, it's it's like when you
remodel your house, you start with a
palace and then you realize there's no
way you're going to be able to afford it
and you sharpen your pencil and you make
compromises. So, I think we have to kind
of make compromises
all the way around. Um,
you know, I I I want to clarify that
despite what has been said about me and
my motives and circulated in emails by
fellow council members, I have not had
any involvement in or influence with the
Gensler or the staff meetings or the
staff report.
I I am I am 20% of this council. I I am
not the, you know, the the marionette
person behind the puppet. That's not me.
Um, I think that the CAC letter was
really thoughtful and really excellent
to help us refocus our priorities. And I
really commend the CAC for for kind of
pivoting and helping us focus on um
station 20 on Butterfield Road. Um,
and so,
you know, I I agree with what Terry said
in terms of slowing down. Um, and I I
recognize that looking at station 20 and
21, that's going to take more time.
Sharpening our pencil and looking at all
the programs across everything, that's
going to take more time. But we had a
presentation,
it was still in August, right, Christa?
We had a presentation in August by
Civics who basically said to us, "If you
guys try to do a March
2027 bond measure in light of this
pretty divisive council election that's
coming up and all the other burdens that
the taxpayers are being asked to pay, it
is highly unlikely that you are going to
be able to pass your general obligation
bond in March of 2027." The next date
was May. I think we should slow stuff
down or at least put on our agenda for
September. Let's discuss this timeline.
Let's, you know, relax it a little bit.
Let's slow it down. Let's not be so
burdensome. The October deadline is not
realistic given that the March election
is not it's not going to be successful.
So, let's let's refine that um a little
bit and and stop putting unnecessary
pressure on staff and the architects for a false deadline that we're probably
not even going to we're probably not
even going to meet anyway. Um
so I don't know if that's helpful, if
that's enough comments for you, Christa.
Um, so just to summarize, so um, so
okay, so we're we're not going to
include an option that doesn't have a
fire station. Um,
we're going to spend some time and happy
to do it to look at the Sleepy Hollow,
excuse me, Sanelmo station 20, which is
called the Sleepy Hollow Station, but
it's in Sanelmo and um, our Fairfax
station 21. And um we uh really glad to
hear that the 12week um 12week was I've said all along is not uh not
feasible, not reasonable. So um I will
work with um David and I will work with
Gendler to come up with another
amendment to their scope of work to look
uh more closely at the programming
square footage um and to look at the um
these other two stations that have been
talked about. Letha and um and so I'll
be I'll bring the I'll bring something
back in your October 8th agenda for the
an amendment for you guys can to look
at. It's not going to be ready for your
next your next council meeting. Not not
a not not amendment. It won't be ready.
Um so we will just keep on trucking
along and um I think this is great.
Happy to have more time to do better
work. So, something that I'd like to be
also included is you mentioned that the
paramedics have this contract and it was
all based on a completely different
master plan.
>> I'm sorry, I I missed that first part.
You said
>> paramedics, we have a a a contract with
them that refers to a previous master
plan that we're redoing.
>> No, it doesn't exist.
>> It it states, and I want to correct
David Kelly said it was 2,50 ft. The
lease agreement is 2150 square feet.
>> Yeah. So what I would love as a part of
this is we that was based on the facil's
master plan that does not exist anymore.
>> That was where they took that number
from which was a separate building that
wasn't a part of this shared.
>> So again, we are all going to make
concessions in trying to figure this
out. They're not contributing $1 to the
construction cost of building that
paramedic facility. So, I'm not going to
I don't want us to be beholden to some
agreement that was signed about square
footage of a previous master plan that
doesn't exist anymore. So, that's I want
to be very clear because I don't want to
be, oh, well, we have to have this
certain square footage because that was
what was agreed to. That plan is out the
window. So, what we need to do again is
not take the constraints of that don't
exist. we have a a blank sheet of paper
and create a plan that works for
everybody and to not say that oh Mary
McGrath and this it is a new plan based
on our budget what we can do and I
really highly recommend you use the CAC
because I think they understand this and
stop trying to create this monstrosity
of things that you're saying we have to
do we it's our budget it's our town we
get to decide what we want to build
>> that is not direct we'll have to
agendaize that for a future future um
council discussion. It would need a
majority of the council to
>> um right now you are you have a an
agreement, an a signed agreement.
>> Let's please agendaize it. Thank you.
>> You'll have to say that I
>> Okay, Elizabeth, will you join me in
agendaizing the paramedic lease? What
how much square footage we have to have?
>> Well, I I mean I think we should be
talking often about the entire project
and ensure that can include the
paramedic lease. I mean, I think that um
it's been it's been a challenge
sometimes to get the building project on
the agenda and have public comment. And
yet, the more times we speak about it,
the more public comment, the more we
deliberate back and forth. I think the
closer we are to getting to where the
community and the and the council want
to go. So, I think we should I mean we
should keep having meetings though
they're difficult. We should be sure
there's public input and um uh if if you
know Julie you mentioned sharpening our
pencils and uh Bill you mentioned
downsizing and and Christie you
mentioned you know reassessing the the plan if if that's all part of if
that's where we're headed. I mean that's
what this that's what people are saying
this evening. if that also includes the
paramedic station. I I'm not opposed to
that, but I think we want to do it
carefully because I mean we we did
promise to build a paramedic station. We
want the paramedics here. Um but what
we're building is a beautiful station
and none of the other eight
jurisdictions are paying for the
ambulance. So I think that they likely
will stay because we're building a
beautiful facility. But if it needs some
tweaks and remains functional and
beautiful, I think that's probably okay.
I think it it should be what works for
us as well as for the paramedics and it
perhaps that changes a little bit
because the the overall plan changes but
I think we want to be careful as we
discuss it
>> and I I'm really worried about the
paramedics. I'm worried about the
delivery of the facility by January 1st,
2029.
We all sat here and watched Christa
negotiate with other people. Um, and by
the time the lease was negotiated, it
was on version 27. And we know that a
week before the paramedic authority
board was going to meet, Kenfield said,
"Oh, we'll house the paramedics for a
dollar." And somehow all eight members
of that paramedic authority board agreed
that they would stay here and and pay us
$75,000 a year to be here in a new
facility.
And I do I I am really leerary of
breaching that contract and opening up
those issues. I think it's less likely
of a breach if we honor the space, the
2150.
Um, I I think they would be reasonable.
I'm hoping they would be reasonable and
agree to some shared services, but I
think it's premature to run around and
say, you know, we need to renegotiate
the lease because there's a risk that
they're going to say, listen, you guys
are screwing around. You don't have your
act together. Kentfield is, you know,
waiting in the wings.
It's it's really risky. I agree.
I feel like we need to agendaize it, I
guess, to talk about it.
>> I don't think Elizabeth agreed to
agendaize it now. Um, I mean, I think it
should be agendaized in the context of
our space consideration because if if
there needs to be a minor tweak to to
the way it's laid out or to the size, I
think then we go to the RVPA board and
say, "Look, we have changed our overall
plan and we'd like to make some minor
changes that we think still leave of,
you know, a beautiful facility." I I
mean, I I don't I don't think that
that's if if they leave because of that.
I mean, they're going to leave the as
soon as they move in. I mean, that that doesn't make any sense that a minor
change means that we've lost the
paramedics. It's also important to know
that I mean, even as the the fire chief
points out, in most cases, engines
arrive first, even when we have an
ambulance right here. So, yes, we want
them, but they're not they're they're
not arriving first in most of our cases.
>> So, you you support agenda? I just want
>> I do. I'm not quite sure when, but I
support agenda. I say
>> because to be very clear, the lease, if
you read it, refers to the KPA
master facilities plan. That plan
doesn't exist anymore. So, no matter
what you may believe this lease is, it
doesn't exist. That plan doesn't exist.
We're changing it. So, we have to
obviously let them know what our new
plan is and discuss it with them
regardless because that plan that it
references over and over doesn't exist.
>> We may not need much in the way of
changes. I mean, maybe it's fine the way
it is.
>> It could be open to,
>> but that plan doesn't exist. The point,
>> I guess I'm I I would prefer to discuss
the paramedic space
as an agenda item as part of this
overall, you know, space planning that's
going on rather than putting a separate
agenda item about the paramedic facility
lease at this point in time. I think
it's premature. So I I support that. If
we don't have a constraint saying when
we come back, oh well, we have to put
2150 because that's what's in the lease
agreement. So that's that's the little
chicken and the egg. Then we have to
agendaize it and talk about it because I
don't believe that that's what the lease
says. The lease says it's KPA something
similar to the KPA facilities master
plan, which doesn't exist anymore. So we have to come up with a new plan. So
we can agendaize it or not, but we have
to this is something that has to change.
We can't just keep it the way it is.
>> I admonished you earlier not to
interrupt and then I interrupted you. Um
I I think you're splitting hairs. I
think when we have the agenda item about
the facilities and we're talking about a
square footage of those facilities, it's
fair game within that context of that
agenda item to talk about what are the
constraints of that facility and whether
that is a constraint and you can talk
about why you think it's not. Um, but I
don't I agree with the mayor that I
think it's we don't need to have an
agenda item just on the lease in order
to have encompass that conversation as
part of the uh facilities that you're
analyzing and the trade-offs you're
going to have to make.
>> Right. So Christa said that just to be
clear, I didn't Christa said we need to
agendaize this. We need to talk about
this if you change the square footage.
>> She didn't quite say that. But in any
event, I think at the end of the day,
everyone might be saying the same thing.
And when we have these conversations,
when you're making these trade-offs,
there might be follow-on work that has
to occur after the fact. If you have, as
a body decided to do something, we might
have to revisit the lease. We might not
have to, but that I think that's
premature until you have the plan in
front of you and you start making those
trade-offs.
>> That's sounds fine to me.
>> What? What did you say?
>> I said that sounds fine to me.
>> Okay, great. Okay, I think that's that's
great. Thank you. Um, any other comments
since it's almost been two hours?
Okay, thank you all for being here.