Loading...
12/09/2019 - Minutes MINUTES CITY&COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE MONDAY, December 9, 2019,4:00 P.M. Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent Rob Pett,Chair Anne Oliver Barbara Murphy Jennifer Hale RECEIVED Mark Thimma�t"Lake eltl'\bounty iliudDmq Steve Cornell Conseroancv C ithe Committer Z11311,>ve� John Kemp JAN 2 4 2020 Ex Officio Members Present Guests Jim Cleland SLC Facilities male: January 13,2020 Kevin Miller, GSBS ArchitectclTY RECORDER Joan Swain,SLC Facilities Paulo Aguilera,GSBS Architects Jaysen Oldroyd,SLC Attorney's Office Sean Fyfe,SLC Engineering Efren Corado,SLC Arts council Sara Javoronok,SLC Planning Rob welcomed everyone to the Salt Lake City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee Meeting on this December 9, 2019. Rob welcomed GSBS Architects Kevin Miller and Paulo Aguilera to the meeting and asked Sara Javoronok from Salt Lake City Planning to introduce herself. Sara explained that she is sitting in for Karl Leith who is no longer with the City and she works on historic preservation projects. Rob noted that a there is not a quorum at this time, but suggested the meeting begin with a roll call: Jim Cleland,SLC Facilities;Sean Fyfe,SLC Engineering;Kevin Miller,GSBS Architects; Paulo Aguilera,GSBS Architects; Barbara Murphy, Committee Member; Efren Corado,SLC Arts Council;Sara Javoronok,SLC Planning; Mark Thimm,Committee Member; Rob Pett,Committee Chair; Joan Swain, SLC Facilities;Jaysen Oldroyd,SLC Attorney's Office Agenda Item 1: Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for October 14, 2019. Rob suggested skipping this Agenda Item until we have a quorum present. Agenda Item 2: Vulnerability Assessment City and County Building--GSBS Architects. Sean Fyfe explained that the City has been involved in and working with GSBS Architects on a space planning and vulnerability assessment for several months. The assessment incorporates this building as well as the Plaza 349 building and Kevin and Paulo are here to give an update for this project Paulo provided the following information relative to the Space Planning Project: • The project started in June 2019 with departmental interviews. All departments in the City and County building and Plaza 349 were interviewed to assess future space needs in terms of actual growth that they are going to be experiencing and staff growth. • Sean provided existing floor plans from which GSBS measured and assessed existing square footages and compartmentalized by departments. This information is organized and contained in a spreadsheet model. • Growth projections right now for a project are for 10 and 20 years,so GSBS is looking at what is going to be experienced in terms of growth in years 2030 and 2040. The hope is the report that we are working to finalizing right now is to optimize space for both buildings that is going to give the City an idea of the type of growth that the City will be experiencing. All the analysis is complete, now it is just a matter of working to finish the report to present to the City for the January 7,2020 meeting. Sean explained that Zach Stewart with GSBS is the project manager for the space planning piece and was unable to be here today as he had to travel for a personal family emergency this week. Sean suggested the study looks at both buildings kind of in tandem,as follows: • Part of the study is to review what departments should be where within the 2 buildings to optimize efficiencies amongst themselves as well as to improve public engagement or availability of service amongst the departments that live in the 2 buildings. 1 • This is not so much a micro-level look at each space and what cubical should be where, it's a broader overview with some ideas such as if the City were to experience that growth, how would the City handle that growth within a financial arrangement. • There is no funding at the present time, but the study does suggest that some departments should move to other buildings depending on which strategy is preferred. Comments, Questions and Answers: C: A lot of the information is related to space allocation per employee and trying to standardize things.(JC) C: This building is a unique resource and trying to find the right people to utilize the uniqueness of the building is quite a project. (KM) C: The space planning piece is not entertaining major alterations to either building, it really is suggesting a space planning study for furniture and temporary type of partitions as well as considering storage needs and how changes in technology is going to affect how much space is going to be used 10 years from now. (SF) Q: At what point of the finished product is GSBS at right now. (RP) A: The deliverable product is an analysis of growth and use within the departments and then allocation of that to the resources. The report at the end of the day will be a written report with some diagrams illustrating some potential allocations,such as, if you grow in this way,this department and this department truly belong together that are currently separate could be co-located in one building or another. (KM) Q: What is the January 7th date?(RP) A: January 7, 2020 is the Steering Committee meeting,which has been involved with the space planning project and it includes a lot of City representatives from various departments. The Steering Committee met in November and presented some concepts to GSBS,which are being incorporated into that information now for a final presentation to the Steering Committee on January 7, 2020. After that presentation, it should only take a short amount of time to wrap things up and a final presentation could possibly made to this Committee in January or February. (SF) Jim suggested we would like to get the information from GSBS out to the Committee prior to the next meeting with enough time for the Committee members to read it and come with questions rather than go over it together in the meeting. Sean explained that February would be a better time to have a question and answer discussion, because January is set for the Master Plan presentation which may take up quite a bit of meeting time for discussion. Kevin Miller explained that what GSBS proposed to the City to access the Vulnerability piece was to use the Department of Homeland Security Design Basis Threat Analysis process. Kevin suggested he was first introduced to this analysis process by Salt Lake City Police when GSBS did the Public Safety Building and GSBS has used it on many projects since, ranging from schools to city halls and now these two City buildings that we have analyzed here. Kevin explained the following about the analysis process: • It is an objectively based analysis for accessing security risks for public facilities. It was initially designed for federal facilities, but it works just fine for public facilities. There is a report that is very close to being completed,which will contain the feedback that was received. • Design Basis Threat Analysis is a two-step process and as mentioned, GSBS engaged with the Steering Committee to undertake this analysis for the City and County building and for Plaza 349, but this discussion will not include much about Plaza 349.The Steering Committee includes representatives from the Mayor's office,City Council,SLC Police Department, Emergency Management, Risk Management,City Attorney, Engineering and Operations. • It's a consensus-based process that starts out with setting a baseline for facility protection. This is a scoring system by simply going through and determining what kind of building it is, how many occupants, how large is it and this give a baseline score. • The City and County building scoring resulted in a category of"High". The high category is used to identify scoring of 35 different types of risk scenarios, ranging from assault with a weapon to assault with a standoff weapon and everything in between, kidnapping, active shooter and any number of potential threats. • By establishing a category of High for the facility,that then dictates certain mitigations against those various threats. Then the Committee decides if an individual threat(for example active shooter)is of greater risk in this facility or lesser risk that what the baseline would suggest or maybe it accepts the baseline and move on from there. Then,there are listed within that threat anywhere from a few to a thousand different mitigations that can be employed. • Most mitigations are operational or pragmatic and some are physical. 2 Kevin suggested for today's report he would like to run through some of the physical mitigations because of the potential impact on this historical resource, noting that the entire process has a feedback loop in it that says: "Analyze the threat, look at the mitigation and if the mitigation doesn't make sense, what else could be done to mitigate the risk of that threat and that is what is employed. (Example: Collapsed protection is one potential mitigation. How would collapse protection be done for this building as it stands?) Kevin listed the Recommended Security Mitigations for Site Development as follows: Exterior Features: o Restricting landscaping from obscuring the views from CCTV cameras, interfering with lighting or intrusion detection systems, but the report notes that the historic character of Washington Square may require cameras to be placed that work around the landscaping rather than working the landscaping around the cameras. This is the degree of sensitivity that was had for this historic resource in doing the analysis. o Use vehicle gates to limit access to vehicles to authorized vehicles only. This means on the entire site getting close to the building. o Limit the number of entry points to the fewest number practical. The becomes an issue given the cruci-form organization this plan and its traditional kind of being able to get in from every angle. o Utilizing acceptable fragment retention film on the exterior windows. One potential threat is an explosive device,whether man-borne or whatever, but, acknowledging the historic windows and all that kind of stuff,the best we can do is seal those windows with a protective film that will keep those windows from turning into projectile weapons in the event of an explosion. o Provide barriers to protect pedestrian entrances from penetration by passenger vehicles. Interior Features: o Using signage,stanchions.counters,furniture to establish physical barriers or boundaries to control access to non-public areas. It was noted that in this building there are certain occurrences where that works really,well and others where it is not working very well. o Conversation about the location and design of trash containers. GSBS likes containers that do not amplify an explosion, something like a big ring with a bag hanging off it is a preferred type of container. o Providing blinds, curtains or other window treatments in the critical areas,that prevent visual observation. The hammered glass that is a character of this building is good. Kevin suggested this leads to the two things that at the policy level are the big ideas that are sort of being struggled with as to how to implement them. 1. Visitor and Occupant screening. 17 of the 31 threats that were evaluated recommended the facility do "Mag and Bag" as it is called. This requires everyone to wears a badge and everyone gets screened coming and going from this facility. This is City Hall,a building that people expect to have access to and in fact,the nature of its entry,the split level of this building makes the implementation of this such a system very difficult, notwithstanding multiple entrances and it goes on and on. Notwithstanding, 17 of the 31 threats say there should be"magging and bagging" of people coming into this facility,so we are strongly recommending strongly that somebody else think really hard about this, maybe GSBS, but come back and do an analysis and figure out what it would look like to implement such a thing here or whether or not it could be physically implemented. Again,the process has the feedback loop and it is not required for a building of this type to have a full-time security desk as this building currently has at the center of the cross,so that is a very good mitigation against the same risk. Security can be a good deterrent against the kinds of threats that magging and bagging would mitigate,so the policy makers will have to determine which direction to take on this matter and tell GSBS how it can help. 2. On-site parking. This is a legitimate risk. A very real threat as anyone can drive a car up against the building,and if its full of diesel fuel and fertilizer there is no more building. Again,there's a lot of history to having access to this building and a very high degree of expectation among the public about what they can and cannot do. At the very least,GSBS would like to see that this parking be limited to staff and city employees only getting on to the site itself and that the public park on the perimeter of the block and that is controlled that with gates. GSBS and the Steering Committee are aware that a master plan is in process for the site,which can begin to look at that issue, which is why it is important to get this work done because it informs how that Committee might think about,in terms of developing the site. There are stories of people driving around and parking right next to windows because they couldn't find a parking space and for the Risk Management people who always look at the world as a glass half empty,this makes them shudder. 3 The report recommends specific mitigations. There are some 49 of them, in addition to the final 2 items,which get kicked up a level in terms of implementation. This a report that will be presented to the City,which says these are GSBS's recommendations of things you ought to be considering when you make changes to the building. Comments,Questions and Answers: Q: You are not necessarily proposing remedies?(RP) A: We are proposing,for example, relative to the fragment retention for windows as discussed earlier,we are by virtue of publishing this report saying that that is an implementation that the City should undertake. We're not saying when. We acknowledge that there are budget constraints and there would have to be the political will to do this, but it is on the list of things that need to be done. (KM) Q: How has it been prioritized?(RP) A: It has not been prioritized. All these things are equal of value. I listed 9 or 10 items that affect the building physically, but most of the 49 items don't physically impact the building at all,they are operational changes, or they are changes that are not going to carve up the historical fabric of the site. (KM) C: Bringing people into the building is a big challenge. (RP) A: It is a big challenge and risk managers and law enforcement,although not paranoid, but they do look at things from a "what could go wrong"viewpoint and there is a lot that could go wrong. On the other hand,the fulltime security guard at the desk is a pretty good mitigation. It's an important and difficult policy discussion, particularly given the constraints of the building. C: The Committee went through the process of grinding through all the threats twice,which takes about 4 dedicated hours,and everyone still seemed to be enthusiastic about it at the end. (KM) C: It's helpful for the occupants and those that are making the decisions to already have a road map that has already been established that gives them something to work with rather than trying to dream up what could possibly happen. (SF) A: That is exactly right. It provides a set of rules they can uniformly follow and know that what is being done has been determined to be the right thing. (KM) Kevin suggested one other thing he wanted to mention at the outset of this discussion is that this was pure day to day normal business operations. The Committee did not consider any extraordinary use of the facilities,such as festivals or activities of any kind. Those activities have their own approaches as to dealing with potential threats that arise from whatever constituency they are bringing to the square. Q:Will the Space Planning and the Vulnerability Study be combined into one report.(RP) A: Yes,and the Conservancy Committee will have a chance to see it before the February meeting and have a chance to respond and ask questions.(SF) Sean reminded the Committee that this is just a study and there is no planned implementation for anything the study yields, but it is something for Administration to have as a as they plan. There is no plan to undertake a bunch of changes for next year. Rob thanked Kevin and Paulo for coming to present the information. Agenda Item 3: Open Meetings Training—Jaysen Oldroyd,SLC Attorney's Office. Rob questioned whether we should proceed with the training since there is not a quorum present. Jaysen Oldroyd explained that it is still worth doing the training with those we have present and suggesting we will cover everyone we can and see where we go from here. Jaysen noted that there is an online training option and he could send the link to Joan to make available for others that are not present. Jaysen Oldroyd explained that there is a statutory obligation to receive Open Meetings training as part of the Conservancy and Use Committee. Jaysen presented "Open Meeting Law" (refer to the handout provided entitled: "Open Meeting Law"—Training for Conservancy and Use Committee—August 22, 2019). The link for the Open Meeting Training is: https://training.auditor.utah.gov/ Rob thanked Jaysen for his presentation and for answering questions. 4