Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-17 City Council (9)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 5 DATE:MAY 17, 1998 _.__CMR:238:99 SUBJECT:3410 HILLVIEW DRIVE: REVIEW OF A SITE AND DESIGN APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF A 61,878-- SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 64,636-SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY RESEARCH/OFFICE BUILDING WITH ONE LEVEL OF UNDERGROUND PARKING, SIGNAGE, LANDSCAPING, PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSIDERATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -_--== RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and staffrecommend that the City Council: -:- -- Approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (see-Attachment F), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and o Approve the proposed Site and Design application (see Attachments C, D and E). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, SAP Labs, Inc., is proposing to demolish a 61,878-square-foot office building and construct a 64,636-square-foot, two-story research/office building with one level of underground parking, signage, landscaping, parking and site improvements. The project is located at 3410 Hillview Drive (see Attachment A - Site Location Map). The Property is zoned LM 5 (D) and requires Site and Design review. The purpose of Site. -~a~d Design is to provide a review process for projects proposed in environmentally sensitive areas. Site and Design review ensures that the project will be harmonious and compatible with surrounding uses in the general vicinity and in accord with: the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, CMR:238:99 ~Page 1 of 3 The attached Planning Commission staff report includes more detailed project and site information (see Attachment G - February 24, 1999 Planning Commission staff report). BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary. Architectural Review: The Architectural Review Board (ARB), at its meeting on November 19, 1998, reviewed a preliminary application for this project. The applicant presented two schemes for the location of the building footprint and parking on the site. The proposed Scheme A located the proposed building and parking in the same location as the existing building and parking. The proposed Scheme B located the building further back from Hillview Drive and closer to the Coyote Hill Open Space. -The general consensus of the Board was that both schemes were appropriate for the site. However, the majority of the Board expressed .preference for Scheme B that located the building footprint closer to the rear property line. The applicant submitted Scheme B from the preliminary plan submittal with minor changes (see Attachment H).- Planning Commission: On February 19., 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a publicly-noticed site visit. The Commission examined the location, site access, parking layout and potential visual impacts of the proposed building. The Commission, at its meeting of February 24, 1999, reviewed this project and unanimously supported it. The Commission thought that the location of the building towards the rear property line and the parking in the front of the building was a sensitive approach to this site. (See Attachment I - Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes dated February 24, 1999 for additiona.1 detail.) The Commission recommended approval and forwarded comments to the ARB and recommended approval to City Council based on the findings (see Attachments C, D, E) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impact (see Attachment F). Architectural Review Board: - The ARB reviewed this project at its meeting on March 18, 1999. It enthusiastically supported the project and thought that the landscape and architecture complemented each other. It supported the proposed location and orientation of the building on the site. The transition from landscape to building has been successfully handled. It appreciated the level of detail that went into this proposal. The proposed lighting concepts in the parking areas and Onthe site work very well. The ARB encouraged the concept of stone bollards at the front entrance area. (See Attachment J - ARB minutes dated March 18, 1999 for additional detail.) CMR:238:99 Page 2 of 3 The ARB recommended approval ofstaffrecommendations, forwardedEomments to the City Council on the fmdings and conditions (see Attachments C, D, E) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impa~-t (see Attachment F). ATTACHMENTS A. Site Location Map B. Applicant’s Project Description C. Site and Design Findings D. ARB Findings E. Conditions of Project Approval F. Environmental Impact Assessment C~ Planning Commission staff report dated February 24, 1999 ARB minutes dated November 19, 1999 I. Excerpt Planning Commission minutes, dated_February 24, 1999 J. ARB minutes dated March 18, 1999 Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Phillip Woods, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G. EDWARD GAWF -~ ~ Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager Architectural Review Board Planning Commission Committee for Green Foothills, Denise DNe, 3921 East Bayshore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ehrlich Rominger, 4800 E1 Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022 Tom Richman & Associates, 654 Gilman Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 SAP Labs, Inc., 3475 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Stanford Management Company, Property Services, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 CMR:238:99 Page 3 of 3 LM -5(D) Project: 3410 Hillview Avenue AC(D) LM -5 Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 2-24-99 File #: 98-ARB-192; 98-D-13; 98-EIA-27 Scale: 1"= 400’ Attachment B December 4, 1998 - Owner:SAP Labs, Inc. 3475 Deer Creek Road Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Contact:Jim Robinson (650-849-4046 Project Location: 3410 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto Stanford Research Park -- ’Project Description: Summary of Pro_iect Proposal: SAP Lab proposes to construct a new 2-story office building with a basement-parking garage. The existing structures on the site will be demolished. The approved FAR is .3. The site is 246,550 sq. ft. which would allow a FAR of 73,965 sq. ft. for the new building. The existing site parking will all be replaced due to the deterioration of the existing paving as well as the revised locations of the parking spaces. All spaces are planned to be "Unielass" except for the handicap spaces. All dead or diseased trees will be removed and replaced with trees that are in character with the oaks on Coyote Hill or with the adjacent property landscaping. An arborist has been ~brought on board to assist the Design team and the City in the removal and replacement of the site trees. There are three heritage oaks on site. Of these one is in very poor condition (10% vitality) and is proposed to be removed. The other two will be preserved. Design Concept: The design intent is to capture the unique and compelling features of Coyote Hill to the west of the new building and the views of the valley to the east while meeting the functional requirements of the building, circulation and parking. Locating the building further back on the site and away from the frontage street will make it less visible while at the same time providing more landscaping area between the adjacent property buildings for people driving or walking by the site. Fencing will be provided along the Coyote Hill property line to encourage people to enjoy the hillside with their eyes only. Surface parking will be provided in te~a~es on the east side of the building. These terraces will wrap around the hillside, creating a large landscape space at the building forecourt. Trees will be planted in dusters, with species that provide shade without obscuring the view. Work To Be Done: Refer to the Project Proposal above. Relation To Existing Conditions On The Site: The new building and parking will be positioned on the site to minimize site grading. The existing entry driveway and street frontage landscaping will be retained. Existing heritage oaks will be retained as stated above. Existing And Proposed Usesi The past use of the site was for research and development by Roche Biosciences. Chemical use occurred on the site. The new building will be for office use. No chemical use is planned. A small cafeteria will be included as an employee amenity. Because SAP markets to other companies they will have a high number of visitors to the subject site. This high visitor population will place a tremendous demand on site parking. Consequently the subject project proposes the construction of a below grade parking garage to resolve this problem. Materials: To be resolved by 12/18/98. Colors: To be resolved by 12/18/98. Construction Methods To Be Used: Construction is scheduled to start in the summer of 1999 to minimize any earthwork during the winter months. Design will try to balance the amount of cut and fill to deviate the need to haul earth either on or-bffthe site thereby reducing or eliminating some truck traffic. Traditional construction means and methods will be utilized. FINDINGS FOR SITE AND DESIGN 3410 Hillview Drive 98-ARB-192, 98-D-13, 98-EIA-27 ATTACHMENT C ao co d The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential, uses of adjoining or nearby sites," in that, the proposed building prox, ides a harmonious transition from the research and development use onto the open space use located behind the subject property. The proposed research and development building is similar in size, scale and design with other buildings located in the area and the project has been design so as not to impact the Coyote Hill Open Space. The project will en~u~e the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activitie~ or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area," in that, the project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design of the research and development building and related site improvements are generally consistent with the development in the Stanford Research Park, and the construction of the development will be govemed by the current Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of development. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed with this project; in that, this project, will observe sound principles of environmental design and ecological balances and the design of the structure. The- iproposed research and development building has been designed to be consistent With the Site and Design Criteria adopted by the City Council. The project will not have asignificant environmental, impact as indicated by the proposed mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. - .... The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan; in that, the proposed research and development office use and related improvements comply with the Site and Design development regulations and conform to the intent of the LM-5D. - ~ ARB FINDINGS 3410 Hillview Drive 98-ARB-192, 98-D-13, 98-EIA-27 ATTACHMENT D ARB ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE ¯ The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s comprehensive plan (Standard #al). The proposal is compatible with goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the "Policy" section (See Attachment G, Planning Commission Staff report dated February 24, 1999) and the proposed office and research office use is included in this land designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #a2) in that, the siting of the research/office building, parking areas and landscaping areas would be compatible with the existing~development in the Stanford Research Park. The design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3) in that, the siting, height, massing, landscaping and circulation is appropriate to a research/office building. The proposal locates the building toward the rear of the property to maximize the views on the site. Whether the.design is c.o_mpatible with the character in areas that have a unified design character or historical character (St:akidard- #a4) in that, the proposed building is consistent with adjacent buildings in the Stanford Research Park. The proposed building maintains a similar height and mass as other existing buildings in the area. ----- The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land use~ (Standard’#a5). The proposed building scale and mass qcould promote a harmonious transition in scale and character to the surrounding development. The proposal provides a harmonious transition to the Coyote Hill Open Space by stepping the second story of building steps back from the first floor. The design is compatible with improvements both on and off the site (Standard #a6). The proposed building has been designed to be compatible with the character of the surrounding development and natural environment. The building has incorporated appropriate architectural detail which includes large overhangs and tinted glass walls that will eliminate reflection. In addition, the mechanical equipment is located in a roof well and hidden behind a mechanical screen. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors .and the general community (Standard #a7). The site planning, definition of open space, and circulation would create an internal sense of order to. the site that provide a desirable environment for visitors and the general commun[ty. The building is sited further away from the street frontage whichmakes it less ~visible from Hillview Drive and provides additional area for landscaping to integrate the building into the natural surrotmdings. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures (Standard #a8). The proposal is appropriate to the design and function of the structure, in that, the building footprint maximizes the amount of open space on the site. In addition, the building provides a rooftop terrace and observation deck for the occupant’s use of the outdoors. The sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and whether the same are compatible with the project’s design concept (Standard #a9). The proposal incorporates a design that reinforces open space, pedestrian circulation and building function o_f the existing development. The building location maximizes the view:of the open space and foothills. The access to the property and circulation theron are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles. (Standard #al O) in that, the proposal maintains the existing driveway entrance that allows safe access to the property and circulation for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The proposal creates additional pedestrian circulation on the site by incorporating a vertical spine from the parking areas to the main entrance of the building. That natural features area appropriately preserved and integrated with the project (Standard #a11) The proposal preserves an existing grove of trees and perimeter trees on the site that will integrate the building with the. surroundings. The proposal integrates the existing oak trees with the new landscaping. The proposed landscaping creates a transition for the urban and foothills by reiiucing the turf area in the front and completing the Foothills landscape theme The materials, texture, colors~ and details~ construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function (Standard#a12). The proposal incorporates building materials which include sandblasted concrete exterior wa!l.. panels and clear green tinted glazing panels that would be typically found in the Stanford Research/Office Park. The proposed building materials have textures and warm colors that will blend into the natural surroundings. Whether the landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textureSand colors create a desirable and functional environment (Standard #13) in that, the proposal preserves existing trees onthe site and provides generous planting areas around the building and parkingareas. The proposed location of the building footprint away from Hillview Drive creates a forecourt for landscaping. This area will be landscaped with clusters of trees that provide shade without obstructing the view. In addition, the proposal brings the landscape into the building by incorporating the same paving materials inside the building. Whether plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintain on the site, and is of a variety which wouM tend to be drought- resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. (Standard #a14) in that, the proposal provides a variety of plant material on the site that includes native plants that are drought-resistant. The landscaping is required by Utility Marketing Services Department to be capable of being irrigated by a Maximum Water Allowance as defmed in the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto. The design is energyefficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements (Standard #a 15). The proposed building will be designed for energy efficiency to include such features as dual glazing and insulation. ATTACHMENT E CONDITIONS~OF APPROVAL 3410 Hillview Drive 98-ARB-192, 98-D-13, 98-EIA-27 Planning -- PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT 1. This project is subject to a housing in-lieu fee based on 2~758 square feet of new floor area. This fee as of was $ 3.75 per square foot for a total fee of $10,342.50. One half the fee $5,171.25 is payable at the time of building permit issuance and the remainder at building occupancy. The actual fee due will be base on the building square footage shown on the building permit plans. The fee is adjusted annually in the spring and the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is the fee required. This fee is not reimbursable. Sec. 16.47. .Provide four slower facilities for the use of occupants of the proposed research/office building. -_ A separate application will be required for signage to returii=to the ARB. The color and finish of the retaining walls are to be coordinated with the building materials and screened with appropriate plant materials. If during grading and construction activities, any arci~eological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. Piannin~ Arborist PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT 6. The landscape plan shall incorporate two 48-inch box size Oak trees on the site to mitigate the removal of Valley Oak #254. The grassland planting area on the site should only be undertaken by using local seed sources. TreeProtection and Preservation Plan. For trees to be retained, a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan is necessary for review and approval of the Planning Arborist. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Identify a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted. The TPZ shall be clearly shown on all ensuing grading, utility and irrigation plans, and sow that no conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not limited to, identify a monthly arborist inspection, pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations, and any other measures necessary to insure survival of the trees to be retained. Key elements of the plan shall be printed on the Tree Protection sheet with the project arborist contact number. Planting Plan, Sheet L. 1.2. The backflow preventer along Hillview Avenue shall be screened with shrub planting of a minimum four feet in height. Utility Plan. All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation, plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shall include publicly owned trees within the right-of-way. The TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLAN, Sheet L. 1.3 shall accompany any plans submitted for demolition, grading or building permit and shall be referenced on .all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. Sheet L. 1.3 shall also contain the following notes: Planning Arborist Conditions of Approval #4-12 listed below, the forthcoming Tree Preservation Guidelines from the project arborist and a detail of silt fencing around trees to be protected. Arborist Progress Report. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree Condition on a minimum of four week intervals. The Planiaifig Arborist shall be in receipt of the progress report during the first week of each month tiil:- completion at fax # (650) 329-2154. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition, grading, or building permit issuance unless otherwise approved by the C~ty Planning" Arborist. All trees to be retained, as shown~ on the approved plans shall be protected during construction per the arborist report and to the satisfaction of the City Planning Arborist. The location of all tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on submitted plans for building permit. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Planning Arborist. a. All existing trees to be retained shall be protected with five-foot high chain link bo fences enclosing the entire ddpline under the trees. Each fence shall be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground every 10 feet to a depth of at least 2-feet. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and shall remain in place until final inspection, except during work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (As ¯ shown on Public Works Standard Specification Detail #505) A "Warning" sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 12-inches square and shall state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Fence This fence shall not be removed without prior authorization. Violators are subject to fine pursuant Section 8.10.110 of the PAMC." 15.Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning work on trees to remain shall be completed in Compliance with the following: All work on Protected ¯Trees shall be done in a manner that preserves the tree’s structure and health, pursuant to the Western Chapter of the International Society -of Atboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines; Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z133-!994 and Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. b.Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first beapproved by Public Works at (650) -496-6974. DURING CONSTRUCTION 16. Any existing trees on adjacent property, including the public right-of way, that overhang the site shall be protected from impacts during construction, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Arborist. 17. 18. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are-damaged during the course of co~truction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 o£the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The following tree preservation measures apply to all existing trees that are to be retained: ~ a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c.Tre-es to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY 19. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and ar~ installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. Transportation Planning PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION. GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT 20. The final approval of the visitor bike racks is contingent upon the Transportation Planning Department’s review of additional details of the plaza entry area. 21. 22. The route of pedestrians in the parking areas must be identified on the plans and must be a reasonably convenient and easily recognizable route to pedestrians. The plans must. show that the walking surfaces of this route and of the walkways within the parking lot meet minimum ADA requirements for surface and width. The traffic impact fee for 2,758 net new square footage is due at the time of building permit issuance. The current fee is $2.75/square foot, with certain type of uses exempt (refer to PAMC Section 16.45). Assuming that there are no exempt uses, the net square footage is 2,758 square feet, resulting in a fee Of $7,584.50. Public Works Engineering PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT - 23. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the applicant shall submit plans that identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include both-temporary BMP’s to be implemented during construction and permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. The PWE approved conceptual grading and drainage plan and SWPPP shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 24.The applicant must obtain a separate building permit for the proposed retaining walls. This building permit must be obtained r~ to grading permit issuance. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering,i including drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. 26. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide, calculations showing t_he adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage f~e adjustment will take --place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 27. 28. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. A construction logistic plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout theCity of Palo Alto. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 29. -. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction pi’oposed in the City right-of-way. 30.A detailed site-specific soilreport must be submitted which includes information on water-table and basement construction issues. 31.The proposed development is larger than five acres than five acres. The developer is required to file a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. The developer shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent along with the building permit application. DURING CONSTRUCTION 32. To reduce’ dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor.-Dus~t nuisances originating from the contractor’s operation, either inside or outside of the right-or-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. 33. 35. The applicant or applicant’s contractor shall contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed i~ the public right-of-way (Sec. 12.08.060). - - -~ No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. _~ The applicant shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public. Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) 36.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. .PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 37. The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. .Utility Marketing Services PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR A BUILDING PERMIT 38. The applicant shall provide a completed Landscape Use Statement, Water Use Calculations, grading plan and Statement of Design Intent. The design landscape must be capable of being irrigated by a Maximum Water Allowance as defined in the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto. There must be a dedicated irrigation water meter. The landscape plans must indicate the total landscaped area of the site. The~e plans should be prepared by a licensed_landscape architect and qualifiedirrigation consultant. Final landscape and irrigation plans must be approved by Utility Marketing Services before a Building Permit will be issued. W-G-W Utilities Engineering: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUIDLING PERMIT 39. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 40.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the lahd~cape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. Sec. 16.48.120 (a) (13) and (c). Sec. 16.82.060 (c). 41. The applicant shall obtain at its own cost and expense a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed in private property located at 3410-Hillview Drive for City use prior to issuance of a building permit. Utilities Rule & Regulations # 17-A(1). 42.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. PW Operations/Recyling PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 43.Submit a solid waste and recycling plan prior to the submittal of demolition/building "permit._ __ 44.Indicate the required recycling and trash enclosure on the site plan. Include space to accommodate an appropriate sized trash container, one 4 cubic yard container for cardboard, five 95 gallon containers and four 64 gallon containers. 45. - Provide ~pace for centralized recycling storage areas for inside the building such as in the dining area and copy rooms. Fire 46.Provide Automatic Sprinkler System throughout the building per NFPA 13, 1996. The elevator must be large enough to accommodate a Paramedic gumey 24" x 82" and two emergency personnel. (PAMC 17) The site access is limited with only one building side being accessible, kThe building area will be limited by SRC 1995. - - 48.Provide access for Fire Department response apparatus. The Fire Department load bearing access is required at 59,000 lbs. Attacl~nent F ENVIR ONMENTA CHE CKLIS T FORM 1.Project Title:SAP Labs, Inc. Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 m Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Application Number(s): Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Phillip Woods, Senior Planner 650-329-2230 3410 Hillview Drive Palo Alto, CA 98-ARB-192; 98-EIA-27; 98-D-13 Jim Robinson SAP Labs, Inc. 3475 Deer Creek Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Research/Office Park LIVi- 5 (D) (Limited Industrial Site Combining District 5) Description of the Project: Demolition of a 74,000 square foot, two story office/research building and construction of a 73,965 square foot, two-story research/office building with one level of subterranean parking, on grade parking, signage, landscaping and related site improvements. 10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project is located on a rectangular shaped parcel of land totaling 246,550 square feet. The subject site is located in the Stanford Research Park and the surrounding land uses include; Research/Development office-buildings to the North, EaSt and South, VA Hospital and The Foothill Expressway to the North/East and Coyote Hill Open Space located to the West. = S :\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required. Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. LandUse and Planning X -- Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Energy and Mineral X -Cultural Resources Housing Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Public Services Utilities and S~r~ice Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project CouLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have_ been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at__ least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided-or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Date f g ommumty Environment Date s:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 3) 4) 5) 6) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported- by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the’one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutant~, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated~’ applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "PotentiallySignificant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effec~ has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 e (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. - -~ 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? - ~ Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1 2 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) b) c) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial gro~,th in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3 3 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people ~to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic grqund shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? F)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation; grading or fill? 4,18, 19 4,18, 19 4,18. 19 4,18, 19 4,18, 19 4,18, 19 X X X X X X X X X X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourcas Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? I) Unique geologic or physical features? 4o b) c) d) e) f) WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4,18, 19 4,18, 19 4,18, 19 Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.go sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or wetland? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine Or freshwater, or wetlands? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltra~|on-of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from Urban or industrial activities? I)-Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Alteration of wetlands in any way? 5. AIR QUALITY, Would the proposal: 3,7, 4,5 3,17 3,17 3 3 6, 17,20 S:\PLAN\PLADIV~3410HILL.EIA. Less Than ! Fact - Significant Impact X X X X X X X × × Page 6 Issues ahd Supporting Information Sources Sourcss Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant - Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 6,8,9 6,8,9 X X X X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ....10, .....18 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 10 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) H~zards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting-alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?g) b) c) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? 10, 11, 12 3,10 10 10 Would the proposal result in red~ction or interference in: 8, 16 Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)_Wettand habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 8,19 8 8,16 8 X X a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?8 X X X X X X X x X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources ISouroes I Potentially Signifioant Issues Potentially Signifioent Unlees Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impaot b) c) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future ’value to the region and the residents of tl~e State? 3 8 o b) c) d) e) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limit.ed t__o: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any+ health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? 13, 21 11, 12, 13 3,12, 1’1 3,12, 13, 21 3,12 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. government’services in any of the following areas: 14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) -Schools? d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? 8,12 8,11 8 8 X e) Other governmental services?8 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE sYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: X X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA. X X X X X X X X Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 ÷ 13. AESTHETICS. a) b) c) Would the proposal: Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) 3 3 3 e) Disturb paleontological res~-urces? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious 0~r-sacred uses within the potential impact area? " 15. RECREATION. Wo~ld the proposal: e)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 8 8,18 8 8 8 X 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. X X X X X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA. ~Page 9 Issue~ and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significaht- Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No ImPact - a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current .projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on-.human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis-may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 ¢ (3) (D). In this case discussion should identify the following items: ~ - a) Earlier analys~s used. Identify earlier analyses ~nd state where they are available-for review. b)Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were .within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,;’ describe the- mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public-Resources Code Sect, ions 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Leas Than Signifioant Impact 18.SOURCE 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 ~EFERENCES Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998 - 2010 City of Palo Alto, Zoning. Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49 ~ - Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and SeismicTechnical Background Report, August 1994 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348-5, Map Revised September 6, 1989. City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quali~y Technical Background Report, August 1994 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division City of Palo Alto Police Department City of Palo Alto Fire Department City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department .... - - Fish & Game Code of California, "~hapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2~ as amended October t 1, 1985 Letters from Laura Jones, Archaeologist, Stanford University, Planning Office dated August 28, 1998 and October 28, 1998. Arborist’s Tree Inventory report from Ray Morneau, DatedDecember 3, 1998 - Transportation Impact Analysis by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. dated January 18, 1999 PaloAIto Fire Department Hazardous Material Closure Application and Permit No. H026-98 S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact 19.EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 3 a,b, c,e,f GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a strong seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC) which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake: Excavation .. Construction of the new building and related site improvements will disrupt and dis~iace site soils and result in changes to site topography. Site soil modifications are not expected to.result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposal includes 17, 876 cubic yards of cut into the site and 17,109 cubic yards of fill and export of approximately 766 cubic yards of cut. The proposed project may result in an increase in soil erosion due to grading an~digging activities related to construction. Erosion can be reduced by stockpiling and converging loose soils and watering of graded areas. A detailed site-specific soil report will be required. The project would be conditioned that the buildings be constructed in accordance with the Soils/Foundation report submitted by the applicant. With the City’s required standard conditions ~o_f approval, the earth impacts of the project will not be significant. - The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant.to obtain approval of a construction logistic plan from the Public Works Engineering Department and to submit a final grading and drainage plan for review by the Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. All truck routes will be required to conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA. -Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources " ! Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Irnpaot 4 a,c, g, h 58 WATER: The site is in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is an area of moderate flooding, outside the 100 year flood zone but inside the 500-year flood zone or flooding to a depth less than 1 foot in the 100-year floodevent. The construction of the new building and parking area will slightly increase the amount of impervious surface area and therefore increase the amount of surface water runof-f~and cl~ange the absorption rate on the site. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. The applicant has indicated that the on-site drainage will be direct to an infiltration swale and then directed into an infiltratiOn bubbler. The Public Works department has indicated that this drainage system is satisfactory in principle. During construction activities, stormwater pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows into San Francisco Bay. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependent on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Construction debris (soil, concrete, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) are a source of this pollution. With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and dr~ainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. The construction contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices (BNIPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Mitigation Measures: None required AIR QUALITY: The project would result in temporary dust emissions during grading and other construction activities. The standard conditions of project approval would reduce these air quality impacts to less than significant levels. The standard conditions of approval will require that dust control measures will be employed at the site to reduce dust emissions to acceptable levels during construction. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL,EIA.Page 1~3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Signifioant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Inoorporated 6a TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Less Than Signifioant Impaot A final Congestion Management Program traffic impact analysis has been completed for this project, as required by Santa Clara County. The City does not require traffic impact analysis with regard to meeting City requirements, as the traffic impacts of projects in the Stanford Research Park, al.ong with appropriate mitigations, were included and approved in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan Draft DEIR. The CMP study analyzed three CMP Intersections: Foothill/Page Mill, Hanover/Page Mill, and Foothill/Arastradero. Peak hour trip generation for the project includes ten percent of the trips expected to be made by "vi.sitors", for which the applicant is requesting parking spaces above and beyond the City’s requirement (the remainder of visitor trips will be made during off-peak hours). Because-there is an existing building on the site that was 25 percent occupied in October 1998 when the latest intersection monitoring counts were measured, the project’~s net new trip generation is determined by subtracting these existing trips from the new project trips. The study concludes that the project will have a significant adverse impact at the Foothill/Page Mill intersection in the PM peak hour. In 1998, the City Council approved the construction of a project to modify this intersection to improve its operation. The modification, which will be constructed in 1999, will improve existing poor operating conditions, including project traffic increases from the SAP and other future projects to better than existing conditions, thus fully mitigating the impact of the SAP project. Even with the improvement, the intersection will still operate in the future at level of service E during the AM peak hour and level of service F during the PM peak hour, but with substantially less delay than existing. CMP guidelines allow an LOS F condition to continue, as long as the intersection was operating at LOS F when the CMP was first instituted, which is the case at the Foothill/Page Mill intersection in the PM peak hour. However, a development project cannot worsen the LOS F condition by four seconds of critical movement delay or more, without migitation. The previously-approved mitigation measure will reduce delay enough to eliminate the impacts of recent and prospective new development projects through 2010, including the SAP project. Note that SAP is not required to pay a traffic impact fee, which is based on net new square footage, because the new building will replace a former building on the Site of equal size. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 14 7b 9a, d BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The site is currently planted with a predominant number of non-native pines and ornamental trees in various stages of good to poor health, many of which are not considered to be of great significance for retention and are proposed to be removed. There are, however several century old Oaks on the site end a "grove’ setting of younger healthy Coast Live Oaks. The proposal removes One large Valley Oak #254 of "Protected Tree’ status as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10 (Chapter 8.10.020) that is in decline due to adverse conditions caused by the initial development. The project is required to mitigated loss of the declining Valley Oak #254, as required by Palo. Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10, Section 8.10.050 (c)(1). The applicant is required to plant two 48-inch box size Oaks specifically to satisfy this mitigation requirement. Therefore a mitigation measure will be required. The Coyote Hill has been found to contain a ~potentially significant population of native grasses. ,While there is no serpentine on the hill, there are native plants that are commonly associated with serpentine grasslands. The population of native plants-is a potentially important ecological resource as a unique population of these plants. Therefore mitigation measures will be required. Mitigation Measures: 1.The landscape plan shall incorporate two 48-inch box size Oak trees on the site to mitigate the removal of Valley Oak #254. The revegetation of grassland area on the site should only be undertaken by using seed taken from the plant community currently existing on Coyote Hill. HAZARDS: The existing building on the site was previously occupied by Roche Bioscience/Syntex and was primarily used as office space. However, there were ten laboratories used for pharmaceutical analytical work. These labs have since have been shut down. The~Palo Alto Fire Department has indicated that the hazardous materials permit for the facility at 3410 Hillview Drive was closed out in 1997 (Palo Alto Fire Department Hazardous Material Closure Application and Permit ~No. H026-98). The useable chemicals were transferred to 3401 Hillview Drive, the’hazardous wastes were disposed and the laboratories were decontaminated and cleaned. The chemicals used were primarily HPLC type solvents (acetonitrile, methanol) in 1 gallon bottles. There was also a waste storage and gas shed in the back that-has been closed. The waste from this building was collected in this shed and manifested off the-site for disposal. There were small quantities of low level radioactive material Use at the facility~d wipe closure surveys were conducted. The site is ~ot listed on the Santa Clara Valley Water district’s current inventory of active sites. Mitigation Measure: None required S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 15 lOb NOISE: Temporary impacts would occur as a result Of construction activities. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and noise of constructing the addition and accessory structures. Such noise will be short term in duration and would be mitigated by standard City conditions of approval, which limits hours of construction. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the new building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. However, with the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the project’s noise impacts will not be significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 16 13 aC-b, c AESTHETICS:._ _ The project site is located adjacent to the Coyote Hill Open Space which is pri~te land owned by Stanford University and is leased to the Ramos Ranch, a horse ranch. The proposal locates the building footprint towards the rear of the property which is closer to the Coyote Hill Open Space. The potential visual impacts of the project are mitigated because the proposed building has been designed to be compatible with the character of the surrounding development and natural environment. The proposed building provides a harmonious transition to the Coyote Hill Open Space by stepping the second floor back from the first floor. The visual impact of mechanical equipment on the roof is mitigated by creating a mechanical well on the rooftop to screen equipment on the roof. Also, the proposal incorporates appropriate building material that includes sandblasted precast concrete panels with earth tone colors to integrate the building with the natural surroundings. The project site is located north/east from Foothill Expressway, a scenic route with views of the foothills. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vistas or views open to the public. The building design does not have any negative visual impacts from Foothill Expressway because of the distance to the expressway and the existing development and vegetation that surrounds the proposed building. The building is located further away from the Hillview Drive frontage which makes it less visible from Hillyiew Drive and provides additional area for landscaping to integrate the building into the native surroundings. The proposal provides surface parking on terraces that follow the contours of the hillside, and creates a large landscape areas in between the parking levels. The proposed landscape plan, which includes trees, shrubs, and plants, integrates the building-with the mature vegetation.. Development of the site may result in a negligible increase in light-and glare generated from light standards located on the site and glazing on the building. A detailed lighting plan which is sensitive to surrounding uses will be required as a condition of approval. The condition of approval will require the shiel~ding of lighting such~th--at~-the light does not extend beyond the site, the lighting will be directional, and that the source of light is not directly visible. The proposed building has incorporated architectural detail.that includes large overhangs and tilted glass walls that will reduce light and glaze. With the project’s conditions of .approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will ~otbe significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. S :\PLAN\PLAD IV\341 OH I LL.EIA.Page 17 14b CULTURAL RESOURCES: The site is designated as an extreme sensitivity area. This area of Palo Alto is known to contain stone tool raw materials and a potential lithic quarry site immediately uphill from the parking lot. The site of the existing building and driveway has experienced serve disruption during the construction of the facilities and it is extremely unlikely that any cultural materials could have survived in this area. The proposed new building should not create additional impacts to cultural deposits. However, if additional grading or trenching does uncover additional cultural deposits in this area on the slope of Coyote Hill the following mitigation measures will apply; Mitigation Measure: If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall Visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce the impact on the site and will be conditions for project approval. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. The landscape plan shall incorporate two 48-inch box size Oak trees on the site to mitigate the removal of Valley Oak #254. -The revegetation of grassland area on the site should only be undertaken by using seed taken from the plant community currently existing on Coyote Hill. S :\PLAN\PLAD IV\341 OH I LL.EIA.Page 18 WE,:’THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOW AS PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3410HILL.EIA.Page 19 Attachment G Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA DATE:February 24, 1999 Planning Commission Phillip Woods, Senior Planner 341.0 Hillview Drive, FILE Nos.: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: Planning 98-ARB-192, 98-D-13, 98-EIA- 27; Site and Design Application to allow the demolition of a 61,878 _square foot office building and construction of a 64,636 square foot, ’two-story research/office building with one level underground subterranean parking, signage, landscaping, parking and site improvements and to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and comment on the project, forward the application to the Architectural Review Board and recommend approval to City Council based on the attached fmdings and conditions (Attachments C, D and E of the City Council staff report) and a Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description:, -~ The project site is located in the Stanford Research Park and consists of one parcel totaling 246,550 square feet in land area. The site is an upslope lot that abuts the Coyote Hill Open Space. The parcel is currently occupied by a 61,878 square foot, two story research and development building built in the early 1960’s. The building was previously occupied by Roche Bioscience/Syntex and was primarily used for research and development. Project Proposal: ._ The proposal is ~-o Construct a two-story, 64,636 square foot detached research/office building ~_that incorporates a subterranean parking garage and surface parking located at the front, side and rear of the site with a pedestrian spine from the surface parking area to the main building that serves as the primary pedestrian circulation to the building. 3410hill.sr Page 1 Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting. Pro_iect Information Project information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning district and existing land use is shown below in Table 1. ~ TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant:SAP Labs, Inc. Owner:Stanford Management Company Assessor’s Parcel Number: APN: 142-16-78 Comprehensive Plan Designation:Research/Office Park Zoning District: Surrounding Land Use: LM - 5 (D), Limited Industrial Site Combining , District 5 Stanford Research Park located to the north, east and south, VA Hospital and the Foothill Expressway to the north/east and Coyote Hill Open Space located to the west. BACKGROUND The ARB, at its meeting on November 19, 1998 reviewed a preliminary application for this project. There were only three board members that participated in this review because two boards members had a conflict of interest and stepped down. The applicant presented two schemes for the location of the building footprint and parking on the site. The proposed Scheme A located the proposed building and parking in the same location as the existing btfilding and parking. The proposed Scheme B located the building further back from Hillview Drive-and closer to the Coyote H_ill Open Space. - The general consensus of the Board was that both schemes were appropriate for the site. However, two board members expressed preference for Scheme B that located the building footprint closer to the rear property line and one board member preferred Scheme A using the same footprint. The applicant has submitted Scheme B from the preliminary plan submittal with minor changes (See Attachment I of the City Council staff report). 3410hill.sr Page 2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Architectural Review Board Ordinance. The following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs apply to this project: Policy L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the City. The proposed building is similar in size, scale, and design with other buildings located in the area and has been design so as not to negatively impact the views of the foothills. Policy N-6; Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on view of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. The proposed research and development building has been designed to be consistent with the Site and Design Criteria adopted by City Council. Architectural Review Ordinance Standards for Review ’ The project is consistent with the Architectural Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. Architectural Review Ordinance Findings have been prepared and are attached to this staff report (See Attachment D of the City Council Staff report) _ Site and Design Review Commercial development in the LM 5.(D) zoning district requires Site and Design review (18.82.020 of the PANIC). The purpose of Site and Design is to-provide a review process for projects proposed in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions (18.82.010 of the PAMC). Site and Design review ensures that the project will be harmonious and compatible with surrounding uses in the general vicinity and in accord-with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. _ -There are four basic objectives regarding harrhonious construction~ desirability of_ investment, principles of environmental design and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, that must be addressed as part of a site and Design review (Section 18.82.060 of the ~ PAMC). These objectives are discussed within the context of the issues outlined below in the Issues/Analysis section of this report and areaddressed in the findings in Attachment of C the City Council staff report. - Zoning Ordinance Compliance Table 2 compares the proposed project to the zoning standard contained in the LM -5(D) 3410hill.sr Page 3 Limited Industrial Site Combining District 5. TABLE 2 Standard~Permitted/Required PAMC Chapter 18.60, 18.63 and 18.83 Proposed Site Area 5 acres 5 acres (246,550 SF) Site Width 250 feet minimum 410 feet Site Depth 250 feet minimum 585 feet Setbacks -Front -Interior Side -Rear Floor Area Ratio Site Coverage Height Parking Bicycle Parking 100 feet 40 feet 40 feet .3 to I minimum (73,965 SF) 15% Maximum (36,983 SF) 35 feet maximum - 1 space-for each 300 SF (240 required parking spaces) Total 22 st~aces (10% of auto parking) 80% - Class I 19 spaces 20% - Class II 5 spaces 1 loading spaceLoading Dock 360 feet 40 feet 40 feet 64,636 SF 36,960 SF 35 feet maximum 245 surface parking 65 garage 310 parking spaces Class I- Class II - 26 spaces 6 spaces Total 32 spaces 1 loading space *8,484 square feet of floor space in the building are dedicated as employee amenities for employees of the facility. 3410hill.sr Page 4 .SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The proposed project includes an attractive building design and landscape theme that improves on the existing site plan and enhances the character of the Stanford Research Park. The staffanalysis for this project relates to site planning, architectural design, landscape design, signage, parking and traffic circulation, cultural resources and zoning compliance. Site Planning." The proposal locates the building footprint further back on the site towards the rear of the property to utilize the unique and compelling feature of the Coyote Hill Open Space. This location captures the views of the valley to the east while making the building less visible from Hillview Drive by providing a larger landscaping area between the building and the street. The pedestrian and vehicular access to the site will be provided from an existing entry driveway on Hillview Drive. The pr0pos~ed surface parking will be located on terraces that wrap around the hillside, creating a large landscape building forecourt. The site plan incorporates a series of concrete retaining walls located in the rear and side yards. As a condition of approval:the color and finish of the retaining walls are to be coordinated with the building materials and screened with appropriate plant materials. Architectural design:: The building’s architectural appearance is contemporary and is expressed by the use of sandblasted concrete wall panels and clear green tinted window panels with applied ceramic frit in an opaque pattern that allows for ample natural lighting into the building interior. The proposal provides architectural detail that includes large overhangs and solar-shading devices. The building design incorporates an observation roof deck around the perimeter of the second floor with a larger deck area located on the rear of the building. The mechanical units will be located in a roof well that is surrounded by metal screens protecting them from view. Landscape Design: The proposed landscaping would appropriately complete the Foothills landscape theme, reduce the vast turf area and provides an opportunity for a better transition for the urban and foothills interface. The design of the entry plaza creates a meadow with stone bollards and paving materials that flow through building a_od onto the site. The proposal, incorporates stone paving that serve as a pedestrian conneEtion through the parking lot. Tree Preservation and Removal: The site is currently landscaped with predominately nonnative pines and ornamental trees in various stages of good to poor health. Many of these trees are not considered to be of 3410hill.sr Page 5 great significance for retention and are proposed to be removed. There are several oaks on the project site that the applicant is proposing to maintain. There are three heritage Oak trees on the site that are of ’protected tree’ status as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10 (Chapter 8.10.020).. A protected tree that is subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.10, has a trunk~ diameter of 11.5" or more, when measured 4.5 feet above grade. One of these trees is in very poor condition (10% vitality) and is proposed to be removed. The other two trees will be preserved. Fencing: The proposal replaces an existing barb wire fence located at the rear of the property. The new fence is a 6" spilt face stone post with a 4x4 split rail timber with a 4x4 wire mesh painted black. -- The proposed plans indicate the location of one monument sign, one wall mounted sign and interpretive nature feature signs located on the site. A separate application for sign approval is required, since there is insufficient detail on the proposed building plans to evaluate the signage. " ~ Parking and Traffic Circulation: The Transportation Division has reviewed the project plans and a traffic study from Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. dated January 18, 1999. A final Congestion Management Program traffic impact analysis has been completed for this project, as required by Santa Clara County. The City does not require traffic impact analysis with regard t~? _meeting City requirements, as the traffic impacts of projects in the Stanford Research Park, along with appropriate mitigations, were included and _approved in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan Draft DEIR. The CMP study analyzed three CMP Intersections: Foothill/Page Mill, Hanover/Page Mill; and Foothill/Arastradero. Peak hour trip generation for the project includes ten percent of the trips expected to be made by "visitors"., for which the applicant is requesting parking spaces above and beyond the City’s requirement (the remainder of visitor trips will be made during off-peak hours). Because there is an existing building on the site that was 25 percent occupied in October 1998 when the latest intersection monitoring counts were measured, the project’s net new trip generation is determined by subtracting these existing trips from the new project trips. The study concludes that the project will have a significam adverse impact at the Foothill/Page Mill intersection in the PM peak hour. In 1998, the City Council approved the construction of a project to modify this intersection to improve its operation. The 3410hill.sr Page 6 modification, which will be constructed in 1999, will improve existing poor operating conditions, including project traffic increases from the SAP and other future projects to better than existing conditions, thus fully mitigating the impact of the SAP ~,roject. Even with-the improvement, the intersection will still operate in the future at !ew.~ of service E during the AM peak hour and level of service F during the PM peak hour, but with substantially less delay than that which currently exists. CMP guidelines allowan LOS F condition to continue, as long as the intersection was operating at LOS F when the CMP was first instituted, which is the case at the Foothill/Page Mill intersection in the PM peak hour. However, a development project cannot worsen the LOS F condition by four seconds of critical movement delay or more, Without mitigation. The previously-approved mitigation measure will reduce delay enough to eliminate the impacts of recent and_ prospective new development projects through 2010, including the SAP project. The applicant is required to pay a traffic impact fee, which is based on new net square footage, because the new building will replace a former building on the site of greater size. SAP Lab Inc. w.ill have a high number of visitors on the subject site which will place a tremendous demand on site parking. The proposed project is providing a below grade parking garage to resolve this problem. The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83 requires 1 space for 300 square feet of gross floor area. The total number of require parking is 240 spaces while the project proposes 245 surface parking spaces and 65 spaces in the underground parking garage for a total 310 of parking spaces which creates a surplus of 70 parking spaces. This should provide an adequate number of parking spaces to handle the demands of visitor parking. ~ - Bicycle P, arkin~ Bicycle parking is required per Chapter 18.83 of the PANIC. The number of bicycle spaces is based on-10% of the number of required automobile spaces. (see Table 2). The bicycle parking is located .at the front entrance and bicycle lockers are located in the interior of the garage; Transportation staff finds the location of bicycle parking~o be ac_ceptable. The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC 18.83) requires require one off-street loading space ( 1 space per 99,999 square feet of gross floor area) consisting of a rectangular area not less than 12 feet wide by 45 feet long. (PAMC 18.60.050 (Site Development Regulations) The proposal locates the loading space at the rear of the property where 3410hill.sr Page 7 _there is sufficient space in the driveway aisle at the rear entry for shch a purpose. Cultural Resources: The subject site has been identified in the Palo Alto, 1998-2010, Comprehensive Plan as an Extreme Sensitive Archaeological Area. This project has been reviewed by the Archaeologist from the Stanford University Planning Office. They have indicated that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on cultural resources because the site work for the existing building resulted in seve¢e disruptions during construction and it is unlikely that any cultural materials could have survived (see Attachment 1 of this staff report). Recycling: The applicant will need to provide a solid waste and recycling plan prior to the submittal of demolition/building permit. The site plan needs to indicate the required recycling and trash enclosure on the site plan. The plan shall include space to accommodate an appropriate sized trash container, one 4 cubiCyard container for cardboard, five 95 gallon containers and four 64 gallon containers. The proposal should als0 provide space for centralized recycling storage areas for inside the building such as in the dining area and copy rooms. These requirements~shall be included as conditions of project approval. The applicant should work with the City Recycling program staff for assistance. Lighting~ The proposed lighting plan does.not meet the standar_ds~pf the_ Architectural Review Board for Outdoor Lighting Requirements. These requirements, which apply to all districts, state that in medium to high activity parking lots, the maximum fixture elevation is 20 feet and the maximum lighting level where lighting converges should not exceed .6 to .9 foot candles. The light pol~g are in compliance with the maximum height, however, there are areas in parking lot where the proposed light levels are 2.0 foot candles in the converging areas which would exceed the .9 foot candles (see attachment 2 of this staff report)... . .... It should be noted that the maximum foot candle levels listed in Attachment E were based upon the minimum foot candle levels listed in 1987 Volume of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) Lighting Handbook. The ARB adopted the Outdoor Lighting Requirements in 1993 prior to the release of the latest version of IEs Lighting Handbook. An excerpt of the 1993 (Sth Edition)iES Lighting Handbook regarding minimum illuminances where safety is relatedto visibility (see attachment 3 of this staff report). The minimum safety levels for low and high use is noted in Figure 33- 5. The minimum foot candle range for safety in a low use area is .5 to 2 foot candles. The minimum foot candle range for safety in a high use area is 1 to 5 foot Candles. It is 3410hill.sr Page 8 noted that higher minimum levels may be required where security-is a factor. It should be noted that other cities who have updated their outdoor lighting design guidelines since the release of the 8th Edition of the IES Lighting Handbook have allowed industry-recommended light levels for safety and uniformity. The ARB needs to comment and make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed illumi nance levels proposed in the lighting plan. -- Below Market Rate housing requirement: Under Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project is subject to a Below Market Rate housing in-lieu fee based on square feet of new floor area. One half the fee is payable at the time of building permit issuance and the remainder at building occupancy. PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation and public notice cards were sent to property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the site. TIMELINE Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to " be considered by the Architectural Review board at a public hearing on March 18, 1999, and by the City Council at a public hearing on April 19, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act_(CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (Attachment #H) was completed for the project and, based.upon the EIA, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that a mitigated Negative Declaration has been made available.for public review between February 4, 1999 to February 24, 1999. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Letter from Laura Jones, Archaeologist Stanford Planning Office dated 8/28/98 Attachment 2: ARB OutdoorLighting Requirements Attachment 3’ Excerpts from 1993 IES Lighting Handbook 3410hill.sr Page 9 COURTESY COPIES Applicant: SAI~ Labs, Inc. 3475 Deer Creek Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Architect: Ehrlich Rominger 4800 E1 Camino Real Los Altos, California 94022 Landscape Architect: Tom Richman & Associates 654 Gilman Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Owner: Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road MenloPark, CA 94025 Other: Committee for GreenFoothills Denise Dade 3921 East Bayshore Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 3410hill.sr Page 10 PREPARED BY: Phillip Woods, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DIVISION/DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: Eric ~del °Cff.~ia Chief Planning 3410hill.sr Page 11 Fek 17, 19 STANFORD MANAGEMENT No. 7525 Attachment I STANFORD MANAGEMENT COMPANY February16,1999 Mr. Jim Robinson SAP Labs, In¢,. 3475 Deer Creek Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Re: 3410 Hillview Avenue FAX (650) 849-4312 Dear Mr. Robinson: As you know we have been in the process of reviewing your building plans for 3410 Hillview. We have not concluded our review of the building architecture but expect to have some comments ready by the end of this week. In the meantime we do have some information-which The City of Palo Alto requested with respect tothe cultural resources and plant materials. Laura Jones our camphs~archaeologist evaluated the pla~s for potential impact_s to cultural resources. She found the project site contained no intact cultural resources of any type. The only prehistoric archaeological remains that could be expected at such a location would be bedrock features (such as grinding stones or petroglyphs) or stone tool processing sites, both-of which arc extremely shallow on a hillside location and would have been disturbed in the previous development of the site. Ms~ Jbne~ " will not require subsurface testing or construction monitoring on the site as the probability of inadvertent discoveries is negligible. The City may choose to engage a cultural resources consultant to provide additional services and increase the degree of certainty regardingthc site. Ms. Jones would be available during construction should your contractor come across something of a questionable naturE. There has been some questions with respect to t~he recommendation that native plants be propagated from local source plants, which may conflict with the project schedule as it would require some months of preparation. As with our recommendation on 347.5 Deer Creek Road you should include local sources for certain highly sensitive native plants. These are the plants that would be most likely to be affected by spread of pollen or seeds from the project site. Your landscape architect should submit their proposed planting list (including all plant materials) and all available information about the origin of the plants ( not just the nursery name-but where the nursery got the plant material.) The University’s Planning Office will review the list with our Biology Department for potential threats to the biological and cultural resources of Coyote Hill. As a general guideline, it is desirable for the plant materials to have )770 S,~a HILL Roan M~.st.o PA~R, CA 94025 I,H ¯ 650/926-0200 F~B-t7-99 WED 4’CI PM 415 854 268 P. 4 Feb. 17, 199£STANFORD MANAGEMENT No. 7525 P, 5/5 originated on the bay side of the peninsula. Plants from the coast or eas~ bay would be less desirable. We are concerned about the ¢~ltural, biological and visual sensitivity of the Coyote Hill area and ask that secure fencing and site protection b~ in place during construction to address potential erosion or soil movement and in .t~usion by construction personnel to the Hill. Property Services Manager cc: Philip Woods, City of Palo Alto (FAX 650-329-2154) Jen Worth, Tom Richman & Assodatos (FAX 650-325-101 FEB-17-99WED 4:CI PM P. 5 -Subject: Attachment 2 Archltectural.Review~Board (ARB) Outdoor Lighting Requirements Planning Staff in conjunction with Utility Staff are working together on llgh~. level reguirements per ARB.guidelines. The revised recommended guidelines are noted below, We would appreciate your comments. If sodium lighting is used~ color corrected ’hlgh pressure sodium is preferred, tow Pre.ssure sodium.is not allowed. Fixture ~levations should ~e less than or equal to I§ feet from grade the_top o~the Fixture in lOW activityor residential parking lots and 20 feet in medium or high activity parking lots, Spillover of lighting to adjacent p~operties should be kept to a minimum. " Flxture~ should be directed downwarg. The maximum allowed Ii~hting level wh~re lighting converges ~hould not exceed .5 footcandles ~n )ow activity parking lots and .6 to .9 footcandles in medlu~ to hlgh activity parking lots. . Light fixture~ should not be placed ~here they cause the removal o~ a parking space. L)gh~ fjx)ure~ s~all not. be lo~zted oext tp drlvew@ys or.intersections w~cn o~s~ruc~c|ear sight distance ~riangles as shown in figure 6 of the Parking Ordinance, Chapter ]8.83 of the P&~IC. . Safety should be a number one goal in developing exterior light standards. The.recommended standards as noted above meet the IES (lllum~natiqg Eng~n~ering ~ocj~t~.H~ndbook).require~ent~. ADy modi~ic?tions togu~ae~ines snoumo oe aiscussea among ~oar~ memoers ~n~ .s~aff at the nex~~u meeting. ¯ ’ Attachment (IES~Lighting Handbook, Ig~7 Application Volume, Pgs. l~-Z7 through 14-29). For larg~ installations wh~r~ r~liabl~ skilled mainte- nance personnel are not available, a s~ce contract with a responsible s¢~ic¢ organization should be pro- vided. Where the designer anticipates little or no mainte- nance and inspection, self-diagnostic or self-testing emerg~n~ lighting equipment should be considered. A multitude of "smart" equipment is currently available. It automatically monitors various vital functions of th~ equipment and indicates failures via visual and audible indicators. It t~ically runs an automatic test and diag- nostic program at leas~ once each month. When replacing lamps, batteries or any other parts, th~ maintenanc~ p~rsonn~l must select r~placem~nt parts with identical ratings in order to maintain the proper visibility, illuminance and duration of operation in accordance with cod~ requirements. Field-installed diodes used in series with an incandescent lamp to e~nd lamp lif~ and reduce power consumption should be avoided in exit signs. The diodes reduce the lumen output of the lamp, possibly affecting the visibili~ of th~ exit sign as tested by the independent testing laboratories. Emerg¢n~ lighting-should be treated as life safe~ equipment, for without its proper function, an area can be left in total darkness, causing confusion, collisions with ob~acles, panic, and even loss_of life. EMERGENt Attachment 3 person e×perienccs-when moving from bright to dark surroundings and vice versa. Some accidents which have been atlrihuled to an individual’s carelessness could have been partially due to difficulty in seeing from one or more of the above-mentioned factors. The accidents might have been avoided through the use of good lightingprinciples. Lighting for safety is a concern that must be ad- dressed in both outdoor and indoor locations. Persons must be made aware of such hazards as curbs, steps, sloped walkways and obstacles in one’s path (see figure 33-4). Where the illumination is ve~ low or designed to create a special effect, such as in hotels, restaurants, theatres, museums, art-galleries and aquariums, care must be taken to identi~ changes in elevation and direction without detracting from the visual effective- ness of the lighting. The industrial environment presents many special concerns with respect to lighting for safety. Physical hazards are marked according to American National Standards Institute .(ANSI) documents,a~ The color rendering properties of-the light source should be considered with regard to the physical hazards present. in the particular installation.~z LIGHTING FOR SAFETY Lighting for safety is dff~’e~’ent from emergency lighting in that it involves ensuring proper illumination to pro- vide safe Working conditions, safe passage and the identification of any hazards or obstructions, indoors or outdoors. Illuminance Levels The lighting recommendations in chapter I I provide a guide for efficient visual performance rather than for safety alone; therefore, they are not to be interpreted as requirements for regulator)’ minimum illuminance levels. Impo~ance .Safe conditions are essential in any areas where there are people, and the effects, of lighting on safety must be considered. The _e_nvironment should be designed to help compensate, for the limitations of human capabil- -ity. Any factor that" aids visual effectiveness increases the probability-that a person will avoid an accident or detect the potential cause of an accident and act to correct it. In many instances where illumination is associated with accidents, they are attributed to inadequate ittu= minance or ppor quality of illumination. However, there are many less tangible factors associated with poor illumination which can contribute to many accidents. Some of these are direct glare, reflected glare and harsh shadows,, all of which hamper seeing and can cause visual confusion. Excessive visual fatigue itself may be an element leading toward accidents. Accidents may also be.prompted by the delayed eye adaptation a Fig. 33.4, Adequate safety lighting must be used in spaces with obstructions or changes in d~rectton or level, such as stairwells. Fig. 33,5, Illuminance Levels for Safety H~td~ Requiting Shght Hi~hV~susl Detection Normal Activity Level Low High Low High -Illumtnance Levels Lux 5.4 11 22 54 Footcandles 0.5 1 2 5 These values reprgsent absolute minimum illuminances at any, time and Ioc~tion w~,ere safety is retated to visibility. However, In som~ cases higher levels may be required (such as where security is , factor). In other conditions, especially involving work with light.sensitive materials such as photographic lilm, much lower illumirmnces must be used. In these cases, alternate methods of ensudng safety must be employed. Figure 33-5 lists illuminance levels regarded as abso- lute minima for safety alone. To assure these values ¯ are maintained, higher initial levels must be provided as required by the maintenance conditions. In those areas which do not have fixed lighting, local illumina- tion should be provided during occupancy by means of luminaires that are portable or mounted on material- handling equipment and vehicles. Other Factors A visually safe installation must be free of excessive. glare and of uncontrolled, large differences in lumi- nances. Appropriate guides to limiting glare and adap- tation effects are given, earlier in this section in discus- sions of luminance ratios and visual comfort. Maximum luminance ratios are important to avoid temporary reductions in visibility because of changes in eye adap- tation when alternately looking at areas of widely dif- ferent luminance. Illumination Evaluation Although the quality and quantity of illum~r~ation may be designed for safety in an area, it is necessary to ¯ know whether the design-meets requirements. A stan- dard procedure, titled "How to Make a Lighting Sur- vey,’’43 has been develop d in cooperation with the U.S. Public H~alth Service. This standard procedure is recommended for use in surveys of lighting for safety. SECURITY LIGHTING Definition Security lighting is exterior lighting installed solely to enhance the security of people and property. Other forms of exterior lighting, such as outdoor display lighting, decorative floodlighting and park lighting, can serve the same purpose, but they are designed with additional criteria in mind. Nonetheless, the principles discussed here are relevant to the securib’ aspect of these other applications (see chapter 18, Lighting for Merchandise Areas, and chapter 22, Exterior Lighting). Objectives --- Security lighting is i’nstalled to enhance the security of people and property. To achieve this objective, it is designed to: Deter any would-be criminal by making detec- tion seem more likely. Allow guards to search a la~:ge area, either by direct visual surveillance or, indirectly, by closed-circuit television (CC-~I’V) suweillanee. Principles - " The basic principles of security lighting are: *To provide enough light over the secure area so that anyone moving in or around it can be seen ¯ easily. o Wherever possible, to limit the view of any would-be intruders into the secure area so that they are uncertain if anyone is watching. These two principles require the" designer to pay atten- tion to the illuminanee provided, the uniformity of the illuminanee distribution, the effect of obstructions, th~ stirface reflectances, the degree of glare, the light source color, the interaction with electronic s~rveil- lance systems and the effect on the surrounding area. Security Systems -If should be emphasized that lighting is only a part of a security system. Tl~.e complete system usually includes a physical element, such as fences, gates and locks; a detection element, involving guards patrolling or re- mote surveiliance; and a response element, which de- -termines what is to be done after detection occurs. Unless security lighting is integrated into the :c~plete system, it is unlikely to be successful. For example, good lighting in a storage area which nobody is watch- ing, and hence in which there is no possibility of a response, will simply help intruders do what they want to do, more quickly. Site Considerations The characteristics of the lighting to be used as part of the security system will be determined by several dif- ferent aspects of the site. The factors which need to be considered are as follows: Ambient Brightness of the Surrounding Area. If the surrounding area is brightly lighted, the security light- 9OO EMERGENCY, SAFETY AND SECURITY LIGHTIt~G ing needs to at least match of-prefdrably exceed that brightness. If the surrounding area is dimly lighted, such as by moonlight, then almost any form of security lighting will make the site look well lighted. Crime Status of the Area. If the site is in a high-crime area, it is likely that the physical defenses will be extensive. The security lighting .should be used to sup- port those defenses by ensuring that anyone tampering with them is easily detectable. Shape of Site. If the site is large and open, then area lighting is required. However, if the site is largely filled with a building, floodlighting of the building is a better approach. In either case, unless it iS economically impossible, the whole site should be lighted. There is little point in lighting part of a secure site. Degree of Obstruction. In sites which have a high degree of obstruction, such as container terminals, the method of lighting should be designed to avoid strong shadows. Applications Given the wide range of site characteristics which may be encountered, it is not realistic to specif3, one gen- ©ral-purpose security lighting system for all sites. It is better to set out approaches to lighting the ttifferent elements whici~ form a security system. This approach is used below. Large Open Areas: Storage Yards, Container Termi- nals. The lighting of these areas is basically area light- ing. Typically such areas are lighted by floodlighting oi" road luminaires on poles 10 m (30 ft) high or higher. The recommended average illuminance on the surface of largeo~en areas is given in figure 33-6. Figure 33-7 shows a typical layout. As a rule of thumb, a ratio of average to minimum illuminance of 8:1 should be achieved~ For typical road-lighting and floodlighting luminaires, mounted singly on poles, this can be done by the spacing the lu. minaires at 6 times their mounting height. The designer of area lighting is faced with a choice of the number of poles, the number of luminaires attached to each pole, the wattage and type of lamp to be used and the mounting height of the luminaires. If the area is unobstructed, the choice will be largely determined by economic considerations. Relevant rules of thumbare that it is more economic to use the most efficient type of lamp, it is usually more economic to use a small number of large-wattage lamps than a large number of small-wattage lamps, and it is often more economic to mount a number of luminaires on one pole than to mount each lamp individually. However, if these rules of thumb were followed to their logical conclusion, the result would be one pole with all--the Fig, :33-6, R~commended Average Illuminances for Security Lighting Illuminance,Application Ix (fc)Notes Large open 5 - 20 (0.5- 2) areas Buildings 5 - 20 (0.5 - 2) The greater the brightness of the surrounding area, thehigher the Illurninance re- quired to balance the bright- nesses in the.space. Vertical illurninance on thebuilding facade. The greater the brightness of the sur- rounding area, the higher the illuminance required to bal-ance the brightnesses in the space. Perimeter fence Entrances Gatehouse~ s (o.5) ioo-11o) 300 (30) Illuminance on the ground on either side of the fence. Illuminance on the ground in the inspection area. Illuminance on the workplane in the gatehouse. This lighting must be dimmable to low lev- els at night so the guard cansee outside the gatehouse. Fig. 33-7. Typical layout for floodlighting open areas. H is the pole height for the lurninaires. luminaires mbunted on it. This is unlikely to be -effeC- tive, because unless the pole height were great com- pared with the size:of the secure area, it would create a very nonuniform illuminance distribution which would be" detrimental to security. Therefore,,l~l~..s.e. rules of thumb need to be applied with care foF’illuminance uniformity. This is particularly true if the area contains obstruc- tions, as in container a~:eas, because then having all the light sources in one location will lead to extensive shadowed ar~_as. Two rules apply to the lighting of obstructed areas. The first is that increasing the mount- ing height will reduce the size of shadows cast by the obstructions. The second is that every point in the area should receive light from at least two directions. One should also remember the value of increasing the re- flectance of the surface. For example, a concrete sur- face will reflect much more light than a blacktop sur- face. This reflected light will also diminish the strength of shadows. 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 -28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes November 19, 1998 Attachment H 3410 Hillview Drive[98-ARB-lii2]: Application by SAP Labs, Inc. for a preliminary reviewof the Architectural Review Board for the demolition of an existing two story research office building and to allow the construction of a new 74,000 sq. ft. research and office building, parking, landscaping and various site improvements. BM Peterson: We will.no move to Item Numbers 8 and 9. Both Cheryl and I have conflicts with both of these items. __ -_ BM Lippert: BM Peterson: I also have a conflict. Which means we will have to draw straws to take this first item. BM Lippert: I should probably state for the record what my conflict is. My conflict is that one of the consultants on the project i.s a client of mine. BM Peterson: Alright, fine. You will be here for the last item? BM Lippert: Yes. BM Piha: Stanford is a source of income. That’s my conflict. Mr. Phillip Woods.- Planner: There is no Staff recommendation. There is one additional letter from the Stanford Land Management Company that came yesterday. BM Peters0n: Okay. The applicants? You have ten minutes which still isn’t enough time but we’ll have lots of questions I’m sure. Mr. Jim Robinson: Good morning, I’m Jim Robinson from SAP Labs, the facilities manager. What I’d like to do is introduce the design team. Bob Evans from Ehrlich-Rominger and Tom- Richman from Richman Associates. Mr. Bob Evans. Architect. Ehrlich-Rominger: This a unique experience for me with a microphone. We have a lot of material and_the reason we do is that in two weeks this project will go to the Planning Commission on the 4th of December. So a lot of the exhibits we prepared are for that meeting. Unfortunately preparing for that meeting With two schemes means we have a lot of information. So in the ten minutes I’ll try to be very, very quick. One way to facilitate that is, if Mr. Peterson if you will hand that out, that’s the reduction of the important boards that we’ll City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42- be talking about. What we’re really looking to gain from the preliminary review here, and please accept the apology that everything looks very~formal and resolved, but we’d like to come to this preliminary review with an open mind about the two schemes that we have. The kind of feedback" that we’re_ looking for is obviously a preference between either scheme but basically feedback on the planning issues. We also have a request for a parking garage that we’re making before the Planning Commission which will bring the requirement for parking from 3.3 which is one car per 300 square feet to about 4.4, that’s our request. This is a single level parking garage under the building. And finally, if we have time is to address any architectural comments that you might have. We’re not presenting building elevations at this time but there are issues on of context of the park, what we might do there, that both architecture and landscape design. What we have basically is a model and what’s here in front of you now is the existing site condition. You can rel~ite that to the photograph on your left with the on-site photographs. We have another board with the off-site conditions for your reference. I invite you to browse there are lots of boards. If you have questions please stand up and look at the boards if you’d like to. The zoning drawing indicates the site design zoning, the combined district LM-5(D), Foothill Expressway, Hillview Avenue, Coyote Hill Road, Deer Creek, EPRI is all of this complex here and this is3410 the 15i:oject site. There is an existing building there now. That building was basically a lab building. It does not suit the purposes of a basic office function. This building is intended to be torn down. That building meets the .3 FAR currently _and we’d be replacing that building in kind. In fact, the two schemes that we’re presenting on these boards, these were the concept schemes initially. We were looking for strong viable alternatives that represent a different approach to the project. The first scheme is basically to replace the existing building, use the existing building pad, essentially place the building at the same height as the existing building pad is at. We have a garage, we have handicap access issue because the building that we’re proposing is slightly higher. But the parking to the rear replaces existing parking. _Visitor parking is minimal in the front. Acknowledging the 100 foot setback, the driveway access from Hillview remains the same access. Access to the rear parking is the same. Basically it was intended to be a low impact scheme. Then breaking from the-box, as Tom says, we looked at a second scheme Which said, okay if we don’t do that, what are the site potentials here. Certainly one that we feel is not acknowledged on the Hillview corridor is Coyote Hill as an environment for everyone to enjoy. So certainly moving the building up the hill to the rear setback line and getting the building up about ten feet higher not only improved the view for the user but there is a relationship now to the hill which wasn’t acknoffledged before. We think it’s really worth developing. The consequence of that is that unlike the planning along Hillview right now is that most-of the parking if not all of the parking is to the front of the project, which raises issues Of light and just context. The existh3_g structures on the perimeter, access drive, with slight modifications in the plans, these drawings again were prepared for P_l~anning, like data sheets which acknowledge that the FAR, coverage City of Palo Alto Page 2 : 1 2 3 ~4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 requirements, parking and setback is there. It fills requests there. It is a lot of documented information which essentially verifies that this project is being proposed within the zoning ordinance: - This is an overlay of the proposed Scheme A on top of the existing conditions which gives you an idea that there’s really not a lot that’s changing. In fact, this parking lot right here is replacing an existing parking aisle that was demolished when the existing building expanded. This was an expansion. And when they did that they took this parking out. So really the grading is already there and even the tree plantings are already there for us to come in and jugt replace that parking in that scheme. We’re going to leave the illustrative landscape concept plan up and we’ll talk to that drawing when we come back to question and answer. The building is built to .3 FAR. It’s a two story building. The advantage of Scheme A is that it’s not up against setbacks. It’s a smaller footprint than the previous building and allows to actually get 15% site coverage. Because of theparking garage we can-take some of the FAR and put it in the basement which allows us to play with a second level of the building. A .3 FAR and a 15 % site coverage, that describes the two story building with equal [floor plate]. And we’d like not to do that. We actually think one of the advantages of the site. Mr. Evans:~ Site features which are worth preserving are these three oak trees. We have an arborist’s report and we’ve talked to the condition of all the trees on the site and we certainly want to bring these trees back to health. They are all not in good condition because of changes that were made when the existing building was built. But we’d like to recover the conditions which would make those trees healthy again. So these trees are being designed around in both schemes. There is an existing swale right here now, and a lot of introduced, non-native tree types, i.e., redwood, pine, that are grooved in this area that are not in good health. So we will have proposals for accentuating this area. The Cafeteria and second story setback are occurring here so there is kind of a feeling of continuation of thatswale up into the building. The downside here is that i~e views here are limited because of we’re down well below treetops and we have an adjacent .building. So most of what we do here would be in local planting. The strong advantage of this scheme is that it does have presence along Hillview. We had a request. to produce photo montages fromHillview so both of these sequences are essentially heading from the north along Hillview and what you would see with the building cut into the photograph. This also represents the building height limitation and how the parking structure or that lower level would have to be burned and screened. Scheme B which is further back on the site, you can see it’s just barely visible and only one aspect. We planned it so in utilizing this in visitor parking we access the garage well over on this side. It is well screened from existing mature trees that are in the front yard setback. And, Oh, I have two minutes left. Well we’ll jump right into Scheme B then. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 - 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 There are a number of issues we’d like some feedback on in Scheme B. We consider this not to -be the low impact scheme. It probably has a greater risk of issues that will be raised because of the proximity to Coyote Hill. If you like it, there are also the noise and activity issues would have to-be addressed. There is also the visibility of the building as seen from off-site. We’ve actually had a crane out on the site taking panorama photographs at this point to.see what we can see from. the top of the building. If we can see it, we’re going to go to those points and go back at it and see if we can locate the building. We’ll construct that to see what the impact might be. That is really only an issue in Scheme B but we realized that’s one of the issue we’ll be dealing with. The second is grades. Because of the large amount of earth coming out of the basement for the garage, and because of radiants for parking there will be a lot of site regrading where the existing building pad was. Of course that would occur anyway but there is a lot of fill in that location. So issues that we need feedback on really are there is a continuation of the 100 foot setback, and only visitor parking in the front yard for most of the buildings along Hillview. It is not entirely all the buildings along Hillview but it is a pattern where very little parking is in the front yard. None within the 100 foot setback but very little in the front. This would have all this parking in the front, and as the photo montage shows, none of that parking is actually there. But as light sources there may be an issue with the. parking lot lighting in the front of the building. This is Scheme B. The nice thing about Scheme B, we feel, is that the relatiomhip between existing buildings on both sides and this building creates this large amount of landscaped area which can actually be enjoyed by Hillview. _We have opportunities to bring the landscaped oaks, the live oaks, and recover the hill landscaping and bring it onto the site and in a different way merg~ what’s happening on Hillview with what’s happening on Coyote Hill. There is an opportunity with this scheme to do that partly because this large amount of landscaped area is available to us to develop under a single theme. Scheme A, it’s sort of dividing the site in half, there’s a backside and a fron(side. So there are different opporm~_’_ties between the two schemes. We are looking for any po_tential problems that you foresee so that we can deal with them in the upcoming weeks before our first Planning Commission hearing. And certainly if you envision something that we haven’t thought about we’d be really interested in that. Lastly from my own point of view and from Tom’s, we’re interested in doing something very appropriate and contextural. ’ But we would also like to do something that may resolve other issues that may be going on in the business park in terms of what’s been introduced, i.e., iceplant, and- non-indigenous plant types as well as building architecture and what you’re feelings are there. _This is an opportunity. It’s a new building in a design sensitive zone and so we can really do what we want to do there. Tom’s here because he-has a lot to say about the arborist report. We have a map that shows the condition of all the trees on site. If you have questions of which trees are proposed for removal - and where that came up in the Staff report. Sd~e can discuss that. We also have very strong concepts for landscaping which we really are talking about. Thank you._ Mr. Tom Richman, Landscape Architect. Richman Associates: Thank you Bob. Thank you very Oty of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 much. First of all_ let say this is a true collaboration between architecture and the landscape - architecture. We’ve had very good opportunity to work together and so it’s not_my ideas or Bob’s ideas. It is a giant set of ideas. Let me speak to them briefly. One of the main ideas, inspiration - points, for the design is Coyote Hill. These are some of the stones that you find on Coyote Hill. This is serpentine which is a state rock and it is a beautiful stone. There are lots of outcroppings of serpentine up here, you can even see some of them in the aerial photos. That is one of the inspiration points for the design. Is to start to use stone and weave it through the landscape, use it as an organizing element, and as a feature. Another one of the main landscape ideas is this integration with the native landscape is this idea of the flow of the hillside. In Scheme A for example, there is kind of a wrapping around where the building is embraced by the landscape and the native planting of trees. In Scheme B, that integration of the landscape is more literal. The hillside actually comes right down and meets the building here. So when you are .sitting inside the building looking out you’ll have a view of Coyote Hill. Then as Bob pointed oiat we have the opportunity to create a large landscape zone framed by these adjacent buildings. Where the parking lot will be it will be terraced and then detailed in a way that makes it more of a landscaped experience than a parking experience. Both of these schemes have similar landscape features, I’ll touch on them briefly. - -- Scheme A has an entry plaza here. This will be accessed by a series of stairs. The image board for that, both of these schemes,--has an idea of using paving -- something approaching these images. Where the paving is a stone material or a natural material like that, that the edge would gradually ravel out into the landscape and even tumbling stones or other ways of working with these kinds of rich natural materials, even perhaps taking stones that we find when we excavate for the building. So in this case the entry plaza is up a series of stairs. There is a cafe with a patio in the back. We have a strong water feature here-where we will try to do a little storm water retention in this natural swale. There is another entry here where you come in on the ground floor towards the cafe side. Then in the parking terraces wehave this special paving that kind of leads you through the parking downstairs where necessary and guides you in. There is kind of a flow like water or like geology flows?-Finally we have a fence. I need to say this-. ¯ There will be a fence along the back here because the management company doesn’t want people crawling up Coyote Hill collecting rocks for example. So ther~e_will be some kind of a delicate and transparent fence there to make that message. I think that fence should also include some small interpretiv6 signs tO explain to people why we’rerequesting that they stay on their side of the fence. - This scheme has all the same features, I’ll jus( touch on them briefly. Here is the special paving kind of flowing, in this._case it kind of flows through the building and out through this door, through what was envisioned to be a large central atrium space so there’s a connection in and out. The entry plaza-is here. In this case it is flush at grade with the parking lot because these are -sloping up. We would perhaps def’me space using again, this theme of stone, we may be able to fred some very large stones or that kind of thing. On this scheme we have these terraces on the front. They are a little more gracious, a little more spread out and organic and formed than the terraces on Scheme A. We still have the opportunity for some kind of a limited storm water City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 feature here. We have, as-I said before, very literal integration with-the native landscape. Cafe here, in this case on the sunny side of the building. Another entry here and the fence. This scheme has good distant views when you’re’up at this level, even on the ground floor and especially on the second floor you have fantastic views of the San Francisco Bay. Then also the reverse view is quite good. In this scheme we’ve also attempted to keep those views open by keeping the trees in the view shed relatively small and clumping them together rather than making a literal parking lot type planting. So you have some sense of reaching out into the distance. You can see the sections here which illustrate these two schemes and what the major differences, I think, from a landscape point of view is this kind of stair coming up to the-front door as opposed to arriving more or less at grade from the vehicle. I hope that answers your questions. Thank you-. BM Peterson: Let’s turn to the Board for further questions. Frank? BM Alfonso: Can you describe, for each of the schemes, the service entry? I see it on Scheme A, but I didn’t see it on Scheme B. __ Mr. Evans: Trash and requited loading are located here. There is not a dock as such associated with it. : BM Alfonso: I see. Mr. Evans: Actually not. traditional building. That was another option suggested to the client."A" is very much a BM Alfonso: And is there a preference for one or the other in terms of that feature? Would they prefer to have a dock or they’re willing to not have a dock? Mr. Evans: They prefer not to. BM Alfonso: They prefdr not to have a dock. The actual shape of the building seems to be relativ_ely similar. Is there some reason for that in the two different .schemes? Mr. Evans: Well it actually turned out that way. The reason that they started initially the way that it is because it’s driven by land form, access, entry, where the existing building was in relationship to parking. So the scheme actually evolved that way. It also had the ability to meet the ordinance in terms of square footage requirements. Scheme B in an attempt to meet the square footage requirement, actually started out as a building pushed all the way to the rear property line, in it’s entirety, with access from the front only because the width~f the property, which is narrow in the rear, and we barely had -enough square footage in the footprint without pushing further and further down the hill to actually get the building size that we are looking for. So what we elected to do is we have a smaller building in Scheme B. Now in terms of how the form generated, the City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 buildings essentially preserved this tree and rotate this about that oak. So a northern limit of this building is.really to that oak tree. We didn’t want not to have access to the back of B. So we actually canted B to allow the parking drive to come all the way up and have a rear access for things like the loading dock and to have an employee entry to the rear. Those two things combined and given that there is a parking garage, and the actual structure of the building and its proportion driven by the parking below, these buildings started to look a lot alike. Now there is a very basic difference in that this is an equal [floor plate] building. We need that because we can’t force an enormous amount of FAR into the basement, there’s no space for parking. We didn’t want to build a three story building with one level below grade. So this is two equal floor plates but Scheme A has the ability to play a little bit with the second floor because we have only a modest amount of it there. So they look a lot alike but they are just kind-of different. BM Alfonso: So this one here has more architectural latitude is what you’re saying. Mr. Evans: In the description of the second floor. We’re right at the 15% site coverage. BM Alfonso: I have a question also with respect to the employee use..That is, if somebody wants to walk out of the building during the course of the day and walk onto Hillview, what options do they have in these two schemes? " " Mr. Evans: If they’re in a wheelchair, none. Both schemes will accommodate. We will have sidewalks and access. We were~ pi:obably 85 feet above Hillview even in Scheme A. It would be another ten feet above that in Scheme B. So that’s quite a bit of rise. And that’s not a small issue even in the parking. The way we view the parking is that it’s tough in one direction only. Even Scheme A has gradient changes between parking. Sorry Frank. There is an existing walk here. We’re proposing to retain that and we’vE talked to Sheila Lee about the ADA compl_iance issues around the bus stop that’s here. Our understanding is that because of a extreme grade we won’t be required to make Title 24 compliant ramp all the way up to the top. BM Alfonso: So when someone arrives at that point, let’s say it’s Scheme A, and you walk pretty much level up to’ that beginning cascaded entry. - Mr, Woods: Right, then we can develop this a little bit moi:e fully, We’re still in preliminary design, and make a stronger connection to this stair tiere. That would be the way to solve it in___- that case. In this case, you have these kind of suggestion, well you wouldn’t go through this tree but there’s a stairway here, we can also develop a bit of a walk on this side. Those kinds of. things. BM Alfonso: What could you do with a dock if you were to remove it from Scheme A and place it elsewhere?- What benefit would that have in this particular Scheme A? Mr. Evan~s: Actually, that’s a current topic with the design team. Initially Scheme A was a City of Palo Alto .Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 compliance drawing that provided a dock and that was a good place for it because we may at some time have an overly large truck. So that particular location allowed, because of the parallel access to the dock, for large trucks to park. This is a nice thing to have but it is not a necessary thing to have. It conflicts with access from the-user using the parking lot and walking to that deck. It is not a very appealing idea to have the loading dock and trash right there where you might have probably your best views and out~ide dining. There is a conflict there. We left the drawings the way they are at this time, still being in preliminary, but we would like to further the discussion on the loading area, move it probably down on the drawing to the east away from that plaza space. It will become a more minimal dock. BM Alfonso: Also is there another location where you.could place the cafe other than where it is being proposed in that sort of break-out area you described? Or could that be part_of this study? I’m looking at the cafe as on the almost sort of northern face of the building and there’s a sort of break-out area there which is what I presume is what you,~e thinking. Is there another location that’s more accessible? Mr: Evans: In terms of site amenities that is really the nicest place on the site. One reason for using the story height-setback the way we did there was to be able to carve the building back to the south. So really what we would expect in terms, of shading there could be reduced in that regard. Plus the plaza outside the dining area is a very broad plaza so you should be able to get away from the shadow of the building and into the sunshine. BM Alfonso: In Scheme A you would also have sunlight into. the second floor? Mr.Evans: Yes, yes. It is intended to be a deck. People on the second floor, can get outside. BM Alfonso: The two schemes have the same amount of parking I understand? -Mr. Evans: They are identical. In fact it is a very important issue for us that the on-grade parking meet the minimum ordinance required. There is no required parking in the basement. We didn’t want tO associate the issue of the parking garage to the size of the building. So both schemes provide 247 cars, which is the minimum requirement, on-grade plus handicapped. BM Alfonso: So anything underground is additional. Mr. Evans: Is additional to required parking. BM Alfonso:- How do you foresee at this_time handling the ventilation in the garage will it be ducts? Mr. Evans: Exactly. Again because of the building height issues we’re not allowed to really open the basement up at any point exc_ept for access and then there are strict limits to how we do City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 that. BM Alfonso: I’ll probably have more as we go along but that’s all for now. BM Peterson: Joe. Thank you. BM Bellomo: My first question is with Scheme B. Is there a concern regarding the distances from the outer limits of the parking lot at Hillview to approach this building? Mr. Evans: The maximum distance is 365 feet. As a straight line that’s not an issue for us. We’ve provided parking at greater distances than that. The issue is of great change more than anything else. BM Bellomo: That’s something that is a downside of Scheme B? Mr. Evans: Grade change is the downside, not the distance. BM Bellomo: Okay. With Scheme B was there a study of in a sense a U-shaped building with a possibility of the U not going back on this lower side of the drawing all the way?- So you could still create access to allow more daylight, natural air and create an atrium or somewhat of a _courtyard. Mr. Evans: This is an oblique answer but it comes back to why the building is shaped the way it is. It is driven by the efficiency of the parking garage beneath. BM Bellomo: The open courtyard could be, you could still have parking below it, correct? Mr. Evans: If I’m envisioning your question, it’s like a donut. BM Bell0mo: It’s more like a "U". It’s really to capture that hillside if in fact~ you were going against that hillside. Again, it’s not burned in, it’s a little in conflict with the slope so that you could really kind of let the hillside flow into the titiilding in a sense. It-might have some, and still_ put the parking below it: I think it’s intriguing to kind of capture that hillside. Mr. Evans: if you feel ~0mfortable sort of modeling those with your hands I’d be delighted to [unclear].~ -~ : BM Bellomo: If this was wrapped around in a sense, and dropping the U, dropping here, in a ___sense you get more daylight into this building, more viewpoint into this hillside. And I really think you could almost really embrace it. City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Mr: Evans: Other forms were looked at. If we just get the, detach parking from building fo~rm, we have those opportunities. We have not explored that to that degree. One issue that the design team raised when We were looking at building form was whether the parking garage counts against us for coverage. If it exceeds the footprint of the building, which way will you go on that issue. So the if first floor has to cover the garage then we are tied into parking and shape. If not, then we have latitude. BM Peterson: Did you get an answer for that? - Mr. Evans: No; no we are just ....this is the first step in our process. BM Bellomo: I reallythink that’s the key. I just think it would give an opportunity to give more of the uses, get that natural light, get that view which I think, if I had my choice of a view of the hill versus most of time a smog ridden bay view, I would choose the hill. Mr. Evans: That mirrors what the client and the design teams wishes too. At this point no architecture was assumed, and the points-you’re raising we will look at. BM Bellomo: I think what’s happened for us recently is a review of a couple projects in the area and the courtyard/atrium idea opening out in the previous missions it was too discrete. What is so intriguing is to turn it around and really capture something. So that’s the reason that I’m bringing up the questions to you. I think that set was into my concern with the mass or the questions I would have about the mass of the building and the day lighting and opening up the interior more. So I answered my own questions. The setbacks in this Scheme B, are they problematic at this point? The setback by shoving it back to this? Mr. Evans: It’s back to the rear setback at 40 feet right now.. BM Bellomo: Lighting. I guess I’m back, I guess I really like this one, Scheme B. The lighting you would choose would be at a minimum height, and you would in a sense landscape lights and pedestrian, or would you propose landscape lit pedestrian access? Mr. Evans: Absolutely. The issue for us is parking lot lighting. We already know from the computer generated cut-ins that you won’t see cars, you wouldn’t see any ground features necessarily at from Hillview but lighting is a different issue. BM Bellomo: So probably you would see a landscaped hillside with the lighting. Mr. Evans: Yes. Well basically the initial knoll to the front almost cuts off everything. You might see that first tier just as an edge. The building will only poke up above that at a distance. City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 -35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Tom Richman: This is just existing iceplant which we would propose to replace with something more native but then you see the building. BM Bellomo: Mechanical systems. That would come later. I do think you could start addressing some concerns along the way with the mechanical systems. Mr.Evans: In terms of off-site noise generation? BM Bellomo: Yes. Mr.Evans: Likely to be located inside the building. BM Bellomo: You get ventilation back there, mechanical ventilation from the parking lot, Frank brought it up, where-that exhaust will be. I think that’s it for me. BM Peterson: Okay. I have a few. The first ones are on the parkin_g..itself. Is it mostly employee parking? You have not many guest spaces. Mr. Evans: Mostly employee parking. We do have guests, they tend to come on-site early in the morning and. stay there all day for training and demonstrations. Then we have various Company partners who come on-site for joint development projects but I would say 80-85 % is employee parking and 15% in guest and visitors. BM Peterson: In Sctienae A it seems to say the ceremonial with visitor entrance to the front and the employee in the back. Is the existing building on fill or is that the natural terrgin? Mr, E~,ans: Well most of it has been created to support that building padl In fact we’ve looked up the parking lot of this scheme and that is the existing condition. BM Peters0n: Which scheme has more grading, B? Mr. Evans: Scheme B. Mr. two Peterson: Because of slipping the building into the terrain? Evans: The building heights were limited by two factors, or"the slab elevation is limited by factors. One was handicapped access to the main entry without significant ramping. That was one thing that set it. The other was not bhbying the back of the building into the hillside causing any part of the above grade building to actually be retained. So that set the elevations for both. Scheme A is not in balance. There will be off-site hauling for "A" but minimum impact to re-grading on the site. Scheme B actually to make the gradings and the parking lot work, okay, City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 __ 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 is actually going to utilize-all the earth removal from the garage. - hauling but there will be significant impact to the site. So ihere will be no off-site - BM Peterson: The grading. Mr. Evans: Right, for grading. BM Peterson: What about architectural forms and materials? Can you give us a little snapshot of where you think you’re going? Mr. Evans: Well actually, in your package you probably had sections. Those sections initially were a study of building height but then added to that was the issue of how we might in ~act bring daylighting into the building to some depth. Honestly the design team, and there is some essential little bit that we have not taken the elevations as far as we have in the plan. In the next two weeks we will be doing that. ’ We toured with the president of the company, buildings throughout the area, through the business park, looking at preferred types of buildings. Whether we wanted to be Stanford traditional or whether we wanted to. do something that was more in keeping with the company image. There certainly is a gravity towards doing something different. There were buildings that were appealing to the client such as Wilson S6nsini if we were talking about potential for tilt up or skin treatment. Then there were other types of buildings like Foreman’s in Scotts Valley which had interest or appeal because there were exterior balconies, and there was a visible roof form and_ it was a very unique and fresh approach to it. So I can’t answer your question in specifics but that’s what’s in front of us next, in our next step in this process, is to make some proposals in that regard. What I’d really like to know is what are you happy with ~ the business park, what are you not happy with in-t:he--business park, where you think the opportunities are. Particularly if you move in the direction of Scheme B where you’re really taking on a number of what you’d think were the foothill planning parameters of most projects and literally putting them aside and saying what can we possibly do here. I would tie architecture and the landscape planning to that-too. And would you be open to us taking that approach? BM Peterson: Has this been reviewed by Stanford at all? Mr. Exians: Yes. BM Peters0n: So they’ve seen what we’ve seen. Mr. Evans: Right. I probably should note that Tom is the landscape peer review consultant and ER is the architectural review. So this is actually a good thingbecause we actually have, as often -as we want, day to day contact with Leoni on the project. So,she knows exactly what we’re doing. I think at this point, even though she hasn’t expressed a preference, it’s in concurrence with the direction as expressed in your letter, I think. City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 BM Peterson: My last question is to both of you if you care to answer it. That is, do you have a preference and if so, why? I think you do.. Mr. Evans: Well, I said we shouldn’t answer this question but I’ll do it in terms of what we need to accomplish. The goal of the client obviously is a superb project for Stanford and Palo Alto, obviously. They need the parking desperately so we don’t want to develop a scheme that puts at risk our ability to provide that parking. Of course there may be other reasons why it may or may not happen but we certainly don’t want, in our planning, to do that. So one question would be do you perceive any problems with the parking garage in either schem6 and does one have a greater benefit. The other is schedule. We really need to deliver this building on time. This is in a design sensitive zone which requires the Planning Commission and City Council. We want the best combination of project and achievability. _ If we go in at a high risk solution and it gets so heavily modified that it no longer makes sense and isn’t achieving what we want to achieve, there probably is a straight forward solution that we can all meet our goals with. Now, I’m not actually of that frame of mind. I would much rather do the riskier project, the better project, try to meet everybody’s requirements with it but still meet the schedule and get the parking. If there is a way of doing that I suppose everybody’s preference, cost aside, is "B". - B,M Peterson: Any objections to that? Mr.Evans: Maybe that’s a question maybe Jim should answer he’s the client. BM Peterson: Actually I’d like to hear from the client. Mr. Robinson: From our perspective as the client we are kind of neutral on both schemes. My personal preference, I believe, is starting to lean towards Scheme A. It tends to have the most flexibility but I don’t want to speak for my bosses, they have the final say so. They will also be driven by much the same considerations, what’s flexible, what doable. We very much want to stay on track in terms of a time line. We want to cooperate with the City to do that. So that drives that one. Then there is always the cost issue. At some point you have to say do I risk a lot of_ money and time over here or do I be a little bit more cautious and smart and go this way. So for me, I_think at this point, Scheme A offers the most flexibility and _the most efficient floor plate from a use stand point. Scheme B offers some great views. You look atthe panoramic pictures, you notice that Scheme B opens it towards the bay the view doesn’t change significantly. I mean "B" doesn’t make a great difference in your view of the bay but it changes significantly behind you. Then you have a great open space. With Scheme A you tend to be more surrounded by trees, you’re in a park-like environment, and that is very much in keeping with our corporate culture.- We like the park-like environment as a development. It’s very creative and soothing environment to work in. - Mr~ RJchman: I will answer your question but I also want to say one other specific thing. The answer to the question about preference I think is, anyone who’s ever been in love knows that City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 - 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 _35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 there is a point where the romance meets the reality, and this scheme is very romantic and compelling and has a beautiful story to tell. You have the hill behind,and the distant view and the parking terraces, and all that. As a practical matter this scheme might be better to live with. I really don’t know which scheme I prefer. I started out very enthusiastic about this uphill scheme but I always reserved judgment on it because it has to be tested. I think what we’re here today to do is to test both theseschemes; hear from you and then try-to put together,~ as Bob said, something that will meet the clients needs, be a contribution to the community. What we’ve tried to do as an architecture team is to get both of these s~hemes a compelling story. I think we have achieved that. Both. of these buildings, both of the site plans and the landscaping around them can achieve a compelling story.. So now we have to weigh all these other factors. That’s my answer to your question If I may take fifteen seconds I want to talk about this tree. The one that is forcing us to rotate the building and constraining us in so many ways. It’s a heritage oak and it’s in a hole..Probably a concrete retaining wall around it on three sides. It was filled around to build this mechanical equipment thing probably in the ’70’s. It has a red dot here, this is a condition rating of all the trees on the site. Red dot means that it is poor to very poor condition. It is less than 49% according to arborist culture standards. The arborist on this project doesn’t think anything can be done to bring this tree back to health. Is that a correct assessment? It’s at 10%. So it is a question of a rating whether we are wise to build around this tree or whether it is time to have the virtual ceremony and give this tree its freedom. So that’s what I wanted to say. I just wanted to prepare you for that because Wemight come back at the major project hearing _and the tree will be removed and we want you to understand that we’re very carefully considering the implications of this tree and what we might practically do. There are some other tree issues, we don’t have to get into that now, but of course will be very sensitive to them. BM Alfonso: I was about to ask you the very same question y~u just answered. That the issue of the health of these various trees. It does seem as though there are some big decisions that are being made around particularly the one that you pointed out. I-had a question that has to do with this loading dock, the view and now this tree. What can be done between the building and Coyote Hill to perhaps make more visually approachable? I know you clustered to create some view corridors through but is .there anything else that could be created on the ground? I know you’ve got parking everywhere. Could you explore what could occur there if this whole thing is sort of juxtaposed, if the loading/service area is relocated? -Are there possibilities? Mr. Richman: What we have done I think as I mentioned is we’ve got the suggestion of, a different paving material that might be integrated into the asphalt. Maybe it’s stone set in the asphalt, or maybe it’s some kind of aggregate add to the asphalt to suggest connection with the landscape. But quite bluntly, there’s not a whole tot you can do when you’re trying to get 247 cars on the ground in this site, I don’t know if this is out of order but my understanding is that if we can get the parking underground and we are not relying on the site to handle all of our required parking, it’s conceivable that we might not need as much surface parking. But I didn’t City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 say that. I don’t know if that’s true or not. BM Alfom’o: I have one follow up question which is the parking as proposed in the garage area, it seems to be also driving the shape of the building from what you were describing. Mr. Evans: In proportion, not go much the bent nature of that. BM Alfonso: So you have some sort of trade off between what you can do with the building form and the number of units and how it works underground, is that correct? : Mr.. ...Evans : There is a relationship. BM Alfonso: And you cannot separate those two, the underground part of the parking and the building footprint itself?. Mr. Evans: Well partly it has to do with how parking works beneath. I mean there is a 15 foot perimeter bay all the way around this building which is not the ideal way to actually frame this buildingl Again it is driven by being able to have double loaded and highly efficient drive isles in th~ basement. Parking costs in the basement are extraordinary especially if you’re wasteful. So this garage is a very efficient structure. And it needs to be because the client really needs the extra parking spaces and they have compromised to where this garage will take them. This is a big issue and within that parameter we’re trying to design the building and do the best we can with it. If the client mentions that "A" gets the most flexibility and it gives them the bigger building but it also gives them the most parking outcome, and gives us an option for dealing with the second level so we can do some carving. I wanted to give you an idea of the schizophrenia of the design team, the response are absolutely the reverse. Our approach to the project I felt from the beginning, as what I’ve come to and where maybe everybody else is going to, is that once the model was :built and the idea that "B" could enjoy the hillside and could have this enormous :-private space in front of them as well, is like putting that building out there by itself on a brand new site versus "A" which is like nestling back in with your neighbors and kind of same/same. Even though:I was very much in favor of "A" to begin with, and I still am, I have no objection to "A". But I think the very strong design potential, and the designer looking for that, the potential rests with "B". I can’t push that issue because there is a whole list of priorities that have to be met on this project. What we’re really hoping for from you is clear comments on where you think this project best should go. Because we weigh that heavily in where we go with the Planning Commission. ~ ~ BM Alfonso: You may not get that dire_ct_answer however. I think that, well let me go back to another question. Is it possible within your development boundary of the building to add more underground parking? And be able to take some of the surface parking into the building? Mr. Evans:Okay, well I’ll continue with Tom’s suggestion.We did a study on phasing the City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 parking, which would offer for a maximum parking garage that may even exceed the building footprint, in other words it doesn’t count against the coverage if we deal with it the right way. We can actually provide th~ required parking to the limit. And put in parking reserve some amount of parking on the surface in those areas which would achieve the things that you’ re talking about. We drew the scheme which we did not bring because this is a card we didn’t want to play right now but we can discuss it. My preference for phasing the parking would be to delete the entire rear row of "A" against ~Coyote Hill.~ Plus there is enough left over to eliminate most of the front yard parking to the limited visitor parking. So that all the employee parking is to the rear and only visitor parking is to the front and we’ve increased landscaping in the front yard and we’ve pulled that hill further down onto the site. Your question earlier about access to the hillside, it’s really a ground floor issue because the second floor of that building will have superb views of the hill. We’ve been out there again on the crane and done the panoramas and you’re right there. I mean the hill is just right in your backyard in either scheme. There is almost very little difference in that regard. The benefit of "B" is you’re ten foot higher and you’re right at the top of tree line. Many of those very mature trees in bad health are going away but the opportunities with "B" arevery, very strong. We will do whatever we can at the ground level to improve .that access. Second story we really do have wonderful presence against the hill. BM Peterson: Okay, well I think we need to return to the Board now for the comments. Frank why don’t you start off. BM Alfonso-.’- I have to say flat out I have an overwhelming preference for "A". I think that the more the discussion developed the more convinced I was that this has the most amount of promise in terms of providing a variety of outdoor environments around the property. Providing better zoning for guest/employee parking. Providing a slightly better almost street presence from Hillview of the building, allowing the architecture to be a little bit more visible and integrated. It has a better sense of the issue of approachability of the building is there. If in fact there is a possibility of removing some of that parking along the rear I think some of the approachabilities of Coyote Hill can be improved upon and some interesting landscaping ideas can take place there. I think that you just have a lot more elbow room of what to do along that back area. Also the potential drama of that arrival is appealing to me in the entry plaza in Scheme A. Scheme B to me seems-as though it is trying to basically get the views and there is an awful lot of puff involved in getting those views. Not just money dollars but also you don’t have, I don’t " think, the latitude in the different environments and different exposures that you do in Scheme A on the exterior. And it’s quite a long ways to get to the building. It just seems that way to me from when I’ve walked out there and kind of looked up and now that I see this it’s even more. I mean that÷ground is pretty steep that goes up there. I obviously haven’t looked at this as long as you both have, butI don’t see "B" as being efficient from just that standpoint. .Another benefit I think to "A" is that as the architecture develops you will have, as you.pointed out, more flexibility to articulate that upper floor. Perhaps address whatever defined outdoor City of Palo Alto Page 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 spaces are. Maybe that c.an be incorporated somehow particularly where the cafe area is or any view corridors to. the hill in the back that can be accentuated with the building form and whatever other expression occurs between the building and the parking itself. It seems like a little bit more complex in terms of possibilities. I see Scheme B as primarily being very singularly oriented towards the view and that doesn’t seem to be enough for me to go through the effort. I do think that parking in the building is really critical to try and figure out how much you can place underground so that you can get a better outdoor environment in these areas. As you go through the process of trying to sort that out that would be, I think that w6uld be a key in trying to get better outdoor spaces. I am in complete support of not trying to put the building around a particular tree that may be in a state of demise, I think that’s not a wise thing to do. If on a property like this with so much drama, I don’t feel that a particular tree is worth so much. So I’m in complete support of not considering that as a...major decision to drive a project like this. You have a number of opportunities to create environments for the same type of species or others. The fact that there is going to be far better benefit than simply to hold a project, a trunk hold, for that particular tree. I also really appreciate the clarity of your presentation and the openness. The amount of latitude that you are offering here. I think this is going to be a very good process and that you are going to get something very nice out of this. I especially appreciate the model. I think that’s been a real help in being able to visualize the proposal as well as the newest diagrams. Very ~ce presentation. ~_ BM Peterson: Joe. BM Bellomo: I’m in definite agreement with Frank about the parallel between the architecture and the landscaping and how you are running with this right now. I appreciate that. It’s really helpful. Getting back to talking about it is always a risk when you come in with two schemes, A B. I’ll talk about the romance and that love.~ I think what I see with "B", and it is unique in the sense of it’s I think you mentioned that it’s not your corporate campus approach it’s different: Scheme A is what we see and it looks right. Scheme B looks wrong in the sense that you’ve created a sanctuary. You ac_tually create, you got away from the current approach -- here is my building, here I am, I’m making lots of money. I like that. I like the fact that you would take a risk to put a building in nature. I think you have an opportunity to choose those materials to do that, open an atrium up over a podium which under that podium Would be your underground parking facility. I think it could be done. I think you could really capture Los Altos Hills with this. But I understand there’s parking, there’s distances, I think it’s good to take a walk -- go up the hillside. People sit at their desk all day. It’s almost like you are encouraging to participate in this topography in this natural setting. I think everyone should put in a park for the afternoon and go get lunch. I mean walk from your car you can get a!ittle exercise. I think you’re right 385 feet isn’t monumental walk and up a hillside, you 10aow,__maybe you could reserve some parking for people that don’t want to take that walk like elderly folks or whatever. But I think there are great possibilities with Scheme B. It is a risk. We might see "A" and it might happen but I think you could work it out. But I do think you have an opportunity to view into the hillside City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 -35 36 37 38. 39 40 41 42 without looking over the top of cars and yes, the second floor view lines are obviously, maybe it doesn’t matter maybe it does. But I would rather have in my backyard, if I’m in a place of work, the .grasses of that hillside versus looking down at the hardscape. It’s always going tO be a p~rking lot. Maybe there is something between "A" and "B", I’m not sure. I just see the bulk of the building, just trying to open it up and bring as much of that view and-that natural light, that is so beautiful up there, into it. That’s what I would say is my encouragement. The oak, I think I agree with Frank, if you really feel it’s a 10%. Okay, that about sums it all up. I look forward to seeing this continue. BM Peterson: Okayl What I’ll say is going to be just like Frank except it’s going to be on a different scheme. I am overwhelmingly drawn toward "B". I think, you’ve done us a little disservice in that you’ve given us two really good schemes. I think they both really have merit. In Scheme A I think the landscape solution of bringing the hillside through the parking lot is really a very clever idea. I think it could work well. I think "A" is more traditional. It has all those good points that make sense. It’s in the center so you get good circulation from all sides in terms of employees coming in. However, for "B" for me, seems to be a scheme that is a genuine response to the nature of that hillside. I love the sense of the transition from Hillview to parking to building to natural. It just seems to flow right up there. I think the building will end up being very quiet. It is further back, it’s lower down, it hugs into it. I think that is the best kind of response here. The building can be just as spectacular but it is very quiet, and you almost discover it, and I think that’s the thing that makes it so attractive beyond this. I think the downsides would be the ones that we’ve already talked about. It really is kind of is loading the parking oil One side. It’s a long ways down or up the hill depending on which way you’re coming. That’s a call probably for the client to make. I don’t see it as a ~ig problem, certainly wouldn’t inhibit mein any way. So it’s that whole sense of responding to the nature of that hill. When you look over at the other buildings lined up on Hillview, I love the idea tha~ they’re not all plunked along here. This one would be tucked back and you’ll get a relief from that repeated rhythm. -So I’m very much in favor of "B" " Though I have to say "A" is a very good solution. I think it’s kind of practical from that sense. I can’t help but believe "B" will be more expensive but I think it will be worth it. So that’s What I think. _So, there you’ve got it. There’s your answer. I didn’t react to the architectural issues. Speaking for i’nyself ~ere i-s no question that I would respond most favorably-to the more bearing and more innovative approach. By that I mean an approach that relates to the hillside not necessarily to its neighbors. Don’t ignore the neighbors obviously but I think there’s a bigger issue there fli~tn the neighbors. I think this is an opportunity to take advantage of this hillside and the architecture ought to do that. So I would be very responsive to a very creative solution. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Alright, thank you very much for bringing this in. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Attacl ment ! PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 24, 1999 EXCERPT MINUTES NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings. 3410 Hillview Drive: Application by SAP Labs, Inc., for a Site and Design review to allow the demolition of a 61,878 square foot office/research building and construction of a 64,636 square foot, two-story research/office building with one level of subterranean parking, on grade parking, signage, landscaping and related site improvements. Zone District: LM (D)5. Environmental Assessment:-A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. File Nos.: 98-ARB-192; 98-EIA-27; 98-D-13. Are there additional Staff comments? Mr. Ed Gawf. Planning Director: Yes, Phillip Woods is the Senior Planner on this project and will make a short presenta-ti6n. Mr. Phillip Woods. Senior Planner: I want to bring to your attention a letter that was put at your place by stanford Land Management Company dated February 19, 1999. This letter basically says they are currently reviewing the project. They are satisfied with ..the_!ocation of the building but there are some design issues that they want to Work out. Sounds like they are minor design elements which the application can tell you about later on in the presentation.. Also, this item is before the Planning Commission because it is located in LM-5(D) zone district, which requires site and design review. The purpose of site and design review is to provide a review process for projects 16cated in an environmentally sensitive ahd ecological sensitive area. There are basically four objects for site and design review which include: the project be designed to be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding uses; maintain desirability investment in the area; observe principlCs of sound environmental design; and comply with the comprehensive plan. This project was reviewed by the ARB on November 19, 1998 as a preliminary review project. At that time they presented two schemes showing two different locations of the building sited on the property. The ARB reviewed both those locations, and felt both were equal solutions. Later on, Bob Peterson, of the Architectural Review Board, will be here to speak about that. ~ . Staff requests that the Planning Commission review and Comment on the subject project then forward the application to the Architectural Review Board and recommend approval to City Council based on the attached findings in the Staff report and mitigated negative .declaration that the planning of the project will not result in any significant environmental impact. After -the project.gets reviewed by the Planning Commission it will go to the ARB and then on to City Council. Thank you. Vice-Chair Schmidt: the public? Were there any questions of Staff before we hear from the applicant and Commissioner Schink: I just want to note that I did visit the site and talked to Carol Jansen regarding the project. Vice-Chair Schmidt: Okay. I guess it’s my comment too that there was also a publicly noticed meeting and Commissioners Bialson, Beecham and I attended that with the applicant: There was also a representative from SAP. _..~ Commissioner Beecham: In addition I had a meeting at Bob’s office about two months ago on this subject. Vice-Chair Schmidt: I was there also. Okay. Anyone who wishes to speak on this hearing please fill out a card. They are over here. We need .that from the applicant also. The applicant has 15 minutes to make a presentation and each person who wishes to speak on the subject has five minutes. Then applicant closing comments are three minutes at the end if you wish .to do so. Mr. Jim Robinson. Facilities Manager, SAP Labs, Inc,: SAP Labs is the North American software development for SAP. SAP develops and provides enterprise resource planning software. We recently purchased the lease for 3410 Hillview in order to expand our development operations within a research park and to be as close to our current Deer Creek offices as possible. We intend to construct a new building which is the application before you. A little history on the design process. We started off with. two possible designs: a mid-hill design and an up-hill design. The mid-hill design would have been essentially a replacement of what was there. We developed drawings and. presented to the preliminary ARB. The preliminary ARB indicated a strong preference for the up-hill design. So after evaluating our options and taking into consideration ARB’s comments we decided to focus on the up-hill. design. Our goal is to have a building that reflects both our commitment to quality and the environment while adding value to Palo Alto and the research park as well as providing an ¯ excellent working environment. - I came on the project With Mike Roanhaus_of Ehrlich-Rominger, Bob Evans of Ehrlich- Rominger the lead design architect; Tom Richman of Richman Associates, landscape architect; Kim Allcot from Sandis-Humber & Jones, civil engineer. Also present are Jamie Jarvis, SAP’s commute alternatives program consultant; Fred Choa of FEHRS & PEERS, transportation consultants;rand Carl Jansen of Jansen Consulting community relations. That’s it for me ..... . Mr. Tom Richman. Richman Associates: Thank you Jim. We are serving on the design team in landscape architecture. What I’d like to do for just a few minutes is go over three points. First of all to give you just the background of the site planning and kind of the overall facts and basic ideas. Then a little bit about the story that we are trying to tell here about the environment and cultural history. Then ~lk briefly about materials. This board here illustrates the LN-5 district. This is our site here. You can see the adjacent existing buildings are colored in black. This board, aerial photograph, shows the existing building here and then-the proposed new building and the parking outlined in red. One of the things that you can see by choosing the uphill scheme is that we create a large landscaped forecourt in front of the proposed building in relationship to the remainingadjacent buildings~ instead of having all of these buildings lined up along Hillview next-to each other. So this give us an opportunity to create a nice space out here for the use of the occupants of the building, not just a parking lot but a nice terraced landscaped space. It also gives us the opportunity to move the building uphill and take advantage of the views, both the near views up Coyote Hill and the distant views around the bay. One of the things that we wrestled with on the team and took quite seriously was the idea of protecting this opefi space. The question that we discussed at length was what is lesser impact on open space -- to have parking and the cars and the people and all the things that come off cars, i.e., exhaust, debris from dripping oil and. so on, the glare of cars, the movement of cars; or would it be more benign to have a building that is graciously tucked into the landscape and also gives an opportunity for the residents or the occupants of this building to have a direct experience of Coyote Hill. That way by having a building that is environmentally sensitive to teach awareness of ones environment through the architecture. That is the strategy that we are following. - This is the proposed site plan. You’ve seen this in your packet. As I mentioned before there are these terraces of surface parking. If you look on the section below you can see how there is a gentle slope down and then these landscaped bands allow us to terrace down so that the parking is broken not only in the horizontal but also in the vertical dimension. Then we have retained the existing driveway and created a drive isle up the hill which would access into an underground parking. There is one floor of underground parking proposed here, which Bob Evans will talk more about when he describes the architecture, then the gmall parking area in the back, really what we felt was the minimum parking in the back. One of the features of the site plan is that the landscape of the hillside just flows right through a very transparent fence and right up to the edge of the building. We need the fence because although we want people to appreciate the hillside and to be aware of it and to contemplate it as they work through the seasons and theyears, we don’t want them climbing up the hillside and destroying the archeological and natural resources there. There are a couple of Heritage Oak trees on the site. There is one here, a beautiful old Heritage Oak. This is probably the finest tree on the .site. There is another one, I believe it is this one, one of these and then there is a third Heritage Oak over here which we actually are proposing to remove. We’ve discussed that at length with Dave Doctor, the Planning Arborist, as well as our own independent arborist. That tree I can tell you more about later if you’d like hear about it. We also have an idea of~ treating the paving in a way that reflects the geologic flow, giving a sense of movement and context through the landscape. We are in the. process of studying the materials for that but we are even expecting to reflect that pavement difference on the roof. So we are even attending to the view from the hilltop. Bob will talk more about that when he talks about the architecture. - - So -that is the basic plan of the building. There is an entry plaza here and another plaza here. There is a cafe on the back on the ground floor that also has access to a roof deck up here. So people can sit outside here and enjoy the view. Over on this board you’ll see more of the details and a little bit about the story that we are trying to tell. This drawing here kind of simplifies and stylizes the landscape plan. We have essentially what we conceive of as three zones: this hillside zone here where we are going to be working with native oaks and grasslands; then a transition zone here where we have also an emphasis of native plant materials but we have a kind of special tree canopy with special colored or ornamental trees to mark the pedestrian connections of these stairways going up the terraced parking; then we have down on Hillview itself the transition to the suburban landscape along Hillview. So we’ve tried to be a good neighbor recognizing that we are introducing a more perhaps-current idea about planning design and habitat value but we also don’t want to be an unruly neighbor to the÷lawns and little balled hedges that are on either side of us. So we’re trying to make a nod to that by keeping some of the lawn along Hillview but replacing most of it with more drought tolerant native landscape. The tree planting along this driveway would be a special flowering tree to give a sense of promenade as you climb up the hill. These are some of the plant materials that we’re talking about using -- Manzanita, Oak Savannah Grassland -- all of these were drawn from a s.tudy of what you’d f’md up there on the hill today. This is a blow up of how the parking stairways might be handled, here and here, there are three of them proposed. Using tree planting to accentuate them, make them obvious to the pedestrian, maybe some vertical stones and some integral stone or concrete paving with special treatment to look more stone-like so that the pedestrian path is clearly marked. We do find a lot of stone up there. These two stones are actually taken from the hillside. I told the Stanford Management Company I would put them back at the end of this project. What we are hoping to do is use these stones as we develop our color pallet. Perhaps we can have a distressed concrete, this is a_concrete sample, this is actually a sample of slate, we may use slate or some other stone’ for these special paving, areas. Right now we are studying, working with the architects, and are bringing that inside the building so there is a good strong indoor/outdoor connection. These are some images boards that show how stone might be used in the paving. We are even hoping to harvest stone when we excavate for the basement. We are hoping if we f’md some big pieces of stone we can pile up somewhere on the site and then use them. Lastly I want to introduce you to my pet coyote whose paw prints are running across the bottom of the page. I won’t go into it here because it is really more of a design issue not a planning issue but we are intending to intersperse the landscape especially in the entry courtyard and here, in the back and maybe on the rooftop with interpretive elements to try to give the people who are occupying the building, visitors coming from all over the world, a little insight into the natural and cultural context in which they work. So with that overview it ¯ is my duty to turn on the video, is that right? We have brief video we’d like to show you which will give you a more three-dimensional feeling for the architecture and provide a good transition for Bob’s presentation. Commissioner Beecham: You have about three or four minutes leftz.- Mr. Bob Evans. Ehrlich-Rominger: Maybe we should not show the video. video later. We can show the Hello again. For those I met Friday, Jon I’ve been-wanting to say hi to you for a long time. My last experience with this was not good. There is a lot to talk about so in three minutes I would expect maybe to talk a little bit about why there is so much glass on the second floor as the big topic and we can have a lot of question and answer regarding other things. Commissioner Schink: Can I interrupt? How long is the video? Mr. Evans: It’s a two minute loop. Commissioner Schink: I did want tO see it then I want to hear what you have to say. Mr. Evans: Friday was a great experience it was a wonderful day between rainy days and we all got to stand at the comer of the site and sort of get an idea why the building is up on the site instead of the middle of the site like everybody else. We didn’t have a building that needed a public presence on Hillview Avenue. The headquarters were on Deer Creek. So we had an opportunity here, as you would if you had that site that’s where you’d want to live, it is just gorgeous up there. My notes say, "use the exclamation point." It’s the views and it’s the connection to Coyote Hill. There is no question that Coyote Hill is an amenity and there is no reason in the world with all your parking back there in the transition zone between hillside and Hillview. It just does not make sense to do that. That is - a rationalization. The design team believes that the building.has lesser impact than parking does. They really thought that a sensitive building would have an opportunity to actually instruct how you could do a building well in a sensitive area. The ground floor o£ the building is interacting in different Ways all the way around with the hillside. One comer is tucked into the hillside, on-both sides there is garage access is proposed, it’s the most exposure. The east side, where the main entrance is, has this -- wonderful open broad distant view and so is the north. - It just makes- all the sense in the world to create a ground plane that comes out of the ground -- stone, concrete, something very, very natural and create that platform. The ideology of the building is access without trespass. So to give the user access to views of the open space and to the panoramic views from the second floor combined with, now a days people are talking about daylighting schemes and maximizing site potentials, we transferred a lot of glass areas from the lower level to the upper story. The glass is [canted]. In the time I have left I’ll explain briefly. It is a calculated designed.’ It is not some signature or something unique we’re trying to sell. The cant of the glass is to minimized, particularly in the location of this building, off-site glare. It is about a ten degree incline, horizontal light striking the surface of the glass reflects within 40 foot setback that was a construction resulted in that angle. The proposal slopes the glass rather than being _ -horizontal is an answer to the daylighting preference of the client. Combined .with maximizing the views the head of the glass at the perimeter is almost 14 feet tall. We actually have a 15 -foot structural bay so that we could minimize the structural depth and get as much glass height as possible. From that point projected to the interior where the core meets the floor is the line of the slope of the glass. In other words, we get as much direct light into the building as possible. If you’re sitting near the core essentially you could look up and see out a window at that inclination. So those two factors together. When we looked at it more and more and the natural theme of the building it began to take on a metaphor shape for us. This is not a high-tech building in image or intent. It is contemporary certainly but it is natural materials~ not contrasting colors, there are no ~iiiny surfaces, we are minimizing glare. The metaphor that struck us was, if we are using natural materials this is really very tree-like in shape. So we introduced wood on the interior soffit around the perimeter of the building. The exterior transition from the window to the fascia is in metal. We are exploring possibilities for copper applied paints, the patina over time or factory finishes that have that same effect, so that really everything-is in the green tones or wood. The lines are-vertical. No strong geometric patterning in the windows. If we have time, and I hope we do, we brought some options for treatment of railings, windows, how the perimeter column is treated, and I-would like feedback if you have an opinion about that as we go into the ARB. We put all our stuff around you. There are two renderings behind you. There is a material board behind Jon. There is an example of what_ we mean by the canted glass, that you’ve seen in your packet, that is in the right glass type with the fritted pattern on it. The model in particular, because two-dimensional drawings which is all you had in your packet, we’re talking about building floor plans that have.angles in them and walls that have angles, there is distortion in two-dimensional drawings. The model and the video hopefully gives you an idea that the first floor has symmetry to the upper story. It is not quite as accentuated as the two-dimensional drawings. Obviously there are a lot of things to talk about. I haven’t talked about an3~bf the data of the project, the parking count~ the parking counts, the square footages/FAR issues. Those things are pretty cut and dried. We are going to turn it over to question and answer Commissioner Beecham: Is there something on the video you’d like to walk through with us to help us understand it? Mr. Evans: There are few comments on the video telling you where the view orientation are. Where coming around one side of the building now to the observation deck. The observation deck serves the ~afeteria which you are now seeing with sunscreens on the first floor. The -program supports a lot of enclosed space. So it was convenient to put it in the lower level where there were less windows. The idea is to put all the open office environment, get as ....much transparency, the common area is up on the second floor. They are actually looking through the building in the ~,ideo and it would basically appear that way. There would not be ¯ hard wall development, premier office, that kind of thing on the second level. So teaming spaces, large conference rooms, most of the open office environment is on the second floor. For those that are on the first floor there are the light wells around stairs. When they go up for teaming or collaboration activities it is on the second floor. There is a perimeter balcony. This is the view from Hillview as we come up the entry drive. Terraced parking. is"e a : So parking ~orn.Hillview is virtually invisible? Mr. Evans: The beginning image on the loop is a computer generated montage showing the building cut in in its actually placement in the plan. The partial second floor from Hillview, but no parking. SAP’s investment and some mitigating issues for putting the building up the hill is all the parking in the front yard what do we do with parking lot lighting and/or exploring parking lot lighting which is indirect so you see no actual light sources reflected off mirrored adjustable diffusers so you don’t actually see the lamp source. So really parking shouldn’t be a visible image from Hillview. Another thing, at SAP’s request, initially was to put all the mechanical equipment in the basement. We tried very hard to do that. There were some code reasons that we couldn’t get everything in the basement. So have depressed mechaniqal wells on the roof. There is a three foot wood screen that screens any possible Projections from the roof and then the entire roof of that .is latticed over. It is an entirely wood construction on the roof. Basically the video was created to help explain to the client the shape of the building.. It was a little hard to understand the elevations in comparison to the plan. We’v~ embellished it with parking and planting to help you. It is not meant to take the place of true design development on the project which is still taking place. One of the issues that did come up in Friday’s site visit was the view sheds ~ from off-site. We did go out and prepare a board. We got a cherry-picker and got up on the roof of the existing building. This little key plan in the lower comer shows where the panoramics were taken. Where we were standing in the comer of the property, that is a little unfair because we were right at the property lines and the building is pushed in a little bit. So we felt the roof of the existing building pretty much represented the second floor as proposed for the new building. We can’t really see any of the residences or things we did see from the property line. But what we did do was go to the map which is on the right which gives a reference, it shows where we were looking and what we saw. The main landmark is the medical center, Veteran’s Hospital construction. That is three-quarters of a mile away by reference. Those residences on the hill and that are in the vicinity _of_ that larger circle and that was at a two mile distance. As you can see from the panoramic K isthe closest one we have. That hill is not even visible from where the building is proposed. So we did the best we could with that issue. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate it. It’s good work. Thank you very much. Vice-Chair Schmidt: Are there other questions? Commissioner Bialson: The parking in the area denoted A and B up there, how much parking is that? How many stalls are there? Mr. Evans: There are about 25 parking spaces or something in that area. The proposed loading space is there with trash and recycling in that location. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. Vice-Chaii~ Schmidt: Jon do you have any questions? Commissioner Schink: I have several questions but I wondered if you wanted to hear from the rest of the public or the Architectural Review Board or do you want me to go ahead with my questions? . Vice-Chair Schmidt: Questions for the applicant? Commissioner Schink:__Yes. Vice-Chair Schmidt: I think you should go ahead with the questions now. Commissioner Schink: Okay. I’ve got one big picture question and that is that I notice in studying the information that you have parking that exceeds what would normally be required and is that because you think this building is going to have a higher level in intensity of use than wewould normally see or you have a lot more visitors? I think you mentioned a lot more visitors in your Staff report. I think it would be nice if we had a good explanation going forward as to why you want more parking than code requires. Mr. Robinson: Our usage we ~xpect to be pretty normal like what we have at Deer Creek. Using new programs that have been put toge.ther we can get our parking down to about 85 % of we have on hand. So what really drives our parking issues is we parmer with a lot of companies like Microsoft, even our competitor Oracle, Sun Microsystems, we have visitors on-site all day long. They tend to corn6 in around 9:30-10:00 a.m. and t_hen weprpvide them lunch and they stay throughoutthe day. So what happens is the employees come to work, use up all the parking spaces, the visitors come in and they can’t get in and do their job. That tends to create problems so we are trying to look ahead and address the issue for the employees as well as the visitors. To carry that one step ’ further we invest quite a bit of money and time into the commute alternative programs, shuttles, Cal-Train passes, commuter checks. Then we also provide breakfast on-site and lunch on-site at no charge to the emploYee, the company picks up the tab, even box lunches for people who are working late. So essentially we want them, when they come on-sit6, to stay on-site. That includes any visitor-Coming on-site. They are welcome to all the same services and amenities. Commissioner Schink: Good, thank you. I do have another question for Bob. The explanations the whole time you were describing your program and your environmental Concerns and stuff but nowhere in there did ! hear a really inspired speech that you’re excited about this design. I could tell you liked it. You were concerned about all sorts of things but you were really excited. ~ . Mr. Evans: We were caught up in-the beginning on the practicality of just replacing the building and the parking lot was already there. There was a leaning in the beginning to do the simple thing, There’s the hillside - stay away from it. That’swhat we should be doing, the problem was Tom kept going out to the site. He’s made our job easy because it got the design team into the spirit about where that building should be and what its potentials are. That’s the only reason we took everybody off to the site and stood up by the comer by the fence and smelled the grass and saw the views and felt the wind. It just said this is the right thing to be doing. Everything about the design, bring the landscaping down, wrapping the building, flowing through and over the building, the way the views open up on the bottom,-everything about the design is following through on the potential for developing that. Again, it was access with respect. We knew if we were up there that there were things that we’d have to do to allow that. SAP has just been wonderful. Just the way the program has come together to support at accessible roof deck and the things we’ve had to do to get people outside to enjoy nature without feeling like they needed to trespass has come together. It is one of those ideal jobs for an architect. I am enthused about the design of the building and its potential..I’m not saying that where it is is where it will wind up given the test of other opinions but its potential is everything I want it to be. That’s one reason that I would like to discuss it with you, your ideas about it. It is literally, I think as has been described, a pavilion on a platform. That is very intentional, very direct about it. There is no intention to integrate beyond commonality of materials. There are distinctions of programming. There are distinctions of where that part of the Site is in terms of view and relationship to parking and the hill and access. This building has a totally different and unique function. It is like going up to the view level on a streamliner and watching the countryside go by. It is that kind of a thing. You are up in the treetops. Those kinds of ideas have the strength to form the details and the development of the project and it’s working out that way. I couldn’t be more happy. Commissioner Schink: Thank you. I have to say that that wasn’t-really my question that was your question that I used to hear you ask all the time when you and I sat here years ago. Thanks, that’s all my questions. Vice-Chair Schmidt: I have a couple of questionsr In the drawings that we have, by the way, -the reduced set of drawings are nice and easy to handle, it is a little hard to read but it is easy to handle. On the plan sheet, A2.2, you have the square footages. On each of the levels it has a certain number of square feet not in FAR. I was just wondering if that’s true, if I added these up that in the FAR they will add up to the total in the report and then these other things are not counted. Why are these spaces not counted? - Mr. Evans: What are the discounts from the FAR? Vice-Chair Schmidt: Yes. Mr. Evans: Things that won’t be readily convertible to office space and are for the sole use of the user like a cafeteria which would be long term use and wouldn’t become headcount, exercise facilities. Other things we don’t have such as day care, that kind of thing. We also have teaming spaces which are allowed as discount. Those are permanent collaboration rooms that are scattered throughout the building, those were allowed. They are designated on the space plan as hatched. That hatched area is tabulated and also hatched under each level of the plan. Those have been computer generated and double checked by hand. The numbers should be correct and should add up to-the front tabulation as well. Phillip Woods was very diligent about adding those up, by the way. - Vice-Chair Schmidt: A question frombeing Out there on the site on Friday. It is good that there were employees from neighboring sites walking across the existing site on a lunchtime exercise walk. Do you intend to continue to allow that sort of thing to happen, to have pathways to go across? Mr. Evans: Those access stairs, sidewalks, etc. are shown on the site plan as being maintained. Obviously where they can walk through now they won’t in the future with the building there but there are other access points that are further down the hill that don’t go through the parking but basically they can do what they do now. It is not a secured site. Vice-Chair Schmidt: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay, is there anyone else who.wishes to speak? I don’t have any more cards. Commissioner Schink: We have a representative from the ARB. Mr. Bob Peterson, ARB: Let me answer Jon’s questions for Bob here. I hope I don’t sound too enthusiastic so I’m an advocate for this project but that’s the way_ I feel. I’m trying to give a moderate portrayal of what the ARB said, rather than an advocate for the project though I certainly am. I think that this applicant and this design team has done just what the ARB likes_ them to do. They brought the project in at a very preliminary stage. It was much less developed when we saw it than what I see here tonight. They came in with a couple of alternatives both of which were very, very good. They clearly were open to hear what we- had to say. We could see where they were going, what their issues were and they wanted to hear what the communities issues were and were able to put that input in there. So just from a procedural point of view they really did what the ARB likes to see done. That is to see it early and at a point where we might be able to influence it. You made a couple of points early on. _ As I said, we saw it much less developed than you see- tonight. We reacted to it and reviewed it on the basis of siting of the buildings and the parking, not on the architecture because there was very little there.~ The-re were schematic sections. We were able to get sense of massing but not of the building at all. We’ll have a chance to do that when you’re done with your review tonight. Secondly, I think if you read the minutes from the ARB there were clearly some differences in how the members felt about it but the tenor being was really one of shades of differences. It wasn’t a question of was A better than B or visa versa. They _~ere both very, very good. There were many common elements that went through bOth schemes that will be retained in what you see before you tonight. There was one major difference and that was in the siting ~f the building. I personally felt that their siting and the scheme you have here tonight was really quite extraordinary and quite unique in its approach and we felt it should be supported and encouraged: I made a few notes, let me make sure I don’t miss some of the points here. I think this fundamental siting issue is the most important and most exciting. That is that there is a real connection with the open space in that you brought the building up close enough and brought the landscaping across the property line right to the building so that you won’t, from the occupants po.int of view, feel surrounded by a sea of automobiles and a sea of parking. You really have a connection to the open space. I think that is so unusual in terms of what is conventionally done. The building that is there now that will be torn down is the conventional system where you have the building sitting on top of the site surrounded by the parking. This building brings that open space to the building, down through the building, out the other side and down to Hillview. I think the occupants and visitors will see that and feel that. So I think that is really very exceptional. It connects the users to the site in a very exciting way in that it might be a negative from the users point view that they understand that risk, that some of the people parking there are going to have to get out the car and walk up the hill to get to the building. It is not quite as easy access from some areas but :it~rnakes a real connection to the site and allows that site to be used by the users and by the public in a real way. The landscape and site use is really innovative in the use of pedestrian ways, hardscape materials, in particular I compliment Tom Richman on this, a really innovative and unusual use of the landscape and the site drainage to accommodate the water drainage from rain water and other things and cleans it and use it on the site. It isn’t done in the usual drain it and get it away here, it is really utilized on the site. That is ve~ unusual. I think the building that we saw in the schematic sections shows it really dug in and integrated into the site rather than setting the building on top of the site. It is dug into it and makes a natural transition from the terrain from the_high to low. I think the building will fit very comfortably and very unobtrusively on there. " " I think the final thing is tha_t..by setting the building back it creates a really major green space off of Hillview. So from tile public side there will be a significant increase in the sense of landscaping greenery that kind of breaks that uniform rhythm of building, building, building in the middle of parking. This would be an exception to that in addition to the streetscape from Hillview. We didn’t vote on this but we clearly liked it and said we’d support What they put’ forward here. Vice-Chair Schmidt: Any other questions or any other people who wish to speak? One question for the applicant. In the video there is a different treatment of columns and maybe railings than on the drawings. That’s just a small detail but is different. MS. Evans: Thank you for asking that. Yes, they are different. We have examples all different ways. The renderings behind you show no columns exposed on the second floor. think that’s what you were referri~g to. The railing on the renderings behind you is an extension of the concrete first story with cut outs. The issue of columns - this was an earlier -design, this is sort of mid-way between our preliminary ARB and where we are now. It started actually with the columnade that reflected the structural good of the building and ac~ally sort of looked like it was holding up the roof area. That’s where we started. You’ll also notice that the handrails where pipe rails. The idea there was to essentially see through the handrails because if you’re on, particularly the east side of the building, this is kind of a spiritual thing, if you are near the perimeter of the building the views are up and down. It is just expansive so there was no reason to put something solid in front of that. Glass goes all the way to the floor and rises to 14 feet. It is like standing outside. So we started there but the colunms went away because first of all, we have the technology not to have to have a focal plane right at the edge of the building that supports the roof. It seemed more dramatic and it seemed certainly more appropriate actually to bring that column line in-board and cant it out with the slope of the glass. We like that shape, it fit out metaphor of the tree perfectly, that incline along the interior by the way interior is quite long actually. That’s the oakwood surface that we are now talking about. This whole idea of the building transitioning as a radius to the fascia in the.parapet, the way doors which access the perimeter balcony, this section reflects basically what the renderings and the video show which is the concrete extension of the guardrail. The model reflects where we were prior to meeting with Stanford. Stanford’s review introduced the idea that our overhang felt a little weak structurally. They preferred the column look. It was a preference, ’ not necessarily something they felt needed to be added back for their approval. We negotiated a couple of things which made it into your packet and didn’t necessarily show up in the initial submitted drawings. The handrail became this concrete element from a pipe rail. We had left options for you to loiskat. In the rendering we have the_columns in-board, the video has the columns out-board, the model columns are in-board but with the pipe rail. I d9n’_t know if I’m telling you what my preference is by implying but certainly I don’t personally like the idea of a focal plane outside the glass which the columns tend to create. The area of the window waft certainly mirror the exterior of the building. It is not so big and it’s bent that it feels terribly out of scale not to have the columns expressed outside. I certainly would prefer and I don’t feel the building too weighty if it is an open pipe rail. The issue with Stanford was the imbalance between the first floor and the second floor because there was so much glass and it’s leading out. So that is a design issue. Punching holes in a raised concrete w-all was sort of _a compromise andthat’s what wound up in your packet. I still feel it is a compromise. I would just like some feedback on that. Thank you for asking.~ _ Vice-Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Okay, I think since there are no more speakers and no more questions I will close the Public Hearing and bring it back to the Commission. Do you have -other questions for Staff?. Then let’s begin our discussion. Who would like to begin? Commissioner Beecham: I’m happy to jump in. I had no questions on this because I think what has been presented to us here as well as on the site visit has been wonderful. I think this design is extremely sensitive to the situation. It is creative and I think it is going to be an award winning building basically. I think that it makes a very positive statement out there. If we could have this quality of design done throughout the park out there we’d love it. So that’s why I have no questions. I think you’ve answered all the issues except for maybe lighting and -that’s a technical one to be followed up on. On your request for guidance, I think having the columns in-board as you put it, to me I think that when Kathy pointed out up l~ere, it was drawing to me when I realized what they were. I’ve always seen and, imagined it in this form. For the railings I prefer what is in the video because it is a lower continuous extension of the lower railing and is not an additional element which is fairly strong in the model here. Otherwise, I think this is a great design. Commissioner Bialson: I have to support Bern’s statement including the-ones with regard to the columns and the rail. Oddly enough I agree with you on that for the same reasons. I too think this is a very creative and sensitive design. I would love to support and encourage you in all the aspects of it. My only question you very ably answered and I feel comfortable with regard to the views off-site to the building and the site itself. I guess I’ve gotten-into the swing of this enough to feel like theremust be some way-not to have the parking next to Coyote Hill. That’s what I’ve been trying to sort of look at. I think your landscape design is wonderful and I can’t wait till the trees grow to the size that we have diagramed here. I don’t know how long that would be but maybe we can helicopter in quite a few of the trees. I’d like those trees there as soon as possible. Other than trying somehow to get parking not right next to the fence and adjacent to the building, I find the design very sensitive. It is unfortunate that most of us like be able to essentially drive into our office. That’s just the way it is and I’m happy to see you almost forcing your employees to have to park some distance away so that they actually experience the daylight as they walk into the building because it sounds like they are going to have breakfast, lunch and dinner there. Other than that I have no comments. Commissioner Schink: I wouldagree with both Annette..and Bern’s comments. I’m going to be drawn into the architectural debate about the rails and the columns because we have a wonderful Architectural Review Board.~- I think the part of this discussion that is important for us to focus on is your site planning. As Annette was emphasizing, I think it is wonderful. You placed the building where li~ve and the idea of putting parking down below and getting people to walk up to the building is a great idea. I kind of wonder why we hadn’t thought about it and .pushed for it earlier in previous pr.qjects. I’m glad you are introducing a concept that we can look forward to enforcing on future projects. I have one very minor point that I hope you will look at.when you come back around through the loop with the lighting plan. I looked at your lighting plan and I thought that there was a little concern the metriCdata showed a lack of insufficient lighting on the walkway down to that bus path along the road. I thought candles were getting a little bit low for along ~at pathway. Other than that, that’s the only thing I can find wrong in studying all those pages, so - t think you’ve done a great job. Congratulations and good luck in the next stage. Will it come back here eventually or not? Vice-Chair Schmidt: It go’es to the ARB and City Council. Okay, well I agree with everyone’s comments also. I think it is wonderful to have such a thoroughly presented and well prepared application. It has thought out everything and I really appreciate Bob Peterson’s in depth comments about the whole design concept. I completely agree. This is very creative. I especially like the landscape concept and the idea of really bringing_the hill into the building. I also especially appreciate the interpretive elements having been involved in lots of interpretive centers and visitor centers. I think when you’ve got a resource like that it is really great to take advantage it and be able to communicate things and bring a little fun and interest into the work life. I think the Visitors will appreciate this too. I imagine visitors from all over and they’ll learn a little bit about the Bay Area when they come to visit. It is also kind of a fortunate site in that you can locate the building at the high point essentially and really not have it visible from other places. It is just a very well done project and very well thought out. I wish you good luck with it also. Any other comments or a motion? MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I’m happy to move Staff Recommendation which will forward this to the ARB and to recommend approval to the Council based on the attached findings and conditions. SECOND: Commissioner Schink: Second. MOTION PASSED: Vice-Chair Schmidt: Okay. It has been moved by Bern, seconded by Jon, to go with the Staff Recommendation. All those in favor? (ayes) All those opposed? That passes 4-0 with Commissioners Byrd, Burt and Cassel absent. Thank you very much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24_ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes March 18, 1999 Attachment J BM Pe.tersgn: Item 4 Welcome back to the ARB meeting. We will go to Item number 4. 3410 Hillview Drive: [98-ARB-192, 98-D-13, 98-EIR-27]: Site and Design Application to allow the demolition of a 61,878 square foot office building and construction of a 64,636 square foot, two-story research/office building with one level underground subterranean parking, signage, landscaping, parking and site improvements and to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Phillip Woods. Senior Planner:This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 24, 1999 and was forwarded:to the Architectural Review Board. Theh representative from the Planning Commission, Bern Beecham, is here to summarize what happened at that meeting. Staff recommendation is that the Architectural Review Board review and comment on the project, forward and recommended approval to the City Council based on the attached findings and conditions that a negative declaration finding ilaa~ the project will not result in any signific _a~n_t ...... environmental impact. BM Peters6n: Thank you. I’d like to hear Commission, Bern. from the representative from the Planning City of Palo Alto Page I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Commissioner Bern Beecham. Planning Commission: Thank you. Our minutes are very short and I’ll be, I hope, equally short this morning. We were very excited about the project. We think it is very Sensitive to the landscape and to the environment. It’s a great improvement over what’s there currently. The applicant did ask us for input on two items. In particular one was the columns, either outboard or inboard, we recommended inboard. Also they asked about the railing. At the time they were talking about a pipe railing. We recommended against that and instead to go with a mote continuous concrete base. I unde.rstand the current is not pipe but a two inch by one-half inch stainless steel railing. I think that would meet our objectives of not being intrusive either from the outside or the inside. So I expect the Commission would support that action today. That’s all I have to say. If you’ve got questions I’d be happy to answer them. BM Peterson: Okay, thanks. Any one with questions of either Bern or the Staff?. Alright, this is a major project. Let’s hear from the applicant first. ~ Mr. Jim Robinson. Facili .ty Manager. SAP Labs: I don’t want to take up too much time so I want to introduce the design team. Bob Evans from Ehrlich-Rominger, the lead design architect. Tom Richman from Richman Associates, the landscape architect who I’ll now turn it over to. Mr. Tom Richman. Landscape Architect. Richman & Associates: Thank you Jim. I’ll just take a minute or two to talk about the landscape issues very briefly and save the bulk of our time for City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Bob’s discussion of the architecture. If you have any questions about the landscape or site planning I’d be happy to answer them dur.ing the Q & A. When we were here a~ the preliminary hearing y~u probably recall we showed you two schemes. We had a downhill scheme and an uphill scheme. We studied them both and we ultimately chose to develop the uphill scheme which is what we are showing you today. This whole project is an attempt, both- architecturally and in the landscape, to respond to the site. We thought that the high prospect, the adjacency to Coyote Hill, the long views, th~ opportunity to create the parking courtyard that is more of a garden-like and has a nice spacial relationship with the adjacent buildings, was a compelling opportunity. That-is why we chose the uphill scheme. The landscape planhas parking terraces leading up from Hillview using the existing driveway up Hillview, the entrance to the subterranean garage is here. There is a main front entry to the building here and then there is anotherentry in the bac_k here. The building is right ne~t to Coyote Hill and the landscape just flows right down to meet the building. We tried to provide access without trespass. In other-words, there will be a fence here. People will be prohibited from climbing the hill but from the building and from the terrace up here they will be able to see the hill and experience the hill. This board kind of illustrates very schematically the planting concept. - - As far as the trees go, -we are bringing up the driveway a flowering tree that leads you more or less up the hill and to the garage. We have a courtyard, auto-court area, that has special trees, City of Palo Alto Page 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -15 16 17 18 19 20 21 a [arbutus marina]. This is a native tree, evergreen with a nice red bark and red flower. Then the perimeter planting is principally oaks and other native species. We’ve also reinforced the sense of flowing up and down the hillside. The paving material in the front of the building there will be auto-court with what we are anticipating to be colored concrete, two colors of concrete. This is one color here and the second color here. You see them in more detail here. So as you drive up the hill, you cross off the asphalt into concrete, it give you a que that you come into this courtyard and that is where the special paving is. We’ve also repeated the special paving in the back to kind of emphasize the sensitivity to the adjacency of the hill and to make for a nice continuous feeling of flowing movement down the hill. As part of this paving we anticipate a even finer grain of paving, maybe even a stone or a very well textured colored concrete, that leads y0_u down these pedestrian routes through the parking lot up three stairways to make the grade up the hill. Then that route would be following you right up into this front entry. This is a sketch of the front entry here. We want to use native plant materials. We’re using stone and other things, taking our que from the rocks that we fred on the hillside. Finally we have an idea about developing interpretive elements to tell the story of Coyo~ ........ Hill, to heighten people’s awareness of the cultural and natural landscape. So we are exploring these plaster casts illustrate, maybe stamping footprints in the concrete in letter form, this is a bronze letter, where we might take a story like Ohlone myth, or just a few sentences and maybe City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 =18 19 20 21 those letters would be in the ground that wouldtead you into the front door. So to try and create a sense of mystery and wonder and connection with the cultural and natural history of the site. We’ve done some great effort to try to address the lighting and I can talk more in detail about that but our basic plan is to prevent a lot of glare from the Hillview looking up.-- So that you don’t see a lot of parking lot lights.- But you do have a clear path to the front door. So with that very brief summary of the landscaping and site issues I’d like to turn it over to Bob to focus on the building now. Mrl Bob Evans. Architect. Ehrlich-Rominger.: I know there are only a few minutes left and we are here to review the exterior of the building primarily so during question and answer.I hope you come back lots of things I may not cover. In your packets, I supplemented from your packets a couple of additional drawings, responses to some pre-meetings that we had where we clarified basically how some-of ilae compliments of the building will be built. Let me lay ~0u~ some boards here quickly. The two additional__drawings are basically one that is partial elevation in the section and we built a study model with a convenient carrying handle if you want to pass that around. It will giveyou a sense basically of the construction of the two different stories~. And a technical board which really represents the thinking that went into th~:inclined glass and how the sunscreen works, basically a solarscreen. We can come back to tha~ at a later time. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SAP is a software .development- company, primarily the program of the building will be for. engineers that will be in cubicles. There will also be program areas such as the cafeteria, exercise facility, [se~er] rooms, large training spaces, there is a mix of enclosed and open space. It is an opportunity actually to pull together the enclosed space and pull together the open planned space and take advantage of this particular siting. There is a belief on the design team that the uphill scheme was much preferred to the middle scheme. The reason for that is just basically the idea of engaging the open space was a challenge to us to prove that the building would be less impacting to the open space i_han would parking, the noise and the traffic and the lights and fumes. We truly believe that. It’s the kind of thing that when you Combine it with the whole sense of the building engaged in the open space and away from all the relationships of the buildings along Hillview as they are now, that we really can do something unique here. The building could in fact stand alone with breathing room and this whole front yard, the hillside could come down and engage the building, go through it. This is an exciting-architectural idea. We are having fun. We are having so much fun. We really do like where the building is going but.I_should take a minute to describe the building physically to you. It is tilt-up construction from the .basement, the-basement is parking for 65 cars, to the second floor - the tilt up wall. The interior shear wall is combined with that. The upper floor is based frame steel construction and the bases are equal. They are _not on the -perimeter. The mechanical equipment on the roof is dealt within-six foot deep mechanical wells with a three foot high wood screen and full trellis, cover over the top of that. There is a one story City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 portion of the building which was suggested by SAP. Obviously with-this zoning we could have had a two story building with equal [four place], 15% site coverage, .3 FAR. SAP has decided to delete some based on parking and put assignable space in the garage which allowed us to actually create this one story element. They are at 15% site coverage but obviously then the second story would be smaller. This is a gesture of pulling mass awa3i from the hillside and forward on the site. In fact, in the scheme you saw in the preliminary review, the building is about 30 feet of mass shift up the hill from the mid-site scheme. That one story element has the cafeteria which is an 0ppormnity, though a stairwell with a possible light well, for people to come from the Cafeteria to get up on that observation deck and-follow in this theme of access without trespass. It is to give the user a chance to engage the hill without the feeling that they have to get outside the building and jump over the fence to enjoy the Coyote Hill open space. L_ The designs and renderings will show, and exhibits that you may not have seen before, we didn’t have the material board renderings which I invite you to pass around and look at more closely. The lower level and upper level .are very distinct architecturally. This is intentional. It’s consistent with the idea that building response to a siting in such a way that the base of the building is an anchor of the site. It responds differently on each side.- There is an uphill side and a downhill side. Main entrance to the fronts and the employee entry to the rear have to relate to exterior spaces and then of course there is the garage en_t~y. Those physical requirements are quite different than the potential of the second -story which is out of the tree line, it is up in the views, it really is out of this sort of natural well that exists and the building has created, and it City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 gets up to an elevation which actually gave us the hill. The question of the second level would really be one for the user to enjoy the potential of the site. So transparency, visibility, that’s all driven the architecture of the upper level. The upper level is really where the soul of the building 4 5 is. We’ve managed the structure so that we can get 14 feet of glass all around the building. 6 7 8 9 10 Let me describe, if I could, the exterior of the building. The section is the most explanatory. The __sunscreen is perforated aluminum thins. The material board shows a metal material that is used for construction of the thins. The thins are designed in such a way that they shade at incline set angles but they act as a trellis letting light through on the balcony at the higher sun angles. The incline [soffit] is pre-fmished metal in the same color as the sunscreen. The-interior incline soffit 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 is oak. There is a light cone that is intended to throw light on the balcony andthe interior perimeter and on the ceiling. Now, the idea of this being a transparent upper ~loor works both ways. So it informs the plan of the building. There are no fixed walls in the interior of the second level. There is only an interior core. There are no in i.he ceiling light ~ix~ures. It’s all task ambient. The lighting is from the furniture system only. Everything about this idea of maximizing glass on the ’upper level and transparency is leading the design ieam through the details.- The window linings on the upper level are painted the same color as the sunscreen because the overhanging sunscreen will only be effective for high angle sun and there is fritted pattern proposed on the glass which is shown on the material board to the left of footing, it is about halfway up the 14 foot glass. And also onthe south and west sides on the lower level as 21 well. There would be plants. Obviously interior drapes as required so there is a drape recess- City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 here and venting for the heat pocket required. The concrete tilt up is cast on the garage level floor. prepared with the reveal strips and a hand-trowel fmish. That floor has a casting that would be Eventually when the panel is set in place there will be a popping slab for drainage away from the garage. But it gives us the ability for the tilt up wall to give it an uneven surface much like that pile on the sample board. Then eventually it is lightly sandblasted. It has a stain wash in the ceiling o_ver it. The idea here agiiin, is working with the colors from the site, is to give the building base, retaining walls, the concrete paneling 9 10 11 12 13 14 15: 16 17 in the parking lot, the concrete popping slab on the exterior deck, we can manipulate all of these surfaces and colors together to have this continuity with the landscape concept. That is very brief. BM Peterson: :-to start? BM Alfonso: We’ll start with questions so you might as well hang on to that. Would you like The dormers that are being used on the front entry, are those product of the site or 18 19 20 are they being made? Mr. Richma_n: Well, our intention is to I’m not sure.What we are hoping is that we can 21 harvest stone from the site as we excavate the building. I showed you a sample before, there are City of Palo Alto Page 9 --1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 rocks all over that hill coming up out of the soil. rocks. That is hard to predict. So it is my suspicion that we will f’md some BM Alfonso: You have some bronze plaques on your sample board there. some of the places where you are thinking of using those kinds of .... -- Can you describe Mr, Richman: Interpretive elements? BM Alfonso: Yes. Mr. Richman:I think what we are intending is we have these footprints that can be stamped in the concrete. They can be up in the auto-court so you get out of your car and you see a deer track leading across the parking lot. Something unexpected. The letter forms might tell a little story, have a sentence or’two that leads you right in the front door. One idea that I haven’t really had a chance to discuss with Bob very much is, maybe there is a story that starts here and leads you all the way through the building and out the back door. The other opportunity that we have is on the roof deck which wilt also be treated the same way. One of the thoughts that we have which is illustrated here is that there might be some kind of an interpretive sign like a photograph that is etched into metal that shows you what you are looking at. It just has simple things like skyline ridge, coast live oak, Coyote Hill, elevation front 28, rock outcropping, etc. One of the things _~at is interesting about this particular client is, it’s a German company, but not only that but there City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ---15 16 17 18 19 20 21 are people from all over the world, engineers come from all over the _world to this site for training and also to do Work. So we have an opportunity to tell the story of the California landscape. - That is interesting to those of us that live here and also to those who are coming as visitors. So we want to do these simple things like that. BM Alfonso: Okay. The paving materials that you described earlier, has it been determined what you are going to use or is that still not determined? Mr. Richman: There are three materials that we are planning on fight now. There is the integral colored textured concrete, this "A" material, which would be a richer, darker color. Then the "B" material is a similar integral colored concrete but a little lighter. "C" is conventional asphalt. Then the fourth one which is discolored here would ~ither be another integral colored concrete but even richer and more freely detailed or depending on how we come through the construction document,-value engineering phase, it might even have some stone in it. BM Alfonso: landscaping? Okay.Can you talk about the .exterior lighting on the building as well as the Mr. Richman: -Okay. Well, I’ll talk about the landscape and let Bob talk about the lighting on the building. One of the early things that we tried to do, and this_was really Bob’s initial impulse, was that we don’t want people who look uphill to see the bottom of a bunch of light fixtures. City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 -18 19 20 21 They just get the sense that there is a big par.king lot up there. So we made a commitment to ourselves that we would have a lighting scheme that did not produce that kind of point source lighting telling us that there was a big parkinglot. So we developed a scheme here that has three fixtures. Before I describe the fixtures, what the scheme is trying (6-do is reinforce the landscape concept and the site concept all working together. We are working with the-kind of fixture, the type of light in the f’Lxture, and the way that the light is treated. So the "A" fixture and the "C" fixtures are these two fixtures. This is the "A" fixture, and this is the "C" fixmr6; this bollard light. They would both be metal halogen so they would have a cooler light source. Then the "B" fixture, and they are colored a cool yellow on this scheme. The "B" fixture would be a higha pressure sodium. It is a little more efficient and it is a little.more orange color. At night you would instantly see two colors of light. You would follow the blue light, the metal halogen, up into this auto-court. These are all [vega] fLxmres. The "A" fixture has this kind of a disc, it’s an up indirect light bug you see through the louvers and this little triangular piece inside of a plastic or a [lexan] Cylinder, you see a point of light. So you can follow this little point of ligh_t, -and these are on 16 foot high. pole, and it takes you into this auto-court. The "B" fixture is on a 20 foot high pole with a brighter light, a high-pressure sodium, but it is fully indirect and these are adjustable -- thi_sis an adjustable reflective- disc. Our intention is that they wo~ld all be kind of lined up like soldiers pointing towards the building. So when~ you _look up from Hillview you wouldn’t see them at ill. These are on 20 foot poles for efficiency. Finally, we have this pedestrii~n route up from the bus stop and thrb~gh the parking lot up these stairs and we’ve provided these bollard lights, these low bollard lights also with metal halogen that would give you City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 18 19 20 21 a point to point kind of connect the dots path up to the front door. So that in summary is the -lighting scheme and it has all been calculated to the foot candle according to the regulations as I understand them. BM Alfonso: The building itself?. Mr. Evans: Ad-libbing to a degree here, the exterior lighting as far as the general building is concerned will not be -- the outside building shining on the building if that is what you are after. In terms of entries, there would be adequate entry lighting in terms of soffit lighting under the entry canopies. The general illumination has assumed this uniform and continuous indirect lighting of that incline soffit all around the upper level of the building. This was by the perimeter code light. Other ideas where explored of lighting it from below but we don’t want to do that. This is just a light that is going to wash the floor and~softly: was the soffit. intended lighting for the building right now. - - BM Alfonso: Would there be lighting along the outdoor deck at all? That’s the only) Mr. Evans: Nothing is planned in the way of permanent light standards if that’s what you are referring to. Intended use of the deck in the future would be for company type Nnctions. What - we would like to do is sleeve an anchor periodically along the deck so that SAP can come by in the summer and then stretch from the building to the stanchions, banners, or light tent structures : City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 in the summer for shade,-so they can eat outside at lunch and that tOnd of thing. Lighting that would go along with that would be affordable too. There is nothing in the way of spot lights or anything planned on the building right now to light the deck. 4 5 BM Alfonso:So future lighting of that deck would be possible for conipany functions and so 6 7 forth so there would be some infrastructure for them to plug into. 8 Mr. Evans: Right. We’ve only had initial discussions about what that might be. 10 BM Alfonso: Okay. Any kind of exterior light’.rag at all in that area, along the back comer of the 11 12 building? 13 14 Mr. Evans: We-just haven’t gotten that far. I’m sure we will probably have to have something on the building. Probably triggered by movement. I doubt it would be on all the time. It will 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 have to _shielded from the hillside. Anything that we are doing in the back would have to follow the same theme as the parking lot lighting. BM Alfonso: Okay. For rooftop materials, are they intended to mimic or be the same as the material on the ground plan? Mr. Evans: Yes.Second level roof is gravel over built up roof.That would be managed in City of Palo Alto Page 14 -1 2 3 4 5 terms of coloratiom so as you see on the special site plan here that we are mimicking essemially what is happening in the concrete patterning in the parking lot as well. So it would be different color gravel on the upper roof. The concrete topping slab on the accessible deck and the perimeter balcony would also be managed as is the parking. So it would be the imprinted concrete stained and similar color. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BM Alfonso: other? The gravel on the top, how would that be kept from merging from side to the Mr. Evans: I don’t have a detail for that yet. SinCe you bring it up we will need one. BM Alfonso: The grill over the mechanical wells, they are metal grills? Mr. Evans: It’s all wood. 16 17 18 19 BM Alfonso: Oh; it’s wood;~ okay. Do you have a detail of that? Mr. Evans:We have sections in plan, we don’t have construction details for the louvers yet. 20 21 BM Alfonso:Okay, what else?I think that’s all my questions for now. -~ City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BM peterson: Joe. BM Bellomo:The railing, go through Bob, the railing detail.Explain that section of railing. Mr. Evans: Stainless steel, this is a pipe version of it, but it is what is called stipple finish, it is essentially peaned which means it has to be blasted with ball peans after fabrication so it will come to the site in that condition. The drawing shows, very lightly you can hardly--see it but, the moorings are five foot centers. The sections of railing would be five feet. So there would be double pickets at that point. Again, this section of that rail is .5 inch by 2 inches fiat. The whole idea here is that it’s not there. That’s one reason that it’s not painted green. It is intended to be part of the wall and to be as transparent as possible. The whole idea is not to have a focal plane in front of you looking out of the second floor glass. The base- of the rail is a wall cap that curved. It follows the same theme of this radius. The i_.d_~a of !nside the building looking out, is that we are trying to blur the edges of the structure inside. So everything as you look out is soft and radius. This wall cap has the same radius and that is part. of the rail and of course the flashing is underneath that. BM Bellomo: It’s capped. Mr. Evans: It’s capped, right.The appearance from the front would be just a very, very thin line. City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 BM Bellomo: Of flashing over the top. Mr. Eva~aS: Right, you would not see metal flashing. 5 6 7 BM Bellomo: Did you propose any, like in that lower wall below the railing, any thoughts of bare railing kind of baffled lighting along that edge for pedestrians? 8 Mr, Evans: No, we haven’t thought of that. 9 10 BM Bellomo:Okay.The exhaust systems for the garage, where 11 exhausting? is the .exhaust system 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mr. Evans: Right here. Out of the wall. It comes up from a fan room in the comer 6f the garage. Intake is through the garage entry and exhaust is through the deck right here. One reason for the change of material on the deck is thinking of ways to isolate that comer of the building so people don’t walk out there and stand over the garage exhaust. 18 BM Bellomo: Right. So the height of that upgrade is? 19 20 21 Mr. Evans: Three floors.-The same as the windows. City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -15 16 17 _ 18 19 20 21 BM Bellomo:And you reviewed the height of the exhaust from the ground level with the mechanical equipment? Mr. Evans: Yes. BM Beilomo: That’s in an acceptable location. Mr. Evans: Yes. BM Bellomo: The doors in this exterior,balcony from, not from the patio area, but in general how often will you have doors that break out. Mr, Evans: There are two sets of double-doors indicated on the second floor plan. BM Bellomo:And that will be it? Except for that light well stair that goes down to the cafeteria, right. At least at this point it seems .to be exiting for the deck. BM Bellomo: This back patio/deck, the stairwell opening is the light well that basically daylights into the lower cafeteria area. City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 -18 19 20 21 Mr. Evans: It’s open to the sky. BM Bellomo: It’s open to the sky so there will be appropriate drainage at that level. Mr. Evans: Right. BM Bellomo: Has there been any thought, and you mentioned that you have sleeves, what’s the use during winter or rainy season? Are there any thoughts of any type of umbrella, canopies that would be placed on this? Mr. Evans: That’s what the sleeving is for. We actually started with that stair being basically larger than the stairs so there was enclosed dining space on the deck. It was fighting the concept of keeping that lear~ and pushing the mass of the building forward. So eventually went away from that with this idea that we could do something more flexible. All. we needed was weathe_r. protection and you could put a canopy or drape something that was protection from the rain. I think SAP is comfortable, with that at this point. BM Bellomo:I want to state for the record that the applicant came_to my office and presented the drawing work and we discussed that for half an hour or so. Okay, I just a few Bob. Why don’t you review the colors again on the exterior,BM Peterson: City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17.~. 18 19 20 21 what is the color of the soffit, and the trel!age, and this concrete, and the glass. Mr. Evans: This metal is the sunscreen which is a construction that is hollow, two pieces that are concave welded together. The soffit would be pre-painted, pre-fabricated metal panels, radius. The window moldings, the vertical and horizontal for the entire project, Would be painted. The only exception to that are entry doors which are probably going to be the stainless, smoked stainless not bright stainless. The building is contemporary but it is not high-tech. There is no intention on our part to use bright contrasting colors or shiny surfaces. Everything is meant to be an earth tone. The intention of this color, which is bluish under this light but more green in daylight, is to have something that is mid-green between sky and foliage. The metaphor really for the inclined wall and the trellage and the perforation is the tre~s. The filtering of light, everylhing about that including wood soffit, is to make this as natural an appearance as possible. So the oak paneling, the T&G boards that would be irrthesoffit, would be in this range and tiffs would also be for the mechanical enclosure on-the roof. The glass is light blue-green. The energy calcs have been done and-~t will be single paned which surprised me but it is going to be low-E. The incline of the glass by the way was ~o_ minimize glare. That seems to work, at least from the diagrams. So it will be single paned, light blue-green tint, low-E glass. The glass would he in a color compatible with the color of the metal. Again the handrails are innatural stainless. The color of the concrete has been tinted to work with the stones on Tom’s board. It will be from -the site, it will be stained in probably multiple colors. This piece of [pile] has very much the _ quality that we are looking for and hoping to get out of the building. It is very unique for a tilt City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 up to go in and hand trowel and actually do something in reverse form you are hoping is going to lo~k natural, like stone, but we have that opportunity because the popping slab will have to be applied for the garage for drainage. So we can do with the under-slab what we want to do with 4 it. 6 As the elevation shows, strongly horizontal. It was our intent to do that. Punched opening, load 7 8 9 10 bearing and feeling, the construction is going toward a light feeling with the tilt of the curve would be as minimal as possible and flush. BM Peterson: Okay, the windows would be the same color. 11 12 Mr, Evans: Yes. 13 14 BM Peterson: The roof color? What do you think that is going to be? What color is your gravel 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 up there? Mr. Evans: Well it is going to derive from what we finally do in-the parking lot. There have been a number of alternatives explored for the parking from variations in asphalt to concrete. Right now it is concrete which would give us quite a variation in color. So as we decide on the color of the concrete, we.’ll be working with rock. I can’t.put a:xock sample in front of you Bob at the moment, but that is the intent of the study -- that we would marry the two. City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BM Peterson:What about the landscape lighting poles, what color are they? Mr. Evans: Finish? with the handrails. Not green, I don’t believe.We will probably go with a natural finish as BM Peterson: BM Alfonso: of the soffit? Okay.__I think that’s all the questions I have. One other question. This brown oak soffit that is in this portion. Is that the color Mr. Evans: It is a stain. The stain which will allow us to regulate the color. I can’t tell you right now whether it is going to be red or whether it is going to be white. [hammering] The intent is that that be wood. BM Alfonso: And a stain. ~Mr. Evans: And a stain. Again, all the lighting is from below. quality of that is important to us. It will be illuminated so the City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BM Alfonso:There has been sort of a movement toward a natural... If I had to adjust anything in the pallet right now, everything would lighten up by about three clicks. This value would become lighter. The blue-green coloring that is in there now would become lighter. Even the [fittings] become lighter. I think the concrete color is okay. .... pretty much tell where we are going with that but I think the green color still needs tO be manipulated. .. ~ BM Bellomo: Could you have chosen oak which is a little grainier and a little more wild? Mr. Evans: Right. That’s the nature of what’s out there in the open space. You see that it’s dead trees and leaves and branches laying around. Just pick one up and that’s the thought. Go away from redwood and go away from the oak. BM Peterson: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this? No volunteers. We’ll return to the Board for comments. Frank. BM Alfonso:I’d also like to state for the record that I was contacted by the applicant but I did not have an opportunity to meet with them. Let me first say that this is a very impressive presentation. I certainly appreciate the level of City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 detail and imagination that .has gone on here to create this presentation. I’ll first comment on some of the larger broad-brush gestures of the project. I think that the siting is very well handled. The preliminary review offered two very different solutions and at that time I was asked to pick one, so I did. I felt, at.the time, the development of the exterior landscape spaces would have been much richer in the other schemes. Although you have done just that in this scheme. The drama of what you are creating here is potentially very attractive, ithink that you are responding to the site very welll ~’he general almost organic landscape treatments with the various natural gestures really are complimented nicely with the building that is much more [architectonic] in character and interpre_t_ive of the landscape forms in a much more abstract way..The elements of the project are working very nicely together. I’m very excited about that. The entry to the parking and the way that the parking is handled is very effective. The drive directly to the parking lot is very direct. The park-court on the other side becomes this front~yard to the building which I think is working well. I’m very much convinced by this notion of access without trespass. I think that’s one of the real successes of the way inwhich the building is massed. Is that you can ~ha~ie this outdoor deck that allows you to see the upper portion of land without necessarily encroaching on it. That carries that same theme that I see in the project throughout in terms of I think it is very well done. -The use of the creek form kind of a flow in the way that the paving pattern is rendered at least, City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -15 16 17 18 19 20 21 hopefully will actually be perceived as such from the uphill portion of the building. very creative wayof handling such a thing. That’s very exciting as well to me. I f’md it a Including the various stamped motifs throughout that could -- I hope that you can achieve that because I think that it is very exciting. I think that it would be really too bad if you couldn’t do the stones with all this. I think that that’s one of those elements that might seem rather take it or leave it at this point. I really feel that once that thing is finished, if you could actually have stone, that is going to be very attractive. Particularly off-set by the tilt up character of the building. The complimenting color and the texture from the more [architectonic] character to a much more organic character, I think that is really what this project seems to be about, Sitting gently on a very sensitive place. Obviously a lot of poetry is here and I’m very intrigued by it but I would hope that that could be carried to fruition in every detail. Then obviously where you are at right now is trying to figure out what things possibly, seems to tear it up. Some of the things that I would specifically pay. attention to the way in whicfi-that mechanical screening is detailed. So that it doesn’t sort of gray or become an issue with color and character and warpage, and all of the above. I mean wood is a nice material but I’m not sure that is the right material for that particular location. There are issues of moisture, there are issues of heat, there are issues of all of the above. I think that the idea of having the roof area is a really appropriate one primarily as looking at the roof as an elevation. I’m really concerned about this material in terms of its -- I think you can achieve color City of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -15 16 17 -t8 19 20 21 and character without necessarily having the problems that are inherent in that material. Along the same lines, I think that roof as an elevation, the intention to detail that has been described in the tilt up. So that in time it doesn’t just sort of become this blur of asphalt. You can carry that idea and have it last and that is as important as every other detail on the elevations of the building. I like very much the deck and where it is placed and how it relates to the building. Also the penetration of the light well. I had the experience of working in a office bu.ilding once that was very similar to.this. It was really effective and people used it a lot. I think it is a great idea. The color scheme of the building itself I find very compelling and attractive. I think it will be just as you’ve described in terms of the rendition of the soft_of compatible with the site and the sky and the ground and the colors that are there now.- I’m very convinced of that. I like the railing detail. My only concern is the initial glare if in fact it could be controlled so that it wasn’t an issue. _perhaps with the brushed f’mish handled rather than something/hat wasn’t too shiny. I think that it could work against you both ways in terms of the interior perception and the exterior. When the sun comes around it is going to produce a little bit of glare and you’v_e taken --a lot of care to avoid that. So I would certainlf~ncourage you to consider that finish as well. City of Palo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The lighting of the site sounded very convincing to me. I like very much the juxtaposition of the cooler and-the warmer light sources and the way in which the parking and the vehicular access and pedestrian lights are being handled. I did think that the security lighting is something that needs to be addressed. Perhaps it is something that could be handled at that level to be sure that it doesn’t spill Over and become a glare issue for you. I’m sure that was-you intention. I find this is a very attractive proposal and I’m very much in support of what yoti are doing. f’md it poetic. I find sited very well and I’m very glad to see this. BM Bellomo: I f’md that the key words that it is an effective as a solution. In Scheme A, as I remember from your preliminary review, I know that I strongly encourage the location. It really ¯ works.- I think that one thing the building does do is that the direction of it is appropriate. That is, instead of trying to capture a-view of the Bay Are-a-~-the orientation is right. That is th~li- access, I’m not so sure about-the trespass because-we are building buildings here. I really think -the orientation works and I’m re~Ily happy to see that. The landscape plan, the parking layout, the walking transitioning of this hillside, very nic.ejob. It really works. I think with the proper detail of materials and especially in regard to the hardscape textures in relationship to the building, ¯ if you guys get that down, you are going to have a parking lot that feels more like a park setting. I think that’s where the direction of the project. I really look forward to seeing this finish. The building, I really like the fluidness of the design. I like the entry points and how they City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 2 3 _4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 respond to the patterns on the ground. happy to see that.- I’m really glad those softened~up.Good call, I’m really I’ll talk about the railings and I want to work around to the deck. I think the railings are a really good solution. The thing that I think the railing misses is an angle of some sort. Whether it is a thin angle support, a double thin support, something that just responds architecturally, just seems like they’ve been kind of put in but the detail hasn’t quite gotten it~ So I would encourage just some approach-to this flat bar and support and that somehow responds to this fluidness. I think that could be a really nice touch. Other than that I think it is a very nice detail. I am concerned about this dark brown stained, kind of older, historic floor decking that I see proposed. I’ve been to a lot of homes where they want things lightened up. I think that a natural, though not white or bleached, I think a natural material could be more in keeping and harmonious with how this soffit dives into it. How they marry each other so to speak. So I think maybe you are not there with the color and the palette yet. I think if you could look at that it would be well worth it. The deck I think, I mentioned a courtyard, this is better because it really has an open feel feeling to it. We didfft talk about the surface of this deck but I’m sure it is going to be sometfiing that, in fact it would be nice to see those. I don’t know if you have some of those elements going through. I’m not sure the texture and the flooring of the deck, that I think it is. Mr__M_L_~. vans: Concrete. Oty of Palo Alto Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BM Bellomo: It’s concrete, great. So the only thing I think is missing is how is it experienced in inclement weather. In my mind’s eye I can see some people coming out over certain spots to kind of pick up this notion of the building projecting over it. The openness is good but I tend to want to see how it really appears when you do have it somewhat screened and covered. It is going to be a hot deck. On a 90 degree day or an 80 degree day up there, I know how hot it is I grew up there, it is. gQing to be hot. So to have a careful understanding of how the sun actually bounces off this deck up into these window. I think the heat coming off that patio is going to be significant. So I really think that if you can mitigate that with sort of a permanent structure, that’s something I think should be looked at also. I liked it though in balance. I hope you can. outcrop some of these big old rocks and get them in there. That would be a lot offun. ~ ¯ The lighting in the parking lot is very effective. I think this notion of not creating a hot spot parking lot from--the road is fantastic. I don’t want to repeat a lot of what has already been said -: but, I really like what I’ve seen here. I hope all of our major applications come iia fike this as far as respecting the site. So, thanks, I really appreciate it. BM Peterson: I guess we liked it pretty well. I want to--compliment the client because this wouldia’t happen without a client who was willing and able to support the design team doing thig. That is really crucial. Amongthe things we try to do at this level of ARB is encourage clients -to get good design teams and then we get good projects. That’s just what’s happened here. The process has been just right. They’ve come in for a preliminary. You’ve been open for our input City of Palo Alto "Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 and for others’ input. I think the fundamental relationship from building to site which was the basic idea, is really working here. That’s what is going to make this so really wonderful. I too, would like to see some real stone out there. Not just concrete but some stone. I think the .lighting concept is terrific. You can’t take much credit for this but it really is a superior scheme here. On the architecture, I think the relationship of the mass of base and the really transparent upper floors is just superb.I think all the details that you are putting in here accentuate that. Something that we didn’t discuss that I remember was an issue that was raised when I was and heard the presentation at the .Planning Commission was the location of the support columns for the upper level. What you’ve shown here is certainly the way I think it should be shown. I think any expression of a vertidalcolumn outside that glass line would be really detrimental to this whole concept. I think Be transparent stainless steel railing is very, very nice. As I understand it, it will be a light finish so it will be very unshiny but very bright. I guess I have one eJement that I think could be City of Paio ~41to Page 30