Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3783 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3783) Committee for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Update on Preliminary Design Review of Proposed Public Safety Building Title: Update on the Preliminary Design of the Public Safety Building Associated with Jay Paul Company’s Proposed Development at 395 Page Mill Road From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the Infrastructure Committee accept this report on the status of the preliminary design of the public safety building (proposed public benefit) associated with Jay Paul Company’s proposed development at 395 Page Mill Road. Background The Planned Community (PC) zone change at 395 Page Mill and 3045 Park Blvd., if approved, would allow construction of two four-story office buildings, totaling 311,000 square feet at 395 Page Mill Road, and a three-story approximately 44,500 square foot public safety building (as the primary proposed public benefit), along with associated parking. The applicant has estimated the value of the construction of the public safety building (including land) and associated parking at $49.3 million. The project at this value also assumes that the applicant would build the public safety building and parking garage (at a presumably lower cost than the City could.) The Council’s Infrastructure Committee, at its March 28, 2013 meeting, directed staff to bring back an accelerated schedule for reviewing the proposed development with a target Council hearing date for potential project approval in December 2013. During the Committee’s discussion on the accelerated schedule on April 16, Police Chief Burns expressed concerns about the preliminary design of the building and the ability of the site to meet the City’s operational needs. The Committee requested that staff return on May 7 with the City’s public safety building architect, RossDrulisCusenberry Architecture Inc. (RDC) with a City of Palo Alto Page 2 discussion and analysis of the viability of the site for the City’s future public safety building, and any potential barriers that staff anticipates. Discussion Staff has been working closely with the applicant to address issues related to the design of the proposed public safety building. The City has identified five core building design priorities to ensure the proposed project’s provision of a public safety building as a public benefit is viable. In focused meetings since the April 16 Committee meeting, the City’s architect (RDC) and the applicant (Jay Paul Company) have agreed that the proposed site can meet these criteria: 1. An essential facility, complete with a Communications Center and Emergency Operations Center (EOC), that is designed and constructed to meet essential services standards for seismic resiliency and allow for "immediate occupancy" in the event of a major earthquake or other catastrophic event. Immediate occupancy is essential for the Police Department to respond in an emergency. 2. A public safety building design that maximizes police, fire and public safety operational efficiencies in order to best serve the community and staff, concentrating on police patrol operations, a community room, lobby interactions, prisoner processing, evidence storage, the emergency operations center (EOC), and E-911 communication functions - and offers the appropriate levels of redundancy and survivability to support these functions. 3. A defensible building that is both inviting and attractive to the public and provides modern day security and threat/hazard vulnerability risk mitigation measures, including but not limited to: building setbacks, optimal space planning and building layout configuration, appropriate structural and building envelope design, ballistic shielding, site mounted vehicle barriers, electronic security systems and other building, site and perimeter security measures. 4. An approximately 44,500 square foot essential services public safety facility that includes the entirety of the program. 5. Site capability that includes appropriate ingress/egress, setbacks, efficient operational flow for patrol vehicles within the site, nearby parking for media and fire engines, EOC activations and public parking. In order to expedite our progress on an accelerated schedule, the City has put a process in place for the City’s architect, Michael Ross (RDC) to work in an advisory role to the applicant’s architect, DES Architects and Engineers, to address these priorities. RDC brings extensive experience in the design of public safety buildings. Jay Paul Company is in full support with moving forward and believes the firm’s architect can align and collaborate with the City’s architect to address design and operational needs, and has agreed to fund the work of the City’s architect. Time is of the essence for the applicant too, and the Jay Paul Company has asked that the City and RDC provide concept plan design input by the end of May to promptly allow the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission to begin their work on the Planned Community zoning proposal. This first tier of design review will focus on the five major operational components mentioned above. A core working team has been established led by Public Works Director Mike Sartor with staff from Planning, Transportation, Public Works, Police, Fire, Office of Emergency Services, and the City Manager’s Office. The team is meeting regularly with RDC and DES on the preliminary design review to ensure coordination and continued work flow. RDC developed two site test fit, operational studies, both of which confirmed the suitability of the site to accommodate the program and integrate the intensive automobile operations of the police department. These studies were reviewed with the Police Department and Developer team. All parties agree that the proposed site, while somewhat constrained, is workable, and staff, the applicant, and the architects are working collectively to design a public safety facility that meets operational needs to best serve the City. There will be an ongoing series of design review and decisions by the staff/applicant planning team that will be needed over the coming months but staff believes we can manage to the schedule outlined. (Staff is working to achieve the next design threshold by the end of May to allow the PTC review to proceed). The Committee requested that staff evaluate key issues related to the proposed development that may challenge or delay the schedule. The following provides a summary of issues that have been raised during the prescreening hearing or the first initiation hearing that will be considered as a part of the Planned Community (PC) Zone process: Value of Public Benefit – While it is believed that the Public Safety Building is a significant public benefit, the City is committed to ensuring that it makes clear the proper ratio of public benefits to increased development intensity allowed under the PC. The City is currently working with a third party economic consultant, Applied Development Economics, to develop an economic analysis of the value of the PC zoning request. A draft of the study is anticipated to be completed in June 2013. Environmental Review – Staff is currently in the final stages of initiating a contract for consulting services to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Given the potential traffic associated with the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and the project’s location above the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume, this environmental assessment will contain several alternatives and technical reports including a traffic report, air quality and greenhouse gas analysis, soils and hazardous materials report, water supply assessment, arborist report, and noise report prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, prior to the ARB’s and PTC’s review of the PC zone request. Coordination with City’s Comprehensive Plan and the proposed California Avenue Concept Plan – While the development may meet the City’s desire for additional development near transit, both sites would need Council approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order City of Palo Alto Page 4 to accommodate the proposed mix of uses and densities. The proposed FAR is not currently anticipated in these plans. Floor Area Ratio – The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase is the applicant’s primary reason for requesting a Planned Community Rezoning. The proposal is in excess of three times the maximum allowed FAR. The requested FAR for the project is an average of 1.51:1, whereas the maximum floor area ratio in this zone district is 0.4:1. Height – The PC Zone Ordinance contains a maximum height limit of 35 feet for development within 150 feet of any R-1 and residential PC zoned property, and an overall maximum height limit of 50 feet. The height of the two proposed buildings located at 395 Page Mill Road would be 58 feet above grade. The maximum height proposed for the public safety building at 3045 Park Blvd would be 47 feet and adjacent parking structure would be 57 feet above grade. Given proposed buildings are over 50 feet in height, height exceptions would be requested as part of the PC process. Massing – The proposed development is a four story office building against the backdrop of two-story homes. Appropriate setbacks and landscaping will be important considerations in the review and in minimizing neighbor objections. Attachment A provides a revised schedule with critical milestones for considering Jay Paul’s development proposal and public safety building (proposed public benefit). The schedule also overlays decision points for determining whether/when the City may proceed with an infrastructure ballot measure to potentially fund a public safety building. The good news is that staff can report that the public safety building can work on this site and the design process could lead to the development of a public safety building that would meet the City’s requirements. However, given the complexity of the project and anticipated public participation, staff does not believe a December 2013 City Council hearing date for the project and certification of the environmental impact report (EIR) is feasible. Staff does believe that enough progress can be made in the review process to effectively inform decisions about the need for an infrastructure measure by the December 2013 date and is committed to work to that schedule. It is anticipated that Council will be able to consider the project and the feasibility of the EIR in March 2014. The City will be conducting its final feasibility poll in the spring of 2014 to inform Council’s final decisions about placing an infrastructure finance measure on the ballot. That said, the land use decision on the zoning change will have its own tests to meet beyond the public benefit question. Attachments:  Attachment A. Schedule (PDF) Sep May Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 2012 2014 Sep Council Prescreening Dec-12 Applicant Submits Revised Plans Feb PTC Initiation 1st Hearing May Infrastructure Committee May Initiate EIR Jun Circulate NOP Jul PTC EIR Scoping Aug ARB Preliminary Hearing Sep Admin Draft EIR Nov Circulate EIR Dec PTC EIR Hearing Mar CC Hearing Feb PTC Hearing Jan ARB Hearing Jul-Aug Focus Groups Feb-Apr Final Survey Sep-Nov Potential Tracking Survey Apr-Jun Baseline Survey Attachment A. Schedule 395 Page Mill Road and 3045 Park Blvd. Planned Community Zone Change & EIR Schedule and Public Opinion Research for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure May 2, 2013 May PTC Initiation 2nd Hearing 395 Page Mill Road and 3045 Park Blvd. Planned Community Zone Change & EIR Schedule Public Opinion Research for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure