The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-12-10 City Council (4)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:DECEMBER 17, 2001 CMR:455:01 SUBJECT:2475 HANOVER STREET [01-AP-5]: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL, AFTER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, OF AN ARB APPLICATION AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [01-ARB-100, 0!-EIA-15] TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING ONE- AND TWO- STORY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND AND SURFACE PARKING FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the proposed project. SUMMARY OF APPEAL In her appeal letter, Ms. Ogawa makes three allegations: (1) an EIR must be prepared before the project can be approved, primarily because of traffic impacts, a worsening jobs/housing imbalance, and the incompatibility of additional law offices in the Stanford Research Park with the College Terrace Neighborhood; (2) circulation within the site and onto Hanover Street should be redesigned; and (3) design details that are not yet resolved may further alter the project in significant ways. Staff believes that no EIR is required and that the circulation is well designed. It has the approval of the College Terrace Residents’ Association. None of the remaining design issues could have an adverse impact on the environment. The public has an opportunity to comment on these design details before the Architectural Review Board, and the ARB’s comments on the subject have been provided to the Council. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The two existing one- and two-story buildings, totaling 51,500 square feet, would be demolished and the materials recycled. A new, two-story, 32.5-foot-tall office building, CMR:455:01 Page 1 of 8 comprised of two structures joined by a glass curtain-walled lobby, would be constructed. The proposed building floor area is 81,928 square feet, resulting in a net new floor area of 30,428 square feet. An additional 2,005 square feet of employee amenity floor area is proposed. This employee amenity area is defined as "exempt" floor area not included in floor area calculations, and is therefore not subject to existing development impact fees and required parking space calculations (see Attachment A, ARB staff report). ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND RECOMMENDATIONS After reviewing preliminary project plans at a meeting on July 19, 2001, and reviewing the formal project plans at meetings on October 18 and November 1, 2001, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the project, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval and with the added recommendation that the applicant return to the ARB for review and comment on specific design details on the building entrance and additional analysis regarding sustainable features. The staff reports and verbatim meeting minutes for the ARB meetings of October 18 and November 1, 2001, are appended to this report (see Attachments A, B and C). The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on November 6, 2001. On November 19, 2001, Ms. Ogawa filed her appeal of the project and MND approvals (see Attachment F). The appellant attended the Architectural Review Board meeting and submitted written comments on October 18. The appellant did not attend or provide additional written comments at the November 1 ARB meeting, at which the ARB recommended approval of the project. The appellant argues that design modifications scheduled for subsequent ARB review may be significant. The modifications (operable window locations, building exterior textures, alternative exterior materials and prototypical break-out patio spaces for locations to be identified in tenant improvement plans) would not result in any additional environmental impacts from the project (see Attachment D, ARB staff report). Plan sets submitted for City Council review of this appeal include these changes. On December 13, 2001, the ARB is scheduled to review and comment on minor modifications to the approved ARB permit and review a cost-benefit analysis of sustainable features. The applicant understands that, should the City Council either substantially modify or deny the project, the December 13 ARB comments may become irrelevant. An update of the ARB’s December 13 comments, and any comments made by Ms. Ogawa or other member of the public, will be provided to the City Council on December 17. DISCUSSION The appellant’s has an issue with the project’s response to the College Terrace Residents Association. At the October 18, 2001, ARB review of this project, the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Director Paul Garrett submitted a letter in support of the CMR:455:01 Page 2 of 8 that four neighborhood meetings had been held with Stanford Management Company, that the Association appreciated being a significant participant in the design review process, and there were no outstanding design issues. On the first page of her appeal letter, the appellant alleges that the CTRA’s concerns about having two driveways on Hanover Street, driveway use and bicycle safety were not adequately addressed. The CTRA’s main concern was the existing California Avenue driveway entrance proposed in preliminary plans as an emergency access drive but eliminated in subsequent plans due to the presence of the "loop" road. The CTRA also had concerns about the "loop" road and mitigation measures to address the CTRA’s concerns are included in the project. The CTRA did not raise the issue of bicycle safety during the two ARB hearings and the property owner has informed staff that there were no comments regarding bicycle safety with respect to the project design at any of the four neighborhood meetings. The proposed adjusted distance between the two existing Hanover Street driveways would not adversely impact bicyclists’ safety. Need for Environmental Impact Report CEQA Guidelines (Section 15070) states that a public agency shall prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project when "there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment". An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required when it is found that a project may have a significant impact on the environment or that a new impact that had not been previously identified would result from the proposed project. That is not the case with this project. The proposed project is in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The staff . prepared a site specific Environmental Assessment for the proposed project which determined that there are no potential environmental impacts from this project that cannot be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance through the implementation of mitigation measures, which the applicant has included in the project. The project does not generate over 100 peak hour trips and therefore it is not subject to the Transportation Demand Management Program for potential significant impacts from traffic. In addition, the project applicant had a certified traffic engineer prepare a project traffic analysis which did not identify any new traffic impacts that may result from the project. The project includes mitigation, including traffic impact fees, site design elements for on-site circulation, and increased setbacks and landscaping to reduce potential impacts to the residential neighborhoods. In summary, based on the Comprehensive Plan EIR, the Congestion Management Program, project level Environmental Assessment with mitigation measures included in the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Most of the appellant’s CMR:455:01 Page 3 of 8 allegations were addressed at the November 1 Architectural Review Board meeting (see Attachment C). Staff has the following additional comments. Land Use and Planning Appellant’s Allegation: "While the replacement of toxicologists with lawyers may not in itself be an environmental impact, the change of the use does create an enviTvnmental impact, regardless of whether or not the use is a permitted one within the zoning district. Furthermore, I do not believe that converting the Research Park to increasingly higher proportions of a single type of use, that of a more intense law office use (permitted or not) is desirable, nor is it compatible with the nearby residential areas." Staff Response: While the project would increase the floor area, the intensity of use on the site, and increase vehicular traffic to and from the site, the proposed change of use is not subject to City regulation and would not result in a new or significant environmental impact. The project includes some of the following mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level: ¯Traffic impact fees, ¯A 105-foot building setback from the property line on California Avenue, which is a significantly larger setback than that of the existing building, ¯A landscaped berm and significant tree plantings between the building and California Avenue, which is a substantial buffer from the neighborhood and results in a gadual transition in scale of development between residential and non-residential areas, ¯Specific measures to limit circulation on the fire lane/ loop road, as noted in the following report section. The City does not review tenant changes in the Stanford Research Park, in that the use of a building can be changed without the City’s consent at any time. By way of backgound, Stanford has an adopted policy that at least 75 percent of the floor area in the Research Park be devoted for research and development use, with no more than 25 percent of the floor area in the Research Park being used for law/financial offices. In her October 18 letter, the appellant references Comprehensive Plan Policy L- 11, citing that the policy is meant to "promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods." Policy L-11 does not apply to this project, which is within the "Employment District" category and not within the "Centers" category. Appellant’s Allegation: "Applicants have not addressed all of the College Terrace residents’ concerns. Remaining concerns include concerns about the driveway entrances/exits described above, removal of existing mature street trees and an CMR:455:01 Page 4 of 8 absence of any kind of Traffic Demand Management program (TDM) in the lease agreement with the tenant." Staff’s response: CEQA does not require that the City accept all recommendations of neighborhood ~oups. However, as noted under the "Architectural Review Board and Recommendation" section of this report, College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Director Paul Garrett’s October 18 letter raised no concerns with the design, including street tree replacement and driveways. Existing Gingko trees on California Avenue will be replaced with a double row of trees flanking the sidewalk, which the CTRA supports, as do the City arborists. The design of the proposed driveways and entrances promotes a safe and non-invasive circulation system on the site, as follows: ¯ The intended uses of the central driveway entrance (closest to California Avenue) are: (1) to provide access to the 30-space visitor parking lot, and (2) to provide access to the driveway plaza/turnaround area for small delivery trucks. ¯The loop road is intended primarily for emergency use, and also may be used by visitors for one-way travel from the visitor parking lot to the rear parking lot. The project includes cobblestone strips at each end of the loop driveway and the applicant will include signs to prohibit employees and truck traffic on the loop road. The loop road provides on-site circulation for visitors, rather than forcing visitors to use Hanover Street to exit and re-enter at the employee driveway to find a parking space. It is buffered from the residential neighborhood by the berm and significant landscaping. ¯The existing southeasterly driveway would provide for primarily tenant access to the side and rear surface parking lots (97 parking spaces) and to the undergound parking facility (146 parking spaces). The occasional large delivery truck would use this entrance to reach the rear entrance of the building for deliveries. Therefore the project includes landscaping and on-site circulation elements to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The absence of a Traffic Demand Management progam in the lease ageement does not create a significant environmental impact. There is no need for such a progam since the site is providing all required parking and the street’s level of service is not reduced. Stanford has stated that the tenant, Pillsbury Winthrop, which is already located in the Stanford Research Park, will continue to voluntarily implement a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) pro~am in conformance with Stanford’s general policies regarding TDM. Population and Housing AppeIlant’s Allegation: "An increase in office space of 30,428 square feet will likely produce an increase closet" to 206 jobs, than 121 jobs. An estimated CMR:455:01 Page 5 of 8 increase of 6 jobs per 1000 square feet is a more realistic assumption, based on the type of office use being proposed for this project." Staff Response: The increase in jobs from the project would not result in a significant environmental impact. There is no substantial evidence to support the appellant’s higher estimates. Staff’s estimate of 121 new jobs was based upon a ratio of 4 jobs per 1,000 square feet of new floor area (or 1 per 250 square feet). This calculation represented a conservative approach, since the parking requirements for the development in the LM District are based on a ratio of one space per 300 square feet. Stanford has surveyed the law firms in the Research Park and determined that the ratio is approximately 3.5 jobs per 1,000 square feet. The appellant states her opinion that the exempt floor area (2,005 square feet) should be included in the calculations of jobs "for purposes of determining environmental impacts under CEQA". In this case, the employee amenity floor area would be a gym and small lunchroom, which do not represent an increase in employee numbers. The proposed project is within the site development requirements for the Zoning Ordinance, as well as in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan’s "Research/Office Park" as addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic AppelIant’s Allegation: "...Staff’s determination that the project would cause a less than significant impact in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system [is questionable]. The assumptions used in the traffic study on which the determination is based are flawed." Staff Response: The City’s Transportation Division has reviewed the traffic study by Fehr & Peers Associates, submitted by the applicant. The increases reflected in the study do not exceed thresholds for individual projects that the City of Palo Alto has set for significant traffic impacts. The applicant’s traffic impact analysis reflects only 54 peak AM trips, based on a 30,500 square foot increase, compared to the City’s calculation of 91 peak AM trips, based on a 51,000 square foot increase. As mentioned in the staff response to the appellant at the November 1 ARB meeting, the City used a conservative approach by excluding the existing 20,000 square feet on site that was vacant at the time of the April 2000 traffic count. Insofar as the proposed project would not result in an increase of more than 100 peak hour trips, it therefore does not require a traffic impact analysis to satisfy the requirements of the Congestion Management Progam. Appellant’s Allegation: "I believe that the 2475 Hanover Street traffic study does indicate potential significant impacts that have not been addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration." Staff Response: While no traffic study was required by the City’s standards, Stanford prepared one and the City reviewed it. It shows no impact. A traffic study was not CMN:455:01 Page 6 of 8 required because the project’s potential net new peak hour vehicle trips were less than the threshold number when such a study is required, as evaluated by the City’s Transportation Division based upon the net new floor area represented by the project. Staff of both the Planning and Transportation Divisions reviewed the traffic study submitted by the applicant. In the appeal letter, it is suggested that there is an additional "analysis by the Transportation Planner" that is not in the file; this is not true. Transportation Division comments reviewed during the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were included as draft conditions of approval. Transportation Division Condition 9.1 states, "A traffic impact analysis is not required for the City or for the Congestion Management Progam. The existing building area that was occupied at the time of the City’s most recent traffic monitoring counts (April 2000) was 31,000 square feet according to Stanford Management Company. Thus, for determining the number of peak hour trips for CMP threshold purposes, the new square footage is 82,000, less the occupied area of 31,000 square feet, or 51,000 square feet. Using the Single Tenant Office land use category, the number of AM peak hour trips would be 91, under the 100-trip threshold, and thus not triggering a traffic study. This site is included in the Comprehensive Plan EIR analysis, so no further traffic study for the City is required at this time. Mitigation is provided through the traffic impact fee." The Single Tenant Office land use category used by the Transportation Planner has the highest trip generation rate of all office land use categories. Insofar as the proposed project would not result in an additional traffic impact as required by the Congestion Management Progam, and the traffic analysis did not identify any new impacts, this project would not have a significant traffic impact. Appellant’s Allegation: "... the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and El Camino [should have been] addressed... A very high proportion of traffic at this intersection comes from cut-through traffic traveling between El Camino and the Research Park, and this intersection would be heavily impacted by any new traffic generated by the 2475 Hanover Street project. This intersection is near or at gridlock during PM peak traffic hours." The appellant also expressed concerns about cut-through traffic and bicyclists. Staff Response: The number of new peak hour trips that would be created by this project is too small to have a significant impact on any City intersection. That is why a traffic study was not required. The applicant has acknowledged that the potential of cut-through traffic is an issue but it does not reach a level of environmental significance. The project includes a contribution of $150,000 contribution to assist the City with traffic calming improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood. The design of the project was evaluated by Transportation Planning Division, addressing traffic safety including bicyclists’ safety. The project includes mitigation that landscaping and objects in the CMR:455:01 Page 7 of 8 sight distance area will not impact bicyclists’ safety. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. ATTACHMENTS A. ARB Staff Reports dated October 18, 2001 and November 1, 2001, with Findings C. D. E. F. G. H. I. and Conditions of Approval (Attachments A and B to the October 18, 2001 report) Verbatim minutes of October 18, 2001 ARB review of this project Verbatim minutes of November 1, 2001 ARB review of this project ARB Staff Report dated December 13, 2001 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted November 6, 2001 Appeal filed November 19, 2001 (which contains appellant’ s 10/18/01 letter) College Terrace Resident’s Association letter dated October 18, 2001 College Terrace Resident’s Association letter dated July 11, 2001 Applicant’s project description dated August 16, 2001 Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: ~/Y’Y4.d~ S/,~~.. a~ny ~nch,-~enio; l~anner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: _.....~ ~-’ES WHITE Interim Director Planning and Community Environment . CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~. EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager co:Joel Karr, 185 Berry Street, Suite 2700, San Francisco, CA 94107 Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Paul F. Garrett, College Terrace Residents Association, 890 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Joy Agawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Karie Epstein, 1143 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Paul Garrett, 890 CaliforniaAvenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:455:01 Page 8 of 8 Attachment A Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:November 1, 2001 To:Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Amy French, Senior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2475 Hanover Street [01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15]: Request by MBT Architecture on behalf of Stanford Management Company representing Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees for Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the demolition of two buildings on a 4.7 acre site in the LM Zoning District and the construction of a two-story office building comprising 81,928 square feet. Parking facilities inctude 146 under~ound parking spaces and 127 surface parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the ARB recommend that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the findings in Attachment A and subject to the suggested Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment B. BACKGROUND The ARB review of this project was interrupted on October 18, 2001, during ARB questions, which occurred after the public hearing had been closed. The project review was continued to November 1,2001. During the meeting, the applicant submitted proposed Sustainability Measures to the ARB. Four Palo Alto residents spoke regarding the project during the Public Testimony segment. College Terrace residents Cary Epstein and Paul Garrett (who read his letter, attached, into the record) spoke in favor of the project. Residents Joy Ogawa and Dorothy Bender spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Ogawa, who noted her concerns regarding the traffic report in light of the recently established use, submitted a letter that was distributed to the ARB members and is attached to this report. Ms. Bender noted her opinion that a full EIR should have been prepared for the project. CONTINUED PROJECT REVIEW A brief presentation will be given by the applicant to allow-the viewing public and the ARB Cover 2475 Hanover Street member not in attendance on October 18, 2001, to receive an overview of the project and any project updates. Following the presentation, the meeting segment for ARB questions will resume, followed by ARB comments and action. The previous staff report and recommended conditions of approval are attached to this cover memorandum. Since the October 18, 2001 meeting, the applicant has made minor changes to the project to meet ARB and staff concerns, including the use of operable windows and provision of additional plant material in the entry courts, ard area. Any other changes made prior to the November 1, 2001 review will be presented during the meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1)Paul Garrett’s letter 2)Joy Ogawa’s letter 3)Sustainability Measures 4)Staff report dated October 18,2001, including revised conditions Prepared By: Amy French, Senior Planner,S/ Manager Review: John Lusardi, Curr~ager COURTESY COPIES: Joel Karr, !85 Berry Street, Suite 5700, San Francisco, CA 94107 Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2475 Hanover Street Page 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: October 18, 2001 To:Architectural Review Board From:Amy French, Senior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject:2475 Hanover Street [01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15]: Request by MBT Architecture on behalf of Stanford Management Company representing Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees for Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the demolition of two buildings on a 4.7 acre site in the LM Zoning District and the construction of a two-story office building comprising 81,928 square feet. Parking facilities include 146 underground parking spaces and 127 surface parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the ARB-recommend that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the findings in Attachment A and subject to the suggested Conditions of Approval set forth in Attacbanent B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Owner Assessor’s Parcel Number Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning District Surrounding Land Use MBT Architecture Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, represented by Stanford Mana2ement Company 142-20-004, .005 Research!Office Park LM Residential/Office Existing Site/Demolition The 204,819 square foot site is developed with 51,500 square feet of office floor area in two buildings (2575 Hanover Street and 1275 California Avenue) constructed in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. These two- and one-story buildings were most recently occupied by Alza Pharmaceuticals. Adjacent office uses include Credit Suisse/First Boston and Pillsbury Winthrop 2475 Hanover Street Page 1 LLP to the south, and Bec ~krnan Coulter and Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich, Rosati to the north. On the parcel to the east (2625, 2627 and 2631 Hanover Street), the buildings are occupied by Xenoport, and other research and development tenants, who use 24 parking spaces on the project site via an agreement that runs with the ground lease. Project Description The buildings will be demolished and recycled, and all vegetation will be removed from the site with the exception of a significant oak tree, which will be transplanted on the site. A two-story, 32’6" tall office building will be constructed, comprised of two large structures joined by a glass curtain-walled lobby with metal entry canopies. The primal3, building materials will be GFRC panels, blue-green spandrel glass and spectrally sensitive and low-E glazing. Light beige-colored GFRC panels will be place.d at the base of the vertical supports, and tan-colored GFRC panels will be used on the other areas, as showaa on colored elevations. Metal will be used on window frames, mullions, panels, vertical strips, and sun shades. The ten-foot high mechanical equipment screens above the large structures will be finished with painted metal panels in a dark grey color. The project description provided by the applicant contains details regarding sustainable materials, design features and practices proposed for this project. The proposed building floor area is 81,928 square feet, for a net new- floor area of 30,428 square feet. An additional 2,005 square feet of "exempt" floor area, slated for an employee amenity area, is not included in floor area calculations, nor development impact fees and parking calculations. No building tenant has been identified, so the building is to be constructed by the Stanford Management Company as a "shell" on speculation of securing future tenants. Two vehicle access points to the site will be provided from Hanover Street, with pedestrian-only access from California Avenue via a paved pathway to the building. A fire truck access-way parallel to California Avenue will allow emergency and other traffic between the front and back parking lots. Both underground and surface parking facilities will be provided. The visitor parking lot at the front of the building will be reached via a driveway at the center of the site. The entrance is defined by an automobile entry court with special paving on both driving and pedestrian areas, sign walls with annual color at the base, lawn areas and a featured oak tree transplanted from elsewhere on the site. The second driveway from Hanover Street will allow tenants access to the surface parking areas at the side and back of the building and to the underground garage. Access to the garage will be located behind the building. A total of 127 parking spaces will be provided at grade, including four ADA compliant spaces, plus the 24 parking spaces located along the easterly site boundary that will continue to be used by office tenants on the site to the east after implementation of this project. A total of 56% of the surface parking spaces (71 spaces) will be surfaced with permeable paving. The underground 59,133 square foot parking facility will have 146 parking spaces, including four ADA compliant spaces, plus 26 class I bicycle parking spaces. No landscape reserve spaces are proposed. Landscape features include a six to seven foot high earth berm along the westerly edge of the property, to serve as a buffer to the residential neighborhood. The berm will be planted with redwoods (32), and will be flanked by two groupings often fruiting plum trees (in reference to the fruit orchards once prevalent in the Santa Clara Valley, pursuant to the Valley of Hearts 2475 Hanover Street Page 2 Delight’ project). The landscape plan includes a third "orchard" of Ash trees marking the secondary driveway into the project. Ash trees will also flank the sidewalk along California Avenue and line the street on Hanover Street. London Plane trees are proposed in parking areas and next to driveways. A break-out area is proposed behind the central building lobby, over the parking garage, and will feature multi-trunk Arbutus trees in planters. Arbutus trees in cobbled planting areas are also proposed around the base of the building, where roof drainage will be collected. Bio-swales will be incorporated into the planting areas. Lighting fixtures include parking lot fixtures, pedestrian bollard lighting, and up-lighting for signage. BACKGROUND/ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE ARB Review Written descriptions provided by the project architect and landscape architect are attached to plans and to this report, as Attachment C. Preliminary plans were reviewed (as 2575 Hanover Street) by the ARB at its meeting of July 19, 2001. The project address has been changed to 2475 Hanover Street as required by the Building Division. The ARB review addressed questions related to hazardous materials remediation, sustainable design features and building materials, and pedestrian circulation systems. The public speakers noted concern regarding noise, lights, construction, and cumulative impacts of research park projects. Both the ARB and the public supported the eventual Grant Avenue extension from E1 Camino Real through the site as a "spine" for commercially oriented vehicular traffic. The applicant was asked to submit a detailed massing model, a sample board of exterior colors and materials, a colored rendering. A model and materials board will be presented to the ARB for review at the October 18,200t meeting. Conformance with Zoning Code Regulations Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.60 (LM DISTRICT) Feature Regulation Proposed Conformance Minimum Site Area 1 Acre 4.7 Acres Conforms Min. Site Width 100 Feet 322 Feet Conforms Min. Site Depth 150 Feet 498 Feet Conforms Front Setback 24 Feet 57 Feet (Hanover)Conforms Interior Side Yard 20 Feet 60 Feet Conforms Street Side Setback 24 Feet 105 Feet (California)Conforms Rear Setback 20 Feet 95 Feet Conforms Floor Area Ratio .4 to 1 (81,928 sq. ft.).4 to 1 (81,928 sq. ft.)Conforms Site Coverage 30% of the site area 28.8%Conforms (61,436 sq. ft)(59,133 sq. ft) Building Height 35 Feet 32’6"Conforms 2475 Hanover Street Page 3 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.83 (OFF STREET PARKING) Parking Spaces 273 (Required) Accessible Parking Bicycles Parking Required/Allowed 1 space for each 300 sq.ft, of gross floor area. 8 accessible parking stalls for 301-400 provided parking spaces - 1 to be van allocated 10% of auto parking = 28 Proposed 273 spaces (+ 24 spaces subject to previous agreement for use by tenants of the adjacent site) 4 in subterranean garage, 4 at grade on Hanover side 22 class I and 6 class II Conformance/Issue Conforms. Conditions of Approval require garage spaces next to the walls must be ½- foot wider than the normally required 9 feet. Conforms Conditions of Approval require correction of rack and locker placements LANDSCAPING SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS OF PAMC CHAPTER 18.83 (OFF STREET PARKING) LANDSCAPE FEATURE % interior plantings Islands (5’ x 5’ min.) # interior trees surface parking lot in REQUIRED 20,478 sq. ft. One per ten spaces One tree per six stalls Perimeter plantings 5 ft. wide* Proposed 77,950 sq. ft. +/- 10 or less spaces in a row 254 trees proposed on the site. More than one tree per six stalls 5 ft. or ~eater at all sides of the parking area Conformance Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Tree, shrub size 15 gal. Trees, 25% 24" 148 trees are 24" box Conforms box, 5 gal shrubs 50% (58% of all trees) *As a condition of the lease a~eement with the Stanford Management Company (Stanford), a 50-foot landscape buffer is required along the California Avenue and Hanover Street frontages.- The actual Hanover Street landscape buffer proposed for the project is less than the Stanford requirement due to the encroachment of the auto court parking area. Stanford a~eed to this reduced landscape buffer along Hanover Street because the California Street landscape buffer opposite the residential zone exceeds the 50-foot requirement. 2475 Hanover Street Page 4 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES College Terrace Residents Association Requests Prior to the last ARB meeting, the owner’s representative (Stanford Management Company) met three times with the College Terrace Residents Association (CTtLA), representing single-family neighborhood residents west of the project. A list of points of a~eement between the CTRA and the Stanford Management Company, dated July 11, 2001, is attached to this report for reference. Many of the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) views have been incorporated into the project design. The only design item that was not incorporated was the 1imitation to 20 spaces in the visitor parking lot. A total of 30 parking spaces are proposed in the visitor parking area, including four ADA parking spaces. The CTRA’s land use items included a desire for limitation in weekend use of the second floor offices, which would need to be negotiated by the property owner’s representative and the future tenant. On Saturday September 29th, the applicant held another meeting for the benefit of the CTRA. The applicant will report on the results. Architecture, Lighting and Landscaping The new building will be two stories, which will have ~eater mass, more site lighting and more glazing than the existing development. However, the increased mass and glare will be visually reduced from the College Terrace neighborhood. This will be accomplished by substantial building and lighting setbacks on the west side (105 feet and 60 feet, respectively), the earth berm planted with redwood trees, the double row of trees along the California Avenue sidewalk, and the use of lower height (13’) indirect luminaires in key site areas. Since the project is within 150 feet of a residential district, visual impacts from both interior lighting sources and exterior lighting sources must be mitigated. The site lighting appears to meet the City’s limitations on luminaire height and foot-candle illumination. However, timing devices should be used for both interior and exterior lights so that there is no unnecessary continued illumination on the site. A condition of approval in Attachment B requires timing devices and sensor lights to be used wherever feasible, taking safety needs into consideration. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts, Section 18.64.030 (a)(2)(A) requires the elimination of glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. The current proposal does not include lighting fixtures on the exterior of the building, however there will be a substantial amount of glass on the building, which may result in increased light from inside the offices at night, and glare reflected from the sun from outside during the day. Therefore, conditions of approval that require information regarding any proposed exterior building lighting fixtures, interior lighting systems and interior shading systems to be submitted in conjunction with tenant improvement plans are included in Attachment B. The Planning Arborist notes that, with the exception of a few trees, most of the trees on the site are in poor-to-fair condition. An existing, healthy oak tree on the site will be transplanted to a prominent location at the visitor entry. The Planning Arborist has requested that the applicant ¯ 2475 Hanover Street . Page 5 also consider retaining the Red Horse Chestnut (# 15 in Tree Inventory) in the midst of the Ash tree "orchard". The applicant’s arborist would need to evaluate the feasibility of such retention, due to the extensive grading that wilt be required for the parking garage. This request is not a condition of approva!. The project includes extensive hardscaping at the front entry/lobby area. A condition of approval in Attachment B requires the addition of plantings in planters or containers to soften the entry area. The existing Gingko trees in the California planter strip, which were planted by Nixon elementary school students, have not performed well. The applicant has proposed Moraine Ash trees in this location and along Hanover Street. However, after consultation with Public works, the Planning Arborist has determined that Purple Autumn American Ash (Fraxinus americana ’Purple Autumn’) in a 24-inch box size should be used instead. A condition of approval in Attachment B requires this substitution and requires the applicant include Public Works Updated Planting Detail #504 in the building permit plan set. Exempt Floor Area and Impact Fees The applicant is requesting 2,005 square feet of floor area to be exempt from floor area calculations. This amount of floor area would be used as an employee amenity area. The shell building permit application plans must include detailed plans for the employee amenity area and proposed use(s) for planning staff evaluation, to determine whether the extra 2,005 square feet would be exempt. Otherwise, the building must not exceed the allowable floor area, pursuant to LM District regulations. Any floor area that is deemed to be exempt will be exempt from housing and traffic mitigation fees. Conditions of approval in Attachment B address this. Rooftop Mechanical Noise Rooftop HVAC units are proposed, and a ten foot high metal pane! roof screen is proposed to mitigate visual and noise impacts. A project-specific noise analyses and recommendations were completed by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. in a report dated August 13, 2001, on file in the Planning Division offices. A Mitigation Measure (also included in Attachment B) requires all recommendations identified in the report regarding use of systems designed to minimize noise of roof-mounted equipment to meet City requirements shall be followed. Hazardous Materials Remediation The site at 1275 California Avenue (Building E) was the location of a 1,500 gallon under~ound storage tank and industrial waste-water sump at 1275 California Avenue. The Palo Alto Fire Department Hazardous Materials Facility Closure requirements have been satisfied (per March 23, 2000 letter on file). Final clean-up action was completed in January 2000. Hazardous materials (chloroform) were also stored at 2575 Hanover Street. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) approved a work plan (dated April 26, 2001) for environmental investigation and remediation. The plan includes the implementation of monitoring wells, vapor extraction wells and air sparging. Permits have been obtained from SCVWD and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for well installation and system operations. A total of 2 lmonitoring wells, vapor extraction wells, and air sparging wells were installed and operations of these wells began in June, 2001. Other remediation measures recently taken are described on pages 2 and 12 of the report prepared by 2475 Hanover Street Page 6 Aquifer Sciences, Inc., on file in the Planning Division offices. The operation of the remediation system is ongoing to further reduce chloroform levels in soil and groundwater. A Mitigation Measure in Attachment B requires that the building permit plans include a sheet showing the location of all remediation wells on the site of the existing ALZA building D (2575 Hanover Street). Traffic Circulation and Impacts The circulation is designed so that the majority of vehicles will enter the site via the driveway farthest from the residential district. The project incorporates alignment of drive aisles to encourage traffic to use Page Mill Road instead of California Avenue. The owner’s representatives envision a future "spine" road extending Hanover Street through the project and continuing through the sites to the north across E1 Camino Real to Grant Avenue. The intent is to collect vehicles of tenants from buildings facing California Avenue, to reduce traffic on California Avenue. A traffic impact fee is required due to the proposed additional building floor area on the site, but a traffic impact analysis was not required. This project was included in the background analysis for another traffic study on file in the Planning Department (the May-field site traffic study). Nevertheless, the applicant submitted a focused Traffic Impact Analysis report dated July 2001, prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., now on file in the Planning Division offices. The report is based upon City of Palo Alto traffic counts, a previously prepared traffic study for 1117 California Avenue and a previously prepared traffic study for the TIBCO Campus. The recommendations of the report call for (1) limited landscaping at the garage and (2) parking space setbacks at the front entrance to reduce the potential for vehicle conflicts. These recommendations are included in the design as submitted. School, Housing and Below Market Rate In Lieu Fees The project would not generate a substantial increase of population and residents to Palo Alto; however, a standard school impact fee of $.31 per square foot of net new floor area is currently required, collected by the Palo Alto Unified School District. This fee is subject to an increase, to meet current State minimum impact fee rate ($.33 per square foot), pending completion of a justification report. Since the net new floor area will exceed 20,000 square feet, it is subject to the imposition of housing mitigation fees (currently 4.21 per net new square foot) as required by Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE The project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Division files. The public review period was open from September 26, 2001 through October 15, 2001. Potential adverse impacts were found in the area of aesthetics, cultural resources, hazardous materials and noise. Staff concluded that these potential impacts could all be reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation measures that the applicant has a~eed to implement. Mitigation measures are included in Attachment B. 2475 Hanover Street Page 7 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notification of this hearing was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation and via mailed notifications to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site. Mailed notifications were also provided upon request to interested individuals residing beyond the 300-foot mailing radius. TIMELINE Action: Application received: Date application deemed complete: Action time limit: (60 days from date application deemed complete) Optional extension upon applicant’s request: (90 days after action time limit date) Date: August 16, 2001 September 14, 2001 November 13, 2001 February 1 !, 2002 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Findings for Approval Attachment B: Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures Attachment C: Applicant’s project description Project Plans (ARB only) Prepared By:Amy French, Senior Planner Manager Review: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager COURTESY COPIES: Joel Karr, 185 Berry Street, Suite 5700, San Francisco, CA 94107 Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2475 Hanover Street Page 8 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW SMC Project (Redevelopment of ALZA site) 2475 Hanover Street / File No. 01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15 Finding for Mitigated Negative Declaration: Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be adopted. The proposed project, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance (Chapter 16. 48 of the PAMC) as it complies with that ordinance’s Standards for Review as follows: The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s comprehensive plan. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Research/0ffice Park, in that the use would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with the immediate environment of the site with respect to the architectural character, scale and design of the nearby structures, will fit well onto its comer setting by the provision of a large number of trees, especially along California Avenue. The design is appropriate to the function of the project. The proposed project, as conditioned, is appropriately designed to the function of an administrative office building in the Stanford Research Park. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land usesin that buildings, seating areas, landscaping and parking areas are integrated in a unified design that allows for harmonious transitions. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the modified driveways at the project site will not result in traffic conflicts between vehicular movements from the project site and from the surrounding sites, and the driveways will not conflict with improvements-to bicycle lanes and sidewalks. 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 suitable amenities and vehicular circulation and parking are provided for employees and visitors, in an ordered and harmonious layout. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that the main parking area is located underneath and behind the 2475 Hanover Street Page 9 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. building and the prominent open areas and visitor parking facilities in front of the building would receive plantings and special hardscaping. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and these functions are compatible with the project’s design concept in that the building would have an employee amenity area and outdoor seating area that would support the primary use of the building. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the two-way driveways on Hanover Street will be provide safe and convenient site access and the on site circulation will be safe due to pedestrian pathways and lighting. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expressions to the design and function and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions in that the materials and details will be compatible. 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 and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site. The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior energy desi~ elements, recycling of demolished buildings, sun shading and recessed windows, spectrally sensitive glazing, dual pane glazing with low-E and additional insulation on the roof, (B) Internal lighting sela, ice and climatic control systems, which shall be shown in tenant improvement plans and (C) Building siting and landscape elements, such as the provision of bio-swales and use of recycled materials in the landscape. ARB standards/findings #4 and #11 are not applicable to the project. 2475 Hanover Street Page 10 ATTACHMENT B Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures SMC Project, 2475 Hanover Street / File No. 01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15 The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated July 26, 2001, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These mitigation measures and conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. Mitigation Measure #1: Interior lighting systems shall by described in tenant improvement plans for staff architectural review, and shall address timing and shading issues~ and include measures necessary to meet City requirements. Mitigation Measure #2: If cultural, paleontological, or historical resources are found during construction, all construction activities shall cease and the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified and mitigation measures pursuaiat to Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Mitigation Measure #3: All proposed buildings and structures shall conform to Uniform Building Code, Zone 4 guidelines. New buildings and structures shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation report dated January 2, 2001. Mitigation Measure #4: The building permit plans shall include a sheet showing the location of all remediation wells on the site of the existing ALZA building D (2575 Hanover Street). Mitigation Measure #5: The project shall include the installation and operation of equipment in accordance with noise analyses and recommendations prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS 1. WATER QUALITY 1.1 1.2 1.3 Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.09.032(b)(9) prohibits the use of Copper or copper alloys in piping coming into contact with sewage, except for sink traps and associated connecting pipes. Project building plans must specify that non-copper wastewater piping will be used. Any drain plumbing for the underground parking garage must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.032(B)(! 7)). Any hard-plumbed water discharge to the sanitary sewer from the elevator sump pit must pass by gravity flow through an oil/water separator. If a sump pump is to be utilized, the pumped discharge must be contained in a tank, or the sump pump must be equipped with an oil sensor system to prevent hydraulic oil spills from being pumped to the sanitary sewer. 2. ENGINEERING Prior to Submittal for Building Permit: 2.1 Plan Revisions - The submitted Preliminary Grading Plan and the "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan" (SWPPP) require further revision to meet Public Works Engineering (PWE) grading, drainage and SWPPP requirements. The Applicant shall meet with PWE staff to obtain these additional SWPPP requirements. The revised plans shall incorporate these additional SWPPP requirements and shall be submitted for review by PWE within 10 days after final ARB approval. Approval of the revised preliminary plans by PWE must be obtained prior to commencing final design of the building permit plans or grading permit plans. 2.2 General SWPPP Requirements - In order to address potential stoma water quality impacts, the project plans shall identify the both the temporary and permanent Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that wil! be incorporated into the SWPPP for this project. The SWPPP temporary measurers are those implemented during construction to protect storm water quality. (Extraordinary SWPPP temporary measurers will apply to grading work performed during the wet season.) The SWPPP permanent measures are those BMP’s to be incorporated into the project improvements for long term protection of storm water quality. The elements of the PWE-approved Preliminary Grading Plan and SWPPP plan shall be incorporated into the building and grading permit plans. The graded area of the project will be less than 5 acres therefore, a fomaal Notice of Intent (NOI) filing with the State will not be required for this project. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit: 2.3 Grading Permit - A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed project. The grading permit submittal shall at minimum address the issues of parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project implementation plan w411 only authorize grading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. 2.4 ¯City Storm Drain System - The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area is unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. A new stoma drain line shall be installed in Hanover Street as part of this project. The new line shall provide drainage for this development and shal! connect to the nearest adequate City storm drain system. The new line and connections shall be constructed to City Public Works Standards. 2.5 Impervious Area - The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the fmal approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit: 2.6 Street Work Permit - The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewall and or construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 2.7 Lease Line - An underlying lease line exists on the property. The developer/applicant shall take steps to remove the lease line to the satisfaction of Plarining and Public Works. The Building Permit associated with the application will not be issued until the requiredlease documents are recorded with the County Recorder’s office. 2.8 Soils Report - A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical en~neer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this and other available information, as well as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No external drawdown pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 2.9 The soils report shall also include a discussion regarding possible hazardous material spills in the area of the site, the extent of any known or discovered haz-mat plumes and remedies that must be undertaken as part of this project. Future submittals of these project plans will be subject to the review of the City Environmental Quality division of Public Works. 2.10 Dewatering Plan - Building permit applicants are required to prepare and submit a basement excavation dewatering plan whenever the project Soils report indicates that groundwater will be encountered during excavation. The plan should be reviewed and approved by Public Works engineering prior to the issuance of the building permit. Building permits that include a basement where groundwater is not expected to be encountered will be subject to a condition that a dewatering plan shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering for review and approval if groundwater is encountered during excavation. 2.11 Final Grading Plan - The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. The fmal grading plan shall incorporate all required features of the PWE approved preliminary grading, drainage and SWPPP plan. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper " conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 2.12 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) - Although this proposed development wil! disturb less than five acres of land, it is located in an environmentally sensitive area and/or has potential for storm water pollution due to steep gades, paved parking areas or other site conditions. The applicant must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the final draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include permanent, post development project design features as well as temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. 2.13 SWPPP Format -The SWPPP shall be in the form of separate plan sheets titled as follows: 1) SWPPP Permanent Measures, 2) SWPPP Temporary Measures & Erosion Control, and 3) SWPPP Details. The SWPPP Details sheets should carry copies of standard BMP details and other custom designed BMP details that will be implemented on the project. If work is to occur in the wet season (from October 1 to April 15 of the following year) then the Temporary SWPPP & Erosion Control plan shall also include specific notes regarding winterization requirements for the site. Sec. 16.28.280. 2.14 Schedule - The applicant shall submit a master work schedule showing the proposed grading schedule, the proposed condition of the site on each July 15, August 15, September 15, October 1, and October 15 during which the permit is in effect. The master schedule shall also show the schedule for installation of all interim and permanent erosion and sediment control measures, and other project improvements. Sec. 16.28.160. 2.15 Mechanical systems for equipment such as elevators, HVAC systems, etc which are located in the under~ound garage should have their hydraulic and electrical equipment set above the basement floor some reasonable freeboard distance. This will prevent damage to the equipment from ponded water entering the garage from vehicle ramps during a power outage. 2.16 Storm Drain Logo - The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows tO (insert name of creek) Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. 2.17 Vehicle Ramp - The vehicle ramp should be designed to minimize the amount of drainage water directed toward the underground garage. The len~h of the ramp should be minimized. The top of the ramp should have a well-defined grade break to prevent entry of water from the outside parking lot. A slotted drain’should be placed across the ramp to direct runoff water to the stoma drain system. A roof should cover the unprotected portion of the ramp (below-the slotted drain). The slotted drain near the base of the vehicle ramp must be connected to the storm drain system. If adverse gades exist then a sump and pump must be provided. This sump must be located inside the basement. 2.18 Vehicle Garage Drainage - The underground garage should have a drain, which is connected to the sanitary system. The drain must be protected by and approved interceptor device that filters the water prior to entry into the sanitary system. 2.19 Loading Docks - The plans include provision for furore loading dock at two locations. Storm runoff from a loading dock where chemicals or hazardous materials may be handled shall not drain to a street gutter, or storm drain. Sec. 16.09.032(b)(4)(D). It is recommended that the loading dock be covered to preclude the need for a drain. If the loading docks will not be covered then a drain connected to the sanitary system will be necessary. In this event, the drainage area in front of the loading dock will be limited in size to minimize the entry of storm water into the sanitary system. A valve that is normally closed and requires attendance to be held in the open position shall protect the retention basin drain. A sign shall be posted near the valve with instructions regarding valve operation and the need for inspection of collected water for spilled materials prior to release. Required wording for the sign will be provided during the building pernait review of the loading dock design. During Construction: 2.20 SWPPP Monitoring - Daily monitoring of all extraordinary .winter SWPPP measures shall be performed by an independent inspector throughout the wet season. Written monitoring reports shall be delivered weekly to PWE. The inspector shall advise the construction contractor of any measures BMPs found in noncompliance with the SWPPP. The construction contractor shall provide immediate corrective action to any after being so advised. The inspector and the 2.21 ¯ 2.22 2.24 monitoring report format shall be subject to approval by PWE. Dust Control - To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operation along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Prior to Finalization: 2.25 Sidewalks, curbs and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and!or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 2.26 The unused driveway located on California Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. 2.27 A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at all driveway entrances to the property and at any street crosswalk entrances. 2.28 Public Works Inspector shall sign-off on the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. Construction activities that must be completed prior to this sign-off include: 1) all off-site improvements, 2) all on-site grading and storm drain improvements, 3) all post-construction stoma water pollution control measures and 4) submittal of as-built record drawings for improvements in the public right-of- 3.FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 3.1 Hydrants shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed 300 feet in both directions of travel around the buildings, following the route of trave! of a fire enghae. (PAMC 15.04.140) 3.2 A fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the building, which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13-1996 Edition. Fire sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083). Note: Building plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is provided. 3.3 An approved underground f~e supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system(s), and shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 - ! 996 Edition. Fire supply system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bulreau. (PAMC 15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met. 3.4 An approved audible sprinkler flow" alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the interior of the building in an approved location. (98CBC904.3.2) Fire Alarm system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) 3.5 Approved 2½-inch hose valves shall be provided at each underground floor level landing in every stairwell for the underground parking structure. (PAMC 15.04.178) 3.6 Elevator cars shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24" x 82" plus a minimum of two emergency response persormel. (PAMC 15.04.120) 3.7 Clarify the source of water for the street hydrant in front of the current building at 2575 Hanover Street. Drawing C-1 currently shows the hydrant supplied by the underground line for the sprinkler risers (unacceptable). 3.8 Underground supply for the automatic sprinkler risers shall be configu8red such that there is no PIV or other shutoff valve downstream of the Fire Department Connection. UTILITIES CONDITIONS 4.UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 4.1 The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours p~’ior to beginning work. 4.2 The Applicant shal! submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a sigrled affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and!or meters have been disconnected and removed. 4.3 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. 4.4 Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering mad Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance 4.5 engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 4.6 This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the 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. 4.7 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 City. 4.8 The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’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. 4.9 Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 4.10 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. 4.11 For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 4.12 No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be comaected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. 4.13 The customer 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. 4.14 If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3. 4.15 For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 4.16 Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. 4.17 Any additional facilities and sen, ices requested by the Applicant that alre 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 i~s the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 4.18 The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 4.19 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. 4.20 At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer 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 The customer 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 asecondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are perrnitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually a~eed 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. 4.21 All primary" electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 de~ees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 4.22 All new under~ound conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Undergound Inspector before backfilling. Rule & Regulation #16. 4.23 The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 4.24 Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer 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. 4.25All 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. 4.25 The customer 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. 4.26 4.27 The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities insta!led on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 4.28 All fees must be paid. 4.29 4.30 All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Developer/Customer shall provide space and public utilities easements (PUE) for any substructure as required by the city. The city- will provide detailed comments when plans along with load calculations are submitted to the building department for review and approval. Ref. DM#04 5.UTILITIES MARKETING Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, al! common area landscaping shall be approved by the Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. If each of the two buildings on this site is to have an individual domestic water meter, then each building shal! be required to have an irrigation water meter. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at 650.329.2549 for additional information. 6.UTILIT!ES WATER, GAS & WASTEWATER ENGINEERING 6.1 The applicant shall submit improvement plans for all 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 cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 6.2 Each unit or parcel shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection. 6.3 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 G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H, and sewer in G.P.D.). 6.4 The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 6.5 The a~proved relocation and abandonment of water and sewer facilities including services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the applicant or developer. 6.6 The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new services to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS 7.MANAGING ARBORIST 7.1 In conjunction with submittal of building permit plans, a detailed landscape plan without omissions and including an adjacent plant list on the same page shall be submitted. 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 The annual color beds on each side of the entry drive shall each be enlarged to a quarter circle. A range of texture plants should be installed. Additional plantings shall be added to the entrance and lobby area. Small planter areas, lobby/entry shade plants and large potted plants shall be included in plans. The street trees along California and Hanover shall be Purple Autumn American Ash (Fraxinus americana ’Purple Autmrm’) of 24-inch box size, planted per PW Detail #504 (please use the updated diagram). To prevent long term damage to hardscape by tree roots and promote vigorous tree canopy, the sidewalk and paving on any side of a planter island shall be engineered structural soil base course material approved by the Planning Arborist. Specifications can be provided. 7.6 Tree protection and planting shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00 and 3.30 in all ways. The Manual shall prevail in the event a conflict in specification arises. HO USING Approximately 30,428 sq ft of net new space will be subject to the housing fee (81,928 non-exempt area minus 51,500 to be tom down). At the current rate of $4.21, the housing fee would be 128,101.88. 9.2 9.3 TRANSPORTATION A traffic impact analysis is not required for the City or for the Congestion Management Program. The existing building square footage that was occupied at the time of the most recent traffic monitoring counts (April 2000) was 31,000 square feet according to Stanford Management Company. Thus, for determining the number of peak hour trips for CMP threshold purposes, the new square footage is 82,000 less the occupied area of 31,000 sf, or 51,000 sf. Using the Single Tenant Office land use category, the number of AM peak hour trips would be 91, not exceeding the 100-trip threshold, and thus not triggering a traffic study. This site is included in the Comprehensive Plan EIR analysis, so no further traffic study for the City is required at this time. Mitigation is provided through the traffic impact fee. A traffic impact fee is due for new square footage above the full square footage of the current buildings, at a rate of $3.03 per square foot (effective 7/1/01-6/30/02), payable before the building permit can be issued. Based on an approximate increase of 31,000 square feet, the fee would be approximately $94,000. Unless there are other mitigating circumstances, we require that the sidewalk remain at sidewalk grade across project driveways, thus requiring driveway co.nstruction per Public Works Department standard drawing #120. 9.4 Bicycle parking comments: A. Bicycle racks are not located acceptably because they are too far from the main public entrance. PAMC 18.83 requires bike parking to be located as conveniently as the most convenient auto parking (including handicapped stalls). There appears to be ample space to place the bike racks in!on the plaza area surrounding the main entrance. B. The make and model of U-rack are acceptable. Since each "U" constitutes ~o bike parking spaces (one on each side), o~aly three racks need to installed to meet the six-space requirement. However, it is desirable and acceptable to provide the extra racks if the applicant so desires. C. Approximately half of the lockers must be on ground level, somewhere near an employee entrance. The other half can remain in the garage. Dimensions are required for bike lockers showing that the required access aisles and clearances are provided for both sides of dual-sided lockers. Based on the garage layout, it appears that bicyclists will not be able to access all the lockers. In addition, lockers must be protected fi’om being hit by automobiles, such as by placing lockers on raised islands and/or providing bollards to prevent vehicle encroachment. Details are provided in PAMC 18.83. D. The make and model of bicycle lockers do not appear on the plans as near as we can determine. This is required. 9.5 No fixed objects over three feet high, nor landscaping (except trees) over 2-1/2 feet high, all measured with respect to the driveway elevation, will be permitted in the vicinity of driveways located on Hanover Street to avoid limiting the sight distance for exiting drivers. Refer to PAMC 18.83.110. 9.6 The preferred type of driveway curb cut is shown in the Department of Public Works stgndard drawing # 120. This type of driveway crosses the sidewalk at the sidewalk ~ade, which is preferable from a pedestrian viewpoint. This is not the type of driveway that appears to be shown on the proposed plans. Consult Public Works for the correct type of driveway Curb cut that is to be provided. 9.7 Staff supports the proposed location of a possible furore mid-block access in the Northeast Corner of the site. This access could be used in the furore if ever a new roadway were developed between Page Mill Road and California Avenue. 10. BUILDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY PRIOR TO BUILDING AND GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION. 10.1 Address of the proposed new building shall be 2475 Hanover Street and the pernait applications and plans shall reference this address. The address stated on the ARB application is 2575 Hanover Street, however, the majority of the site is currently addressed as 2475, which coincides better with the other properties and buildings along the street. 10.2 The plans submitted with the ARB application show the proposed building as a single large structure, not two buildings as described in the ARB application. As such, ~he building shall be constructed under a single comprehensive building pelznit. 10.3 The building shall be served by a single electrical service in accordance with National Electric Code Art. 230-2 (not two services as shown on the submitted preliminary plans). 10.4 The electrical service location shall require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. 10.5 The building shall be served by a single natural gas service. If multiple meters are required due to a future multi-tenant configuration, all gas meters shall be located at a single location on the site. 10.6 The plans submitted for the building permit shall include allowable floor area calculations that relate the proposed occupancies to type of construction. This includes possible future installation of assembly occupancies such as large conference rooms or cafeterias, for example. 10.7 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. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS 10.8 The project is currently comprised of two lots. Prior to issuance of ~ading and building permits the lots shall be merged to create a single parcel. 10.9 Demolition permits shall be required for the removal of the two existing buildings on the site. Issuance of the demolition permits is not dependant on completion of the lot merger required in condition 1 above. 11. PLANNING DIVISION/ARB 11.1 Timing devices and sensor li~hts shall be used wherever feasible, takir!g safety needs into consideration, for both interior and exterior lights so that there is no unnecessary continued illumination on the site. 11.2 In conjunction with Building Permit plans and/or tenant improvement plans, as may be applicable, information regarding any proposed exterior building lighting fixtures, interior lighting systems and interior shading systems shall be submitted. 11.3 The shell building permit application plans must include detailed plans for the employee amenity area and proposed use(s) for planning staff evaluation, to determine whether the extra 2,005 square feet would be exempt. Otherwise, the building must not exceed the allowable floor area, pursuant to LM District regulations. 11.4 Pursuant to its letter dated November 1,2001, Stanford Management Company shall pay to the City the sum of $150,000.00 prior to comanencement of new construction at 2475 Hanover Street to be used by the City to assist with traffic calming improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood. Provided, this amount shall be reduced by any amount paid by Stanford to the City for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for this project, should one be required. 11.5 The following items shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board: a. Articulation of the entry lobby and plaza, showing textures running through or around the lobby. b.Other options for the mechanical screen. c.Further ideas for programmatic details for tenant improvement plans, including energy management, operable windows, daylighting, breakout spaces, interior lighting, mechanical systems. d.A cost benefit analysis to explore use of renewable ener~ sources. e.Use of color and!or texture to add interest on the Hanover Street fa,cade. Attachment B City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Draft Excerpt Minutes of the Meeting of October 18, 2001 (This portion of the meeting began after a lenghy study session.) Chairman Bellomo: Welcome to the ARB meeting, after our joint historic ARB Library session. Can we have roll call, please? Staff Turner: Board Chairman Bellomo: Staff Turner: Board Vice-Chair Lippert: Staff Turner: Board BM Maran: Here. Member B ellomo ? Here. Member Lippert? Present. Member Maran? Staff Turner: Board Member Kornberg? BM Kornberg: Here. Staff Turner: Board Member Wasserman? BM Wasserman: Here. Staff Turner: Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: The next and last item is a major public hearing, 2475 Hanover Street, 01- ARB-100, 01-EIA-15, request by MBT Architecture on behalf of Stanford Management Company for Architectural Review and recommendation to the Director Planning and Community Environment to allow the demolition of two buildings on a 4.7 acre site in the LM Zoning District and the construction of a two-story office building comprising 81,928 square feet. An undergound parking facility comprising 59,133 square feet will provide 146 parking. spaces, and 127 parking spaces will be provided on gade. Staff Amy French, Staff’s recommendation. Staff French: Thank you. Staff recommends approval based upon the findings and subject to these conditions in Attachment B. The conditions were revised and forwarded to you yesterday, hand-delivery, the public should know about that. It includes a condition requiring the submitta! of $150,000 in support of traffic calming, improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood. This is contingent upon the Mayfield site project on the corner of Page Mill and E1 Camino being a project. So, that’s part of the MOU development agreement. So, that is an added condition. There’s some other conditions that were added as well, building department and fire and a couple of extra conditions. At places, you do have a memo from the College Terrace Resident Association, also Sustainability Measures that was submitted by the applicant today to Staff detailing those. The model is before you, a sample board, is up on the [diaeze] there. Just briefly, the address has changed based on billing department’s requirement so but it seems that the public understands that this was 2575 Hanover. They’ve had 4 meetings with the College Terrace Association and Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page basically, the project is just an addition of 30,000 square feet, 30,428 square feet and I’ll let the applicant, or the request is that the residents that are here to speak. Chairman Bellomo: Okay, we will allow them, we have three cards from the public and we’d like to allow the public to speak to this item now so that they can get on their way. We have three speakers. The first speaker is Joy Ogawa, followed by Karie Epstein, followed by Paul Garrett. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street. Palo Alto: I’m going to be turning in a letter, basically objecting to the mitigated negative declaration for this project. And it kind of outlines the basis for my objections and that has to do with the, it doesn’t take into account the fact that this office use is going to be, well, we’ve been told, now that it’s going house [Pillsbury Winthrop] law firm. And it used to house Alza, let’s see, toxicology and product development and a pilot plant model shop, not the same kind of intensity of use that law office is, in terms of especially traffic impacts. Anyway, that’s one thing. And also, in terms of the use is another law firm in an area that’s full of law firms which I don’t really think is consistent with what we want there. That there was nci analysis that I saw of jobs and the housing needs that that would create and how that’s not being addressed here. And also, I have a problem with the Traffic Analysis which I think is based on some flawed assumptions, that kind of give you their desired results that they want but I really think that if the assumptions are more accurate, that there would be significant impacts and that you couldn’t really just have a mitigated negative declaration for this project. It’s kind of difficult to talk about this since we haven’t heard his presentation but I also wanted to point out that I was in the September 29th meeting and that the applicant had with the neighborhood, with the College Terrace neighborhood. And there was a lot of concern about that loop driveway which they’re going to make two-way and which we’re very afraid is going to have a lot of noise impacts and I’m sure other people will speak to that. We really would like to see that addressed. I also note that there was no, they signed a lease without a TDM requirement and so there’s no transfer demand management so it really seems that very little is being done here to reduce the number of trips. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you. Next speaker is Karie Epstein. Three minutes. Katie Epstein. 1143 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto: My name is Karie Epstein and I live at 1143 Stanford Avenue in the College Terrace neighborhood. And I’m also here as a representative as a Board Member on the College Terrace Resident Association. We’d like to first of all, thank Stanford for the process that we went through on this project. To my knowledge, this is the most extensive interaction with our neighborhood for any project in the Research Park that is directly affecting our neighborhood, adjacent to our neighborhood that we know of. And we hope that this type of interaction dialogue and process will continue on any future projects. Additionally, I wanted to talk and thank Stanford for the interaction of accepting many of the suggestions from the neighborhood, specifically moving the trash pick up and delivery drop-off Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page 2 areas as far away from the neighborhood as possible. For adding the burm to mitigate sound and to have a screening and buffer from the neighborhood with the [allay] of walkable trees. We feel that this is a positive for step and we would hope to see this kind of burm and walkable tree for the neighborhood extend down California Avenue as other areas are developed. ¯ And we’d like to speak lastly to a larger issue in that adjacent to our neighborhood up the other direction of California Avenue, as our neighborhood and going west, kind of up the hil!, there are several other large buildings in the Research Park that are probably prime targets for redevelopment in the near future. And we have mentioned this to Stanford before but we’d like to just make the Board aware of our neighborhood’s feelings that we feel that that, if at some point Stanford is going to be looking at adding housing to the Research Park, that it would make much more sense to do more developed and fill in the Research Park areas that are away from neighborhood and to perhaps redevelop housing in the area on the upper portion of California Avenue that’s directly adjacent to our neighborhood. We think that that would be a more appropriate use. But all in all, we do feel that this project has compromised within helped to address many of the concerns of the neighborhood and are happy to see it going forward. Thank you. Chairman Bel!omo: Thank you, Paul Garrett, followed by Dorothy Bender. State your name and address for the record, please. Paul Garrett. 890 California Avenue. Palo Alto: I gave you a copy of my letter so I’ll iust skim through it and see if you have any questions. My name is Paul Garrett. I live at 890 California Avenue in College Terrace. And I’m here as a director of the neighborhood association and speaking for them as [Kathy Durham] is our president, she couldn’t be here today. The association would like to express our appreciation for our neighborhood’s opportunities to participate in the desi~m’~/review process for this project. Of course, there are troublesome aspects of this project beyond the purview of this design/review such as housing and vehicular traffic. Although we prefer housing instead of offices and CTR are satisfied with the opportunities, it’s had to participate in this review process for this major building. " We’ve attended 4 neighborhood meetings with Stanford Management company and the architects and they showed us to see their plans evolve to request features and the question as [MC/emcee] and the architects. We feel we gave them the residential perspective of those who live nearby enabling their architects to replan their building and landscape plans to the benefit of all. We also contributed some out of the box thinking on such as this spine road concept with the potential eventually to convert California Avenue to residential on both sides of the street. A residential gateway as public art and a tree alley along the California Avenue sidewalk, perhaps extending to E1 Camino Real someday. And, of course, Stanford has ageed to pay the City $150,000 or the normal development fees for traffic mitigation on California Avenue. And finally, in the box, we think we’ve demonstrated the value of this process, not only to the neighborhood and the developer but to the community as a whole. We appreciated your remarks Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page 3 at the preliminary ARB praising our efforts and look forward to following a project through to completion. Thank you. Chairman Bel!omo: Thank you. Our final speaker is Dorothy Bender. Dorothy Bender, Barren Park, Militarg Way, Palo Alto: Hi, I’m Dorothy Bender. I live in Barren Park on Military Way. Hanover Street is my bike path which I use everyday to bike up to my job at Stanford. I wanted to just say something about the ARB meetings that start at 8:00. I would like to make a request that at some point, this body think about having evening meetings so that we can have more people who work during the daytime participate in some of these hearings. I’ve read through several of the documents and I’ve also been aware of various members of the current City Council saying this is the last time, and this was a while ago that we would approve another office building, an office project in Palo Alto. We have a real need for additional housing. We do not need new offices. One of the points I’ve made a few times is why is there never a finding by the Staff on development in the Research Park which results in a recommendation that a full EIR be done. I think this is a substantial project and I think it requires a full EIR. We’ve recently watched the Carnegie Foundation make its request for a building, a 20,000 square foot building and that went through a year of analysis and an EIR. I think there’s something about an EIR that’s not done here and I don’t understand why. The purpose of an EIR is to evaluate the potential impacts which might result from approval of a project. Section 15121A of SIQUA says that an EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision makers and the public of the significant environmental effect of a project. It will identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive but the sufficiency of an EIR is to review in light of what is reasonably feasible. In this case, we’re talking about several intersections that are going to go from level of service E to level of service F. And I don’t see in the environmental checklist form how this will be mitigated and I’m very concerned about the traffic impacts. Also, just looking at the Traffic Study, it said that it looked at cut-through traffic and saw that it would not be significant through College Terrace and they used Princeton and looked at drivers and license plates. And I’m curious about whether they anticipate at what will happen when we have these additional 900 cars going out on Hanover, why they would not go through Princeton. And did they do that analysis based on current traffic which right now that building is empty so there are no cars there and it’s been empty for at least a year. I don’t know how long it’s been empty. So, again, I recommend that there be an EIR done on these major projects. Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, Dorothy. We can now move towards the applicant’s presentation, please. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18101 ARB Meeting Page Jane Schneider, Director of Research Park: Hi, my name is Jane Schneider and I work for the Stanford Management Company. I’m the director of the Research Park. I think the first thing i’d like to do is just introduce the development team. MBT Architecture is our building architect and [Brian Croney] is the man who will represent them today. And [Gazzardo] partnership is our landscape architect, Gary [Layman] representing [Gazzardo]. This project as you know, is located across the street from College Terrace neighborhood. And the desig-n process has been interactive with the neighborhood and we’d like to thank the neighborhood for showing up and being diligent about attending these meetings and offering suggestions. I think we feel positive and proud of the fact that they’ve had a strong mark on this design, mainly with some very significant features. We more than doubled the set back on California Avenue. We’re going to be adding a 7 foot high forrested burm on California Avenue to properly screen the building. And we’ve come up with the building orientation that we feel minimizes the mass along California Avenue. And in addition, we are excited to be able to accommodate the future potential traffic spine down the super block. The two buildings that are there now are 51,000 square feet. The 82,000 square feet that we are proposing is the zone square footage just to make that point, and it is, I think in the past there may have been some reference to two buildings and it is going to be one building that we’re proposing. And at this point, I’d like to just turn it over to Brian [Croney] of MBT. Brian [Cronev], Buildin~ Architect of MBT Architecture: Hi. What I’d like to do in the remaining time is spend a few minutes talking about some of the site issues because when we were here in July for a discussion of the preliminary review, we focused mainly on site leaving architecture for this hearing. So, after touching base a couple of site issues that came up in July, I’d like to move quickly into the developed architecture of the building. And then whatever time remains, pass it on to Gary Layman who can address the development of the site. Two things came up in July that I wanted to address. This is obviously the site with California and Hanover. There was a suggestion from the Board that we might consider rotating this building, front to back and we did take a quick look at that. We have plans that represented, I just wanted to let you know that we found that it kind of materially affected the parking count. We couldn’t because the parking arrangement underneath was less sufficient. We lost some parking underneath and actually resulted more on grade parking. We also realized that the site being rectangular is constrained across the narrow dimension, which sort of it took us doing the study to discover that. So, what you see here is essentially the positioning of the buildings that was presented to you earlier in July, with the addition of the link through the buildings. If there is a single tenant in this building, the idea now is for the link to be a lobby for the buildings. The submitted material shows us a very transparent, essentially a two- story volume with a bridge connecting second floor to second floor. Another issue that came up during the discussion of site planning, was the possible re-orientation of the buildings to take advantage of optimal solar orientations. The grid in this area is about 45 degrees off of north!south. Again, we discovered that by taking a fairly simple rectangular floor Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page 5 plates which is what this market desires in buildings and tenants want, again, turning these buildings essentially carved up the site into triangles of space and again, impacted parking. We also had some issues about buildings oriented toward streets and sort of conventional theory about urbanism and alignments of the buildings and streets. So, I wanted to explain that things look the same as you saw them in sig-nificant ways but it is for reasons because of some study, we did look at those alternatives. As you know, we are in a boundary condition with the neighborhood. And you’ve already heard accounts of our interaction with the neighborhood and that’s something that’s been guiding a lot of what we’ve done so far. The most important thing that we’ve been able to do on this site is to put more than half of the parking undergound, underneath the building, 163 spaces. And what that allows is obviously, a substantial amount of landscaping on the site, doubling the set backs as Jane indicated on the neighborhood. So, that is sort of coloring how we approach the detail site planning which Gary will address in a few minutes, and I’ll address in terms of the architecture. Our intent and our primary driver of the architecture was recognizing the proximity of the neighborhood and being sensitive to the neighbors consideration so as to strive for design which did not seek to call attention to itself. We’re looking for something subdued and cited and articulated at the end facing neighbors that presents a minimum impact to the neighborhood and given a 100 foot setback. This is a bit of altered drawing that is done to, it eliminates the burm. We have an equivalent that shows the burm in place and it should be in your package. But we discovered in looking at the building from the neighborhood side,with all the landscaping in place that, in fact, we obscured the building, you couldn’t see the building. So, what we’ve done here is strip away the landscaping, to strip away the burro so at least we have an image of this building and how it’s put together. And Gary will show you the screen versions of it. As you know, it’s a combination of a GFRC panel to [sementitious], sort of a warm sandstone color, btuegreen glass, and then sort of a medium value dull metallic gay metal panels that sit on top of the glass. We tried to only in two areas carry the GFRC up to the full two-story height. We’ve tried to step it down by changing materials, particularly on the sides and the ends of the buildings that are toward the neighborhood. This is a detailed elevation of the end that faces California. We’ve dropped the GFRC panels to a single story height, used metal column jackets and the bluegeen glazing capped with a coated metal panel that harmonizes with the mullion system, notching in the corner. So, we’re trying to obviously modulate the mass of the building and present to a minimum square footage facing the neighbors. These are representative elevations, front and back. This is a detail, intended to talk about elements, this is the GFRC, these are the column jackets, this is glazing. This is a transome band at 7’6" which has a clip on, 8" projection extrusion. There’s a, although it’s not easy to see here, this band is representation of a 2 1/2 projecting sunscreen that continues on the primary solar frontages of the building. That was done in conjunction with the PG&E Energy Center, so we’ve Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page modeled these things and we’ve satisfied them ourselves that we’ve got the right screens in the right places. We’re at the passage of time, I just want to touch very quickly on sustainability. You received a comprehensive list of sustainability measures taken and proposed for this project. I wanted to hit on a couple of them. I also want to stress that we’ve been working very closely with PG&E Energy Center, Ryan [Strope], has been leading and they’ve helped us kind of assess what measures are available to us and helped us prioritize in terms of which things we would be most advised to implement earliest. They have advised strong emphasis on installation so we bumped up the roof installation. Again, above what Title 24 requires. This essentially tells us what we have to do by mandate. This is what we are doing. We’ve substantially increased the roof installation. Title 24 would require a low E on only two sides of the building. We have used insulated units on all sides with low E on the south and west. Theoretically, you can do Title 24 without insulated units. We put additional focus on the envelope of the building to achieve a savings. Title 24 does not require solar shading as you are aware. We provided them and the thresholds in our case, is shading half of the glass at least half of the time. That seems to be the standard, if you can meet that standard, essentially you’ve been responsive. Two things that we have considered. One that we’re still looking at carefully is the PV arrays. Right now, we believe that until production is scaled up, the cost of these things, even though if the rebates is still results in a payback that’s sort of in the 19-26 year range and this has been confirmed by PG&E. So our attitude with respect to PV is that we’ve structured the roof to ¯ receive it and we’re doing nothing in the design in this building to preclude that option in the future. So, in the economics it’ll get a little bit better. We’ve paved the way for that. Operable windows have been discussed at a variety of places, at times on various projects. The advice from the PG&E Energy Center is that the kind of benefits are inconclusive at this point, that there are some energy costs associated with the kind of mechanical systems that needed to be added to kind of balance the building and so forth. So, at this point, we’re not proposing it. I just want to be clear about that. There’s probably about a minute or so left and I’m going to ask Gary Layman to talk about the landscape piece. If we’re permitted to have a few more minutes. Chairman Bellomo: We’ll have plenty of questions. Gary, do you just want to do? gary Layman, Landscape Architect: Thank you. We’ve talked about several interesting aspects of the landscape and I would like to touch upon with respect to neighborhood concerns and overall site planning issues, all of this are taken from California Avenue over. One of the principal design features was the creation of this pedestrian allay along California Avenue taking advantage of that larger setback that will be a double row of trees that will extend all the way along California Avenue. Planted densely, set in 24" box size which the Staff Report mentions and we concur with that. Backing that up, that’s a deciduous tree, that Ash tree along California and Hanover’s is deciduous so we looked at using Redwood trees on the burm itself. So, you have a layering of evergreen and deciduous trees so that landscape burm in addition to being the full 7 foot high Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page 7 with shrubs on top of that are fast gowing trees which as ever~een which will keep that buffer in place year round. One of the features which we’ve discussed briefly the last time which had been incorporated into this corner also is a natural functioning orchard plating of plum trees. These will be edible plumbs that will raised in organic fashion so it will be available in a non-toxic form. And they’re set into a bed of crushed stone for access and such and we feel like this is sort of reminiscent back to some of the heritage of the valley that we’re in and kind of creates an association that we feel is also very complimentary to the neighborhood interests. Parking areas themselves, we’ve used, again, a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees. Evergeen trees along the property line of [Quarco], a well-behaved tree that has relatively fast gowth and good evergeen presence year round. And then using [Len] plane trees as the canopy tree which occurs within the parking lot providing really geat shading for the parking areas which is very important to us. So, I’ve mentioned we have the Ash tree on Hanover Street which extends as an orchard up in toward the building here. Also helping to provide some shading for that southwestern exposure. Used an evergeen tree, calming the ironwood around the building which is very sculptural in nature and using a mixture of evergeen and deciduous perennials which will create a very beautifu! window garden effect from the offices looking out into those spaces. Also using evergreen trees in pre-cast planters in the areas which are sitting over the roof jacket itself, again, providing an interesting program condition. Where we have landscape area over the parking structure, we’re going to be using Riverwash cobbles. Sort of in a color range that’s complimentary to the building and that will set sort of as a carpet to where these containers occur. But then the entry area here, this will be our pedestrian oriented entry to the main central spa.ce of the building. We’ll also have an auto court which is on this foreground area which we’ll use interlocking paving stones, slightly redder in color than this. It’s set in a radial pattern. As you can see in this photograph here, we think that will be a nice feature here at the entrance along with decorative light fixtures which are specifically selected to be low glare, low light intensity and such. Again, in sensitivity to the neighborhood concerns. Again, this site plan encourages use of this auto entrance primarily for the use of visitor parking only. This auto court here will be for sigmed for visitor parking only. We think that functionally that this will actually act as primarily as a visitor space only because the most convenient access for employees is going to be from this driveway that’s close to the Page Mill Road. This is the most direct access down to the garage as well as to the parking that’s most attractive for people to enter the plaza area from the back side. So we think that this will really be the most heavily used entrance. We have temporary loading areas located in this area here, also conveniently located to the back doors. One of the changes that have occurred since the previous plan you saw was that we’ve incorporated in a pedestrian walkway that goes from the central plaza area back over to Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page 8 California Avenue. The intent there was to provide better circulation from California or actually from the office building to California which will serve as a means of getting and utilizing the California Retail commercial areas and also as a way of getting people towards the CalTrain station. And we saw that as being a real positive inclusion there. We’re also looking at incorporating the spine road down the side as was mentioned. We’re looking at this area near the back entrance as being a space where we’ll have outdoor furniture amenities and in a shaded environment here, it’s a relatively nice, sheltered portion of the building. And we’re looking forward to introducing elements out there to encourage use of that space. There were a couple of conditions in the comments in the conditions of approval that I’d like to speak to. It’s in concern about the bike racks. We are planning on relocating those bike racks closer to the front doors. I think they will be more convenient as noted. We’ve studied the location of where bike walkers could be included, closer to the proximity to the front entrance. Currently, all the plans that you have, all the bike walkers are shown in the garage. The garage is a secure garage and there’s lockers within that area which would be secure as well. Our preference is to have all the lockers in the garage, if possible. We feel that’s the best operational, most attractive use of those lockers and to encourage cycling, we prefer to have all our lockers downstairs as opposed to having them sort of clutter the entrance to the building. Also, we’ve been very precise in how we detailed the landscape areas around the building itself in trying to create a window of landscape to the front entryway right here. And we prefer to keep the planting as proposed, if possible. As there was also a comment with respect to using structural so paving as a part of the conditions of approval. Our preference will be to not do that. We’ve included very lush landscape throughout the project with, consistent with the standards of the City as developed and we prefer to stay with that, if at all possible. I’d be happy to answer any of your questions. Chairman Bellomo: Okay, we’ll have questions for you. Lee, would you like to start? Vice-Chair Lippert: Brian? Mr. [Croney]. Buitdin~ Architect: Yes, Lee. Vice Chair Lippert: In the preliminary review that we have with you, one of the comments was to look at eliminating the road that comes around that parallel with California. Mr. [Croney]. Building Architect: This one. Vice Chair Lippert: Yes, did you look at that at all? Mr. [Croney]. Building Architect: Yes. This is sort of trying to balance competing interests and maybe you can offer some guidance for this. The theory about that loop was that if one arrives in that smaller lot in the beginning and it’s filled up, the only option without that connector road is to get actually back out on Hanover. So you have to actually get back on to a public street.in order to turn the driveway. So, that we were a little worried about so that it increased traffic. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page And in trying to strike that balance between traffic load on a public street and tx--ying to contain our circulation on site, we developed a strategy which Gary addressed in some detail. We can go on to it further, which recognized the need for it. But then in design mitigations have really made an effort to address any neighborhood concerns. One of them is the burm, another is lighting which we would propose to handle in [Bollard]. Vice Chair Lippert: That raises the second question which I think is another one of the suggestions was making it one way in direction. Did you look at that? Mr. [Cronve], Buildin~ Architect: We looked at it and the issue that we face then was what to do, in essence if it’s one way going from the front to the back, which I assume was the intent, that in essence created a huge dead-end here for that piece of parking, and it would require for you to turn around or something. So, we were a little, that seems not good from a site maneuvering point of view or if you’ve got so many parking stalls and in addition, truck loading spaces back here. We thought for that reason, it made sense to continue it around. What we’ve done is to make is as narrow as possible so as to keep the speed down where noise is the concern. We believe we’ve done an effective job of visually screening it. And, in fact, given the depth of the setback, we believe this design mitigates it. But it’s one of those situations where we’re trying to balance the benefits of being able to handle our own circulation on site with the kind of recognition that we need to mitigate as Well. Here’s another example of having a fairly shallow site, front to back, and we were able to bring by offsetting the buildings, able to bring one building out so that essentially it engaged the landscape within a setback [fade out] so the site wasn’t seen as sort of this building surrounded by a moat of parking, what the consequence of that. Vice-Chair Lippert: I think the intent or the line of questioning with regard to that loop around that part of the building was directly a result of the neighborhood comments which was traffic flows and how the employees, not necessarily the guests but I think the employees and how they get out of the lot. And the idea was to try to keep them away from the College Avenue end of the site. Mr. [Croney]. Buildin~ Architect: I understand the concern. Gary, I think has got some information to add. Mr. Layman, Landscape Architect: On the previous proposal, there was some ambivalence on our part on whether we would as a part of this fire access and getting around the site in such a way that there would be a need to have an emergency vehicle access lane through here and so we were, and in the previous plan we were showing this area as actually being fairly level relative to California Avenue, anticipating that we might need to have a fire access lane through here. We were able to get rid of that partially by being able to maintain this loop here so we’re able to keep the mound going, the full length of California Avenue frontage, and keeping that buffer intact. So, we think that by being able to get rid of that access lane, that helps us in terms of softening the impact against the neighborhood. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page The other thing that the neighbors were suggesting as well is whether there was some way of reducing the actual speeds that occur on the road. As Brian mentioned, we’ve narrowed the road down so it’s a minimum of 20 feet wide and we’ve also incorporated in cobblestone pans within the roadway paving that will act as speed deterrent in those areas as well because we don’t want people going through there very quickly either. Vice Chair Lippert: Along College Avenue, you have a double row of trees along the property line there. What’s the reason for having them lined up directly adjacent to each other? Why aren’t they staggered? Mr. Layman, Landscape Architect: This row on California? Vice Chair Lippert: Correct. Mr. Layman, Landscape Architect: The intent there is to create a very architectural treatment. What the neighborhood described was an allay, meaning a very formal orchard, rhythmic type of planting along California Avenue. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay. And along the Hanover side, are you proposing some sort of lawn there? Is that what’s -? Mr. Layman, Landscape Architect: That’s right. There’s a lawn panel that’s associated with the building entry. Vice Chair Lippert: Have you looked at any other kind of planning materials or gound cover besides lawn? Lawn is a little, water - Mr. Layman, Landscape Architect: Intensive, yes. In fact, we’ve used lawn in a very intentional way, just really in two ways. One, using some against the California Avenue frontage relating back to the residential. That was something that was expressed as being a positive contribution. The lawn in this area is also very concise, it’s irrigated with sub-surface irrigation so it’s a very efficient type of lawn as opposed to overhead spray type sprinklers. So, we were looking at that and very conscious of the water use, characteristics of that and try to use it in a precise way that we think will look good with the rest of the garden composition. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay, and now that you know who the tenant is, did you look at incorporating signage with the building? Mr. Layman, Landscape Architect: We’re looking at signage in this area here. We are anticipating that there will be a short sign wall of similar materials to the building that would occur in this entry island, and then we’ll have these garden walls on either side, which kind of mirrored the garden walls at either side of the entrance of the project across the street. So, it’s a fairly minimal amount of signage that occur on those locations. Vice Chair Lippert: What ki.nd of lighting for the signage? Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page Mr. Laymam Landscape Architect: Throughout the site? I can describe that. There’s a flush mounted wall wash lighting that will occur at the signs. There’ll be one on either side of that to eliminate the address. As I mentioned, there’s a decorative [bollard] that occurs here and here, that’s a 42 inch high metal colored [bollard] similar to the building architectural metal that’s in direct fixture of a high pressure sodium variety. The neighborhood specifically requested the high pressure sodium versus metal highlight to try and get away from the bright light component. There’s also decorative pole lights that occur in this rear plaza area that creates some overhead illumination to make those outdoor spaces more usable at night, a little bit more pedestrian friendly. In the parking lot areas, there’s a kin, sharp cut off pole lights fixtures that’s going to be used also high pressure sodium that’s matted at a low pole height, very sharp cut-off characteristics of hidden light source so that the light source is not evident from outside, and the photometrics have been calculated to be very efficient, and the minimal amount of intensity that we can do in a safe environment. Vice Chair Lippert: I was going to ask Brian are there any other lights that you know besides the one that has the flat top to it? Mr. Layman, Landscape Architect: We’re tired of those. Vice Chair Lippert: I think you’ve used them on every single project that I’ve reviewed here. Mr. [Crone’g], Building Architect: We value the consistency of Gary and his esthetic but if it’s in a matter of concern for the Board, certainly we could explore alternatives. Vice Chair Lippert: No, no, they’re fine. Just wondering if you knew any other fixtures. Mr. [Croney], Building Architect: Vice Chair Lippert: Good, okay. Chairman Bellomo: Judith? We do know of some others actually. I don’t have any further questions. BM Wasserman: Thank you. I have a few questions. I guess the first question that I had was you said somewhere that you were told you needed to have one building and not two. Who told you that? Mr. [Croney]. Buildin~ Architect: Let me clarify that. The initial site planning anticipated two buildings. This is about a 82,000 square foot building on two floors that is about 40,000 square feet per floor. We anticipated breaking up and having a monolithic 40,000 square foot floor, we anticipated breaking it into two pieces, but with the possibility of linking them, either as part of the initial proposal design proposal, or down the road. Once the tenant was identified, we would know whether or not this was a single tenant complex or a multi-tenant complex. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page So, in the time sense we met with you last time in July, a tenant has been identified. A single tenant, and their desire that they could move from one building to the other through an enclosed link and that they also have a single lobby for the site. So, we anticipated that that might come at some point in the future. I think when we came to you in July, it was still two discreet buildings with a gap. So, the proposal is now is to fill that gap with a very transparent element and that will become the site lobby. BM Wasserman: So, this was not a building department direction that said, had to do with your permits of one building only or something? I see. [Crone,/], Building Architect: No, from a code standpoint, it’s considered one building. BM Wasserman: Okay, thank you. I had a couple of has not questions. What is sparging of air mean? Mr. [Cronev], Building Architect: I wish I could pass that to Gary but we have a representative from Stanford Management, Annette Walton who handles these issues for Stanford. BM Wasserman: Sometimes you need a glossary for these projects. Mr. [Croney], Buildin~ Architect: I’d like to know what that is, too, actually. Annette Walton, Envrionmental Specialist for Stanford: It’s actually quite clean. Hi, I’m Annette Walton and I’m the environmental specialist for Stanford Management Company. And part of my responsibility is to track what our tenants are doing in the Research Park as far as ~ound water clean up, cycling or things of that nature. Basically, air sparging system is you’re blowing air into the gound to force air through the vapors in the soil, excuse me, through the pore pressures in the soil and then you collect it, an extraction well. And then that air is then sucked up and run through a [JC] which is a [granure] activated carbon and it treats the air before released into the atmosphere. BM Wasserman: So, it’s a way of using air to clean the soil? Ms. Walton. Envrionmental Specialist for Stanford: It’s a way of vaporizing the chemicals to release them into the air and then collect it, and then send to a treatment system. BM Wasserman: The chemicals are in the soil or in the spaces between the soil particles or something? Ms. Walton. Envrionmental Specialist for Stanford: Correct. And dissolved in ground water. and it’s basically vaporizing it. BM Wasserman: Okay. And it says that this is a temporary installation. How long do you expect that to be going on? Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page 3_3 Ms. Walton, Envrionmental Specialist for Stanford: Actually, we talked to [Alza] just recently and they’re estimating that the clean-up will be completed by June of next year. BM Wasserman: So, June of ’02? Ms.Walton. Envrionmental Specialist for Stanford: Yes, ma’am. BM Wasserman: So the clean up maybe finished before the project is complete? Ms.Walton, Envrionmental Specialist for Stanford: That’s correct. BM Wasserman: Wouldn’t you like that? Okay, geat. Thank you very much. That’s the end of my has not questions. I had a question, I think it’s for Staff, about the exempt floor area. What floor areas could beexempt and why? Staff French: There’s a provision in the Zoning Code that allows the area that would be for cafeteria, they call it Employee Amenity area, it could include child care, cafeteria, anything that would be dry cleaning services, something like that would allow the employees to basically not leave the building and, therefore, it’s not additional office area that sort of thing. And that is exempt from not only the floor area ratio calculations but it’s exempt from parking calculations and it’s exempt from traffic mitigation fees, from housing mitigation fees for that exempt area. And that’s what John says, and it’s exclusively for the employees so it’s not for other people coming from the public. The idea is that it’s not increasing the traffic, it’s reducing the traffic in that sense, or the impacts. BM Wasserrnan: I see, thank you. I have some landscape questions. On Page 21 of the Staff Report, there was some conditions from the ManaNng regarding mostly the plantings along Hanover, annual color beds and additional plantings added to the entrance and lobby area. Could you explain, I mean beyond the lawn, it’s hard for me to tell from the planting plan what is actually being planted there. There’s something that’s brown right up against the buildings and then there are green circles with red dots in the middle and dark geen. What’s gowing on there? Mr. Layman. Landscape Architect: Sure, I’ll take you through that entry sequence there. As Lee was asking, there’s lawn in these light ~een panels here. There’s ~ound cover that’s up against the curb providing that buffer strip along the planting strip along Hanover. Within the central entry island there, there’s a combination of shrub planting and seasonal color that will sort of be scaled down appropriate to the size for the sign, so that will create several focal entry point. There’s also annual color proposed in these areas in front of the walls so it’s intended that the walls be sort of a backdrop for more colorful plantings so we changed out on a quarterly basis, so you’d have a variety of annuals and perennials that will be used in those areas. Those are pretty highly intensive water use areas and so we’ve made them very concise in that regard. Along this area here then, there’s evergeen hedge that’s anticipated to be about 4 feet high and would help to screen the view to the parking area beyond, and sort of soften the space and sort of Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10! 18/01 ARB Meeting Page define it as an auto court. This planting will continue around this back side as well. In this area here, we’ve actually looked at reducing some of this paving for the development of the plants, I think that actually are represented on your set. And we’ve concentrated in this area and primarily providing site amenities like benches, furniture which helps to provide, we think a very pleasant approach to the building. But this area is over the structural slab of the parking slab, and we looked at this relative to how the building is being shaded. We looked at the hilly done studies in such a feel that this plaza really is an urban type space and it’s a very lush garden, and so we started contrasting this area from what’s going on all the way around it and feel that that’s an appropriate response as a part of the entrance to the building. BM Wasserman: I was just curious about why that area seemed to be the plainest and the more interesting planting areas seem to be further away. I mean if this is your entrance, if you have little skinny strips of annuals and a big lawn and they both take a lot of water, have you thought about having a larger annual bed at the entrance as a sort of as a geeting to people and making the lawn a little bit smaller. Having potted plants in the plaza area rather than expecting the obviously you’re not going to plant them over the garage. But had you explored a more exuberant palate at the entrance? Mr. Layman. Landscape Architect: Well, I think your intent is correct in that you want to try to celebrate this as the entry sequence. I think that we have a good proportionate of planting in these areas to be able to help create a focal feature or something that you really can celebrate from a landscape standpoint. But as you get further into the building here, it’s really the building that we’re trying to position as the thing that’s being celebrated. And part of the challenge within this project with this lawn frontage and the extensive tree planting, and the side was coming up and being able to see where the building entrance was to let the building communicate that its presence need to be there. And so by bringing this in and allowing the building to be exposed in this area, we’re really letting the building speak there. We don’t think that it needs to be mitigated in any sense by the landscape. Staff French: I’d like to add something to that, if you don’t mind my interruption. We do have a condition requiring additiona! plantings at that entrance and lobby area through planters and that sort of things. So, I haven’t heard an objection from the applicant about that condition, so I anticipate unless there’s - Mr. Layman, Landscape Architect: I did actually object to that condition during the presentation. Staff French: Oh, I see. BM Wasserman: I was sort of asking why he wasn’t responding to that condition because it was conditioned and it wasn’t showing up. So, I did want to know why we have an issue. I don’t know who would answer this question. It has to do with street lighting along California Avenue. Are there, there must be somewhere existing street lights, how are they related to your allay? Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 Page ARB Meeting . Mr. Layman. Landscape Architect: The trees are positioned to not be in conflict with the street lights. The street lights are existing there and so the trees will be positioned subject to those existing lights. BM Wasserman: I don’t remember what those lights look like, I’m sorry. I’ve always watched my feet when I’m walking down there. Mr. Layrnan, Landscape Architect: They’re not something I think that you’ve really worth seeing. BM Wasserman: Would want to remember, okay. Thank you. I have a question about the architecture. Actually, the - Chairman Bellomo: Okay, I need to interrupt. We need to adjourn this meeting at this time. There is a situation that they need to take the room and secure it. Staff Lusardi: My apologies to everyone, especially with the back~ound noise. We’ve just been informed that the Secretary of Energy will be here at 3:00 for a special presentation and the Secret Service needs access to the chambers as soon as possible, and so does the Staff for set up. So, it’s really the will of the Board at this point to you’re going to have to continue the item. Unfortunately, you can continue it to the next available meeting on November 1st, or you can continue it to a week from today and we can do a special meeting. My apologies to the applicant and the Board for this. Chairman Bellomo: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 10/18/01 ARB Meeting Page Attachment C City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Draft Excerpt Minutes of the Meeting of November 1, 2001 Chairman Bellomo: So, we can move to unfinished business, a major public hearing, Item 2, 2475 Hanover Street, 01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15, request by MBT Architecture on behalf of Stanford Management Company representing Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees for Architectural Review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the demolition of two buildings on a 4.7 acre site and the construction of a two-story office building comprising 81,928 square feet. An undergound parking facility will provide 146 parking spaces and 127 parking spaces will be provided on gade. This was an item that is continued, as we were interrupted at the last meeting. Maybe Amy, you want to explain, or John, how we go, where we start. Staff Lusardi: Mr. Chair, Members of the Board. Before Amy introduces the project, I do want to point out that this item was heard or started at the last Architectural Review Board meeting. At that time, there was an invitation that was accepted by the Secretary of Energy from the White House to participate in a discussion here in the chambers on that afternoon. The City is always proud to welcome any member of the White House as far as discussing items and issues relative to the community. Unfortunately, at that time, there was also a breakdown in communications between the Staff and the City about the arrival of the Secretary of Energy. And this item had to be abruptly ended and continued to this ARB meeting. At this time, we are asking the ARB to resume their questions for this item. I would like to, at this time, apologize to the ARB and especially the applicant for that sudden interruption. We are sincerely sorry about that, the applicant and the architect was in the middle of their presentation and responding to questions and that was an unfortunate set of circumstances and we do apologize on behalf of the City. Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, John, for your explanation. We, too, apologize. Staff French: I’d like to say a few words about the project. The project, as John said, was continued, we were in the middle of ARB questions. We had opened the public hearing, taken public testimony, closed the public hearing. For the benefit of Drew Maran, who was not here at the last meeting, the applicants will do a brief presentation. The other items that I’d like to respond to in your Staff Report cover memo, we did note that Ms. Ogawa had submitted a letter criticizing the Mitigated Negative Declaration and we got also a letter from Mr. Garrett who is in support of the project. And what I would like to say is that we have thoroughly gone over Ms. Ogawa’s letter and we have a response that I can read off at some point, I ’m not sure. Now is the time? Okay. And I will go over that. The other item is that I have put at places two things. Number one, is condition number 11.4 which is revised. This is regarding the $150,000 that was offered to the City for traffic calming and improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood in connection with this project. We’ve Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 1 refined the wordings to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the project applicant has received a copy of that. The other items is that we did have a brief meeting which Chair Bellomo, you might want to mention that later but we talked in between this meeting and the previous meeting regarding some changes at the lobby and those are at places as well, just concept sketches showing that direction. The comments that Joy Ogawa made in her letter regarded land use planning, population and housing and traffic she based on after reading the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I just want to, for the record, address those. The City Zoning regulations do not specify law firms as being in a different category of use than professional offices, which are allowed in the Stanford Research Park as a permitted use. The replacement of toxicologists, which was Alza with lawyers is not an environmental impact. The City’s environmental analysis of the use only deals with the potential physical impact. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and land use designation of research office park. The proposed law office is at least as compatible with the nearby residential neighborhood as the previous R&D firm which generated ~ound water pollution on the site. The applicant has met with College Terrace Resident Association several times and has modified their plans during the process before they came to the ARB to address their concerns regarding the design. The new building will be set back 105 feet from the property line on California Avenue, which is sig-nificantly larger setback than that of the existing building. In addition to the proposed building setback, a landscaped berm and significant tree plantings are proposed between the building and California Avenue. This represents a substantial buffer for the neighborhood and is an adequate method of achieving a gadual transition and scale of development between residential and non-residential areas. Regarding population and housing. The net new office area will be 30,428 square feet. This represents a potential increase of 121, roughly, jobs. It’s about one-tenth, 1% of the total number of jobs in Palo Alto. This expansion is not inherently inconsistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. It should also be noted that ABAG’s projections include some moderate job gowth in Palo Alto. In addition, the City of Palo Alto has met our market rate housing goals. It is true that the City supply affordable housing must increase. The project applicant will pay $128,000 and change in housing mitigation fees for this project. And Staff has recommended an increase in the City’s housing mitigation fees, which the fee is currently under review by the City’s Finance Committee for an increase. Regarding traffic. As noted in transportation condition 9.1, the traffic counts of April 2000 occurred when only 31,000 square feet of the existing 51,500 square foot Alza building was occupied. The City’s Transportation Planner assumed an addition of 51,000 square feet in the category of single tenant office land use, with the corresponding increase of 91 a.m. peak hour trips, which does not exceed the 100 trip threshold. In addition a build-out of the site was included in the comprehensive plan, EIR Analysis. Therefore, a Traffic Study was not required. The project is subject to the City’s traffic mitigation Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 2 fees and the applicant will pay $92,196 and change for the project. The Traffic Report in the file was prepared by Stanford Management Company for their own use. The report conforms with the Valley Transportation Authorities requirements. The reports were assumptions include an increase of 30,500 square feet, whereas, the City had assumed an increase of 51,000 square feet for the purpose of calculating potential trip increases. The City studied the project as an office use which is a long-term use of the site. The City’s analysis was based on the square footage increase and appropriate engineering studies, ITE, of these uses. Even if, as Ms. Ogawa states, the use of the office by a law firm would generate 50% more trips than other office tenants, resulting in 81 peak a.m. trips and 78 peak p.m. trips, these numbers are still less than the 100 trip threshold use by the City in their analysis. It should also be noted that the Page Mill Road, Hanover Street intersection is next in line and it’s been budgeted for improvements in the City. With that, there are no other changes to the report or circumstance. Vice Chair Lippert: It’s my understanding that on this particular item, we cannot take action on this. Could you clarify that for us? Staff French: The item in your agenda, I believe it’s number 4, 2051 E1 Camino Real has that problem, and we’ll discuss that when that project is before you. This one was interrupted during review that you should ideally take action on today. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay, thank you. Chairman Bellomo: The applicant’s presentation, please? Jean Snider, Applicant: Hi, my name is Jean Snider and I work for the Stanford Management Company. We are the owners of this project. I’d like to first introduce the team. We have Bryan Croeni from MBT Architecture, and Gary Laymon from Guzzardo Partnership. And on behalf of all of us, I just wanted to say your apoloNes are accepted, and I think we’d like to see the silver lining in things. And I think that in this case, the silver lining is that we did get to meet with Joe, who was kind enough to meet with us over the last two weeks, and we’ve redesig-ned the entry sequence and are very excited to show that to you today. So, I’m going to turn it over to Bryan. Bryan Croeni. Architect. MBT: With permission, Drew, since you weren’t here last time I want to spend a couple of minutes to talk about basic site planning concepts and how we kind of arrived at this point and then I’ll jump into more specific discussion of architecture, and in particular some improvements we have been able to make in our judgment. The site, as you recall, is rectangular with the narrow end in front of the neighborhood on California and the long edge along the frontage on Hanover. We have kept curb cuts away from the corner, away from the neighbors. As Staff indicated, we’ve created a 105 foot setback, and that’s enough room for a substantial landscape berm - it’s about a 7 foot berm. Gary Laymon will address the particulars of landscape solution and in addition, some enhancements and some more detail added to the main drop-off area. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 1111/01 ARB Meeting Page 3 The buildings are linked now by a glazed enclosed space which will serve as a site lobby for this single tenant for the buildings. I think when we were here for your preliminary review last summer, there was some question as to who the tenant would be and whether or not there would be a hard link between the buildings proposed as part of the initial construction. So, actually, the pause that we’ve had after the interruption of the previous ARB has allowed us to kind of focus on an area that was sort of influx from a desig-n standpoint. And I think I’d like to explain what we kind of picture happening there now. The buildings, each are about 40,000 feet. Again, the most important thing I think we’ve done on this site is place more than half of the parking underneath the building, which has allowed ample landscaping of the perimeter and the setbacks that we’re able to accomplish. The building is offset, so as to set the building that is closest to the neighborhood back from the Hanover frontage as well as from the California frontage. And in that offset, we’ve actually managed to hide the ramp or to kind of block the ramp by placing the building there. So, the building is intended to step back to create, primarily a landscape expression at the intersection of Hanover and California. Additional things we’ve done in conjunction with the Energy Center, the PG&E Energy Center, is we’ve modeled the building on the Heliodon and devised a series of sunscreens apply to the outside of the building to handle critical exposures. And we’ve met their standards which is half the glass shielded half the time. And that was a very useful thing to do with them. We’ve also proposed some enhancements to the envelope in terms of insulation to create a standard that’s higher than the Title 24 standard. I even asked Gary to talk about landscaping in a minute, but I think just for a moment to talk about the architecture in general. This is a view, it’s a created view because what we had to do in order to show the building from the corner from here, essentially, the corner of Hanover and California, isto strip away the 7 foot berm and to strip away the planting so you can actually see the building. This is the neighbor’s view, first and foremost. The materials of the building are three: 1] is a GFRC cementitious panel, natural concrete, sandblasted in the shop; 2] a complementary metal panel system, and I’ll get to the reasons for the metal panel system in a moment; and then 3] metal and glass window wall. The samples, which are actually on the wall, are sort of buff color of sort of sandstone color of the GFRC, blue-geen glass which gets a lot of daylight into the buildings, and then a warm dull sheen metallic metal which would be both the window mullions and the column jack and so forth, as well as these panels. Now, the reason for the panels is to again, in conjunction with the neighborhood work sessions, to do things to add detail to the building and kind of dematerialize the building at the ends, at the California Street end in particular, although it’s symmetrical. The same treatment that happens here facing the neighbors, happens at the other end of the building. What we’ve done to accomplish that is to drop the extent or the height of the GFRC panels, so near the entrance to the building you see the full two-story expression in GFRC panels with setback windows and some modest solar screening. And then, as it approaches the neighborhood, we’ve dropped the GFRC panels down to a single story, and then a transition to more glass and more of transparencies of lighter construction, capped off in this case with a Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1101 ARB Meeting Page 4 metal panel that harmonizes with the window wall system. Rather than putting kind of a heavy cementitious material all the way up to the parapet height. What this looks like in real life with the berm and the trees is something like this so you can see the purpose in creating the original drawings that you have something to look at. Again, this is an amply landscaped site and the landscape treatment is something that is going to be first and foremost, particular where it abuts the neighborhood. I guess we’re in Q&A, so feel free to interrupt with questions. But if there are no questions in terms of the overall, I want to show one more image of the end of the building as it would be seen from the neighbors. Again, the GFRC panel up to sill height on the second floor, then the metal and glass sort of notching in comers and articulation of the edges, again, to dematerialize the building and they get more interesting and cast more shadows on the neighborhood side. ¯ I’d like to move then now to the link, the linking structure which was a subject of some discussion over the last week. And it’s depicted as oriNnally submitted to the Board in this image. It essentially was an attempt to be very transparent to provide views through from the front to the back of the site. Essentially, a glass treatment with a glass weather protection above the doors and a small piece of sun screening that shaded some of the glass. We were anticipating a series of fritted and vision units that would have moderated the solar gain. This is basically south facing, southwest facing, so it’s a significant solar exposure. We had an opportunity to kind of think about this a little bit more on our own in a work session with Mr. Bellomo. And have generated a concept which is depicted on these boards and in a package, I believe that was left to you. And these are sketchy in nature but they require some explanation. But in concept, recognizing that there is an opportunity at this link at the main entrance, to add additional detail and perhaps add elements that facilitate a sense of indoor or outdoor transition. We are proposing a porch-like element added to the building. It’s represented here in sections. Here, this is the section through the link with the main drop-off area here from the back of the site here. The element that we’re proposing is here, it is fabricated to be integral with the window wall. It’s a plane which actually continues through the window wall. On the exterior side, it will carry an aluminum grading similar tO what we’re using elsewhere. So, essentially in our view creates a porch for the building. It provides a lot of solar shading for that glass and facilitates sort of slight blurring of the indoor/outdoor aspects. We’re proposing also that this link be naturally ventilated with operable windows, so in days of nice weather you can open the windows and it really can be outdoors. This is a view of what it might look like. We make some assumptions about the tenant treatments on the inside but this is an attempt to depict that plane in perspective, standing in the link looking back out to the main entry drive and the landscaping. The intention is to have that plane extend into the space and we’re looking at ways of illuminating that from below, there’ll be columns here, the idea at night time of having some light that is sort of illuminating that element. It creates a focus for the project, and I think it actually makes it a better building. So, if you have questions about this? Chairman Bellomo: Does Gary want to go over his portion and then we’ll go to questions. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 5 Gary_ Lavmom Landscape Architect: Gary Laymon with the Guzzardo Partnership. I’d like to briefly go over some of the elements that are new relative for the development of the entry plaza and I’d be happy to respond to any questions regarding the overall site plan. As we were talking about before, I think what we heard was that there was a concern that there was a lot of paving in this area here, kind of a hot space. I think there was a yearning to try and get more detail in there, make it more pedestrian focused and we saw that as a good challenge and I think we’ve made the project better as a result of that. The original scheme we had this area was paved throughout and there wasn’t really any planting in here. And the planting coming up through that front entrance off of Hanover was relatively simple and plainer. We’ve taken the opportunity to look at increasing the amount of planting area and making it more interesting and providing more pedestrian enhancements in that area. Specifically, we put that, changing these areas out from a concrete plaza here and we’ve introduced more cobblestone areas with new planters that will have trees in it, sort of bringing the idea that we had in the back pedestrian court and bringing that forward. In this area as well, we’ve looked at, very specifically, how the paving treatment is executed. I brought some materials along to show what the nature of these areas are and happy to pass it around. In this area here, we’re looking at a combination of using exposed aggregate paving and these fields with the detail scoring pattern with integal color within the concrete that will match the building architecture. The bands then will be done in smooth texture so there’s a series of banding that occurs across this frontage here, both front and back to kind of give it a nice sense of scale. The coloration of that exposed ag~egate material kind of brings out some of the red and blue tones in the gound paving which can also, I think will act as a cooling element to the rest of the building architecture color. Now, the cobblestone paving will be rather large in size and will be integrated into these areas here in which the pre-cast pots will rest in. We’ve looked also at adding annual color planters in the same sort of pre-cast material that we had for the trees originally. So, these are new here and again, looking at trying to align those and reinforcing that with the concrete banding so that there is more of a sense of transparency or linkage or movement going through that space, and we saw that added details as a real benefit to the project. We’ve also incorporated benches. These areas here and we have tables and chairs. This area back here is really inviting people to linger in this space and not just treat it strictly as a transitiona! space. The auto plaza itself is done in a rich interlocking paving stone material. It will be set in a radial pattern. The color will be slightly redder than this so it’s a little more complementary to the building. But the notion here is that we’re establishing this sort of radial pattern, it helps to reinforce the movement that we see going on in here. As you come in off the entrance off of Hanover, there’s an extra space here that we’ve desig-ned which aligns with the structure of the parking garage underneath so it’s sort of a scene that, is there any way that we want to sort of disguise. And what this will do then is allow for a space here for the inevitable 3- minute or 5-minute delivery of FedEx, UPS, first thing in the morning. And it allows those Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 6 people to be able to make a complete circle within this area before exiting out. So, we’re really trying to look at how to accommodate it so it doesn’t become an obstruction as a part of the entrance, and a lot of people to exit out in the most convenient way possible. In the section here, it helps to depict what’s described here as a section cutting through here. This is the Hanover Street frontage here. The new trees which are in the pre-cast planters here, the new annual color plantings here, the benches, the bicycle racks that you move really convenient to the front door but yet hidden within that space, the continuation of the planters and then the tables and chairs underneath the trees in the backgound area there. So, we think in combination with the architecture of our own, there’s been a real movement on this which will make it a much more friendly space. Chairman Bellomo: Are you done? Okay, we’ll have some questions, we’ll go to questions then for you. BM Wasserman: Could you show us the old board again? Move this board to the side and, because it looks like you’ve added two big annual beds in the front. Gary Lavmon, Landscape Architect: Well, actually one element that you had discussed last time which I forgot to mention, was taking the lawn and cutting that back on either side of this entry here and extending this annual color bed in front and back of those entry gate walls, so there is a lot more color and interest in that front entry experience. Thank you. BM Wasserman: Thank you. I did want to say that I was delighted to see that change in the entry. I think it really livens things up and it sort of makes a little segue from the landscaping to the architecture because I think one of the most interesting features there is that off center circular paving, and that kind of eccentricity really appeals to me and I was wondering if there was any chance of getting that into the architecture, and have you, I’m looking for my ancient notes from last time. Have you looked at the architectural elevations in the same spirit of the landscaping that something less symmetrical, less insistent in its regularity and rhythm? Bryan Croeni. Architect: You’re addressing me. BM Wasserman: I think, yes. Look at your elevations of the long one. The short one seems to be appropriate. That’s the one. The short one seems to be appropriate for their condition but the long one seems to be very tong and very regular. Bryan Croeni. Architect: Well, we always caution our clients when we show them drawings like this that elevations are very abstracted and these buildings are never viewed in this way from an infinite distance without everything sort of being flat and planer. But getting to the point of your comment, we preferred to have a counterpoint between landscape that was more of natural and sort of whimsical perhaps, and a more of a Cartesian sort of straightforward orderly building, which is intended to be in the background. So, that’s a matter of our intent and it’s consistent with the desire, I believe on Stanford’s part to pursue relatively conservative, sort of, I don’t want to use the word timeless, but something that is sort of meant to be Research Park like, and not to Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1101 ARB Meeting Page 7 be kind of keyed to a particular place in time in terms of day or stylistic elements. So, we’ve understood our goal and our objective in the design of these buildings to be understated and elegant, if we’re able to rise to that level. So, it’s really a question of where we are headed. And we like, I should say, the kind of interplay between the kind of dynamics to the landscape in a more sedate architecture. Other issues that drive the architecture are flexibility of use over time, that the tenant that’s been designated for this building will be the first of many tenants. We’re trying to look at this building in the long-term as Stanford, it will have many occupants over the time. So, it’s difficult to find elements or in a particular tenant’s progam to kind of create a focal point or something because that would exist only for that tenant and would become a burden perhaps for future tenants. BM Wasserman: In your original presentation before you had the single tenant and linked the buildings together, there was more dynamics going on between the two, I mean at that time they were separate buildings, but in this case you have two parts of a building that could.have some tension between them and yet you chose to make them look identical. Bryan Croeni. Architect: Oh, you mean this one and this one? BM Wasserman: Yes. Bryan Croeni. Architect: Well, yes, that is the, we really haven’t talked about the kind of internal planning considerations that led to this building configuration, but there is a desire on the part of our client and MBT to create floor plates that are reflective of what the market is looking for. That’s expressed in terms of depths of buildings and should at some point in the future, the building go to a multi-tenant building. There’s certain kind of dimensional parameters which I’m sure you’re all familiar with, and floor plate sizes and some inherent flexibilities,.I think and the ability to conceive of this project at some point in the future is two buildings of equal size as oppose to two buildings of unequal size. BM Wasserman: But I mean, you didn’t address even the skin any differently that the two are perfectly identical, you didn’t address the color, the texture, anything at all. Bryan Croeni. Architect: We saw them as being two buildings constructed at the same time in response to. the same requirements and that we wanted to preserve the sense it could be seen as a single building, or as a campus of buildings that share a vocabulary, share materiality, share an aesthetic approach. So consistency, I guess was what we were after and the ability over the life of this building to see it as potentially two discreet buildings but also to see it as a single building constructed at the same time by the same architect. BM Wasserman: Okay. I have a question about your new porch cover. And how it is held up, connected to the, you said something about columns? And then in the front perspective I didn’t see any columns. What is holding that lovely thing up? Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 1111/01 ARB Meeting Page 8 Bryan Croeni, ArChitect: Okay, well, that’s a good question. Would you like to answer that, Gary? BM Wasserman: And what is going to keep it from cracking and falling down the earthquake? Bryan Croeni. Buildin.o Architect: The way they conceive of it and the column should be indicated in the perspective that you have. There are four columns. BM Wasserman: Oh those, that’s what those are. Bryan Croeni, Architect: We’ve been scrambling to prepare this material. We have done a lot of time, we recycled an earlier perspective that happened to have a tree right in the middle although we couldn’t quite figure out how to make that tree to go away, so we’re asking your indulgence to view through the tree and see essentially, two rows of four columns. There’s a row here at the edge and we see this is a painted steel column with a rounded base and perhaps a structural shape " emerNng from it. And then embedded either in the window or itself or just in-boarded the window wall is the additional line of support. So, those supports are indicated in this diagam. BM Wasserman: I see. And so that overhang is not attached to the sides of the building. Bryan Croeni. Architect: That’s correct. BM Wasserman: Okay. And do you have some kind of structural provisions for lateral supports? Br~an Croeni, Architect: Yes. Again, this is a concept and we will have to refine the engineering but there is a seismic joint across this edge. The seismic joint is right here, so what happens is that this link will move with this piece of building, they’re rigidly connected. So, since these support elements do continue up into the roof diaphragm, they’re going to transfer lateral into that roof diaphragm. We’ve got some moment frames on either side to take that. We’ll have to check the engineering to make sure the members are sized for that additional lateral but we’re really talking about a stick system and fairly lightweight elements so we don’t have a problem with that. BM Wasserman: And you don’t think the glass is going to, what are you doing with the glass to keep it from falling down? Bryan Croeni. Architect: Which glass? BM Wasserman: The glass in the top. The upper part of that, that transparent looking one. Bryan Croeni. Architect: Oh, I apoloNze, maybe I wasn’t clear about what our intention is there. What we’re proposing is for aluminum gating to be provided. BM Wasserman: That’s not glass? Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 9 Bryan Croeni, Architect: That’s not glass. The glass that’s depicted here is actually weather protection over the doors. So, what we’re after here is not a transparency through glass but rather more of trellis-y kind of a lath house. BM Wasserman: Do you have any of that grating here for us to see? Bryan Croeni, Architect: We do not. It is identical, what’s proposed is identical to what this Board approved for the project at Tibco which is one of the H_illview projects. It’s aluminum bars held together by rods and we’d certainly be able, we’d be happy to - BM Wasserman: Oh, that stuff, okay. Bryan Croeni. Architect: And it’s set into steel frames on a bunch of angles. BM Wasserman: This thing that looks like I’m looking through a glass roof, is not accurate. Bryan Croeni. Architect: Well, if you looked very closely, you’d see some pretty faint pencil lines. And I think the reality of the installation here would be that you’d be more aware of this kind of louver-ing, and you wouldn’t be seeing as much sky through it. It certainly reads in this drawing as though it were glass, and that’s our mistake. We weren’t trying to fool anybody. And the reason for it not to be glass is that we really do believe in illuminating this at night. So there has to be enough stuff up there to catch the edge of light. We want it to kind of glow as a suspended plane transitioning, sort of welcoming the people into the building. BM Wasserman: Okay, thank you very much. Chairman Bellomo: Drew, do you have some questions? BM Maran: Just a couple of general questions. You talked about possible conversion to multi- tenants, and this may be directed at Stanford more than you. Is there any consideration when you’re designing a building or a couple of buildings like this of future uses other than, for example, offices. In other words, converting it to what it was, labs before, is there any consideration of different uses? Bryan Croeni. Architect: I’m not sure how to respond to that. We always look for flexibilities. We’ve employed a five foot planning module which is typical for office and high-tech types of buildings. It’s not ideally, modularly applied to a laboratory building, for example. And laboratory buildings also have additional requirements that come with them related to equipment yards and some things that have to be mounted behind buildings and air handlers that are commonly required for those kinds of buildings are a little bit larger, and we haven’t made provisions for those things. We’re trying to keep the, I think it’s essentially an office building, a slightly tech-y office building. I don’t think any of us envisioned a laboratory use at some point in the future. There are things that would be provided in a building intended for that purpose at some point that are not provided in this building. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 10 BM Maran: So, it sounds like when you talk about unlimited flexibility in the desig-n, it was from single tenant to multi-tenant, but still office? Bryan Croeni, Architect: Yes, it wasn’t a use change, it was really a tenant mix concern. BM Maran: One of the reasons I’m asking is just in terms of the, the one thing I want to get to is the sustainability measures that you’ve proposed. Just how long do you think this building will be here? How long will it be with us? The last one was it, 40 years? 50 years. On a pro forma, is that how you do it? Chairman Bellomo: You want to use the microphone, please? Introduce yourself. Jean Snider, Applicant: I think, we don’t, I guess look at that intentionally as far as how many years specifically, but I think we’d want it to last as long as it can. I mean, I ’d say 50 years is probably a good number. BM Maran: As long as you can because someone might then respond, welt, their buildings have been around for 2,000 years and they were constructed before us and seismic regulations were, excuse some sarcasm. I’m just trying to understand how this building is projected as, in terms of its interplay with the community as well, how changes that might occur either in the community in the ratio of housing to office space, all the issues that seem to come into play with the design of a project like this as well as its approvals through interaction with the community. And future changes in Palo Alto in terms of what type of businesses base themselves in Palo Alto, such as Biotech or some sort of Biotech, is clearly the use. Would Alza be considered Biotech? Staff French: Toxicologists. Bryan Croeni, Architect: Life sciences. BM Maran: So I was just curious how that’s going to work. You mentioned that you took it to the Pacific Energy Center Heliodon and you looked at their preferred ratio of, I think you said half the glass being shielded half of the time. Bryan Croeni, Architect: Yes. BM Maran: That sounds great. Did anybody study the cost savings that you achieve or would achieve by complying with that ratio? Has there been any kind of cost benefit analysis? Bryan Croeni. Buildin~ Architect: We could extract that. It is achieved exclusively through, well, there are some small portions where there will be one, one notch will shade another, and we actually have images of the Heliodon studies if you have an interest either now or after the hearing. BM Maran: If you could pass those around, that would be great. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 11 Bryan Croeni, Architect: It’s a single board but I’ll put it up. This is not intended to depict reality, not huge skylights out there in the sky but this is the PG&E space. But these are selected images, photographs taken at various points in time that illustrate the shading benefit. As I started to say, the cost associated with meeting that standard is fairly easy for us to develop because it’s really the cost of the sun screen elements that have been added at the critical exposures because that would be something we could generate quite easily. I don’t have that number with me now. BM Maran: So, it seems as if the cost is on the plus side, or additional sunscreens and whatever time it took you to go to the San Francisco for the Heliodon and on the negative side, if possible energy systems or energy savings, those are sort of the ratios that were often being questioned about when we suggest that projects or buildings you use sun shades and consider the solar exposures. So, in that light, what effect did the operable windows, and I’m happy to see those in the project, what effect did those operable windows have on this study? Bryan Croeni. Architect: Well, I’d like to clarify the operable window statement. I believe the intent of the Staff Report was that in conjunction with the studies that we are doing the link, that the operable windows that are being proposed are for the link at this point, not applied universally over the building. We worked with Ryan Strope at the Energy Center, you may know him, and we were surprised, and dialogued with him, to find that they are not placing a tremendously high value in terms of energy conservation on use of operable windows. And it’s really a technical discussion that makes that point. I’m really not qualified to go into the details but as I gather, it has to do with what’s happening behind the wall, whether they’re private offices or not. If they’re private offices and there’s a lot of individual zoning and a lot of mechanical equipment that would make, if there’s an individual choice in opening windows and yet several people share a zone, others in that zone are bound by the choice of the individual who opens the window. So, there’s an implication that there’s a level of complexity in the MEP systems. When it’s hard wall offices at the perimeter, that add to sort of the embodied energy of the building, I assume there’s some sort of energy penalty for maintaining those systems to which some extent are redundant, as well as costly. In other tenant models where open plan offices are located at the perimeter and manager’s offices are internal to the building, it’s a different thing because suddenly there’s a larger zone and those constraints relax a little bit. But that’s a layman’s summary of this, Drew and I’d refer you to Ryan for the detail. BM Maran: Who is the mechanical engineer for the project? Bryan Croeni. Architect: The mechanical engineer will be hired by the tenant for the TI (tenant improvement) work. Typically, in these projects they are design-build so there’s a licensed engineer who is working within mechanical enNneering sub-contractor, basically. BM Maran: How’d you get through Title 24 or how do you get to Title 24? Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/!/01 ARB Meeting Page 12 Bryan Croeni, Buildin~ Architect: We do the envelope analysis so the mechanical/electrical analysis will be submitted for building department review at the time the tenant improvements, which are being designed by another architect, are submitted. It’s not our job to do the Trs for this one. The tenant selected another design firm. So, we’ve proved out, run the numbers, the consultant runs the computer model on the envelope, so we are compliant with the Title 24. You mentioned Title 24 envelope requirements, we have, in fact, exceeded them by a margin. BM Maran: I’m unclear. Are you saying that you as a firm have done the Title 24 calcs? Bryan Croeni. Architect: It’s a computer model which we’re not competent to run. Most architects will hire an independent Title 24 consultant. BM Maran: And that’s what you .did here? Bryan Croeni, Architect: Yes. BM Maran: For the envelope and then a separate mechanical study? Bryan Croeni, Architect: That’s correct. That’s right. There are three components. There is the envelope, there is the mechanical, and there’s electrical. And each one is essentially a computer program. And we have performed, as the shell architects, the first of this, and the firm we are using is a San Jose base firm called ECS. BM Maran: Just a couple more questions on your proposed sustainability measures. Can you tell me anything briefly about the fly-ash and how you got to the 20% - 30% in over half the concrete of 14% elsewhere? Bryan Croeni, Architect: I could address it in general. And we could get back to you with specifics for detail. The fly-ash, everybody understands why it’s done because it’s a by-product and it has certain attributes as a material and the cement which would otherwise take the place, is expensive to, it’s very energy intensive to .produce. One of the unintended consequences of high percentages of fly-ash is that it alters the cure time for the concrete which begins to influence construction sequencing. We’ve also observed interaction between the fly-ash and some of the waterproofing ad mixtures that one adds to concrete if it’s below grade, for example, or slab on grade. So, the percentages that are proposed here are a result of our emerging industry standards and then some experience on the part of the design team in Stanford in that area. BM Maran: Thanks. One thing I’m trying to get a better feel for is, not just for this specific project but in general, especially since Stanford is such a major player in our community, who or how this process occurred? In other words, who in your firm or in engineering...how difficult was it to get that 14% to 30% fly ash incorporated into the specs? So, if you could just summarize that, it would really be helpful and also becomes part of the record that we can refer back to. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 13 Bryan Croeni, Architect: Yes. Knowing that I’m on the record I’ll have to be understandably general. I don’t want to mislead the Board based on a partial understanding of how the process works. But my recollection is that the structural enNneer who is responsible for the kind of structural performance of these components is final arbiter of this. Advised by the general contractor, actually has to place the concrete and is impacted by the sequence of the work and the consequences to moving forward with the construction when certain concrete elements haven’t reached their...haven’t cured fast enough. I think it’s not very scientific now, it’s really a question of what people’s comfort level is having working with it. This is a fairly new concept and it’s a learning process. We’re still in the learning curve. So, it’s not very technical sounding. I’m sorry. There may be more to it than I’m aware of and we’d be happy to relay that to the Board if you’re interested. BM Maran: Whatever information you can pass to us, that becomes a part of the history of this project, becomes possibly useful in the future as well. Bryan Croeni. Architect: I’d be happy to compile something and submit it for your review. BM Maran: So a couple more questions on the sustainability measures. It seems that you’ve committed to using some recycled materials. Have you considered a couple of other recycled materials, for example, in your insulation, going away from a fiberglass, perhaps to a cellulose, or a recycled cotton, or cellulose material? Bryan Croeni, Architect: We have, and this is another general area, because I don’t know the particular discussions. It is considered as with a lot of these recycled materials, it’s emerging and it’s not made in quantity yet. And it is still significantly more expensive than the fiberglass. Also, some of the cellulose materials are, unlike fiberglass, absorbent. So there are issues about moisture and perhaps, I’m speculating at this point, I saw a shake of the head so perhaps there’s more expertise in the Board. I think it’s primarily a question of supply and cost, not performance. BM Maran: And have you considered using FSC certified wood as the structural wood and also architectural millwork? Bryan Croeni, Architect: Well, we have no wood used in the shell construction other than this form work, but I know that the interior’s firm that’s been commissioned to do the tenant improvements is very familiar with sustainability issues. I’m not aware of what their approach is going to be, but they’re certainly knowledgeable, and I guess it would really be something, a question to address to the tenant and their design architect. BM Maran: It was part of the study at the Pacific Energy Center of the solar impact also to consider these solar panels of some sort, either for heating or for electricity. Bryan Croeni. Architect: We are constantly looking, sort of assessing the development of this technology right now, not only as project but others as well. What we’re seeing is a rapid reduction in the payback on the systems partly due to subsidies, but partly also due to Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 14 involvement of major people like British Petroleum and some of the petro-chemical companies, and obviously see the future. In our assessment, the paybacks are not approaching yet the point at which we could recommend them to our clients, but we anticipate that will be achieved shortly and in all of our buildings, we do nothing in the design of the building that would get in the way of those elements being added at some point in the future. We’re not electing to express them as architectural elements right now because we’re not really sure what the picture of the technology is going to look like. Not yet, but the panels will look like they’re modules but there’s nothing that we’ve done in the design of this building shell that would preclude the use of PV (photo-voltaic) panels at some point in the near future perhaps. BM Maran: Does that mean in the building shell construction you might consider prepping for solar panels such as stubbing up conduit which is really all the prep that you need or mounting brackets integated in the roofing system? Bryan Croeni. Architect: Our concern about mounting, we can certainly stub a conduit, that’s a simple thing to do. We’d prefer to have a stubbed up conduit rather than have somebody come back later and poke a hole in our roof. In terms of pre-positioning mounting brackets, that’s where we get a little nervous about Murphy’s Law, in terms of which system, which module, and if something becomes part of the hard building. There’s some real chance that we’ll put them in the wrong place. So, in that case, they don’t need to fasten through. In some cases, there are supports, as long as the structure is in place to support the additional load, there are other details we understand that wouldn’t require the puncture of the membrane. BM Maran: So, let me see if I understood your answer to the first question about solar power correctly. There’s not been a study, a specific cost benefit analysis done and you don’t plan on doing one? Bryan Croeni, Architect: Specific to this project, we have not done the study. We have learned from similar projects what the payback looks like and some of these numbers have been confirmed by the Energy Center. But they’re more or less in concurrence that they haven’t seen the payback get to the point where so that the general development community at large is ready to embrace them, but they see it as likely and probably soon. BM Maran: Approximately, what are the payback periods are you talking about then? 10, 20, 30 years? Bryan Croeni. Architect: Well, 6 to 9 months the last time we ran, well, it’s not the last time we ran it, we were hearing anywhere between 19 and 26 years. I’ve heard some numbers that are as low as 8 to 12 more recently and I’m not sure whether this is a result of the subsidies involved or some reduction in the unit cost. Everybody’s belief is that if the use becomes more widespread, there’ll be significant economy of scale and then your factor. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 15 BM Maran: So, what is Stanford’s view on this if you’re looking at a 50 year building that you could actually be generating power on after 20 years for free or at zero cost? You’re obviously not paying the energy bill so is that your concern? Or is that your consideration? Jean Snider, Applicant: I think it’s two-fold. One is that the tenant does pay for the mechanical system, not only the system but the bills for it and so there is that disconnect. And we do feel that the payback is too long. BM Maran: How short would it be for it tobe in your interest? It sounds like there is no such thing as your interest in this building energy efficient since you’re not paying the energy bills and you don’t pay the mechanical systems. Bill Phillips, Applicant: I’m Bill Phillips. On the subject, I’ll just give you my view on it as well as the possible tenants. When we talk about the length of life of the building and what we expect or hope it might live to, in terms of the happy years, I think Jean’s response about 50 years, 40 or 50 years was right on. I think in terms of anyone wanting to make an investment in a supportable investment and sustainable design, whether it’s Stanford or Lord Norman Foster, they want to put .their money where it has the most bang for the buck or return. The numbers that I’ve seen for inclusion in the building really suggest that even with gants at the energy prices that we’re dealing with today, that you’re talking about at least a 25-year payback and maybe longer than that. The issue there is not how long you expect the building to endure but rather the fact that $100 saved 25 years off in the future is worth less than $t0 today. And if it stretches out more than that, it becomes almost an insignificant amount in today’s terms, and that’s how you measure whether you’re going to do something like that today or spend your money doing something else. So, that’s basically the way we’ve been looking at it and I think that’s the way the tenant would look at it, too, in terms of how affordable is this kind of investment. BM Maran: I understand those points and I certainly concur on the payback period issues. That would be a ~eat argument if we had unlimited resources and, unfortunately, Fossil Fuel is not unlimited so there is some question that I have then about how Stanford, and I’m directing this at Stanford because you own it. And what I’m not seeing at this moment and I’m presenting this as a statement as well as a question, is a specific pro forma or if there’s a specific cost analysis done on this building? Bill Phillips: I think what you are asking are two things. One is sort of our general feeling as Stanford and as if we were a tenant of the building, how we would view the loss of a possible resource well into the future and how we want to live our life as a tenant, Nven that possible condition. And I think that is really a Stanford campus, Stanford as tenant kind of decision. The decisions that we make are more entrepreneurial in terms of the management company’s efforts. We’re looking at real estate as an investment and we’re looking at the tenant’s needs desires and what they can afford in today’s market and any market. And so, I think the Stanford view, like the Gap view, or anybody else’s view, as Hewlett foundation’s view, as to how they want to live their life as a tenant in terms of these concerns are things I think you’ll be hearing from Stanford Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 16 as we’ve heard from Gap and Hewlett. I think as far as responding to a need for doing a specific study on this building in order to satisfy your interest, and whether this building has been evaluated enough, I’m hoping to consider that and I’d like to consult with some of the people here who would let me know how much that’s going to cost and what real information is going to be provided. But I’m not averse to pursuing it if you feel like that’s something that would help your thinking and decision. BM Maran: All right, thank you. That’s all I have. Chairman Betlomo: Thanks, Drew. Lee, questions? You can go ahead and continue. Vice Chair Lippert: I just have a couple of quick questions. Gary, on the landscape, can you please just on the large landscape plan, show me where the outline of the underground parking is in relationship to that plaza? Gary Lavmon. Landscape Architect: Sure, I’ll go to both. But just to give you context, the edge of the structural site goes to here, except this curb line transitions here and then it ends up at the edge of the cobblestone here. So, again, in looking at it in large view, it forms the edge of the cobblestone area, picks up this curb and there’ll be a joint that occurs up to this point, we pick it up at the band again that runs across. Vice Chair Lippert: Are you sure about that? Because I did a little flipping back and forth between it and I came up with the eastern edge of the sidewalk, not the western edge of the sidewalk. Gar~ Lavmom Landscape Architect: You’re thinking this edge? Vice Chair Lippert: Yeah, that’s right. Gary Laymom Landscape Architect: No, no. It was precise site plan, to get the driveways aligned and to work out the width of this driveway to pick up that edge right there. Vice Chair Lippert: And did you look at all at conti~nuing the radial pattern into the plaza, into the pedestrian area and using botlards to make the separation? Gary Lavmom Landscape Architect: We did incorporate bollards to create that separation between the pedestrian and the auto environment. We were specifically using the pavers as a material that was going to be more dedicated towards the vehicular traffic so that a change in materials there would help to scale down the overall massiveness of that plaza feeling. Vice Chair Lippert: Did you look at all at continuing the radial pattern at all? Gary Lavmon. Landscape Architect: Not into the concrete paving, no. We were looking at more trying to create the strengthening of the front and the back plaza, the visual continuity of those spaces back to each other. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 17 Vice Chair Lippert: And if a car were to come in and follow that sort of parking pattern there, a car really wouldn’t be parking perpendicular to the way you came in because it would be difficult to make that sort of radius turn there. You’d actually have to probably do like a 3 point turn in order to - Gary Laymom Landscape Architect: Actually, this is a fairly generous space. It’s a 60-foot square so there’s a lot of play in there. We kind of made that not as large as a fire truck turnaround but large enough so thatvehicles, vans principally, would be able to make that loop. Vice Chair Lippert: And would parking be allowed in that area or would the curb be painted red to prevent (parking)? Gary Laymon, Landscape Architect: It would probably be painted red as the fire department would require. Vice Chair Lippert: How is that, put into the play of everything, and how would that look? Gary Lavmom Landscape Architect: The red fire truck paint? Vice Chair Lippert: Yes. Gary La’vmon, Landscape Architect: Well, I could tell you that it would pick up on some of the red color of the stone on the pavers but as you’re assuming, it’s going to be standing out as a defining feature. Vice Chair Lippert: And I guess, one last question for Bryan. I don’t want to beat a dead horse but with regard to energy and operable windows, wouldn’t a future tenant be putting in hard- walled, private offices around the perimeter, which is what a lot of law firms actually do. Bryan Croeni. Architect: Yes. Vice Chair Lippert: Isn’t there a device where they could, if an associate had opened their window, the mechanical would be shut off in their office? Bryan Croeni. Architect: Yes, I think that in that situation where you’ve got a whole bunch of individual private offices against the exterior wall, each office having a window that is operable, it means that the mechanical system that goes with that needs tO sense that window being open and shut down. So, if the occupant of the adjacent office preferred air conditioning or just didn’t want to open the window, the system would sense the closed window and continue to provide air. It just means there’s a little piece, a little mechanical system dedicated to each office to make that happen. But that is correct, that’s my understanding. Vice Chair Lippert: A question for either Bill, or I guess, you. You do have a tenant for this building already. And what kind of lease are they on? Is it a long-term lease? Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 18 Jean Snider, Applicant: It’s a 10-year lease. Vice Chair Lippert: So it’s a 10-year lease. So it’s not like the 99-year leases that - Jean Snider, Applicant: No, it’s not like a, I look at it as a space lease versus a ground lease like the long-term ground lease you’re thinking of in the 99 years. Vice Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. Chairman Bellomo: A couple of questions. Breakout spaces, and for the record, I did meet with the applicant last Friday at City Hall in the conference room. Thank you. Breakout spaces for the user at the comers - where are they? Are there any? Gary Lavmpn, Landscape Architect: Yes, I’m glad you brought that up. In our conversation last Friday, we talked about that the space planning on the interior of the building is not finalized to a point where we can present to you what they’re thinking is that this, in terms of specific plan locations, preliminary thinking right now, they have breakout spaces as part of their existing facility and they enjoy them very much so they know the value of those and the benefit of those. And then thinking of how we were laying out the site plan and the landscape design, we were looking for ways that people could expand those outdoor environments to create patios outside of the glass environments. And I think the preliminary discussion has been looking at these comer areas and seeing those as possible opportunities for extending patio space out and creating more indoor/outdoor spaces. If there is a perceived need to increase that, our other landscaped areas that plaza spaces could grow into as well. Chairman Bellomo: So how is that triggered in suggested through the landscape plan? Gary Laymon, Landscape Architect:: Well, the landscape plan at first their space available to allow it to happen so we don’t have to remove parking or other sort of things. So in that sense the landscape plan doesn’t prevent those sorts of things from occurring. But in terms of when would that trigger, or how would that occur, it would be as they develop their space plans they look at where their community areas are, where their conferencing type facilities would be, cafeteria spaces and they would push out from that point. And those are the changes would come back to you as a part of your review. Chairman Bellomo: And I think this question was asked last meeting. Signage, monument signage, signage for the building - is there any suggested locations? Gary Laymon, Landscape Architect: Right here, actually in the detailed plan there’s a very small, sort of understated wall that would have the address and the tenant indicated. And there would be ground mounted up lighting at that point. Chairman Bellomo: That’s not lit at this point. There is, it is, you said ground mounted lighting? Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 19 Gary Laymon, Landscape Architect: Right. Chairman Bellomo: Let’s see, Bryan, just a couple of questions back to this energy management or energy questions. As we know, the more natural light you have the less lighting, the less heat gain, the less HVAC system requirements are triggered. These plates are fairly wide. Was there any idea of getting some natural light breaking through this building, slicing into it? Do you have any skylights? Bryan Croeni, Architect: Well, we did not explore slicing through the second floor to bring light down to the ground floor in the middle of these plates. There were two issues from our point of view. One is that where you want to bring the light down at the center of the building also coincides with the zone where we’d have mechanical equipment on the roof, so there are two things are competing for that location. The other is obviously the kind of creation of fixed elements which could be limiting factors in terms of some of the flexible planning of the building. Now, on previous projects where once the tenant’s architect got involved, the Board I believe did review sky lighting solutions for bringing light down at least to the interior portions of the second floor of the building. I don’t know what they envisioned for this project where, again, we’re sort of competing for that kind of central area of the roof but there are areas immediately outboard, I think I have a, if you’ll disregard the swimming pool blue of this roof plan, it’s sort of unfortunate graphic decision that I didn’t participate in. This is the diagram that shows the extent of the screen and immediately outboard of that screen, there are opportunities for sky lighting potential for the tenant to take advantage of. Typically, in law firms, for example, the lawyers get the perimeter offices and there’s a band of work stations in board and there are opportunities that we will be sure to point out to the tenant architect. Chairman Bellomo: Well, maybe the blue is better than the green because then we start talking about green roofs. Speaking of this mechanical systems and this mechanical screens, did you, we discussed together the texture and the materials of this apparent third floor. And though I understand it’s not visible from only certain vantage points, are you okay, or are you feeling comfortable with the same metallic finish? And I take it it’s the same metallic material that’s in the lower section, what is it? Bryan Croeni, Architect: Well, let me explain. One of the neighborhood’s concerns is the noise that there are existing buildings along California, older buildings that were either improperly designed or their own equipment unspecified and they represented nuisance to the neighborhood. So, noise among other things was on their hot list. So, in response to that we retained an acoustics enNneer to help us desig-n an enclosure for that equipment. And what you’re looking at here is the two-skinned acoustic panel. So it is an element that is not fabricated as part of the window frames or column jackets. So, our hope is that we will, our proposal is to paint it, to harmonize with the metal color on the aluminum frames and column jackets. We don’t anticipate an exact match. We tried for an exact match, it would look like we missed. So, we’ll find Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 1111101 ARB Meeting Page 20 something that’s a little bit more toned down and it won’t be metallic, it won’t be reflective or won’t have a sheen to it. Chairman Bellomo: Is it broken up? You show a panelized type of system, I’m just [talkover] Bryan Croeni, Architect: We show one interruption here that is sort of a reminder for us, that’s where our core element is. So we interrupt that expanse on the - Chairman Bellomo: Let me ask you this question again. You showed a panelized type of system. Is it that or is it a panelized, your painted panels, 4 x 8’s? Bryan Croeni. Architect: Yes. I think, I believe they’re 2 foot panels but I’ll have to go back and check. Chairman Bellomo: I see. Is that detail showing, there’s something -? BIy_ an Croeni, Architect: I believe it is, yes. Chairman Bellomo: Was there any other thought of any other material that might be ribbed or something that is not as hard and flat? You feel that this makes a sturdy floor or this mechanical floor, this makes it go away or in your mind diminish to the ~eatest. Bryan Croeni. Architect: We’re trying to find that balance. Obviously, it’s about a 9 foot panel, so in terms of the floor to floor which are more like 15, it’s not a full floor per se, but we’re worried about adding detail that kind of calls attention to itself and since it sits wel! back in the perimeter of the building, it’s going to be lost in tree canopies. We considered it and decided in the end that it might be better not to call attention to it by adding things to it. In order to preserve the integrity of the acoustical panels, to add further detail would really be a matter of attaching ¯ additional elements or battens to it. And in our judgement and our understanding of the site, we thought that it might be better to not draw attention to it. Chairman Bellomo: Just a couple more questions. We just want to talk about lighting, I do see the photometric plan, all the lighting around the neighborhood edge are in low bollard type lighting, correct? And as far as the lighting around that berm, there is none? Gary Lavmon, Landscape Architect: Yes, I’m just placing some of the actual fixture cuts here. One of the things we’re very conscious of is making sure we didn’t create light sources in close proximity with the neighborhood. So we’ve incorporated a desig-n along this edge here that utilizes bollards and those bollards would be about a 42-inch height relative to the seven foot high berm. So, that light source will be completely out of sight. The balance of site lighting is done with the high efficiency, high-pressure sodium fixture which was the type of light source that the neighborhood wanted to see. Lee, I know you had a concern last time about the sort of the shoebox, typical shoebox quality of it. And I think this is the one that’s proposed and has a little bit more shape to it. We’ve made it a little bit more of an interesting impression. And then the light fixtures around the building entries themselves are more of a decorative fixture and Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 21 indirect fixture combination of poles in the back and bollards in the front and back, separating the auto and the pedestrian areas. Chairman Bellomo: Trash areas and pick-ups? Gary_ Lavmon, Landscape Architect: The trash receptacle, recycling area is here. We tried to find the point furthest away from the neighborhood and also a place where a 3-point turn could be made without the necessary noise disruption there. Chairman Bellomo: And the majority of the run-off on the site, have you incorporated bio swales throughout, some best storm management practices? Gary Lavmon, Landscape Architect: Yes, in fact, there’s been some really creative thinking going on between the civil engineer for the project and the City Staff and there’s a combination of water filtration through permeable paving in certain areas, as other areas where there is sub- surface discharge of water so that it sort of accesses the detention system. So, it promotes ground water recharge and filtration of the landscape area. There’s bio swales located across the base of the berm here and also water is picked up here and here, taking roof water and parking lot water. Chairman Bellomo: One last question, back to the lighting. The second floor lighting facing the neighborhood, is there any accommodation of outboard screening and how is that handled? Because I know this maybe down the road comes up, maybe it has come up. Bryan Croeni, Architect: It has been dealt with, discussed with the neighbors and some conditions have been written into the Lease, which Jean could address. Jean Snider. Applicant: Actually we have in the Lease provision that prevents light spill outside of regular business hours, and it will be up to the tenant to make sure that happens. And so, we’ll be able to enforce it and we’ll be in touch with the neighborhood to make sure they are complying. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you for clarifying that. Those are all my questions. Drew has additional questions. BM Maran: One more question on the landscape water. It mentions that the irrigation has drip system. Does that apply to the lawns also? Gary_ Lavmon, Landscape Architect: Actually the lawns are a sub-surface irrigation system. It’s a system that’s really highly efficient. BM Maran: Can you please explain that because I’ve never seen a lawn irrigated by drip and that’s a great thing. Gary Laymon. Landscape Architect: Well, yeah, the beauty is that you never would see it unless you dug it up. But it’s essentially a manifold system where you would essentially run regular, Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 22 conventional irrigation piping to one edge and then the water is distributed through a series of like a web that would go through the lawn and essentially irrigates from the ground or from underneath the plant material up, so you lose all the inefficiencies of lawn and overhead spray irrigation as well as issues related to spraying cars and wetting sidewalks and that sort of thing. BM Maran: That’s great. Have you ever done that before? Gary Lavmon, Landscape Architect: Yes. BM Maran: And it’s worked, yes? Gary Lavmon, Landscape Architect: It has. BM Maran: How deep is the drip system under the lawn? Gary Lavmon, Landscape Architect: It’s about six inches. Vice Chair Lippert: I have a question with regard to that. What has been Utility’s comment with regard to that? Gary Lavmon, Landscape Architect: They’re encouraging it.We’re working with Beth O’Connor, she’s been really pushing those. It’s a great technology. Vice Chair Lippert: Does it reduce the consumption of the water by the chart that they use? Gary Lavmon, Landscape Architect: Yes, it’s a part. Their system has a mechanism for evaluating that sort of water use and they’re very positive on it. Vice Chair Lippert: Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: No further questions. Thank you very much. We have had public comment in our previous meeting so we will now go back to the Board for their comments. Judith, please? BM Wasserman: Thank you. I wanted to thank the applicant for sticking with us and coming back to us, and Energy Secretary notwithstanding. I wanted to compliment this application on its neighbor relations. I think this could be a model for Stanford especially in the Industrial Park where you have edges with neighbors on many sides. And I think the site plan really reflects a lot of work and a lot of study and a lot of cooperation. And, putting the parking underground and having the big berm and the double line of trees, I think are all really excellent responses to the neighbors and as I said before, I’m delighted to see the changes in the entry to be more lively and exuberant landscaping because I think the landscaping and site planning are the strength of this project. I was also pleased, I’d like to support everything Drew said about the energy program and there were two things that really intrigued me. One was that you have two electrical vehicle charNng Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 23 stations, which I think is a wonderful idea. And you’re doing 100% outside air flush, which I’ve never seen before but I think is really, people ought to consider that as an indoor air quality as we work harder on our outdoor air quality, indoor air quality really becomes a big issue. So, I think doing that is a great feature. Which gets me to the architecture, which, I think, is a little plain. I understand the intentions of being a background and being kind of a backdrop for whatever might come in the future. But it is something that is going to be with us for 50 years and I think it could use more work. I think it needs more intrinsic interest to stand on its own. And I think it could take, I don’t mean to say that it needs to look like the landscaping or be in the same exact spirit as the landscaping, but I think it could take clues from the success of the landscaping and how the site planning and the landscaping succeeds, not that it should look like it but in the fact that there is a variety, and the fact that there are eccentricities or asymmetries, just some visual and aesthetic ideas, not mimicry necessarily. I mean, after all, you’ve got hard surfaces and a landscape, organic surfaces. So, it’s going to be different, no matter what you do. So, some work with the material, some work with the colors, some work with the insistent rhythmic design of the faqades. I think the end facing the neighbors is fine because it’s short and there’s not much you want to do with that, and there’s not much you can do in that short distance and so it’s appropriate to have a simple refined retiring design over that short area. But I think the long facades - and I agree with you that elevations lie, you’ll never see the elevation the way it’s shown in elevation - but there’s nothing moving there. That’s my opinion. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, Judith. Drew? BM Maran: Thank you for spending all this time on this. I’m generally in support of the project and I find it, in general, to be a very attractive project. I also find that the intent and the efforts to make this project work in different areas that you have to make a project work in order to get it approved has been a really good intent and a good effort and a strong one and I really want to support that. The work with the community, just the way it’s designed to be, what seems to be hidden behind the landscape and behind the natural gowth, seems to be a really, really great thing, and it’s probably a conflict for an architect to have to work so hard to hide his architecture, and I appreciate that. I think the landscaping looks like it’s really, really going to be a big plus on this, in this area and in this community, and hopefully set a precedent or continue to follow a precedent of blending large buildings into a mixed use community, and doing it thoughtfully. And I really appreciate that. I think it’s a really good trend in our development. And I want to make sure that my comments and my questions are taken in that light and I really want to also support and commend you for the sustainable program and I think that this is where we get into a bit of a dilemma. I think a few years ago perhaps this sustainable program would not have been part of this submittal, and the goods news is that there is now a sustainable program. The bad news is that that opens you then up to examination and scrutiny and that’s not really bad news, that’s a good thing because the goal here is to make our buildings in our community environmentally friendly, or at least, as they say in the definition of sustainability, to make the imprint that we leave not Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 24 something that’s going to detract from future generations’ ability to use the same resources. That wasn’t an exact quote. It wasn’t even close. So what happens when you submit a program like the one that you have for sustainability is, of course, those of us who have been working on programs like this for years are going to look at it and say, is this the real program, is this really a program that’s going to lead to lower energy use, better indoor air quality, healthier forest out in the surrounding areas, outside of our metropolitan area, all that sort of stuff. Or is it just the way that sort of restates what we’ve already been doing. And that, frankly, that’s what those are, sort of the criteria that I use when I’m looking at this program and that’s where my sharper questions come from. So, and definitely not to ignore the economic issues or the long-term or short-term cost issues, especially in a declining economy, what it brings me to is an understanding that sustainability or eco-friendly or green building or whatever you want to call it, it really comes ultimately from integration into a project like this, really comes ultimately from the designers and owners of the building believing that it’s necessary, and they believe it’s necessary either for economic reasons or hopefully all of the following economic social environmental reasons, all those things sort of come into play. And here’s my point to Stanford. There have been lots of studies that have been done that show that people working in naturally ventilated and naturally lit buildings are more productive. So, if I were a tenant moving into this building, I’d be more concerned with the productivity of the workers in this building. I think there are enough of them to really make a difference here in terms of my, if I own the business that was going to occupy this building, I’d be really concerned about how productive these people are going to be. I don’t think there would be many more concerns other than that. That’s a driving force in the marketplace in the future. It’s not so much now because a lot of people don’t realize that worker productivity is, in fact, largely, greatly affected and they talk about 20% to 30% production variations, in naturally ventilated and naturally lit buildings. They also, of course, have lots of studies of buildings where people have gotten sick and I’m not talking about the current issues around Anthrax, but sick building syndrome relating to the toxic elements that we put in buildings as we build them. So, that would be something that would motivate me if I Were the building owner or the building tenant. I understand there’s a difference between the owner and the tenant. What I’m trying to do here is to create some sort of platform from which we can all stand and say, this is in our best interest to make this a greener building, and clearly you’ve taken the items that you find readily available and have used those. And I really support that. This drip system for lawn irrigation opens up all kinds of possibilities because that makes also a great water an option for lawn irrigation which it hasn’t been in the past because you’re not allowed to use gray water in surface sprinkling. So, you’re teaching me things certainly that I’ve never known before. The best way that I can describe how to incorporate even greener elements such as solar power and reduced indoor toxics and in the products, is to say, do a study. And the only way to do a study really is to get experts just as you’ve done with your acoustical studies and some of your mechanical studies. You’ve got an expert. We’ve seen projects come before this Board that Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 25 assigned a dollar value to the consultants that they would hire, for example, considering a solar power system, and I would suggest that. And in a previous project, the limit was put on at $10,000, not a lot of money in the scale of this project for actually considering doing a serious cost benefit analysis. And I’m not talking about sort of speculation. I’m saying, given today’s utility rates, Nven the projected usage in the building, and given the known carbon that’s going to be produced by not using a solar system or solar power system on this building, these are all the factors that come into play. So, what I’m recommending then is that a consultant be hired or a consultant brought into the project who specifically studies alternative power systems. So as not to ramble, I’ll just say that, I’m also not proposing that solar power is the only alternative energy system that could be used in this building. Other projects have considered geothermal, fuel cells. There’s lot of other alternatives energy systems. And I want to bring it back to a real concern, bring the energy issue back to a real concern that we all have today which is national security and that link has to be made, especially given why it is that we’re looking at this project today as opposed to two weeks ago where security came into play. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels, otherwise known as foreign fuel or foreig-n sources of fuel can be related, can be linked to the national security issues that we’re facing after September l lth. And I want to promote that also, especially given Stanford’s role in international politics and international energy concerns, I want to promote that as another reason that every project of this scale could be looking at alternative energy sources. Again, I want to thank you for the project, for the presentation and for the thoroughness and the patience, and I understand that it takes a lot to get through these reviews. It looks like a very good project and I’m very much in support of it. Thanks. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, Drew. Lee? Vice Chair Lippert: I want to thank the architect and landscape architect, Stanford for coming forward with this project. I’d also like to thank the neighbors even though they’re not present at the meeting today, and for everyone being able to get together and coming forward with this project. It’s a very handsome project. I’m generally in support of the project. But I do agee with my fellow colleagues comments with regard to some of their concerns or comments with regard to the project. I’d like to articulate that a little bit differently. With regard to the, I guess, the landscape plan, it’s a very rich, very diverse, even a very complex landscape plan. And I think that that really in some ways, speaks louder than the design of the building and what’s articulated on the outside of the building. Now, with regard to the length of the building and the landscaping, a lot of it is going to be obscured. I think Mr. Croeni has made his case here. But in looking at it, I think it goes even deeper than that. I find that what’s lacking is an architectural vocabulary that names the building. And when I say that, when you say the word Pantheon, for instance, certain architectural elements or vocabulary immediately kick into mind. That could be applied even a little bit more locally when you name some of the companies in the Research Park like Hewlett-Packard. An architectural vocabulary comes into mind. Going down to Mountain View, Silicon Graphics, again, very .dynamic building, an architectural vocabulary comes to mind. With this, I find that the building is not named architecturally. It’s in Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 26 some ways, it’s lost. There is no name for the building. And maybe in some ways, that’s part of my, I can’t read my colleagues thoughts but maybe part of their reaching out in trying to have this become a little bit more of a green building so that this building could be named with something. Now, the atrium begins to do that. But I don’t think it goes far enough in terms of expressing itself or coming up with an identity for this building. And just one or two comments with regard to that, one possibility is to make the entry way sort of go away and become more of a green space, by inviting the hard surfaces that happen outside and bring those into the building. Or invite some of the landscaping into the atrium so that you can see that from the inside or outside. Or make it more of an architectural expression with regard to the atrium space, make it distinct and unique from the rest of the building. And just in commenting, I’m not real crazy about the sort of the Band-Aid approach, how you’ve articulated, you’ve listened to comments and come back with that little covering with the columns there, I think it’s sort of additive to the desig-n. It’s not complementary to the desig-n. So, those are basically my comments. I’m generally in support of the building. I think it needs to just go a little bit further in terms of the architectural expression. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, Lee. A few brief comments. You’ve heard the appreciation for both the teams and the neighborhoods and I concur with that. As it’s an exemplary project. It’s been, I think the gestures along California Avenue with the landscaping berm and how that piece is really dove-tailed into the neighborhood is excellent. So, I really appreciate the work that went into that. The orchards on each bookend are very, very beautiful. I was not able to be part of the preliminary review and I kind of jumped in at a formal hearing that was interrupted and then the applicant came to me and just talked about a bit of articulation. And one of my main concerns was really adding this gesture, the splice and opening up a plaza through the core of this building and, in fact, really changing that vocabulary. And during our discussion, we talked of this green corridor and how to do that. And, of course, it routed back into the program, the interior lobby has not been formulated and discussed and designed so there were some assumptions made that I think you have to go very carefully and tiptoe around in a bit. But on the other side, maybe this plaza lobby landscape court, greenhouse atrium, etc., etc., goes into, really lets the tenant do that, but you set the stage for them. So, I like what you’ve done, I like this portico entry porch, and also all the landscape that went around to this vehicular court entry. I think it’s much better and I think there was a great opportunity in you going there. But I do think that this splice needs to be greener, lighter. I’m not sure how far the architecture is going in its CD phase, and I feel that there’s a bit of tension that maybe it can’t go far enough because it really does affect the connections, it affects a lot of things. I’m not sure if I’m assuming right, but I think what I’m looking for is to explore a little deeper and how it might even affect the structure. I look at a green entry, and you mention the cooling possibilities of this open aired plaza. So, I guess to condense my thoughts about this area, take a look. If you can, go a little further in its greenhouse approach to this core and how it relates to the plaza in really opening it up. It still Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 27 feels a little bit not contiguous through and I’d like it to. I think Lee mentioned the hardscape pattern going through. It obviously depends on what lobby is created, but certainly walking in and off the plaza to carpet, might be something that you want to explore that you don’t give them that choice. I think the architecture, I usually ask for details, I think the beauty of each side of this will be in the articulation of details. I don’t feel I’m scrambling, give me a detail, what is the building. I think, though the building is very straightforward in a sense, there is an articulation of detail which I appreciate that it’s obvious that that will be executed that I think will hold this together with this main entry plaza piece. Speaking in Lee’s terms, the identity I think this opportunity of this splice is really going to be important. So, I really think the architecture in general in both sides is appropriate and I’m in support of the architectural direction. I still haven’t been convinced of this top mechanical deck panelized painted system, but I certainly hope you explore that a little further and just rethink it. It is noticeable and I do think that there are some examples along Middlefield at the geological centers that I think you mentioned and you actually did. So, I think those are actually visible but diminished because of their texture. I’m very pleased with the storm management practice measures, the lighting efforts, the breakout spaces. There is a thought of breakout spaces, operable area, operable window/doors, but it’s not defined. And I understand its relation between the tenant efforts and their TI’s and the architecture. And I think it’s so important now to get as much feedback as you can because I think the systems themselves, the lighting, the mechanical, the possibilities of skylights, really can be a united effort during this space that you’re in to really get these things. There’s a possibility of getting daylight in which would drop obviously the use of lighting, mechanical systems as I think they all can dove tail together. So if we could just urge you at this point, to encourage people to come together and we can maybe define the envelope, the lighting, the mechanical systems a little further, how they could affect the architecture and the natural aspects. I think that’s the route, it’s so simple, it’s baby steps, but I think the route is just how we naturally can affect the building so it can use itself in so many ways. So, those are my comments and again, the landscape plan is just wonderful and Gary did a tremendous job. I think textures that will certainly help the cooling of this building and the feeling around it, certainly. I think that synthesizes my thoughts as best I can. We’re at two hours on this review of this application so we need to move it, to make a motion that. I’ll make a motion that we approve this project with Staff’s recommendations and items listed, but with a series of conditions that I feel need to be brought back to us, and those items include the following: (1) articulation of the entry lobby area and its associated plaza textures, either running through it or around it; (2) the study of options for a mechanical screen covering; (3) further ideas and programmatic relationship between the tenant improvements and how they might affect day lighting, breakout spaces, interior lighti!ag and general mechanical systems, how those are affected by tenant improvements. And I think along with that, (4) the opportunity for operable windows in relationship to the tenant improvements and a basic energy management, understanding on how the building might be used with the breakout spaces and operable windows. I think Drew mentioned some sustainable issues that would be brought back in for further study and to basically recap his comments on those issues. Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 28 BM Maran: Thanks. I would suggest that would be (5) a cost benefit analysis of an alternative energy system, or of an alternative renewable energy source. Chairman Bellomo: Okay, we’ll add that. Any other? BM Wasserman: If I don’t have support for further design studies, I would like at least some alternative color schemes. Chairman Bellomo: For the GFRC panels. I think we did talk - BM Wasserman: Just in general. Chairman Bellomo: We did talk of design studies at the main entry lobby, but besides that you’re asking for if it’s possible to look at the GFRC panels, different colors on the different ends. BM Wasserman: Just perhaps (6) using color or texture to add some variety and interest to the long fa,cade. You have metal panels, you have GFRC, not a lot of materials there. Vice Chair Lippert: I second that. Chairman Bellomo: All those in favor? All BM’s: Aye. Chairman Bellomo: The motion passes, 4-0, with one absent. We did not discuss that will return on an unfinished business versus a consent calendar. Okay, thank you very much. We look forward to seeing you back. [end of recording] Draft Excerpt Minutes of the 11/1/01 ARB Meeting Page 29 Attachment D Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: To: December 13, 2001 Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Amy French, Senior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2475 Hanover Street [01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15]: 2475 Hanover Street [01- ARB-IO0]: Review of final design details and documents addressing condition of ARB approval # 11.5 of ARB application by MBT Architecture, on behalf of Stanford Management Company, for Architectural review of proposed development that replaces 51,500 square feet with 81,928 square feet of office space. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and provide comment to the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the proposed modifications. The City Council will review the project on December ! 7, 2001, including the documents presented to the ARB for review on December 13,2001. BACKGROUND The Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved this ARB application and the Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 6, 2001. An appeal of the Director’s decisions, filed November 19, 2001, will be heard by the City Council on December 17, 2001. The ARB recommended project approval on November 1, 2001, subject to staff recommended conditions and the following additional condition: 11.5 The following items shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board: a. Articulation of the entry lobby and plaza, showing textures running through or around the lobby. b.Other options for the mechanical screen. c.Further ideas for programmatic details for tenant improvement plans, including energy management, operable windows, day-lighting, breakout spaces, interior lighting, mechanical systems. d.A cost/benefit analysis to explore use of renewable energy sources. e.Use of color and!or texture to add interest on the Hanover Street fa,cade. 2475hanoverfinalplans.doc Page 1 Verbatim meeting minutes for the ARB meetings of October 18 and November 1, 2001, prepared for the City Council’s review, are attached to this report as Attachments C and D. Plan sets submitted for City Council review of this appeal include all plan sheets previously reviewed by the ARB, plus the modifications presented to the ARB today. An update of the ARB’s comments, and any additional public comments, will be provided to the City Council on December 17~ REVISED PROJECT The applicant submitted unnumbered, colored plans on December 5,2001, to address condition of approval 11.5. Letters describing the modifications to the project are attached to this report as Attachment A. A cost benefit analysis of sustainability measures is attached to plans for ARB. Facade The applicant wi!l be presenting alternative materials for the building to the ARB during their presentation. The revised fagade renderings (second sheet of colored plans) indicate the following changes: ¯A ridged base, ¯Deeper horizontal bands aligned with the window sills and mullions, ¯Decreased height on the roof screen, ’ ¯Introduction of horizontal channels on roof screen (3" deep, 2’ 1" apart), ¯More accurate depiction of the selected color. In a meeting with staff, the architects noted they had explored the use of different colors, playing with narrow and wide bands on a computer model, but they prefer the use of texture and shadow rather than introduction of additional colors. Lobby/Plaza The applicants have stated that their intention, and communication with the tenant’s interior architects, is to carry the same color paving, in a complementary style, through the lobby to align with the banded plaza paving. The material itself will change from a sand stone base material for the lobby interior to a granite base material in the plaza outside, as needed for differing climate conditions. A perspective (first sheet) showing the plaza paving and a lobby/plaza plan detail (fourth sheet) showing the alig.nment for continuing paving through the lobby is provided in the additional plans. Break-out areas Another plan detail (fifth sheet) shows prototypical patio plans for typical comers and in a certain portion of the long edge of the building. Tenant improvement plans have not been submitted to the Planning Department to date. But the architects have noted that the tenant intends to have several breakout areas and that breakout areas are included at the tenant’s current site across Hanover Street. Sustainable design features The project includes operable windows in the lobby portion only, as noted at the November 1, 2001 ARB meeting. As indicated in the plan detail (third sheet), these will be low windows at 2475hanoverfinalplans.doc Page 2 the front, and high windows at the rear, and they will be mechanically operated to address changing climate conditions. A cost-benefit analysis, submitted December 7th, is included in the ARB member’s packet for information, as requested by the ARB. Bike Lockers/Structural Soil The project landscape architect’s letter includes objections to conditions requiring placement of half of the required bicycle lockers at grade and the use of structural soil. The reasons for his objections to the bike lockers relate to convenience, coverage and visual disruption of the garden area at the rear plaza. However, staff has not required placement of the lockers in the garden at the rear building entrance. The City’s Transportation staff will work with the applicants to find an appropriate location at grade in the parking lot area. The reasons for his objections to structural soil include potential problems in the application of the material and delay in the construction process, affecting pedestrians, cyclists and traffic in the neighborhood. The City’s Planning Arborist will discuss and work on this issue with the applicant. The ARB is not required to make a recommendation on these technical issues. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notification of this hearing was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. TIMELINE Action: Application received: Date application deemed complete: Action time limit: (60 days from date application deemed complete) ARB recommended approval Application approved by Director Director’s decision appealed City Council review of appeal Date: August 16, 2001 September 14, 2001 November 13,2001 November 1, 2001 December 6, 2001 November 19, 2001 December 17, 2001 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Applicant’s letters describing project modifications Attachment B: Architectural Review Board Verbatim Minutes October 18, 2001 Attachment C: Architectural Review Board Verbatim Minutes November !, 2001 Five colored plan sheets and Cost/Benefit Analysis (ARB members only) Prepared By: Amy French, Senior Planner//~ Manager Review: John Lusardi.’lanning Manager COURTESY COPIES: Joel Karr, 185 Berry Street, Suite 5700, San Francisco, CA 94107 Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 2475hanoverfinalplans.doc Page 3 Karie Epstein, 1143 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Paul Garrett, 890 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306 2475hanoverfinalplans.doc Page 4 Attachment E ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto 1.Project Title: 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Redevelopment of the ALZA Site City ofPalo Alt0, Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Amy French, Senior Planner (650) 329-2336 4.Project Location:2475 Hanover Street (comprised ofparcels 142-20-004 and -005, formerly 2575 Hanover Street and 1275 California Avenue) 5.Application Numbei-s:01-ARB-100; 01-EIA-15 6.Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses:MBT Architecture 185 Berry .Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94107 Stanford Management Company 2770 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 7.General Plan Designation:Research/Office Park 8.Zoning District(s):Limited Indus.trial!Research Park (LM) 9.I)escriptionofthe Project: Demolition of 51,500 square feet (2575 Hanover Street, ALZA Building D, and 1275 California Avenue, ALZA Building E and outbuilding) and construction of a two-story office building comprising 81,928 square feet (plus 2,005 square feet of area that is exempt from the FAR, parking, traffic.fee and housing fee calculations). An underground parking facility comprising 59,133 square feet will provide 146 parking spaces, and 127 parking spaces will be provided at grade. The existing vegetation on the site will be removed and the site will be re-landscaped. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The rectangular, 4.7 acre project site is within the LM District and islocated in the Stanford Research Park. Development immediately to the north, south and east of the project site is characterized by office and industrial uses, which ar~ also located on Stanford-owned land. Immediately to the west, across Ca!ifornia Avenue, is the College Terrace single family residential district. The project site has relatively level topography ~the grade level varies by 5 feet). The existing development on the site includes two office/research and development buildings, an outbuilding, a surface parking lot and landscaping which is mostly in poor condition. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). node ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the foiIowing pages. X X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials X Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Ti-anspo rtation/Tra ffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 proposed 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. X bate Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) c) 6) 7) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 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 EItL or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. 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 mi~tigation 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. 8)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. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources ¯ Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I.AESTHETICS. Would the project:I a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista?1, 2, 3 !X ] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1, 2.3 X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1 Xc)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 II.AGRICULTURERESOURCES. 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)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 rise? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? e) 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 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: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1,3 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing Or projected air quality violation? 1,3 1,3 a) b) X c) X XResult 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)? X d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1 X concentrations? e)Create objectionable Odors affecting a substantial number Iof people?1, 6 X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)1, 3 X b) c) d) e) f) 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 1,3 1,3 1, 3, 5 1,3 X X X X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) "Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? b) . Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 3 (map L-7) 1,3 (map L-8), 6 1,3 (L-4, L-8), 6 X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sotlrces 1,3 (map L-8), 6 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated X Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. i) GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 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. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) d) see below 3 (map N-10) 3 (map N-S) e) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral 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-S) 1 3 (map N-5), 8 3 (map N-S), 8 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,8 X X X X X X X IIssues and SUpporting Information Sources b) 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? c)Emil hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) e) 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? f) 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? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ir~jury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1, 8, 9 1,8 2, 8, 9 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 X No Impact X X X X X X VIH. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1, 3, 8,X requirements?10 b)X3 (map N-2) c) 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? 1,2 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?. f) 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 I1, 2, 10 N/A 3 (map N-6) 3(maps N-8, N- 8) 3(maps N-6, N- 8) Potentially Sig-nificant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?N/A I X ........, 1,3 Xb) 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? X. MhNERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,3 X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources b)Result in the loss of a~,ailability 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 No Impact X XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 3, 8 X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)3, 8 X c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permane_nt 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? 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? 3, 8 1,8 N/A X Xd) e)X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would N/A X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)1, 2, 3 XInduce 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)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ne.cessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? N/A N/A b) c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XlII. 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 quarter Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? see below 9 1 1 1 1 x x x x x XIV. RECREATION a)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? b) 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? N/A XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Xa) b) c) 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) 12 N/A X X X X 10 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,1 [X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?1, 9 [X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?1, 2, 4 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1, 3 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES ANI) SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 3, 10 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)1, 3, 10 X c) d) e) Require 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, 10, 11 10 X X X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 3, 11 I X accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?I g) Comply ~vith federal, state, and local statutes and 11 I X regulations related to solid waste?l 11 XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a)1, 3, 5 XDoes 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 df a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have 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)? e) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,3 1-12 X X SOURCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. Project Plans, entitled SMC PROJECT prepared y MBT Architecture, dated July 26, 2001. 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 Inventory with Tree Appraisal, prepared by Ray Morneau, Arborist, dated August 16, 2001. City of Palo Alto, Planning Arborist memorandum Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Project Description (8/16/01), Environmental Assessment Worksheet and proj ect-specific documentation (Acoustical Study dated 8/13/01, Geotechnicai Investigation dated 1/2/01, Installation of W!!Is and Remediation System prepared by Aquifer Sciences, Inc. dated 9/12/01, and Tree Inventory/Appraisal dated 8/16/01submitted by applicant.) 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. EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The site is developed with two two-and one-st0ry industrial buildings. As designed, the new building will be two stories, which will have greater mass than the existing development, as seen from the residential neighborhood. The mass will be visually reduced since (1) a large setback (105 feet) will be provided on the residential facing side, (2) an earth berrn will be created along California Avenue and landscaped with redwood trees in a dense grove, (3) 24" box size trees (Catalina Ironwood) will be planted adjacent to the building, and (4) a double row of trees will be planted at the sidewalkon California Avenue. The transformers and trash enclosures will be screened as indicated in landscape plans. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, to ensure the building design wil! be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding development, and the site improvements will be harmonious and appropriate to the building. 12 The nearest exterior pole light fixtures to the residential neighborhood will be located approximately 60 feet from the westerly property line. These lights are low {proposed at 13 feet in heigSt) and the substantial redwood tree plantings on the west side of the lights will mitigate the potential glare off site. Other lights on the site include 15-foot tall pole lights to illuminate the parking lot areas, and boIlard lights, in pedestrian walkway areas. The current proposal does not include lighting fixtures on the exterior of the building, but there will be a substantial amount of glass on the building, which may result in increased li~t from inside the offices at night, and glare reflected from the sun from outside during the day. The project is required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts. Section 18:64.030 (a)(2)(A) requires the elimination of glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. Mitigation measure #1 requires submittal information regarding interior lighting systems and interior shading systems in conjunction with tenant improvement plans, to ensure any light and glare impacts of the project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure #1: Interior lighting systems shall by described in tenant improvement plans for staff architectural review, and shall address timing and shading issues, and include measures necessary to meet City requirements. 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 redevelopment proposal will not have a significant effect on air quality. Even though more vehicle trips wil! be generated by the proposal.than at present, the project will not, either individually or cumulatively, be of a scale to effect any regional air quality plan or standards. Moreover, the project is proposing development consistent with the intensity (0.4:1.0 floor-area-ratio) contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted in 1998. 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 No endangered, threatened, or special status animal orplant species have been identified at this site. The project includes the removal of existing on-site landscaping, including native species. The Planning Arborist has reviewed the proposal and determined that the proposed removal of landscaping is offset by the overall increase in landscape specimens. Mitigation Measures: None required. V. Cultural Resources The site is currently developed with two office buildings, parking facilities and landscaping. The site has been disturbed as a part of the existing development. No additional area will be disturbed and there are no "known cultural resources on the site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of moderate sensitivity. Mitigation Measure #2: If cultural, paleontological, or historical resources are found during construction, all construction activities shall cease and the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified and mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. 13 VI. Geology and Soils The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a seismic risk area, subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes. No known faults cross the project site. Map N-5 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan indicate the site has expansive soils and is located within an area having high potential for surface rapture along fault tracesand potential for earthquake induced landslides where sloped (althou~ the site is not sloped). A geotechnical investigation report prepared by Lowney Associates (dated January 2, 200 I) has been submitted to the City for review. All new construction will be required to comply with to 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. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The volume of soil to be removed has not been stated, but the depth of the cut would be approximately 10 to 14 feet for the underground parking area. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grad~g and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Mitigation Measure #3: All proposed buildings and structures shall conform to Uniform Building Code, Zone 4 guidelines. New buildings and structures shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation report dated January 2, 2001. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The site at 1275 California Avenue (Building E) was the location of a 1,500 gallon underground storage tank and industrial waste- water sump at 1275 California Avenue. The Palo Alto Fire Department Hazardous Materials Facility Closure requirements have been met (per March 23, 2000 letter on file). Final clean-up action was completed in January 2000. Hazardous materials (chloroform) were also stored at 2575 Hanover Street. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa ClaraValley Water District (SCVWD) approved a work plan (dated April 26, 2001) for environmental investigation and remediation. The plan includes the implementation of monitoring wells, vapor extraction wells and air sparging. Permits have been obtained from SCVWD and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for well installation and system operations. A total of 2 lmonitoring Wells, vapor extraction wells, and air sparging wells were installed and operations of these wblls began in June, 2001. Other remediation measures recently taken are described on pages 2 and 12 of the report prepared by Aquifer Sciences, Inc. The operation of the remediation system is ongoing, to further reduce chloroform levels in soi! and groundwater. Mitigation Measure #4: The building permit plans shall include a sheet Showing the location of all remediation wells on the site of the existing ALZA building D (2575 Hanover Street). VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed redevelopment project will comply with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality, and waste discharge, and storm water run-off. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Mitigation Measures: None required. IX. Land Use and Planning The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Research/Office Park. Immediately surrounding land uses. are office!research buildings and a low-density residential neighborhood. Given the proposed design of the project, which minimizes potential effects to the most sensitive surrounding uses (residential), it is compatible with all adjacent development. The City’s zoning regulations do not specify law firms as being in a different category of use than professiona! offices, which are allowed in the Stanford Research Park as a permitted use. The replacement of toxicologists with lawyers is not an environmental impact. The City’s environmental analysis of the use only deals with the potential physical impacts. The proposed law office use is at least as compatible with the nearby residential neighborhood as the previous R&D firm (ALZA), which generated groundwater pol!ution 14 on the site. The project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies and land use designation of Research!Of-lice Park. The applicant has met with the College Terrace Residence Association several times and has modified their project plans to address their concerns. The new building’s setback from the California Avenue property line will be a significantly larger setback than that of the existing building. In addition to the proposed building setback, a landscaped berm and significant tree plantings are proposed between the building and California Avenue. This represents a substantial buffer from the neighborhood, and is an adequate method of achieving a gradual transition in the scale of development between residential and non-residential areas. 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 Rooftop HVAC units are proposed. The applicant is required to comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance,. Chapter 9.10 PAMC. Additionally, prdject-specific noise analyses and recommendations were completed by Wilson, Ihr!g & Associates, Inc. in a report dated August 13, 2001. All recommendations identified in the report regarding use of systems designed to minimize noise of roof-mounted equipment to meet City requirements shall be followed. Mitigation Measure #5: The project shall include the installation and operation of equipment in accordance with noise analyses and recommendations prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. XII. Population and Housing There would not be any substantial change to housing or population as a result of the proposed office project. The net new office area will be 30,428 square feet. This represents a potential increase of 121.6 jobs, or 1/10~ of 1% (.001) of the total number of jobs in Palo Alto. This expansion is not inherently inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. ABAG’s Projections 2000 includes some moderate job gowth in Palo Alto..The City of Palo Alto has met our market-rate housing goals. The project applicant will pay $128,101.88 in housing mitigation fees. 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 site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools No direct demand for school services would result due to the project, since the projuect does not generate a substantial increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. Parks No direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, since the project does not generate an increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. Other Public Facilities The project would not result in impacts to other public facilities as the site is already fully served by adequate infrastructure. 15 Mitigation Measures: None required. XIV. Recreation No direct demand for additional recreational facilities would result from the project as the proposal does not generate a substantial increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None required. XV. Transportation/Traffic There are minor non-compliance issues related to placement and dimensions of bicycle parking spaces and vehicle garage parking spaces, which will be addressed via conditions of project approval. City traffic counts of April 2000 occurred when only 31,000 square feet of the existing 51,500 square foot ALZA building was occupied. The City’s Transportation Planner assumed an addition of 51,000 square feet in the category of Single Tenant Office land use, with a corresponding increase of 91 AM peak hour trips, which does not exceed the 100-trip threshold. In addition, the build-out of this site was included in the Comprehensive Plan EIR analysis. Therefore a traffic study was not required. Nevertheless, the applicant has prepared and submitted a traffic study. The report conforms with the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) requirements. The report’s assumptions include an increase of 30, 500 s~uarefeet, whereas the City assumed an increase of 51,000 square feet for the purpose of calculating potential trip increases. The City studied the project as an office use, which is the long-term use of the site. The City, s analysis was based on the square footage increase and appropriate engineering studies (ITE) of uses. Improvements at the intersection of Page Mill Road and Hanover Street are currently budgeted and next in line for improvement by the City. A traffic impact fee based upon rates in effect at the time of submittal will be collected from the buitdin~ permit applicant. The project is subject to the City’s traffic mitigation fees, and the applicant will pay $92,196.84 for the project. 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 m a wasteful or inefficient manner. Mitigation Measures: None required. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed redevelopment of the project site is large-scale in nature, but will not substantially degade the surrounding environment, impact wildlife species or their habitat, or eliminate important examples of cultural history or pre-history. Additionally, the project will not create considerable cumulative impacts since it is located in an area that is largely developed, affording only a limited degree of additional redevelopment possibilities. Additionally, the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2001, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2575 HANOVER STREET AND 1275 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION M-EASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s - SEP, 27,2001 t:43PM STANFORD MANAGEMENT 650 854 9268 NO, 5297 P, 2 A traffic impa~t a.na]ysls was not r~quir~ sinc¢ this project was {ncluded in the background analysis for the Mayfield die traffic study. Tb_e ~pplicant has prepared and subndtted a traffic study. A traffic impact f~ based upon rates in effect at the time of submiztzl will be collected from the bui!ding permit applicant, There are minor non-compliance issues related to piacement and dinensions o£ bicycle parkingspaces and vehicle g~rage parking spaces, which will be addressed via conditions of project al~ptov~l. XVI. Utilitie~ ~nd Service Sysmms The proposed proje¢£ would not significantly increase the demmd on existing utilities and service systems or ~se reso~ces in ~ wa..~te~[ or inefficient m tuner. Mitigation lvfe.asures: None required. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed redeyelopment of ths project site is large.scale in na~ure, but will not subsr.antia[ly degrade the ~m’roundimg e~vlronmeut~ impact wJ2dlif~ Sl~Cies or theh" habit.t, Or eliminate important ~xamples of cultural history or pre-history, Additionally, th~ proje~ will not create considerable cumulative impacts ~ince R is located in an area ~at is largely d~v=lopcd, affording only a limited degree of additional redev~lopm%n.~ poss~ilifie.s. Addkionally, the projec~ w~l no~ cause substantial adverse ¢ffeots on human beings. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED SEPTEM’BER 25, 2001, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF Tile ¯ PROPERTY KNOWN AS 257~ I-IANOVER STREET AND 1275 CAiJFORNIA AVENU~ PALO AI~TO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURF~ CONTAINED HEREIN. A~¢hmeng Vicinity Map I6 5 -AUG Attachment FCITY OF PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk C I -[ ’;." ~)i: i:(~ L ! .-. i~. i ! ,7. APPEAL FROt~I TFiE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PL.~rN:h~ ~[..’.}-i ’~; i::’-[. ~AND COlVI~,IUNITY ENVIRONlVIENT O! NOV 19 PII 3:39To be filed in duplicate within 15 days from the date of decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Application No.)Receipt No.:,Q-I~_.~l 7~) Name of Appellant Address Z .~ Street City ZIP /~/Z - 2 o- 005" LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. /,/2 -2 o - O 0 ~’/ Street Address Z *"/"7 5"- /-/an o ¢ e ,,." 5~r~ ~ f- Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) Property Owner’s address (if other than appellant) Zone District Street Ci~Zip The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated ///£ /O / ~ wher.eby the application of /~4~7" g,-2.&i~!~,-~z~i¢_ o,, (~_Aal~E07c ~’-~n~d~ fora (original applicant) ~ ~.~a~ ~-~/~ ,g /~(a~ ,’~ec-[u,~.[ I~ ~’1"~o was a~,/o~’o v e~x0 , is hereby appeaied for the reasons stated in the attached (parcel map/subdivision) (approved/denied) letter (in duplicate).’ DateN~,~l~/t,,2.~o/Signature o f Appellant. Q~?f~~’/’-/z~ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved Denied ~ITY. COUNCIL DECISION: Date Approved Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SA:I’ISFIED: 1.k~ Plans (Applica~nt) 2.Labels (Applicant) 3.Appeal Application Forms ~. 4.Letter ~--- 5.Fee ~ By: By: By: Joy Ogawa 2305 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 November 19, 2001 Honorable City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE:2475 Hanover Street [01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15] - Appeal of the Approval by the Acting Director of Planning and Community Environment Honorable City Council Members: This letter accompanies an Appeal of the Approval of the above-referenced project at 2475 Hanover Street, and states my reasons for that Appeal. Pursuant to Section 16.48.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), this appeal is to be considered an appeal of both the mitigated negative declaration and the design of the project. With respect to the mitigated negative declaration, I believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration should not have been approved because it has not adequately addressed potential significant effects that the project may have on the environment. An Envirdnmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for this project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With respect to the design of the project, it is difficult for me to state in detail my objections at this point, because the final design of the project has, in effect, not yet been approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Although the ARB did recommend approval of the project on November 1, 2001, it did so with a list of conditions that may significantly affect the final design of the project, including the entry lobby area and its associated plaza, the mechanical screen covering, breakout spaces and operable windows, and color and texntre of the fagade. The project is to be brought back to the ARB as an item of unfinished business in the future. However, because the project was approved by the Acting Director of Planning and Community Environment on November 6, 2001, in order to meet the deadline for filing, this appeal must be filed by November 19, 2001. I can, however, at this time point out one aspect of the design that I find particularly troubling, and which other College Terrace residents expressed concern about at neighborhood meetings with the Applicants. This aspect involves the two driveway entrances/exits on Hanover Street, and the looped driveway connecting the two. College Terrace residents were especially concerned about the driveway entrance/exit located Page 1 closest to California Avenue. Although the applicants have indicated that use of this entrance/exit would be limited and discouraged (especially with regard to trucks and delivery vehicles, which are of the biggest concern to residents), there really is nothing in the design that would assure this. In addition, Hanover Street is a heavily-used bicycle route, and little attention seems to have been paid to the safety of bicyclists with respect to the two entrance/exits on Hanover Street. The remainder of this letter focuses on my objections to the mitigated negative declaration, and why I believe that an EIR should be required for this project. THE NEED FOR AN EIR I believe that there exists substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Palo Alto that the project at 2475 Hanover Street may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided. Therefore, the City of Palo Alto should prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project. Background Re CEQA CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. (1) In regulating public or private activities, agencies are required to give major consideration to preventing environmental damage. (2) A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment. (Section 15021 (a) of Title 14. California Code of Regulations) The decisionmaking body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or m#igated negative declaration ONLY IF #finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is NO substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgement and analysis. (Section 15074 (b) of Title 14. California Code of Regulations, EMPHASIS ADDED) Page 2 If during the negative declaration process there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project. (Section 15073.5 (d) of Title 14. California Code of Regulations) Policies Implicit in CEQA In addition to the policies declared by the Legislature concerning environmental protection and administration of CEQA in Sections 21000, 21001, 21002, and 21002.1 of the Public Resources Code, the courts of this state have declared the following policies to be implicit in CEQA: (a) The EIR requiremem is the heart of CEQA. (County oflnyo v. Yorty, 32 Cat. App. 3d 795.) (b) The EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected. (County oflnyo v. Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795.) (c) The EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed project. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68.) (d) The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of ks action. (People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Bosio, 47 Cal. App. 3d 495.) (e) The EIR process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree. (People v. County of Kern, 39 Cal. App. 3d 830.) (f) CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fifllest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247.) ~g) The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cak3d 263) (h) The lead agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant Page 3 environmental effect. (Citizens Assoc. For Sensible Development of B&hop Area v. County oflnyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151) .... (Section 15003 of Title 14. California Code of Regulations) MY OBJECTIONS TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I am presenting my objections to the mitigated negative declaration in the following format. (1) For each subsectior~ I am first presenting my original written submission to the ARB of October 18, 2001. (2) This will be followed by a transcript of staff’s response as presented by Amy French, project planner, (orally) at the November 1,2001 ARB meeting. (3) The subsection will conclude with my response to staff’s response. (Please note that, although I requested a written copy of staff’s response to my October 18 comments, I was told that no written response was available, and that I should refer to the videotape of the November 1 ARB meeting. I have therefore attempted to faithfi~y transcribe staff’s response as presented orally at the ARB meeting.) IX. Land Use And Planning The current buildings on this site were used by ALZA for Toxicology and Product Development, and for a Pilot Plant Model Shop. The proposed new use is for offices with an increase in floor area from 51,500 square feet to 81,928 square feet (plus 2,005 square feet that are requested to be exempt). Stanford Management Company informed College Terrace neighbors on September 29, 2001 that a lease had been signed with Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, a law firm that specializes in Corporate and Securities Law, Intellectual Property and Technology Law, and International Law. The change from what was primarily a Research and Development use to a Law Firm office use increases negative impacts to residential neighbors, not only with respect to the additional floor area, but also from the more jobs-intensive and traffic-generating use of the original 51,500 square feet. The increased floor area, coupled with the new use, is not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. An office use is only one of the permitted uses within the Industrial/Research Park. Other permitted uses include educational institutions, day care centers and single-family and multiple-family residential uses. Adding almost 84,000 square feet of additional office space for lawyers in an area of the research park that has already become Page 4 dominated with offices for large corporate law firms is not land use that is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan not only points out that Research/Office Park operations should be buffered from adjacent residential uses, it also includes a policy (L-11) to "promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residemial neighborhoods." The addition of more office space for corporate lawyers, when other more compatl"ble uses are permitted, is not consistent with this policy. Furthermore, converting two smaller buildings (one-story and two-story) totaling 51,500 square feet, to an 84,000 square foot two-story building is not consistent with a policy of promoting gradual transitions in the scale of development between residemial areas and non-residential areas (Policy L-6). Staff’s Response: The City’s zoning regulations do not specif~ law firms as being in a different category of use than professional offices, which are allowed in the Stanford Research Park as a permitted use. The replacement of toxicologists, which was Alza, with lawyers, is not an environmental impact. The City’s environmental analysis of the use only deals with the potemial physical impacts. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and land use designation of Research Office Park. The proposed law office is at least as compat~le with the nearby residential neighborhood as the previous R&D firm, Alza, which generated groundwater pollution on the ske. The Applicant has met with College Terrace Residents’ Association several times, and has modified their plans during the process before they came to the ARB to address their concerns regarding the design. The new building will be set back a hundred and five feet from the property line on California Avenue, which is significantly larger setback than that of the existing building. In addition to the proposed building setback, a landscaped berm and siglffficant tree plantings are proposed between the building and California Avenue. This represems a substantial buffer from the neighborhood and is an adequate method of achieving a gradual transition in scale of development between residential and non-residential areas. My Response to Staff’s Response: While the replacement of toxicologists with lawyers may not in itself be an environmental impact, the change in intensity of the use does create an environmental impact, regardless of whether or not the use is a permitted one within the zoning district. Furthermore, I do not believe that converting the Research Park to increasingly higher proportions of a single type of use, that of a more intense law office use (permitted or not) is desirable, nor is it compatible with the nearby residential areas. CEQA does not recognize the trade-offofone environmental impact for another as a reason for approval of a mitigated negative declaration. Environmental Page 5 impacts caused by the new office use need to be addressed irrespective of any impacts that may have been caused by the prior use. Only after an EIR is prepared may the decisionmaking body make findings that allow for overriding considerations or the balancing of alternatives. Applicants have not addressed all of the College Terrace residents’ concerns. Remaining concerns include concerns about the driveway entrances/exits described above, removal of existing mature street trees, and an absence of any kind of Traffic Demand Management program (TDM) in the lease agreement with the tenant. College Terrace residents were also distressed to find out that Pillsbury Winthrop was to be the tenant for this project, since at earlier meetings, Applicants had given assurances that the tenant would not be Wilson Sonsini or a similar type law firm. I do not agree that an increased setback and a berm provides an adequate transition in scale between the single family homes in College Terrace and the proposed 84,000 square foot building. This new super-large building will be a dramatic increase in scale from the existing two smaller buildings (one-story and two-story) totaling 51,500 square feet. XII. Population and Housing In determining that there is no impact on population growth in the area, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is completely ignoring the impacts on the daytime population growth that will result from the increased jobs created by this project. The document lacks an analysis of the number of new jobs that will be created by this project. Palo Alto has the worst jobs/housing imbalance in Santa Clara County. This project will further worsen that imbalance. The creation of new jobs without addressing housing needs is not consistent with Goal H- I of the Comprehensive Plan: "A Supply of Affordable and Market Rate Housing That Meets Palo Alto’s Share of Regional Housing Needs." Stafff s Response: The net new office area will be 30,428 square feet. This represents a potential increase of 121, roughly, jobs. That’s about one-tenth of 1% of the total number ofjobs in Palo Alto. This expansion is not inherently inconsistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. It should also be noted that ABAG’s projections include some moderate job growth in Palo Alto. In addition, the City of Palo Alto has met our market rate housing goals. It is true that the City’s P~e6 supply of affordable housing must increase. The project applicant will pay a hundred and twenty-eight thousand and change, one hundred one, in housing mitigation fees for this project. And staffhas recommended an increase in the City’s housing mitigation fees, which is currently, the fee is currently under review by the City’s Finance Committee for an increase. My Response to Staff’s Response: An increase in office space of 30,428 square feet will likely produce an increase closer to 206 jobs, than 121 jobs. An estimated increase of 6 jobs per 1000 square feet is a more realistic assumption, based on the type of office use being proposed for this project. In addition, as I have pointed out, the increased intensity of the new use is not. reflected in the 121 jobs figure. The new use will create more jobs per square foot than the original R&D use, and, therefore, additional jobs will be created by the law office use in the original 51,500 square feet, above and beyond that of the jobs generated by the original R&D use. This increase (of about 103 jobs, based on a 50% increase in job intensity) has not been factored in for the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. By my estimate, the number of new jobs generated by this project will be greater than 300. Also, in addition, the number of jobs generated by the 2005 "exempt" square feet has not been addressed by the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 2005 square feet is only "exempt" under the PA Municipal Code for purposes of determining Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and parking requirements. The 2005 square feet should still be included for purposes of determining environmental impacts under CEQA. ABAG’s projections may include some moderate job growth in Palo Alto, but ABAG also projects a worsening ofPalo Alto’s jobs/housing imbalance from a ratio of 3.89 to 4.16 from years 1999 to 2006. This is an undesirable increase in a jobs/housing ratio that ideally should be a value of approximately 1.5. Anything that unnecessarily contributes to this worsening imbalance should be discouraged. With respect to housing mitigation fees, the $128,000 to be paid in housing mitigation fees hardly begins to mitigate the affordable housing deficiencies Palo Alto faces. Current plans for an affordable housing project of 53 units estimates the cost of that project to be above $17 million. This project at 2475 Hanover Street will generate many more than 53 jobs, yet will contribute less than 1% of the cost of that 53-unit affordable housing project in housing mitigation fees. Page 7 XV. Traffic I question staff’s determination that the project would a) cause a less than significant impact "in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system_" The assumptions used in the traffic study on which the determination is based are flawed. In the traffic study, the estimate of 353 net new daily trips, 54 net new morning peak- hour trips and 52 net new evening peak-hour trips was based only on the net increase in square footage of 30,500 square feet. There was no estimate of the number of net new trips generated by the new law office use of the original 51,500 square feet compared with the previous ALZA use. I recall that, at the September 29, 2001 meeting with College Terrace neighbors, Bill Phillips of the Stanford Management Company said that analysis done with the City of Palo Alto had lead to the conclusion that a Research use generated only two-thirds the number of car trips compared with a Law Office use. In other words, a Law Office use generates 50% more car trips than a Research use. This increase in car trips is not reflected in the traffic study. I also note that the 2,005 square feet of floor area for "employee amenity" was not addressed in terms of net new vehicle trips. Exclusion of the "employee amenity" area would not be appropriate if there were additional workers (for example, cafeteria workers) staffing that area, and if additional deliveries/pick-up trips were generated by that area. Furthermore, even assuming what I believe to be an underestimate of the net new trips generated by the project, the traffic study calculates that the intersection of Hanover Street/Page Mill Expressway in the afternoon peak hour (currently level-of-service F) will have a critical delay increase of 4.0 seconds and a critical v/c ratio increase of 0.009. The critical delay increase is only 0.001 less than the 0.01 threshold that determines a significant impact. (The critical delay increase of 4.0 already reaches the significant impact threshold). If the net new daily trips estimates were based on accurate assumptions, then it is likely that the critical v/c ratio would be 0.01 or greater, and a significant impact would have to be found. I note that this project would degrade the level of service at two intersections t~om E- to F, a result that would be considered a significant impact, if the intersections were non-city controlled. It is obvious to anyone familiar with the neighborhood and ks streets that this project will create significant traffic impacts. If the Applicants are going to take advantage of the incredibly lenient standards that the City has for determining significant impacts, then they should at least be required to use accurate assumptions in making their calculations. Page 8 Staff’s Response: As noted in transportation condition 9.t, the traffic counts of April 2000 occurred when only 31,000 square feet of the existing 51,500 square foot Alza building was occupied. The City’s Transportation Planner assumed an addition of 51,000 square feet in the category of single tenant office land use, with the corresponding increase of 9! AM peak hour trips, which does not exceed the hundred trip threshold. In addition, this buildout of the site was included in the Comprehensive Plan EIR analysis. Therefore, a traffic study was not required. The project is subject to the City’s traffic mitigation fees, and the Applicant will pay $92,196 and change for the project. The traffic report in the file was prepared by Stanford Management Company for their own use. The report conforms with the Valley Transportation Authority’s requirements. The report’s assumptions include an increase of 30,500 square feet, whereas the City had assumed an increase of 51,000 square feet for the purpose of calculating potential trip increases. The City studied the project as an office use, which is a long-term use of the site. The City’s analysis was based on the square footage increase and appropriate engineering studies, ITE, of these uses. Even, if as Ms. Ogawa states, the use of the office by a law firm would generate 50% more trips than other office tenants resulting in 81 peak AM trips, and 78 peak PM trips, these numbers are still less than the 100 trip threshold used by the City in their analysis. It should also be noted that the Page Mill Road/Hanover Street intersection is next in line, it’s been budgeted for improvements in the City. My Response to Staff’s Response: Under CEQA, a mitigated negative declaration may only be prepared when "[t]here is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.". (Section 15070 (b) (2) of Title 14. California Code of Regulations, emphasis added) Under CEQA, all evidence presented to the agency is to be considered. The fact that a traffic study was not required of the applicant does not mean that such a study should be ignored when it points to potential significant impacts. As I have indicated above, I believe that the 2475 Hanover Street traffic study does indicate potential significant impacts that have not been addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mayfield site traffic study was referred to on page 7 of staff reports dated October 18, 2001 and November 1, 2001, and was mentioned in the staff reports as a reason why a traffic study was not required. However, examination of the Mayfield site traffic study reveals that the Hanover Site Project was included only for determining baseline conditions for year 2005 for the Mayfield Site Development Traffic Impact Analysis. Furthermore, the analysis assumed that the Hanover Street site would have a single access (as compared to the proposed double access) off Hanover Street, and that the access off Hanover Street would Page9 be located a sufficient distance from the California Avenue intersection. The analysis also assumed that the site was being developed ’%vith a 31,000 square feet single-tenant office building," when, in fact, the site is being developed with an 81,928 (plus 2,005) square foot office building. (Page 15 of the July 9, 2001 Mayfield Site Development Traffic Impact Analysis). I have not had the opportunity to review the other reports mentioned by Ms. French in her response. Although I requested on Nov 15 that all documents referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration be made available for my review on Nov 16 at the Development Center, I could not find the analysis by the Transportation Planner that Ms. French refers to in her response. I do note, however, that, if the Transportation Planner estimated 91 new peak AM trips based on 51,000 square feet of office, then, if more accurate assumptions were used which more accurately take into account the increased number of trips due to the increased number of jobs attributable to the intensification of use of the original 31,000 square feet (approximately 26 trips by my calculation), then the threshold of 100 would be exceeded (117). Also, if the number of trips attributable to the 2005 square feet of employee amenity area were properly included, then that would increase the number of new trips even further. Regarding "improvements" at Page MilFHanover, it is not clear that such "improvements" can adequately mitigate the traffic impacts of this proposed project. Furthermore, accommodating increased traffic flow at this intersection will also serve to increase cut-through traffic on Hanover and California Ave from vehicles seeking to avoid the congested Page Mill/El Camino intersection. Also, while Ms. French has stated that the Page MilFHanover intersection is "next in line," I have noted that the Mayfield Site Development Traffic Impact Analysis states on page 10 that "the City has indicated that the only planned roadway improvement project expected to be completed by 2005 at any of the study intersections is E1 Camino Real!Page Mill." ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONCERNS Cambridge Avenue and E1 Camino Intersection Why wasn’t the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and E1 Camino addressed in either the 2475 Hanover Street traffic study or the Mayfield Site traffic study? A very high proportion oftraffc at this intersection comes fi:om cut-through traffic traveling between E1 Camino and the Research Park, and this intersection would be heavily impacted by any new traffic generated by the 2475 Hanover Street project. This intersection is near or at gridlock during PM peak traffic hours. Page 10 Cut-through traffic The traffic study for 2475 Hanover Street makes a very feeble attempt to do an analysis of cut-through traffic. At the October 18, 2001 ARB hearing, Dorothy Bender commented on the inadequacy of the cut-through traffic study. Existing cut-through traffic was measured only on Princeton Street where it intersects California Avenue and College Avenue, and based on this count, the study concluded that only 3% of the total vehicles at these points were cut-through trips. However, even the traffic study itselfpoints out the obvious flawed methodology and assumptions used to reach this figure. On the other hand, I can point to hundreds of cut-through trips occurring every day from vehicles cutting through on Cambridge Avenue and Yale Street or College Avenue and Yale Street to coimect between E1 Camino and California Avenue. Yet this section of Yale Street is completely ignored in the traffic analysis. Bicyclists Ms. Bender mentioned in her comments at the October 18 ARB meeting that she bicycles daily to and from her job along the stretch of Hanover Street between Page Mill Expressway and California Avenue. Hanover Street is a very heavily-used bicycle route. Increases in car trips along Hanover Street, and in car trips entering and exiting the project site from Hanover Street, will create increased safety hazards for bicyclists. I do not believe that the impacts on bicyclists have been adequately addressed in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Relevant Comparison As Ms. Bender pointed out atthe October 18, 2001 ARB hearing, recently, a project for a 20,000 square foot building to house the Carnegie Foundation in a nearby location underwent an EIR and 1-year review process. The Carnegie project was found to have significant traffic impacts at several intersections. It is difficult to believe that an accurate analysis could conclude that a 30,428 (plus 2005) square-foot addition of a much more intensive office use would not have significant traffic impacts. Would staff please explain why Ms. Bender’s comments with respect to the mitigated negative declaration were not responded to prior to the ARB vote to recommend approval? CONCLUSION In concluding, I want to point out that the City of Palo Alto is not a disinterested party with respect to this project application. This Hanover site project is interwoven into the Page 11 complex Four-Party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which involves an agreement among the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District, the Jewish Community Center and Stanford. Because it is a very interested part),, the City should be making special efforts to ensure that an impartial, independent, fair, complete and accurate environmental analysis is done of the 2475 Hanover Street project, and of all projects related to the MOU. I believe that there exists substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Palo Alto that the project at 2475 Hanover Street may have a significant effect on the environment which is not mitigated or avoided under the current project plans and conditions. The City of Palo Alto should prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project. Sincerely, Joy M. Ogawa Attachmems: (1) Appeal Form (2) Copy of my original objections the mitigated negative declaration, submitted to the ARB and dated October 18, 2001. Page 12 Joy Ogawa 2305 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 October 18, 2001 Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 2475 Hanover Street [01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15] Dear Architectural Review Board Members: I am writing to voice my objection to a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above- referenced proposed project at 2475 Hanover Street. My objections include, but are not limited to, the determinations by City staff regarding Land Use, Population and Housing, and Transportation and Traffic. IX. Land Use And Planning The current buildings on this site were used by ALZA for Toxicology and Product Development, and for a Pilot Plant Model Shop. The proposed new use is for offices with an increase in floor area from 51,500 square feet to 81,928 square feet (plus 2,005 square feet that are requested to be exempt). Stanford Management Company informed College Terrace neighbors on September 29, 2001 that a lease had been signed with Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, a law firm that specializes in Corporate and Securities Law, Intellectual Property and Technology Law, and International Law. The change from what was primarily a Research and Development use to a Law Firm office use increases negative impacts to residential neighbors, not only with respect to the additional floor area, but also from the more jobs-intensive and traffic-generating use of the original 51,500 square feet. The increased floor area, coupled with the new use, is not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. An office use is only one of the permitted uses within the Industrial/Research Park. Other permitted uses include educational institutions, day care centers and single-family and multiple-family residential uses. Adding almost 84,000 square feet of additional office space for lawyers in an area of the research park that has already become dominated with offices for large corporate law firms is not land use that is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Page 1 The Comprehensive Plan not only points out that Research!Office Park operations should be buffered from adjacent residential uses, it also includes a policy (L-11) to "promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods." The addition of more o~fice space for corporate lawyers, when other more compatible uses are permitted, is not consistent with this policy. Furthermore, converting two smaller buildings (one-story and two-story) totaling 51,500 square feet, to an 84,000 square foot two-story building is not consistent with a policy of promoting gradual transitions in the scale of development between residential areas and non-residential areas (Policy L-6). XIL Population and Housing In determining that there is no impact on population growth in the area, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is completely ignoring the impacts on the daytime population growth that will result from the increased jobs created by this project. The document lacks an analysis of the number of new jobs that will be created by this project. Palo Alto has the worst jobs/housing imbalance in Santa Clara County. This project will further worsen that imbalance. The creation of new jobs without addressing housing needs ~es is not consistent with Goal H-1 of the Comprehensive Plan: "A Supply of A.ffordable and Market Rate Housing That Meets Palo Alto’s Share of Regional Housing Needs." X~. Traffic I question staff’s determination that the project would a) cause a less than significant impact "in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system." The assumptions used in the traffic study on which the determination is based are flawed. In the traffic study, the estimate of 353 net new daily trips, 54 net new morning peak- hour trips and 52 net new evening peak-hour trips was based only on the net increase in square footage of 30,500 square feet. There was no estimate of the number of net new trips generated by the new law office use of the original 51,500 square feet compared with the previous ALZA use. I recall that, at the September 29, 2001 meeting with College Terrace neighbors, Bill Phillips of the Stanford Management Company said that analysis done with the City of Palo Alto had lead to the conclusion that a Research use generated only two-thirds the number of car trips compared with a Law Office use. In other words, a Law Office use Page 2 generates 50% more car trips than a Research use. This increase in car trips is not reflected in the traffic study. I also note that the 2,005 square feet of floor area for "employee amenity" was not addressed in terms of net new vehicle trips. Exclusion of the "employee amenity" area would not be appropriate if there were additional workers (for example, cafeteria workers) staffing that area, and if additional deliveries/pick-up trips were generated by that area. Furthermore, even assuming what I believe to be an underestimate of the net new trips generated by the project, the traffic study calculates that the intersection of Hanover Street!Page Mill Expressway in the afternoon peak hour (currently level-of-service F) will have a critical delay increase of 4.0 seconds and a critical v/c ratio increase of 0.009. The critical delay increase is only 0.001 less than the 0.01 threshold that determines a significant impact. (The critical delay increase of 4.0 already reaches the significant impact threshold). If the net new daily trips estimates were based on accurate assumptions, then it is likely that the critical v/c ratio would be 0.01 or greater, and a significant impact would have to be found. I note that this project would degrade the level of service at two intersections from E- to F, a result that would be considered a significant impact if the intersections were non-city controlled. It is obvious to anyone familiar with the neighborhood and its streets that this project will create significant traffic impacts. If the Applicants are going to take advantage of the incredibly lenient standards that the City has for determining significant impacts, then they should at least be required to use accurate assumptions in making their calculations. I therefore object to the determination of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. Sincerely, Joy M. Ogawa Page 3 Attachment G To: Paio Ai~o Architectural Review Board i i~Sili: b5ii59~ Terrace ,,eslde,,~= Association Subject: 2575 Hanover Building Project i OOT 1 8 2[I01 The College Terrace Residents Association would like to express our appreciation for our neighborhood’s opportunities to participate in the design review process for this project. Of course there are troublesome aspects of this project beyond the purview of this design review, such as housing and vehicular traffic. Although we prefer housing, instead of offices, the CTRA is satisfied with the opportunities it has had to participate in the review process for this major building. Four neighborhood meetings with the Stanford Management Company and their architects enabled us to see their plans evolve, to request features, and to question SMC and the architects. We feel we gave them the residential perspective of those who live nearby, enabling their architects to refine their building and landscape plans to the benefit of all. We also contributed some "out of the box" thinking such as the spine road concept with the potential eventually to convert California Avenue to residential, a residential gateway as public art, and a tree allee along the California Avenue sidewalk--perhaps extending to El Camino Real some day. In the box, we think we demonstrated the value of this process, not only to the neighborhood and the developer but to the community as a whole. We appreciated your remarks at the preliminary ARB praising our efforts and look forward to this final ARB review. Sincerely, Paul F. Garrett for the CTRA Board of Directors Kathy Durham, President, CTRA Jean Snider, SMC John Ciccarelli Karie Epstein 890 California Avenue, Polo Alto Ca 94306 / 494.1293/pnjgarrett@earthlink.net Attachment H To: Architectural Review Board Attn: Amy French, Planner, City of Palo Alto From: College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Subject: "AIza Site" Development, California and Hanover 7-11-01 The CTRA has met three times with the Stanford Management Company to discuss their plans to build on this site. The purpose of this memorandum is to list the points on which we have .apparent agreement. This has been a successful effort which should be beneficial to the neighborhood, Stanford and its future tenants. The CTRA will have a continuing interest in this project and would appreciate your consideration of our views as the project is just across California Avenue from our neighborhood. 1. Acceptance of the "spine" or core roadway concept by Stanford and the City. (Photo map available) 2.No driveways on California Avenue. 3.Building setback 105’ from California Avenue. 4.Main traffic entrance on Hanover at far end of property from California Ave. 5. Employee and truck traffic limited to main traffic entrance and rear of buildings. Employee underground parking entrance at rear of buildings 6. Visitor parking limited to some 20 spaces off Hanover at visitor entrance. North side lane, required for emergency vehicles, designed to inhibit its use for a shortcut for employees to the rear surface parking spaces. (CTRA will suggest design features to Stanford Management Company) Landscaped earth berm along California Avenue end of buildings, with a double row of trees straddling the sidewalk. (See attached email from Susan Rosenberg for background on the existing 11 ginkgo trees) 9. Limited glass reflection and lighting glare along California Avenue. 10. Umited use, on week ends, of the second floor facing California Avenue. (TBD later with tenant) 11. Construction rules will be enforced by Stanford Management Company. 12. Acoustical consultant to reduce ambient noise. Submitted by:Paul F. Garrett, 890 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Director, CTRA 650.494.1293 ~’~ Attachment I 16 August 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2575 Hanover Street APN # 142-20-004, 142-20-005 This project consists of the redevelopment of a 4.7-acre parcel in the Stanford Research Park. The site is currently improved with two buildings formerly occupied by Alza Pharmaceuticals and was used as an office and light manufacturing facility. To the east is a multi-tenant R&D facility occupied by Xenoport, and to the west is the College Terrace residential neighborhood. South of the site, across Hanover street, are two buildings, one occupied by Credit Suisse/First Boston, and the other, by Pillsbury Winthrop LLP. Directly North of the site on California Ave. will be a new development (1117 California Ave.) occupied by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, while Beckman Coulter still leases the manufacturing facility at the back of 1117 California Ave. The site is a long rectangular-shaped parcel with two existing single-story structures and a chemical storage outbuilding totaling approximately 51,500 s.f. The building nearest the College Terrace residential properties is +/- 150 ft. from the property lines of those residences. The existing buildings will be demolished and replaced by a new building. The building will be two stories in height and will total approximately 82,000 s.f., with an additional anticipated 2,000 s.f. of exempt space. The architecture will be sympathetic to the surrounding environment, in particular taking account of the sensitive relationship to an adjacent residential neighborhood. Building mass will be visually reduced by articulation at corners and at intersections of the buildings. Sustainable design issues will be addressed as appropriate for a cold shell development. Construction recycling will be addressed, as well as the use of sustainable building materials. Use of recycled materials in landscaping, and extensive storm water pollution prevention measures such as bioswales and permeable pavers will also be incorporated into the site design. Substantial sun shading on the second story window, along with deeply recessed windows on the first floor will provide significant protection aga!nst sun. Proposed glazing will be spectrally sensitive, to allow a significant amount of visible transmittance, while still providing a high shading coefficient. The building envelope design also includes dual pane glazing with Iow-E on the critical exposures in combination San Francisco: I85 Berry Street, Suite 5700 San Francisco, CA 94107 415.896.0800 Seattle: 9I 1 Western Avenue, Suite 403 Seattle, WA 98104 206.749.9299 ,Aevw.mbtarch.com with additional insulation on the roof. This design will provide performance in excess of Emergency Title 24 requirements. A pedestrian-scaled entry drive accentuated with special paving finishes, and punctuated with lavishly landscaped entry courts will enrich the approach to the site. Parking will be provided on site at a ratio of 1:300 totaling 273 spaces. Approximately 146 of the spaces will be provided in one level of underground parking, beneath the buildings, reducing at-grade parking significantly. Landscape fingers at ten-space intervals will be provided at parking lot perimeters. Bicycle parking will be provided per city of Palo Alto standards. An access agreement will be created to allow site access from the adjacent property to the east, so that the adjacent site will have access to 24 deeded parking spaces on the subject site. An approximate 100 ff.-wide landscape zone facing the California Avenue frontage will present the opportunity to incorporate a 6-7 foot high berm with extensive landscaping, affording significant screening of the buildings from the residential neighborhood. With this 100 feet incorporated, the distance from the new buildings to the existing residential property lines across California Street will increase to 197 feet. This 100-foot setback is approximately three times the setback required by the City of Palo Alto. Additional proposed site amenities include outdoor terraced areas of varying sizes. Proposed new landscaping will provide shading for building glazing at critical solar exposures, as well as rich plantings surrounding the buildings. Owner:Stanford Management Company Architect:MBT Architecture Landscape Architect:Guzzardo Partnership Civil Engineer:Kier & Wright 2575 HANOVER LANDSCAPE STATEMENT OF DESIGN INTENT The site plan for the 2575.Hanover site was developed as a creative response to the need to provide a premier office working environment that is responsive to the concerns of the neighboring community. Generous setbacks and underground parking are provided to minimize the visual and acoustical impacts, and to maximize the amount of landscape area for the site. Parking and drive aisles are also located to direct traffic toward Page Mill Road, and allow for a possible future spine road to serve the sites along California Avenue. The Landscape Design takes advantage of the decisions made during the site planning process to create gardens, which benefit the office tenants and the adjacent neighborhood. An allee of Moraine Ash trees line the sidewalk on California Avenue, which will encourage walking to California Avenue shopping and the Caltrans station. A new sidewalk is provided from the buildings to California Avenue to further take advantage of the sites proximity to these services. Ash trees are also planted along Hanover, matching the street trees planted on the adjacent sites. These trees are continued in a grove to the building face to provide shade and high overhead canopy on the southwest corner of the building. A landscape berm 6’ tall provides a buffer between the building and the neighborhood. The planting includes lawn, shrubs and Redwood trees to create a dense grove of planting on top of the landform. As discussed with the City Arborist, the design incorporates two orchards of fruiting Plum trees set on a plateau of crushed stone, reminiscent of the historical orchard plantings in the region. Visitors to the site will enter the entry auto court onto a plaza of enriched paving, decorative lighting, and shaded parking. An existing site Oak tree is transplanted to a feature location in the plaza. The entry drive is aligned with the driveway across the street, and is flanked with 4’ high court walls, which will provide a location for the building address and tenant identification signage. An evergreen hedge that screens the cars from view, and delineates the court as a distinct space further defines the auto court. Visitor bicycle parking spaces are conveniently located near the front entrance. The employee parking areas are planted with a mixture of London Plane and Cork Oak trees to provide a significant shaded canopy. A rich garden of colorful and textural plants surround the bdilding to provide pleasing window views for the tenants. Catalina Ironwood trees provide an evergreen canopy over a variety of perennial and woody shrub plantings woven into layers to create a distinctive visual effect. The pedestrian concrete paving will be integral color t6 match the building color, with exposed aggregate field at the central plaza area. Outdoor seating areas are provided outside the employee entrance. Additional outdoor meeting areas can be provided in the gardens outside of the offices in response to the program needs of the tenants. The auto plaza will be composed of interlocking paving stone set in a radial pattern. River washed cobblestone are used as the foreground of the office window gardens, which have precast planters with specimen trees set in the cobble fields. Above grade utilities have been placed where they can be screened with shrub planting. Site amenities will match either the building window frame color or concrete wall finish. Site lighting uses high efficiency sharp cut-off fixtures of low pole height that do not produce light spill or glare off site. Decorative light fixtures are also selected to be low glare, and set back into the building area to minimize their appearance at night.