Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0412.000July 126 1990 HONORABLE CITV COUNCIL Palo Alto, California 3'00 HILLVIEW AVENUE: site and {)esign AppJJ.cation Members of the Council: PROJECT OESCBlpttOK: The Lovewell Company and Keenan Land Company are proposing to demolish the existing 90,OOO-square-foot research and development building at 3400 Hillview Avenue and construct five new two-story buildings totaling 206,000 square feet with surface parking for 688 cars. BACKGROUNP: On June 13. 1990, the Planning Commission, on a 7 to 0 vote, recommended approval ... with conditions, of the site and design applic~tion for 3400 Hillview, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Commission had several comments on the OEIR, specifically requestinq inclusion of visual drawings of typical water strippinq towers" mitigations to red·uce the visual and aesthetic impacts of the retaining ~alls, inclusion of monitoring and mitiqations related to the speed of traffic on the driveway entrances. an explanation of the 10,O,O'O-square-foot e.xemption fo,r housing and ~raffic Ditigation purposes~ and inclusion of a statement z'egarding long-range 'Water availability. The commission specifically requested that the ARB closely scrutinize the colors and ~aterials and the design of the retaining walls. The Planning commission staff report dated May 25 1 1990 is attached. The Planning Commission minutes of June 13, 1990 are included in the Council packet. on June 21, 1990 the ARB, on a 4 to 0 vote yith one meu~er absent, recommended approval, vith conditions, of the site and CKR:U2 '-·,c __ · -""L~ ......... . - • I I I .... • . , , \ \ , \ .. , ...., .. ,~'·"I-~ • ',-<' ,f/ ~., .. ", . -.,.: . , , ' • design applIcation and the DEIR. Some members of the ARB, as veIl as the Planning Commission, expressed concern about the on­ site hazarcSous lIaterial cleam ... p and the overdue need tor city adoption of a Transportation Demand Management Program. The.~ also required th4t architectural details, ~aterials and colors be approved by stantora University before returning to the ARB for final approval and prior to submission for a Building Per.it. The ARB Information Memorand·um is attached. ISSUES OF QQNCEBN: Environmental Impact Report: The OEIR was forwarded to the Council in the June 21, 1990 packet along with all response ~omments. Included in your packet is the Final Environmental .Impact Report, with the responses to the comments made on tbe DEIR. staff believes that the issues intended to be addressed by the focused EIR have been covered and prcper Ditigations proposed. Architectural Design: Stanford UnIversity and the ARB havQ requested that certain design detail~ be approved by the University and the ARB prior to SubmissIon for a Building permit. These teatures~ incl~iD9 architectural details# materials, and colors, do not impact the site design# buIlding ~assinq or other significant design elements of the project. RECOMJo!ENDATION staff recommends that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, and approve the site and design application yith the following conditions. The applicant 1 s responses to the conditions must be reviewed and approved by Stanford University prior to review and approval by the ARB and prior to submission for a Building Permit. CONDITIONS: 1. Revision of the entry porticoes for buildings J and 4. 2. Revision and further refinement of all the buildings' corner baloonies# related fenestration# and solar screeni09 devices~ ). SpecIfication of the hillside retaining .... alls final design and ~aterials; JG/l990/A/CMR3400H CMR:U2 " , ) 2 • , j 1 • '. \. / _'-__ " _..--o~~~"".L_'-_-L-::-.;. ___ ~".,tf __ ':$~. _~,'o~ ....... ,_~ ;. :r,;:-'l'""~"'_":;."':"P:.;~~~-"""~~_~ it!_&Q_;t __ ~., 4~ Deslqn of the proposed hillside stairway oonnectinq this site with Xerox's upslope site; 5. 6. 1. Final landscape plans, including the grading plan and details of the plans for recycling; Final material and color palette for all exterior development~ including the fire access easement; Approval by Public Works of a preliminary grading and dralnaqe plan: B. RevIsion of the parking lot to provIde for landscape islands after every te~th parking space and to further study the creation of a more standardized visitor parking/drop-off area at the front of the building; 9. AdditIonal information on the size, height, screening, etc. of the required ground water extraction system and air stripping tower; 10. RevIsion of the landscape plans to preclude the use of any plant that will grow to a natural height above 30· in all landscape areas adjacent to intersections in the parking lots, 11. Provision for the bicycle lockers to be fitted with tubular key lock mechanism: 12. Redesign of the 5ide~alks adjacent to each cluster of bike lockers to a minimum of 5 feet vide; 13. Relocation of visitor bike parking adjacent to the visitor auto coort as shown on the master site plan and not near the employee parking lots as sho_n on the courtyard plan; and, 14. Provision for an emergency fire access easement on the adjacent property (xero~J, with the condition that no fences or obstruction may be constructed between the two properties. In addition, appllcant must comply with the conditions and Ditisations as defined ~n the Environmental Impact Report. FINDINGS Recommendation for approval is based on the follo~inq findings: JG/1990/A/CMR340'OH CMR:412 ] .... -' ......... IfI ... ----.''"'''. "<; .... ~i." L - " • 'i'),.., • , , \ \ , . ..J . i - A. / Environment~l Findings: In compliance with the Environ~ental Quality Act ,-CEQA-j G~idelines, the council finds that: 1~ It has revie~ed and considered the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 340,0 Hillview Avenue Project .. 2. The EIR found that the impacts of the 3400 Hillview Avenue Project itself can be feasibly mitigated to insignificant levels, but that traffic and air quality impacts caused by the CUmulative effect of all buildout allowed In the EIR study area cannot be mitigated to insiqnificant levels. This finding was based on an environmental assessment using the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study Environmental Impact Report ,·Citywide Study/EIR-), certified by the Council on Mar-ch 6" 1989 .. l. Because the 3400 Hillview Avenue Project itself can be fully aitigated, no findings of overriding consideration need be made specifically for the project~ H~wever, the council adopted findings of overriding consIderation relating to the buildout allowable as a result of the Citywide Study/EIR whIch are appropriate in addressIng the cumulative impacts caused by sU<:h futUre boildout. Therefo·re., the Council hereby refers to, and readopts the Environmental Findings made in the "implementing actions of the Citywide Study/ErR, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A-. B. Other Findings: 1. The office building design is consistent and compatible with the Limited Industrial/Research Park District Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation on the site. 2. The proposed building design, with its two-story height, central courtyard~ and landscaped plaza are in scale and character ~ith the surrounding land uses in the Stanford Research park. ). The extensive landscape design concep,t for the site, the added landscaping in the parking lots~ and the campus-t)-pe layout of the buildings create a desirable and functional environment. The planning and location of the various functions on the site create an internal sense of order and provides JG/l 9 9 0/ A/CMRl4 ()OH CHR:412 • \ r I ~ , f ~ . , " - ... ~~-."'," ."". -, ~ • " > •• • - \ \ \ '\ , , \ , ; i l - a desirable enviro~ent ~or occupants, visitors and the qeneral community in that landscaping, vehicular parking, bicycle parking, and courtyard areas have been dealqned to create a safe and convenient environment~ Respectfully submitted, ~~t/~~/J J E. GILLILAND , ) anninq Administrator KENNETH R. SCRREl8ER Director of Planning and Co~unity Environment . ~HMI.21 ~~:XIN~ Assistant City Manaqer Attachments: Exhibit -A-Citywide Environmental Findings staff report to Planning Commission 5/25~9a ARB Info~ation Memorandum of 6/21/90 L4tter from Stanford University of Sj30j9Q Plans and Final Environmental Impact Report (Council ~embers only) oc: Planning Commisslo-n Architectural Review Board Bob MOss, 4010 Orme street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 A1tcia C~erra, David J. Powers' Associates, 1885 The Alameda~ Suite 204 p San Jose, CA 95126 Perry Pal~er~ 700 Emerson street~ Palo Alto~ CA 94301 JOhn Lovewell, 700 Emerson Street~ Palo Alto~ CA 94301 Kenneth Rodriquez, 60 SQuth Market, suite 200~ San Jose p CA Xirt Pruyn, stanford university Lands Management, 857 Serra street, Stanford, CA 94305-6225 David Newman, Stanford University Architect, 857 Serra street, Stanford, CA 94305-6225 Dr. Gary x. Beymann~ Old Trace Neighborhood, 4159 Old Adobe Rcad~ Pale, Alto, CA 94306 JG/1990/A/CMR3400H CMR:412 5 '-. - \; .' • ." • • -" " ~;:.~;~:~ ,~~,_c :.--,. E· " " I , f' :- k r r I , i i r I f , 'j "I I 1 l j - E.oQilSIT A [NVIRONMENTAL FINDINCS I. co.~llinco wit~ the (lllforll. [nvlrDnment.l Qu.lll, Act (tEQAI 6uldelln.s, the Cltl Council f:nd. th.t: WHERUl~, It h •• nlylewed and considered the '.f .... ll •• cont.'o.d ,. the Citywide Lind Use Ind Transp.rtltl.n Study [.vlr.moent., Impact Report (EIRI Inc'udlng the fl.al Adde.d .... d certified the [IR IS c.mplete •• March 6, 1989; and WHEREAS, the commercial .nd resldentlol development level. proposed c.ll for I sub,tantl., reduct'o' t. development potentl.l Ind nll.ted enylronm.nt.l Impacts and c •• stlt.to • mojor lo.d Us. mitigation .. osur.; and WHEREAS, the [II has shown thot .ve. the reduced development 1.vel, now proposed will res.lt la potentlol1, significant Imp.cts on housIng, noise, .Ir qual It, Ind tr.fflc conditIons, Ind WHEREAS, ~it;9atlon .. Isures hIve been Identified that con reduce potentl.l housing and noise Impacts to Icceptable lovels, Including: compliance wit. the Clt]'s Housing Rltlgotlo. Ordinance; t~. redesignatlon of certola ~.rce1s from comoercl.l to re,ldentlll .se, IS described on pages I'.D.-l through -9 of the Or,ft [I~; and noise ,batement technIques ond deYices Incorporoted Into ~r.ject designs, as described 00 pages If.S.-9, -I; of the Oroft [IR; and WHER£AS~ flter5ectfon capacitJ fmprovements and Transportit~on Demand Man.gement programs hav. been Identified that can subs!antlall, lesse. t~e projected traffic Impacts Ind reloted llr quallt1 Impacts due t. Incre.sed development., IS Ide.tlfled on p.ges IV.B.-1 through IY.B.-86 o.d IY.f_-11 through IY.f.-12 of the Drift [II .nd p.ges 1'.-8 though 1'.-11 and If.-23 through YI.-21 Dr the final Addendum; and VHfRE~S, .11 r.lsonabl, fe.sibl. trlfflc, .ir quallt], noise and housing mitfgatiDn ~easure$ In4 Dther m1tfgatfon ~isures ~ll be f~corporited ibtG the project Ipproy.l and will be employed ,t the tl .. Dr new development I. the ar •• , Including constructing 21 of the 38 Identified f.t.rsectfon copacit] Improvements. I Citywide 1DK program t. be applied t. new de,elopment; , Stanford Res.arc. Pari TDK program to be .pplled to existing and new deyelopme.t; and. new Transportatlo. Impact Fee t. fund selected loter.ection 1oprov_.ts ·/.,pacted by additional development I. Shely Ar .. 8; and WHEREAS, the capacltl Improvemeots not pursued Ire tho.e that are consi~ered to pro>ide llttl. benefit ~e. com~ared t. the .Igh environment. 1 and .,onomic costs; arld WHEREAS, the significant tr.fflc lnd .ir qual It 1 Impacts that cannot be mltlg.ted will occur due to exl.tlng cu .. lotfy. conditions eve. If no additional non·resldentlal deye10pment is peraltted I. t~. Cit!; Ind 8/1/B9 -1- • , \ \ • , \ '. • j~~ \ 1 I I I - • • VKEREAS. the,e ffndlogs Irt supported bl the substlntlal .vldence contllned I. tho [1~ I.d proJ.ct record. on fll. Ind Iv,It,bl. for review I. the tltl of ,.1. Alto's Deptrtoent of 'Il.nlni Ind Communlt, [ovlron •• nt; Ind IIHEREAS. l110wlni n. IddlHon.1 dev.lopole,tt. the Clt)"s c • ....,rchl and I.d",trlll Ir.as would ~llc, In unflir burde. on suc_ propertl owners and Id.er •• I, affect the co.tl.ulni vlta'It, and .I.bll.t, of SUC_ Irea.; TKEREFORE. the tltl CouncIl hereb, finds that the publIc benefIt of penal!tlng Iddltlona' dev.lop ... t I. the tit,'. commercIal and Industrlll Ir •• s outweIghs the potent III v.lvoldabl. Idvers. envlronment.l Impacts on traffic I.d air qUlllt, thlt Irt therefore conSidered acceptable. 8/7/89 -z. • \ I ~. '. . ·.·.-"L-· . "---'-----~'-,,-.--.. ~ ',' ~. . . • , . _. I . I " .' ; - TO: PALO ALTO RLIdQtIIIl'G COKKISSION PREPA.G.ED BY: J. Gill iland FILE NO.:S9-AR3-211, 89-0-27, 89-EIA-48 DATE: May 25~ 1990 PBQJZCT DEscR1ptlQB Locatiop~ Applicant: Property OWners; Requested Action: PBOJBCT SOHMARY 340,0 Hillvie.W' Avenue The Lovewell Company Keenan Land Company 700 Emerson Street Palo Alto l CA 94301 Q.T.C. Venture/The Love~ell Co. Approval of Site and Design application to demolish the existing 90,OOQ-square-foot building and construct. a 206, o·Q.O-square-foot otfice ~ilding for uses related to research and development. Applicant is propos1ng to demolish the existinq 90, OOO-square­ foot research and development building and construct a 206~OOO­ square-foot office building for uses related to research and development. Redevelopment of the 16.3-acre site will include the. construction of five two-story buildings~ parking for 68·8 cars, landscapinq, and other site improvements .. RECOKKENOED ACTIO~ __________________ __ staff recommends that the Planning Commission comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report {DEIR) and recommend to the City council approval of the Site and Design application subject to the conditi~ns ~~t forth herein.. The application shall be forwarded to the Architectural RevieW' Board (ARS) for its comments on the DEIR and the project design prior to final revieW' by the city Council. SIT' INPOBKATIOB Pare'} Size: 710~028 square feet Assessor's Parcel Number: l42-16-0C7 JGj1990jAlPCHOOHI 1 ,. , , f " 'c " t , -. .~ .,·':It" ~"'~- , t I " ;,j" \ - T. txistipg zoning: UK-S(D) Limited Industriall Research Park vith site and desi9n combining district Comprebensiye Plan Designation: Existing Land Use~ Research/Office Park Research and Development SurrQUnding Land Use: Research and Development facilities to the Ncrth l East and South with commercia1 recreation (tennis club) across Foothill Expressway to the North and Agricultural Conservation lands to the We$t. ENVlRONHENT" IMPACT ASS£SBKtB'l' A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared and is included in the packet. staff requested the preparation of a focused En~ironmental Impact Report as a supple~ent to the citywide Land Use and Transportation Study in order to address four specific areas of concern distinctive to this site: 1J the additional traffic and transportation impacts that could be addressed on an interim basis until adoption and implementation of the Golden Trlanqle reg,ulations and Stanford Transportation Demand Management (TOM} program; 2) clean-up of hazar~s materials from the eXisting site; 3} the visual and aesthetic considerations due to the site location and topography; and 4) the impacts on cultural resources~ specifically the adjacent archeological site. AllJI,L!8IS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is the redevelopment of a 164}-acre site in the Stanford Research Park. The project consists of the development of 206, C'O:o-square-feet of office uses related to research and development vhich ~ould replace the existing 92',OOO-square-too,t industrial facility on the site 4 Acc~ss to the site ~itl be from the t~o existing drive~ay$ from Foothill Express~ay and Hillview Avenue4 The ne~ buildings will be located in the same qeneral area as the existinq buildings yith additional parklnq areas being added to the ~estern portion of the site4 Five t~o-story buildings are arr8nged in a campus setting on the eastern half of the site. Total site coverage is 14.J percent~ with an FAR of 0.29J. The t~o buildinqs facing Foothill Express~ay ~ould be set back JG/1990/A/PC3400HI _. 2 • \ '. '" c > , I ..J I , l 1 1 j 1 I - j. ; --.. "" .. 0-. -.., ___ . __ , _. ____ .--' .. _.~.~ ... _ .. approxi~ately 100 ~ •• t from the roadwayp ~hile the building facing Hillyi~w Avenue Yould be set back approximately 200 feet. Parking for 64J cars yilt be provided vith landscape reserve parking for an additional 13 cars. BACKGROUND: The proposed desiqn was revie~ed by the ARB on a preliminary basis on September 21, 19S9~ The ARB vas very supportIve of the project, particularly the site plan. The ARB expressed .inor concerns related to the neeo £or ~ore substance in the desiqn of the building yalls~ Minutes of the meeting are attachecS. The project has been revie1oro'ed and approved by Stanford University with only minor concerns related to design of the exterior valls and landscaping. These items will be addressed at the ARB meet.ing .. ISSUES OF CONCERN: "I'he primary issues of ccncern are covered in the OEIR yhich found that all impacts can be mitigated to a :ess than significant. level, e~cept for cumulative traffic impacts and air quality impacts as previously stated in the CitJ~ide Land Use ana Transportat.Ion Study. 'r'bese impacts are mitigated for this project through the payment of the traffic i~pact fee adopted as a part of the Citywide study. The following are the primary issues a~ressed in the D£IR: Traffic circulation impacts: Tbe citywide Land Use and Transportation study addressed the impacts of full build out of the Stanford Research Park. As a result of that Study. a traffic impact fee is imposed to mitigate the cumUlative effects of the added square footage. Tbe Foothill Expressway/Hillview Avenue intersection is identified for improvements to be Foade from the traffic impact fees. The applicant has also propos~d an interim TDM Program to encourage ride-sharin9~ van pool parking, bicycle use, and on-site amenities. In addition tbe prospective tenants will be subject to the Stanford Research Park TDM Program when adopted. 2. Employment/Housin9: The additional square footage is s~bject to the City of Palo Alto Housing Mitigation Fee to offset the project's contribution to the jObs/housir.g imbalance. l. Visual and Aesthetic Quality: The project bas been designed to meet City of Falo Alto zoning regulations and yill be reviewed by the ARB. Due to its location in the lower Foothills area~ the devel~ment .. ill not obstruct vie~s of the higher regions. In addition, . significant landscaping and preservation of most of the JG/1990/A/pC3400HI 3 " > . . l . ~'" , \ \ \ ., ,\. , '--- ., I I I ~~, , -.. \ , • ",. " native veqetati~n will screen the building and provide tor an aesthetically pleasing project_ 4. cultural Resource Impacts: The known archaeological deposit on the site ba~ been identified and the buildings and pa~king lots located a~ay fro~ the area. s. Hazardous Materials Impacts: Clean-up and remediation of the soil and 9round water contaminati~n will be implemented in conformance with Department of Health Services (OOHSJ and say Area Air QUality Manaqement District (BAAQMDJ regulations. Demolition of the existing structures ~ill be coordinated vith DOMS and construction of the project would be postponed if deemed necessary. A detailed closure plan is currently being revie~ed by OOHS and air saropling will be conducted. as necessary to ~eet BAAQHD requirements. Groundwater treatment will continue and an appropriate area bas been set aside for location of the groundwater extraction vells and e~~ipment. Additional issues of concern to city staff that are not covered in the DEIR are: Fire Department access: In order to have sufficient access for emergency vehicles, including fire apparatus. paramedics and police, to the rear portion of the building. the applicant is proposing to pave the existing emergency access road on the Xerox site at ))33 Hillview Avenue~ This road is currently surface_d 'With turf-block 'Which the Fire Oepartment aoes not find acceptable to carry the weight of fire apparatus~ particularly wben the turf-block becomes soaked with vater 'While fighting a fire. Entrance drives and entrance court: Transportation DiVision bas minor concerns related to the length of drive required to get ~o the front e~trance to' the project fer Foothi11 Expressvay and the layout af the parking and drop-off area at the front entrance court ~ The concern is that the visitor will find the access and visitor parkinq ar~as confusing and disorienting. A possible solution would require relocation of the Foothill Expressyay entrance to be relocate~ to a point near the entrance to the building; hc~ever, this solution could have adverse impacts on the Foothill ExpresswaY/Hillvie~ Aven,ue intersection. staff believes that the applicant should further review the layout of the visitor parking area, prior to review by the ARB, to determine if a more standardized layout of parkinq spaces can be ~tained. (See attached memo from Carl Stoftel) Parking lots: Transportation Division has a ~inor concern that the two parking lots on either side of the building JGj1990/A/PC340081 4 -"--~-, -~-.~---" L , " ., • , ' .-., ".~ .J , f " 'I I I I i . i' " - • ~~ receive car& on a balanced basis. In particular~ ~~rn i. that the lo~ closest to Hillview viII fill ~ .• nd cars may spill i~to driveways and no parking areas ~r ~han utilile the more secluded west parking lot. The ,appUJcant has Indicate~ a willingness to assign some ,employee parking if this becomes a prObl~m. Minor adjustments need to be made to the pa~king lot to limit any single ro~ or cars to no more than ten before a landscaped island is required. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE The project is generally consistent ~ith the Comprehensive. Land Use Plan. In part1cular. the project is consistent vith the map designation of Research/Office Park. the housing policy by providing for housing mitiqation fees, transportation proqrams by providing a TOM program and transportation mitiqation fee~ by prolDO,ting bicycle use, and Urban Oesign Policies for main~ainin9 a visually aesthetic environment. The project Is Dot consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it does provide for an increased employment of approximately 350 new jObs on site and it does not provide tor child care facilities on an industrial site. JlECOKMEtrpMION Staft recommends that the Planning Commissio~ comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and recommend to City Council approval of the site and design proposal, and forwarQ the application to the ARB for design review and comment on the DEIR. IIKpU1GS Recommendation tor approval is based on the following findi~s: f" , 1. The project as proposed viii not have a significant impact 00 the physical environment since the applicant has agreed to incorporate ~easures~ described in the DEIR# tbat will mitigate potential transportation~ housing and ha2ardous material impacts to an acceptable level. 2. The offi~e build1nq design is consIstent and compatible vith the LiDited Industrial/Research Park District Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation on the site. 3. The proposed building design, with its two story belqbt, central courtyard, and landscaped plaza are in 5 • \ " : ',". t i[ '] i j ': .. - 4. ,'-, scale and character with the surroundiTI9 land uses in the Stanford ~esearch Park. The extensive landscape design concept for the site# the a6ded landscapinq in the parking lots. and the cam~s type layout of the buildings create a desirable and functional environment4 5. The planning and location of the v~rious functions on the site create an internal sense of order and pro .... ·ides a desirable environment ror occupants, visitors and the general community in that landscaping. vehicUlar parking, bicycle parking, and courtyard areas have been desiqned to create a safe and convenient environment. CONDITIONS In addition to co~plyin9 vith the conditions and mitigations as defined in the OEIR dated April 1990# applicant shall address the following issues prior to review by the ARB: 1. Provide a preliminary grading and drainaqe plan to the satisfa~tion of the Public Works Department~ 2. Revise the parking lot to provide for landscape islands after every tenth parking space and to create a more standardized visitor parkinq/drop off area at the front of the building. 3. Provide tor additional information on the size. heiqht. screening. etCa of the required ground vater extraction system~ 4. Revise the landscape plans to preclude the ~se of any plant. that viII grow-to a Tlatural height above 30· in all landscape areas adjacent to intersections in the parking lots. Sa Bicycle lockers must be fitted with tubular key lock lI',echanism4 6. Sidewalks adjacent to each cluster of bike lockers must be a minimum of 5 feet vide. 7. Visitor bike parking must be adjacent to the visitor a~to ~ourt as shown on the ~aster site plan and not near the emplo~ .. ee parking lots as sho'Wn on the Courtyard plan4 8~ An emergency fire access easement must be Obtained from the adjacent property with the condition that no fences JG/1990JAJPCJ400HI 6 ... - " I ~: '), .~~~ f ,-:~, . r <, " ~ -" ~ <- ~'-" f , ,- .- -1: • • " ", ,,/ ~, • _ , __ r :';':''--"~::l..!2.o!..:;.;:...;."",,,,;,..c._'''';,,;,,. ___ .,, _>,.:, __ ~~.1.-_£~ ~ ___ ~.;.._:iIt;i :2._ or obstruction may be constructed between the two properties. ATTACIMEMTR Excerpt minutes of the ARB meeting of 9/21/89 Memo from Carl Stoffel dated 5/2/90 Memo frOD Gayle Likens dated May B, 1990 Letters of comment on DEIR Stanford University Archeological Department dated 5/B/90 Metropolitan TransportatIon commission dated 5/15/90 Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated 5/15/90 Plans and craft Environmental Impact Report (Commission Members only) CQPIJ:S S! NT ro Perry Palmey~ The Lovewell Company~ 700 Emerson Street 3 Palo Alto. CA 94301 30hn Love~ell. The Love~ell company. 700 Emerso~ Street, Palo Alto l CA 94101 Kenneth Rodriguez l Rodriquez and Associates. EO South Market l Suite 2~D. San Jose, CA J(irt. Pruyn ... Stanford University Land,'$. Management" 851 Serra Street ... Stanford" CA 94JOS-6~25 Dr. Gary M. Heymann, Old Trace Neiqhborhood. 4159 Old AdObe RDad, Palo Alto, CA 94306 3G/ 19 9 0/ AI PCl 4 OOR! 7 "' -~.,,:-., I I ( ( c ·-- A. ROLL CALL Soard Members .Present: Tbl.usd'ay, September 21, 19S9 SOOO A.M. Civic-Cemel 2S0 H .. rni1loc Avenue Council Conference Room FaTo Aito, Ca.lilomia Aino da Rc-sa, Bob E~'ans, Michael L~\I .. a. jon Schink, and Sf\Jrley Wilson Nne: .. rc:fla~l lYZIl,'a ""~',5 00( present during Item It.' because be had lell the meetini. Board ATembers At-.sent: Ncne (except as nOled above) Su.If Ple-sent; GiIliland, Jansen, and 'i:;uheit B. APPROV-\l. OF Mf'tiTE! The meeting min'Utes o( Se?tembet " 1989 ... ·ue APPROVE.D as presented ~"'i.th correction 'to one 5eclion by Shirley Yt'ilson, a.S fono\lt,~ .~~~~~~ She corrected the sentence beginning on :-to read as follows: -She thought that lbe amOUIlt of paving at the lear couTd be reduced and tandsca'pTne in front increased by shifting the building 10 the lear of [he property plus (If 'min\Js 15" and at the same time I:.eeping the trees..- Ms~ 'IIrtiJSOD ... tsc corrected the mistype of bel name OD that same page. C. ORAL COMM,,'NKATlONS Members of tbe public may speak to any topiC ... ·ithin Architectural Rt:viell' Board (ARB) jurisdtcc~ Ilia[ is DOC listed as an A&enda item. Nc-ne 9(21/89 Page 1 CG ". ;'.;;'->.;,· .... 11. "" ...... -.-~'--L ,. - • \ ·"'"-'t'· t t· .-, , 1 f :.';--'2::'<-~--, -. ';"'.0-:-:; ~ -., 5. .. -. , " L. 3400 HILLVIEW 89-ARB-ll8 the Lovewell CoJKt enan land Co. PREUMINARY REVIEW of Redevelopment of RLsearch and De .. et~me!1t Site This will bE • maI.()( site ar-d desigc project requirIng Planning Commission .. ARB ;pod City Council .revie ..... In addition, the project wiil require the :pte­ parattoo. of • foe-used Erwiror.mentaf rmpact R'~pon that addresses J) traffic, 2) "haz.ardous maceria!s, .3) the arcneologi.c site ar.d 4) visual aesthetics. Most Boare:! commen{S were' ruo,rable, puticular!y regarding the site plan. Since this .. as a PREUMINARY REVIEW~ no fOimat aclKlo .. ·~·s taken. Board members dir«led the applicant to the follo .... ing points: Bob Evans: 1) Need to look carefully at cakutations and rear yard setbacks. The Plan is easity readable, but don'l, see it in tfle elevations )'et. 2) The cOf"ocep«: behind the site pTan and design are outstanding, and needs careful atten­ t"ion to details of surface treatment and materiats to successrully come together. Aino daRosa 1) Liked the landscaping and tf,e Ijute "iew into t]:le buil.-{inr;. utE' the .... fole-band cont~nuin, are>t:nt'l i.n ito: rHlrurltl st8-te. 2) N,"ocd tl) rcnlWle thf ice plant .. Shirfey Wilsoo. 1} Atso enlflusiasti-c: about tne landSt:aping and site plan. 2) the aClu'ir an.:"itechlle of the .. all needs more substance; sugges-ted perhaps additi.:>f] of • molding elt~menl. something simple but elegant in fOfm. 3) Think-. appTKaf',[ is on riiflt uadc. MK"aef .... pwa Jj Liked the she p!an--very 51 ron.g. 2) Thought verbal descnpuons Of the carden .. ere quile nice. 3) First reaction .. as Inat the buiJdin&s seem c'tunl;:y~ Needs something mo-re, something very special :hOtS to-happen on the hcades. 4) Feet very comfortable .'ith the site plan and cir<:ul.1tK>n.. 9/21/89 Page Ii 0; • ,. tl " .','" . --~ .~ .. • .;-' , "," J - - / ;.:,.ii;;:l;J;:.::.:.::. __ ::..: __ ........ __ "'-__ -'" .... .,.,..,~"""'=',.. = -ftl;l' ]on ~jlink 1) AITeed .... tth his c¢.tlea.i\l-es. Delighted with the tandscaping. ~-pta(l. with the formality of the entrance and the infOimality of tl1e hinC e . 2) .... lso liked the .. tchltectufe~ Tired o( t7'le o .... er/deck buildings. Tbe simplkitl 01' this arcrutecture is nice. l'hc at't.'hite<t sa.id there is • strong. commitment [0 qU:1lity 0( surface Uf'at­ menl and' materials .nd to flo .... they come Itogethet~ He said tbey are runy ex.cited about this land plan. -,,-""'-' • \ , .- - .-_. CIT'! OF PALO ALTO XNTEROFFICE XEKORANDOH May ~, 1990 TO: Jia Gilliland FROK: Carl Stoffel g SUBJECT: comments 0l'J April 1990 praft ErR for 340·0 Hillvie .... Avenue • * • * • • * • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • My comments on the Administrative Draft ~ere sent to you in a March 13, 1990 memorand·um. Most corrections and issues "Were addressed .. but the following remain. 3. 4. cs .. Access to the visitor court/drop off area is indirect~ so that visitor ana drop-off traffic ~ill have to travel all the way through one of the two parki09 lots to reach the main pedest.rian entrance to tbe complex. On page 26., the ErR stated that moving the Foothill driveway nearer to or in front of the main project entrance ~ould not be feasible~ but it did not fully discuss this option. such a detailed discussion should be provided .. We had suggested that more spaces be provided in the eastern parJtinq lot to preclude an imbalance between the two-lots. On page 29 of t.he EIR., it is stated that the applicant "Will monitor the situation and assign parking spaces in the "Western lot if necessary. Though this is not the best solution., it seems satIsfactory. ~ on page 2'. the first phrase of the third sentence should be changed to read: WIn accordance ~ith the requirements of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance •.. • On page 21. the second sentence in the first paragraph under ·Off-Site Mitigation· should be changed to read: -This fee would help fund improvements at eight intersections in and near the Stanford Research Park., includinq the Foothill Expressway/Hillview Avenue intersection.-The next sentence. referring to the Citv-wide Land Use and Transportatipn Stu-dy should be deleted# as it is not correct. "-. '. • -.J< " : ':.:1t. , \ I' \ , . I - , . Kay 8 .. 1990 CIT"i OF PALO ALTO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Gilliland FROM: Gayle Likens GfJL . SUBJECT: Project Review Comments for J~OO Hillview Plans (dated April 30, 1.990) • * • * • • • • * • • • • • • ~ • • • • * * • • • • • • • • • • • My comments regarding the bicycle facilities are as follows: 1. ~he number ot Class I bike facilities shown on page 1 is 65 lockers. The locker5 co~e in ~ultiples of tvo. 1 believe thQ correct number is 64 lockers, base~ on the estimated size of each bite locker grouping. 2. The manufacturer 9iven for the Class X facilities, Bike Lockers LTD •• Is acceptable. The lockers must be fitted with tubular key lock mechanism. The barrel bolt lock wbich is also menti~ed in the manutacturer's specifications is not acc::ep,table .. 3. '[he sidewalk area surrounding ea.ch cluster of Class I bike lockers must be a ainimum of 5 ft. wide. The plans now indicate only 4 ft. c. ~he visitor bike parking is shown on page 1 (Xaster Site Plan) as ~inq adjacent to the vis tor auto court and drop otf area. But on page L.2 {CQUrtyard Plan) the visitor bike racks are located near the employee parking lo,ts. The latter location is not acceptable. The V-Lok style of vistor bike racks is acceptable, however. 5. Subsequent sets or plans must show the visitor and employee bike parking areas in more detail. • .• • '::.~f. ' .~ '. .-';.:::. ,,' ~~ - Mr. James Gilliland CiIJ ol Yalo Allo Department 0( Planning and Community Environment P. O. Box 10250 Palo AIIO, CA 9430H)862 RE: Cullural Re"",rces at 1M 3400 HiD";" ... Avenue Projecl ow-Mr. Gi!Iiland, n"SFORD t!NI .... ERSli't 'UPl,.DtNG 110 S'TAJ'II1'O!I:D, CAUFOJINl .... 901)(,~:! i4S .c.snzs,1'l!S6 r'::' r: .-. ..-~ -:----;:. I. ,i"-.' ,) .. lay 8.1990 lil.' rk~ 1C!;:lj,J :.::.' ; I }.¥ o/"pC~ ~co"~;:"\ . Thi.letter ~spond. '" your April S, 1990 request for comments on lIle Focused Draf! Environmental Impact Report for 1M XeenanlLoveweD projecl al 3400 Hillview_ The Cullural Resources section of Ille DEIR (pages 46-<17) gives an accurale description of investigation.'" dale .t archeological sil. CA-SCL·3, located on Matadero Crttk ., 1M project sile. The proposed .ite plan inelka.es Illat buildings, parking 100 and watk-...·ays bavc beeR destgned 10 avoid disturba.nce \0 arc'heo1ogkal reS('>lm:es. Theref-ore. Stanford's Office 0( Campu. Arc~eology is funy san.f",d tIl.t propooea construction and gra<ling activities WIll DOl impact CA-SCL·J. As noted on ptge 46 .. it is possible l11al wnstrucuoo activity may impact isoTaled artifacts or human .remiUns outside the boundary of CA-SCl.p3+ To i<fentify and recO"'er 311, isolated artifacts or .remains. the Campus Arcbeo1og:y OffICe will monitor an gradlng and excavaJion wode. related 10 construction on. t1\e project site. We win a1so enSlJre that appropriare mitigation measures are JOnowed in the even! that me project disturbs human remains. Than. you for til_ oppo<Iunity 10 Commenl on til. DEIR (heran we find tIlat the project poses no sjgnirx:ant impacts '10 the cullural resourtd at 3400 HiDvie .... ,. Campus Arcl:!eology would like 10 commend the Keenan/Love"Vrt'eD land Company for designing a project wbiel! "'ill prese",ellle importanl arcbeologicaJ sire .t CA·SCL-3. Since.n:1y. Barbara ~k. P~.D. Campus Archeologist ce: Kin P",yn, SW1ford , l '". --'."7:- I ! .,;-:-. I , I , I t r , I I I c l 1 l , .' " -,-Aln G!\.H.JI<I bwu.1. c.u,.,au c...~c-.0. ... , L §C".ODn STl .... WIOI ''''"''"" _.c-, IQ.(U I. SIO(IlWtU -,-hiD Nr<; .. ...... - CIfW_~ DotIl'W.&.o" .. .... lIn G. 1.1" s..._c_ ,. .. IU[I To. Noo. ... s.....o...r_ )tJ.oa I.luu,)I. 100 DlaIDO .. ""--...... ,- ,. .... SotIIJWC; -,- W'La ... L llK'<4 ... _ ... _ .. "'-'---0. ........ Mclltv. ... 1' ..... ~_ --<--"'",(;110 J.. SoI.o('\IS.Oo .... ---'"------"'II:. lo.c .. lOf. D r __ ... _o... .. t..o. ...... -.a o. o.. .... ~ ~r __ o-... W"-II".'. H'I"" .. - i, MTC M,ETIO'OU1"N. TRANSPORtATION COMMISSION 1:7'. i-,-' .. -" ,::-'1 h- Mal IS. 1990 DepartmeDt of 'Tann!ng and Ccmmun1tJ £nvironment 250 Hl.llton A,onue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto. CA 94303-0852 Attention: JamfS Gilltland Subject: Draft £,,'ronm,,101 Imp.,t Report. 3400 HI I hie. Avenu" Doar Mr. Gl11llond: Ibts letter conta1ns Metropolftan TransportatTon Commlsstcn (MTC) staff <""",ents on the D£III for the 3400 ~llh!o"',,enue ,rojoct. rhe project .oul~ replace 92.000 squaro fe.t of Indu,trl.1 space wlt_ 205.000 squore f.et of offl, •• paco. The ~roject ,It. Is Io<ated near t~e ,out~w.st corner of the fot.r.ectlon of foothill Expressway and ~111Yfew Avenue 1a t~e Sta~ford Re~earch Pari. T~e O£I; contaf~s I comprenensfve discuss'on of transpo~tation Issoes and impac~s whfc~ would res~lt from development of t~e project. Our comments irE lim1ted to the following points: 1. Tran5PQftat'on Demand Management. Tht DEli emphasizes Transportatfon Demand Management (TOM) strategies to reduce trips. The TOK program meaSllres on p~ 2B could be e\l!n mo,re effecthe if U ~ere to consider ~referentfal parking for ranpools and carpools. 2. Siry,l, Cfrcplttfon. T~e DfIR describes several features of tne project ~hfc~ would encourage bfcycle commuting. sucb is providing bicycle lo<\ers. employee s~owers~ and bicycle pat~s ~ithiD the sit •. The DEIR should also ~iscu" bl,ycl! acces,ibilitl to the projett sltt from t~e surrounding resfde~tfil areas ~t~fl a comfortable ~!cy'llng distance. Th. DUR should also discuss how bfcyclfsts 'Would' (ross malo,r roads such as Footh'ill £.presswa,)'. EllIYfe~Av!nue. and Page Mill Road. 3. Access t? Trans,t. The DEJR discusses existing transit ser~icE5 I. the .'cl.,ly of t~. proj.,t. Althoug" s.veral bus rout.s stop neaf the fltersectfon of foot~"l [lpresswaJ and ~ilIYfe. ~wenue. the DEli ~oel "ot speclflcall] 'iscus, ped.strla. "cess betw •• n tho bus stop .n~ the buildings. A lack of good ped.strlan acc •• s between bu'T~fngs and transft stops tends to discouragE transit ~se~ We recommend tnat such access be consfdered lB the sftt ~esfgn as I strategy to promote transit WS!. \ Josl, ... Po IOIr MnlOCINJU -101 (I(;HTI't Stun • O~.r;I.ANO. C" 94607-'100. 415/464-7700 • U.X nS/464-7148 -egA"' '0---- • ! ! I f . I • • , ".---. Rf: ~, I hlew Avenu. l1al 15, U* fage Tw~ \ Tha"~ you for the oppc>rtunlty to eanmeot on the OUI for the 3400 Eillyiew Avenu. projoct. If you have .ny quostlons about t~ese comments. pl •• s. eo'l Be ot (415) 464-7662. lOI:rbp 6849p-1O ee: Commissioner Dlrl60n Canml.sloner Bo.I' Sally Conoal., ABAG ~enrl ~llken. BAAQHD Ha6. Creon., Ca,tr.n. Dl.t. 4 Very truly yours, K.lth Mattson [nv1ronment.l Revfew Officer . \ . • .-; '. , .,-.~~-.: . C~i· • ~ .. ' ... ' .. t .. , .,,~-. ".' .1. .... 1£0 .. CO\ft<n' £" ... ".dI" C."\Ilb<l~1 $" '!fo, J c.-..pOe~ IC""'pt<IIO"J C .. ...c:k CO'OCI Fr.~ M ~ ... -, ;~. /. __ .... ~ __ .d.._.,.... ...... ____ M ......... _-_ ""."......~ ___ :-",,,,,-,-~ __ ,_,,,,,,,-., BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT May 15,1990 ,c' \ CO~, j:U, COS," COUNT'" Paull Cooper !'Sec,,,lot'rl'l S ... ~,.,. .r.g1l1 M-c~u;. City 01 PaTo Alto ! r ; . i .~ L 8' -;, L 1 t- t,'",R;IPI,I COU~i ... .. ,., .. ~ .. ,..A.P .... CO~T'I' 8ce a,7>'k S" N n,,,,'llCrSC::> COUNT 'f' " .. ", G e.rt! .:l ,m (;Q<1lll~'" S-'<N *'110 TEO COU'f\jT'>/ G~ J ""CO'~ .. lv:!o ""..,~ .. e .. "oCl ~~"'~" Cl ........... COI".,."rv "'l'~" C'<!oI"iii"" '<;,'J 0,,-<:,-.., I':,-:-·"'iI '-< "_eo--," S,,· v·-" "", ~.,.... ~~JL:.-..r:'CCl"''''( O'~. 0"." "II"",C""?E-:5.<t" S::"'O~'" CC"' .... TW J.,"">;.~.,,;o<' Department 01 Planning and Commun~y Development 250 Hammon Avenue Post Office Bo. 10250 Palo Alto, Cal~orn;a 94303-0862 At:en!icn; Jarrnls E. GilIITand ~ AdminislIalor Dear Mr. GmITand: We tlave reviewed Ihe Draft Envlroomentallmpact Report for !he 3400 Hillview Avenue project The project proposes \he redevelopmenl 01 a 16 3 acre sfte in 1I1e StanTord Research Park and the construction 01 five bu~c!ings comprising a Iotal area 01 206,000 square reet The proposed project would replace a 92,000 square loot induslIiaT lacmtl. The proposed project has incorporaled a streng Tran5por\aTion Demand Management (TOM) program as 01'1€ m~igatlon of project-reTaTed lraffiC and ak quanty impacls. We are pleased 10 sw !his commitmenllo a TOM program. We commend 1I1e Cfty 01 PaTo Alto for making the TOM program a COO<:f~ion lor project approval. r the project is approved, then such a Program will helj:llo redt.i<;E lotaT vehicle Ir"ips and hence will help redoce local and regional emissions 01 air ponutanTs. In Ihe discussion on the proposed project's cooslsTency with local and regional goaTs, plans and policies [pages 10 Ihrough 13 01 the DEIRJ we nole lIlatlhere Is no reTerence made to the Bay Alea I-Jr Quanty PIa,,-The Final Envlronmentallmpact Report (FEIR) shouTd include a cliscussion on whether or IY.)( !he project is consiSTent with the assumptions and preo'"lCIions contained in the Plarc Relatedly, we also would appreciate being "'10fI!100 abolA Ihe starus o(!he Alr Ouanty Element v.f1ich had been prograrr~ lor Palo Alto·. own General Plan Upc!ate. We !<.now that the special study, incfuc!ing special carbon monoxide mon~oring, was completed by consuftanls a lew years ago. In OUt' fe"e< 01 February 13,1990 in respo<'1se 10 !he Notlce 01 PreparaTion oIl1le DEIR. we recommended thel any remediallon oIloxi<: contaminants be completed prior 10 any excavaHon or construction laking -~ ..... 'I ... ·1II75io1' ... "Cr"·-.-.. .---. .. . . " , , \ \ '-., . .,. . ~ \ , , . ,-;,~ '.'- ., [ i I ": -----:- i -~/~" ~ 1~1rl' • • --:~"':~.M~: ~ ~ . ) IAIIJ~,,"~:;.;, "-..;..~ .... __ .~ ""'"_~_~"_""""""";:;k"'''(j"AII''' __ ''_''''_;''''~~-_ '" 1$ - Mr. James E. GiIInand Ma~ 15. 1990 PagE 2 place at fle s1le. We would again like 10 ma~e lhis rec6mmendatlOO as a prudanI aftemalive 10 allowing construc'ion and clean-up 10 oea:" slm<JftaneovsTy. We lee! thaI keeplf'\g \he two aclivities sepa,ate will help minimize \he eKPOSU<e 01 workers 10 IOKie contaminanls . • you have any questions, please can M'odlae! Mu<phy. Planoer al (415)771-6000, extension 133. ce: SincererI'. ~~ Mihon Fe1dsleill }Jr Pollution COntrol Offieer BAAOMD Direclor Martha Clevenger BAAOMD Direclor Rod Diridon SMOMD Direclor Roberta H. Hughan SAAOMD Direclor SusaMe wnson MF:MM:1m I I h· >. ~ .......• - i - . , / IMFDRHATIONAl ~rMnRANDU~ ARCHITECTURAL REVIE~ BnARD JUNE 21. 1990 I • REGUUR AGENDO\ 1. • as-ARB-2ll 89-D-1~ B9·[!~-4e Kajor $ftr and desfgn re~few ~f demolition of a~ existing 90,DOO-square-foot rtsearck ~nd development building and constructiDn of five new tw~-sto~1 buildings totaling 20S,OOD sQuare feet ~it~ surface parking fo~ 688 cars REQUfSTEO ACTION ARB review alid comments on Ue Of'aft Environmental Impact (DEIR) and recommendatfcD to titl Counc1l on the site a~d design appl1catfon. Site lDfo~ation. zonfn; desfg~at;on and fnform~t~on en the En~ironmental impact assessment is contained in t~e attac~ed staff report to t~e flannlog COl1l11lss!on dat.d l'Ial 25. 1990. The OfIR .as dlstr; outee! to the ARB members on June 7. 1990. BACKGROUND The propos~d des'gn was rewiewed by t~e ARB as a preliminary ~n September ZI. 1989_ The minute. are attached to the Planning CommissIon staff report. The prDject was rlvfewed by t~e Planning Co~fss;on on June J3, 1990. The CommissfGD had minor comments on the OfIR, specificall, requesting inclusion gf wfs~al drawings ~f typical ~ater stripping towers, IIHfgiltions to redlJ(~ t~e ... isual and aBsthetit impacts of the reta1r:Jlng walls. fncl~sfon of monitoring and mitigations related to the speed of traffic Dn lhe drfwe~aJ entrances, an explar.ation of the 10,OOO-square-foot exem~tfon for housing and trifffc mitigation purposes and ioclusfon of a statement regarding long-range water availability. The Commiss~cn recommended approval of the site and design ipplicatfon fnc~ud;ng ,ondllions I t~rcugh a is listed on pages 6 and 7 of the enclosed 'lannfng Commission staff report. Since the colors ind materials ~ad not been rev~ewed by the Commission. the CommisSion!fS requested that the ARB closf1y stf~tinize them, IS well as tne design of the retoiling wa1ls. The project flu rece-h.'ed approval frora Stanford Uni'llersi ty fof' the basic design fntluding the site plan. ~assin91 ~relfm1~ar) landscaping 1 basic building walls and color palette; however Stanford ~a5 not giv~n final Ippro'llal tG the desfgn subject to tne follo~ing conditions: J~ Rewhfon of t"e entry porticoes for build'ings :; and 4; 2. RevisiDn Clf III the buildings· cornEr balconies. related fenestritfo~. ind solar S(rfen~~g de'llices; -5 - • , t , 1;-. l i - • , . \ . . "",~.--~-",,,,~,,,"'\."""Qo,:!,~-~.~~ l. Spe,lflcatl~n.f the 'ill.14e ret.i,ing w.l1. fin.l design .nd lI'Iaterf&1s~ 4. ne.lg" of the proposed hillside st.irwa, connecting t_is .Ito w;t~ kerol·s upilope site; 5. final landsc.po plans Including the grading pl.n; an4 6. final &.torl,l an4 eolor pal.tte for ,II exterior development. The l.ttor from Stanford Unlverslt, d.ted May lO, 1990 Is Included In the pa,ket. DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS Included I. the p.c~et or. three sets cf drawings rel.ted to the project: I. A larger set of bloe line drawings dated April 30. 1990. 2~ An 1]-xl1-set Df (11or presentation drawings. 3. An 11-.1'· set of Xerox drawings. rl'S set has additional drawings showing the stairs (IE). front elev,tlon. for buildings 3 and 4 (SA .nd 86) .nd building wall secllons {9A .nd 9B}. Related t. the deslg. of the building and .Ite. st.ff shares the c~n,ern. expressed by Stanford Unlverslt,. If the projecl is being designed .s a campus with the possibllit, of several lena"t$~ t~e secDndar¥ e~trances co buildings 3 and C should reflect .n appropriate deSign. II addition, the pro;osed sun screens prDYfd~ an eXiggerlted scale to an Ilready ~assive butldfng. The proposed round ctlumns at the entrances are not ;~ leeping with t~e project d.sign. V. beliov, that these entrance elements, balconfes. sunscreen elements. and wall settions, need f~rther design efevelopment. I~ idditfo~ to t~e flfonmat~o~ req~ested by the Plann\~g Commission (or the air stripping towers. st.ff believes that the applicant should provide some details at this tf .. as t. how the .ir strlppl~g tower >rill fil f.to the site fl the loc,tlon shown on the page 1 site pIa., Including any scre •• IDg. landscaping and additlon.l retai.iog .a11s. RECCHMENDATION Staff believes t~at t~e above design .lements are significant and that design revisions should returl to t~e Boa~ prior ta sub~itting for I building per&it. However, I. order to allow the proposal to be heard by the (It 1 Council prior t. Cltl Council racalion (August 14 to September 10). staff \. recommending that the ARB comment on the O£IR .nd recommend ,pprov.' the site and deSign proposal with the f.110wing conditions whit. Ilust be le"1ew~d and Ipproved fly Stanford UnhersUy Ind the ARB pri.ar to submission for, Building Per.it: I. Revision.f the entry porticoes for buildIngs 3 .nd C; t. Rewisfon of III t~e buildings' corner balconies. rel.ted fenestritfoD. ind solar screeniDg dtvfces; -, - I I [ ,.; ",.i , - ). Speclflcatloo of the billsl~e ret.!,lng walls final desi~n and lIilterhlsj 4. Design Qf t~e ~ropcs!d '1111~de stairway (onnectfng t~15 ~ite with X~rcx~s ~pslope sfte; ~. fln.l landscape pl.ns Including the grading plan; I. firla' lIiterfil and cclor palette for all u:te'r1or cfeveloprr.ent; J. Approval by Public ~orks Df i1 preliminary grading and drainage plan; 8. ReviSion of t~e parking Tot to provide for landscape tslands after ewer)' tent~ parldng space and to create a If·ore sh:ldardlZed visitor parking/drop-cff area it the frent of t~e building; 9. Additional hforll'1ation on He size, height, screer~ing. etc. of the requlred ground water e.tractfon 5y~tem and illT strippin~ to~er. 10. RevisfoD of the landscape plans to preclude the use of any ~lant that will gr~~ to I natural height above 30· in all landscape areas adjacent to r~tersections f~ the parki~g 10tsi 11. PrDvfsfon for the bfcycTe IDC~frs to ~e fjtte~ wit~ tubular key lock lIechanism. 12. Redesrgn of the sfdewalks adjacent to each cl~ster of bile lotkers to i mi~imum of S feet w1~e; 13. Relocltfon of wfsitor bTle parklng adjacent to the ~1sitor luto court as sllown on the master sHe phr'l and not MaT the employee parklng lots is shown on the courtyard pian; 14. Pro~fsion fer an e~ergency fire acc~ss easement on t~e adjacent propert, (Xerox) with tne condition that no fences or obstruction may be co~slr~ted between t~e two properties. [~ additro~~ applicant must comp1y wit" t~e conditions ~nd mitigat50ns is ~efio.~ i. the DfIR dat.~ April 1990. Recommendation for approval is based on the following findings: J~ The project is proposed will not ~ave a significant impact on the pbysical enwironment sfnce the applicant ~as agreed to incorporate ~easures. de~(ribed 51 t~e Di!Q. that will mitigate p~tentfll transport.tron, houstng and hazardous materfal impacts to an acceptable level. Z. The mffice building design is consistent a~d compatlble .nt~ the lfmited I"dust,ril/Researc~ Pari District Co~prehensive land U5e Plan designation on the site. ). The proposed building deSign, with its t.o-story height, centr.l court,)'ard. and hnds.caped phza He in sc.aTe and cl',arac.ter witll the surrounding land ~ses in the Stanford Research Park. - 1 ~ I , f , -, • .. ~~ I • / 4. ne oxtens've landscape desIgn concept for the sIte, tho added landscapIng I. the parkIng lots, and the campus· type llyout of the b~iTdi~9S crelte I desirable Ind functfonal environment. 5. The Fllnnlng and locltlon of the .arfous fuoctlons on th. sIt. <reate In rBte~ll sense of order and provides a des;rable eovfronment (or occupant •• Yflttors lnd the 9~neri' commun1t1 r. that '.nescaping, •• bfc.hr FarUng. bIcycle parllng, .nd courty.rd .r ... h"e been designed to create I saft and (onven;ent envtronment. -8 :'~:~jxr· . ,.-"".~-. - • . : , . - Lands Mlln3f,ement "'Y )(). 199Q Kr. John Lovev~ll The Lovevell Comp8ny ]00 Emexson Street Palo .!lto~ CA 94>01 SubJect: Approval of tl-.c; neW' buildirlg de',·el.,pmene at: 3400 Eillvie ..... Q!C V~ntur~. 'al0 Al~o, ~e.olr Jobn: This letter notifies '0;.1 of S'ta'(\ford's app["~va.l for the above referenced proJect. This lIajor rebuilding pcojecc: encompasses c:be demolition of the ex!st(ng building and tbe construction ~f the nev flve builGin&~ 2'05.000 square foot comp1ex. Our approva.l is stlbject -to Stanfol:¢'s satLsfa.c.tory subsequent: rl;vie. of t_he follo.,;ing.: 1) ~ev1sfon of tne ·front~ ~o buildings' entry portlcoes; t) llevIsion of all of tnt. buildin.gs· corrj£r bal<::or.ies, related fenestration, and solar screening devices; 3) Specification of the hillside ret~ining valls final d~sign and .aterials; 4) Design of the proposed hillsIde ,Hain.:ay c.onr,ecting this site vieb. X~ro-x:"s upslope. site; 5) FinAl landscape pla.ns including c.'he grading. plan; and this approv~l is ba$ed OD our re?iew of the project"s architectural elements tb~t Wer~ descrioed in the plans submittpd ~o my office. Any alteta.t.ion.s of th~se plans 3l.US~ be simi lu: l, re~"ie",,£d and appt"cved b, dds office. AdditIonally, our appr~val 1s subject to ~he fpllo~i~g co~ditions: 1. All governmental approval. safety. f.rocedural, ane -':)ther regulatIons and standards ~h~ll be met i~cluding the 5ilthbctor:t completioD of tne EIR, . . , r t , " ~:. i ! f I ! \ , -~ . ~r. John Love~ell Kay 10. 1990 Page. tvo 2+ Vrltten notice is required ten working &sys prio~ to c:oZllllencln, construction so tbat an "pprcpri.3te N(ltice of Nc~re5ponsibl1i~y may b~ ?os~e4 by Stanford. This t~lud~s • notice prioy Co ~molft{oQ and a sImilar noeice prior to building construction. 3. One set of as·built plan5 ~11 be fcrward~d to this ~ffice with!_ thIrty day. of project eom91etlon. 4~ All r~asonable precaut{cns t~ safeguard existing trees viII be te~en aurins Constructfon. 5+ A Stanford archeolo&t$~ (or suitable representative) may Inspect .ny escavatfoo for the ~resence of s[gniflcant archeolo,lcal artifacts. In exceptional cases, tbis insp~cttou condition could t&~e the form of continual monitorIng (at a nominal hourly rate to be cbarged Co you) and PO$sllJle job stoppage. 6. Vh~re ~xc&v&tion Is necessary and tbe possibility exists of encoun~ering existiog un4erground utility lines. the Under&round ServIce Alerc org.ni~~t[oo will be called twa vor~Ing days prior to ~xc&vatlon commencemenc (SOO-t41-2444). 'lease feel free ~o call if you ~ave an~ questloos_ y~~­I~~~ LIInds &n.a~lI!r V'IQI;hr c-c: !arbar. ~ocek~ Stanford Ancnropology Car~ ~yaon~ Antbony K~ Ga%zardo & Associates n.vid Jie1.Ul.an~ St.anfo·rd OrevOman s Stanford ken lodrigues, ~.nneth ~odrigues & Associates Vir&infa ~aThelt, ARB :~t~~~~4/: ';... J' - -- 'i "., •. .* . .