Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Facilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

San Gabriel Council OKs $127,000 study to assess police facility needs

5402508 · July 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City Council approved a professional services agreement with Griffin Structures to produce a five-month space-needs assessment for the San Gabriel Police Department. The study will be paid from police facility development impact fees and is intended to inform future funding and possible ballot measures.

The San Gabriel City Council on July 15 authorized a professional services agreement with Griffin Structures to prepare a police facility space-needs assessment, approving funding drawn from police facility development impact fees.

The study contract price presented to the council was $127,000 plus a 10% contingency, bringing the study budget to $139,700, according to Acting Public Works Director Angela Chang. Staff said the assessment will take about five months and focus on internal needs rather than public design outreach.

Nut graf: Council members said the study is a necessary early step to produce a firm estimate of space and construction costs the city could use when seeking grants, planning ballots or pursuing phased projects. The report will estimate square footage needs, preliminary layouts and construction-cost ranges so the city and potential architects can plan next steps.

Acting Public Works Director Angela Chang told the council the current San Gabriel Police Department building was built in 1962, has seen only minor improvements and is now “outdated, overcrowded, and not able to support the department’s current operations or projected growth.” Chang said the city issued an RFP in March, received six responses and interviewed three finalists before selecting Griffin Structures for its experience with aging public-safety facilities and a lower-cost proposal.

City Manager Mark (last name not specified in the transcript) and Police Chief Elizalde described the study’s scope: month one will focus on site visits and interviews with staff, months two and three on needs analysis and concept development, month four on draft layouts and cost estimates, and month five on finalizing the report and returning recommendations to council. The consultant will examine whether to renovate, expand or replace the current facility and will project staffing and space needs out roughly to mid-century in coordination with the general plan update.

Council members asked whether the study would include public outreach and whether the fire department or a joint public-safety facility would be evaluated. Staff and the chief repeatedly said the five-month study is an internal space-needs assessment and will not include public-design workshops; if the council later wants a joint police-fire or public-safety study, that would add scope and cost. Chief Elizalde said the city will conduct a separate standards-of-coverage study for the fire department; staff said those results could be combined with the police assessment later to evaluate a joint facility.

Several council members noted the firm’s fee was reasonable compared with proposals the city received. Council member Herrera Avila said her review of other local bids showed Griffin’s price “is pretty standard” and in some cases lower than other respondents. Council member Wu asked about timing for a ballot; staff said they will bring a separate item in August about polling and outreach and that a ballot measure could be scheduled for a June primary, the November general election, or a special election depending on the chosen route.

Before the final vote, staff also referenced Resolution No. 25-29 to appropriate funds from the police facility development impact fees because the item was not included in the FY 2025–26 budget. During the presentation staff twice stated the contract amount as $127,000 plus 10% contingency (total $139,700); later in the staff remarks a different figure—$427,000 plus a 10% contingency—was mentioned. The transcript records both numbers; the council approved the motion after staff presentation. The council vote was 5–0 in favor.

Ending: The study is expected to be completed in about five months and will return to the council with recommendations and preliminary cost estimates that the city said would be used to guide funding decisions and any future design or ballot planning.