Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 376-06City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 4 TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 CMR: 376:06 SUBJECT: 3412 HILLVIEW AVENUE [06PLN-00157]: REQUEST FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW OF A NEW 76,500 SQUARE FOOT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUILDING, INCLUDING A PARKING STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, TO ESTABLISH A COHESIVE SAP LABS CAMPUS IN THE STANFORD RESEARCH PARK. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS (DEES) ARE REQUESTED TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT AND SITE COVERAGE. APPLICANT: STANFORD MANAGEMENT COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY. APPROVAL OF THE RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3412 HILLVIEW AVENUE: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND DEE APPLICATION. ZONE DISTRICT: RP-5(D). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED.. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission (PT&C), Architectural Review Board (ARB), and staff recommend that the City Council: Approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment I) for the project at 3412 Hillview Avenue, with a finding-that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts; and Approve the Site and Design Review and DEE applications to allow the construction of a new research and development building in the RP-5(D) Research Park Combining District, based on the findings and conditions of approval in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). CMR: 376:06 Page 1 of 3 The property is zoned RP-5(D) (Research Park Sub-district 5 with Site and Design Review combining district). The Site and Design combining district requires projects proposed in environmentally sensitive areas to be reviewed by P&TC and the City Council, in addition to ARB. 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. The project would not conform to all of the zoning standards of the RP-5 zoning district, as set forth in the attached table (Attachment C). The applicant is requesting Design Enhancement Exceptions from the RP-5 Zone development standards to exceed the maximum allowed building height and lot coverage. Full descriptions of the requested exceptions are contained in the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report, from the July 12, 2006 meeting (Attachment F). BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Planning and Transportation Commission The P&TC reviewed the project at its meeting of July 12, 2006. The P&TC, recommended that the Council approve the Site and Design Review application and the Negative Declaration. In general, the P&TC was supportive of the design, including site orientation, sustainable building elements, landscape features and pedestrian connections. The Commissioner who did not recommend approval expressed concern that the views of the building from the Coyote Hill open space to the west would be negatively impacted without additional screening. Stanford University owns this open space property, which is zoned Agricultural Conservation, and does not permit public access. Other than the applicant, there were no members of the public who spoke. The verbatim minutes of the P&TC meeting are included with this report as Attachment E, and the P&TC staff report is included as Attachment F. Architectural Review Board The ARB reviewed the application on August 3, 2006. The ARB recommended that the Council approve the Negative Declaration, DEEs, and Site and Design application, with a condition of approval that details of the building’s roof deck and vertical trellis return to the ARB subcommittee prior to building permit issuance. On September 7, 2006, the ARB subcommittee reviewed the redesigned roof deck with tall bamboo plantings in place of the vertical trellis, and found the design to be an attractive and workable screening feature. Meeting minutes reflecting the ARB discussion on August 3, 2006 are found in Attachment G, and the ARB staff report is included as Attachment H. RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed project will generate additional General Fund revenues in the form of property taxes and development impact fees. The 3412 Hillview project improvements are expected to add $25.7 million in assessed value to the property. That will translate to $23,139 in additional property tax revenue to the City each year. Development Impact Fees are estimated at $112,791, a one-time revenue impact. CMR: 376:06 Page 2 of 3 Since the site will continue to be used for Research and Development and will not change significantly in square footage, there will be negligible sales tax and UUT impacts. Similarly, the City is not expected to incur substantial additional operational costs as a result of the planned improvements at 3412 Hillview. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)/Initial Study was prepared for the project and is contained in Attachment I. Based upon the EIA, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review between June 22, 2006 through July 11, 2006. PREPARED BY:~ ~.~" ~"--~--~ Beth Young Bourne, AICP Senior Planner DEPARTMENT ~:~~tcvc ~n~nc, ~r Director of Planning and Co--unity Environment C~Y MANAGER APPROVAL: ~~ ~~ EM~A~R~N ~ Assistant C~ty Manager ATTACHMENTS A.Draft Record of Land Use Action B.Location map C.Zoning Compliance Table (prepared by staff) D.Applicant’s submittal, including Project Description and View Assessment Photo Exhibit E.Verbatim Minutes excerpt from July 12, 2006, PTC hearing F.Planning and Transportation Commission staff report dated July 12, 2006 (without attachments) G.Minutes excerpt from August 3, 2006 ARB hearing H.ARB staff report dated August 3, 2006 (without attachments) I.Initial Study/Negative Declaration J.Project Plans (Council Members only) COURTESY COPIES: Applicant: Stanford Management Company Carl Cahill, City Manager, Town of Los Altos Hills CMR: 376:06 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A APPROVAL NO. 2006-07 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3412 HILLVIEW AVENUE: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND DEE APPLICATION [FILE NO.06PLN-00157] (STANFORD MANAGEMENT COMPANY, APPLICANT) On September 25, 2006, the City Council approved Site and Design Review and DEE applications for the construction of a research and development office building in the RP-5(D) zone district, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (~City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 12, 2006, Stanford Management Company on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, applied for a Site and Design Review application for the construction of a new research and development office building and associate site improvements("The ProjectH). B. The project would include demolition of two existing buildings, totaling 76,500 square feet, and construction of a new research and development building, parking structure and associated site improvements, to establish a cohesive SAP Labs campus in the Stanford Research Park. C.The project would also include a request for Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) from the RP-5 Zone development standards.These DEEs would include exceeding the maximum allowable building height and site coverage. D. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed The Project and recommended approval on July 12, 2006. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR: 376:06 and the attachments to it. E. Following Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed The Project and recommended approval on August 3, 2006. The ARB’s recommendations are contained in CMR: 376:06 and the attachments to it. SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Envlronmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was prepared for the project and it has been determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project Page 1 would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was available for public review beginning June 22, 2006 through July ii, 2006. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: 376:06 SECTION 3.Architectural Review Findings i. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that: The design promotes the following policies for Limited Industrial!Research Park facilities, including: Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale; Policy L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands; and 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 views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. 2. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site, in that: The proposed building would replace existing Research and Development/Office buildings with a two-story contemporary building on the same campus that is designed to integrate into the environmental setting and includes extensive landscape plantings and outdoor features as well as pedestrian walkways to connect to the adjacent facilities. o in that : The design is appropriate to the function of the project, The placement of the two-story building creates a series of human- scaled interconnected outdoor spaces that promote a quality of life for the employees. The architectural design emphasizes the use of natural daylight and other energy efficient design elements that promote a healthy environment for employees. The proposed project includes adequate parking (auto, accessible, and bicycle). 4. In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character, in that : The design is compatible with the unified character of other Research & Development campuses within the Stanford Research Park with a human scaled building, exterior finishes that are compatible with the envlronmental setting, and retention of a significant number of existing trees. Page 2 5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different land uses, in that: The project maintains the same land uses as a research and development facility on the site and is compatible with adjacent research and development and office land uses. The site incorporates work related functions with passive and active outdoor areas which promote a harmonious human-scale environment. 6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site, in that: The site is already developed with buildings and the existing access driveway will be maintained and a new pedestrian pathway will connect to transit services. 7. 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, in that : The design is focused on creating a strong sense of corporate community, primarily through the design of connected walkways to adjacent SAP offices and a variety of outdoor gathering spaces. An arrival court provides a connection for pedestrians between the parking areas and building lobby. 8. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures, in that: The intensively landscape campus provides outdoor rooms and event spaces which promote participation and interaction with the environment. The campus includes a large courtyard space with amphitheater seating, a roof top plaza, pathways along landscaped bioswales and retention ponds. 9. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept, in that: Adequate auto, accessible and bicycle parking is located conveniently with pedestrian access to the building entrances. In addition to the outdoor walkways and activity spaces, the site plan includes additional employee services such as food services and transportation demand management (TDM) activities to reduce auto traffic. i0. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, in that: The existing access way off of Hillview Avenue will be maintained for vehicular use. The redevelopment of the site will provide Page 3 landscaped pathways connecting the site to the adjacent SAP building and providing direct access to parking and a bus transit stop. Bicycle parking is convenient and close to building entrances. 11. Na tura i features are appropri a t ely integrated with the project,in that: preserved and The existing perimeter landscape consists of sloping topography and mature trees. These site assets will be preserved and enhanced in the new design. The design effectively uses bioswales to control and filter storm water runoff. 12. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions, in tha t : The building materials would be complimentary to the environmental setting and the landscape design utilizes drought tolerant and native plants that are appropriate to the site. Outdoor areas also contribute to adding functioning space that is compatible with the building and natural features of the site. 13. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site, in that: The campus culture is enhanced with the use of outdoor spaces and the parking areas are well screened with intensive tree plantings. 14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety, which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance, in that: The Planning Arborist has reviewed all plant materials and in addition, water conserving irrigation system has been proposed for the site. 15. The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy elements including but not limited to: The project design :includes: a) Daylight provided through high performance glazing, b) Air quality maintained through the use of low VOC materials and’ interior finishes, c) Sun shading systems, and d) Careful site selection and landscape design. Page 4 SECTION 4.Design Enhancement Exception Findings. I. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that: The project site is a property with considerable slope with grades that rise from an elevation of 185 feet along Hillview Avenue to an elevation of 260 feet at the western edge of the property and a significant cross-slope of approximately 13 feet between the lower north edge and higher south edge. One elevation of the proposed building’s north wing varies in height from 33’ to 48’ as the ground steps away from the building. The additional height allows the building to have a stepped profile that follows the site contours. The limited area of wall that will exceed the 35’ height limit can be seen only from internal areas of the site and will not be visible from adjacent properties. The proposed 31% site coverage allows a parking deck to be located in an area of the site that was previously graded for the existing three-story building. Set into the hillside, this location considerably reduces the visual appearance of the parking structure with the existing mature trees providing additional screening. The design feature of the parking deck in place of surface parking allows for improved pedestrian circulation through the site, a reduction mn the amount of grading required on the site, preservation of a greater number of existing trees, and reduction of impervious surfaces by approximately 50% or 57,000 square feet. The research and office building does not exceed site coverage. 2. The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner, which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirement of PAMC Chapter 18 and the ARB findings, in that: Granting an exception in height for the 3412 Hillview Avenue buildings will provide two functions; a stepped building that follows the site contours, and a lobby area that connects the north wing’s second floor and the south wing’s first floor. The proposed building is a split-level design, with the building mass stepping to respond to the contours of the site. The asymmetrical form of the buildings volumes will soften the impact of the building as it relates to the Coyote Hill Open Space and neighboring properties. Granting an exception for site coverage will allow retention of a greater number of existing trees that provide screening for both the proposed research and development building as well as the parking area. 3. The exception is related to minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be Page 5 detrimental to the public health, convenience,in that : safety general welfare or Granting the exceptions for height and site coverage would have minimal impact on adjacent land uses and property owners. The additional building height will be visible only from internal areas of the site. The parking deck structure allows for better pedestrian connections and a more sustainable site layout that incorporates bioswales and a reduction in impervious surfaces. SECTION 5. Site and Design Review Findings. i. 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 provides 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 designed so as not to impact the Coyote Hill Open Space. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas, in that: 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 governed by the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure safety and high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project, in that: The proposed research and development building and parking deck have been designed to be consistent with the Site and Design Criteria adopted by the City Council. Sustainable building features are incorporated in the design, including sunshades, landscaped bioswales, retention ponds, and a parking deck in place of surface parking that reduces the amount of grading, preserves a greater number of existing trees, and reduces impervious surfaces by approximately 50%. The project will not have a significant envlronmental impact as indicated by the proposed Negative Declaration for this project. 4. The use will be Comprehensive Plan, in that : in accord with the Palo A1 to Page 6 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 RP-5 zone district. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the design promotes the following policies for Research!0ffice Park facilities, including: Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale; Policy L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in an way that encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands; Policy L- 44: Develop the Stanford Research Park as a compact employment center served by a variety of transportation modes; Policy B-4: Nurture and support established businesses as well as new business; Policy B-28:Support the positive relationship between the local business community and Stanford University faculty, alumni, and administrators; Policy B-29:Facilitate Stanford’s ability to respond to changing market conditions that support the long-term viability of the Research Park. SECTION 6. SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 06PLN-00157, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of the Record. SECTION 7.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment P1 arming Di vi si on i.The plan submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspections Division shall be submitted in substantial conformance with the plans and project details!materials received on September 20,2006, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2.All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspections Division. 0 The project shall include the installation of four shower facilities. The building permit application shall include detailed plans for employee amenity areas and proposed uses for planning staff evaluation, to determine whether the extra 2,500 square feet would be exempt. 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 Page 7 proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendent, 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. o The applicant shall submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris prior to issuance of demolition permit. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application. The maximum light pole height shall be fifteen (15) feet, as measured from grade to top of fixture. If sodium lighting is used, then color-corrected, high-pressure sodium is required. Low-pressure sodium shall not be used. In addition, a photometric site plan shall be submitted for review to confirm foot-candle coverage from all exterior light sources, as well as confirm no spillover lighting occurs across property lines. All proposed rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened by parapet walls to the height of the tallest equipment. i0. DeveloPment impact fees and transportation impact fees shall be required and payment made, prlor to issuance of any building permit associated with this project. These fees are estimated to be $112,791. Transportation Prior to review by the Architectural Review Board: ii. The bicycle parking summary information on Sheet A 0.0 shall be consistent with the May 31, 2006 traffic memo. All racks and lockers must be of a design acceptable to the City. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION OR BUILDING PERMIT 12.Planting at the intersections, particularly at the driveway onto Hillview Avenue, needs to be restricted in height to achieve adequate intersection sight distance. A sight triangle diagram shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division. 13. Intersection sight triangle shall be provided noting the appropriate sight lines for the exit from the southeast driveway to view inbound traffic from the Hillview Avenue driveway. The intersection sight triangle shall take into account any proposed landscaping.A sight triangle shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division. Page 8 14. The project applicant shall pay the Stanford Research Park Fee. This fee is updated on an annual basis subject to the yearly growth rate of the construction cost index published by Engineering News Record. 15.The applicant shall submit a logistics plan and associated traffic plan for construction. Information described and shown on the traffic plan must contain the truck rouzes to and from the site, construction related parking, and location of material storage. A Traffic Control Plan compatible with Caltrans and City requirements shall be prepared for any temporary closure of travel lanes or sidewalks, any potential for temporary elimination of on-street parking or bicycle lanes, and shall include all appropriate smgning and traffic control. The Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division. 16.All dimensions shall be added to the site plan sheets including lengths and widths of parking spaces, car accessible spaces, van accessible spaces, and passenger and truck loading area. Other dimensions to be shown include corner radii, widths of travel aisles, internal driveways, and sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. 17.If desired by VTA, transit stops and shelters adjacent to the pro3ect site shall be upgraded to full VTA standards for length, width, structural section, and materials. 18.The applicant shall submit a pavement impact analysis associated with truck traffic to and from the site during demolition and construction. This analysis is to ensure that trucks will utilize roads with pavement design that could support truck sizes, loads, and frequencies. The current condition of the pavement surrounding the site shall be documented and any damage to the pavement or pavement markings shall be repaired by the project applicant. Planning Arborist PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 19.The Certified Arborist’s Tree Assessment prepared by Ray Morneau, dated June 12, 2006, identified 198 existing trees, most being coast redwoods and Monterey pines. The two coast redwoods and one coast live oak proposed for removal shall be mitigated with the planting of eleven 24-inch box size trees as required per PAMC, Section .8.10.050(c) (i). Publicly owned trees in the right of way are to be retained. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT 20.Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural tree resources on the site include 21 ordinance trees proposed for relocation or retention and approximately 40 other significant trees proposed to be retained. As a security measure, the Page 9 project shall be subject to a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a tree retention amount, list of trees, criteria and timeline for return of security, and conditions as cited in the Record of Land Use Action for the project. The applicant and project arborist shall coordinate with the City Arborist to determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site during construction and within two years after occupancy. The applicant shall bond for 150% of the value for the relocated trees, and 50% of the value of the remaining trees to be protected during construction (as identified in the revised and final approved Tree Protection Report). The applicant shall provide the proposed level of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the description of each tree by number, value, and total combined value of all the trees. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to a final tree assessment from the project arborist as approved by the City Arborist, two years following final inspection for occupancy, to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. 21.Building permit set of plans shall specify Structured Soil tree planting mix (as base material for compacted areas beneath sidewalks, pavers or driveway surfaces) to increase rooting volume and defer tree root damage to hardscape surfaces. Specifications are available from Planning Division staff. The plans shall specify SS Fill to a minimum depth of 24" and be clearly shown in the following areas: In parking lot areas where trees in narrow planter islands. Beneath all public sidewalk areas in the right of way, from back of curb to face of building. Driveway apron may be excluded from this requirement. ¯Beneath specified areas under sidewalk, pavers and parking spaces. , Pervlous pavers type shall be specified such as (RimaStone or approved equal) to increase pervious area and stormwater infiltration. 22.Aboveground utilities shall be located on the site in such a way that landscape screening can grow adequately to interrupt direct view from street frontages. 23.A detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompasslng on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant should prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. Page i0 Irrigation schedule and plan. Fence locations. Lighting plan with photometric data. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved plans, shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Works Detail #504 shall be shown on Landscape Plans. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30- inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, details on the irrigation plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or larger. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Effi~ciency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the planting of appropriate screening (shrubbery, fitted with dark green wire cage, painted dark green, false rock covering, etc) to minimlze visibility. 24.Site Plan requirements: The approved plans submitted for building permit shall also include the following information: Sheet T-l_Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan ((http://www.city.palo- alto.ca.us/arb/planning forms.html), complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked. The general and site-specific elements of the Tree Preservation Report approved by staff, dated: , 2005 shall be printed on Sheet T-I and!or T-2 (all sheets). A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-I and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees." The Site Plans shall denote Type I fencing around Protected Trees and q!rpe II fencing around Street Trees a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Detail #503, Sheet T-I, and the City Tree Page ii Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. All civil plan sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Arborist at 650-XXXXX" PRIOR TO DEMOLITION PERMIT ISSUANCE 25. Demolition and Logistics Plan. A demolition plan shall clearly identify trees to remain and to be removed.The demolition plan should also more accurately reflect the location of the trees on-site and their dimensions for consistency with the Tree Survey sheet. The demolition plan should also clearly show all required tree protection measures for adjacent trees and for all trees to be retained on the project site. The demolition notes should include and reference tree protection measures (Sheets T-I thru T-3). Before the approval for a demolition & building permit all plans must be updated and tree protection must be in place prior to demolition. 26.Tree Protection Statement. A written statement from the contractor verifying that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. DURING CONSTRUCTION 27.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 28.The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 29.The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. POST CONSTRUCTION 30.For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Page 12 Nursery and Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division PRIOR TO PERMIT APPLICATION 31.A separate building permit shall be required for the construction of the proposed office building and the parking structure. 32.The plans submitted for the building permits shall include the full scope of the construction including all interior tenant improvements, utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project. 33.If requested, and upon approval, the interior tenant improvements for the new office building may be deferred until after the issuance of a permit. For this option, the following conditions shall apply. The applicant shall pay all fees based on the total valuation, which shall include the tenant improvement work, at the time of the initial permit application and!or issuance. The subsequent submittal of the interior improvement plans shall be processed and reviewed as a revlsion to the original permit and additional plan check fees shall be assessed for the time required to process the plans as a separate package. 34.A separate grading permit shall be required. The scope of the permit shall include all grading and site improvements, if cut and/or fill grading exceeds i00 cubic yards. The excavation of the basement parking garage is included as part of that building permit and does not require a separate grading permit. 35.The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be "deferred" shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 36.Due to the scale of the overall project, the applicant shall be required to utilize a 3rd party plan check agency to conduct the building~code plan review. A listed of the agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the Development Center. The City’s Building plan check fees are reduced by 75% when a 3rd party plan check agency is utilized. 37.The location of the building’s electrical services shall require prior approval by the Building Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in rooms or enclosures accessible directly form the exterior. Page 13 38.The plans submitted with the permit application for the buildings shall include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site, building entrances and parking garage. 39.An oil!water separator shall be required to be installed as part of the drainage system serving the proposed parking garage. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS 40. Demolition permits shall be required for the removal of the existing buildings on the site. Fire Department 41.The fire access road shall be engineered to support and provide adequate traction for fire department vehicles in all weather conditions. 42.The water supply for the adjacent buildings and fire hydrants on 3440 and 3460 shall be investigated, and if found to be deficient due to disconnection of the main crossmng 3412 Hillview Aveue, shall be restored in an approved manner. Public Works Department Engineering Division 43.Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan: The applicant met with Public Works Engineering (PWE) on July 6, 2006, to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration and to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall 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 permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works - Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of the PWE- approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 44.The driveway approach gutter pan is broken and must be replaced. Also, the asphalt road pavement in front of the driveway is badly cracked and must be replaced. 45.An excavation and grading permit will be required. Grading plans may be submitted with the building permit plan set so one Page 14 plan set will serve for both permits. Grading during the wet season (October 1 through April 15) requires specific permission. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28 on the City’s website for more information. INCLUDE IN SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT: 46.The plan set must include a grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer that includes ex±sting and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site.Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan as well as all site drainage features. Note that new development is not allowed to increase drainage onto, nor block existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works encourages the developer to detain rainwater on-site as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervlous areas of the site. 47.This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prlor to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Additionally, the City’s standard "Pollution Prevention - It’s Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website (www.citvofpaloalto.orq/public-works/enq-documents). 48.The proposed development will replace or create more than one acre of impervious surface area. Therefore, the developer must address the State Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised C.3 provision (which has been incorporated into the City’s Municipal Code, Section 16.11), which requires the calculation, design and installation of permanent storm water pollution prevention measures to detain and treat onsite a specified percentage of storm water runoff before releasing it offsite. A maintenance agreement must be entered into between the City and the property owner requiring the owner to maintain the permanent storm water pollution measures. A separate $750 plan check fee is assessed for all projects in which C.3 provismons are triggered. 49.Drainage from the interior of a subgrade parking structure must go to the sanitary sewer. If an exterior drainage system is used behind the walls or under the slab, show the system on the drainage plans including where the water discharges. Page 15 50.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious surface area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on Public Works website. 51.The applicant and contractor shall prepare a logistics plan that addresses all impacts to the public and the public-right- of-way. The plan typically includes, but is not limited to, truck haul routes, noise control, dust control, work hours, traffic control, and pedestrian protection. Logistics plans are typically attached to a Permit for Construction in the Public Street (see below) or an encroachment permit. An encroachment permit will allow the contractor to occupy the right-of-way for certain things, like traffic control. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION 52.The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk, driveway approach, utility lateral work, or road resurfacing. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per Public Works’ standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center. Public Works Operations/Recycling Division 53.PAMC Chapter 5.2G- Enclosure for the storage of garbage and recycling. Recycling: ,qty 2- 2 cubic yard bins for mixed recycling .qty- i- 4 cubic yard bin for cardboard recycling Garbage: contact PASCO for container size 493-4894 Bin dimensions: 2 cubic yard bin- 81" (i) x 38" (w) x 46" (h) ® 4 cubic yard-bin- 81"(1) x 54"(w) x 59"(h 15 cubic yard bin- 12’ (i) x 8’ (w) x 54" (h) - Enclosure must be within 20 feet of curb/serviceable area to qualify for standard level of collection service. Enclosure capacity must provide for and maintain adequate space between waste and recycling containers to allow for unrestricted access to and maneuverability of the containers for service. Unrestricted access includes vertical clearance and turning radius of collection vehicles. 54.In any open spaces, pedestrian areas, amphitheater, etc. any and all garbage receptacles shall be paired side-by-side with Page 16 recycling receptacles. 55.Reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris, and salvaging building materials for reuse, prior to demolition, shall be required (PAMC Chapter 5.24). Visit the City Website at www.cityofnaloalto.orq!devcenter/cd or call 650-329-2441 for requirements. Utilities Department Utilities - Water, Gas, and Wastewater PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 56.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within i0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection divislon after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 57.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units and g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units). 58.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 59.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 60.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and!or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 61.Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 62.The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site Page 17 water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his!her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requlrements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 63.For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department two copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of- way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil englneer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 64.Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 65.The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service!s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person!entity requesting the relocation. 66.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 67.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. Page 18 68.A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 69.A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 70.A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department’s requirements. 71.An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 72.An approved double detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the double detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 73.A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. 74.A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. Show the 75.New sewer manhole on the main is required to be installed per the WGW Standards. Show the new manhole on the plans. 76.The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant’s engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities englneerlng section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels.as is necessary to serve the development. Page 19 77.All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 78.All utility installations shall be In accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Gas Engineering Comments 79.Gas Service will be from Hillview Avenue, submit load sheet for review. Utilities Electric Engineering PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 80.The applicant shall be responsible for identification and locatlon of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 81.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within ten working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and!or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 82.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 83.Industrial and large commercial projects must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 84.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 85.This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of th9 padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 86.The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated Substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the Page 2 0 City. 87. The applicant shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the applicant’s switchgear. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 88.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 89.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 90.For services larger than 1600 amps, the applicant will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the applicant’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 91.No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If applicant installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. 92.The applicant is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 93.If the applicant’s total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the applicant shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3. 94.For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the applicant’s expense. The applicant must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 95.Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric Page 21 Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. 96.Any additional facilities and services requested by the applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 97.The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. DURING CONSTRUCTION 98.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 99.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the applicant must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800- 227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the applicant or contractor when construction is complete. i00. The applicant is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the applicant’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16. i01. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 102. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule & Regulation #16. 103. The applicant is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the Page 22 National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 104. Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the applicant must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 105. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.Utilities Rule & regulation #18. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 106. The applicant shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes,vaults and switch!transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 107. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. 108. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 109. All fees must be paid. ii0. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS iii. Load calculations based on National Electrical Code shall be submitted. 112. Extension of existing distribution lines or relocation of utilities (if feasible and required) will be at developer’s expense. Developer must schedule a meeting with Utilities Engineering Department (650-566-4516/4535) and obtain all the engineering details prior to submitting plans to the Building Department. Developer must also visit the project site and get acquainted with project conditions. 113. The proposed project may require space and Public Utility Easements (P.U.E.) on your property for installing pad mounted transformer/electric equipment and associated substructure. The City does not permit installing pad mounted transformer in the basement, garage or in any other inaccessible locations. Any exceptions must be reviewed and approved in writing by the Utilities Electrical Engineering Manager. Page 23 114. A minimum of three feet of radial clearance between the transformer pad and any other structure shall be provided. In addition, a minimum of eight feet clearance shall be maintained from the front side of the transformer pad for operational need. All measurements are taken from the pad. 115. These are only preliminary comments and should not be construed as final review or approval for the project. Utilities Engineering will provide detailed comments as well as cost estimate when plans are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. The City recommends applicants/developers contact Utilities Englneering (650-566- 4533/4516) and obtain Utilities Standards and Requirements prior to finalizing plans. SECTION 8.Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Deputy City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: i.Development Plans prepared by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects consisting of 49 pages, received September 20, 2006. Page 2 4 Attachment B ~~ This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 3412 Hillview Avenue ~ Location Map The City of Palo Alto ~k,,~’’ rdvera, 2006*09-20 18:09:15 This do~ment is a graphic representalJon only of best avagaNe s~urces. ATTACHMENT C 3412 Hillview/File No. 06PLN-00157 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTERS 18.20 (RP-5) Feature Site Area Site Width Site Depth Front Setback Interior Side Yards Rear Setback Floor Area Ratio Site Coverage Building Height Employee shower facilities Regulation 5 acres minimum 250’ minimum 250’ minimum 100’ minimum 40’ minimum 40’ minimum 30% (or .3 to 1) 15% 35’ maximum 4 showers for 50,000 sq. ft. and up of gross floor area Proposed 5.66 acres +350’ +660’ +110’ +45’ +50’ 73,978 square feet = 30% 77,174 square feet =31% 48’ 4 proposed Conformance Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms DEE required DEE required Conforms Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.83 (parking/landscape) Parking Spaces 247 required Loading space Bicycle Parking Required/Allowed 1 space/300 sfof gross floor area 1 loading space for office up to 100,000 sf 10% of auto parking = 25 bike spaces: 20 (80%) Class I 5 (20%) Class II Proposed 247 parking spaces: 19 ground surface 228 parking deck 1 space 38 spaces (28 Class I and 10 Class H Conformance Conforms Conforms Conforms Attachment D K o R T H S 3412 Hillview Avenue July 20, 2006 U N S E R I H A G E Y A R C I-~ I T E C T S SITE AND DESIGN LETTER OF APPLICATION This Letter of Application requests Site and Design approval of the proposed 3412 Hillview Avenue Project, consisting of the redevelopment of a 5.66 acre parcel in the Stanford Research Park. The site plan and design of this project have evolved significantly over the past several months based on input by City of Palo Alto staff and feedback from the Planning & Transportation Commission ("P&TC") and ARB at earlier study sessions, one preliminary ARB hearing, and a formal P&TC hearing on July 12, 2006. The Stanford Management Company is applying for this redevelopment project on behalf of SAP Labs ("SAP"), a current Research Park tenant, who will occupy and operate the new facility. Below please find a detailed description of the redevelopment project as well as an explanation as to how the project complies with the objectives cited in Palo Alto’s Municipal Code under Chapter 18.82.060. Project Description This application ~roposes a new 73,978 square foot building to replace the existing 68,278 square foot two-building campus, currently occupied by EPRI. The main existing building (approximately 63,000 square feet) is a split-level three-story structure built into the grade, with much of the lower floor located below grade without windows. A small 5,000 square foot satellite building is connected to the main building by a covered walkway. The site extends from Hillview Avenue on the east to hillside open space to the west. Grades on this sloping site rise from an elevation of 185 feet along Hillview Avenue to an elevation of 260 feet at the western edge of the property, creating challenges for redevelopment. There is also a relatively significant cross:slope of approximately 13 feet between the lower north edge and the higher south edge. The two existing buildings will be demolished and replaced by a single new building and parking deck. The new building will be two floors in height and will total 73,978 square feet, with an additional anticipated 2,500 square feet of exempt amenities space. The proposed new building is a split-level design, with the building mass stepping to respond to the contours of the site. Furthermore, the building has been sensitively sited to preserve views to and from Coyote Hill by allowing the surrounding topography and vegetation to naturally screen the structure from nearby streets and scenic routes. The lower portion of the building including the Lobby is set at elevation 235, the upper portion of the building set at elevation 250. The Arrival Court is located at elevation 233, providing a gracious entry sequence through a landscaped plaza for both visitors and employees. The Coyote Hill ridgeline behind the project r=ses steeply from south to north, beginning at an elevation of 272 behind the southern portion of the site to an elevation of 370 at the peak of the hill, providing a dramatic backdrop to this entry sequence. The asymmetrical form of the building volumes creates a sweeping gesture through the site beginning at the Arrival Court and extending through the Lobby to the western edge of the site, adjacent to the private open space and Coyote Hill. A variety of large useable Outdoor open spaces are created by the building composition creating useful outdoor spaces to be enjoyed by SAP. The proposed parking solution is designed to work with the existing grades and to greatly increase the percentage of permeable surfaces and landscaping than exists on the property today. Parking will be provide~ on site at a ratio of 1:300 square feet, totaling 247 spaces. The Arrival Court provides 19 visitor parking spaces and 38 bicycle parking spaces. East of the Arrival Court, a parking deck is proposed to integrate into the existing slope of the site off the existing entry drive. The existing road on the northern portion of the site is to be removed and replaced with native plantings. The parking deck will provide shaded parking for nearly half the site’s cars, while still allowing natural light and air into the lower parking area. ]-he parking deck elevation is lower than 650 CALIFORNIA FOURTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94|O8-2708 FACSIMILE 415-954-1970 TELEPHONE 415-954-1960 WWW,KSHA.COM the existing building allowing it to be screened from view from the street and adjacent sites with existing and new vegetation. The existing mature Redwood trees to the south and west of the deck will provide additional shade. Trellises with vine planting will soften the upper parking deck while providing shading. The site plan was developed using sustainable design principals. The placement of the buildings, parking areas, and roads, and the stepped nature of the design ’Is a direct response to the unique character of the site. The plan reflects the design program to minimize the impact of new development by working with the existing topography and vegetation, and to extend the landscape character of Coyote Hill into the site. The sustainability of the site plan will be further enhanced by a sustainable shell building and landscaping design. Recycled materials and extensive storm water pollution prevention measures such as bioswales and turf-block will be integrated into the site design and landscaping. Drought tolerant native and ornamental plantings will reduce water consumption and increase habitat for wildlife. Convenient walking paths will provide pedestrian links to the adjacent campus sites, reducing the need to travel by auto. Deciduous trees will provide shading in the summer months for east and west facing building elevations. Projecting sunshades are proposed on the southern elevations to protect the glazing surfaces while providing expansive views to the surrounding landscape. High performance glazing is provided throughout, framed in painted metal mullions. Glazing will be spectrally selective, dual paned, with Iow-e coatings on critical sun exposures. The entire project is intended to perform at a sustainable level commensurate with a LEED rating. in response to the July 12, 2006 Planning & Transportation hearing, our plan has been further refined to incorporate additional sustainable elements. Plant varieties from the "Sensitive Plant Species" list noted under Policy N-4 in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan will be added to the hydroseed mix that will be used in the transition areas between the office development and the native planting areas at the site perimeter along the open space. Native Black Oak trees are now included in the planting design. Structural soil has been added to the auto court to ensure that the native Blue Oak trees planted in the diamond planters thrive. Finally, the existing sustainable roof design will be further enhanced with clustered edible gardens at the roof terrace above the lobby. Precast glascrete planters will be planted with Citrus trees and herbs, providing a more interactive community garden for all SAP employees to enjoy. Site and Desiqn Objectives The 3412 Hillview Avenue redevelopment project has been designed to adhere to the following objectives, as outlined in the PAMC Chapter 18.82.060: 1) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing and potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The redevelopment of 3412 Hillview Avenue will complement already existing R&D/office uses within the Stanford Research Park, while respecting the adjacent private open space and views of and from Coyote Hill. With the exception of its western border, the 3412 Hillview site is surrounded by R&D/office buildings. SAP is located next door at their recently constructed 3410 Hillview building to the north, as well as at 3421 Hillview Avenue, across Hillview Avenue. Just to the south of the property is EPRI’s main campus at 3420 Hillview, approximately half of which is to be occupied by SAP by the fall of 2006. Private open space denoted by Coyote Hill abuts the site at its western border. This land is owned by Stanford University and leased to an agricultural user. The scale and character of the proposed new building will be consistent with neighboring R&D/office buildings, as well as most other R&D/office projects in the Stanford Research Park. The stepped feature of the project is uniquely designed, however, to embrace and follow the natural contour of the site. The effect will be a more orderly transition from the project’s higher southern neighbor at 3420 Hillview (elevation 256) and the lower northern neighbor at 3410 Hillview (elevation 236). The 57 foot rear setback, along with a 25-foot drop in elevation from the western edge of the site to the Entry Lobby, creates a sufficient buffer between the private open space and the proposed new building. To further respect the open space, all vehicular traffic and parking lots will be eliminated from the rear setback. It will be fully landscaped for a more harmonious transition between the private open space and the Research Park, while also providing more usable open space for the occupant to enjoy the immediate western view of Coyote Hill. Views of the Bay and East Bay hills from the private open space will be preserved, as well as views of Coyote Hill from public streets and neighboring properties (See Attachment D - View Assessment Photo Exhibit). The building and parking design also results in a relatively balanced site, minimizing any off-haul resulting from the project. Construction operations will follow requirements from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to minimize any impacts to air quality or storm water run-off during construction. Storm Water Prevention and Protection Plans (SWPPP) will be included in the plans to be permitted. 2) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The proposed project will be developed within the existing boundaries of the stanford Research Park, which is specifically designed to be a compact employment center. The consistency of the project with adjacent developments will ensure the desirability of investment and the conduct of business by users in the Research Park. The development will satisfy the requirement of an important tenant in the Research Park, SAP, to create a contiguous campus across three adjacent sites, while still maintaining enough design independence to accommodate the potential future need to house three distinct companies in these buildings. Flexibility to expand and contract as a company’s business changes is paramount to the success of the Stanford Research Park. New state-of-the-art buildings better meet the needs of occupants today in floor plate configuration, information technology infrastructure, utility conservation and general employee productivity. Without the ability to expand into newer facilities within close proximity to existing facilities, a company’s desire to invest or conduct business and research in the Stanford Research Park will be negatively impacted. 3) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The redevelopment of 3412 Hillview Avenue provides a welcome occasion to create significant improvements to the site plan and landscape design over the existing building, for the benefit of the campus users, the Research Park community, and the general public. Roadways and parking lots currently cover a high percentage of the site. The use of a parking deck creates an opportunity for a significant increase in both site landscaping and pervious area, resulting in a more sustainable site plan. In fact, one entire roadway will be replaced by a pedestrian friendly bioswale along the northern edge of the site. The number of healthy trees will be doubled. And, there will be a 50% increase in permeable, landscaped areas. New low water use planting and efficient irrigation system design will provide a landscape that creates a beautifu environment while preserving precious water resources. Site grading is minimized not only by the more concise footprint of the parking structure over a conventional on-grade solution, but also by the asymmetrical, stepped design of the building that ties closely with the natural topography of the site. Daylighting the building with perimeter glass while mitigating heat gain with sunshades and tree planting will result in lower energy use and higher employee productivity. 4) To ensure that the use will be n accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Redevelopment of existing sites within the boundaries of the Stanford Research Park is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use & Community Design Element. The site is already served by a variety of transportation modes (Policy L-44), including buses, sidewalks, and bike lanes along Hillview Avenue. SAP’s aggressive TDM program, the project’s enhanced pedestrian circulation, the incorporation of traffic-mitigating uses (on-site amenities), and the addition of bike lockers and showers will all help reduce the number of auto trips for daily errands (Policy L-42). The character and scale of the building is consistent with adjacent properties and the landscaped setback at the western edge improves the seam between undeveloped and developed land (Policy L-5). Although a Design Enhancement Exception is required for two features - the parking structure and the increased height on one interior side of the building - these elements represent smart environmental design complimentary to the existing grade and adjacent open space (Policy L-48). The height of the project, except where the building steps down to follow the contour of the site, does not exceed 35 feet, and the buildings have been placed so as not to interfere with scenic views along Page Mill Road, Foothill Expressway, or any other public street in the vicinity (Policy L-3). New landscaping and additional tree planting along Hillview Avenue will strengthen the already aesthetically pleasing street network (Policy L-66). Nestled up against the grade and constructed in the hole left by the former building, the parking deck will mimic the effects, but avoid the significant grading required, of an underground garage, with the topography creating a natural wall on the west side and new trees screening the remaining sides of the deck, while still allowing natural light and ventilation into the lower level. The deck creates an opportunity to add more usable open space and provides a creative alternative to an all-surface parking solution (Policies L-75 and L-77). The 3412 Hillview Avenue project also meets the economic and business goals of the Comprehensive Plan. SAP has been in the Research Park and Palo Alto since 1997. They have been an Important anchor for the Research Park, attracting young technology companies who prefer to be located near them and fostering new start-ups through strategic partnerships. This new development will meet a long-standing goal of SAP’s to find a contiguous campus, thereby nurturing and supporting an established Research Park business (Policy B-4). The new modern building will also comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals relating to the Natural Environment. The project complements the open space character of its location, incorporating the general goals of Policies N-3, N-6 and N-7 that would be applicable to the redevelopment of an already developed site. The physical structure will not be visually intrusive from public roadways, or from neighboring properties, nor will it visibly extend beyond the nearest ddgeline. In addition, the proposed building and parking deck will follow the lines of the natural terrain, thereby minimizing the need for grading. The building will incorporate natural materials and its color will be earth-toned and subdued. A compact decked parking footprint significantly reduces the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. In addition, impervious access roads are being eliminated. The new fire access will utilize reinforced planted surfaces to minimize the paved area and blend in with the adjacent hillside planting; the plant materials selected for the open space interface areas are low fuel, fire-retardant types of plants as a fire prevention technique. Overall, the planting design incorporates extensive use of native and drought tolerant plant material areas that require little to no irrigation and create linkages between the hillside open space and the site. Existing high value native trees are being saved as much as possible. Any tree removal will be mitigated with new specimen trees, as agreed to with the City Arborist and required by the City’s Tree Technical Manual. Exterior lighting design utilizes high efficiency non- glare fixtures to minimize the amount of light that is directly visible from off-site. Fixtures incorporate shielding, hidden lamp source design, which direct light towards the ground with minimum light emitted to the sky, consistent with "dark sky" practices. Light intensity levels are to be developed in accordance with the City of Palo Alto design requirements, and shall not spill light beyond the property line. Prepared by Stanford Management Company 3412 Hillview Avenue Attachment D to Letter of Application for Site and Design Review June 12, 2006 Attachment E VIEW ASSESSMENT PHOTO EXHIBIT One of the most important parameters guiding the site plan and design of the proposed project was the preservation of views of and from Coyote Hill along Palo Alto’s scenic routes, and neighboring streets and properties. Preservation of the existing scenic quality was a primary design consideration when siting the building and designing the building floor plans and elevations. Building elevation limits were determined early on based on sightline studies, topographic surveys, and several physical inspections from scenic routes and nearby streets. Many of the western properties along Hillview Avenue are screened naturally by the existing topography and mature vegetation, The ridgeline of Coyote Hill rises steeply to an elevation of 370 and screens Hillview Avenue from the west and north. Mature trees, existing Research Park buildings, and undulating topography also block views of the project and most Hillview buildings from the east and south along Hillview Avenue, Arastradero Road, and Foothill Expressway. In summary, the Research Park’s western boundary along Hillview (between Foothill Expressway and Arastradero) is not discernable from any of the scenic routes. Furthermore, the existing 3412 Hillview building is not visible except in and around its front entrance. The new parking deck will be lower than the existing building, malting the proposed new structure even less visible from Hillview. The attached photo exhibit provides a visual display of the project site’s topographical context. E ~0 0L_ L- 0 ~ o Attachmen t E 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 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes July 12, 2006 Draft Excerpt NEW B USINESS. Public Hearings: 3412 Hillview Avenue [06PLN-00157]: Request by Stanford Management Company on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for a Site and Design Review application to allow the demolition of two research/office buildings, totaling 68,300 square feet, and construction of a 74,000 square-foot research/office building and two-level parking structure, and associated site improvements, to establish a cohesive SAP Labs campus in the Stanford Research Park. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to exceed the maximum allowable building height and site coverage. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: t~P-5(D) Ms. Beth Bourne, Senior Planner: Good evening Chair Burt and Commissioners. The item before you this evening is a review of a Site and Design Review application for the development of a new research and development building in the Stanford Research Park. The proposed project consists of the demolition of two office buildings and the construction of a new two-story research and development building including 2,500 square feet of employee amenity space. Parking would be provided onsite in a two-story parldng structure with limited surface parking areas. Sustainable building features incorporated in the design include high performance glazing and sunshades, landscape bioswales and retention ponds and drought tolerant and native plant species. The proposed facility would be occupied by SAP with the intent of creating a more cohesive campus with the adjacent SAP building next door at 3410 Hillview and across the street at 3412 Hillview. Preliminary plans for the project were presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board at a joint study session on December 7, 2005. Subsequent to that meeting an ARB study session was held on February 2 and a preliminary ARB review on April 20. At the preliminary ARB the Board responded favorably to the design that is before you this evening with a split-level building that has a mass stepping to respond to the contours of the site. There are two Design Enhancement Exceptions requested for this project. One is for the 31 percent site coverage, which would exceed the 15 percent allowed in the Research Park District. The second is a proposal for the building to exceed the 35-foot maximum building height for a small portion of the building2 The two Design Enhancement Exceptions would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. 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 43 44 45 46 Staff would recommend that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council approve the Negative Declaration with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts and approve the Site and Design Review application and two Design Enhancement Exceptions as requested based upon the findings in conditions of approval. Staff would like to add that there are revised findings for the Site and Design as well as some materials describing the difference between a Variance and a Design Enhancement Exception at your place as well as on the back table. The applicant is here to make a presentation and answer any questions that you may have. Chair Burt: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions of Beth or the Staff before hearing fxom the applicant? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: One question for you. We had reviewed a project earlier this year, it was a PC project in which they were asking for a Design Enhancement Exception, our comments or our purview on that Design Enhancement Exception didn’t have any relevance. It was the Architectural Review Board. But in this case you are asking us to rule on a Design Enhancement Exception. When is a Design Enhancement Exception our purview and when is it not? Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: We had a brief conversation with the Chair and Vice-Chair yesterday and that was that if the Planning and Transportation Commission were to be of the opinion that a DEE is somehow not warranted and that you thought that there was some reason that the site conditions needed a Variance and you wanted to look into providing Variance findings or saying in some way perhaps the City Attorney wants to go a little further on this but, that is where I think the Planning Commission could weigh in on it. We think that the DEE is appropriately in the realm of the Architectural Review Board and we do think the findings can be made in this case. Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: Just to be a little bit more specific the Commission doesn’t make decisions on DEEs however if the Commission thought that the DEE that is being requested is not minor and therefore wasn’t subject to the DEE then the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council that it refer the element and concern back to the Planning Commission for Variance findings or the Commission could make findings that would allow for the Variance or recommend that a Variance be granted instead. Chair Burt: So Don, it is not within our purview to review the content of a DEE unless we are of an opinion that the DEE is not an appropriate vehicle at all for this level of exception? Mr. Larkin: Yes, and in that case that would be made as a recommendation either to ARB or to Council depending on the next step. ARB or Council would decide that they agree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and then re-refer it. Chair Burt: Karen. 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 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Holman: Just a little bit of a clarification on that if I could, please. We can comment on the project. It is a Site and Design Review so we can comment on the project. Part of the project includes the Design Enhancement Exception. So to be specific we can’t comment on the findings specifically but I will just make something up here and make nothing of this. If we decided that the building was too much FAR, which it is not so maybe that is a good example, well it’s not because DEEs can’t be granted for FAR. Mr. Larkin: I can elaborate a little bit more. The other option for the Commission is if there is an element that you don’t like that requires a DEE then the recommendation could be based on the Design Review function which is somewhat overlapping and you could decide that whatever the element is would not be orderly, harmonious or compatible with the existing or potential uses of the adjoining or nearby sites. That would be another way that the Commission would be within their purview of Design Review but it is not commenting on the findings. The reason that it is important is that it is important not to be influencing another body on findings that aren’t within the Planning Commission’s purview to make. Chair Burt: So ifI might try to restate that. We might see a particular aspect of a project that we have comments on it or objections to it conceivably based upon Site and Design Review findings and it may be the same aspect of a project that the ARB is going to be looking at from the standpoint of a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for those who don’t know our acronyms. Is that correct? Mr. Larkin: Thatis correct. Chair Burr: Okay. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I apologize. I feel like I have opened up a can of worms here. Chair Burt: It is okay. This was an issue that we had struggled with as a Commission and then at our pre-meeting yesterday we asked Staff for clarification on that and that is why they provided us tonight with this attachment that is also at the back that talks about DEE versus Variance applicability. Then the other issue is the purview of the Commission. Commissioner Lippert: Well, actually where I was going with this in terms of my line of questioning is that because the site is adjacent to the open space, correct? And we are doing Site and Design Review for this project, Site and Design Review is normally a function of the ARB when it is not adjacent to or in the open space. Is that correct? Ms. French: Site and Design Review can also in the current code be a requirement for a mixed-use project on E1 Camino Real. So open space and the Baylands and the hills but also mixed use on E1 Camino. 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 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. So where I was going with this is that because it is within our purview to look at Site and Design Review we do have the ability to rule on the DEE but if I understand what you are saying Don is very specifically we can either say yes we accept those findings or we need to go to a higher standard which is the Variance process. Mr. Larkin: No, not exactly. What I am saying is you can comment on the element as part of your design review. You can comment on whether or not a DEE is for a minor feature that would be eligible for a DEE but you can’t comment on whether the DEE should be approved or denied based on the DEE findings. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Chair Burt: Okay. Everybody square? Great. Our first speaker will be the applicant and the applicant has up to 15 minutes to speak. I understand we have both Jean Snider who is representing Stanford and we have the architect here and the landscape architect. So Jean you are welcome to divvy up your time however you see fit. Ms. Jean Snider, Applicant: Thank you. Good evening. I work for Stanford and we are here on behalf of SAP. What I wanted to do was just give you a little bit of a background on SAP’s presence in the Park, talk about the major features that we have focused on in our site planning and then really pass it on to Ted Korth and Gary Laymon for the rest of the presentation. What you have in front of you is an aerial view of the area we are talking about. The specific site is located right here formerly occupied by EPRI. SAP is located currently in this property, this property here and here. This is a building SAP actually built five years ago. They have had a longstanding goal to try to create a contiguous campus because disjointed campuses don’t lend themselves to productivity or efficiency. This was an opportunity that was created by a downsizing by EPRI whereby Stanford was able to buy this site back essentially from EPRI and are here in front of you now to look at a redevelopment of it. SAP is able to lease half of this campus from EPRI in order to have this contiguous campus. They are all three separately owned parcels. We see the 3412 Hillview parcel because it is in the middle as a means to really try to create more of a connection across the sites but we aren’t able to do anything physically on the adjacent properties. I j ust wanted point that out. With respect to 3412 the predominant feature there is its steep slope. It rises I think by 85 feet ifI have that correct from Hillview Avenue up to open space. The other dominant feature is the adjacency to the open space. Those two features really factored into our site planning primarily. We also though were given specific criteria from SAP on what they were looking for. Three features were very important to them. One was to try to maximize usable open space. They do a lot of all hands meetings outdoors. They have that kind of condition at their other locations and it has worked will for them. They also wanted us to maximize daylight and avoid burying any space. They have that condition actually at this property over here and they can’t get anyone to go down to the basement. So that was a real important issue for them. Then finally as any occupant is concerned 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 43 44 45 46 about they wanted a very efficient layout. So those were considerations in our planning as well. Through the last hearings over the past seven months we have refined our plan in response to comments by the ARB and comments from you in that December 7th hearing and feel that our plan has evolved to a very site-specific design. We feel that we were able to achieve that and still maintain these goals of the occupant. At this point I would like to turn it over to Ted Korth, our architect, who will be followed by Gary Laymon our landscape architect. Thank you. Mr. Ted Korth, Architect: Hi I am with Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects. To start off where Jean left offthere is an existing building here and a hillside that drops about 85 feet over the course of the site. Next one. This is rotated but Hillview is down in this location. So what exists today is a site that is almost entirely parked. It is either roadway or parking and asphalt. There is a building that is essentially buried on these three sides because it is tucked into the hillside. We felt there wasn’t any real gesture or interaction with the open space, Coyote Hill, which is in this location. This is a view at the top of the site looking up towards Coyote Hill and the adjacent open space. This is a view from Hillview looking up at the existing building and there is a big grove of trees that will remain in the proposed project. So these are comments and elements that we were asked to explore both from comments from you and the ARB. Integrate the building with natural contours of the site to provide a more organic and less syrmnetrical design. The earlier design that we showed you in December was a symmetrical form. Provide additional information on the project as to how it would appear from Coyote Hill. Develop a parking deck concept to ensure proper screening, shading and appearance. Identify sustainable features of the project, which is in the packet that you have received. To study pedestrian connections between the different SAP buildings which Gary will go through as soon as I am done. So the proposed scheme has a stepped building, this is down beginning at elevation 235 and then one floor above that. This starts at elevation 250 with one floor above that with a lobby element that transitions between the two. There is a parking deck one level above grade that is tucked into the location of the lowest floor of the existing building. So the existing building if it was demolished there is a big hole in the ground at that point and we thought this is an ideal solution to elevate a deck and park beneath it, use the natural grade to access the lower level here, slope up - you are going up the site, get to the upper deck, go up once more and there is an arrival court and from that point there is an opportunity for some very nice open spaces that take advantage of the stepping hillside. Go through the lobby and then additional usable open space to the west of the property. This an aerial view showing the same information with the parking deck. Our approach, the idea of the deck was to both work within the existing contours but also not create a site plan that was surfaced parked the way the existing property is. The site is beautiful. 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 43 44 45 46 There are some great existing trees that we are preserving. To tuck the garage into that location you have all the cars beneath that completely shaded, and up above there are trellises with planting and a covered element here for accessible parking. An outdoor space there on the upper side as well. The materials we have used in the project are tinted green glass to work with the existing and proposed landscape. Then a warm natural colored cast GFRC panel system, and I have samples that I can show you and there are details on the wall and information in your packet on those. This is a section showing Coyote Hill and the existing building, which is in this location with the dotted lines. This is the lower portion of the building. So the arrival court is here, this is the lobby and then in the foreground is the upper building stepping up towards the higher contours in the property. So it terraces with the existing site contours. This is a view that cuts through the SAP building to the fight of our site. Our stepped building and the existing EPRI building to the left, which would be to the south. So this is the arrival court with landscaping. These are some of the trellis elements you can see on the parking deck. There is a stair and an elevator that come from the level below. The arrival court gives you a great sequence to come in, drop off, and view the lobby. There is some visitor parking here and then there is additional parking on top of the deck. All of the design just terraces into the existing contours. This is showing a warm palette and materials and a sweeping curve that happens on both sides of the building that draws you into the lobby area, which is here with an extended canopy. This is a view from the Coyote Hill side with some landscape terrace in here. One of the DEEs had to do with a height extension and that area is four percent of the exterior and it is the area right in here and just a little chunk of it on the other side where because the building is stepped there is one limited area here where there is an extended vertical distance. What we have shown is a really nice textured stonewall there that brings the building down to grade and it is landscaped in the foreground with trees in the front of it. It will not be seen from outside the site. It is only something you would see internal to this as this view shows, This is a view that shows the express stair elements. This is the lower building, the upper one is in this location, lower building form. It is all one building. The trellises with the landscaping lines that come up it and this shows how the parking deck is laid in within existing trees and additional trees to take advantage of the shading, to preserve the trees and to essentially the deck will not be visible from Hillview and from adjacent properties because of the landscaping. At this point I will turn it over to Gary Laymon. 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 43 44 45 46 Mr. Gary Lagrnon, Landscape Architect: Good evening. I am with Guzzardo Partnership Landscape Architects. I wanted to summarize real briefly what sort of our goals and aspirations were for this site. I think when you come to the site you see it is a tremendous site and you are struck by the native vegetation that is there. We are looking to preserve a vast amount of the native vegetation all the way around these portions of the project, which includes redwoods and oak trees as well as some other species but those predominantly. We are looking to really take our cues from that native palette and try to expand that around the balance of the site particularly tying in our relationship to the Coyote Hill area. You can see in this zone here we have incorporated in new redwoods, new oaks, and new naturalized grass plantings. It is a very drought tolerant palette really trying to enhance that native aesthetic but also bring in that habitat value as well. One of the other aspects of the design we were very interested in was trying to find how we could make usable outdoor open space. As you come in off the entry court here you have a plaza that has seating elements as part of it. We have a roof terrace here that sits over the top of the lobby area .with views off to the distant areas both of Coyote Hill and to the Bay. Then terrace gardens, which are in this zone fight here where there are various seating elements. This area is more of a passive sort of a space where you can have more individual and small group gathers whereas here is a lawn area that is the amphitheater. We tried to really differentiate those spaces and create an environment that is really connected with the other buildings and complimentary to those functions. Also we were very aware that we wanted build and make this a very sustainable site so we were looking at creating a very permeable planted areas, incorporate bioswales into the design and I can show those in the next slide. This is a view to the auto court area here where a terrace, a breakout area that is a part of the upper building, and terrace gardens that occur here. You can see this in elevation and in section here. Next slide. We provided some imagery of different plant materials again both to be able to pick up on the native vegetation on the site but also develop gardens immediately adjacent to the more domesticated portion of the site. It is very important to take a look at the site circulation, look at the existing circulation patterns on the adjacent sites and how we can connect our site into the overall campus plan. You can see our plan is very permeable and allows us to be able to really have a very strong connection that links all these different sites together. It was very important that we look at not only solving the site planning issues but to really be able to look at finding creative ways and very imaginative ways of being able to create a landscape design that is a place that you really want to spend time in to really invite people outdoors. The corporate culture definitely supports that and that is something that we are very much in tune. We really want to be able to draw people outside and make this place some place that is really special that people want to spend time in. 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 43 44 45 Last slide. I think overall you can see just from the context we really are reinforcing how we relate to the adjacent open space, adjacent sites and being able to carry the continuity of circulation through the site plan and to be able to create an overall environment that is really a wonderful place to work. I’d be happy to entertain any questions you have. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions of the applicant at this time? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I think my line of questioning the last time around I had asked on the parking structure about looking at trying to reduce the mass of the parking structure by pushing that back and having half of it sort of exposed and sort of terraced up a little bit more. Did you look at that at all? Ted, you can take the mike. Mr. Korth: We did. The reason that we chose to pursue this direction, there were a number of reasons. One was that the void that was already on the site was nearly the right size for laying a decking above it so it seemed like a logical approach. Another reason was that as this has been developed because it is laying into a sloped area of the site it can be naturally ventilated so there is no need to mechanically ventilate. We felt from a sustainable point of view that was a really great opportunity. If it pushed back further into the property then it would be below grade entirely and you would have to mechanically ventilate. One other reason was as we developed the stepped building idea the shape is what it is, it is sort of an elongated form because of the stepping as it follows the contours, we have this arrival court at this location. The way it is laid out now because there is no parking beneath it Gary can plant some really nice trees and it becomes a very nice entry sequence. If parking had been pushed up further into the site then it would have eliminated the opportunity to plant above it in a way that was significant. It would be hard to put big trees in. Commissioner Lippert: Were there any discussions with SAP since it is a campus about using maybe the adjacent site for the additional building area, doing an offsite parking agreement and just transferring that to the adjacent site. Did you look at that? Mr. Korth: I can try to answer that and Jean may want to answer that question. Go ahead. Commissioner Lippert: It looks like the adjacent site doesn’t reach the maximum allowable FAR or lot coverage. Ms. Campbell: Actually I think they do but more importantly we can’t really control what happens on those and we can’t impose a parking arrangement now when they are encumbered by existing leases. That is really the main reason but I do believe the adjacent sites are at maximum FAR. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then I have one last question for Ted. Talk a little bit about lighting on the upper deck. Mr. Korth: Okay. I believe there are four light standards to locate. One here, here, there and there and then there will be some lighting attached to the trellis beneath the trellis to augment that. So we tried to internalize the lighting towards the center of the deck and then integrate it into the location of the trellises and the landscape areas where they are. So we really have spent time to try to sort this through to make it really nice. A lot of what is shown here, I think some of the things you actually personally commented on the first time around in our minds we thought about that and tried to address it. I think sort of the tapered step building may have been a direct result of something you mentioned that first evening. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: The materials board is that available to us? Mr. Korth: Can I walk up? Vice-Chair Holman: Sure. Mr. Korth: The one board is a selection of the different types of glass. It is a green tinted glass and then there are some areas with opaque green glass from a sill to the floor area and then there is some FRIT glass, which is that pattern glass that is from sunscreens up to the ceiling to control solar exposure. Then the other sample board shows the aluminum color for the window system and the sunshades and then the cast GFRC panels for the wall system, which are that natural color. There is some that is textured with sort of a red profile to it and there is some that is flat and textured as well. So we tried to pick colors that we thought were appropriate for the surroundings. Vice-Chair Holman: There is a fair amount of glass in the building and just looking at these samples it seems like there is a fair amount ofreflectivity. Can you speak to that please? Mr. Korth: The glass is just tinted glass so it is not a "reflective" glass there is no reflective coating on any of it. It is all tinted. It is meant to be a very soft palette. The glazing that the areas that have maybe a little bit more glass than others are the central area on these two walls which face the entrance and the garden. This one actually has sunscreens on it because it is southing facing south projecting to reduce any sun loads on the glass so there shouldn’t be a great deal ofreflectivity. On the opposite side it is facing north which is an area that is never going to get direct exposure to the light. Plus, 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 43 44 45 46 there are trees planted in frontof actually all of these glazing surfaces to soften the impact of the building as well. Vice-Chair Holman: Then also about materials, the painted aluminum that you have at the top, part of the Site and Design Review is that it is compatible with the environment so I am looking for silver in the environment. So if you can explain your choice of that. Mr. Korth: We chose that because it is a light colored material that we felt would work well with the glass. It has a slight kind of a sheen to it. A lighter shade of aluminum tends to lessen the impact of the whole system and gives a little bit of a shimmer. I didn’t want to use a dark color. I thought that the glass would be complimented nicely with that silver color. We have used it in the past on a number of projects and it almost disappears. It tends to feature the glass rather than feature the metal. Vice-Chair Holman: I have another one too which is about the view from Coyote Hill, the proposed view with the trees. It is actually sort of a three-part question. That is one of the pages in our materials. I am going to do all three at once here. So there is that which I didn’t see here but I am sure you have available. So there is that and then the views that you showed up here are mostly looking down on the site but in our packet it had drawings that show ground level. In these ground level views there seems to be a lot more of the building showing through the trees. Mr. Korth: Are you referring to this particular view? Vice-Chair Holman: It would be that one, yes. Mr. Korth: This is the proposed project just in this area and this is the existing SAP building and the existing EPRI building to the right. That is an actual calibrated view of what this would look like in terms of it is pretty accurate. It is showing trees planted here that are estimated what they will look like in about 5 years from the time it is completed or something like that. We try to be very honest about this view. Vice-Chair Holman: I appreciate that so very much. So you are taking best advantage I think from what I could tell of existing trees and a lot of those are not in good health. Is there any possibility of screening that further? One of the comments from an earlier review was the building was very rectilinear and it is stepped now but it is still very, very rectilinear. I am just looking for some way to blend that in because again that is part of our Site and Design Review requirements. Mr. Korth: Let me try to answer all those questions. I think our thought was this is a very small view in this location. I am trying to point out images that are available right now. There are very short faces on this building relative to even the other existing buildings in the area. We tried to keep these very narrow and then create this big curved swath between them. The width of these building compared to other buildings in the vicinity is much less. We have taken typically this would have been one large building. I think that the scheme that we showed you of building form we showed you the first Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 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 44 45 evening it was articulated but it was a two-story building set on generally the same area. Stepping it like this makes the building volumes much smaller compared to other projects in the area. If you look at this in an aerial compared to the other existing buildings this one is broken down into pieces that are much smaller and less rectilinear than the others. So comparatively I think it is very sensitive that way. At a certain point it still has to be a building that people can occupy and work within so we tried to balance the need for function but also try to fit it into the context in a way that we thought was sensitive. So by nudging it up against the two adjacent properties we could cut a very large area in center to create these open spaces that are usable and have great solar exposure and can be planted and really be used. I don’t know how well I answered that. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: A couple of questions. Unfortunately I don’t think I will be as organized my fellow Commissioners have been thus far. On photo number lb in Attachment F I note that this particular photo does not mention that you cannot see the project from this view. Is that in fact the case? Ms. Bourne: If you look at 1 a it is really the same photo. For lb we just zoomed up a little bit more and you can’t see it. Commissioner Garber: Okay. It is over the hill. Ms. Bourne: Exactly. It is on the other side. Commissioner Garber: Some-odd feet above it? Ms. Bourne: Yes. Because Page Mill is a scenic route we wanted to make sure that we showed that. Commissioner Garber: Okay. For the architect I guess and I apologize I think it is in here but I am not recalling it, what is the actual floor plate size of each one of your different portions? The square footage. Mr. Korth: It is 37 per floor so split in half probably 15 on each side. Is that about fight? It’s about 15,000 feet on each side. They are small. Commissioner Garber: The buildings on either side must - the one that is to the fight is probably 60 or something like that. Mr. Korth: I don’t know the exact number but they are much larger. Ms. Bourne: The 3410 Hillview project is about 85,000 so it is roughly the same and then the portion of the EPRI campus on the left side or south side is about 90,000. 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 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. For the landscape architect I note that there are a couple of trees, which are called out in the report on page 3 of Attachment L, table 3-1, Mitigation Possibilities. It wasn’t clear to me if these trees were called out specifically because you are looking for specific mitigations or are these just examples of the mitigations? Mr. Laymon: We have proposed some specific mitigations. We were looking at having up-sized trees, oak trees of various varieties, in this area here as well as a specimen oak that would be located here. We were trying to place those up-size trees where we felt they would have the most impact. Commissioner Garber: When you are saying up-size trees meaning they have a large canopy and a large trunk? Mr. Lagmon: That’s right. Commissioner Garber: So these are trees that are actually coming out, that you are replacing with for instance tree number 355 is being replaced with four 24-inch box sizes. Mr. Lagrnon: That is correct. Commissioner Garber: Do you happen to know.where these trees actually are on the map? Mr. La,~anon: Yes. There are three trees. There is one protected tree that is located here. It is a redwood. There is a coast live oak that is located in this area right here that is in very poor condition. There is also a designated tree that is also a redwood that is located right in this area here. So those are the three trees of significant value that we are mitigating for. Commissioner Garber: I presume that the replacement trees and the alternative replacement trees must be significantly smaller than these. Mr. Laymon: That is correct. Commissioner Garber: I assume that these are trees that are acceptable to the City Arborist. Mr. Lagmon: We collaborated with the City Arborist in making selections of the varieties and sizes that we are looking for. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Not at this time, thank you. Chair Burt: I have a follow up question for the landscape architect, Mr. Laymon. First I would like to say that I was very impressed with many of the aspects of what has been done on the sustainability practices and the use of extensive native vegetation and it is 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 43 44 45 46 vegetation that is indigenous to this particular grassland chaparral area. It shows a real commitment both from the designer standpoint and Stanford and SAP and frankly our City Arborist who has I note had a very active role in participating in this. So given that you have really demonstrated this recognition that we are adjacent to an open space and you are utilizing this land as not only a transition but really an extension of the native habitat onto this property that is something that I hope we will continue to see in development throughout this area. I think this serves as an excellent model. Under the theme of never being satisfied I would like to ask you in our Comprehensive Plan under the Natural Environment section we specifically list a set of rare, threatened, or endangered plant species. Predominantly those are ones that reside in the grasslands and the chaparral and there is a specific list there. They are not common in nurseries and not planted and a part of why they are rare is they started off fairly rare and we have had diminished habitat for them. My question is have you looked at those particular species or if not would you be open to trying to incorporate more of those particular endangered species or rare species in your landscaping that is the native species portion of your project? Mr. Layrnon: I think we would be open to that. I think that would be a nice addition along some of these areas where we are using some of hydro-seeded for instance and it would be a natural place to be able to incorporate that sort of material. Chair Burt: Great. Then I noticed on this handout that we had at our places - I should take a step back. There is an overriding theme in that you have done an excellent job at essentially ground level on the landscaping. When Commissioner Holman had raised the issue that the ground level view from uphill the thing that struck me is that you have done a great job at the landscaping surrounding the buildings. One of the things that is typically not addressed is what do you do with all those roofs. In general it is an issue that is becoming more recognized in terms of heat impacts and urban environments and all of those issues. In this case, where we have views from open space areas it is even more of an issue. I notice that on your parking garage it appears that you have some trellises that are actually looking like they might be having vines or some other green covering. So I would like to ask one, whether you would be receptive to considering the expanding the use of those trellises on perhaps the border of that parking garage which would not only add to the area that is not just open blacktop or whatever we have but it would also be a visual screening of that structure from uphill and any place that might see it. I think it is a great concept what you done and I would love to see more of it. Mr. Lagrnon: Sure. We looked at a couple of different strategies for how to be able to both provide shade on the parking structure and how to also make the parking structure as invisible as possible. We have tried to strike a balance there that creates sort of a win!win situation in being able to utilize the existing vegetation along this area, along Hillview, along the property line here to the south, along the EPRI site and then also preserving these trees along the north side of the deck. We have been able to really encapsulate the parking area with existing vegetation and supplementing that with more planting area. We did some sun studies to sort of take a look at how much shading we were getting, what sort of benefit we were getting from those trees. The trees to the south were 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 43 44 45 46 providing a fairly significant shading coefficient for that southern portion of deck. There was actually shading that was actually occurring in the western sky from the existing redwoods that we are preserving in this area here so they were casting long shadows there. It is difficult to ascertain exactly how tall these trees were but I just went out and just looked at where the shadow was being cast from these trees here. The shadow is coming down to about this point. So there is a fairly significant amount of height there that we have sort of working for us. Along this edge here the trees are lower overall. There are some taller trees and sycamores here. There are some aleppo pines in this comer here. Most of the foliage here is about ten to 12 feet above the roof deck height so you have really great screening in the sense of horizontal screening as you view from Hitlview there. So that was giving us a very rich buffer there. We considered the possibility of bringing in another trellis in this location here but what we found when we started do that we started actually seeing the trellis. We felt that the benefit wasn’t really there. We were getting a good balance, striking a good balance with the amount of shading we were able to provide. Chair Burt: Okay. Then finally on the landscape theme as you are probably aware there is becoming, a greater consideration of the use of rooftop gardening. We don’t do it on the west coast much on the east coast they wouldn’t bat an eye at considering that sort of thing. Are there any opportunities here to incorporate green-space related to the rooftops perhaps even as I don’t know what architecturally what the possibilities are and whether it be an additional employee amenity area or not. As Commissioner Garber was pointing out a local famed example is the Gap campus and things like that. So are there any opportunities there to incorporate green-space related to the rooftops? Mr. Laymon: We are looking at ways of being able to if you will celebrate the site in terms of being able to create usable open space on the roof. You can see here that above the lobby area there is a fairly substantial open space where we will be able to bring people out onto that roof space and they will be able to participate there. We don’t have vegetation up there so much we have a paver system that will be a permeable paver system that goes to a sub-drain and such. So there is a lot of very green aspects as to how that particular paving system works in terms of water treatment and shading and such. Really what we have done is gone for the very high performance roof system that gives us the sort of energy conservation that we are interested in. We are using the central space as the most usable portion of that roof area that we can take advantage of. One of the things that this site plan did allow us to be able to do is to develop significant ground level spaces where people can flow out of their offices and be able to take advantage of those breakout areas on casual occurrences as well as organized events. So we have a lot of really nice space we are able to develop on the ground in addition to that terrace up above. Chair Burt: I would just like to encourage you before it goes to ARB to take another look and see if there is any additional opportunities to incorporate green elements in the rooftop space but I do appreciate the many things you have done on that. Dan, did you have an additional question? 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 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Yes, thank you. We have in front of us a revised Attachment A. What were the differences between what we received and what is on our desks? Ms. Bourne: The revisions were more an additional amount of examples in the findings would be for finding for C, we give some additional examples of environmental design and ecological balance through the construction of the project. So those specific examples weren’t included in the original Attachment A findings. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I think Chair Burt made a very important point here and I would like to try to reinforce it a little bit; I am tiptoeing around the DEE. Well, I want to be very careful about how I approach this. I guess this would be directed to either Gary or Ted. You are asking for a DEE on an increase of the site coverage here. In a normal situation parking would not be two-story it would be uncovered surface parking. The implications here are that for every ten spaces a tree would be planted. That is what our standards are. In this case because it is a structure we have eliminated those trees. In addition to that Public Works has a requirement that surface parking be done in a way that allows for water to filter down through the surface to recharge the ground water and to water the trees. Are both of those things being mitigated? Are there additional trees being planted to make up for those one tree per ten parking spaces either on the site or on an adjacent sites and how is the groundwater being handled? I’m sorry, the runoff. Mr. Korth: Yes to both. One of the things that the Design Enhancement Exception allows here is what we like to think of as an exceptional design. We think that the use of this deck as a solution by being able to expand the amount ofplantable area taking asphalt essentially off the table as is currently there on the site as you are aware and be able to turn that into landscape area, be able to improve the permeability of the site dramatically and also be able to plant more trees. So we are able to increase the total number of trees significantly over what is there now. So in sort of an ecosystem sense we are dramatically being able to improve both what is happening on the ground plane and also in terms of the number of trees that are going to be present there and really enhancing the quality of the trees, replacing trees that are really substandard and going with trees that are much more appropriate to the site. One of the things we are very excited about in this plan, to answer your second question with respect to the storm water management, it is a very key element of this project. We looked at a number of different schemes and we were able to basically treat all the water that is falling onto any of the hard surfaces. So for instance the roof water and the hardscape here is being collected and deposited to a bioswale, which goes through a series of ponds that are vegetated along where the former roadway was here. That is all cleansed in this area before it exits out through the site. The parking structure all the water that falls the surface here is collected and run through a bioswale that occurs along Page 15 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 43 44 45 46 the frontage here. So all the water, 100 percent of all the water that is landing on any impervious surface is being collected and filtered before it is released to the site. So itis really quite I think kind of an exceptional design in the sense of it is all being treated and it is all being enhanced in that way. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. Chair Burt: I have one final question for Jean Snider. Jean, this has to do with the transit aspects. In the Staff Report Staff made a comparison to different Comprehensive Plan policies and the conformance. One is Policy L-42, which is encouraging in this district a development that encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces auto trips for daily errands. I understand that there is 2,500 square feet of employee amenities, which would increase pedestrian use on campus and decrease auto trips off campus. The other aspect that I would like to see if you could share with us is the use of transit and the shuttle system in this area and how that is all being coordinated with this project. I understand that this project has a TDM program that is also mitigating some of the automobile trips. Could you add a little more information on that? Ms. Snider: What we found in our research is that SAP is a very progressive TDM user, has actually a dedicated I think it is 50 percent time person focused on TDM. So bringing them into this area is really a great thing from a TDM standpoint. As far as shuttles go we do have some existing shuttles in the Research Park. We have some Upcoming requirements to enhance the shuttles through Our Mayfield Agreement. We also have a requirement to bring on a TDM coordinator for the Research Park and that is underway right now. There is a Deer Creek Shuttle that runs to this area of the Research Park. It has serviced primarily HP and Agilent. There are some changes, as you know, Agilent is departing Palo Alto. So we are looking into.all of this and taking a comprehensive approach and trying to make as a priority really for this new coordinator who is going to be a Stanford employee who is going to look at all the shuttles. The other thing that is happening is [VM Ware] who is building their.new project on a portion of the former Roche site is going to have a shuttle to that location that is across the street. So we are going to be talking to them about their openness to having SAP join them in that shuttle effort. So we are looking at all of that and there are a lot of upcoming obligations where we are going to have to focus on the shuttles in that area of the Research Park. Chair Burt: In that shuttle concept are you looking at, we have a number of these companies that have done their own efforts on shuttles, are looking at either extending the Marguerite or perhaps encouraging them to participate in extending the Palo Alto Shuttle? Ms. Snider: All of the above, yes. I think what we encounter is when it is a newer program for a company they are a little more guarded about it and want to see what works for them and are a little leery at least in the initial stages about inviting other companies to participate. What we would like to do is come up with a program that everyone feels they can buy into and will serve more than just one or two companies. Page 16 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 43 44 45 46 Chair Butt: Thank you. Karen, you had a question? Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, also for Jean, thank you. Along those same lines I am just going to ask the question here. Are you familiar with first source hiring? I know SAP is very progressive in many of these ways. Are you familiar with first source hiring? Ms. Snider: I am not, no. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: My question is for the architect. To emphasize some of the Commissioners and to follow up on some of them I would just like to ask a couple of question which won’t really bear on our auspice this evening but I am curious. When you were doing research for the design of this particular building were there precedents that you were asked to look at in terms of what SAP has done in terms of providing sustainable designs in buildings that they have done either here and/or overseas and if so, what did you learn from those in terms of what culturally SAP was trying to accomplish? Mr. Korth: We did look at some of their buildings. Starting out on this Jean mentioned some of the requirements that they have and a lot of it focused on the quality of the workspace for the people that are in the buildings. Much of it had to do with the requirement we have natural light directly adjacent to the workspace. Jean mentioned that there was one building where they have a basement without natural light and no one to work down there. That was a huge part of this. The step building as we went through this we had to demonstrate that that allowed natural light to still occur on all four sides of the building. When you step a building you have to deal with different level changes and how it meets the earth and that is why that one Design Enhancement Exception for the extended wall was necessary to accommodate some of the grade changes. So there were issues having to do with quality of the workspace and there is a list of all of the sustainable items that we have addressed in your packet, which I think is a three-page element there. Commissioner Garber: I guess what I was curious about was if there was a culture that would give you license to stretch the envelope even more than you have begun to and although it is a pun I am actually meaning talking about the building envelope and the [mini] corporations and I don’t know if it is true for SAP in particular their European subsidiaries or home buildings have often looked - and I guess what is causing me to think about this is that your floor plate is now beginning to be small enough where you could actually look at exterior wall system thal actually opened as opposed to being closed, that were actually more active rather than being static relative to the sun and/or other conditions that are being there. I was just curious to see if there are opportunities for even more or intensive sustainable sort of interactions were an opportunity. 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 43 44 45 46 Mr. Korth: It wasn’t something that SAP had specifically asked us to pursue. Although I think we have gone a great deal further than many, many projects in trying to address those issues. Commissioner Garber: I don’t disagree. Thank you. Chair Burt: I think just as a comment Commissioners are emboldened to bring up some issues that we would love to see in many buildings and we are emboldened because we recognize that the applicant here is one that is demonstrating a great deal of interest in sustainable development. So please don’t take it as a lack of appreciation for what you have already done but we are all enthused about making this as much of a model as possible. One of the things that I hope is that these excellent achievements will get recognized so that they will be replicated more in our community. Commissioner Garber: Well said. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Along those lines another question for you Ted. One of the aspects of sustainability is to design for reuse. What we see happen a lot now is that a lot of these buildings are 20 to 40 or 50 years old so the buildings are all being torn down. That is hardly sustainable. So in the design of this building and the inner workings of it is this building being designed for one specific tenant for one specific use or does this building have mobility within it that would accommodate another tenant so that we don’t tear down another building in ten or 20 years? Mr. Korth: That is a great question. If you look at the building that is on the site today it is really clear why it is being torn down because its daylighting is a huge aspect of it. The fact that it is just buried into a hillside and it is hard to use that space. This building is designed to be very flexible in terms of the configuration of it, in terms of how the space is used on the interior. There have been a number of space plans done on it by us at the beginning and now SAP is having plans done for themselves to determine the exact configuration of the core elements, the elevators, the stairs, the restroom cores, those areas so that it is very flexible. So we are still working on that and it has flexibility to accommodate many tenants. We did a number of buildings like this and that is a problem if you do a building that is so specific to one particular tenant that when they move out, and there are a lot of examples like that of those situations where it is very hard to reutilize the building. This is a very flexible form. The window line is really going to generate a great interior workspace. So the only obstructions are the elements inside there which are a very few things like restrooms, stairs, one elevator and the rest of it is open space that will be very flexible from forward. Vice-Chair Holman: That is good to hear. Thank you. Chair Burt: Okay. Lee. Page 18 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 43 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: One more question for you Ted. Again going back to the DEE you are asking for a DEE on height. Normally what happens is that we have the building height and then in addition to that there is roof screening and we allow for roof screening up to 15 feet I believe. What are doing to minimize the roof equipment so that you do not have to use 15-foot high roof screens? Mr. Korth: Ours are nine feet higher than the perimeter parapet right now as opposed to that extended dimension. Our mechanical engineer, Jack Hunt, is here right now. What is shown on the drawing right there is we have tried to squeeze them into the tightest area possible to try to reduce the size of the roof screen as well. So it is very compact and it is as low as it can be to conceal any equipment that would be required on the roof. So that is a result of a lot of back and forth trying to sort that out and trying to reduce the height of the roof screen. So we have not gone as high as the 15 feet. Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Staff. Since they are asking for a DEE on height to restrict the height of the roof screens to assure that they don’t become egregious? Mr. C. Williams: I think you can limit the height of the roof screens. It really doesn’t necessarily have to do with the DEE I think it is back to the Site and Design issue. If you think that for a Site and Design reasons and visibility and such that that’s appropriate then that is a recommendation you can make. Commissioner Lippert: Great. Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I do have one more, I apologize, it was on my list and I overlooked it. It has to do with the rooftop equipment. Can you just walk us through briefly how that rooftop equipment not only conforms to the code as far as noise is concerned but how you might be mitigating beyond that what noise is being created? Mr. Korth: Jack, would you like to answer that? Our mechanical engineer is here and is probably the best to answer a question about equipment. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay. It is important but most especially since it is adjacent to open space it is really important. Mr. Jack Hunt, Mechanical Engineer: The tenant was also concerned about that and you will see that the roofs are comparatively close to the open space on the link. They are going to have people up there in the link. So we tested the noise level at the link and we did a study from the noise level of the equipment over to the link and it was quiet enough at the link, about 45 DB or lower at the maximum use of the equipment. The equipment has variable speeds on the condenser fans. So the equipment is quiet in that position. Page 19 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 43 44 45 One of the things that we would like to do that we did with the pieces of equipment and that has to do with the height of the roof screen is that you want to increase your condenser size the maximum you can and keep your compressor size down. That is what we have done with the units we have. They are the higher efficiency units. Vice-Chair Holman: Is there any opportunity for more insulation or any kind of shielding that might further reduce the noise impact? Mr. Hunt: You have to get a lot of mass in there between the two of them or they don’t work very well. So with maintaining access to the air above it you couldn’t do that very well. You would have the same problem they have with sound walls along the freeway. It doesn’t eliminate the noise it just moves it past a little way. The noise is a certain amount of energy and the energy is going somewhere and it is going to get outside the roof screen. So unless you have something that is going to absorb it and the mass doesn’t absorb it then you don’t stop the noise from getting passed the roof screen. Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you. Chair Burt: From what you just said I realize that this is something that is probably inherent in all projects. We basically have a tradeoffbetween the mass and the HVAC and the noise because by increasing the condenser size, which takes up a lot more space than compressors, you reduce the noise but you increase the area that is the mass on the roof. So that is a built-in tradeoffthat we will always have. Mr. Hunt: That is interesting. On existing buildings that have been in use for awhile you can see the older compressors are about that tall, the tiny things on the roof, and the new ones are about that big. I just did a job and it is in exactly this condition where we are trading off heat transfer area for less energy. It is usually a good tradeoffbut it is an expensive one and it just completely follows the price of energy. Chair Burt: Thank you. Okay, we did a lot o airing of issues in the questioning of the applicant, I don’t have any cards from the public. So if we do not see anyone come forward we will close the public hearing and return to the Commission for questions of Staff prior to a motion and discussion. Do we have any further questions of Staff?. I think we have vetted a lot. All right, maybe we have done the hard work tonight. Would anyone like to make a motion? Dan? Annette? MOTION Commissioner Bialson: I didn’t say anything because you folks have been asking excellent questions. As always I am very impressed. I just got back from vacation at ten o’clock last night. So overall it worked well for me anyway. Page 20 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 43 44 45 46 In general in addition to being impressed by the questions I am very impressed by this design and the project. I recognize that it seems to be more than a minor sort of an exception to ask for 31 percent versus the usual 15 percent. I think the numerical standard we have is just a very blunt instrument here. What we are trying to accomplish which I think the project addresses is keeping as much site landscaping and pervious area as possible. In doing that our regulations have an issue with the solution. I think the solution is an excellent one. I think some of the points raised by my fellow Commissioners with regard to additional thoughts and inquiries and the openness of the applicant to consider all these things convinced me that we should approve the Site and Design of this project and move it forward to the ARB who I am sure is going to do what they can to make it an even more desirable project. I have been taking some notes and essentially come down to I do think it is an exceptional design. So my motion would be to recommend that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts and approve the Site and Design Review application and the two Design Enhancement Exceptions as requested based on the findings which are presented in the revised Attachment A and the Conditions of Approval which are Attachment D. SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. Mr. Larkin: Before we go any further I realize that the Staff Report is asking you to make recommendations on the Design Enhancement Exception and that was an error. Chair Burt: Okay. Do you have any further comments on your motion or does the seconder have any colnments? Commissioner Lippert: I just want to say that I think this is probably the third or fourth project of Ted’s that I have had the privilege to review and I think it is an excellent project. I agree with everything that Commissioner Bialson has said~ I just think it is really a great building. Having seen the valley grow, Palo Alto grow in terms of high technology, I think this really should be a signal for hopefully a new era for high technology in Palo Alto. I think it has an opportunity to be a leadership type building. So I just want to congratulate you and wish you luck with it. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I have a small handful of comments. I think the applicant has done a great job in many, many regards. The sustainability aspects of this project are remarkable. They responded to at least most of the comments that came forward from the joint review from the Commission and the ARB previously. I would associate my comments with my earlier comments and Chair Burt’s comments about the rooftops. I do have concern about the view from Coyote Hill and those Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 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 44 45 46 rooftops. That is a concern. Our Site and Design findings have to determine that the project is compatible with the natural environment. The comparison by the applicant was made to better than the other development nearby. While you are to be absolutely congratulated for that improvement that is not part of our findings. We just have to be compatible with the other uses but not compatible with the other structures. We have to be compatible with the environment. Again the view from Coyote Hill and those rooftops are troubling to me. So I don’t know ifI am going to ask for an amendment to the motion here or not. The other two things that I would comment on is I personally believe that these aren’t Design Enhancement Exceptions that they are Variances. I frankly think I could make the findings for Variances but what is in front of us are DEEs. I know while there is not a hard number applied to it, it would be very hard to have a hard number applied to a DEE I think a common sense approach would say that a doubling of site coverage would be compared to development standards would not be minor. If I can go into a quick example it is like if I go to buy a car and it is $15,000 and I get there and all of a sudden it is $30,000 that is not minor. Or ifI am building a fence that is three foot high and I get home and it has been built to five feet that is not minor. So I don’t know quite what to do about this but I don’t find that they are DEEs I find that they are Variances. So I am looking for input from my fellow Commissioners here. Then on the Site and Design findings on C I would say that there are some strikes that should happen and the same thing on D because I think they are redundant to the purpose. So if we look at C, I will just read this for these purposes. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in construction of the project; in that, -- the sustainability features. These next two lines should be taken out in my opinion because they are just redundant. What it says now is the proposed research and development building and parking deck have been designed to be consistent with the Site and Design criteria adopted by the Council. It is just saying basically that it satisfies the Site and Design criteria because it satisfies the Site and Design criteria. I think that should be struck. On D, "The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan." Can this be followed up on by Commissioners? Chair Burt: Yes, and I might suggest that because that recommendation I think might be more succinct for going to the Council and ARB but not necessary for us to be able to approve it. Maybe we can put it as a recommendation to Staff that they refine that but I don’t think it causes a substantive problem to have that additional verbiage in there. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay. I would like to hear what the other Commissioners have to say. I appreciate that very much and I would like to know if the other Commissioners agree or not that this should be a change before it goes to the ARB or Council. So D say, The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; in that, the proposed research and development office uses and related improvements comply with Page 22 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 43 44 45 46 the Site and Design development regulations, etc. I think if it just skips down to "in that" the next to the last line on this page says "the design promotes the following policies for Research!Office Park facilities, including." I think that is clear and more succinct and a little bit more rational, if you will. Then also I would add one of the policies that supported I would add Policy N-6 for the natural environment. ! am not quite sure where that leaves me. I guess I would ask the City Attorney because I think these are Variances and not DEEs where does that leave me as a voter on this project unless the maker and seconder of the motion would agree with that. Mr. Larkin: With regard to the DEEs you are not being asked to approve the DEEs. So you could still support the motion and if you wanted to offer another motion to ask the ARB to review whether or not it is minor and should be subject to the DEE that would be a separate process. Right now you are doing Site and Design Review. If you think that the project is compatible with the Site and Design Review criteria except for these DEEs there is no issue then you can still approve the Site and Design Review because that is all you are being asked to do. The DEEs would be a separate recommendation and you could make that recommendation as a separate motion. Vice-Chair Holman: Let me ask a clarifying question then. So if they were Variances however, if I believe that they should be Variances would I not have to be able to say I could agree with the findings for the Variances? Mr. Larkin: No because it is a separate process. What you really want to be doing is making a recommendation to the ARB or Council that they not be considered minor and in that way they would have to go through the Variance process, which may or may not end up back at the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Holman: Bear with me for just a moment here. So the recommendation would be really to Council because the ARB probably would not make the determination of whether they were DEEs or Variances, am I fight or not? Mr. Larkin: The question of whether or not it is even eligible for a DEE starts with the Planning Director ARB-Council anywhere along that step one of either the Director, the ARB or the Council could say this isn’t even subject to a DEE you need to go back and get a Variance. That is the recommendation that you would be making. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, thank you for that. I guess I would ask one friendly amendment of the maker and seconder of the motion. That is that the applicant address the views from Coyote Hill through some other means and not to dictate those means whether it be rooftop gardens, trellises or whatever but just address those views to make the buildings more compatible from that perspective. Commissioner Bialson: I think we have mentioned many things to the applicant who has responded very positively to everything. So I am very hesitant to add something as amorphous as what you are saying and have it be part of the motion. I think the motion is Page 23 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 43 44 45 clear and succinct at this point. So I would be interested in what the seconder has to say because my initial feeling, but I could be convinced otherwise, is not to make it part of the motion. Commissioner Lippert: I am generally in agreement with Commissioner Bialson here. I don’t see a need for an amendment to the motion. In fact when you are up on Coyote Hill looking down on this facility the fact that it exceeds the height limit is irrelevant here. It is really internal to the site it is not - I agree. I believe with the roof screening and everything it is taken care of. It is no different than any other building on the site. The only thing that is different here is the fact that this building happens to be a little bit further uphill than it was previously. So I don’t believe that there are any roof issues here that wouldn’t apply to any other building in the Research Park. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: Not to sidestep the topic but let me just ask from the attorney, your instructions prior to this topic being discussed were that the motion should not include reference to the DEEs so therefore if I may paraphrase what Commissioner Bialson just said that the motion would then read something like "the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration, Attachment K, with the finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts and the Conditions of Approval," and essentially strike out the portions that talk about the DEEs. Mr. Larkin: That is right. It is the recommendation without the sentence "and the two Design Enhancement Exceptions as requested." Mr. C. Williams: So it does include the Site and Design Review though. I think you skipped that. Commissioner Garber: You are right. I apologize. Yes, "and approve the Site and Design Review application and then the Conditions of Approval." Right? As requested based upon the findings in Attachment A and the revisions or as revised. As that stands that makes sense to me. Another point of clarification. Do we need to rule or give notice or make a recommendation relative to the DEE/Variance topic? Mr. Larkin: No. You are certainly not required to. That was an option if there was a concern that was among a majority of the Commission that the DEEs were not for a minor change then there could be a motion to make a recommendation but it is not required. Chair Burt: Right so why don’t we consider that after we vote on the primary motion. Lee. Page 24 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 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: Commissioner Holman had asked that we comment on the DEEs. Chair Burt: Let’s be clear, comment on whether DEEs are appropriate for the project not comment on the content of the DEE. Commissioner Lippert: Correct. I believe that the DEEs in this case are appropriate versus the Variance process because the questions that I had asked with regard to the DEEs are basically the background behind the Architectural Review Board’s review of the DEE. It addresses those concerns specifically. So I believe that in this case when it comes forward to the ARB they will either be able to determine that those DEEs are appropriate or they will in fact say that it should go to the Variance process. Chair Burt: I would like to wade in on my comments on the motion. Part of it is this issue on the DEE. I think it was very helpful that Staff provided this additional information on DEEs because it is something that has come up a number of times recently and this gives us more context. I think it is something we may want to discuss in greater detail as a Commission as more of a policy discussion. My gut feel is that this pushes the envelope but is probably within the envelope but I would like to at a future time look at this in greater detail. It also as I looked at what this lot coverage exception that it is driven by the fact that we are having a parking structure that counts against coverage and if it was surface parking it would not. I think that is something that we really should try to fold into our discussion within the ZOU and see whether that is a policy change we ought to have. The part of the DEE that stretches the envelope may in fact be something that in the future would not require an exception if we reconsider that requirement. I am not sure that the way the code is written is in fact what we want to encourage people to do. So I would hope that we could fold that into our ZOU whether it is under the landscaping or whatever aspect. I do concur with Commissioner Holman on the importance of including Policy N-6 in just the Staff references. I don’t think we have to have it as part of the motion but the reason for doing so is that is a really important policy and the applicant has done a good job of addressing that issue. I think we want to make sure that there is that consciousness of the importance of that policy to future applicants, to the Council, to the ARB and that will be an important one to include there. We have talked about the rooftop gardens. I will defer to the applicant and the architect whether there are any other opportunities to do something with those roofs prior to it going to the ARB. Whatever they decide I will live with but I hope they will look at it one more time. The one final comment is that this applicant, SAP, we have all kind of had a recognition that we presume that many of the things that they have done and their willingness to embrace some of the most progressive development aspects that we are seeking are not so foreign to them given that they are a German company and many of these same principles have been more widely adopted and integrated in design in some of the more Page 25 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 43 44 45 environmentally progressive nations in Europe. I just want to say that because as we try to do some things here in Palo Alto in our Zoning Ordinance Update, in our sustainability program, that reflect the environmentally progressive tradition of Palo Alto we sometimes get criticism and push-back that we are going over the top here. Well, if this same project were in Europe it would maybe be closer to the norm and here it is viewed as exceptional. As much as we appreciate the project I want to see this kind of project become the norm and I hope the Commission in the future will push to have these kinds of policies as what we adopt in this community as standards and that Palo Alto continues to be a leader in these fields. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I agree with what you are saying and sort of building on that when I mentioned that the site coverage issue is expressed as a percentage and I felt that was a very blunt instrument to use what I meant by that is the underlying reason for that percentage was to try to preserve as much site landscaping and pervious area as possible. So rather than being focused on it being a numerical difference of a substantial amount, which is what I think Commissioner Holman was focused on, I think we need to focus on what the reasoning behind that percentage is and to recognize that that is of great interest for us in trying to have buildings developed as we would want them to. When we look at new urbanism principles they speak of massing rather than strict percentage of FAR or site coverage. So I would hope that we could consider all these things and recognize that what is being asked for here is truly minor and is an attempt to meet our espoused principles and to have this business go through as much regulation and additional procedure as the Variance would require is not what we want to do in Palo Alto if we want to encourage these type of buildings and these types of innovative approaches to solving the issues that we see. So I am very much against having any consideration of this as a Variance. Chair Burt: If I might jump in before Commissioners Lippert and Holman I also want to add I think we are all kind of onthe same page on this~ The solution is that we need to look at changing our code or at least seriously consider it. What we basically have is something that is mathematically significant as a Variance or Exception I should say but the outcome is something that we are viewing as favorable. That is the gist of it I think. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Actually I would like to support what Commissioner Bialson and Chair Burt have said but I think one of the things that probably would have helped in illustrating this is when you look at the Attachment C, the criteria in terms of setback and site area, etc. Because there is an existing building and there is existing surface parking if those numbers had been included in this table we would have been very easily, or the applicant would have been able to illustrate very clearly that it would be a reduction of site coverage even though the parking doesn’t count as site coverage. I think that is really what the discussion is here. Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 The second comment I want.to make is that because this is a hillside site and not a flat site this is also appropriate because when you get into a hill site it is far more difficult to grade, you have issues of cut and fill, you have other site constraints. So in this case the most efficient, most sustainable approach is actually the stacked parking approach. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I will remind Commissioners I have not argued against the approach. I have just said I could make the findings for Variance for these just that I thought they should be Variances not DEEs. I stated I believed I could make the findings for the Variances. The focus has been on the site coverage there is also a building height exception. I want to be very, very clear my argument has not been against the approach but just opposed to the instrument that is used. The other comment I will make is I sometimes find myself in this position. The applicant has done as I said earlier many really, really great things with this project. The one thing that really does bother me is - I am just going to state it again because as it stands now I won’t support the motion and I want to be really, really clear why. It is because the view from the open space is very, very important thing and this project abuts the open space. I know a lot of times when I am out hiking here or there and I see a building sticking up out of the landscape I feel like gee, would I have felt comfortable ifI had approved that. There is the structure, there is the building, and there is the impact. Is that compatible? I feel like with so many wonderful things about this project that is the one thing about this I can’t, if you will, put my name on and that is why I was asking earlier for more screening, more rooftop gardens. I didn’t want to describe what the solution was but that is the one thing I cannot feel comfortable in supporting. So for that one reason I will not be supporting the motion. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: Was it the Chair’s intention to take the vote and then talk more about the DEE versus Variance or if we want to talk about it then talk about that now? Chair Burt: Yes, let’s take the vote and then if we want to have any further discussion on that. Ms. French: I want to jump in just to make sure we are clear. The motion was clear but I would like to clarify that the revised Attachment A, the finding, I would scratch, "and Design Enhancement Exceptions." So it is just Attachment A - revised, Findings for Site and Design and if Annette you are suggesting that the changes suggested by Karen or a facsimile that we scratch out some of that superfluous language in C and D and add Policy N-6 at the end of D. Page 27 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 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Bialson: I think that both in the statement of the motion and in the Attachment A we need to remove Design Enhancement Exceptions and I think the addition of Policy N-6 would be appropriate. Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that. MOTION PASSED (4-1-0-2 with Commissioner Holman against, Commissioner C assel in conflict and Commissioner Sandas absent) Chair Burt: Okay. So let’s go ahead and take a vote. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) So that is four in favor with Commissioner Holman voting no and two Commissioners absent. So let’s go ahead and see whether we need to do any further consideration of the issue of whether this should be a DEE or a Variance. Dan, did you have some thoughts on that? Commissioner Garber: Yes. Just to answer Karen’s direct question to us, which is our take on Variance versus DEE and reading over the purposes. The Variance purposes are to provide a way for a site with special physical constraints resulting from a natural or built features to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district and, two, provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district, which I would have to agree sounds an awful lot like the project that is in front of us. DEE, the purposes there are one, to enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site or its impact on surrounding properties or two, enable the preservation of the architectural style of existing improvements on the site. In this case item number two certainly would not apply or I don’t believe it would. Number one would although I could add up that the Variance has more clauses that support the project requesting a Variance rather than the DEE. I do believe that item number one is enough to cover what is being asked for in the DEE. As I understand it the process for the Variance involves several more procedures, which would allow for greater insight, discussion, etc. to be drawn out. I guess in my mind as I think about weighing the two I don’t see that there is a benefit to the community to do that to have the additional inspection of the project and that we get what we need from the DEE. So although I think there are certainly circumstances where the definition is probably of greater criticality I wouldn’t find this project as being one of those projects that require that. So that is just SOl~ of my take on those two. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I certainly agree with Commissioner Garber’s comments here. I believe that if in fact they were looking for an increase of lot coverage associated with building area not with parking then I would say yes, the DEE would not be an appropriate process and that the Variance should be looked at. But because the overage is in the area of parking and it is within the purview of the DEE B-3 it is appropriate plus the height as Page 28 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 43 44 45 well. What my comfort level is is the fact that one of the wings has actually been depressed even lower and that it is completely internal. That alleviates all of my concerns. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: The dog is almost beat. I agree with Commissioner Garber’s comments that probably there is no real benefit to making this project go through the Variance process other than if we think it is the wrong process we are adhering to our rules. If we garner nothing else out of this conversation tonight we have had the discussion and it has been a public discussion. I just wanted to make one other mention about Design Enhancement Exceptions under applicability number two for instance says items for Design Enhancement Exceptions may be granted and not limited to but are dormers, eave lines, roof design, bay windows, cornices, parapets. They are talking about accoutrements if you will and it is not limited to that but that is the kind of thing along with minor changes to setback, daylight plane, etc. So that is why I do think it is a Variance and we might have further discussion about this as a separate item but I think this discussion has been helpful to have. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I didn’t get much time in the questions so I will just take a little time here. I disagree with my fellow Commissioners I do not think this is a Variance item because a building could be put on this property, the surface parking all over it, there is no physical constraint on this property just because it happens to be on the hillside that keeps it from developing the property and putting surface lots all over. What we are dealing with here is the design, which is asking for a parking structure rather than surface parking is what is requiring the exception. I think if you go back to the basic design that we appreciate and see a lot of benefits in that is the reason for the exception not the physical condition of the property and not when the strict application of zoning regulations would subject the property to substantial hardships. So I disagree wholeheartedly with my fellow Commissioners and maybe it is my legal background, I don’t know, but having dealt with this for over 30 years I don’t see this as a Variance. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: One last thing I guess I will put on the table hereis the findings for the DEE. The first finding is very similar to that for a Variance. It says there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to the property in the same zone district. So unless that is misplaced that is the first DEE finding. So that is very, very similar to the Variance findings. Chair Butt: I will just briefly say that I think that where it is allowable to treat this as a DEE as I said before I think it is pushing the envelope and the best fix is for us to address Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 this in the ZOU and make it so that we don’t require either a DEE or a Variance for something that we in fact might want to encourage. So having said that I think we have had a good discussion on this and it brings more consciousness of the distinctions and it lays the groundwork for our future ZOU discussion of it. That will conclude this item. Once again I think it is the consensus of the Commission that the applicant and the Staff and the tenant are all to be commended for doing some very outstanding efforts here. We look forward to the project going forward. Good luck at the ARB and the City Council. Thank you. Page 30 Attachment F PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Beth Bourne, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment July 12, 2006 3412 Hillview Avenue [06PLN-00157]: Request by Stanford Management Company on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for a Site and Design Review applicationfor demolition of two existing buildings, totaling 68,000 square feet, and construction of a new research and development building, parking structure and associated site improvements, to establish a cohesive SAP Labs campus in the Stanford Research Park. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to exceed the maximum allowable building height and site coverage. EnvironmentalAssessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: RP-5(D) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend the City Council approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment K), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design Review application and the two Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) as requested based upon the findings (Attachment A) and conditions of approval (Attachment D). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES Background on the project, including site conditions, detailed project description, sustainability program, and a summary of the preliminary Architectural Review, are provided in Attachment B, E and G. and the applicant’s project description is provided in Attachment E. Key issues discussed in this staff report are: ¯Site and Design Review City of Palo Alto Page 1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance Zoning Ordinance Compliance Design Enhancement Exceptions Building Views Circulation and Parking Landscaping In summary, the proposed project consists of the demolition of 68,278 square feet of office development and the construction of 73,978 square feet of new research and development space with an additional 2,500 square feet of employee amenity space. Parking would be provided on site within a two-story parking deck and limited surface parking areas. Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) are requested to exceed site coverage and building height. Stanford Management Company is the applicant for this proposal on behalf of SAP. The proposed building would be occupied by SAP Labs, establishing a more cohesive campus with the SAP building located next door at 3410 Hillview and with the future SAP facility proposed for the adjacent property to the south. Under a ground lease with Stanford, SAP would occupy and operate the new facility. Site and Design Review Commercial development in the RP-5(D) zoning district requires Site and Design review (Section 18.82.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)). 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 (Section 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 in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. There are four basic objectives regarding harmonious 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 and are addressed in the findings in Attachment A. Preliminary plans for the project were presented to the P&TC and ARB at a joint study session on December 7, 2005. The P&TC and ARB members asked questions of the applicant regarding the conceptual design, including: building massing and its relation to the topography of the site, solar orientation and glazing, the parking deck design, and the request for a Design Enhancement Exception to exceed the site coverage. Verbatim minutes of the preliminary review heating are attached to this report as Attachment J for reference. A summary of the ARB review is included in Attachment B (Background). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this site is Research/Office Park. The applicant has stated that the use will be consistent with the uses permitted under this land use designation. The Comprehensive Plan policies that are applicable to this project include: 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 designed so as to not 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 views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. The proposed research and development building has been designed with the building mass stepping to respond to the contours of the site and retention of many existing mature trees, thereby reducing the visual impact. Policy L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands. The project includes the provision of 2,500 square feet of floor area for employee amenities space, including a fitness area and cafeteria. Policy L-44: Develop the Stanford Research Park as a compact employment center served by a variety of transportation needs. Policy L-43: Provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to build sidewalks and paths in renovation and expansion projects. The related program (Program L-44) states: Design the paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located. The project includes bicycle lockers and racks, and pathway connections from the building entrances to the adjacent SAP sites and to the public sidewalk on Hillview Avenue and a transit shelter. Policy L-48: [New development should] promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The new building would be compatible with other development in the Stanford Research Park and with the existing SAP building on the adjacent site. The building design will be aesthetically City of Palo Alto Page 3 appropriate and compatible with .the site and surrounding development, and the site improvements will be harmonious and appropriate to the building. Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development...projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay. The proposal increases the amount of permeable, landscaped areas by approximately 50 percent. In addition, the preliminary grading and drainage plan incorporates bio-swales and other storm pollution prevention measures. Additional measures may be proposed and/or required in conjunction with the submittal of final grading and drainage plans for review by planning and public works staff. Zoning Ordinance Compliance PAMC Chapter 18.20, Office, Research, and Manufacturing Districts, allows office uses and research and development uses. The project is compatible with the Research Park Combining District (RP-5) district regulations for floor area ratio (FAR), setbacks and parking, as outlined in the zoning compliance table (Attachment C). Design enhancement exceptions are requested to exceed site coverage and building height. Design Enhancement Exceptions A DEE is requested for the proposed 31% site coverage to exceed site coverage by 16% in the RP-5 district. Parking structures are considered "buildings" and therefore count towards site coverage while surface parking areas are exempted (PAMC 18.040.030 (86)(B)). The parking deck would be located towards the front of the site, in an area of the site that was previously graded for the existing three-story terraced building, set into the hillside. This location would mitigate the visual impact of the parking structure. Existing trees and vegetation would be augmented with new plantings to further conceal the parking structure from open space vantage points and Hillview Avenue. Sectional views of the site and proposed parking deck are contained in Attachment L, sheet A-1.1. The applicant’s stated design intent for the proposed parking deck is to allow for improved pedestrian circulation through the site, a reduction in the amount of grading required on the site, preservation of a greater number of existing trees, and an increase in pervious area. The proposed design would considerably reduce the site’s impervious surfaces by approximately 50 percent, or from 160,000 square feet to 103,000 square feet. A second DEE is requested for the proposed building to exceed the 35’ maximum building height for less than 4% of the building. The building height for the proposed project is 33’ throughout except for a portion of the north elevation of the south wing where as the ground steps away from the building, the building varies in height from 33’ to 48’. The limited area of additional height is necessitated by the stepped profile of the project as the building follows the site contours. Despite the increased height, there are no areas of the building that exceed two levels of occupied space. The limited area of wall that will exceed the 35’ height limit can be City of Palo Alto Page 4 seen only from internal areas of the site and will not be visible from adjacent properties. The proposed DEEs would be reviewed by the ARB. The draft DEE findings are contained in Attachment A of the staff report. The applicant’s Letter of Request for Approval of DEEs is attached to the staff report (Attachment E). Exempt Floor Area The applicant is requesting 2,500 square feet of floor area be exempt from floor area calculations. This amount of floor area would be used as employee amenity areas, including cafeteria and fitness area. In industrial districts, floor area designed and used solely for on-site employee amenities, may be exempted from floor area calculations if planning staff determines that such areas will facilitate the reduction of employee vehicle use (PAMC 18.04.030.65.B.iv). Building Views The applicant has provided a View Assessment photo exhibit (Attachment F) that illustrates the project site’s topographical context and preservation of views of and from Coyote Hill along Palo Alto’s scenic routes and neighboring streets and properties. Many of the western properties along Hillview Avenue are screened naturally by the existing topography and mature vegetation. The ridgeline of Coyote Hill rises steeply to an elevation of 370 feet and screens Hillview Avenue from the west and north. Mature trees, existing Research Park buildings and undulating topography would block views of the project from the east and south along Hillview Avenue, Arastradero Road and Foothill Expressway. Circulation and Parking The proposed site plan uses the existing Hillview Avenue entrance as its primary ingress/egress. The northern portion of the looped driveway has been eliminated and replaced with bioswales, retention ponds and a pedestrian path. Emergency firetruck access only is provided around the rear of the building. A pedestrian circulation diagram that shows connections between the project site and adjacent SAP facilities is contained in Plan Sheet L-6.6 (Attachment M). The project includes 246 parking spaces (227 spaces in the parking deck and 19 surface spaces), which conforms to the parking requirement of one space for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area for the RP-5 zone (PAMC 18.83). The required bicycle parking is 10% of auto parking (25 bicycle spaces including bike lockers and bike racks). A pedestrian walkway provides convenient access to the transit stop locatedclose by on Hillview Avenue. A traffic report for the project (Attachment L), prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., indicates no traffic impacts are expected as a result of this project. The project is expected to generate a maximum of ten additional peak hour vehicle trips per day, with nine vehicle trips added during the AM peak hour and nine vehicles during the PM peak hour. The net increase of ten peak-hour trips (either AM or PM) is substantially below the 100 peak-hour trip threshold used by the local Congestion Management Agency when determining the need for preparing a traffic impact analysis. In addition, SAP currently has a comprehensive transportation demand City of Pale Alto Page 5 management (TDM) program for its employees in the Stanford Research Park, including SAP providing their employees with VTA Eco Passes for bus and light rail service. These TDM activities would be available to the employees at 3412 Hillview Avenue. Bicycle racks and lockers provided for the employees and visitors would also reduce the demand for vehicle trxps, as SAP encourages bicycle commuting as part of their TDM program. Landscaping The landscape design includes the outdoor courtyard areas and an amphitheater with a concrete seat wall, built into the slope, located adjacent to the amphitheater. Sustainable landscape features include bioswales, retention pond, and turf block as stormwater pollution prevention measures. The amval court is proposed to be substantially landscaped with tree planter islands provided between every four parking spaces. Extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the parking deck would provide screening. The existing mature Redwood trees to the south and west of the parking deck will provide shade for vehicles parked on the deck’s upper level and the upper deck will be softened with trellises with vine plantings that will also provide shading. See Attachment M, Plan Set, for the schematic landscape plan and landscape imagery. The tree preservation report identifies the trees to be retained. 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, two Coast Redwoods and one Coast Live Oak proposed for removal which are considered ’Protected Tree’ status as defined in the PAMC, Chapter 8.10. The applicant has proposed mitigating the loss of the protected trees with the planting of eleven 24-inch box size trees as required per PAMC, Section 8.10.050(c)(1). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ( Initial Study) was prepared for the project and is contained in Attachment K. Based upon the El_A, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review between June 22, 2006 through July 11, 2006. Two of the source references (Arborist’s Report and Traffic Analysis) on which the Negative Declaration is based are provided to the P&TC members (Attachment L) and are in the project file. NEXT STEPS Following the Commission’s review and recommendation of the planning applications and the Negative Declaration, the project is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the Architectural Review Board at a public hearing on August 3, 2006, -followed by the City Council review and action. City of Palo Alto Page 6 ATTACHMENTS A.Findings for Site and Design and DEEs B.Background C.Zoning Compliance Table D.Recommended Conditions of Approval E.Applicant’s Project Description Letter F,Applicant’s View Assessment Photo Exhibit G.Applicant’s Sustainability Program Checklist H.PTC/ARB Study Session staff report (may be viewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagendaJpublish/planning-transportation- meetings/documents/3412Hillview.pdf ) I.Preliminary ARB staff report (may be viewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/arb- meetings/documents/3412hillview.pdf) J.Verbatim Minutes excerpt from December 7, 2005, PTC/ARB Study Session K.Initial Study/Negative Declaration L.Attachments to the Initial Study (Commissioners only and in City files) M.Project Plans (Commissioners only and in City files) COURTESY COPIES: Applicant: Stanford Management Company Carl Cahill, City Manager, City of Los Altos Hills Prepared by:Beth Young Bourne, Senior Planner Reviewed by:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Chief Planning & Transportation Official City of Palo Alto Page 7 Attachment G MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 Thursday August 3, 2006 REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: Kenneth Kornberg (Chair) David So lnick (Vice Chair) Judith Wasserman Clare Malone Prichard(Absent) Grace Lee Staff Liaison: Beth Bourne, Senior Planner Staff: Amy French, Manager for Current Planning Chris Riordan, Senior Planner Steven Turner, Senior Planner Gina LaTorra, Associate Planner Alicia Spotwood, Staff Secretary PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: Announce agenda item Open public hearing Staff recommendation Applicant presentation - Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff Public comment - Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes Close public hearing Motions/recommendations by the Board Final vote The Director’s decision will be posted at the Downtown Library Page 1 CONTINUANCES The Architectural Review Board will review the agenda at or around 10:00 A.M. to determine if the remaining items on the agenda can be completed by 12:00 Noon. In the event that the ARB determines that specific items will not be heard at today’s meeting, review of such items will be continued to a date certain. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Board member Lee moved, seconded by Board member Solnick to approve the minutes of August 3, 2006 as presented by staff with correction to item #2 (850 Webster) to reflect comments regarding the condition made by the Board that the building materials and color palate shall return to the ARB Subcommittee and condition #3 to read propose a different color for the first floor window frame and mullions. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. CONSENT: 4219 E! Camino Real [05PLN-00157]: Request by DR Horton Homebuilders for Architectural Review Board determination that the following items for a previously approved 181-unit residential project are consistent with the Board’s approval criteria and project conditions: Review of the architectural details of the Type C and Type D condominiums and the Community Building. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council in June 2004. Zone District: CS(H), CS(L). Staff. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and support the revisions to this project, which were made by the applicant in response to the Conditions of Approval, dated August 30, 2005. Architectural Review Board Action: The Board continued the project to the meeting of August 17, 2006, (4-0-0-1, Board member Wasserman moved, seconded by Board member Lee, Board member Malone Prichard absent). UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Public Hearing. 2. 850 Webster [05PLN-00290]: Request by Channing House for architectural review of a Page 2 new 32,185 square foot Health Care building for the Channing House, including 27 skilled nursing units, 26 assisted living units, and associated dining/activity spaces, and a 16,437 square foot underground garage. Review processes to implement this project would involve a Planned Community (PC) amendment and a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE); The public review period of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) commenced on July 5, 2006. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review the proposed project, including potential aesthetic impacts of the requested daylight plane encroachments, and provide recommendations to the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) and City Council regarding the Negative Declaration and the project design, based on the draft ARB Findings (Attachment C), and subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval (Attachment D). Public Testimony: Kevin Vincent Sheehan, Palo Alto: Stated his concerns regarding the massing of the building, and potential noise from the new construction and his desire to have a traffic study prepared. Ray, Channing House Resident: Stated his support for the project. Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval of the project to the Planning and Transportation Commission, (4-0-0-1, Board member Kornberg moved, seconded by Board member Wasserman, Board member Malone Prichard absent) with the following additional conditions: 1)The Channing House shall consult with the neighbors along the West elevation to develop a landscaping plan that is amicable to both sides. 2)The building materials and color palate shall return to the ARB Subcommittee. 195 Page Mill Road and 2825~ 2865~ 289L and 2901 Park Boulevard [05PLN00175]: Request by Court House Plaza Company for major Architectural Review Board review of a 157,387 square foot, three story building that would include 50,467 square feet of ground floor Research and Development Space topped by two levels of residential apartments totaling 84 units, plus a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. Zone District: GM. THIS ITEM WAS NOT HEARD AND WAS CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing. 3412 Hillview Avenue [06PLN-00157|: Request by Stanford Management Company on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for a Site and Design Review application to allow the demolition of two research/office buildings, totaling 68,300 square feet, and construction of a 74,000 square-foot research/office building, parking structure and associated site improvements, to establish a cohesive SAP Labs campus in the Stanford Research Park. Design Enhancement Exceptions are Page 3 requested to exceed the maximum allowable building height and site coverage. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: RP-5(D). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the City Council approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment I), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design Review application and the two Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) for 3412 Hillview Avenue as requested based upon the findings (Attachment A) and conditions of approval (Attachment D). Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended, (3-0-0-2, Board member Solnick moved, seconded by Board member Wasserman, Board member Kornberg absent due to conflict of interest and Board member Malone Pilchard absent) City Council approve the Site and Design application, and two Design Enhancement Exceptions with findings and conditions of approval and the additional finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. The building’s roof deck and vertical trellis feature shall return to the ARB Subcommittee. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBER REPRESENTATION AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING: The following items were reviewed by the Subcommittee. Board Members: Judith Wasserman Grace Lee 200 California Avenue: Review of the following: o Modification to the drainage design of the front.canopy and the 12" deep window sills o Changes to the material used for the wainscot ¯Paint colors ¯Additional trees added to the east side of the trash enclosure o 2825/2865 El Camino Real: Review of the following: *Design of the front entry awing and the eave over the south corner of the building ~Details of the fence along the north property line. o Art that is tobe located on the northeast building elevation ~Carport design STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities, To request accommodations to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s Page 4 compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Recordings. An audiotape of the proceedings may be obtained/reviewed by contacting the Planning Division at (650) 329-2440. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 329- 2571. Page 5 ATTACHMENT H PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FROM: AGENDA DATE: Beth Bourne, Senior Planner August 3, 2006 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Enxdronment SUBJECT:3412 Hillview Avenue [06PLN-001571: Request by Stanford Management Company on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for a Site and Design Review application for demolition of two existing buildings, totaling 68,000 square feet, and construction of a new research and development building, parking structure and associated site improvements, to establish a cohesive SAP Labs campus in the Stanford Research Park. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to exceed the maximum allowable building height and site coverage. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: RP-5(D) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the City Council approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment I), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design Review application and the two Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) for 3412 Hillview Avenue as requested based upon the findings (Attachment A) and conditions of approval (Attachment D). BACKGROUND Existing Site Conditions The 5.7-acre site is located in the Stanford Research Park and is developed with 68,300 square feet of office floor area in two buildings. The buildings were formerly occupied by EPRI and were used for administrative use and research and development. The project site is bounded by Hillview Avenue to the east, Coyote Hill Open Space to the west, EPRI’s main building to the south, and SAP’s recently constructed 3410 Hillview building to the north. Located across the street to the east is a short term SAP facility at 3421 Hillview Avenue which is proposed for relocation to the adjacent property to the south. The site has a considerable slope with grades that rise from an elevation of 185 feet along Hillview Avenue to an elevation of 260 feet at the western edge of the property. There is also a significant cross-slope of approximately 13 feet between the lower north edge and higher south edge. A site section showing existing conditions is provided in Attachment K, Sheet A-I.1 of the plan set. Project Description The proposed building is a split-level design, with the building mass stepping to respond to the contours of the site. The building would be clad in high performance glazing (tinted glass and clear glass), framed in painted metal mullions, and GFRC. Projecting sunshades are proposed on the southern elevation to mitigate sun exposure while allowing views to the surrounding landscape. The terraced building layout allows for an outdoor roof-top deck above the lobby area that would be accessible from the second floor. The landscape plan provides for a lawn amphitheater space located towards the west of the site, retention ponds and bioswales, and preservation of many of the existing mature trees, as well as significant number of new trees proposed for the parking areas and perimeter areas. Trellises with vine plantings are proposed to soften the parking roof deck, while providing shade. The applicant’s written project description is contained in Attachment D.A Sustainable building features are incorporated in the project design, such as high performance glazing and sunshades, landscaped bioswales, and appropriate building orientation. A description of the applicant’s sustainability program is provided as Attachment F. The applicant is also requesting two Design Enhancements Exceptions (DEEs) from the RP-5 development standards. The first DEE is to exceed the 15% maximum site coverage by 16% and the second DEE is to exceed the 35’ maximum building height by 13’ for less than 4% of the building. Full descriptions of the requested exceptions are contained in the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment G) and. the applicant’ s Letter of Request for Approval of DEEs is contained in Attachment D. ARB Review On December 7, 2005, preliminary plans for the project were presented to the P&TC and ARB at a joint study session. The P&TC and ARB members asked questions of the applicant regarding the conceptual design, including: building massing and its relation to the topography of the site, solar orientation and glazing, the parking deck design, and the request for a Design Enhancement Exception to exceed the site coverage. On February 2, 2006, the applicant presented three alternate schemes at an ARB study session. The schemes included (1) building in the existing building footprint and providing parking in the rear, (2) a three-story building 10’ above maximum allowable height, and (3)a scheme similar to the original proposal but with a lowered building and parking garage on the site and a softer building elevation. The ARB provided comments on all three schemes. On May 4, 2006, the ARB provided comments regarding the conceptual building massing and site layout of the proposed project. The ARB responded favorably to the revised split-level design with the building mass stepping to respond to the contours of the site. The ARB requested to review additional information and details City of Pale Alto Page 2 regarding the berm to the left of the lobby, parking deck shading, and building exterior materials. The ARB expressed general support for the requested Design Enhancement Exceptions to exceed the maximum allowed site coverage and height limit in the RP-5 district. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the project at their meeting of July 12, 2006. In general, the PTC was supportive of the design, including site orientation, sustainable building elements and landscape features and pedestrian connections. The PTC recommended approval (4-1-0-2) of the Site and Design application. The Commissioner not recommending approval expressed concern that the views of the building from the Coyote Hill open space would be negatively impacted without additional mitigation. There was no public testimony. The verbatim minutes of the PTC meeting are included with this report as Attachment H. PROJECT REVISIONS: In response to comments made at the May 7 ARB preliminary review and the July 12 PTC hearing, the applicant is proposing the following revisions: Roof Design: Additional roof trellises are proposed to soften the roof deck, while providing shade. Clustered "edible gardens" are proposed at the roof terrace above the lobby to enhance the sustainable roof design. Precast glascrete planters will be planted with Citrus trees and herbs, in order to provide an interactive community garden. Landscape Plantings: Plant varieties from the "Sensitive Plant Species" list noted under Policy N-4 in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan will be added to the hydroseed mix that will be used in the transition areas between the office development and the native planting areas at the site perimeter along the open space. Native Black Oak trees have been added with structural soil added to the auto court diamond planters to ensure that the native Blue Oak trees planted thrive. Berm: In response to the ARB’s comments at the preliminary review regarding the berming to the left of the lobby, the applicant has proposed a series of concrete terraced walls planted with a grove of Whitebark Birch trees. Building Exterior Materials: The applicant has proposed revised materials and muted colors in response to comments heard at the ARB preliminary review. Photographic images of the proposed materials are included in the plan set (Attachment K). Materials samples will be presented to the ARB at the public heating. TIMELINE: Following the ARB’s review of and recommendation on the planning applications and the Negative Declaration, the project is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council in late September. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment City of Palo Alto Page 3 (EIA)/Initial Study was prepared for the project and is contained in Attachment I. Based upon the EIA, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review between June 22, 2006 through July 11, 2006. Two of the source references (Arborist’s Report and Traffic Analysis) on which the Negative Declaration is based are provided to the ARB members (Attachment J) and are in the project file. ATTACHMENTS Ao B. C. D. E. F. G. Ho I. J. K. Findings for Site and Design, Architectural Review, and DEEs Zoning Compliance Table Recommended Conditions of Approval Applicant’s Project Description Letter Applicant’s View Assessment Photo Exhibit Applicant’s Sustainability Program Checklist Planning and Transportation Commission staff report, dated July 12, 2006 (without attachments) Verbatim Minutes excerpt from July 12, 2006, PTC hearing Initial Study/Negative Declaration Attachments to the Initial Study (Board members only and in City files) Project Plans (Board members only and in City files) COURTESY COPIES: Applicant: Stanford Management Company Carl Cahill, City Manager, City of Los Altos Hills Prepared by:Beth Young Bourne, AICP, Senior Plannergg Manager Review:Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning~_ City of Palo Alto Page 4 /k Attachment ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1.Project Title: 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: 4.Project Location: 5.Application Numbers: 6.Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: 7.General Plan’ Designation: 8.Zoning District(s): 9.Project Description: 10. SAP Labs, Inc. at 3412 Hillview Avenue City of Palo Alto, Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Beth Bourne, Senior Planner (650) 617-3196 3412 Hillview Avenue 06PLN-00157 Stanford Management Company 2770 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Research/Office Park RP-5(D) The project is a Site and Design Review application to allow the demolition of two research/office buildings, totaling 68,300 square feet, and construction of a 74,000 square-foot research/office building and two-level parking structure, and associated site improvements, to establish a cohesive SAP Labs campus in the Stanford Research Park. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to exceed the maximum allowable building height and site coverage. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project site is located on a rectangular shaped parcel of land totaling 5.66 acres. The subject site is located in the Stanford Research Park and the surrounding land uses include Research/Office buildings to the north, east and south, VA Hospital and Foothill Expressway to the northeast and Coyote Hill open space to the west. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. 12. Public Review Period: June 22, 2006 through July 11, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic Agriculture Resources Land Use/Planning Utilities/Service Systems Air Quality Mineral Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ty Environment Date Date 1) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 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 2 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 pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)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. 3) 4) 5) c) 6) 7) 8) 9) a) b) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant 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 effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativedeclaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and 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. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 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. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soul’ces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) b) c) II. Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2 1,2 X X X X AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) b) c) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,3 (map L-9), 4 N/A X X X III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) Conflict with o.r obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 3, 8 3, 8 3, 8 X X X 4 d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1, 3 X concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?1 X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)X b) c) e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? 1, 3, 6 1, 3, 6 1, 3, 5 1,3 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,3 (map L-7) 3 (map L-8), 9 1, 3 (L-4, L-8) X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sotll’Ces 1, 3 (map L-S) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:~ a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. see below ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?3 (map X N-10) ~iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?3 (map X iv)Landslides?3 (map X N-5) b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?2, 8 X c)X d) e) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 3 (map that would become unstable as a result of the project, and N-5), potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral 10 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 3 (map N-5), 10 3, 10 X No Impact X X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1, 8 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) g) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 1, 8, 12 1, 8, 12 2, 8 N/A N/A 1, 3 (map N-7) 1,3 (map N-7), 9 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Less Than Significant Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) b) c) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1, 3, 8, 3 (map N-2) 1,2 No Impact X X X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) h) i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 N/A 3 (map N-6) 3(maps N-8, N- 8) 3(maps N-6, N- 8) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? N/A 1,3 No Impact X X X X X X X X X 1,3 X X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1, 3 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources 1,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in b) C) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3, 8 3,8 3, 8 1, 8 N/A N/A X XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 3a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? N/A N/A No Impact X X X X X X X X Sources Potentially Potentially "Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? see below 3, 12 3 3 3 3 X X X X X XIV. RECREATION Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2 a) b) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 3 (maps T-7, T- 8) , 11, 15 11, 15 N/A X b) c) X X X X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) g) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Soul-ces 1,2 1, 2, 12 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 3, 13 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)XRequire or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 3, 13 1, 8, 13 8, 13 c) d) e) X X X i0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 3, 13 X accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 13 X regulations related to solid waste? 11 XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Xa) b) c) 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? 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 3 1-15 X X SOURCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 14, 15, Project Planner’s knowledge of the site. Plans entitled "3412 Hillview Avenue Project" prepared by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architecture dated 6/12/06 and View Assessment Photo Exhibit submitted on June 12, 2006. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps found in the Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance). Certified Arborist’s Tree Assessment prepared by Ray Morneau, dated June, 2006. Biological Assessment Letter, prepared by Olberding Environmental, Inc., dated May 22, 2006. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Environmental Assessment Worksheet and documentation submitted by Stanford Management Company Archaeological Assessment Letter prepared by Dr. Laura Jones, dated May 19, 2006. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by TRC Lowney, dated June 12, 2006. Traffic Analysis Memorandum by Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc., dated June 1, 2006. City of Palo Alto, Fire Department memorandum. City of Palo Alto, Utilities Engineering Division memorandum. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department memorandum. City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division memorandum. ATTACHMENTS 1.Certified Arborist’s Tree Assessment prepared by Ray Morneau, dated June, 2006. 2.Archaeological Assessment Letter prepared by Dr. Laura Jones, dated May 3.Biological Assessment Letter, prepared by Olberding Environmental, Inc., dated May 22, 2006. 4.Geotechnical Investigation prepared by TRC Lowney, dated June 12, 2006. 5.Traffic Analysis Memorandum by Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc., dated June 1, 2006. 12 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The project site is located adjacent to the Coyote Hill Open Space which is private 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 using a split-level design, with the building mass stepping to respond to the contours of the site. The parking deck is located towards the front of the property which is closer to Hillview Avenue, and is designed to integrate with the existing slope of the site. Also, the proposal incorporates appropriate building material that includes textured GFRC with earth tones to integrate the building with the natural surroundings. The project is located northeast from Foothill Expressway, a scenic route with views to the foothills. The proposal would 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 and parking deck’s distance from Hillview Avenue provides additional area for landscaping to integrate the building into the natural surroundings. The proposed landscape plan, which includes trees, shrubs, and plants, integrates the building with the mature vegetation. Development of the site may result in negligible increases in light and glared generated form light standards located on the site and glazing on the building. A detailed lighting which is sensitive to the surrounding uses will be required as a condition of approval. The condition of approval will require the shielding of the lighting such that 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 incorporate architectural detail that includes sun shades and tinted glass wall that will reduce light and glare. Mitigation Measures: None required. II. Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required. III. Air Quality The project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on air quality. The project is not located near sensitive receptors. A temporary increase in dust during demolition and construction, however, is likely but will be minimized through conditions of approval, including the implementation of construction practices in accordance with BAAQMD regulations. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. 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, two Coast Redwoods (#355 and #384) and one Coast Live Oak (#435) proposed for removal which are considered ’Protected Tree’ status as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10 (Chapter 8.10.020). The project is required to mitigate the loss of protected trees, as required by Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10, Section 8.10.050(c)(1) and the applicant has proposed eight 24-inch box size trees for trees #355 and #435 and three 24-inch box size trees for tree #384. No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at this site. 13 ¯ V.Cultural Resources The project site is located in an area of extreme sensitivity, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. The site of the existing buildings and parking areas has experienced severe disruption during the construction of the facilities and it is extremely unlikely that any cultural materials could havesurvived 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, the following standard condition would result in impacts that are less than significant. 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 descendent, 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. VI. Geology and Soils Construction of the new building, parking deck and site improvements will require substantial grading. The Soils Reports submitted and reviewed by the Public Works Department and deemed acceptable. Conditions of approval will require the submittal of this report with building permit applications. 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 required to comply with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Mitigation Measures: None required VII.Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is not designated as a high fire hazard within the City and is not designated as a wildland. The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with the City’s building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards as conditions of project approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. No known conditions exist on the site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful or hazardous. The site is not located near any known hazardous materials facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The site is in Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is in an area of moderate flooding, outside the 100-year flood zone, but inside the 500-year flood zone. During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Non-point source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. The site drainage will be altered to allow drainage to be collected in bioswales on the site. The bioswales will be used to collect 14 and store water on the property and water will pass through a biological filter before being used to recharge the aquifer through a drain system. The addition of the bioswales and alteration of the grade will result in an overall improvement to the drainage pattern on the site. This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. The applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices, which apply to the work, should be incorporated into the design. Mitigation Measures: None required. IX. Land Use and Planning The site is designated for Office/Research use in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. This land use provides a areas for conduct of office, research, and educational activities not requiring sales or display area generally associated with retail use in developments characterized by low building intensity, large site size, and landscaped grounds. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations for this district. The project replaces an existing research/office building with a new research/office building of similar size and does not conflict with any land use plans for the site. The project complies will all massing and setback standards for the OR zoning district and complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies for Research/Office Park. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to exceed the maximum allowable building height and site coverage. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, which will ensure a design that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings. Mitigation Measures: None required. X.Mineral Resources The project will not impact known mineral or locally-important mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None required. XI. Noise Demolition and Construction Activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. In addition there may be increases in ground-borne vibrations resulting from demolition and construction. Therefore, Standard conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include the following: The project site is not located within any public or private airport zone. Project related traffic would not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets. However, the construction of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the site. All development of the site shall comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, as amended, and shall be required to follow standard construction techniques and best management practices. City development standards and the following standard conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Implementation of and compliance with the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance is required (PAMC 9.10). In addition, construction hours shall be established as per the construction management plan to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents, visitors, and businesses. Mitigation Measures: None required. 15 XII. Population and Housing The proposed office/research building would be approximately 8,500 square feet larger than the existing office/research building on the subject site. This additional square footage of office space will not introduce population growth in the area. The project will not displace any existing housing or require the extension of public services in a way that could induce substantial population growth. Mitigation Measures: None required. XIII. Public Services Fire The proposed project would not impact fire service to the existing office/research park. The site is not located in a high fire hazard area. Police The project would not alter the use of the site or result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools The project does not include housing and is not subject to school impact fees. Parks and public facilities Facilities fees would be required for any development on the project site. XIV. Recreation There would not be any substantial change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None required. XV. Transportation/Traffic A traffic report for the project was prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. on June 1, 2006. The project is expected to generate a maximum of 10 additional vehicle trips per day, with 9 vehicle trips added during the AM pear hour and 9 vehicle during the PM peak hour. The net increase ofl0 peak-hour trips is substantially below the 100 peak-hour trip threshold used by the local Congestion Management Agency when determining the need for preparing a traffic impact analysis. In addition, SAP currently has a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program for its employees in the Stanford Research Park. These TDM activities would be available to the employees at 3412 Hillview Avenue, including SAP providing their employees with VTA Eco Passes for bus and light rail service. The facility will also provide bicycle racks and lockers for the employees and visitors reducing the demand for vehicle trips. No traffic impacts are expected as a result of this project. The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division and does not contain design features that will substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. Based on the parking requirements contained in Chapter 18.83 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the project will require 247 parking spaces. The project is proposed to include 247 parking spaces. Mitigation Measures: None required. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. As standard conditions of approval, the applicant shall be required to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the project to 16 accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses within the building. Mitigation Measures: None required. Mandatory Findings of Significance The proposed project will not result in adverse impacts if the proposed mitigation measures and City standard conditions of approval are applied to the project. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EVALUATION/DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED JUNE 21, 2006, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3412 HILLVIEW AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signature Date 17 Attachment J 550 S Shoreline Blvd.Ray Morneau Certif. #WEM~in o A R B 0 R I S T ¯Te~: 650-964-766~ Fax: 650-938-1577 Certified Arborist’s Pre-Construction Tree Inventory June 12, 2006 Prepared for: Jim Inglis Stanford Management Company 2770 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Proj eet location: 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Appendix A Appendix B Contents Assignment Summary Tree Preservation Precepts Site-Specific Information 4.1 Existing Conditions (The Trees, In General) 4.2 Basic Tree Preservation Plan (TPP) Certification ExcelTM Spreadsheet: Data for Inventoried Trees, with Legend Tree Values: Appraisal of Trees to Remain, with Legend 1.0 Assignment I have been retained by Stanford Management Company (Jim Inglis, representative) to provide an inventory for trees on site, showing the status of City of Palo Alto Protected Trees. Tree appraisal calculations as required by the City of Palo Alto to be included. -Construction Tree Inventory: 3412 Hillview, PA Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certif. #WE~0132A 650,964.7664 2.0 Summary Tree Species Frequencies Common Name Botanical Name Qty. Alder, White Alnus rhombifofia 2 Carob Ceratonia siliqua 19 Srabapple, Japanese Flowering Malus floribunda 4 Juniper, Hollywood Juniperus chinensis ’torulosa’23 _oquat, Bronze Eriobotrya deflexa 1 Magnolia, Southern Magnolia grandiflora 4 Vlulberry, White Morus alba 1 9ak, Coast Live Quercus agrifolia 9 3epper, California Schinus molle 1 Pine, Aleppo Pinus halepensis 20 Pine, Monterey Pinus radiata 38 Plum, Purple Leaf Prunus blireiana 4 Privet, Glossy Ligustrum lucidum 4 " Redwood, Coast Sequoia sempervirens 59 Sweetg um Liquidambar styraciflua 2 Sycamore, California Platanus racemosa 5 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 1 Tree Fern, Australian Cyathea cooped 1 Total Trees:198 Tree Population Condition Ratings Condition Dead (0%) Very Poor (1% to 25%) Poor (26% to 49%) Fair (50% to 69%) Good (70% to 89%) Excellent (90% to 100%) Total Trees Quantity 0 14 49 87 48 0 198 June 12, 2006 Certified Arborist’s Pre-Construction Tree Inventory: 3412 Hillview, PA Page #2 of 27. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~ ISA Certif~ #WE-O132A 650.964~7664 The 3412 Hillview property includes 198 trees on this and/or overhanging from immediately adjacent parcels. The trees were numbered and tagged during the engineering firm’s survey, so those numbers are the base for my tree inventory. Many of the site’s trees are declining, and 108 out of the 198 will be removed, but 90 of the better specimens can be planned to be retained. This site has 21 "Protected" and 40 "Designated" trees, as called out in the "Inventory Data" charted to Appendix A, below. The Landscape Architect has plans to plant nearly as many new trees (195) as in this inventory (198), for a final site total of 279, a net gain of nearly 100 trees. Most of the removals are such poor-quality, -structure, -condition specimens that special..... --Dl,~¢d ~mitigation would not be reqmred by the C~ty. The~efrees charted below are those called out for mitigation per the City Arborist’s Tree Technical Manual, Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Mitigation Possibilities Tr #Trk Diam Canopy Diam ,Re.p_lacement Tree Alternative Tree 355 20.3"28’i Four 24-inch-box size Two 48-inch-box size 384 14.3"20’Three 24-inch-box size Two 36-inch-box size 435 16.2"i 30’Four 24-inch-box size Two 48-inch-box size This site/project combination will propose many tree survival challenges. Many cannot be identified until later design decisions are made, but generally the chief conflicts come where one needs to shoehorn an existing tree into new hardscape. June 12, 2006 Certified Arborist’s Pre-Construction Tree Inventory: 3412 Hillview, PA Page #3 of 27. Ray 3.0 Morneau0 .Arborist Tree Preservation Precepts ISA Certif. #WE-0132A 650.964.7664 Books have been written on this topic - but ifI had to choose three basic concepts to highlight: - Start early to preserve trees that are assets, but preserve whole trees (including roots), not merely trunks. - The owner(s) must have the entire team committed to preserving each tree everyday (from the designer to the project manager to the guys with the nail bags). o Minimize impacts, or the tree will require you to mitigate, lest you destroy its rootlets or its structure or its environment 4.0 Site-Specific Information (3412 Hillview, PA) Landscape Architect Guzzardo Partnership’s drawing was available for my review and comment (most recent: Sheet L-7.1, "Tree Disposition Plan", last revised 05/04/06). We have shared our discussions of our site assessments throughout this planning process. Latest updates include: o #477 and #478 should have the existing grades maintained around the existing canopy for the most part. Foundations for new walls would be in existing structures or in existing pavement where walls already exist. ° #383 and #385 will have some grading around them, but we are trying to maintain positive grade relationships close to the existing grades for as much of the area as possible. ¯No new planting is proposed under the tree canopies. New irrigation will be provided on valve separated systems to tailor water delivery to the needs of the trees. Again, this site/project combination will propose many tree survival challenges. Oaks #315 and #316 are now in a similar situation as proposed- adjacent to a parking lot. Both base preparation for the new parking lot and its surface design/choice must be sensitive to these trees’ roots and demolition of the existing. The 20-inch redwood #382 will nicely "fit" in the 10-foot wide parking lot endcap - as long as the concrete contractor observes commonsense and does not cut offroots to require his typical 3- feet on each side to l’orm-up. Grade changes must be minimized, too. 4.1 Existing Conditions (The Trees, In General) This site’s most notable trees include mature redwoods, Aleppo pines, and Monterey pines. Generally, the redwoods look stressed, the Aleppos look wild-structured, and the Montereys are thinning and declining (some severely). Other ornamentals include native coast live oaks and introduced Hollywood junipers and carob trees. The oaks are generally good but the others are stressed and declining. The Landscape Architect has sited the project’s construction activity to minimize impacts on the more valuable trees. June 12, 2006 Certified Arborist’s Pre-Construction Tree Inventory: 3412 Hillview, PA Page #4 of 27. Ray Morneau, Arborist "~,i~lliill ISA Certif. #WE-0132A 650.964.7664 4.2 Basic Tree Preservation Plan (TPP) Some basic principles of tree preservation include: Site-specific Tree Protection Measures (TPMs) must be drafted by the Project Arborist. Plan for tree preservation in advance - planning to preserve whole trees, including roots (preserve large portions of root zone, not merely some of the top). Choose the specific trees that the project team wants to preserve. Establish a sufficiently-large tree protection zone (TPZ) for each tree or groupings of trees. Ideally the TPZ should extend out to the drip line at a minimum. When calculating TPZs, note that most trees have widespread, very shallow root systems. The main TPM is exclusionary Tree Protection Fencing (TPF). Soil buffering supplements TPF by adding mulch over root zone soil. This helps to avoid compacting the soil, which eliminates needed oxygen and damages roots. Monthly deep root watering will promote optimal tree health. Plan the work flow of the project, including but is not limited to: ¯Routes where workers will walk around the site, °Were vehicles and equipment will drive and park, ¯Storage area(s) for materials, ¯Where utilities will be routed (ideally, avoid trenching across any root zone), °Tool wash out area for all (including cement trucks, painters, plasters, etc.), and ¯Location of debris boxes and/or collection areas. Tree Care Contractors must be used for all tree work in sensitive areas (CSLB Licence: C-61 Specialty, D-49 Tree Service) - including pruning, removals, root pruning, and remediation in locations where results are important- especially where roots and/or foliage crowns intertwine. The use of tree-sensitive structural and hardscape design has a positive impact on the future health and value of the trees preserved. June 12, 2006 Certified Arborist’s Pre-Construction Tree Inventory: 3412 Hillview, PA Page #5 of 27. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~ isA Certif. #WE-0132A 650.964.7664 5.0 Certification I certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge, ability, and belief, and are made in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to apply my knowledge and expertise working with your trees. Good luck with the next phases of your project. If I can answer any further questions, please inform me of any tree-related queries anyone associated with the project may have. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Morneau ISA Certified Arborist #WE-0132A ASCA Ivlember Schedule of Appendices Appendix A" ExcelTM Spreadsheet: Data for Inventoried Trees, with Legend (Next 17 pages - Page #7-23.) Appendix B: Tree Value Calculations: Appraisal of Trees to Remain, with Legend (Following four pages - Page #24-27.) June 12, 2006 Certil]ed Arborist’s Pre-Construction Tree Inventory: 3412 Hillview, PA Page #6 of 27. .................¯ ;+ ...............i- .................+- ................................................................................4. ....................................... i L0 uo!~epuamooa~i n~n~j ~ j n- i n-a~~~ ~o i ~~~~~~ ~ o ~0 ~0 i ¯--0 ....i ....I 0 0 0 0 ....0 0 ,-6uqeN ~o ~ ~~ ~ ~ i o o o o m m o o ~ ~ 0................................................................................................................................ ~ ..................~ ..................~ ..................~ ..................~ .................! ...................~ ................~ .................~ ..................~ ..........................................................= lleJeAO~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ................................ ............................................................ , ....................................................................................~ ...................................i ......................................i ........................................................................~ ...........................................................o ~ [ .............................................................. V"’: ........... i ........... 7 ............... T"’~-’T"’:"-""T-’-" ’F":’-"i "’7’ ’" F"’:"""T"":" " T":--"! " - i’ :" i’ - - ~ - i111~1~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o i o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i o i ~ 0 ~’~~"0 ~ ~ ~0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 ~i& ................................................................F=-i ............~ ...........i-~-T-Y-7-~-T-~-T-;-T-~-T--S-F5-i-=-F~--F-WT"Y-T-~-i = c ~.) o 0 c- ¯i i i r-~- i£o i 13_ ~(i > i ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ i { i ~ ~ i i k ~ i~ ="-- ....~0 0 ~~o o,o 0............................................................ ~ ............................~ ......................................................~ ...................~ ......................................~ ..................~ ..................~ ....................." ...................~ ...................4 ............................~ ................... ~ O/ ~°~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~i o~o~~o o~o~~o~i ~ i eJnl0nJ1S 0/0~o i o o ~ o ~ o ~ o o o i o o o ~ o o ~o ~ ~ ~JOD~ 0/0~o ~o ~~~~ ~~~~~~ o ~o ~ i ................. ~ ............... ~ ................... i ................. i .................. ~ .................................... ~ ................... i ...................... i ................................................. ~ ................... o o o0 oC) r o r 0 r 00 oo oo (~c-7 00 oo r- 0 I c r" r" Ol r- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FEHR & PE]~RS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company Robert H. Eckols May 2, 2006 Traffic Analysis for Proposed Redevelopment of 3412 Hillview Avenue Site WC05-2280A This memorandum summarizes the findings and conclusions of a traffic analysis prepared for the proposed redevelopment of existing office/R&D space at 3412 Hillview Avenue in Palo Alto, California. The proposed redevelopment project will replace the existing 68,278 square feet of office/R&D space - located in two buildings - with 73,978 square feet of office/R&D space - located in a single building. Therefore, the redevelopment project will add 5,700 square feetof net new officeiR&D development to the site. There wilt also be 2,500 square feet of amenity space included as a part of the project. A two-level parking structure will be provided on the site which wil access Hillview Avenue via an internal circulation roadway. The parking structure will provide 228 parking spaces including 7 accessible spaces. A small surface parking area will be located near the main entrance to the building, which will be used for guest parking and provide a truck loading area. This parking area provides 18 standard spaces and one (1) accessible space. The total on-site parking will be 247 standard spaces including 8 accessible spaces. The accessible spaces will include 7 passenger car spaces and one (1) van space. The van space will be located in the parking structure. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit L-1 shows the site plan for the proposed redevelopment at 3412 Hillview Avenue. SAP will be the tenant of the building. SAP occupies several other sites within Stanford Research Park including buildings located on either side of proposed project site. In addition, SAP currently occupies space on the east side of Hillview Avenue; however, these operations will ultimately be moved in 2013. At that time, SAP employees wil no longer need to cross Hillview Avenue for work related activities. New on-site pedestrian connections are proposed between the adjacent SAP buildings to allow employees to easily move between them. In addition, a pedestrian path wil be provided from the new building to Hillview Avenue. The on-site pedestrian path will connect to the Hillview Avenue sidewalk near the existing pedestrian crosswalk and transit stops. The existing pedestrian crosswalk on Hillview Avenue has an in-pavement lighting system for added pedestrian safety. Vehicle access wil be provided via the existing driveway; however, the driveway will be modified. The driveway modifications include narrowing the driveway slightly and aligning the project driveway with the existing inbound lanes of the driveway serving the Roche develooment located immediately across Hillview Avenue. 255 N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717www.fehrandpee rs.com FEHR & PEERS TRA~SPORTATION CONSULTANTS A two-level parking area will be provided near the front of the site. Due to the topography of the site, each parking level will have its own access point from the main circulation roadway. Seven accessible parking spaces will be provided in the parking structure and an accessible walkway will be provided from the structure to the front entrance of the building. There will be a small surface parking area provided near the building entrance which will provide 18 standard parking spaces and one accessible parking space. This parking area will also include a pedestrian drop off area and a separate loading area for delivery trucks. It is anticipated that deliveries to the site will be made using single unit trucks, since the loading area will not support access by large tractor-trailer trucks. Exhibit L-1 also shows that parking will be provided for 25 bicycles. The bicycle parking will be provided adjacent to the building near the main entrance. Twenty (20) Class I bike lockers will be located along the eastern side of the building. Five (5) Class II bicycle racks will be located close to the main building entrance. This level of bicycle parking meets the City of Palo Alto’s bicycle parking requirements. Project Trip Generation Table 1 summarizes the trip generation for the existing and proposed uses on the site and identifies the net change in trip generation. Table 1 shows the trip generation for the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - Single Tenant Occupant office uses based on the average trip generation rates and rates calculated from the fitted curves, The Single Tenant Office trip generation rates have been used by the City of Palo Alto for all previous development in Stanford Research Park. The average rates are calculated based on all survey data while the fitted curve rates are determined using regression analysis based on the size of the development, Table 1 shows that there will be a maximum net increase of 10 trips during both the morning and evening peak hours using the average trip rates. The maximum increase in daily trips is 66 using the average trip rates. Table 1 Average Rates Project Trip Generation - ITE Single Tenant Occupant Size I AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Sq. Ft.I Daily In Out Total In Out Total Existing Proposed Net Change 68,278 790 73,978 856 5,700 66 109 119 10 14 14 0 123 133 10 18 t9 1 100 109 9 118 128 10 Fitted Curve Existing Proposed Net Change 68,278 948 121 73,978 995 130 5,700 47 9 15 16 0 136 146 9 21 22 1 118 125 8 139 147 9 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS A net increase of 10 peak-hour trips is substantially below the 100 peak-hour trip threshold used by the local Congestion Management Agency when determining the need for preparing a traffic impact analysis. In terms of local traffic impacts, the addition of 10 new peak-hour trips on the roadways serving the site would have no measurable impact in their operation. This level of added trips assumes no reduction due to TDM activities, which are discussed below. SAP Transportation Demand Management Program SAP currently has a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program for its employees in Stanford Research Park (SRP). Table 2 summarizes the TDM activities that are currently available to employees at their SRP facilities and would be available to the employees at the 3412 Hillview Avenue site. Table 2 also summarizes the TDM activities that are currently provided by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to their SRP employees. EPRI is the current tenant and still occupies the 3412 Hillview Avenue site. Table 2 shows that SAP currently provides an extensive range of TDM activities to their employees. The SAP TDM program will substantially reduce or eliminate the net increase in traffic due to the additional 5,700 square feet of floor space. SAP currently provides their employees with Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Eco Passes that allow employees to use any VTA bus or light rail service (seven days a week and 24-hours a day). VTA operates local bus service between SRP and the Caltrain Station located at California Avenue as well as regional bus service along El Camino Real. VTA also operates Express Bus Service that serves SRP from park and ride lots located in Cupertino and San Jose. Last year SAP purchased approximately 650 Eco Passes for their employees in Stanford Research Park, which represent all SAP employees that live within Santa Clara County and regularly work on-site in Palo Alto ("non-virtual employees"). There are also "virtual employees" that are assigned to the Palo Alto office/R&D, but these employees do not visit the site on a daily basis. There are also employees that live outside Santa Clara County that would not be able to use the VTA transportation system. A guaranteed ride home is provided through the Eco-Pass program, which would be available to transit, vanpool and carpoo users. In addition to the VTA Eco Pass, SAP pays up to $105/month toward an individual’s transit pass for non-VTA transit services including the Caltrain commuter rail, Dumbarton Express (bus service from the east bay), SamTrans Express bus service (to/from San Mateo County) and private vanpoots. These payments are paid through the "Commuter Check" program. In addition, SAP offers a pre-tax transportation benefit that allows employees to cover any residua transit cost tax-free. Currently approximately 100 employees are using the Commuter Check program for transit passes. F EHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Table 2 Transportation Demand Management Activities Mode & Action SAP Ridesharing - Carpools / Vanpools Incentives for Carpools and Vanpools X Guaranteed Rides Home for Carpools/Vanpools Participants X Provide Information on RIDES program X Public Transit Incentives for Transit Use Participate in Federal Commuter Check Guaranteed Rides Home for Carpools/Vanpools Participants Provide Transit Information to Employees B icycle/Wal k Provide Secure Bike Lockers for Employees Provide Changing Rooms with Showers Other Activities/Amenities Provide a full- or part-time TDM coordinator Cafeteria or food service on-site Exercise facility or gym on-site ATM located on-site SAP information provided by Mr. Colin Hurd EPRI information provided by Mr. Fred Potter Eco Pass X X X X X Part time X X In Progress X X X X Currently, there is no formal interna SAP program for carpool matching; however, employee interested in carpooling are directed to the www.511.orq website and the transportation benefit does allow carpool participants to submit receipts for reimbursement. There is some existing carpool activity occurring between employees who have common schedules and live in close proximity of each other. The existing level of carpool activity is unknown. SAP currently has 50 L~ike lockers available for use at their Palo Alto facilities. There are also on-site showers that are available to bicyclists. These bike locker and shower facilities are used on a regular basis; however, there is no information currently available on the level of daily use of these facilities. Bike facilities will be provided at the new site in accordance with the City of Palo Atto’s desig~ standards. The proposed project will add 20 new bicycle lockers along with 5 bicycle racks. FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION ~ONSULTANTS In addition to the activities listed above, the SAP TDM program includes a part-time transportation coordinator (within the human resource department), on-site food services (cafeteria), an exercise facility, and ATM access. The Transportation Benefit and Commuter Check program are described in the employee handbook and is a topic in the new hire orientation. SAP has also participated in commute fairs where information is shared on alternatives modes of transportation available to their employees. Conclusion The comprehensive TDM program offered to SAP employees will offset the relatively small number of new trips generated due to the increase in office/R&D space by 5,700 square feet particularly when compared to the level of programs offered by the current tenants. SAP plans to offer new employees the same benefits including the substantial incentives to use transit (including the Eco-Pass). In addition, a large number of employees are currently taking advantage of the Commuter Check program and this would extend to new employees at the site.