HomeMy WebLinkAbout0203.093•
..
~", ".".-
, '
"~", " , ~
March 11, 1!f93
HONORABLE CliY COUNCIL
Palo Alt~. California
1050 Aras!radera Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Sit.\LA .. ruLOesign Re'lli('w. and Varianc!s
Members of the C.ouncil:
Rgport.i!LSrief
11
rp,is report forwards to Council an alternati",e proposal by the applicant,
(eenan-lo\'ewell Ventures, to mitlgite the lass of a potential 88 housing units
at 1050 Aristradero Road and a recommendatlon to refer the appllcation blCk to
staff and the Pianning Commission for preparation of a Development Agreement.
~KIiROUND
T~e application, first considered b~ the (ouncil on November 23, 1993~ is for
(I) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the
vacant parcel at 1050 Arastradero Read t from MultipTe-Family Residential to
R~search!Off;Cf Park; (2) i Site and Design Review of t~o proposed research
and development b~i'dings total~ng 75,980 square feet and reiated site
improvements; and (3} variances to exceed the allowabTa 35-foot t1eight by
5 fe~t and i side yard setback of 20 feet where 40 feet is the minimum
required. A more detailed description of the pl'-oject and the actions af the
Planni~9 Commission ar,d Architectural Re~iew 8oa~d are provided in the
attached Cit; Mun'ger's Report (CMR:460:92). which includes the Planning
Commission staff report.
At its meetin9 of Nn~ember 23, }993, the Ctty CounciT expres5ed genera'
5~pport for the site and design application and variances, but was cDncerned
about the sitigation proposed to offset tnf pot€ntial 1055 nf 88 housing units
on tne site due to tne change in tn€ Ccmprehens;ye Plan land use ~esignation.
The proposed miti9ation was a doubling of the required housing mitigat'lon fee
(5486,000) .
The-Council approved 8-0 {Council Member Cobb did nat participah) a gO-day
extension from January 8, 1993 t~ April 8, 2993_ The extension was granted to
CMR:203:93
.~.
-21 ..
-
· -~:""" . , -~:.-?f";"< -
;~ ~'"
.--=-,:"""'" ,"
'-
allow t~~ ~pplic~nt to ~ork with staff and return tQ the City Council with an
alterr.at1ve mitigation pr~posal wh1ch directly r~iat~s to the potential loss
cf ee housing units.
illCRIPTlON
After d'fscu-Hions wit" staff a.nd CounctT Members, the lppl icant has presented
an alternative proPQ$al to mitigate tha potential loss of housing? is ~el1 as
comply with ttH! required "'Dusln9 and tnnsportation impact fees. The
applicant's proposal is contained in the attached memo to lorraine Weis$,
dated March L 1993, and is rE'peate4 is fcli{)"Jlls:
-1. 1050 Arastradero shall be approved pursuant to the staff, ARB, and
Plannfng Commi~s~on rec~ndation.
"2. 1050 Arastradero sh.ll be subject to the following troffic and
housing mitigation fees, (in Cildaitior; to current normal City
appljcation and permit fees):
A+ Statutory traffic ff! (current estimate $192,000+) subject
to annual CPl 'Col'!S:lJ~r Pric.e Index} adjustments.
8. Statutory housirl!t mitigation fee {current estimate $243.000)
to be fixed at the cu~~ent amou"t.
C. Additional housing mitigation fee equal to $407,000
(S650,000 . $243,000).
o . All c;f the above fees sha 11 be due and payab 1 e one yea"
ifter building permit.
-3. A Oevelopment A9reement between t~~ Cit~ and property owner
whereby the fees and entitlement shall be binding for a term of
ten years.
".. City of Palo Alto to acqulre 753 Alma for purpose of SRO ~cusin9
as soor. as can r~asQndbly be accomplished, i.e., 90 days. Said
site shall be for the sum of $650,000 subject to hazardous
materials study and i~praisal. Closing costs t~ be alTocated per
the custom of Santa Clara County."
ANALYSIS
Staff and the applicant ha~e not c~nc1uded negotiations; hQwever, staff is
supportive of the direttion of the negotiations. Staff's comments on the
elements of the alternative proposal are is follows:
I. Staff supports approval of the design of the j)raject, the site and
design application and the variances to height and side yard setback as
pre.iously stated in CMR:450:92.
CMR:2Cl:93 l/1l/93
Page 2
-
".
2. Staff suppor!s the ronowing chang1!s to the applicil:'lt's proposals fer
traffic and housing mitlgation fees;
A.
B.
The proposal for the traffi~ fee based on new square footage
(currently estimated at $192,000) lf111th annual CPJ adjustment.; is
,,,<,tobl •.
Staff recommends that the rEquired ~ousing mitigatic~ fee based on
new sQuare footage and currentl) esti~ated at 5243,000, shDuld
also be subject to annual adjustments based an CPl. T~e
requirement for the fee and ~n anr.ual adjustment is specifically
required by the existing Ordina~c~ (Chapter 16.47, PANe).
Authorization to modify this require~~nt would require new
Ordinance Ta~guage for this project.
C. Staff recommends that th~ additional mitigatio~ fees be subject to
an annual adjustment, particularly if the time required fo'r" the
p~nt of the fees is extended b~ycnd the two-year provision5 of
the site and design regulations.
D. Tne required time for payment of th.e traffic ind housing
"dt.!lgation fees is contalned in the enabling Ordinances. The
traffic fee is due in full at thE time of the issuance of the
building permit. Tn! housing P.1itigiti!Jn fee is due (me-half at
building permit issuance and one-ha1f at occupancy. Authorization
to ~odify this requirement would require new Ordinance language
for this project~ wn;ch staff does net support. Since it is not
an Ordina~ce requirement t the time for payment of the ldditio~al
hOllsing mitigation fee can be nfgot1ated.
3~ T~e applicant is proDosing a Development ftgreement in order to have full
entitlement for the project for a ten-year period. The granting of a
Develop~nt Agreement requires the Council to make findings of
extraordinary benefit. If the project entitlements lre Extended to ten
years and tnf! housing mitigation fees are frozen at the curr-ent 1e"els~
staff be1ieves that it rr.-ill be difficult to make ttv~ findings.
Moreover, staff believes that a ten-·year e:ntitlement ~:; excessive;
however, considering the current economy and the djff~culty in obtaining
financing, an entHTement beyond two years may be appropriate.
ot.. As a cOl"!ITIerchllY-lo!lad propertj (CD·S). 753 Alma Street could
effectively be u!;ed fQr residential purposes and c-ould offset the
potential loss of housin9 on the ]050 Ara~trader~ site. The 17,640
square-foot Alma Street site couid pro\iide 8.0+ units of Single Room
Occupancy (SRO} housing. It should be noted that in order to build an
SRO or other housir.g excEedin9 40 units per acre, a zone change~ such as
i Planned Communlty zone, will be reQu~red. UntiT the environmental
documentation is prepared and public hearings held, the Council cannot
coanit to the use of the 753 Alma Street site fer housing exceeding 40
units per acre.
CMR:203:93 3/11/93
P'ge 3
•
---
-
Since the Alma StreEt property is included is a part of the p~ckage.
which $~bstitutes the potential houslng 105$ at the lOSe Arastrad~ro
site tc a potential ga1~ at the 153 Alma Street site, the purchase pric~
s.holJld pr<:lvide so~ b~nefit to the City that could not be gained by
t-llying the property on the open mar~et. At a minlmum, staff reconvnends
t~at the purc~as~ price be $650,000 or the apprdised ~alue, whicheve~ is
less. in addition to tJ'te appraisal. a level two !iolls report i!;~d title
report ~il1 be required. Sha~ld any conditions be raised by the sOlls
report, these would halle to be resolved prior to purcnase.
Since the project requires i Ccmprenens;~e Pian change, the State P~rmit
Stream1ining 4ct is not applicab1e until the proposed project is consi~tent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Ccu~cil nee~ not take finaT
action O~ this item prior to April 8, lS93, if the applicant is agreeable to
further continuance and so states on the record before the Council.
if a Development Agreement is to be pursued, the document must be re\l1ewed 0)1
the P1anning Commission at a public ~ea~ing prior to Council re~iew and final
action on the project and the Develop~ent Agreement.
~ ECOffoiENDA HQN
Staff recommends that the City Council provide guidanc~ to the staff and
applicant on the terms and conditions to be included l~ a Development
Agreement and refer thE application back to the staff for preparation of a
Development Agreement and revision of the environmental as~sessment. A
finalized OeYelopment Agreement would then be reviewed and a recommendation
!lade by the Plannirlg Comisslon prior to retnrn to Council for final acti-on 0:1
the revised negative declaNtion, the Agreement, the C.omprehensive Plan
amendment, variances and site and design reyi~w.
R •• p ctf"11y '"~'bm;~t.~.
I co' I ~ C-~ t _ t-I:tfL[)
S L GIlllL D
agel'" Planning Projects
AtL~
l ~u~ FLEMING
City Manager
Attachillents:
c£/ /..£/ ,J/ ./ rU' )i/;;;;t;( / 1~.,{fi0/«,/-
KENNETH P.. ScHREIBER /'
Director of Pla~ning and
CorrmunHj [nvi ~·onment
Memorandum from the Keenan land Company. dated ~~rch 1, 1993
CMR:4GO:92 f dated October IS, 1992~ with attachments
CHR:203;9l 3/11/93
p'1IC1"\'W\HI''"...o._ Page"
ro.
cc: K2enan-lovewel1 Ventures, JOO Emer50n 5treet, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Marilyn Bryant, lea.gue of .. omen Voters. of Palo Alto, 457 kingsley'
Avenue 7 Palo Alt~. CA ~4l0~
Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los p.les, CA 94306
Andy Doty. OirectuT of CDmmunit~ Relations. Stanfo~d un1versity.
407~ Scripps Avenue) Stanford, CA 94305
Ener; fletcher, 717 San Antonio Road, .?a1t1 A1to, (,.6.
Jos~p~ Martignetti, Jr •• Palo Alto Housing Corporitic~, 540 Co~cr
Street, Suit. G, Palo Alto, CA 9430l
Rob Moss, 4010 Orme, P.l0 Aito, CA 94106
Janet OWens. Pale Alto Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper Stre~t. Suite G. r,10 Alto, CA 94301
Denny Petrosian, 44j ~enturi. Pa10 ~lto. CA 9430&
Marlene Prendergast, Direct~r~ Housing Corpor.tion, 560 Chaucer Street,
P.10 AHo, CA
Kenneth RodrfQues 1 Asso'iite~, Int., 50 West San Fernand~~ i650~ San
Jose, CA 95113
CMR:203:93 3/11/93
Page S
,\
±.
... -
.-.... ,
March 1, 1993
TO: Ms. Lorraine Weiss
l'lanr.ing Department
City of PaiD Alto
FROM: QlOp Keenan a~/.
flowing Mitigation RE:
1050 Atastradero
Dear l..6rraine:
KeenBrl Lovewell Ventures propares the fallO'Aing terms in connettion with our pendil1g
application to develop a research and development project at 1050 Atastr.dero.
1. 1050 Arastradero 'haC be approved pursuant ", the .taft; ARB, and
Pla:tning Conunission recommendation.
2. 1050 Atutradero shan be .ubjeC! to the foDo"ing traffic and housing
mitigation fees, (in addition to current normal City application and permit
feel):
A. Statulcry t:affic fee (c\lIl"ent estimate $192,000~) subject to annual
CPl adjU5tmcn ts.
B. Statutory housing mitigalion fee (cumn: estimate $243,000) to be
fixed at the current amount.
C. Additional housing mitigation fee equal to $401,000 ($650,000 .
$243,000).
D. All of the above fee •• haD be due and payable one year after
building permit
3, A Development Agreement between the City and property OWOCr whereby !be
fees rmO enti!Jements shaH be binding for a teon of ten years.
4. City of Palo Alto to acquire 753 Alma for the purpo .. of SRO housing as SOOn as
0&" r ... onabl)' be accomplished, i.e., 90 day>. Said site .hall be for the sum of
$6$0,000 subjeC! to hazardous materials study and appraisat Closing costs to be
allocated per tbe Custom of Santa Oar. County.
£
-
m ~''OIt ___ _
October 15, 1992
HONOPA8lE CITI COUNCIL
Pa10 Alto, California
1050 Aristradero Road Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment.
Site and De.sign Reyjevf. and Var-ianc.es
Members of the Counc1i:
REPQRT IN BRIEf
This report forwards to the City Council an application by Keenan-Lovewell
Ventures to deY~1op a vacant property at 1050 Arastradero Road ~ntQ a research
and deve10pment use+ The application is for' (1) iI Comprehensive Flan Map
Amendment to change the hnd use deSignation from MuHiple-Familj Residentia1 to
Research/Office Park~ (2) 1 Site ilnd Desig~ Review of two proposed researcn and
d~velopment buildings totaling 75?980 square feet and related site i~provements~
a~d (3) variances to exceed the al1c.able 35-fc~t height by 5 feet and a s:de
yard setback of 20 feet where 40 f~et is th~ minimum required. A ~re detailed
desCri?tion ~f the project is ?ro'flided in the attached Pla.nning Commission staff
report.
PLAIlNING COMMISSION ACnON
On Aug'jst 26, 1992, the Planning ColT'ltlission reccmmended approval of the
app1ic..at;on to the City Council subject to the findinJs ilnd conditions listed
belo· .... by a VQt~ of 5-0 {Gla.zier ind Ma.rsh ahs.ent): 1) ttle atta-.:hed ~itiga.ted
Negathe Declilration, 2) resolution amending the Corr.prehensive Plan,
redeSignating the property from Multiple-famlly Re:;ide~tial to Research/Office
Park., 3) the \lariances to exceed the maximum height al10wed and siCe yard
setback; and 4) the site and design ap,ol icati<ln for the de .... elopment of two
research and development buildings and related site improvements. An excerpt of
the minut,=,s of the .r.e:eting are attached. Tr.e Phnning (omission a.lso asked
staff to provide additional information for City Council review. These item:> are
~~:=I.lssed belolif.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION
On September 17. 1992. the Architectural Reiiiew Board by a votE of 4~O (Maser
absent) recoll1'l'1ended approval of the proposed development slJbject to the findings
and conditions, including added conditions number 14 through 17. listed below.
An excerpt of the minutes of the meeting ii€ attached.
CMR:460:92
.,
-
1. Site History
In 1980, the City eva1uated for pot.entia1 !'lousing use a ~umbe'!'" Df sites,
including this site, which were 't'acilnt and' designated for n.or.-residentiaT
de'lelop~nt. Four sites 'lfltr,i" the citj ~.ere redes.ignated it! the Comprehensille
Plan Kap for hOusing. Prior to initiating tn~ rez=n;ng far the 1050 ~rastradero
Read site, Stanford and several adjacent Lest Altos Hills residents expressed
strong opposition to t"'-e use of this site for housing, As a resua l City staff
did "ot initiate the rezoning. and the site is cne of the few in the City ~here
the Comprehensive Plan designation is inconsistent ~'th th~ zoning.
In 1989, the ipp1iclnt submitted 1 propos~l for deye1opmer.t cf two resEarch and
development buildir.gs. a child ca!"'e centf:!r, ~nd related sHe improllements, This
appl ication was withdrawn by Stanford at a prel iminary stage. after City
emergency response staff raised concerns regarding the risks associated with
haying a c~i1d care facility in c10se proximity lJIith toxic gas storage
facilities. Concerns related' to the child care center, concentrating a
population of infants and tcddl€rs unable to evacuate ~ithout assistance, in
pr~Kimit~ to a toX\C gas storage facility. (,t~ eme~gency personnel suggested
mitigation measures, which included an early co~pl;ance ~ith the then-pending
toxic gas ordinance by surrounding facilities and the applitant prQ~id;ng an
Emergency EVacuation System for the Rese~rch Park.
Ouring the rellieVl of the pres'3'nt app1ication for a research and de'Telopment
facl1ity~ the Fire Department fndicated the lootion of ~:llar'dous materials
storige i$ not ~ concern for the iubject GPplic~tlon. i1nt~ the proposed daytime
population is c.apable of normal emer9~nc.y response and ur'oassisted ellicuation and
compliance with th~ toxic gas ordinance i5 row mandatory.
2. Obstruction of Vl~
The PlannIng (orrmissiM asKed the ArchHect:JraT Review B{lard to cOllment on
whether the towers would cause ~ view bloc.kage. The A.RB re .... i~'fIed a. section
submitted by the applicant illustrating a profile of the htl1side from above tr,e
site to Arastradero Read. The to~ers are locatEd at a differ~nt ele~ation tha~
the buildings, and the towers do not protrude abowe the buildi~9S. T~e added
h€ight of the to.tors does not ippear to cause any additional ~de .. biockage. TM
ove-ran project also does nCit disrupt views from buildings on the hillside beyolid
the subject site.
3. Housing aL~_,c.pp~opriate Use form'tJ"I..Jtm_Site
In 1geO, the site had been redesignated far multiple-family housing in the
C~rehens1ve Plan. At that time, housing was thought to be appropriate for tne
site serving as potentia1 tonven~ent ~ousin9 for employees of the Research ?Grk.
Relativ~ly isol~ted housing in a research and delleloprnent campus is currently
thought to be less. appropriate) because it does not affer the necessar)' ameniti€S
nO!"'ma 11 y enjoyed by res i den ts, l. e. , grocery 5 teres, parks, ind pub' i,
transportation, and it places higher c.oncentratiMs of residt:nts into relatively
closer proximity to to~ic materia1s and substances.
CMR:460: 92
p: \OIIr\lG,:)Oaras, f:<TJr
L
10/15/92
Page Z
--,,,-'-'~
-
~. WQt~r Allotm~nt
The Flanning CGmmission raised concerns of how thE 1andscaping for the propo~ed
deve~opment would i~pact the City's witer allotment. The p1an includes a 210-
fQct front setback, pla~ted with 1 meandering row of California Native Oak trees
&1 CHlg the Arutrader{) Road property frontage, at.d a yineycrd that meanders from
the setback to tnB rear of both bui1dings.
The Utilities Energy Senices Department has indicahd to staff tha.t these plans
meet water use guide1ines il1: effect at the tim€ ttie application .. as submitted.
The stindards for water consumption in effect at the tlme of Utility Department
review are bassd on a prescriptivE set of iimit5 on turf 3.nd high water use
pla.nts. ViM!'ards consume r,o.uth 1ess 'f/a.ter tr.a(\. turf but more than natill.e
plantings. me Utility planners further indicate the i!mount cf water that is
present1y al1o(ated to the City of Pall) Alto fr:::lm the San fr-a.fic15(O Water
Oistrict can accolMlodate the wineyard afJd all ~ther 1 a.nd~caping associ ate-d with
the development of this property.
Future projects will be revie~ed under a new and more water-restricti1e standard
which sets a maxiMum wa.ter alicwance on all entire landscape, not based .In a
sp!cific type of phntlngs. This standard 'Was approved by the City C.ouncil on
September 14, 1992 and will be: in eff€tt on October IS, 1992. Adrninistrative
PQlicy for appl~ing these guidelines is to subject all applications rece;~ed on
or subsequent to October ]5, 1992 to the new standards. Tnis project would not
be st.lbject t<l the stricter' standards unless specifically conditioned by Council.
The applica"t has not been asked to submit the necessary informatior, including
ca1culitlon sheets, to determine-wnether or not the p1tins comply with the new
standards.
S. Other Lands fg~' Housing So, tes
The P'a~n1ng Commission asked why t~e City is not reqt.l1rlng Stanford U~iversity
to provide other lands for resid~ntiil use, such as the site near Hoover
Pavilion. The site near He Hoove'!" PII .... ilion was cited by tt,e City as a potential
ho-usif'lg sHt in 1990, 'When Sta.nford \ln~'/ersity ir,iticte<ia ,..~dEs~gi'oaUcn of sites
in a COUl'lt)' Generid PTan A!Tlendme-nt. The City strongly supported a housing
designatiop or housing mitigation for tnis site du-ring the Count)' Planning
Corrmission's review of the . .\11er.dment and accompanying Enviromnental Impact
~eport. Thi!' Coul1ty Plann-ing COlTlYlission did not accept the City's recolTmendation.
U1timately, the Citj ~ndorsed a "UniversHj lands -Campus" designation ftlr the
site, prowided the County Board of Supervisors formalize a housing ~itigation far
development pr'oje-ct'S not mitigated by provisions of the Gerrera.l Use Permit.
Final County action by the Board did adopt such a housing mitigation for the
General Plan Amendr.~nt.
Staff belie~es it is time to reevaluate the treditional manner in ~hich housing
goals a~e achieved in Pa10 A1to. Tradit,onal1y, most California communities in
the 1970 1 5 were enc.ouraged and required by the State to seek. under-utilized and
vacant parcels or sit~s whic.h could be redeslgnated as housing sit!s. As vacant
parc!ls are developed, this strategy is no longer as applicable .s it once was.
The Comprehensi .... e-Pian Update will allc., tl)is corrmunHy the opportunity to
reco!\sider hOllsing potential iii a regional contExt and il'l collaboration "lt~
Stanford Unillersity. Strategies for' the ne)(t 15 to 20 years may include more
CHR:460:91
p-\=1"\1 OSOllrn, ~r-
L
10/15/91
Page 3
-
re',iarv:e 0I'l innovative hous-1ng concepts, {Le. 11ve-'Wor~. single resident
occupancy, and co-housing). As potential for r-edevelopmer,t tontinues (e.g., the
Palo Aito Medical f'our.daticn and the Urban lane area), new opportunities will
become available. The Comprenen~h'e Plan Update is the best forum for
City/Stanford coopHa:tion in finding housing solutions.
REVENUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Consi~tent with City Councl1 pJlicy. the appltcant nas submitted the attached
City Revenue Impact Analy.sis. Data in the Analysis tias bee-n re\llewed by the
City's FinancE Department. The Analysis indica.tes that the research and
development use will generate slightly higher City re'llenu~s, Staff does not
believ! that the difference in revenues is laNje enough to be sigliificant, and
thus City revenues are not of concern in [valuating the approprtat.eness of the
reQue$ted Comprehenslve Plan amendment.
FINDINGS AND CONQ)IIO~S
The Planning COll'lTlission and Architec:tural Review Soard recomend that the City
C01.Hi:Cll adopt the ~itigated Negative Oec.laration and amend the Comprehensive
Plan, grant variances to t,eight and side yard setbacks, and' approve the site and
design .application, subject to the following findings and conditi{lris.
FINDINGS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AHENDMENT
1. T~e redesignation for the propert} at HISO Arllstrad.ero Road is in
accordance with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, in that the
site and surrounding use are researcn and development in nature and
the designation will allow similar use.
2. The Comprehens1'Je Piar'! designation ilnd proposed development will not
resu1t 1n signi fic.ant environmental impacts) as documented in the
attached ).iti.1 Study and Mitigated Negative Dedaration (92-ElA
J9) prepared in aecordane'S " .. lith the Cal Horrda EnVironmental Quality
Act (CEQA) on August S, 1992.
3. The proposed amendment to the (omprenensive Plan is consister.t witn
Polici 13 of the Housing El~ment. which state~ that the City should
increase funding ~{jurc.e5 us~d to provide affJrdable housing, The
developer of this project win contribute funds from this cOrmlercial
development towards affordable housing.
4. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensi'llE
Plan is consistent with the definition of Researcr.jOffice Park to
pro·,idt! office, research. and manufacturing establishments ... hos~
operations are clean and Quiet and do not conflict with any adjacent
residentiil uses. Stanfcrd Research Par~ 15 an example of this type
of land use.
FINDINGS FOR HEIGHT ~.ND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCfS
1. There lre exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property invo1ved that do not ;;I;p,,~y generally to
CMR:460:92
L
10/15/92
Pag' 4
,
..
.,
, .
";~~
ft-:"
;
-
pn;perly in ";.ne same dis:tr-ict, in Hat the property :slopes 7S feet
from tt'le front tc the rear and the buildings are sited tc minimize
the amount of liisiJa,l impact, site gra.ding and exca't'ation and to
pro .... ide H.e necessary pa7'king, c~rct.:1.at;:on and site improlfements..
2. The grant~ng of tha application is necessarj for the preservation
i.n<! enjoymer,t of a slJ.bsta.ntia1 property right of the appl'ic.tnt t and
to prevent ur.reasonable property loss or unnecessary ~ard'::;nip. as
the appl icant could not provide the required amount of the parking
and site improvements for the two buildings and design the facility
ct>ns.istent with sta.nda.rd hillside deveil)pment 9lJidelilies., )llrJ1ch
encourage r~duction Qf fil~ and siting facilities parallel with the
natural cond1tiorl. Research and development facilities re.qufre
building footprints of the size proposed. lowering the bundings
furthi!r into tne earth would increase the .a~:ount of hi11side cut and
increase the heights of the retaining walls.
3. The grant1ng of tne application .i11 not be detrimental or injurious
tD property or improvements in the vicinity and wi n not be
detrimental to the public: health. safety, general welfare, or
conlfenience fn that the var; ance for hc-ight occurs only for the
tOWl:!rs which are no hi~her than the bui1ding they adjoin. The
towers are situated on severill felJt cf fill in order that ttley be
level with the parking a.reas from which people will enter the
facllity. The varr1ante setback request of 20 feet from the property
line for Buildlng 1 and BU11ding 2 is onl) for the building corners.
Where these setbacks Dccur~ the bui ldi!lgs are-one story. The
average setback for each of these buildings Is 40 f!et and 44 f~et
respectively. ihe corners protrud€ into the setback. area because
the buildings are placed ~on contour-rather than parallel ~ith the
property lines. Developing parallel with the contour is preferable
in Idlls1de development for reducing visual impacts and grading.
FltWINGS fOR SITE AAO OESIGN
1. The proposed deSign -.till be crd~rly, harmonious. and compatible "Hh
existing or petenthl uses of adjoining pr(iperty~ in tnat the
proposed use and impjo~e~~nts will be similar tn oth~~ uses In the
area and the project niS been designed to minimize visual impacts on
adjoining property.
2. lhe project wlll maintain desirability of investment in the same or
adjacent areas, in tnat the required on-site improvements and
, andsc.lping and COllstruct ion standards govi!,ned by the current
Uniform Building Code (USC) OT" other current codes will ... <)Sure a
hi9h quality ~f development.
3. The proposed design will observe sound principles of environmental
design ind ecological balance, in that tne selected 10cat1on of the
new structures and improvements limit disruption of the site, and
measures incorporated into the project design will help minimize
erosion and offset ~isual impacts.
(MR:460 :92
p: \QI1r \1050ol.l"~s _ 0:1;"
10/15/92
Page 5
I
I
I
I
t
f
i
!
" ."
\
-------------------------------~.~.-----..
;,:;..
"Jilew _.
4. The (:ol!'=preher-SiYE Plan Arnendment proposed to be i.pprov-ed a:; part of
this application win brine; the proposed use in conformance witt1 the
Pale Alto Comprehensi .... e Plan. The prCi:;osed research ar1d de .... elopmi?'lt
facility and rel.sted site improveme-nts a"e tonshtent with t"£
recommended Comprehensive Plan Amend~nt,
REC~ENOED CONOITlONS fOR Sln AND D€SlGN AND V.~RIANCE APPROVALS
1. ,., site p1.f'I i!. reqt.:ired which shows the full driveway, including the
exit p~rticn on the neighboring property. The uphtfl traffic
direct~on from the existing Syntex ~ri~eway ne~r the are~ next to
the Syntex parking stalls must be removed in order for this irrgress
and egress to .arK. A plan must be submitted showing both sides of
the driveway. with signing and stripfn9 that meets Transportation
Division standards. prior to issuance of building permit.
2. A revised circulation plan shall be submitted illustrating all the
details of access to this drivewa.y under cDnsideration to meet the
satisfaction of the Transportation Dhisi{ln, prior to issuance of a
building permit. The plan shall include circulation on the 5~bject
site Gnd adjoining properties. parking 1ayout. striping and si9nag~.
3. A detailed grading. drainage~ and erosion repalr phn prepared' by a
reg-is.tered ciVil engineer shall be sli~itted t(l the Planning
Division and Public Works Department for review and approvai prior
to iss.uance of a buildlf'l9 pennit. Construction <:Ietails and
calculations for all drainage facilities snall be submitted with the
deta11ed drainage plans.
4. All grading and development O~ the site shall c01'1form with a11
aspects. of the project soil ilnd ge-otechnical report recol'llllendations.
The project 9tOtechnical engineer will be required to certify that
the 9ri.d1ng and construction .. -ere: dcne in accQrdance with their
recol1ll'!endaticr.s, prior to finalization of the building permit.
S. Prior to issuance of a bU11ding permit, a detailed landscape ~lan
and irrigatio!l plan (1/2 si:!e dra\llit1gs) shall be n!l~.vired to be
reviewed tnd approved by the Stanford University Planning OffiCE,
Stanford Management Company, and tne Architectural Review Board.
The final plan shall include the cnmmon and botanica1 names of all
species used~ and t~e number, size, type, loe.tion and spacing of
a11 plant materials.
5. The follo"iTlg tree protection measures shall be-implemented during
construction activities: . "
CMR:4&O:92
All tre€s designate<:l to be preserved shall be protected with
SiK·foot high chain link fences ~unte1 on tWQ-inch diamet~r
galvanin··<j i ron posts. and driven into the ground to a depth
of a.t least 2 feet at no more than lO·foot spacing. The
fences shall enclose the entire .area under the dri g 1 i ne nf
exis.ting trees. In no case shall any vehicles or equipment be
permitted to be s.tored within the enclosed a.reas. The fences
10/15/92
Page 6
--.. ··C~" _.. -~---'."
. i~ ..
-.
" ...•.. '
"':'.J
-
b.
s~all be erecte-a before cor,struct i on beg~n5 and remai ~ in
place until finalization of the building permit.
No storage of materi,;ls or tONoils shall be pErmitted IWitnin
the tre~ enclosure areas.
Abol,'e ground slJrface rur-off area 5 ha 1 1 not be di rect ed ; n t c
the tre-e canopy area from adjacent areas.
7. To reduce dust 1evels during construction, it s"'all be required that
exposed earth surfaces be watered frequent1y, during the late
mornfng and at the End of the day, lWit~ frequer.c.y of wate:ring
increasing on wir.dy da)s. Spillage ~esu1ting from hauling
op!rations alG~g or across any pub1ic or private prope~ty shall be
removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances
Griginating from the contractor's operations, s~ch is stockpiles of
debris, soil, sand or other mater~als that can be b'o~n by the wind
shall * covered. Any spillage resulting from hauling operations
either inside or outside the public right-of-way shall be rEmoved
irrmediately, at the e)(pe-rrse of HIe contractor. Recl aimed water
shall be used for thi~ purpose, in accordance with Publ ic Works
Department policies.
8. All construction activities and installation of site ;m~royements
shall be subject to compliance with the provisions of the (ity of
PalQ Alto Noise Ordinar.ce, Chapte-r 9.10 of the PAMe.
9. A haul route ana' construction impact plar, must be submitted and meet
the satisfaction of the Transportation Division. Planning Di~ision,
al"ld 02partrnent of Public "orks prior to 1ssuance of a building
permi t.
10. All City of Palo Alto utility ;n.tall.tion. sh.ll be in .ccord,nce
with the (ity of Palo Alto Standard Specifications.
11. The applicant 'Shall be req~ired to pay a Housing MHi9ation Fee of
53.23 per gross ::.quare foot cf bunding, for a sum total of
IZ45,415, pursuant to Chapter 15.47 of the PAMC. Thi. fee is
adjusted annuallj and the tota1 due shall be adjusted based on the
fee-in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Half of
the HOlJsing Mitigatiofl FE:e shall be paid to the City's Housing
Reserve Fund prior to issuance of a building permit, with the
remaining half of the fee paid prior to occupancy.
12. The applicant sha11 be required to pa)' a housing fee based on the
gross :;quare footage of the building to mit~gate the loss of
potential housing resulting from He Comprehensive Phn Map
Amendment. Th! fee sha11 be payable in full prior to issuance of a
buildirlg permit and shall be based on the ~ousing Mitigation Fee in
effect at that time. The current fee is $).23 per square foot and
is adjusted almually.
CMR:460:92
p:\t:fII1"\10Silll,u or;r 10/15/92
Page 7
13. The applicarit s~1all be-required ttl paj a Transpcrh.tion ImpCict Fee
fol'" nonresidential development pursua~t to Cha~ter 16.46 of t!\e
PAMe. The full amount of the Trinsportati{ln Impact Fe€' shall be
paid to t~e City prior to issuancO?: of a building permit. "The
applicant snal1 pay the dollar·p~r-square-foot amount of t:-:e: fees in
effect at the time of bUl1dir'lg permit issuanc:e. The CIJrrent fee is
$2.57 per gross square foot, or approximately $195,269, and is
adjusted aniwall'y.
MOJTIONAl ARCHlTECT'JAAl REVIEW BOARD RECOHMENDED CONDITIONS
14. Prior tc issuance of a building peN'lit. written. approval from
Stanford Uni'f'ersity FlaMing Office and the Stanford lands
ManagEtlJent Company must be receilled by the Planning Oi'vision for the
project referencing drawings and materuls in conformance with those
receiving City of Palo Alto approval.
15. The app1ical'1t shal1 display at the project site full size color
pani?ls of the base color of the building walls for review-antj
approval by the Stanford University Planning Office, the Stanford
Management (ompany, and the Architectural ~eview Soard.
16. The applicant shal1 submit to the Planning and Transportation
Diyjsions, for review ~nd approval prior to the issuance of II
building permit. detatred drawings. of the trash and reCj'chble
materials storage enclosure and loading areas including 1ccations,
el~vations, and insta11atlon of these areas.
i7. A ,photometric lighting p1a.n shall be submitted to Planning staff for
review and approval prior to issuance of b\J11 ding permi ts. Ex-t.erior
light fixtures in the parking lot shall be mounted no higher than 15
feet frorn grade and be directed and shieldF.d in order to prevent
spillover beyond tne Site.
RECOfotiENDATION
The Planning Connission and A.rchitectlJral Reliiew Board recommer.c1 that the Cit)
Council adept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amend the Comprehensi .... e
Plan. grant varia~ces to height and side yard setbacks, and approve the site a~d
design application. subject to the findir:gs and conditions given above.
Re.pectfully .uboitted,
LIJ.t.£L'-!~ {C,' tL.~
LORR.'.INE W(l$S
: lanner (
---.... ..,.. · .... I!' .... · .. ~ ... -. -.-.-,-.-.-,~ .
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
10/15/91
Page 8
-------------...... -..
Attachmer.ts:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution
Planning Comm;s~ion Staff Report dated August 21, 1992
Planr.ing C~~ission Minutes dated August 25 , 1992
Architectural Review Board Informational Memo dated September 17~ 1992
Architectural ReYiew SQard Minutes dated September 17, 1992
Aever.ue Impact Analysi~ dated Jury 21, 1992
Draft Policy Memo and Urban Landscape Standards
cc: (eenan4Loy~ell Ventures, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Janet Owens, Palo A1t'!l HO'Jsing Corporation, 540 Cowper Stre~t, Suite {;,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Denny Petros}an, 443 Ventura, Palo Alto, CA 94306
[l1.n Christensen, 4217 los Palos, c.~ 94306
Stanford Univers~ty (David Neuman, Andy Dotyj
Stanford Management Company {Diane Healey}
CMR;460:92
Il: \OI'Ir \10 SDeras .Clllr
10/15/92
Page 9
•
..
RBSOLlJ'l'ION OF
AXEND':NG THE
CO!(PREi!ENS lVB
RESOLtnION NO. = COUNCIL OF l"'HE=-'C"'I"'n OP PALO
LAND USE MAP OF THE PALO
p~ FOR PROPERTY AT
ARASTRADBRO R:)AD
ALTO
ALTO
105()
WHEREAS. the Planning Com:-nissicn, after duly noticed p!.lblic
hearing held on AU~~9t ~6, 1992, has recomrne~ded that the Council
amend the Land Use Map of the Palo AltQ Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said reCarn!lH2nda,=-i~n after
dl,lly not iced public hearing, the Council d!':sire9 to arr.end said plan
as hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of ti'l.e City ?f Palo Alto does
RBSOLVB as follows:
~lQN 1. The City Council fi~ds that the public
interest. rJ.ealth, safety and. welfare l~equire arl".endments to the L3nd
Use Map of the palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section
2 hereof~
SECTION :2 ~ The City Ccuc.cil hereby aT'T1eods the Land Use Map
of the palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use
designation of the property at 1050 Arastradero Road from
~Multiple-Famdly Residential· to -Research/Office Park-.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that this project
-will have no significant effect on the environ.'!!.ent.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
A'ITEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Atto~ey
1
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Plaraling and
Community Environment I
I
i , --.
..
-
----. ---
'~.
PROJECT: COMPFl.eHE~sf· .. s PLA~ MAP AMENDMENT:
OESfGHltr:ON CHANGE FROM MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESDEh'n"'l
: TO RES.eA"'C1;/OF"F1C,f PARI(
EXHIBIT "A"
• I
I ,
" _.,;
-,
, -,
I
,;,1
I
I
I
I
!
I
-....
OAT[:
TO,
PREPARED BY;
Citt of Yalo )lIto
p;j BO~ It'l'~C
~A'C AL!O, CA ~oo1
August 21, 1192
PA~O ALTO PLANNING COHKiSSION
lorraine Weiss
REPORT IN BRIEF: !9~~BAS1RAOERO ROAD Applicaticn for (IJ • Comprehensive
Plan Map Am~ndment to change the land use cesignat10n from Multiple-Family
R~sidentLal to ResearchiOffice Park? (2) a Site and Design Review of two
proposed researCh and d~velopffient buildings totaling approximately 76,000
!>quare feet and reiated Slte impro'w'ements, and (3.l variances to exceed the
allowable 3S~foot height by 5 feet and a side yard setbaCK of 20 feet where 40
f~et is the minimum Tequ;red.
Environmental Assessment: A MHigated Negative Declaroltion has. beer. prepared
far thjs project.
Zene District: LM-S(D)
File Nos.: 9l-CPA-2, 92-EIA-19, 92-~-4, 92-V-13, 92-ARB-B6.
APPLICATION !NFOP~ATI9N
-Appl icant:
Type of Application:
Oites.:
SIn INFOR."\ATION
Owner: (Leasehol der)
P,\Jw\10&O._~,
Keenan-LoYewell Ventures
700 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(415) l21-SS17
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan from
e~istin9 Multi-family Residentlal to
Research/Office Park; sjte and design of t~o
research and development buildings;
variances to exceed the maximum height limit
of j5 feet by S-feet anc sid~ yard setback
of 20 feet where 40 feet is the mi nimum
req'Jired, and Site & Design application.
Application received 06-1~Z; Application
complete QIoJ~; Mandatory action deadline
1-8-93 (legislative action, 180 days after
applicatic~ has been deemed complete)
Keenan-lovewell Ventures
700 tmerso~ Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(4IS) 321-SS17
8/21/91
Page I
-
(Lafldawner'
A~se5Svr'~ Parc~l Number;
Stanford Management Co~panj
2770 Sand n1l1 Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
141-16060
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-family Residential
E)istir.g land Use:
Surrounding land Use:
Existing lcnin9~
Parcel Size:
P~OJfCT INrORMATION
Vacant
North:
East:
South:
West:
LM-5(D)
Research & dev~looment facilities
Research & devela~ment facjlities
Single-family re~idential
Single-family residential
258.569 square feet
Project History: The site is one (If the fe'.., in the Cit,. where the zoning and
Comprehensive Plan desfgnations ~re not consistent. The property is zoned for
rasearch and development bl.lt designahd for multiple-r"amily housir.g in the
Comprehensive PTan.
In 1989 the applicant flled an appl;cition for a Comprehensi'Je Plan amendment
from multiple-family residential to research/office park, and re'w'iew of two
33?OOO-sQuare-foot adl1'linistn.tive re5~arch bUlldings of t;o;o stories eac.h i:I~d
an B,OOO-sQuare-foot day care cent~r at the front portion for the site. This
prgject was withdrawn due to corlCl!rn over-emen;e-ncy access needs of chi 1dren
on-site at the day care center in case of evacuation and the possible release
of toxic. gas frem nearby hazardous materia' storage fadlities.
Current Project CQffiQ..<irison \lith turreQLOrdinance Regui remt;'nt~;
PROPOSED ALLOWED [ReqUired) I EXISTING
~.loor ~ .. ~~,980 gross 77 ,570 gross. I 0 so. ft. 5 uare feet square feet
FAR 29.3 30.0 0
Maximum Up to Approx. 40 35 feet n/a
Keight feet at tower ~ el ements
P \1 .. \'050 ... \1. 8/21/92
Page 2
•
-
Park; ng
Use
PROPOseD
144
Research &
de .... elopment 'sam~
as (urrent
zoning)
Proiect Description
244
RHearch g,
Oe"i€IO!]r;ent
I EXrSTlI<G
I ""'"'
The site ;s sloped from the rear to~ards the frant at A~astrade~o Road with an
11 percent downslope. Arastradero Road, a sceniC corridor, has a scenic 210-
foot setback along it where structures a.re ,prohibited. The app1ica.nt proposes
to construct t~Q doub1~-story research and development buildi~9s of 37,7C4
square feet (Building lJ and 38,276 square feet (Building 2). tota1ing 75,980
square feet, with surface parking fer 244 i:it'S on the center and reaT portions
of the site. The maximum height of Building 1 and Building 2 is 36.5 f~et
high and 37 feet high respectively, though the tower on Building 2 measures 40
feet. An atrium is proposed f~r eacn le~el of both buildings to al1cw ~ight
intil the bottom stilrjes of the rear portions of t'ne buildings, which are C'-lt
into tne slope.
When using the proposed facility, one is led from the pa;King area to an entrj
tower and (overed arcade to a courtyard. The courtyard serves as the entry to
both buildings. A fountaln in the ~iddl~ of the courtyard acts as a focal
point O~ a cross-axis. Beyond the courtyard is a common patio area.
Th! proposal includes extensi ... e landscaping, Tlle site contains nati ... €, grass
and weeds similar to the growth elsewhere on undeveloped 1.nds in the area, as
well as one mature 36-inch native California. Oak tree neal" the scut" boundary
along Arastradero property frontage ard seven Pine trees a1Mg the north
boundary. The addition of the two new bui1d',ngs. af'1d reiat.eO site impro\lements
will require the remoyal of t~o Pine trees. Approximately 190 r.e~ trees
consisting of i variety of deciduous, eVfrgreen, and (cnifercus trees , as well
as evergreen snr~bst vines. ground covers and griSS!S, will be planted on
site. Tne 210-foot setback. en Arastradero Road is propo:oed tli be planted 'With
a ro'W of meandering California Native Oaks. natural g~iSS!S, grapevines to
form a v~,neYQrd) and ground cO\ler planted behi'lc! 1 4-foot-r-.igh berm. The area
between the oaks and grapevines will be bermed and pla~ted with natural
grasses. The grapevines an{$ ground Coyer .. nl meander to He rear of b~tn
buildifl9s and will provide a scenic \lisLi from t"-e courtyard. A CGrmlon picni.:
area of decomposed granite and picnic facil~ties ~il1 be pro\liced ami~st the
grapevines in the frent setback. Staff considers tnea rJon-struct:Jred
amenities allowable within the scenic setback area. The central cou,tyard
8/21/92
Page 3
. ,:;;:" ..
'-.. '
r ,
i ;
I
'~
'-.....
.. " ,.:;;~::....:
-
between the bU1ldings is pran~ed ~ith hedges and ~hrubs. ihe parking lot
medians \1'111 be p1ellted -.:it~ continuous raws of trees.
A retainin-g ..",;111 at the reir of the pqperty near H,e northern bour.dary will
be construct€d of snotcret'. T~is wall ~ill be as high as 20 feet in the
iTeas near the northea,t cor~pr. ~ thick landscape af shrubs 6 to 10 feet
high will be pTa~t~d ne~r t~e ~~ll to Screen the ~eight of the wall at
pedestrian le .... el.
l~e ~rop~sed architecturJ) concept resembles a~ Ita1ian Vl11a, and the
prDposal includes exterior materials of concrete panel walls with sandblasted
firlish, precast ;no1din9, tndiUonal sty1t chy-tile rODf, Iro'tizontal reveals,
and bronze tinted glilinq set in bronze anodized alumtnum Window frames.
ANAL Yi! SI ISSUES
HQusing
The project is subject; to the provis.;ons of the CHyTs Housing M:tigation Fe-e
{PAMC 16.47}. The Hous'"g MltiS4tlon fee li base~ O~ the additio~a1 ~~nexempt
gross floor area of th! b~:ldtn9. Curr~nt plans sho~ a total of 75,980 square
feet. Curre~tly. the f~e is S3.23 per grass square foot ar $245.415. This
fee is subject to ch~nge .annuilly. The applicable fee shall be that "in effect
at the ti~ {)f bui!dinq permit i:s.suance. One~ha1f the fee is due at b'Jilding
permit iSSliaflte and one-ha.lf prior to accupc::ncy.
The Compre~ensive Plan A~ndment will result in the loss of a pot~ntial 88
housing units on the site. Staff does not believe hous1~9 on this site is
compatible efther with the adjacent research and deveTopment uses or
appropriate due to the p{)ss1bility of toxic substances in the vicinity of the
stte. Upon staff rec{)mmendation, the developer has agreEd to mitigate ~he
housing 10ss by payment of i fee tc the CitJ's Residentia1 Housing Reserve
Fund. The fee shall be based on the gross square footage of the building and
shall be equal to the HQusing Mitigation fee in effect at the time ~f bU11ding
penna issuance, and the fl.'l1 fee shan be paid it iss~ance of tr.e bl.l'1dtng
permit.
Reques.t for liar; anGes
Height Variance: The proposal includes Ii request fer variance to exceed the
al1nwahle height by 5 fe~t, from 35 feet to 40 feet. Because the site slcpes
downward and the buildings have been designed to conform to the site
topography and cut lnd fi11s wcr~ ~ith the ~xistin9 contours, staff supports
the reQuest. The portions of the buiTdings that exceed the maximum height
persitted by the IOn)n; ordin6nci are: I} the building towers, which OC not
protrude oyer and above the buildin9; and 2) the roofli~e ~f both buildings,
which serye jOint11 as an equipment screen. Height)s measured to the
bottom of the fill or natural grade, ind the to~ers are positioned on several
feet of fill. Lowering the buildings further irlto the earth .. auld increase
the amount of hillside cut and increase the height of the proposed retaining
8/21/92
Page 4
.. ' t .,'
-.J
, .
-
., ---,_ .... --
~alls. The development of the site has been deiign~j to mini~irE the amount
of ftll as much as possible, which is desjrabl~ to reduce the Visual impact of
the facility at fjnal construction. The facility will. at completion, appear
-nestled-i~to the hill rather than perched upo~ it. Fill has been used
spilringly. While the roofs are slightll higher than would ;;rJrrnally be
permitted, this sen'es t.1e function of pro"w'lding eqt.;Tpment screening in a: more
attractive manner. The fill is needed at the tower elements in orJer-to kef!p
the towers at a le~el grade with the parking facilities from which peoplE
enter.
Side Setilack: Variance: The appl leant has requested a variance to the side
setbacK to allow a minimum t:lf 20 feet rather than the 40 feet r€Quired by
ordinance. ln order to position the necessary buildir.g envelope ·on contour~"
whicn is desirable for hillside development, thp. footprints 3re at an angle
with tn~ property line. r~ther than parallel. While the setback exceeds that
which is permitted. only on~ corner of BuiTding 1 and BUilding 2 are within
th~ setback. At t~ese corner po1nts~ each of tnese buildi~gs are one story.
The average setback for eath bunding is 40 feet a.nd 44 feet respectively.
V j gal Il'IIpa ct 5
The site will be screened by a row of meandering Oak Trees along the
Arastradero Road property frontage and a 4-foot ~lgh berm behind the oak~.
The oaKs and berm will be consi~t~nt with the landscape setback on adjacent
pr~perties. Because of the site top~graphy, the sl~pe and berm w+ll zid in
screening the vineyard from Arastradero Road. The vi:1eYi.rd 'is consistent with
landscaping policies in adjace~t los Altos Hills, where d~corative
agricultural plantings are enco~raged to mainiain the Town's rural characte~.
The site has been designed to a.llow the buildings to step up the slope with
the topography. The cut and fill proposed for development of the new
bui1din9s have been designed to follow the nat~ral t~pography of the site and
will lower the huildings making the project Tess obtrusive at completion.
Drainage
The development of the proposed bui1dlngi and related Site improvemants wfll
increa.se the amount of impervious surface are3 by approximately 47 percent and
therefore increase the amount of surfac~ water runoff and ,~ange the
absorption rate on site. T~e apPlicant has indicated that the on-sfte
drainage .. ill be directe.d t<l cater. basins, then directed into a ma.ln line to
be laid down the access road, and then connected into the exist; n9 storm drain
in Arastradero Road. The Public WorKs Department has indfcated that this
drainage ~ystem is satisfactory in prinCiple; however, a fina1 drainage plan
shall be reviewed by tne PubliC Works Department prior to applying for
bUiTdi."9 permits.
1',\1 .. \1050 •• 1.1.
L
,.
8/21/92
Page S
... j'l1'-
••
-
lransporta_ti on ICircul at; 0'"
Traffic: The propose:d development is expected to gel1erate 560 average daily
trips and 92 daily trip5 duri~g a.m. peak hours. and sa daily trips during
p,m. peak howrs. Potential traffic impacts for d~~elopment in the Stanford
R~sea.c;-, Park. were e .... aluated in the cum'Jlative anai,1'sis of the CitYlllide land
Use Transportation Study Environmel'1tal Impact Report. A TNnsportation Impact
Fee ~.as been established t<l mitigate f.or such development, and the pr'Jject is
subject to the prollisions of th-e City's Transportatio!"J ImjJi3ct Fee for
nonresidentra1 developm~nt (P~~C Cnapter 16.46,.
Yhe Transportation Impact fee is based On the 75:980 square feet of additional
nonexempt gross floor area. Current1y the fee is 52.57 per gross square foot
(effective until June 30, 1993] or approxima.tely S19:;,2ti9.
Access: Currently a driveway from Arastradero Road is used by the adjacent
tenant, Synte.x~ to access the site. In CO:1cept, the driveway is proposed to
be extended and improved, tc provide a shared one-way access on each side of
H:e median strip in the middle of the drivs-way for tne subject si.te and the
neighboring site. As of the date of this report, the applicant has not
satisfied the Transportation Division with a plan d€monstrating acceptablf
circulation (refer to CondHion 2,. As a condition of the project, the
applicant is required to submit a I""evised circulation plan to meet the
satisfactfon of the Transportation Division.
Bicycle Par~ing: The proposed parking plan provides 34 bicycle parki~g
spates. The proposed b;k~ parking ;s more than satisfactory in that the
appllcant is proviaing 24 bike Tockers in place of the C1ass 1 and £1
reqUirement, and augmenting this number lIIiith t.he ten extra. bike racks.
However, jf the applicant decides to conform to lower thp. proposal to the
minimu. ~uninQ ordinance requirement, Class III racks cannot be used t~
substitute for Class 1£ racks.
The five Class III racKs shown adjacent to the vineyard on the southern part
of the site are acceptable tf the nearby ent('allce to Bu;ldi;"19 1 will be
acce:uicle by visitors, and not just employees. Otherwise these ra~k.s sho:Jld
be reiocaled to a v1sito~ entrance to the bul1ding.
Construe:tior. Haui Route: The appllcarrt has not yet proposed a construction
haul route for exporting materials excavated from the site. The proposed
project will requlre ey.~orting approximately lS,OOa cubic yards to an off-site
landfill. The applicant hiS estimated that at 15 cubic yards of export per
tru~k that it will take 1}200 truck trips. The applicant has indicated tnat
four trucks would be used at a tim~, res~ltin9 in 300 truck trips at 8 hours
per day or 18 day'" worth of tri ps. An acceptabl e ~.alil ro",te and construc.t ion
impact plan tl) addr.:oss road clearing, staging of trucks, truck. ?arkil"lg.
employee parking, ~oise contro1. traffic control during construction 5nd haul
Dp~ra.tions, ilfld hours of operations needs to be reviewed by the Transportation
Division, Pub"c Works Department -Operatio~s and Engineering Divisions, and
Police Departmt!nts prior to issnr.ce of building permit (see Condition 9).
P.\I",\10SO_.~, 8/21/92
Page 6
-
COMPREHENSIVE Pl~ COMPlIAN~E
lhe proposed teOesignation of the land use from .... \J1t1-ple~fam11)' Resl0ential to
Research/Office Park is consistent with the curr~nt loning, proposed us~ of
the site, and adjacent uses. The loss c-f the ~tltentia.l f,m.lsing ,-esuHing from
the redesigluti{ln ... in be miti9at~d by an additlonal payment to the City's.
Housing Resc~ve Fund.
PiCOMMENDATlON
Based on the findings and condit10ns below. staff recQmmends that the Pjanning
C~mmis5icn make the folTowing recommendations to the City Council:
). Adopt the attached Mitigat~d Negative Declaration;
2. Adopt th! attached resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan,
r~desjgn~ting the property from Multipie~fami]y Residential to
ResearcnjOffice ParK;
3. Appro~e the variances to exceed tn~ maximum height allowed and side yard
setbacki and
4. Approve the site and design application.
flNprNGS
FINDINGS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PlAN AMENDMENT
1. The redesignaticM f!Jr the property at 1050 Arastradero Road is in
accordance with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, in that the site
and surrounding use are research and development in nature and tne
designation _ill allow Similar use.
2. The Comprehensivo5! Plan designation and proposed development will not
result in significant env;ronme~ta1 impacts, as documented in the
attached 1nitf.1 Study and Mitigated Negative D.ecTaration (92~ElA~19)
prepared in aCGordance lJrtith the California Envirol1:rlenta1 Quality Act
(CEQA) on August 5, 1992.
l. The proposed amendme~t to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the
Policy 13 of the Housing Element, which state' that the City should
increa~e funding sources used to provide aff~rdabl~ housing. Ihe
deyel~per of this project ~il1 contribute funds fram this co~~ercial
de~elopment to~ards affordabl~ ho~sing.
04. The proposed ~mendmef'\t to tr,~ land US~ E'\ eme1'\t of tn~ Comj)reh~r.s he Pi an 'S consistent wit~ the definition of Researc~/Office Park to provide
office? research, &nd manufactur\ng ~stablishrnents whose operations are
clean and quiet and do not conflict ~ith any adjacent residential uses.
Stanford Research Park is. a~ example of this type of land use.
8/21/92
Page 7
i ,
I
I
I
!
----
,
!
I
I
-
fiNDINGS FOR ~EiGHT AND S IDE YARD S[TBACK ~ARrMK[S
I.
2.
H'!el~e are exc:epllona1 or extraordinary CirCll'l'lstances or conditions
applicable to the propert.!/ invoi'led t~at do not apply gener.i17y to
property in tl1e same district, in that the prop&rty sTopes 75 feet fr;}m
the front to the rear and the buildings are sited to minimize the amount
~f ~isual impact, site grading and excavation and to prcvid~ th!
necessary parking, circulation and site improvements.
The grantitig of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appl icant, and to
prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship, as the
applicant could not provide U,e required amount of the parking and ~it!:
impr~vements for the two buildings and design the facility consi5t~nt
with standard hillside development guidelines which encourage reduc.tion
cf fill and siting facilities para11el vith the naturil condition.
Rtsearch and devel1:lpment faci 1 ;ties requi re building foctprints of the
size proposed'. lowering til'! buildings further ir:to the earth would
increase the amount of hillside cwt and increase the heights of the
retaining walls.
3. The-granting of Hill aliplication !'nll not be d~trimel1tal cr injurious to
property or improvements in the wicinity and will not be detrimental t
the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that t~,
varia.nce for' height occurs only for the towers w"hich a:'"e no higher U
the building they adjoin. The towers are situated on several feet of
fi 11 in ord'er thit they be lev~l wit~ the parking areas frcm whtch
people will enter the facility. The variance setback request of 20 feet
from th~ property line for 8uilding 1 and BIJilding 2 is only for the
building corners. Where these setbacks occur, the buildings are one
story. The average setback. for each of these bui Jdings. is 40 feet and
44 feet respectively. The cornfrs protrude into the setback area
beca~se the buildings ire placed ·on conto~r· rather than paral1!1 with
t~e property lines. Developing parallel with th2 contour is preferable
in hillside development for reducing visual impacts and grading.
FINDINGS fOR SITE MD DESrG,~
1. The proposed design will be orderly. harmoniJus, and compatible wlth
existing or potential uses of adjOining property, in that the pro~osed
use and improvements will be similar to ether uses in t~e area and the
project has been designed to minimize ~;sual impacts on adjoining
property.
2. The project will maintain desirability of ;n~estmer.t in the same or
,djacent areas, in that the required on-site improvements and
h:ndscaping and construction star.dards go¥erned by the Current Uniform
Building Code 'UBC) or other current (odes wil1 assure a nigh quality of
development.
P,\i .. \10SO .... \IIr 8/11;92
Page 8
_110 ..... _
"<---'-~
-
3. The proposed design will observe sound prjnc~ples of envjronmental
design and ecological balance~ in that the selected location of the ~ew
structures and improveme~ts limit disruptlon of the site, and me33ures
incorporated into the project design will help minimize erosion and
offset visual impacts.
4. The Comprehens;\le Plan Amendment proposed will bri~g the proposed use in
(onf:rmance ~jth the Pa10 Alto Comprehe~sive Plan, and the proposed
resNrch and development fac.ility and related site improvemerats -:onforrn
to existing uses OTJ adjacent properties.
COHDIUONS
I.
2.
3.
A site plan is required whid shows the full driveway, incl ud~ng the
exit portion en the neighboring property, The !Jphil i tnffi c direction
from tne exist;ng Syntex drf\le~ay near ths area next to the Syntex
pa,..king stalls must be removed in order for this ingress and egress to
work, A p1an must be SUbmitted showing both sides of the driveway,
with signing and striping that meets Transportation Dhlis;on standards.
A revised Circulation plal'lsha11 be submitted illustratin9 all the
deta11~ of access to tnis driveway under consideratl0n to meet the
satisfaction of the Transportati~n Division. The plan shall include
clrculation on the subject site and adjoining properties. parKing
layout! striping and sfgr,agE.
A detai1ed gradlng, drainage, and erosion repair plan pre'pared by .a
regis,tered civll eilgineer shall be s\lbmltted to the Planning Division
lnd Public Works Oepart~nt for review and appro'{al prior to issuance of
it building permit. Construc.:tion details and calculations for all
drajnage facil;~ies shall be submitted with the detailed drainage plans.
4. All gradhlg and de'Jelopment on the Site shall conform '.ith all aspects
of the project soil and geotechnical report recommendations. The
project geotechnical engineer will be required to certify that the
grading and construction were done in accordance .ith their
recv!flTlenoitions, prior to fir1alizatioll of the t)l~;ldin9 permi.t.
5. Prier to issuallce of a bunding permit~ a detai1ed 1andscape plan and
irrigation plan shall be required to be revfewed and approved by the
Arcnitectural Review Soard. The final p1an shall include the (ommon and
botanical names cf all species used, and the number~ size, type~
location and spacing of all plant Il'later1als.
6. The following tree prctection measures shall be implemented during
construction activities:
a. All trees designated to be p,"eser'w'ed shail be protected kfith a
six-fo~t high chain link fence, mounted on two-inch diameter
galvanized iron posts. and driven into the ground to a depth of at
P:\I .. \ 10500_.\1. 8/11/91
Page 9
----------------
least 2 feet at no rtlore tnan 10-foot spacing. The fence sha.n
enclose the ent're area under the dripline of Existing trEes. In
no case shall any vehicles or equipment be permitted to be stcre~
witnin this enclosed area. The fence shall be erected before
construction begins and remain in place u~til final of the
building permit.
b. No storage of materials or topsoils shall be permitted within the
tree enclos~re area.
c. Above ground surface nJMff area shein not be directed into the
tree canopy area from adjacent areas,
7. To reduce dust levels during construction. it shan be required that
exposed earth surfaces be watered frequ~ntlj', during the 1ite morning
and at the end of the day, ~ith frequency of watering increasing on
1IIindy days, Spillage res'Jlting from hauTing operations C!long or across
any public, or private property shall be remov2d immediately ami paid for
by the contractor. Dust nuiSiinces origil~ating from the contractor'~
operations, such as stockpiles af debris, soil, sand or ether materials
that can be b10wn by the wind shall be covered. Any spillage resuHing
from hauling operations either inSide or outside the public rignt-of-way
s"alT be removed irrmediately, at the expense of tne c-ontractor.
Re-claimed water shal1 be used' far thi s purpose, in !C-C<lrdance with
Public Works Department polic1es.
B. All construction activities and installation of site improvements shalT
be subject to compliance with the provislons of the City of PaiD .a.1to
Noise Ordinance, tnapter 9.10 of the PANe.
S. A haul route and construction impa:ct plan must be submitted and meet the
satisfaction of thE'! Tra!'1sportation D;vision~ Planning Divisiol1~ a.nd
Department of PubliC Works.
10. All tHy of Pa~o Alto utility instaHations shall be in accordar:ce .,ith
the City of Palo Alto Standard Specificatior.s,
11. The ,:,pplicant shall be required to pay a Houslng Mitig2:tlon Fee of $3.27
per gross s~uare foot of building, for a sum total of $245,415, pursuant
to (hapt,r l6.47 of toe pAM(. This fee is adjusted annually and the
total due shall be adjusted b~sed on the fee in effect at the time the
byilding permit 1S issued. Half of the Housing Mitigation Fee shall be
paid to the City's Housing Reserve Fund prior to issuanCE of a buiidi~g
permit with tne remaining half of the f~e paid prior to o~c~pancy.
12. The applicant sna11 be required to pay a: hOl.!sing fee based on the g .. oss
iquare footage of the building to mitigate the loss of potential ho~sing
resulting from the Comprehensive Pian ~ap Amendment. The fee shan be
payable in fun at t~e time of building permit issuance and shall be
8/21/92
Page 10
besed on the Housing Mitigation Fee in effect ~t that time. The current
fee ;,s: 53.23 p2r square foot and is adjusted annually.
13. The applicant shall be required to pay a Trans~crtation Impact fee of
S2.57 per gross squar~ foot (effective until Ju~e 30, 1993) or 5195,269
for nonresidential development pursuant to CMapter 16.46 of t~e FAMC,
The ful1 amount of the Transportation Impact Fee shall be paid to the
City prior to issuance of a building permit, The app1 ;cant shall PiI}
the dollar per-square-foot arnOIJnt of the fees in effect at the tlrne ~f
bu;1ding permit issuanc~,
Attachments:
tb/rfJ-tJ.iJ.M1tkI ,,~W MWmW WsI>iWiloW
[nvlronmental Assess~nt
location Hap
Project Plans (COrml1sS;On Melr.bers only)
Referenced Materfals:
See CMR: 460: 92
Geohchnical and sons ~eport (on file for those inte\-ested, please ca1l for
copy)
Cqpies Sent To:
Architectural Reviaw Board
Applicant
i":\I ... 1\05O_ • .., 8/11/91
Page lJ
'I
1
I
Enviranmental Documents -Citj DF Palo Alta
Projeoc:t Description/Titie: Research and_d_~.velaoment fao::ility. 1050 Ara~tr<ldero
Road. Corrstruct t.wo new r~search and devgl cpment two-stan" bUj-.lQ'inGs of 37. lQA.:.
square-feet and 3B,27G-square.:-feet each tot<lltn.9.. 75,980 gross square (~.~..L..i.n..\L
__ nJat_ed site im[lrollemenJ;s on a hil!5.id~ site,
location/Address: 1050 _~"nstradero Ro"~ ____________ _
Sponsoring Agency/Applicant: Keenan tOl/ewell VBnture:;
Address and Telephone of Ap,plicant: 700 Emerson Street, Pa10 Alto, CA ~4301, 1illL 321-5517
Application for: COl:wrehenslve Plan A'I1endme:nt
(e.g., Zoning chcnge, subdillision of property, architectural review. use permit)
Zo'ing at Project Location; ~~ __ _ Fe€ Receipt No.: ~2~-~3~1~' __ __
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Based upon relliew of the project files, the undersigned member of the Planning Department has concluded:
Ix1 ~ative
impact.
Negative
Decl arat ;on: The project has no significant environment21
No EnVironmental Jmpact Report is required. The reasons for a Declaration are:
1::1 The project may have a signinCGnt environment.l impacL .~n En~iro"mental Impact Report w~11 be prepared,
P1anning Department Official: ~~.~ tv.1--{~J,t»_, __ . ___ _
Pl anning Director: 4~ "/":;i= Date: (; -;: -'j L
The project has been approved. Date:
The project has been de"i~d. Date:
File Nc.:
Page
-
[NV!~ONl1ENTAl DOCUMENTS PALO Al TO
ll!JJJM STUDY' ..
1. Project THle/Address; .lB ..... tJU Research 2IJ....d DeveloDme'}t Facl1itY.L-10SO
Arastr-acLero Road, Palo Alto ______ _
II. Project Description: Cor!.struct two n2'IN R &. 0 t'Wo~st{)a.-.l21!ildi_.tl9..L9.L-
37,704 SQuare f~_ and 38, 275 !:qua~t ea:-;:!1 total ing 7l-.980 gross
square fegt and re] cted 5 ite il:lRrovement.: .on ;2' ~ill..u.de~s,-,i .... t~e~. __
fIr. Environmental Setting: The site. is one parcel of land totaling __ _
approximately 5.9 acres. Presenth. th~ site is yacant.Research_~
development facilities are to the east and west of the oroperty and
sinq1e-hmi1y residE\!nti.al -icross Ara.stradero Road to the squth. Tne sit~
slopes in a southerly d1rect1on apprOXimately 11 perce~"~t~. ______ _
IV. EnVironmental Impact Checklist (Explanation of all ~yes· answers are in
Section V)
I. Urlh. Wi 11 the proposal result in: YES liQ
a. Unstable earth cond1tions or changes -x_
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements. compac-
tion or overcovering of the 50) 1 ---L
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? _~_
d. The destruction, covering or mOdi
fication 0 f any unique geologle or
Physical features? ....L
E. Any increase in wind or water erosion~
of soils, either on or off t~e site? _X_
L Exposure of people or property to
geologic ~azards such as earthquakes,
landSlides, mudslides, ground failure
or simjlar hazards? __ l __
g. (hanges in siltation, deposition, or
erosion which may modi fy the channel
of a river or the bed of a bay or
inlet? .L
.. Adapted from Appendix I, California Guidelines for !::-,,lJlementation of
CEQA, December 14, 1976 .
•• Updated May 1982, June 1983
PAGE I
•
-~ --~------
Air. \Jin the proposal nSlJU in: YES
~. Substantial air emlssions or de
terioration of ambient air qualjly? -X-
b. The creation of objecticnable odors?
c. Alteratlon of air movement, moisture
temp€rature, or any change in cli
mate, either locally or region~l?
3. Watel'. will th~ proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates t drainag!
p~tterns, or t~e rate and amount of
surface .... ater runoff? _1_
b. Al terations to t<~! courSe or fl o~ of
flood waters?
c. Oischarge into surfac~ waters,'or in
any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not nmited' to
temperatura, dissolved c~Y9~n or
turbidity?
d. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground .... aters?
e. Exposure of people or prDperty to
water re12ted hazards such as f1ood
ing or tidal wave?
f. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, tither through direct
additioRs or withdrawa1~, or through
interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or EXCiivations?
4. P1ant Lffe. WiTl the proposal result in:
a. Change 7n the dillerslty of species, or
number of any species of plants (ir.
eluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microfl era and aqlJat i<: plants),? ___ L
b. Reduction of' the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of pl ant 'i?
p, \l.iII!JC50AAAS.[JA PAGE 1
_x_
92-ElA-19
c. Introduction of new ~pecies of
pi ants into an area, or 1n a barrler
to the normal replenishment of
existing species? __ X __
d. Reduct ion in acreage of any
agricul tural crnp? L
5. ,~nimal life. Will the proposai result in:
a. Chang~ in the diyersity cf species,
or number of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including
reptile., fi.h and shellfi." benthic
or~anisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers ~f any
unique, rire or endangered spe~ies
of anfmals?
c. Introduct;~n of new species of
anima1s into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or move
ment of animals?
d~ Deterioration in exi~tin9 fish or
.ildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
i. Increases in Existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of p~op1e to se~ere noise
levels!
7. lig""lt and Glare:. Will the proposal
produce ~ew light glare~
a. land USE!. 1'111 the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
9~ En~rgy/Hatural Resources. Will the
proposal result in:
i. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy:
PAGE 3
__ L
...L
..L
...L
_L
_L
...L
l
I
I r
I
I
I
!
~-"'-~
_. ~
" ,
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, vr
require th~ development of ne~
sources or energy?
c. Increase in the rate of use of any
nat~ral resources?
d. Substantial dephtion of any nonre
newable natura' resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Doe~ the proposal
;rr.'o"1 ve a risk of an explosio:'! or the
re1ease of hazardous substanCEs ,in
cluding, but not limited to. ':Jil,
pesticide~~ chemicals or radiation) in
the event of a.n accfdent or ljps;:ot?
11. fQPu,.tlon(H~.
a. Will the proposal alter the location,
distrtbution, density. or growth rRte
ill
l
,L
_x_
of the human population of an area? -A-
b. Will the proposal effect existing
housing, Dr create i demand for
additional hou~jng1 -L-
12. TraosYQrtatiiJn/Cjrcula.!J..Qn. klill the
proposal result ir,:
a. Generation of substantial additional
ventcul ar movement? X
b. Effects on existing parKing factli-
ties~ or demand for new parking'? _X_
c. Alterations to present patterns of
~jrculation or movement ci people
and/or goods"? L
d. lncrease in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -X-
13, Fublic . .-2'rvices. Will the pr~posal have
an effect upon, or result in a ne-ed for new
or altered governm€ntal services in any of
the fallowing areas:
a. fire protect'on?
P'. \l. ... UC~M.IlAS,£!,I, PAGE 4 91-ElA,19
~ ""',
"l,t
b. Police protection?
c. schools?
d. Parks or other recrea~ional
facil i t ~es?
E. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roa~s?
f. ath~r governmental services?
14. UtIlities. WIll the prop".l re,ult in •
need for new systems, or substantial
ilterations to the following utilities:
•• Power or natural gas?
b. COlMlunicati{lns systems?
c. Water?
d. Se",er or s~.ptic tank?
e. Storm water drair'lage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
15. Human Health~ Will the proposal result
; n :
a. Cre.tion of .ny he.lth haz.rd or
potenti.l he.lth haz.rd (.,eluding
ment,l he.lth)?
b. Exposure of people to potential
heal th hazards?
16. Aesthetjcs. Will the proposal result
in the obstructlon of ~ny scenic vista
or vi~w ~pen to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesHetically offensive site ope . ., to
pubTic view?
17. ~ecreat;o!'l. Win the proposal result
,n an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
PAGE 5
-X_
L
_x_
_x_
L
L
_x_
L
J_
-.
"
.:j
-------.-~ ,-.-.......
18. ~uJtura.l t:lesourcu.
i. Wlll the proposal result in the
alteration of/or the destruction
of a prenistQric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the prQPosal result in ad
verse physical or aesthetic effects
to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure; or object?
Does the prop~~al ha~f the potential
to cause a phys'cal change which
would aff~ct uniGue cultural values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses wlthin the
potential impact area?
19. f-I.andetory Findings of Significance.
i. Does the project nav2 the potential to
degrade the q~alitl Gf the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause i fish
or wfldljfe population to drop belo~
self-sustaining leyeTs~ threaten t~
eliminate i plant Dr animal community.
redute the number or restrict the
range ~f a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of Cal ~fornla
history or prp.hfstory?
b. Does the project hay~ the pctential
to achiev~ short-te~, to the dls
advantage of long-term, environrne!1tal
goa1s1 (A short~t.nr. impact on the
envlronmer,t ;s one which occurs ~n a
relatively brief, definitlve period
of time whiTe long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts ~hich
are indlvidual1y limited, but
cumulatively cons;deraole? {A pro
ject may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact
PAGE 6
•
_x_
_1_
92-UA-J9
-,
... "
--'_.
on each resource is relatively
small; but w~ere the effe~t of the
tQtal of those impacts on the
envlrop.ment is significant.)
d. Does the project nave ~nv;ronmental
effects which will cause substar.ti;l
adverse effects on human beings l sither directly or indirectly?
V. Explanation of ~y!S~ answers in environm~ntal c~eckTist.
See attached.
PAGE 7
-
1 ib,c,~_, __ fLJuth....:.. Construction of tfJe new buildings and related site
improvements ~il1 dl~rvpt and displace site soils and result in changes to site
topogrdphy. The proposal includes 20,000 cubic yards of cut into th~ site and
import of appr.?xrmate1y 3,500 cubic yar,js of fi11. Hl; propDsed project may
result in an increase in soil erosior: due to gradin9 arid d.~g'9if\9 !!.Ctiv1tiH
related to constr'Jction. Erosion can be reduced by stockpiling and coveri~g
bose soils and watering of grar1ed areas. lhe project would be canditioned that
the bUildings be constructed in o.ccordaf1ce \\Ijth the Soils/Foundatinn n:pcrt
submitted by the applicCt!"1t. A detailed grading and drainaglt plan and erosion
contra1 plans will be required to be reviewed er;nd c.pprov-ed by UH~ Director Df
Public Works Oepartmen.t prior to {ssiJance of a.r;y gradlng or t>'..1i1dbg permit.
The project site ; s loeated in a sei smic area of moderate ri sk, and w{)uld be
subject to veiY strong ground snaking in the e~rent of iln Earthquake. All new
construction on the site ),Ii 1 I be subject to the provlsions of the current Uniform
8uild;;ng Co\:1e, portions af 'Which are directed at minimizing se,smic risl< and
preventing loss of life or property in the event of an earthquake.
LUl.......A.iL.. c..or.strvction of the two bldldings will temporariiy result in an
increase in dust emissions over existir:g amb1e-nt air CMcnions.
To reduce dust levels during construction it shall be required that el(pa~ed earth
$\,:rfa-:es be watered frequenUy during the late morning and the end of the day,
with frequency of watering increa.sing Of! windy day:>. Rec1aimed water, i:1
a:ccardarice with the Publ ic Works Depa.rtment pal icy. shall be used for this
purpose. A.ll !.treets a.nd ha.ul l'outu shall be cl'S!':a.ned daily. The de',lelopt!d
shall ensure that tptl1age resulting fram ha.uling opera.tions along or across any
publ ic or private property shall be removerJ irrme-diately and paid for by the
cootract\lr~ The oeveloper shall also ensure that dust nuisances originating from
the contractor's operations shail be cCl'ltrol1ed at the contra,tor's expense .
.3 (a) lIliteY'. The COrlstructiOi1 (If the two new bui1dir,gs and parkins: ;:.rea wnl
increase the amount of imp~r'ofious sur-face area by approximately 47 percent al"!d
therefore increase the amount of surf .. ce water runoff and change the absorpiior,
rate o~ ~fte. The applica;it has indic~ted that the onsite drainage ~il1 be
directed to catchbasins and then directed into a main line to be laid down t~e
access read and th~n to!)r.ected into trle e-x's.tin'J stcrmdralr'o in An.stradero Read.
The Pub1ic Works Oepirtment has. indicated that this dr-ainage system is
satisfactnry in principle, how~ver, a final drainage plan shall be reviewed by
the PubliC ~orks Depa~tment prior to applying for building permits.
4 (a.c} Plant life. The sit~ i3 pres~ntly covered ~ith natu~al 9rasses~ ~~ejs,
7 PiTH! trees along the north bCl1ndary~ and ane mature 36-inch OaK. t(ee near the
south boundary. The addition of the twa neW' buildings and' related site
1mprov~ments ~111 require the removal of one Plne tree. The project arborfst
report, ,prepared by James M. McClenahan of S.P. McCler"lahan Company. Inc., dated
June 12:, 1992, recommends tree protection measures whkh shall be imp1ementt!d and
reqlj~red as conditions of project appro .... al.
The project belng proposed fer the sitt! includE'S planting 186 ne'llil' trees
consisting of a variety of deciduous, evergreen, ar.d coniferous trees g well as
evergreen snrubs, vinas, and groundc(J~·~r.s.. The 210-foat setback along the
~Tastndern Rello frc!"Itage is proposed to be p1ante-d with rmojS c.f 9ra?elr:ines. As
the subject site is not proposed for agri~~1tural use, the ~ines are only for
-
---.-.~.
decorative purposEs. Adjacent to the proposed site t lh~ frontag£s ar~ planted
with native ta1ifor!'lla OaK lrees and native gras.ses. lhe applior.t 15
considering a re' "ion to t~'s setr.ack. o.re~ b ~!"Icil.ide a row of rlati\le-California
Oak Trees along -~ property frontage with the grapevin~s to th~ rear.
Grape~ines would introduce a new speci~s on the property and provide a dramatic
change in scenery along this ~ide of Arastradero Road. Pianting grape'l1ines on
t:-:~ s,t~ could ,n,,01ve the use of pesticides, Materials and substances Ijjhich Core
rapidly biodegradable, present.,o persistance on the son I and present no liazilrd
to maintenance and landscape crews must be used to mitigate any impact t!"'-2:t t.le
pesticide IJse may otherwise incur. A Pest Contro1 Advisers Report fDr tha
proposed v1~eyard ~ould be required to recommend pest management for this $it~.
This document wou1d b! re.iewed by ctty Stiff prior to the Tssuance ~f buildjns
permit and any recoiml:endations snall be submitted and shown in ttle final
landscape p1an. The final landscape plan shall be required t.J be reviewed and'
approved by th~ Architectural ReYie~ Board prior to the issuanc~ of any building
permits..
~~ Construction of the project will result in a te:npot'ary incre::.se in
ambiimt noise lev~ls. Construction ar:tivit'es '.fin be 5ubject to the pl"o .... i.do~s
of the Palo Alta Noise Ordinanc~ {CnaptH 9.10, PA'p'K} \IIh'ich requi~e cCrlstructiOrl
eQuipment to be muffled so is not exceed a nOise fmission of 83 decibeTs (dBA)
at a distance of 2S feet, or a noise lev.el exceeding 86 d8A outside the property,
unless an exception is 9rant€d.
The additional traffic generated by this project wi11 contribute to ambier.t noise
levels fn the area, but thts increase should not result in a significant impact
in traffic noise, ~ver existing conditions.
7 Ught and Ghre. The developlTient of the site may result in a negli§,ible
in.crease in light and 91are generated from tte additional lighting of the s.ite,
but will not have an ad'verse impact ~n surrounding research a.nd development uses.
A detailed lighting plan sensitive to i!xist~ng adjacent 1a.nd lJses 'Will be
required as part of the. f,,,,al lands-cape plans to return to the Architectural
Review Beard for review.
a land Use. A Comprehensive Pi an Amendment is neassary for the proposed ~se
to be, consistent with the aujac2-flt sites and the existing des1goat-ed IOrri! LM5(O).
Hte Comprehens;\le Plan presently deSignates the site for mult1p1e family
res idi!ntial de .. eJopment. though the proposed use ;s for rese-3rcn and de .... elopmsf'1t.
reslJltiTl9 ln a need to thange the Compreflensive Pian deSignation to
re$earch/offic~ park.
lL.Popu1atior./Hou~..i.n.g: The project is subject to the provisions of the City's
Housing Mitigation Fee (P~~C 16.47). The Housing Mitigation fee is based on
75>980 ~quire feet of additional ~one~empt gross floor area. Current1y the f~e
is $3.23 per gross square foot or approximately S'4S.415.00. However, bec~use
the project entails a COll1prehensive Plan Amet1drnent. this fee is doubled
(approximately H90,830.00) to accommodate the lOss of potential housing on site
and the additional jobs created which results in a ho~sing fee. Half of the
Housing H't~9ation Fee Shilll be paid to the CH J prior to issuanci! of a. building
permit with the remaining half of the fee paid prior to occupancy_
12 Trap.:.lllortaticm/CirculiUon The project will require tnB prolJisiofl of 2~4
I
i
L
I
!
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
[
,
-------""
-
parking spaces all site and must meet all City park~ng requlrer!'lents. T'r;e
TranspDrtation Division has reviewed the circulation plans and concludes that
modification of t,1e cil""culation p1a:'\ is nece.$.sary to inc1ude: l} a side"'aH to
connect the Arastradero Read pede~trian/bike path to the buildir.gs or deliliie;;te
a pedestrian route to reach the walkwa:l to the buidling. 2) drivewaj acces:s
showir.g how cne-~ay traffic o~ each side of a median will be able to reach the
parking lots of the site and the nefghb~ring property; and 3} rElocate Class 3
bicyc1e parking located at the far end of the covered \<tal k"ay fer BLii ldi I'g 2
closer to the visitor entrance to the building. Cfty staff has discussed these
c:f\anges with the applicant. A re\llsed plB.n in compliance with these requiremer,ts
sha11 be submitted for Architectural Review Board review.
The 75.980 additional gross square feet of building is expected to gerlerate 580
average eany trips. ind 92 daily trips during a.m. peak. hours. and 80 dany
trips during p.m. peak: hours. (Source: Trip Generation Rate. 5th edttion, ITEl
1760 -Resfarch & Oevelopment.)'P~tentiil t~iffic impacts for development in the
Stanford Resarch Park, were eva 1 u a ted in th e c.umllla t he ana 1 y S 15 nf tne C ity-w j de
land use Transportation Study £nlr'ironmocr.ta1 fmpact Report. The Transportaticn
Impact Fee est~blishes mltigation such d~\le1opment and the project is subje~t to
ttle provisions of ttl!:! City's Traflsport:ttion Impact Fee for nonresidential
development (PAMC 16.46).
The Transportation Impact Fee is based on the 75,960 square feet of additional
nonexempt yross floor area. Currently the fee ~s 52.57 per gross square fool
(effective until Ju,e 30, 1993) or appro'imately $195,169.00. The full 'mount
of the Transportation fmpact Fee shall be paid to the City prior to iss~ance of
a building permit. The applicant sha11 pay the dollar per-square-foot amount of
the fees in effect ~t the time of building pfnmit issuance_
Tne applicant has not proposed a construction hal.'l route for expnr-ting mat~rials
excavated from the site. The proposed project will require exporting
approxfmately 18,000 cubic yards to an off-sit! 'andfil1_ The applicant has
estimated that at 15 cubic yards ~f export per truck that it wl11 take 1,200
truck trips. HOWEver, the app1icant has indicated that four trucks would be used
at i! tirl1e result1ng 1r. 30C truck trips at 8 hours pEr day or 18 days worth of
trips. An acc€ptable haul route and ccnstructio:'1 im.pact plan to address road
clearing, stacking of trucks, and noi~,=, control, hours of oper,ation, etc., needs
to be re",jewed by the Transportation Dh'is;on, i'ubllc Works Department -
Operatians and Engin€ering DiYlsfons, and Po1ice Departm~nts prior to issuance
of building permits.
_ ..... --
.1
-
PUB I Ie HEARHIGS
EXCE~PT
Palo Alto Planning Commission Meeting
August 26. 1992
I. 1050 ARASTRADfRO ROAD: Application for (J) a Comprenensive Plan
AmEndment to change the land use designation from ~ultiple-family
Residential to Research/Offfce Park, (2) a Site and Design Review of
two proposed research and de~eTopment buildings totaling
a9pr{lximately 76,000 squarE feet and reiatec site improvements, and
{3J variances to ~xceed tne a110wable neight by five feet and ~ side
yard setb3ck: of 20 feet 'tIhere 40 feet is the rr,irdmum req'Jir~d.
En~1ronmentaT Assessment: No significant impacts w~re determined to
resu1t fro~ this project, a~d a negativE declaration has been
pr.p,red. file No •. ~2-CPA-2, 92-EIA-19, 91-D-4, 92-~-13,
92·A~B-B6. Zooe District: lM-5(O).
(ha;~an Beecham: DQ~s staff have ~r.y comments?
Ms. Weiss: Yes. First! would like to nol€ two co:rections in the staff
report. Number One is on Page Two. The surroundfng land uses should
in<:lude three sides that are research and development burldil1gs and one
side on the south side across Arastradero Road, where irie have
single-family residentlal. The second correction would be to Con61tion
#)1. That should state that the housing mitigation fee is $3.23 per
gross square foot. not S3.27, as noted, for a sum total of $245,415.
The application is for a Comprehensive Plan a~endment to change the land
use deslgnation from Multiple-FamilY Residentia1 to Research/Office Par~;
a site and dp-sig" relli~\JI of two proposed research and de .... elopment
buildings totaling approximately 76,DOO square feet and related sit~
improvements; and variances to exceed the allowable height by five feet
and a side yard setback of 2~ feet where 40 fe~t is the minimum req~ired.
Chai~an Bee£b_~!!t: Mr. ZilTl(1"lerman, can you: give us somE additional
background on this s'ite-?
Mr. Zimmerma:'l: I think the question was raised by one of your colleagues
prior to this meeting as to why we ha"..-e the situation of this site being
deSignated multiple-family residential~ yet it is zoned lM-S. Back in
1980, the city .evahiated a number of sites, including this <me, whh:r.
WErE vacant and designated for nonresidential development as being
potential hQu~fng sites. About four or fives sites within the city,
includfng this one, which was the only one in the Stanford Research Park,
were redeSignated. J believe it was the SUl!1.mer of 1980. }4owever, the
relonings did net occur at th~t time. Wnen the rezonings occurr~d
approximately six months later, Stanford voiced strong opposition to the
rezoning of this site. As a ~esult, we have th~ rather unique situation
of the site being deSignated multiple-family residential) ... hile retaining
its lM-5 zo~;ng designation.
Chairman Beech~~: Any questior.s DY the commission fer staff?
08/26/91
-I .
I t~
: I.
: I
1
! :1 ,
t
. ,
1 . ,
!
-~,-............,..",...,.--".,,----~.:....
~orm1iss;on?r Cullen: Since I t~ink we arE' going to be heat"lrlg from the
applicant, this ~ig~t be the opportunity to ask this q~estfon. I thought
the landscape plln was ex~~llent, but I w~s worried about the water
i~pa~t, and th~ availabi1iti of wat~r. Per~aps staff ~eeds to answer
ttlis, too. HQIof is our allotment froln Heten Hetchy affected? Is that
increased when you nave development on an unde\leloped site? Or does the
allotment for thi s site come out of allotments for water for other
sites?
Mr. G111nand: It does not change our allotment from the San Francisco
Water District.
CommiSsioner Cullen: So in other words, it does (ome out of the
allotment for other sites. So more measures need to be taken to red~ce
the water on this site, perhaps. I do not see anything in the conditions
that speak to this .
Ms. Case: r am net an expert jn water matters, but we have been studying
tnis issue wjth respect to some other environmental assessments that we
Clire now dOlng far some large projects. Ttli s quest ion c(j,me up, and we
have been told by our util ity depa'7'tment that it is nnt an issu~ yet. So
it is not being addrtssed as an impact, as such. It might be in one of
the upc:omin~h very large developJil€l1ts, but nothing at this size.
Cmrmissioner (lJl1en: I do not understand why it is not an i!5Ue yet.
Ms. Case: They d~ say it is not a problem for tnem.
CQl]'I'Ilissioner Cullen: The utilities department feels tnat the amour)t of
water that is being allocated to us by Hetch Hetcny can encompass the
development on this property?
Ms. Case: That is what W~ nave been told.
Commissioner Cullen: It certai~ly has not helped with the residential
peopli!. If tfley 90 ov~r th~ir a1lotment
~,s. Cas .. Et: I am assuming that anyone wf10 is 1n the city is goir.g to be
under the same wat~r rules that everyone else 1S.
COrm:J.W~i.oner Cull en: Is anyone up to date on th€ water rul es in the
Stanford Research Park?
Commissioner CtJlli.l1: Perhaps someone with the d€\leloper can answer tnat
question.
Ms. Cas-a: What we can do ;s to ask that that question be ar!swered by the
time this goes to the citj council.
Commi<:sicner C:_~rr.~.,sco; I have some qlJestions on ~,ousin9, but first, I
wou1d like to pursue some of the issiJes that Pat just brought up. When
the sites on either side of this one were de\leloped, the-re was an effort
made to have the site look natural and ret.2 i,n the natural grasses,
minimiz.ing the amount of rigid landscaping, i.e., the formal,
08/26(92
-2-
_ .. ' ...... ,-··"'"·'.,cl""·· .•.. --.~-----.... -
-·;t
-
-
site·specific h~ds of landscap"ng. ~(lW does this sits blend in with the
others? ~il1 it look like it is going to stand out mare than the oth2rs
because there is ~orc Jandscaping on tni~ one tha~ on the others?
Ms. Weiss: Staff has worked with the applicant, a~ well as w,th
Stanford, on this particular issue. Originally, the proposal included
just a 'IIineyard. A .e .... isicn wa.:;. mad€ to the landscapt! ph" to incl lJde a
meanderi ng row of oaks at tne front setb.ack along Ara:stradenJ Road with
about a four-foot berm. That is expecteo1 to hi.de some of the "'ineyal"d,
although because it does slope somewhat on the site, it ~ould be somewhat
r.oticeable, but it is not expected to stand out.
COrh'Tlislioner Carrasco: I have some Q\.jestions on housing. r missed some
of what George explained a little while ago, but I wou1d imagine that one
of the maj~r i~sues we ar€ goir.g to be dealing with tonight is the
Comprehensive Plan change from housing to convnerc'l!l. 1 am a little
confused about ~hat the conditic~s of approval ire suggesting here,
especially CondHions 11 a~d 12. rt seems to me that on Page 4 under
Ar~AlVSIS~ HOLlSiJlg, you are sugg!:"sting that the developer has agreed to
mitisate the housing loss by payment of a fee to the city's residential
hou31ng reser· ... e fund. 15 this fee the normal fee, or is it in addition
to the nor~al fee?
Mr. GilliTand: The norma1 housing mitigation fee that tnt!y would pay is
$3.23 per square foot. That is being paid. That is tne fi rst one. In
addition to that, as a mitigation fGr the loss of th€ potential housing
that ~as there because of the Comprehensive Plan, tney are paying that
fee a second time to mitigate the loss. We ..,in put that in the
resldential fund and bUild housing wiU, it. So it is actua11Y ·a d,)uble
fee ov~r what would ncrrnal1y be ~ssessed.
kcmmtssione-r Schmidt: ] ha .... e iii: historical question. It says tnat the
applicant applied for two office buildings and a chlld care center in
1989. That, however, was withdr~wn because af potential problems with
possible release of toxic gas from nearby hazardQus materia1s storage
f~ciljties. I want to know a littlE more about that, and why are ~e not
concerned about that ai'1ymore. Why aren't 'We concerned about that for
peopl e who ""'ork and 1 i ve out there? ,/ o;-;'.Il ,-1.-
Ms. 'Weiss: 1 had~ discussion witn the fire department today_ The fire
department indicted that the nearest storage of hazardous materials is
approximately 1,500 feet away. That is for Syntex's SYVA site, which I
believe is at 3401 Hillview Avenue. They indicated that that should not
be a problem with this new de .... elopm~nt. We did not go into further
discussion about the original proposal, whic~ included a day care
facility on slte.
Chairman Beeci1alTl: As Wi: mOve to the public testimony portion cf the
hearing, I would like to emphasize to the commission that is you listen
to the testimony and w'11 probably have Questions, we have three issues
tonight befor"e us. One is to change the Co.rnprehensive Plan map; tne
second is to do a site and design review of thE project; the third is the
issue of variances for setbacks, so as to ensure V'l2i.t we get the
information that we need on a1l of H,ose. I \!lin no· .... open the public
hearing.
08/15/92
-j.
• __ r jl
i
I
I
r
f
I
l
I
•
•
d , I
(I ,I
~I
;-..
~ "
--'t -,
-
,Cnop Keenz.n. 7{lO Emerson St,.r'Elet, Palo Alto: I ",-auld li'1o::e to start IioIlth
wl'Jat we consider to be trre easy and fL:r. ;:;<irt of this proposec project,
that is, the vision that we are trying to execute O"l tt'~is site. It is a
tricky :sHe; there is over 70 feet of fallon the Sit2. We have gone
thro~gh half i doz~n different iterations of a tnenie, a vision for the
site, everything from 11. kind of a Contempo number to Frank lloyd
WrightesQue and everything in bell-reen. "e finally have ccalesced around
a concept of an Italian hillside villa with vineyards and olive trees and
lack of 1awns, to add'r'ess COl1lTlissioner Cullen's concern$. 1 tend to 90
balk. to our project at 4001 Mir-anaa, which we c:llled Fc.oUill Research
Part. We had a vision t~ere that was a k1nd of European piazza wit~ a
auto court. T~ere was lots of resistance from many quarters about this
vision, including the ARB and city staff. We hung in there with our
'IIision, trying to explain it as best we COUld. E .... erybody finally agl'eed
that maybe this was worthy of their approval. So away we went~ and the
project has be~n i~nsely successful. The feeling inside that auto
courtyard; s exactly as we ~Iad dreamed. S~ what we are propos~ng here
tonight is sort of in t~at same vernacu'~r. It is not j~st t~e
buildings; it is nat just the site plan; it is not just the vineyards and
the olive tre~s. It is the entire pr~duction that will make this a ve:y
special place both to work in and to look to the residents and ~e a good
neighbor to the residents atross Arastradero and the other park tenants.
I might mention that 1 have met with several of the residents across
Aristr~dero and have shown the plans to them. We have had nothing but
the best rece~tion for what we are proposing. I might alsa mention that
t~ere i'i no lawn irl this project, Pat. It is sensitive to the neW'rf"ter
ethic, not just in these drought periods, but with scme recognition that
we are in· a dry, Mediterranean climate here. Foothill Researth Park has
i 20 foot by 20 foot spot of lawn. If we WEre going to do it today. 1
don't think we wou1d ev~n have that. The vineyard will be en a drfp
system to get it established over the first few years, and it will be
dry· farmed , as well. So we are liery aware of the .. ater issue. besides
which. we ]}Ke the look. 1t is conSistent ~ith this Mediterranean theme
that we are developing.
On the history of the property, · .. ith regard to the child care p'ograrn and
the Comprehensive Phn change, at Oll€ time, we had cunsidered a child
c~re center within the project that would not onTj acc~mmodate the
project, but be for park tenants in general. As you know, I sit on the
Chnd Care Task force in Palo Alto. and it has always been a special
issue for me. We have tried mightily to get that accomplished here.
Unfortunately, the new 1aws with regard to taxies for residential areas,
in general. not just child' care, are that the two don't mi)( very well.
It is not that there is a di~proportionate riSK. It is just that in tni~
litigious world. the thought of having a hundred children in a child care
center in an area where there is potential for an acc1dent made it
unacceptable for the ffre department. Ultimately, it was unac-ceptable to
Stanford University, as well. f0~ the contingent ltabll,ly. So _e ~re
moving in a direction wh~re I don't think there was any group who felt
that this w~s a good housing site. I will let the Palo Alto Housing
Corporutjon speak for itself. Den5ity Sites shou1d occur alo~g
transpartation corridors, not in the middle of an R&D park. Therefore,
we have attempted ~ith staff to address the housing lo~~ t~,rough this
double f~e. The fatt of the matter is that it is an inappropriate site
for housing. Stanford has made that cle2r over the years. There is a
08/26/92
-4-
-
re-presentati'~e here frem Stanford ton~9ht, if )'O!.l w~sh to purS(J'= it. 'Mt
HE looking i!.t a goo,1 alternative where housing still gets a \rIin by
fun~ing tne,r fund far a more appropriate site.
The zoning issue on the ~ariance is like anytime Y0U get into th~ ~ills.
Things do nat fit into a nice neat d~finition. I ~i11 let our archit~tt
arId our 1andscape architect address the need for these minor .... ariances.
One is a defir'lHion pf how height is d~f;ned. and the other is a side
yard setback issue.
Commissioner Carrasco: I ha~·e a question about why you have sited it
where you did. from the philosophica1. big picture point of view.
Mr~Keenan: As you tan see from your Site location map, t~e first 275
feet are an open spaCE corridor. That has been consistently fell owed all
up and down "'rastraderQ Road. It .. as intended to be ar: addit\Olill1 buffer
for the residents across Arastraderc. So the site is somewhat
constraine.d to beg"tn with. Irlhen. )'OU think about that much. of it ~oi~g
into 1 indscap'ing before you e .... en start the project, and you overl ay th;t
wit~ 70 feet of fall, it rea1ly becomes a cha1lenge. We have attempted
myriad SOlutiuns to this site question. What 'We have ended up W"lth here
;s s~methfng that essentla11y masks the retaining WJ11 at the rear of the
building through layers of both landscaping and buildings. Much as ~e
accomplished with our Xerox project at 3400 Hiil .... iew, the retaining wall
was hidden by building and landscaping, and ";1as executed as we had hoped
it waul cf be. It is a ma.!"'lfel OU s set t i ng there, and Y{lU do not have .e
sense of that retaining wall. Ihat is what we have attempted to do
here~ Afte-r all, unless e.,erybody is dri~ing Jeeps, you need these
terrated pa~king 10ts to accommodate automobiles. lhe function of R&D
buildings lS such that having lots of split floors does not meet the
definit,on of a large R&D flo~r plate ~riterion. As it is, it's a little
tricky where you enter the second floor fro~ the courtyard and drop back
down. to the first floor with the down-hi 11 condi tion~ and more
traditionally on the uphill building. So it is an extremely challenging
site that I could not be more proud of, both in terms of the s1t~ plan
and the theme of the arctlitecture, the virteyards and the olive grove.
UnfortlJnately ,You do not ha"e the bel"1efit of the 1 ast year or two that ,,·e
ha .... e wrest7ed with this one, but W~ will try and articuTate the vision
tonight and see if you concur.
Cor,1I1isslQner Carrasco: CIi{l.c~ I know you like parking. but do you need
a1l of that parking? Dc· you think that once you halle a tenant, you cou1d
devote some of it to landscape preserve? Usually, it seems to me t~at
nQt a11 of the p~rking is used in the Stanf~rd Research ParK. Ii seems
like 20-25 perce~t of the spaces seem unused in ot~er buildings. Is
there in Opt1C!"\ for a. landscape preser'le?
M.r, K.eenan; I don't believe so here, Tony. Ur.1H.-e an office parking
ratio of 4 per thousand, this is 3 per thous~nd. So you are already a
little shy. Effectively, an R&D building is an office building with 13
feet clear and a truck door and lots of pm.fer. You stili get the-same
kind of body counts. So we don't believe that that is a ~iable option
here. If it were. I would obviously have no probl em IiPHh going in and
landscaping .. "1enlo Park has a 6 p-€r thousand parking requirement in some
areas. Tnt!re we have done landscape reserve, but ~ere, \<112 are already on
the cutting edge of ~hat is needed.
08/26/92
-5-
i
I
f ;
1
1 ,
, -
-
Colttllissio!'1er Schmidt: Mr. I(eenan, you mentioned the retaining wall at
the back and that the levkl thanges in g€ttjng to the park90g. 1 want to
have it clarif1ed that indeed, in order to get to ~he parking at the
back, YDU sti11 need to havE a. \Jeri hlgh retaining ~an "in order to mak.~
grades and make the parking work. and that that is as C105€ as ycu can
get it?
HI". Keena.n: Yes. it is. B\Jt "fiat we have d{)ne is to layer production of
hndscaping and buildings, and t/'1en you will see this long, tiled arcade
thd.t alSo is bet'frl'ee;-\ the buildings and the hrldscaping. We beHe ... e this
does a very effectiye layering job of screening that off, mu~n as we dia
at ,400 Hillvi.w.
Corrrnissioner Schrilidt: It seems unfortunate that you have to elld up
having to take away an awful Tot of dirt in order to make everything
work. I know you ~re not filling mucn, but you are having to take away a
lot.
Mr. Keenan: Yes, everybody 1o'w'es ti'1e word "na.tural" these days. You can
sell cornflakes pr darn near anything ~;th that word. Natural, sloped
lots are ~UZl words among residential developers, at least during the
planning phase. But when it comes to function, you still have to have a
flat pad. and you ~a" to ~a,e fl.t floor plates. So t~at is w~at
happens. Wha.t you are trying to do is to do i special job with paint and
petunias and architecture.
Commissioner Cullen: 1 have one additional question, Chop. What abo~t
t~e USE of this building? Almost all of th~ buildings that are out there
are being u!e.j by a single company. Is that gOing to be true nere, or
are you gOing to ~ave multiple lessees.
Mr. ~eenan: 1 can tell you unequi¥o~a)ly that the first tenancy ~;ll be
a s~ng1e tenant for the entire spa.ce. What happens i11 the future at thp
expiration of the lease cou1d mean mu1tiple tenants. We have tried to
ad<ires.'S that kil'.<i of thirlk.1ng in terms of foot.age, tenant id~nt'ty,
different entrances, etc .• but the fact of the matter is that today, in
ord~r to fir\3li(:e anythir,g, you need long-tenn 1easi'.s c!\d .'tGU need credit
tenznts. That necessitates the sort of build-to-suit concept.
COmmissioner Cullen: assume, having been through the Stanford review
process with this:-that they ha¥E no problem with the 40-£oQt high
tower.
Mr. Keenan: Yes) it t;as 90ne through thefr process. These are a1ready
stamped by the Stanford re .... iew group. Again, you do not have the benefft
of this, but we had sperlt a lot of time getting thEOTTl warm 'With thBse
various iterations of design conc.apls that 'tilE finally arrived at here.
Cqmmi:ssio!'le1'" Cull~D: I know now hard that is.
~ __ nairman Beecham: Do you have a sca1e model for us to look at?
.Mr,_,_--.K~enan: I "ill let the
have any ather questicns O~
mare appropriately ~ddress.
architect make that presentation, unless you
the Comprehensive P1an iSSUE t which I could
Since there are none, 1 would like to
06/26/91
·6·
: i
-
-----------------------------~-------.~------~ .. ~~~ .. ~--
introduc.e Ken Rodrigues.
Ker" RQdrigLi~s. 50 West Safl F~r_Il~_r.do. San Jose: It is a pleasuri! to be
back befoll"e you a9a;~ with another project. Chop' taj.!(ed a 1ittle bit
a~out the vision, ~hich is 5cmetning that botn he and John are really
goc·d at focusing in on. for us, we need to capture th~ vision and maKe
it ~appen, in terms of both tlle arcl"t;tecture and the land plan. We are
passing around a mode1 to you nO~t and I would like to speak to it,
focusing in on a couple of areas. The first one is the landscape
setback, which is a scenic setb2ck of 275 feet. Clearly. in researchlng
lliith otJth Stanford and staff, .itn their encouragement and that of the
ARB, we were able to try and blend tnis scenic, natura1 open space on
Arastradero Road lIiIitn this ',ineya.rd concept. As staff mentioned, ife l1i'.le
bermed up the front, nat'Jra1 Tandscape setback to be in natura1 grasses
and Dak trees. Then YDU will have this light carpet layer of vineyard,
about 100 feet of it. or approx;m~tely ha1f of that scenic setback in
vineyards. They .... ill be more or less tucked down below this benl. As
Chop said, it will be more ~illside oriented, giving a true European
flavor to the buildings. Those grapes ~1l1 also surround a portion of
the bui1ding, which will be en the upper part nf the site p:an O~ Sheet
#9. The exciting part about that is that it is a really unique pl~nt
materlal that 1s 1ush and green, much like lawn, but it does not r~quire
any water. Those kinds of piant materia1s are really appropriate in
these en~ironment4'ly sensitive times, as well as creating a working
vineyard which takes us back to our agricu1tural heritage.
In term~ of some of t~e questions about the amount of lar.dscaping and
percentages of parking areas, what we have tried to do is to brea~ down
the parking courts into a series of three courts. One is at the front
side, or,e is in the middle and onE-is at the rear. r think we have beer;
very successful at dOTng that, also taking small retaining walls and
stepping it up the hill. So the rear retaining wall is a.:tualTy less, in
most cases. than what we presented to you sometime back on Hillview. We
aho learned from Hillview. As Chop said, it is successful. but gOing a
step further, we are trying to create an extensive amount of landscaping
in front of that \IIall~ which we ha'lr'e done at th~ rear setbad, line.
lhat gets us into the variance requests. When we laid out the site, it
was a very long, narro"! site. and 275 feet of it are natural open space.
So in d~ing a site Circulation plan, and being able to p~t in the parking
reQu i rement for these bu 11 dings, we found t ha t you can not s llrround th i s
site 1 as done with normal buildings, with parking. Once you do that, yau
use up a tremendous affi{lunt of the area for paved, impervious surface. \lie
ttoought that was wrong. We thought that by sl iding t.he buildings to the
u~per part of the property line, we would nat only achieve c;rcu1ation on
the sides of the bui1ding with this very strong entry focal pcint, which
you can see on the model (the arcade) HIat picks 'Jp ai 1 of tne
pedestrla~s and visitors and mo~es them into the main entry, but also did
not surround the buildings with a sea of asphalt. We thought that was
tremendGus1y important. The ARB, the staff and Stanford University have
encouraged l.IS to move in that direction, and we would hope the commission
WOUld do the same by granting this variance.
In terms of the neigl1t requi rement I as (/iop said, it is a quest ior. of
code interpretation. We want to int~rpret the code the correct way, the
way i~ which staff wanted us to do it, as \liell as the ordil1ance) and in
08/16(91
-7 -
. =.-
I
J
I
I
I
I
i , ,
'_~t
-<
-~£~?~~1f' -":
_ ....... " ........... -_"".M';"~. _____ _
doing thE d€sign, we actually set these bUTldings down ~nto the grade
significantly. As you can see from some of our sketches, we actually
have floars that we have cut atriums ir,to. because 'lite do not !"lave
exterior glazing where the nat~ra' grade actually mGunds right up to and
abuve the floor line at the first floor l~vel. So ~hat we have done
there is to cut these atriums into the interior of the building to create
light and have Mstled the bui1dir..g down into the existing c'lntours, Sa
that has beer;-extrem21y successful, as pOinted out i!'1 our staff r~port.
The~, hQwever~ because we have flesCed th€'m dO\ltI'\, Itf~ had to raise the
l"'oof screen up a little taller tl'lan cur normal situation. This one is a
lHtle bi.t over eight f€et. That does. p\lsh IJS into ar.d over the height
requirements. We thir.k this is suc.ces.sful. We learned it our 4001
Miranda site that, given the types of t~nants. that a~e in the Stanford
Researcn Park., these heavier, biotech f"inT'S require larger than normal
equipm£nt. ~e should be prepared to $cre~~ those now. So ~e ha~e don~
an extensive study and developed the roof naights to be verJ" sensiti .... e to
s.creen that equi?lMnt from the ileig'hborlog sites, both from in R&,O
standpuint~ as well as from the res~dentiil sites acrC$S the way.
COlOOiissioner_.1.U1l.ru!: Are you Sa)'1ng that the canopy screening is four or
five feet abo\l~ the aliowance that 'We have for canopies in thE .:-ode? \Ie
do have an allowance that goes aboie the ~eight of the building.
Mr+ Rodrigu~s: Y~sl in fact, most of the height requirements are the
tOWi!r pieces that form architectural fe~tlJr~s, based upon setting th~
heights ot th~t parapet arollnd t~e peri:neter.
Commissigner Clilleii: So the total height of the building. with the
tow~r, is 40 feet.
Mr. Rodrigues: Ye~.
~ioneY" Cullen: The other part is .35 feet? .. ill the ca.nopy be on
the tower or ~n both of these buildings?
Mr. Rodrigues: It moves all around the perimeter.
,_()Jmllssicf1er Culle:n: \r/·hat is t-h2 actual he;gh~ of tho:! canopy?
Mr. Rodrijlues: It is roughly ei9ht feet. You measure that from natural
yrade, so the farthe~ we push theSE bui1dings down, we tend to get
penalized a bit. That is where we are tonfght. We think that is the
appropriate way to go, because a9ai~, it lessens the impact of the
project from Arastradero Road.
CommiSSloner Cullen: I do not disagree with that. I just wal".t to be
clear that the code does have a pruvisiQn fer canopfes not to be included
in the ne1gnt.
Mr. Rodrigues: The other item I wish to speak to tonight is the actual
byf1ding arcnitecture +-the forms, the materials, and the colors. As
Chop tnent ioned, we have had a very s~ccessfu1 ~roject at 4Q01 Mi randa.
We wanted to be able to bring back to you a similar, deSign-oriented
project that spoke to the European heritage. We are utilizing a natural,
exposed, san~b1asted concrete here again, in a lfghter, buff tone, and I
believe there is a color board that has moved around amongst the
---:--.. _-L
08(26(92
-8-
·.
cOlmlissic:mers. That clJ1or" we see .. 5 being the natur.a1 ~{)Tor (If the
hlnside. lhat i$ real~y what .we are lClOkirrg fCt, tt1at 'Wr,eat tOlCO'!" that
we see-most of the ye-ar. Th~ brO:11-! 9tazin9 and frames are, aga.in, very
sensitive. The project itseH is Mt sta.nd'n~ C'Jt, fle~il'l9 it!. muscles.
It hides behind this lIery ser.sitiYe landscape pian of both olives and
sh.rubherJi .and 'Wines. At the tl)p~ life .;,r~ ta.H.ing about usi~g a ... ·ery
natural, clay ti12 roof matel"'ial, in fact~ 'trying to get some 'Of Uje
old€r chy ti1es off of some of the older ~istoric buildings that are
still available aroLnd the state.
Chairman Beecham: I have a question on yo~r colors. You ha¥e a picture
of a Stanford building, and you have this material. Is your intent to
maK~ this color the same is the basic Stanford colors?
Mr. RDd'tigue-~: '1es, that is fDr cnlor ~nl1. Jlli"~t we ""Guld 1ike to see,
of course, is that the concrete 'Would then be sandblasted and given a
t.e,xtur-.ed s'Jrface, ernul at ir.g some of the silndstor.t forms. on the campus,
So ~e are looking for that buff cOIDred sandstone.
~ommissiQner Cul~: So this is not an accuratp color sample of what the
building exterior will be?
Mr .. Rndrigues: It is the ilctual (olar .sample as it goes. i,.,to the
concrete mix, but keep in mind that it gets sandbla5ted a~d receives that
variegated texture.
(Q!iD1issioner Cullen.: Will it receive additional color, as well as
textur~?
Mr. Rodrigues: No, it will have that integral coler mixed 1n with the
concrete to come out like a colored, sandstone block .
. Commissioner Cullen: It loo"k.s more gray than wheat to me~
Ch~jrma.n Beecham: So this is ttle co1ar?
Mr. RodriqlJ.tl: '1~s. "Whell you texture it, it "ill -lOOK like the
buildings on the campus. Tnat is what we are looking toward. Again, if
)IOU look. at our 4001 Miranda proj'::ct, we lTrade c.lose to nine samples on
that to get the color just as we wanted it. ~e worked clcseiy with both
staff an~ Stanford, w~ich we w~11 do again her~. te sanQblast these
pane1s in different textures, 2S w~ll as taking that standard color and
then possibly adding some color to it until we get the exact color we are
really looking for, w~icn is to em~late the sandstone bui1dings on
campuL
~Qmmi$Ji~ner Cullen: In terms of site and design, 1 think you have a way
to go on that material before it becomes what YOLI ire tal king about. YOlj
are asking us to ipprove it on the baSis of what we see before us
tnnight. 1 think that before jt goes to the city counc11, I would get a
sample and tryout the sandblasting and se~ what will happen, sa that it
looks lik.e what it w1n ~'ierltua11y be.
Mr. Rodr'gues: To re'terat~ Our corr~itm~nt to that (and I certainly
appreciate your (:olTl!Tlents), t.'IIpi cally in th~ pust, we nave made these
ten-foot by twehe-foot-high samples on the site, sal1dblastirlg them and
08/26/92
·9·
•
t
i
I
! Vi
I
i
'Fell $
-------------
[OlCTing them. WE-have gone t11 greC!:t extremes, as a group, both ",ith
staff and ~!th Stanford, ~S w~ll as our~elves, to get to th~s color.
c~n tell you that Chop and John are very com~itted to this vision, a~d we
~il1 ~c~ieve t~at. But I appreciate your concerns. and I realize t~i5 is
on]y a!1 addHi .... e sample. It is not a huge s,..andbl.:.sted piece. I wl11 be
glad t-J anSlillel'" i.n)' otheor questions. Gary Lamon, the hndscape arcl:1itect,
is here to speak to any questions regarding pl~nt materials, the
lar.dscape concept or any other 1andscape QlJestic(1s you mig~t ha\l'l2'.
CommissiorlEr Carrasco: 1 haYf a question about the setback variance. On
the east side of that property. you want a lO-foot s~tback instead of 40
feet. COL.!~d yeu explain ha~ these buildings that yOLl hail€, created ,loser
to the property line relate to the adjacent bufidings! 00 they create a
better space bec.ause you have set it back i" a var-ied .... a .. y. or beca.use you
do not ~ave parking?
~r+ Rodrigues: If J could step over to the plar., right here you can see
tn.e park.ing for the adjacent site. which is the Dialogue site .. It
actually has 1andscaping along the pnJpHty 1 i:l'a, c series of parktng
stalls and access, and thoen the building edges. By pushing the buildings
up in t~is direction, we felt t~at having this landscape edge meet t~is
landscape edge -.ith this parking, theSE ~uildings related very nicelY.
By sliding it back down, (ontinuing to add the asphalt, we just k.ept
widening thjs barrier. If you take a look at both the elevation concept
moving up the hill, which you can really see up here on Sheet 112, you
can start to see nGw the heights move across here. Even thOugh tnis site
is just i slight bit higher, the building height is here. It is hea~ily
landscap~d, and then our landscaping will roll around the edges of those
buildings.. We purposely skewed tne buildings to work with tne ~ontours
to step up the hill exactly the ~ay in which the contours are moving. In
other words, we did not turn the buildings in this direction, whic~ would
have caused a greater cut. We tried to work with the existin9 contours
and look at this as a natural 1andscape belt. Tnat drawlng pretty ~ell
shows that.
COlmrrssioner Schmidt: I have a question about celling heights ir.doors.
The prD~ortT(·n:s of the elevatic:1s are very nice, with the lower le","el
being ta1ler, rem1niscent of Ul€ Halian style .. On€ of the drawings
snolols a 9-foot ceilin9 height on the lCI.I-:r leveT. r wondered if that was
what was intended and do ycu end up with a nuge amount for mechanical
equipmer,t, ftC.?
Mr. RodriguEs: Right nollt, we have the flexibiltty of going at a 9·foot
minimum helght. We Ifould obviously 1 ik€' to enc.ourage the 10-ilnJ
12-foot-high ceilings, much as we did at Miranda. We ha~e the ability to
go to the higher, 12-foot ceilings, should a tenant require that. If it
is alse a heavy mechanical user, as you mefltioned~ that tends to push it
dawn. It is our intent to keep this c~iljng up as high as possible,
reminiscent of that photo of some of the buildjngs on campus. The first
floor always had that 12-foot-high ceiling, and seemed so spacious when
you walked in. So that is our intent.
",ol1ll'lissioner Schmidt: I have another question. II"I the staff report,
there is a question about the access road, the snared road, on~·way on
eash side. J t~ink staff has asked you to look at that, and I wondered
if anything has been lockpd at or if yO'u are still looking at that.
•
08/26/92
·lO-
.i
------~---------------~~
, '
,~
"
~O-""l~«"
~ ..... '-. --,-':-.::: -, ,
...
-
Would that pc-tenthl1y impact your parki~g and lalldscape?
Mr. RoQr.i.S:ltU: we nne looked at that, and are currentTy in t~e prQcess
of looking at that as we speak. r -::annot anc,wer that it shouldn't be a
problem. What we ha .... e leoked at iliith staff ;s to looi<. at adding a stop
sign. Jo~n may w~nt to speak to that, as he just met on that today.
John lQ\lewell, 700 Emerse:n Street. Palo Alta: We met yesterday lIIith the
transportation departmEnt, an~ we took a look at the ci~cul~t;on plan.
We have come ~p ~ith a circulat10n pl~n that is consist~nt with t~e
origina1 concept for' that sHe. It has al ways bE-:s>!'l the concept that we
would ~ave a two-way divided ra~d go~ng up that hill, utilizing the
e~sement that is already in place. The~e was some con,er~ about the
confluence of se ... ~r-a1 parldng lots and the street at one point up C!'l the
nill, but .. e ... .are able to work through a solution. W2 ha .... e added a stop
sf~r, and some additional signage to handle t,hat. loIe are going to study a
coup1c ~f other alternati¥es, but I think this 1S the one that is going
to wark for us.
Ccmmissjoner CarrascQ: J have another question on access. Joh~.
past, sites in this zone have been required to access fire trucks
rear port;<ln of the property. How does that h.appell an this site'?
not see an access gate there.
!r. the
to the
I do
Mr. Rodr,igues: r would be happy to answer that, as we did spel1d some
time ~lth the fire department initially to make sure this worked. As you
come up the hillSide, they were wery specific an what the percentage of
slope would be, Tony. that we cowld not exceed. given that the fire
trucks need-:!:d to get to the t(lp. 'We have be~n able to meet that. It
rfloves lJ'p ihe we-ster1y property 1 ine, and then you come to the top of the
site. mo~e around through the back parking area, where you can see a
Wider turnaround at the top of Building Two, and then come back down
through the site. Ttley have laid out thei r temp' ates on it ana' feel .... ery
comfortable that it works. both from a circulation standpoint, pius a
pe~centage of slope standpoint.
COlTlTlissioner_...i_~rLiID.: Do tli-ey connect between sites~
Mr. Rodrigue~: Nc. It was interesting that they allowed us to do that
on this site, given tile slope and gi .... en somE of H,e other issues. They
felt that if they needed to. since the parkiMg is an the easterly side of
the property Tine, the:; could jump the curb in a real emergency. We did
get their concurrence and appro .... al of this site layout.
£.Q.rllJ1iS.5ioner CarrascQ.: I have a quest'Fon an the height lIariance. It
~eems to ~ that the difference in height that you are askir.g to exceed
1s not going to be substantial. yo~ are not going to be able to see 11
from the street.
Mr._Rodrigues: That is correct.
Commissio~t;'r ~_arra~co: :s there anywhere el$e that you .ill be able to
see that additional height from? Are tnere buildings abo¥e this? Maybe
the top EPRJ bu51ding might be able to look down on this addit-,onal
heig~t. Does it cut out any ~iews that you know of?
'L
08/26/92
-11-
f ,
.. ~.
-
Zi ...
Mr. Rodrigues.: I don't belie~e so. a.'e have looked at that. It;s
densely land':>caped at the upper part of the slte, tfre nort~ern part.
They also set down in a little knoll. At the property line. it berms up
a bit and then sets back down. Their views and vistas ~Juld still be
unobstructed, because the buildi~gs set still lower than the existing
height of the contour ~n the top part of tne hill. So 1 feel pretty
comfortabie that ~e are not going to be an impact on any of the
surrounding properties. We were most cOlicerned Irith the residential
property owners Jooking up at it. There, I feel WE! have been very. \'ery
Successful.
(Ol!J:l'liS5ioner Carrasco: I have Co qu-estic.n for the landscape architect.
Mr. Rodrigue~: I would like to introduce Gary lamon from Anthony
Guzzardo Associates.
Corrrnissioner Carrasco; I am wonrjering about the question I have asked
Lorra",ne about thE! landscaping. There is mare landscaping proposed on
this site than on the ones t~ either side of it. I am wandering 2bout
your thi nking on those oak trees. It would seem to rtlE' that as you are
drivlng down Arastraderc Road, YDU would an of a sudden see this clump
of oak trees, which would look different from the rest of the site,
because the other sites do not have the oak trees. What Wi:.'S your cnncept
in addi ng them?
Gar~ Lamon. _Guzzardo Assnciates, San fral1~isco: Along the Arastradero
corridor, there are existing native oa~s. In the upper ri~ht ha~d corner
of the page, there is a particulariy large, existing ~ak specimen
there. In addition, there are oak trees which have been p1anted in
front of tna Syntex site, just be10w our site. It sort of embraces hoth
sid~s of the driveway as you go along there. So the oak trees are
consistent with that corrider theme, and of course, with the residential
and some of the oak. trees ... hicn are existing on the adjacent sites. Sa I
am plcking up that cak theme with the grassy h'ill, maintaining some
continuity. Let me go over our intent, 1n tf!rtns of quantity of
landscaping, sirlce that seems to be an issue that sel,'eral commiss~oners
are (cr1cerned about. What 'fie looic. to do on ttJi s .,..as to try and create a
lap.dsc~pe that wOl.l1d be very soft and 'Very subtle around the perimeter of
tne de'llelopment. taking thi.ngs like oak trees, hydrase~d nat'ive grasses,
and take tnat a1l along the perimEter of the property line. In that way.
a non-irrigated ground covar condition would be created, with oak trees
that wo~Td be on drip irrigation just for the establishment period. So
whereas the total square footage of landscape appears fairly substantial,
and indeed th~ tree cover wOljld suggest t~at we are putting in a lot of
plant materials tn there, the gr~und cover treatment is actually very
minlmal, in terms of just getting a ground co.er there wh~c~ will
naturalize and blend in w~th the surrounding en'llironment.
The most intensive landscaping occur) with:n the parking Tot itself,
where '!lie are d<ling things to help soften the impact of car:;;, creating
those Tayers of screens going through th~ parking lot, and aTso providing
trees which give a canopy and shade for people using the parking areas.
The most intensively used, landscaped area will be the central corridor
in the patio space b~tween the two buildings, and also the patio space
just beyond, toward the Dialogue site. They were creating a lind of
outdDor room there, w~jd will be Ericlose,j lIIith shrub material. The
08/16/91
-11-
r
-
.-,., .'"". ~~f-:~: .. .:_
p~vcment material wi~l be decomposed granite, w~ich allows w~tEr to be
absorbed into t~e soil~ creatin~ a light touc~ onto the land.
Commissloner CuJJen: I see that you have 01 ive trees 'LhCLt dG not bear
fruit. Does that meoln you arf going to spray them, ar is there someti,ing
new on tne market that I am not aware of?
Mr. lamon: There are ~11ve trees on t~e market ~hich are hybrids, and
tend to product! less fnJlt than the norma1, fruit-bearing varfeties. r
dorl't Vl'ink thHE! h an olive tree that YOll would 'Want to plant in a sH
of paving that \tiould absolutely be glJaranteed never to have an cHve u~on
it. But there are hybrid strains 'Which produce fe1lle"t Olives. You can
also spray the tree for olives, and we wiil be doing that in this C4se.
~lliland: Since tney are usi~g that sandblasting technique, which
15 the same ore that was used at 4001 Miranda, we did receive se~eral
complaints during the construction process about the noise from that. I
wondered if they could address the issve of how they might take st€vS to
minimize the impact on the neighbors from the noise ~f the sandb1asting.
Mr. Keenan: During the foothill project, as 1 recall. wh~n the
earthquake hit, we had 143 panels a11 standing there with just one 1ittle
brace on each one. We lost a total of three. Th~ project got set back.
and [ think W~ were sandblasting at the edge of th~ envelope in terms of
the tlme perlods. I think we deferred until 8 o'cloCKj r~ther than 7
o'clock, and we knocked off at 4:30 p.m. I don't think we nave i probl~m
with that here. ~e ~ere san6b1asting on Saturdays. and 1 tntnk that was
the problem. It is no)sy, but it is aho of very short duration. It was
1es$ than a week.
Commissioner Cull~n: I see these are ti1t-up buildings. 1 ~as un~er the
impression that tilt-up buildings were not seismica11y safe. Has that
been dealt ",-ith. in iii. different way? 1 a.ssume that the building
department must be looking at this, knowi~g Fred Herman's concerns about
earthquakes. Is tnere som~thin9 different about these tilt-up buildings?
~r. K~enan: No, they are just engineered better_ ihe early tilts that
were done in the late 1950s a"d early 1960s flad tc be retrofitted as the
technology becam~ mOi"e defined. These are seismic to the turrent co·1e.
I might add t~at \!lith the tnt buildings t~at we have at Foothill
Restareh Park, people come from .11 over to look it them. They cannot
believe they ire rea11y tilt butldings, Th~y tnin~ they are preca~t ur
stone. That was the art form of what Ken is able to achieve in the
rEveals and th~ sandb1asting to give the effect of the stone lo~k, but at
the cost of a tilt. 1 guess that is why we are her'e, and a lot of other
de're1opeY's .ren' t.
Janet o.."ells_,,-~~_§3 Moreno ~l,IenIJe, _PllO~: Good e~ening. I 3m 'S.p.eakif'l9
for the Palo Alto Housing c.orporati'Dl'l. J want to make two brief points.
One, the Pa.lo Alto Hous,ng Corporat'on 'is sUY'pri'S.ed that Vere is no
review of the reasoning ti1at led to the earl ier amendment of the
£omt:lrehensive Plan, so that houing could bE: included 0(1 the Palo AHo
!Oide of Arastradero Road, :',lce few of you .... ere deepl) 1nyol~ed in city
affairs at that timE, it seems most appropriate for yau to postpone
action on tnis reqllest J.Jntil you tJa'ie sufficient background information
to make a well informed judgment. Secondly, in a city ~ith so little
08/26/92
.]3-
,4
'1
\
I
i
""i
-
undtvejop~d land avanable for tlousing ano wlth such a s.ev~re .
jobs/housing imbalance, money is a me~n1ngle5s mitigatlon for the loss of
:sites for housing. Only one-fOr-tllle rephc€rnent c.f the 1c-~t s1tes by
hnd net no ..... zcned for nOlJsing can effed"ie1y mitigat€ the action
propos~d here. The Pale ~lto Housing Corporation OppOSES tn! use of thi~
!and for anything other than bOUSlr.g. We urge the corrrnission to cOlls-ider
car~ful1y and fu11) what is being requEsted of you.
1 also want to speak to whether this is a good sit~ for ho~sing. Those
of us in this room tonight could debate t':at endlessly, I suppose. I
think the appropriate place to put the question is to a family ~ith
children now 1 iving ir. a car. lhat is the situation we are facin9 now.
As har-d as the !'lousing corporation has worked. things have gotten worse,
not b.tter. Thank you.
Chairman Beecham: Seeing no ather .:;peakers, J ... il1 c.lose the public
hearing and return this item to the plan~ing commission and staff. Are
t~ere any questions from t~e commission to staff?
CQllII1issioner OiaKt.!n: Undi:r what se~ of circumstances cou1d this
property be developed for housing?
Mr. Gilliland: It would, first of all. take a rezoning, as it is zoned
lM. Then I suppose a deve10per cOlJld put housing On it if they cOlJ1d
deal with the toxic issues, the fire department, and their concerns about
it. It is a 6evelopable site fDr hous~ng. Also, as ~s. Case just
pointed out to me, Stanford wotild probably Keep it in vacant land before
they ~ould put housing in there. 1here ~re ~ome v~ry litigious issues
going on fOi~ them with regard to housing.
(ommissioner Ojakian; So for this piece of property to be used as
housing. {l} Stanford would fiave to agree. to it and. (2} it w{lu1d have to
meet toxic and ot~er hazardo~5 requirement~. So in your opinion, is it a
feasible piece of property for housing?
Mr. Gillilang: That reallY puts us or. the spot. don't believe it is
an appropriate site for housing. and I don't believe .staff would say that
it is. I retract that statement, as ~1'.y legal counsel ad ... ises me that
5hould not make tnat statement.
Ms. Case: The reas~n I say that is because] don't think staff has
actua1ly done a study of that, espec.iall.\f with regard to t{l)dc issues.
It is a fair quest~an to ask, but it is not a question that I belie~e
staff is prepared to answer at tnis pofnt, lriith respect to the toxic
issues, at any rate. I dO:,]'t thln'k staff has full ur,derstanding of what
the impacts of the toxicity might be. I think it is fair to say that as
a practica1 problem, unless the housing ",as going tc be financed by thE
builder, that it would be just because of th€ nervousness of lenders
nowadays, it would be very difficult to build housing. That dOES nDt
necessarily mean it isn't an appropriate place for housing. Of CDurse,
the b~ttorn line at thi5 point is that th~ owner ~a3 the final say as to
what happens on the land.
Mr. Gilliland: let me cluify my Cor.>.ment and say tMilt as a professional
planner, iTo not firld this to be an appropriate site for housing beci!.lIse
of the location in the midst ~f other R&D US25.
08/15/91
-14·
,--... ----',
i
~ !
-
-~---------
< -
~ha.irman Beecham: To clarify also on the attorney's meaning, J believe
the owner has control o .... er whether or not the owner bUilds on a piece (If
prQperty. but the ~wner d02S not control the des;g~ation nf the
property. Is that correct?
Ms. Case: That is correct. rf you are talking about zoning or land use
designations. that is strictly the city's p~r .... iEw.
COlTlTlissioMf Carrasco: I would like to ask Jim a folloOliup quesUon 0:1
that: recorrrnendatioll. When this Comprehensive Plan Change ""as initiated
at that time, ~taff recoll1m€nded that it was an appropriate site for
housing. I am wondering what did he find to be incorrect in that
reco:rmenaation, and why did he change his mind now?
Mr~ Zi:m'lerman: I think it really reflects a change of value system of
~here sites Are appropriate fer housing. What we kne~ back in j9S0 was a
lot 1ess tt1an what we Know today \loith the issues that my colleagues have
just been discussing. As a result, staff did an inventory of ~irtually
every opportunity site t~at was designated and zoned for commertial or
indust~la1 ~se in Palo Alto at that time. Thro~gh the public T€v1ew
process, it sifted down to about fi\le sites. I think. that if we were to
do a similar exercise today. we \IIould come ilp wit'" substantially fewer
sites, and nnt necessarily at the same Tocations as were designated then,
inc1 uding the one you are cons idering ton"ight for the proposal ~
Corrrnlss,ioner Cullen: let me add a little to that, as the on1y person
present, beside Geor9&, who was present at the time this ~as done. This
particular site was s~1ected by poeople in the industrial park for a
demonstration project for housing, for employees who wou1d not have tn be
transported to work. so that tney could 1 h'C' near -where they irJorked.
Unfortunately, because the support for that fell through at the higher
echelons in some of the companies~ the task force was disbanded. The
only thing that came out of it was this loning. Stanford said at the
time, "We will never al10w housing on tha.t site. ft will sit vac.aflt f01'
20 to SO years, if need be, but we ~ill not allow !lousing on that sHe."
Now r k.now it is not the developer's responsibility that the housing
cannot be put on this site, and the applicant has come through with some
mitigati<ln for thf! lOss of Ulis sHe. r ftel that Stanford has a strong
obligation to come through with another sita, if we allow this to be
redesignated ton~9ht. Stanford" s record has not been gcod on that. We
deSignated the trianglE across from th€ shopping center for housing.
Stanford fought that. It \lJas not within the city limits, so the loning
ultimatelY went to the county. In spite of the staff r~cDiTiTJ1endation and
in spite of the city council vote~ thEY allowed Stanford tc retain the
deSignation on that site as academic instead of housi .... g. It was a
perfect place for housing. It ~as o~ a transportation corridor; it was
near shopping; it ",,"'as el,'en nea.r open space. I really would 1 iKE-to seE:
Stanford reth1nk that. If we allow this designation to be changed, they,
in turn, should allow a redes5gnatjo~ of another site. I know that is
not what i$ before us toni~ht, but I want to get that into the record, as
I feel very strongly abol.:t it. I think Uat many of the people who were
on the council around that time ~ill aTso feel strongiy abo~t it.
Chairman Beec~am: In tems of OiJr diSCUssion tonight, in order to help
focus us, we haVE three areas of issues. One is the Comprehensil,'e Plan
08/16/91
-]5·
-
,
f
i
r
•
-
o
map alM!ndment, as we have just talr,ed about. Second is the site and
design, a~d third is the variances. What I would 1 ike us to do is to new
(ontinue the discussion on the Compre~ensive Plan map amendment, and see
if we can reso he that. I f we do. then we can COfl t i nue witn the 5 iteo and
desi9n) a~d then fina1ly? take up t~e vGriances.
Commission~~~: I think, first of all, that housing needs ta be
in neighborhoods. I am not sur~ you (an isolatF. housing and expect all
of the social a!>pects of hO'Jsing to perform. For ir.:stanc~. you need to
be next to grocery stores; you need to be close to other facilities such
as parks, etc. ! find that this very sloping si.te, 'W'ith the nO·foct
setback, "ith ~/)using way up close to research park bu.ildings, is
inappropriate. J th;nk the appropriate designation at that time should
have remair.ed 1n LM, and I think it is a wise idea to keep gO;"'.9 in t;-,e
direction that staff has recommended at this point.
On the ~tr,er hand, I am concerned th~t we are going to lose 88 units.
remember tnat study whi1e I was ~ith city staff. We had looked for
housing sites that could handle the additional hcusing, and we could not
find politica)ly acceptable sites, it seemed. I agre~ with Chop that
additional housing should occur along transportation corridors, and I
would hope tnat both Stanford and Keenanjlo'wewell wou~ld Tobby for these
kinds ~f additional densities along transportation corridors when the
hard time comes that I(e halle t.o talk to neighborhoods and reason ~ith
neighborhoods as to why additional density might happen. for instance,
along £1 (amiGO. While we cannot require that as a mitigation here, I
would rely on the fact that he is a developer who is re-al1y inhrested in
Palo Alto and hope that they will come forth and speak for an addjtiona1
28 ~nlts Dn a transportation corridor~
Having served on the ~ousing corporation~ I am gratefUl thc:t developers
have proposed paying an additional fee for housing, although I don't
think: that bwying your -IIIay out of a Comprehensive Plan is the way
planning shou1d happen, even in recessions and in times when W~ have a
shortage of ~~ney for housir.g.
In summary, l feel this ;s an inappropriate site for hOLlSiilg and more
appropriate for an industrial pa~k use. : would hope that
Keenan/Lo\lewell wlll come out and speak for hDusing in ~.ore a.ppropriate
sites.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree ~it~ wna.t has been 5a i d about housing.
The only troubling part of this proposal is that I hate to see a sitE
that has been designat,c;!d for 88 units to be eliminated w1th notning to
replace it. Even though the applicant is paying essentially a double
fee, it really does not make up for t11e loss of 88 units, but we Cinnot
expect the applicant to pay for everything, obviously. It is a very
generous th~ng to do. In looki~g at the site a~d the adjace~t uses, it
does not look like a very appropriate site for housing.
I looked thrO(lgh the St.anford Research Park planning document or study
that was done six or eight montns ago. It made s~veral recommendations.
One of them was that there needed to be a new master plan for the
research park, because man)' of the older buildings were coming to the end
of their life in a particular use. Perhaps if a new master plan was
undertaken for the Stanford Research Pari<., perhiip~ housing could be
08/26/92
-16-
-' -1-
--J
-
loo~ed at through t~e research park whe~ that is done. I wouTd hope t~at
not a11 of t"e researc~ park lS 50 tOX1C t~at we CGnnot do anything but
have research there. I think the loss of housing ii the troubling part
of this, but that particular site would be more ap~roprlate as a research
fadl ity.
~ommissioner Oiakian: I concur with what has been said. thus far. For
everyone's knowledge~ including Janet Owens, in 1979·1980, as part of the
University Park Association, I ~as involved with some of the zon'ng
issues, ~special1y as they related to the neighborhood I lived in. So J
have som€ famfliaritj with why we S€t up some of these zones and ~hat we
were trying to do with them. I ,,:11 aTso say that I spent the time to go
and look at this site; I checked out the adjacent areas, and in taking a
lock at it, I would probab1y tUlle more difficulty with this issue if the
lands adjacent to this site on either side of it were zoned for housing.
But i~ fact, what we have here is a ~ingle prot of land that is zoned for
mu1tiple-family in which there is nothing else around it that would be
allowable for housing, it is sitting on a piece of properly that to me,
gi ..... t!n some of t~e factors we are ~ear;n9 tonight, for ir"!stance the
problem with toxic wastes and some of the other aspects, it is dlfficult
to vot~ in a way that 1S other than ~hat the applicant is asking f~r.
Again, I agree with what COImdssioMrs Carrasco arid Sct1midt are saying
that in a sense, what we hav~ r.ere is a J:'lece of property where the o~ly
issues ;s the housing. The rest of what is being proposed is a fairly
attractIVe situation.
Chairman Beecha1!!: To follow up orl those comments, 1 am coming fram t~~
ot~er end. I read tr,rough this, and I felt a little bit as though the
applicant should flat need to pay any mitigation for this. When 1 looked
at the Comprehensive Plan and saw that this one parcel in the mlddle of a
light ~anufacturing area was designated as housing, i thought back to
1980 and felt that we must ~ave been grasping a.t straws. 1 am sure it
was very difficult to find any opportunity at that time at all for
~ousing. 1 waS not part of that declsicn, and I do not recall any of the
dlscuss;ons, but in looking at the situatio~ today and in visiting th~
site, I cannot believe tnat we would say, let's put some high-density
~ou5ing here. It is surrounded by totally noncampatible uses. So I ftlt
that in terns of talkirig about requiring mi~igation from the appl icarlt
for a loss of potential housing, by one definition, we are losi~9
potential nousing, because that is what 1S in t!1~ Ccmprehensive Plan map,
but 1 have no doubt that the way things are today, at least, that is not
an appropriate designatl0n for that sing1e parcel in that ar€a.
MOTION: Chairman Beec.ham: To move this forward, I will move that we
accept the staff reccmmendation. specifically, Recommendation .2 an
Page 7 which refers to the Comprehensive Plan; '"Adopt the attached
reso1r.;tion amending the COrT1preher;sive Pia'l, redesigr;ating the property
fram multiple-family residential to Research/Office Park); and also that
we accept the findings rehtive to the Comprehensive Plan aii1€:ndment on
Page 7.
SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco.
Commi ssionJ=t .. Jjill en: I am going to vote for the rrlction, but I want to
make t ..... o pOints clear. First of al1, \He don't knop' t.hat there is any
kind of to~ic waste o~ this property, and I don't think the record ~hould
L
08/20/92
-II .
-
ind~cate any implication that there is. we ha .... e nf} knowledge of what the
Soi1s. study nave shown, ana' p~rhaps "E-could be eTl'-ig~t~ne.j on Hilt.
Even if there were to~ic scil i~ there. ~ith this appllcat'on, it would
still ha'l-E! to be rer.1edied, just .as it was lilJiU1 the Miranda property. So
the taxi::. problem I fEel is irrelevant as regards whether it is for
housing or not. There may be some future problem, and 1 can see \IIb~re
you mig,~t say there is an unk.nQwn fador there, but let's r.ot -say there
is a prob1el'i', with toxlC son.
The s€cond thing I want to reiterate again is that we are los~ng the
housing deSignation here because the underlying owner of the land .... 11-1
nel.ler al10w l10using to be built nere, and r f.eel bat Sta:-oford t'12.S a
moral obligation to pay attention to hOlJ'Sing elst'wn<:!re, since they are
the largest emp 1 oyer in the a r2<:.
Chairman Beech],.!!!: As a point of clarification, I dor.'t bel1eve the
report does imply or say anything abo~t toxic soil5 on the site.
Com"Ttissioner Culle_'1: No, but we ha .... e been sitting t1ere talking about it.
Mr. GilljJ..M.Q: If 1 rr,ay address that, Comissioner Cullen is absolutely
cerrect, We are not talking about toxies in the ground. Our concern
comes more from the storage of ~azardous materials in the surrounding R&D
useL
HOTION PASSf~: Chairman Beecham: Is there an) further dlscwssiJn on
thiS motion? All those in favor of adopting the staff recc·rmt€ndaticns
regardlng the CompT'ehensive Plan amendment, p1ease sa,)' Aye? All
opposed? That passes on a vote of 5·C, with COll'lTliss10ne-rs Glazier and
Marsh absent.
Chairman Beecha~: Shall ~e now address the site and design review.
(oITlTrissio!]er Schmidt: ] think the de .... eToper and the architect have done
a very good job of designing and siting the building. Bern and I went
out to the site, and the bu~'ding w~ll, 'ndeed, nestle into the site.
The side that it is locat!d on does indeed slope upward toward t~@
Dialogue prop~rty. The other sidE 1 with parking, bowls over towar~ the
Syntex property. I think that is really a good relationshio. I feel
that the siting on the contOl.:rs is the appropriate way to do that. 1"0'.1
create more interesting spaces en what is essentially a rect~ngular piece
of property. 1 also lik~ the use of some vineyards around tne building.
It is my understandi ng that grapes are ver.'" drought t01erant, and wi 1 1
not need much water, so 1 don't think the) are gOing to be plJ:nting many
things that involve a great fut~re invpstment of water. I would support
this for the site and des'ign approval. I f~e1 that the project meets all
~f the findings expressed.
(1QIION: Cnairman Beecham:
accept staff re~ommendation
appl ication·)
Should we interpret that is a motion to
14? (~Approve the site and design
Commiss~oner __ .s..cj1JT1jdt: Yes. you may inte~'pret that as a motion to accept
the findings for site and deslgn.
S~COND: By Co~issioner Cullen.
08/16/91
-18·
-
·r-...
~mmL~5i.oner Cljl1en: I ",'ould )ike to make an ame;;di1"08:'lt. It seems t.o me
that Finding i4 for Site and Oesig!'1, Page 9, is irrele .... ant to site arjd
design. I do ~at know what it is doing in there. It talks about the
Comprehensi .... e Plan. The other things about reTating to the eXist'd1'J uses
on adjacent property lS covered in Finding fl. Find1ng #4 state: that
"The ComprehensivE Plan amendment proposE'd will bring the proposed us€ in
confonnance with the Palo Alto ComprehenslYe Plan, il'1d the proposed
research and development facility and related site improvemen-:.s conform
to existing us~s en adjacent properties," So my amendment is to
eliminate that. Would' you like to inccrpo'fate that in yo~r main motian,
or is there some reason from staff why we should not do t~at?
Mr. Gilli1~: Ife need tn ~ook it up, but I belie .... e we nave to make a.
finding of conformance with the Compre'nens;v-2 Phn for sHe and design.
I beiieve that is what is intended to be addressed by this.
kDlM1isSTCner Cullen: I will hold off on that until you can firjd out.
~r. GilliJand: Probably what we will be looking at 1S the need to 00
some rewording of It.
Chaiman Beecham: I think the re",'ording should be cor~sistent to the
pOint of saying that the site and design will be consistent ",ith the
Comprehensive Plan intents: etc.
Commi~sioner (yll€n: Thank you. You na .... e reworded my amendment for me.
(Qmmissioner SCQ~~1: I accept the amendment to reword it.
£pmrntssioner Cullen: And leave Finding #4 in, but reworded.
Chairman Beecham: Any other cO!T'lTl!:nts on site arId design?
CO!'OOlission-er Carr.asc::-: Yes? J ..... ould like to keep this aspect of the
total motion gen.era1. I think it is the role {If the ARB to look. at it
more specifically. It is a ccmplicated process, and if we add additlona'
criteria t otner U,an what Kathy has said, H gets .... ery complicated. So I
am happy to stay with. what KaV ..... has said.
COmmissioner Cullen: r am unsure of what you are saying. Do you not
like the rephrasing of the site and design?
Commissi{lnH Carrasco: ~~o, that ;s not it. 1 agree '-'lth your amendment,
Commissioner Cu'1e~. and with what y~u have changed. 1 was just going to
caut70n the planning com'.sslon not to get too healiily invoh'ed in sit-e
~nd design issues, because that is the role of the architectural revjew
!JOa\'"d. Jj'e wi 11 get the benefi t of thei r comments ... ner. ; t come:s back. to
us.
Comnrfssioner __ Cullen: appreciate that. but the plannirl9 commission is
charged with site and desi9~ review in certain areas of the city. This
is one of those areas. 1 am n{lt saying that we begir. to do the kind of
job t.hat the ARB does, and we hJve aTways depended upon them. In fad,
we na~e had them take a~other look at something we were ~orried about,
but I would not say tnat it is not o~r job, It is.
08/Z6/91
-19 -
•
. ...-.
I
I
I , I .,".",.:,
f
,
!
I
I
!
I
I
I
!
-
71#;,~
MOnON. __ .-lliill: ChairrnJn B-e§s:~_a:n: Is thHe any furthEx d.is~1J.5sion on
this motion? We have a motion by Comm~ssicner Schmidt and seconded by
Co~issioner Cullen to accept staff recommendation ;4 tQ ap~rQve the site
and design applicaUon and to acc.ept the findings for site and design, as
'Written by staffl except to modify f'i"lding H to i!'ldicate that the design
is consistent with th~ Comprer.€:nslve Plan amendments. All those in
fa .. 'or' , say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0 t with
{~~issioners Glazi~r and Mar~n absent.
Chairman Beecham: Now I move to the variance issues. Any comments?
MOnO",": ComlTli.ssior,er ScOmidt: Continuing P1Y statements, I .... ill move to
accept the varfances. Also, I feel that the proposed w~rjances ~ork ~el1
with the site in siting up the building. They are in the spirit of what
the Design Enhance~nt Exception Co~ittee is 901n9 to propo$e. Tony and
t ~Iave been or. i subcommittee to bring forth an exception process to
facilitat~ design of buildings to allow fu~ things like a tower that is a
1 i ttl e hi gher .or for .somethi l'lg that WDUI d 1 rrprove the b'.J il 0 i ng des 1 gn by
go1ng into the setback. These two variance requests are in that spirit,
e-"en though t\'lat process is not yet ~fl p1ace. They add to the desigl'J of
the building.
I also want tJ mention somet~inQ that is good about the design_ r thir.k
this projEct does a really good job of 10cating circulation for ¥eopl~
coming to the bu;ldin~. That is something that we archltects often do
not de .dth bl.:ildings. whether they ue. hO<1l_es or offices OT whatever.
The entrances and the points of circuiation are not well emphasized.
think the covered walkway with the towers really doe~ a g~Dd job af
telling peo~le how to get into the building.
SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco. 1 would like to make a slf9ht
cnange. Firstly, we ari! not accepting it. We i!re-re,oiJmend~ng to the
loning administrator that she grant the wariance, as 1 understand it. Is
ttJat correct?
Ms. Case: Vou are mClking a recommend-=3tion to the c.it}' cOlJncil+
COlT!T1iss_ioner CCirrasco: Secondly, w~il€ I agree 'With wtut (orrrniss1oner
Sc~midt ~as just said, 1 would ask th~ Clrchitectural review board to pay
some special attention to views fram the properties up above, looking at
the impact of the fhe feet of a.dditional height in terms of the view
from ttl!! buildiflgs up above. I would also ask the architectural review
board to look at the re1ationship between the bui1dings on the east 5id~
of tMis property and how they relate to the 2t:J+foot setback, as opposed
to the 40-foot s.etbad" getting ttH~lr comments in terms of whether it
benefits the site or not.
Chairman Beecham: In addition to your cOmr;".ents to the city council, did
you make. no net change to the motion?
~_Qrrrni ssion-er Carra:scQ.: I ask.ed that the at"
at the issues relating to the additional he
on what they feel tne ildditional h-eight wil
buildings above the site, as well as to the
08/26/91
-20·
hHectural revie.1fI board
ght. and then ceme back
do to the views of the
s~tbacks on each side.
100k
to us
-
Chairman 8ee~_~am; In that case, let me argu€ Irflin Y':lur proposed change
to the mot~on. The o~ly portion of the buildings. as I und€rstand it.
that exceed the height limit are the towers. (Yes] I canflot imagine
their changi!lg Hie towers and nave it impr{)~'e the l\ioks by shortening
them. That would be the result of looking at the height. So I would not
really support lowering the tOlrfers. ~hich would bE the result of what you
might be asking.
~mmiss;oner CarrasCo: That is not what I am a£kiny. I am just aSKi~g
for ARB input in terms of whCit the variance would do. I ha\!'e not locked
at this project from an architectural review board point of view. r hi:lve
looked at it from an overall site ar.d design, ge~eril purpose view~ and 1
think it looks great, in terms of the architecture and al1 of that. But
I think we need to look at it more specifically from tne real detailed
views of ~hat it does from the buildings on the sites up above, and what
it looks liic:e from a detailed point of view. That is all I am i.'!ok1ng. I
don't thi~k it is a big issue.
Hs. Case: Mr. Chairman, the variances do not go to t~e ARB. This is
action on a Viirianc€!. You na'w'e a1read'y taken your action on site and
design. So if somebody wants to make a statement tnat they would like
the ARB ttl look at someth~ng, that is finE. But at this point, you do
not have the right to send something on a variance to the ARB and have
them come back to you. You c~nnot keep this actio~ open, because jt is
not something you nave the right to do 011 a variance.
Cha1nnan Be_~cham: let me find out if, based on that, if what you are
s!conding as a motion you will accept that we accept the staff
reconrnendation ,their Recommendation *3 on Page 7 -ApprovlO! the variances
to exceed the maximum height allo .... ed and side yard setback), along with
the findings on Page 8.
Co-missioner Carrasco: At this pOi!1t, I am a little confuse~. If the
ARB does not look at variance issues, are we submitting a different set
of plans to the ARB without thE variance?
~JLlirman Beechar:i: The ARB has no role ir, approving the variance. I~et :r.o?,
sugge.st that we see if ·,.,e car. \oIoyk on wh::it 1012) the commission, say on the
variances, and clear up wheotl'ter cr not ""E approve them. Then if \\I'e Wi5h,
as a group or singly, to make ether comments to other ,ommissions or
boards, that we do that afterwards.
MOTION PAS5fS: Cha; rm~..n....Beecharn: So I bel; eve we have 1:'1 front of us a
motion to accept the staff recorrrnendation 1\13 regarding approving the
variances for he~ght and side yard setback, alorfg with He findings for
such on P3ge 8. Is there any furtnE'r discussion on this motion? An
tnose in favor~ say Aye? All opposed? nat passes on a vote of 5-0,
~it~ Comrnissi~nErs Glazier and Mar~h absent.
Ton.Y. how would you 1 iXt; to proceed?
~Qrnmissioner Car-rasco: At this point, I feel it becomes moot. Jt was
not i big issue to m€, although on the other hand, I do not ~ant to
constrain the architectural revjew board's ability to lllCk at issues that
might exceed the height 1 imlt and have a point of owiew tnat might tUrn
out to be slightly different from ours. They might find that the
08/26/92
-21-
I
i
I>
f
_,.-.."_ :;s. ,
o
additional height is detrimental to tne yiellls from the site above or to
the resid~nts bel 0111 , I tHas hoping that 'pie would get a more detaned
opinion from them. But it is not that big an issue.
Mr.6illjland: If I may, I don't think that is any problem. Before it
goes to the arch~hctura' review board, Wi! win brin9 up that issue in
tht!' Lnformati<lnal memorandu~ and ask that the A~B specifically look at
that issue.
Chs1rm~~~h~m: We also need to move to a~cept staff recommendation .1
regarding adopting the miUgated :1egaU' .. e dec1aration.
ManON: j therefore move that 1''2 acce~t staff recomrnendat ;Of1 #1 to adopt
the attached mitigat~d negative dec1aration, as welT as the conditions on
Pages 9, 10 and II.
~E"COl-m: By Cm7ll'Iissicmer Cuilen. I am st111 worried, tlowever, about the
lIIater. I feel tnat bE:fore this goes to the tHy counciL a more detailed
explanation of the origin of the water for this project should be
attached, including how it \IIi11 impact other uses in the ctty.
MOTlON PASSES: Chajrman B~echa!1l: Is there any further discussion on
this motior.'? An those in favor t say Aye? All opposed? That passes on
a vote of 5-0. with Commissioners Glazier an~ Marsh absent.
Mr. Kel:J13n; Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 'Would be the first in line for
Commissioner (~11en's recolT!l1endation tn terms of the housing mitigation
and Stanford's responsibiiity to it. Stanford west isn't exactly chopped
liver, and J am here to support it. So I 100k forward to your pusitive
endorsement of that housing on Stanford land on tra~sportation
corridors. Thank you again.
~hairman Beecnarn: What is the next action on this matter?
Mr. GUliland: It will go to the ardlitectural review board on Se-ptember
17th, and jt is tentatively scheduTed for the city council on October
Inn.
08/26/92
-22·
I. REGULAR AGENDA
INFORl'MICNAL MEMORAIIDUM
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
September 11. 1992
l. lOse ARASTRADERO ROAQ
K'2'enan/Lc:veweiT Ventures
92-ARB-86, 92-CPA-2, 92-EIA-J9,
92-0-4, 92-Y-I]
Construct two new research and de'.:elopm.e"t buildings in the Stanford
Research ?ark
REQUESTED ACTION
Final ARB approval
lONING
LM-S(D) limited Industrial/Researcn Park Distritt With Sit-e and Design
Review Combining District
COMPREHENSIVE PLA~ DESIGNATION
Multipl! Family Residential
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A. Mitigilted Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached to this
report.
PUBLIC NeTlCE
Notices were sent to property owners ~ithin 300 feet of the ~roje(t site,
REVIEW BI OTHERS
This application is following the major site and design review process.
The review sequence for thls process is: 1) Planning C0ilr.11ssion
recorrmendatioll, 2) ARB recommendation, and 3) Ctty Council for final
action. A preliminary review of the project by t~e ARB was he1d prior to
initial Planning CO~~i5sion review,
On August 26, 1992~ the Planning C.ollYl1issiGn re'''';ewed this proposal and
after lengthy di scus.s; on, unanimously recommended approval (with two
PTa.nning Conwission-ars absent) lfIith modification to 'fiIording of finding f.4
of the Site and Design Findings. ihe findings for Site and Dc-sign
applications require a finding of conformance with the Comprehensive Phn.
The Plar.ning Commissi{ln recorr'.'I1ended approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment prior to recommending approval of the propos~d site and design
PAGE I
I ,
i
i
i
I
!
!
I
i
I
i
.1
-
____ 04 1FT , A
of the project, but the Comprehensive Plan change has not become effective
s i nee no City Coune il act i an h as been taken. The Pl, arln ; ng C OlMll S s i on
requested that finding Jl4 b~ revised to reflect this sequence of €vents.
The falo'lsed Site and Design finding #4 reads as follows:
4. The (omprehensive Plan Ame:1dment pro~csed tc be approved as a part
Df this app1icit~on will bring tt1e proposed use in cO:1fcrrnance with
the Palo Alto ComprenensiVe Phn. The proposed re::.eiifch and
development facllity and related site improvements are consistent "it" the recomel1ded Comprehens;"'e Plan Amendment.
The project is tentatively sct:ed~led to be reviewed by the City Council on
O<tob.r 19, 1992.
BACKGROUND
Hlis project had prelim;nary re .... iew by the ARB en May 21,1992. The Boarc
revifwed a proposal f:Jr the design of two resea~ch and de .... elopme-nt
buildings of 37,540 squar. fe.t (Euilding J) and 37,9l0 square feet
(E-uilding Z) with su!"'fac! parking for 228 cars nn tfle center and rear
porth:ms of the site and related site irnpro't'ements. The Beard was in
support of the general design dir~ction, the variance to allo~ an average
setback~ and supported a ~ineyard in the scenic setback with Native Oak
Trees along th~ Arastradero Road.
The ARB requested that the final ARB submittal include I softened building
forn using arditecturai means, such is eve overhangs, to reduce ttle
impact nf the project on the hili. They also requested that there be
further development nf the outdoor spaces for use by tenants. Minutes of
thfs meeting and corrections to the min~tes are included in your packet.
DESCRIPTION
1n the final ARB applicatfon for lOSf.) Arastradero Road, the applicant
proposes to construct two d{luble-story research a!ld developfilellt buildings
(If 3i,704 square fEet (Bui1dil"lg I) and 38,276 square feet (BtJiiding (').
t<lta.ling 75 j 980 square feet~ with surfaCE pari(ir:g for 244 ca'iS on the
center and rear portions of the site ind additional relited site
improvements. The maximum height cf Bul1ding 1 and Building 2 is 36,5
feet high and 37 feet high respectively, t~OtJ9h the tower on Bui',ding 2
measures 40 feet.
The revised plans include planting the 210-foot front setback with a row
of meandering California Native Oak trees, natural grasses, grape .... ines to
form a vineyard, and ground cover planted behind a 4-foot ~igh berm. The
'\Iineyard has been reduced at the front setback t<l allow for planting of
Oak trees and .a berm, thDUgh the vineyard and grovnd cover are proposed to
meander to the rear of both blJildings. Please refer to the Planning
C~issiQn staff report for a more detailed project d~scription.
The fjr'Jal ARB p1ans consist of sHe plan modifications including the
_.'.
The final ARB plans consist of site pTan modifications including the
following:
~ite Plan
A 5-foot wide bicycle lane "'as been extended z10ng th~ entry dri .... e
from Arastraderc Road"
One-' .. ay traffi c has bsen pro .... lded an both s ides of the media.n strip.
Visitor bicycle parking has been relocatEd near the Building 2 €'ntry
facing the vineyard.
The retaining wail near the northerr, praperty 1 in€ wi 11 curvE-around
the property and has a height cf up to 20-feet n-ear the northeast
corner of the site.
244 surface parking spaces have been prodde{j O~ site.
The row of parking spaces alMg the front ~etback ha:; been moved to
align ~ith the front setback.
Elevations
Courtyard entry tc~er at Building I ~as been changed.
The round (01 umns at towers and entrifS have been e1 iminated.
The window bay spacing h~s been revised to meet the future tenant's
spaci"9 needs.
Change in reef eave detailing.
Window glazing has been cnanged to tinted bronze.
liindow framing has been danged to bronZE anodized a1uminum frames .
.. all and windoR' det.ails h3 .... e been 'included in the revised dn ...... i1'lgs.
A model and color board will be presented at the meeting.
AJiALYSIS
P1ease refer to the attached Planning Commission st~ff report for a fu11
analysis of the issues pertaining to this proposal which include hOljsing
impact mitjgation, request for height and side setbatk. variances, visua.l
impi.cts, drainage, i'ld circulatiQn. As of the datE that this
informational memorandum was written, Planning Staff has ~ot recei~ed a
re-vised circuhtion plan. The applicant is expected to meet all the
conditions of approval included in the PTanning CClMlission staff report
and any additional recolTlTlended conditions.
,. :Nl:8\I.ftllEJl3\ IlII£0917 PAGE 3
' . . ' ~;;f!Jti~~~
-
Th.e Planning COlOOllssioJl reQLlested that the ARE review Hie plans IIIHh
regards to hol'l much of the '.lie .. i~ blocked by the new b'.hldings from the
bigner sites such as EPRI. In particular, the Commission was concerned
that the additional height for tne tower '1ecessitated by the Vdriance,
might cause a view blockage. Included in your ,Df.lcket is oil drawing h.om
the app1icant showing a site secti~n of the hil1sid~. The added height to
the tower does not appear to cause any additio~al 'oIiew blockage.
The revised landscaping of the front setback blends in and better relates
to the adjacent properties on either side of the s'Jbject site with
Caljfornli Nati'ole Oaks a10ng the Arastradero Road frontage and a berm
behlnd the Oaks. While the vinEyard may still be somewhat noticeab1e from
Arastradero Road, the propcs~d bsrm will aid in screening t~o:: lIineyar-d.
The vineyard would be most visible by those traveli~g east along
Arastradero Road. Tne Stanford University Planning Office is requiring
additional planting to screen the vineyard in order to be conSistent with
neighboring properties by pro'w'iding a d€nser buffer 31or,g Arastradero
Road. By extending the 't'ineyard to meander to the rear of both buildings,
a scenfc vlsta ~as been provided to be viewed from the courtyard between
botn bunc:!ings. A picnic. area ; n the vi ne-yard of the front setback
creates additional amenity allolll'ing the vineyard to be enjoyed by
employees.
The final ARB plans include 244 park.ing spaces which meets tne zoning
ordinance parking requirements less an exempt10n for recessed window area
and atriums on one level of each building. Three of these parking spaces
are in landscape reserve in the northern portion of the site.
Staff notes that Stanford University's Planning Office and the Stanford
Management Company have not approved the revised elevations, details and
color board. !t is Stanford's polic, for buildings in the ResearCh Park
to relate contextual1y to each other and the proposed buildings do not
~1ate to the ex:isting buHdfngs on three sides of the site. "The Stanford
Unfversjty Planning Office is also requiring that the ground floor windows
(If the bwfJding be framed it Ue base. The color.s and materials for the
project ·.,.111 be subject to re .... iew and approllal in the field by both
Stanford" and the ARB as a condition of QPpro·~al of t;,e project.
All new deve"lopment should provide adequate and accessible enclosures for
recyclable materials storage. The deSign, construction and actessibility
of thesl!' areas mU$t be in accordance with the design gU'idel ines (if the
ordinance. The trash, recycling, and loadi~g area shOUld be designad to
be attractive1y scre~ned from par~;ng and pedestrian spaces. Additional
detailing to include trash, recycli~g and loading areas are reQuired to
return for final appronl prior to ttle issuance of a building perlllit.
RECOMl'lENOA TION
Staff reconwoonds that trre ARB rec(lI'T'.mend that the c.ity Council adopt the
mitigated negative declaration and approve the project subject to the
following findings and conditions:
P:AI9\ rlF!JEMCJ\ rll4E0917 PAGE 4
,'. L-
i
I
i
!
I
"
-
.,.. .. -, .... _,., .
Fi!'tCings for SHe and Design
1. The proposed desig~ will be orderly, harmol1ioLls, and compatible 'Witn
e.xisting or petenthl uses of adjoining propertj~ il1 that the
proposed use and improvements ~ill be similar to other uses in the
area and the project ~as been design~d to minimize Visual impacts on
adjoining propzrty.
i. T~e project w111 maintain desirability cf investment in the same or
adjacent areas, in that the required on·sit~ improvements and
1 andscaping and construction standards gO'.,Ierned by the C'l1.rrent
Unifnr:r1 Buiiding C.ode {UBC) or other current codes \IIill assure a
h!gh quality of development.
3. The proposed design will observe sound principles of environmental
design and ecological balance, in that the selected location of th~
new structores and improvements limit disruption of the site, and
mE2sures incorporated into the project design 'II'i11 help minimize
erosion and offset visual imp2cts.
4. The Compre~ensive Pl an Amendment pruposed to be approved as part {If
thi.s application ~ill bring the proposed use in conformance irlith the
Palo Alto Comp"rehenslve PTarF. The proposed research and development
facility and related site ilTlprovem!nts are consistent with the
recommended Compr~h~nsive Flan ~ndment"
PLANNING COI+IISSION SlAfF REPORT CONDITIONS
1. A site plan is required whid, shows the full driveway, including the
EXit portion on the nelghboring property_ The uphill traffic
direction from the 2'xisting Synte.x driveway near the area n.eX"t to
the Syntex parking stalls must be removed in order for this ingress
and egress to work. A plan must be submitted showing bot~ Sides of
the driveway, with signing and striping that meets Transportation
Division st~nda,ds,
2. A revlsed circulation ph" shall be Submitted illustrating all the
details of i!ct:ess to thi.s driveway under consideration to meet the
satisfaction of the Transportati<ln Division. The p1an shall inc)ude
c:lrcuiation on the subject site and adjOining propertie!i, parking
lay~ut, striplng and signage.
3. A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion repair plan prepared by a
registered civil engineer snal1 be sub:nitted to the Planni!1g
Division and Public Works Department for review and approval prior
to issuance of a but1ding permit. Construction detail sand
calculations for all drainage facilities shall be submitted witn the
detailed drainage plans.
4. All grading and developmi!nt an the site shall conform ~ith all
as.pects of tne project sail Cind geotechnical report recommendattons. ne pr{)ject geotechnical e!lgineer 'Will be requir€d to certify that
PAGE 5
!
i
r --.,
j
I
I
I
I I·
5.
6.
o
the grading and construction were done in acc~rdance with their
recommendatiors. prior to finalization of the ~uilding permit.
Prior to issuanci! of a building permit, a detailed landscape plan
and irrigation plan shall be required to b€ reviewed a;'ld appro .... ed OJ!
the Stanford University Plannir.g OfficE, Sta~ford ~anagement
Company. and the Architectural Re .... iew Soard. The final plan shall
include the cOlTlTlon and botanfca1 names of all sp.ecies used, and the
number, size. type. lo-catian and spacing of an plant matertah.
Th~ following tree protection measures sh~11 be implemented during
construction acti~ities:
il. All trees designated to be preserved sha11 be prGtected with
six-foot high chain 1 ~nk fences mounted on two-inch dia~eter
galvanized fran po~ts, and driven into the ground to a depth
of at 1east 2 feet it no more than lO-foot spacing. The
feilces shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of
existing trees. In no case shan any ve"-icles or equipment bs
permitted to be store:d within the enclosed art!as. The fences
shall be erected before c.onstruction begins and rp,main in
p1ace until final of the building permit.
b. No st~rage of materiels or topscils shall be permitted within
the treE €nclosure areas.
c. Abo~e ground surface runoff area shal1 not be directed into
the t~e! canopy area fr~m adjacent areas.
7. To reduce dust levels during tcnstruction, it shall be required that
expos.ed earth surfaces be walered frequentlYl during tne late
morning end at the end of the day, with freqiJency of watering
increasing on windy days. Spillage resulting from nauling
operations a10ng Dr across any pub1ic or private property shall be
remDved irrmediately and paid for by the contractor~ Dust nuisa!"lc~s
originating from the contractor's operations, such as stockpiles of
debris, soil~ Sind or other materials that ,a~ tie blown by the 'Wind
shall be covered. An)' spillage resul ting from nauTir.s operations
either inside or outside the public right-c;f-wa.,Y shall be re\llov~d
ilflT1t!diately, at the expense .of the contractor. R~c1aimed water
sha11 be used for this purpose. ~n a~cordance wHh Publ ic Works
Department policies.
8. Ail construction activities and installation of site improvements
sha1l bp. subject to compliance witi1 t"'e provisions of the City of
Palo Alto No1se Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of t~e PAMe.
9. A haul route and construct ion impact .01 ar. must be sL:bmi tted and meet
the sati3faction of the Transportation Division, Planning 01~isio~.
and Department of Publ ; c ~orks.
10 . .4.11 City of Palo Alto utllHy installations sha1l be in accordanre
PAGE ti
---; ...... ~ .. :fIl!,~~".jll!.:;!IIj; .. ' I~." .. ii8._I"~_"'~~-<'---
.. %~*}.;.
-
"""""~.~
II.
,---
~ith the Ctty of Palo Alto Standard Specifications.
The applicant shall be required to pay a Housing Mitigation Fee of
$3.23 per gross square feat of buildlng, for a sum total of
$245,415, pursuant to enapter 10.47 of tne PAHC Tnis fee is
adjusted a~~ua'ly and the total du~ shall be adjusted based on the
fee in effe-ct at the time the building permit is isslled. Half of
the Housing Mitigatio!1 Fee shall be paid to the C~ty's Housi~g
Reserve Fund prior to issuance of a bunding permit with the
remaining ~alf of the f~e paid prior to o~cupancy.
12. The-applicant shan be required to pay a hOllsing f.ee based on the
gross square footage of the b!jilding to mitigate the loss of
pntential housing resulting from the ComprehensiVe Pl an Ma~
Amendment. The fee shall be payable in full at He time of building
permit issuance and shal: be based on the Housing Mitigation Fe~ in
effect at that time. n€ CL!rrent fee is 53.23 per square foot and
is adjusted annually.
13. The applica~t shall be required to pay a Tran~po~tation Impact Fee
of $2.57 per gross square foot (effectlve until June 30, 1993) or
$195,269 for nonresidentia1 development puroSuant to Chapter 16.46 of
the PAMC. The full arn~nl7lt Qf the Transportati<m Impact Fee shall be
paid to tne City prior to issuance of ii. building permit. The
applicant sha"rl pay the dollar per-square-foot amount of the fees in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
ADOlTIOUAL STAFF RECIJIoI'IENDED COtWlTlONS
14. Prior to lsst.!ance of a building permit. written appr.,val from
Stanford University P1anning Office and Ue Stanford lands
Management Company must be ieceived by the Planning Division for ttle
project referencing drawings and materials in conformance .... ith those
receiving Clty of Palo Alto apprGval.
IS. The applicant shall displ;;.)' at the project site full size color
panels of the base color of the building walls for revie.-and
approval by the Stanford Unillersit), Planning Office, the Stanford
Man~gement Company, and the Architectural Re~iew Board.
10, The applic<!l'1t shall submit to the Plonning Staff and the
Transportation Division f{)r review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit, detalled dra.-ings of the trash and
recyclable materia1s storage enclosure and loading areas including
locations, ele",'ations, and installation of these areas.
17. A photometric lignting plan ,nall be submitted to Planniog Staff for
review and approlla1 prior to issuance of buiiding permits. Exterior
light fi.xtures in the parking lot shall be mounted no higher than IS
feet from grade and be directed and Shielded in order to prevent
spillover beyond the site.
PAGE 7
-·1'
t
I·
I
t
~.~--~-~--~-------------------~-.... '.
:tl
,,' .~
--
1050 ARASTRACERO ROAD
Architectural P.e .... ie" Board
Septe-mber 17. 1992'
Ms. DaRosa: Item No.1 on ~ur regular age~da is 1050 Arastradero Road.
Ar'e there any staff c.amments?
H~. weiss: NCJt at this time.
Ms. DaRos~: Are there a~y quest;~ns for staff?
Ms. Wi f50n: On Page 4 ~f the staff report, you refer to the ground
wir!dows to be framed at the base. COJJld yOiJ cladfy that as to what the requirement is?
Ms. Weiss: The Stanford Planning Office is going to COrri1lent on that tlJday
bscause-5ome cnan~es are going to be put forward. They have n~t been
approved yet. So perhaps we should wait ~ntil we hear frnm Stanford on that.
Ms. Wilson: But we are not gOing :0 see t~is again.
~ .. -Wei5<: I belie'o'e there are some changes being brought forward t<lday.
Mr. Lyz~a: So you belie .... e that the preject will return on consent
calendar after today because of the changes?
fits. Wei ss: If thanges are not brought forward today, then th€y would be
brought back on consent. That is correct.
Mr. Lyz~a: And if they are brought for..-ard, then do they come back on the regular ag~nda? (res)
Ms, Wilson: There was an issue about the Syntex parking garage next door~ Cautd you clarif) t~at for m~?
Ms. Weiss: This plan rlght here on the grading plan shows the project
adjacent to the Syntex site. Our transportation djvi~ion has not appro~ed
the circulation plan, Changes. still need to be made. "e are still ~a7ting for a new sit~ plan with the circulation on it. Right now, the
transportation division is uncomfortable with the Circulation in the area
where the adjacent prope-rty' s parkir,g starts and the shari!d ~ngress/egress
access easement. We want to get this Clarified, possibly adding an
additional stop sign here.
Ms. ~ilson: So they are sharing driveways?
Ms. Weiss: That is correct.
Ms ..... DaRo .. ~: Any other questions for staff?
Chop Keen!.n..s. . .-l..Q.o Emerson Street, PaTo Alto. 1 bel ieve we ha .... e comp1ied
with everything today. inc'udi~g traffic. We wil' put on our presentation
now, with that in mind. Our Mediterranean vilTa is coming together. It
has gone through many iterations. There have been lots of challenges at
this site, which has 70 feet of elevalion from top to bottom. Some of the
- I -
'-~-
.'
I "--.
-.;;" .
-
o
5 igni fi cal"t ; ssues that have been a.ddressed w.ere ra i sed b.V' St.3.nford
relati~g to the frontlge of the scenic setback. These have been
r~."oh'ed. The 1ayeriflg effect il1 order to screen t;'e teta"inir,g 'Nalls Lo
the rear has been brought down to i: maximum of is feet at the \lery
highEst. The vast majority is much lQwer than tnet. We have met with
neiahbors across Arastradero Road, Etnd have accord from t~em. We have
been to the planning cOIill',ission, al'1d were unanimmlsly apprD\le-d by them,
including a couple of \lariances with regard to side yard setback and
height of the tower element.
I am goi~g to let Ken Rodriguez go through the architectural issues, and
then turn it over to Gary Lehman of Bizarro and Associates to tal'<: about
the landscape plan,
Ken Rodriguez: let me ta~e YDU through some of the steps since we saw you
last. As you can see, there are quite a few more drawings that we have
been wo~kin9 on. As Chop mentiQned, one of the issues we a1l left with
last time ~as, how do we keep this vineyard and make it work in a scenic
setback. With the heTp of Stanford and Drew Oman, ~e were abTe to come up
with a solution that allows sort of a natural grass open SDace in front,
as Chcp ment~one1, with the higher berm wall, and then tr,e vines ioIcu1d
actually tuck down in behind that, giwing you views and vistas from the
project into the ~ineyard, yet from Arastradero ROid~ still keeping tnat
nat lJra1, open space. Gary will talk a little more about the plant
ma.terials and how his goal was to sort of feither them in and create .a
very natural, scenic opel". space. I thin~ they have really done a good job
of studying wh"t was on the adjact:ni sites and how to ; ncorporate tnat.
One of the thing~ we have studied Since we saw you last has been the whole
grading issue. W~ have probably done ab01.it six or Se\ltHl grcHHng plans!
and p~rhaps three or four of those have been ':"e .... ielOoied by staff. We are
constantly trying to push this building down and get the retaining walls
down. We are at a point where they are at a maximum of 15 feet, which is
lower than the tallest walls W2 had aut at Hillview, I think ~e can all
say that that was a success. The difference between this project and
Hil!view, whtch we Tearnt"d from, is tl'1at we now have large landscaped
areas 1" front of the ~alls $0 we can actually get the vines to gro~ up
and over the walh anlj cascade down. So again, I thinK ",e are going to
hili!:" a much softer solution than at 3400 Hilhielo .. r, which has also bee:! a
SUCCESS. Those were some of the larger issues in terms of site elements.
As lorraine mentioned, tn~re is an lngress/egress easement here. and I do
believe that we ha~e worked out what tMose are with staff. and with
Transportation~ in particular, What we \!/ouTd lH'.e to do in terms of our
next step, prior to our buiid~r,g rermit, is to get a traffic engineer out
there to mak.e sure they Took at the circulation of this space and' ha\le
some dialogue with Transpo.'iation to ensure that we don't nep.d to add any
other arrows or any other stop signs. Basically, if1 concept, this has
beer. well r~cei~ed. $0 while staff is correct that we nEed to continue to
look at this detail, this is what I would cOl1sider as details to be done
during the construction documents in the normal course of study~ and
continue to develop tne design, wDrking those Out prior to our building
permit. It centers around perhaps adding one more stop 5ign to improl,'e
circulation.
In terms of the oui lding ar.:hi tecture, as I,'Oi) can see i we have devei oped a
-2-
I
I ~.
. I . ; ,
..•.. -.. _' ...... _.-
lot more than previously frem the sketches. We have gone as far as to cut
wall sectio~s to talk about heights. An issue came up at the planning
commlss10n~ raiS!d by Commissio~er (arra$co~ as to ~hetner you could. from
the upper buildings here, see these buildings or the taps of roofs. That
was a very good Qljest'ion. We did not rave a site section at the time. We
have since supplied one. ~ou can see it here. Basically, you cannot see
anything be),o:'1d the prapel·ty line. There is some really -dense .... egetation
at [PRI, and all you can really see ;$ up into the horizon. So from their
standpc.hlt~ if I was an occtlp",nt of that building) I would like to have
seen some ~istas of the hilTs. but yOIJ are 1 iterally looking across the
tops of these large. evergreen trees, so you cannot see that. Again, ~e
have provided that section since t~e planning commiss.ion me2ting. We
purposely printe-d th~$-e in blue ~o that YOLI car, identify ar,ything that is
new as being blue~ anything new that the commission had nut seen. So they
had not s€en this plan.
The last cne was that we spent a lot of tim~ wor~ing with Stanford to
really refine the design of this building. I apprec~ate the early,
up-front comments nOw, versus the kind of format we nave had in the past,
because it is ni~e to have this thing to the point where everybody has
consensus. r really believe we have that. Certainly. the people are
present today from Stanford and ca,., speak to it. BaSically, JOto' can see
from these sketches that we have proposed floor-to-ceiling window
h~ights. One of the reasons for that whEn 5tarting out was that the
t~nant was s{)rt of ptJshing us in that direction. Stanford caf!1e bad:. with
the suggesticr. that maybe th~re should be a really strong base created on
thlS buil~ing to anchor tne building. and also r.ave the abi1ity to mound
this earth up against that. The other posttive element to that 1S that it
will screen the de~ks and waste baskets and chairs that tend to go up
agijinst the windows. What we have done since then is t~ ra1se up the
Window sill heights. taking out that bottom munion piece, and bring1rlg
that up to chair rail height, which again w41l solve the problem of
screening the desks on the inside. We ~ill also ~a~e t~e ability, as you
can see here ~ith the dotted lines, to moun6 the earth against that,
creating a shrub hedge and a real strong base to anchor the building. So
I fee1 that was ql.li te succe-ssful, in terms of our stud; es.
lite ha'te refined some of the tOlrrler elements in great detail. One of your
ccnrnents '~as that you felt the buiTo'~ng looked a litUe chopped cff where
the roof m~t the concrete parapet. It did not have this more horizontal
look. Stanford agreed ~lth those ccmrnents~ they were sitting nere as you
made them. We have since added a realTy nice copper gutter and copp€r
softi t a.ll the way Ground tne entire project, and we have extended the
roof line out. sort of str€tching the building horizontally again. The
heights have been lo~ered. The tower element that you saw previously
peaked up a.bove the roof~ and we feel that the current proportiQr"ls are
much stronger and more appropriat~.
As Chop me!'ltloned, W~ did 'let concurrenc'? from tha COmrT',~s'£ion on our two
variance requests, both of-which you asked us to pursue. That was, to
slide the buildings over and creat~ again this landscape buffer against
the property 1 ine. They agreed with those comments. The one large tower,
which became the focal point, the main entry for a single tenant, peaks up
a few feet above the height requirement. The commission "","'as, again, very
recepU\le to that. Now I would l-ike to turn tnis over to Gary to talk
spec~fically about the landsc~pe plan.
-3-
-
I
t
I
I,
I
i
I
I
-
o
Gary lehman: Ken has giwen yo~ a 90~d introduction to the overall site
development issue!>. Perhaps I can get a little more specific in terms of
the plant materials and what type 0f landscape solutions we ~av~ come up
with. As we were looking at the vineyard area, the sentiments expressed
about Ara.stradoero Road and tryi ng to fi9l:re out the corltext of the
vineyard within the overall sHe development. What we have lool<ed at
doing is bringirg in tre€ materials on t~~ adjacent property. pr i maril)
oaKS, wh'cn ,;;ould help to o1end our !iite 11'1 \!lith the adjacent sHe.
Primarily. the screer.ing is going t(j be taking place with the mounding
that w111 occur here. "This wi11 be a 'Very soft aOld subtle mounding IiIIHh a
very gentle grade trans; tiCrl sa it .joes not look 1 ike a T andscape mound~
but is much more of a natural hillside. 'lihat we have done h to create a
steeper slope along the edge next to the bike pa.th. As you ar~ on tt1e
b',(e path, that w"\11 tend to ecllpse you'" vie" of this terrace whit.!'l is
beyond. Tnat 5~OW5 up on the section.
What ~e also intend to do is to i~troduce e~ergreen shrub material along
the crest of that mound so that as th~ mQund crest;, yc~ ~il1 ha~e s~rub
material to help screen the view of tne nill. One of Stanford's comments
wa.s that th~y Ifi.a.hted to sel:-more. s"rub materia.l, so that 1S 'What 'frI'e '11'111
do as part of lhe design. You ~ill ~ee that on tne working drawings.
Another really exc~ting part of the landscape design, beSide the vineyard,
is 100king at thi~ courtyard space here. these spaces in between the
building:i. There are-pri~r:arjly two spaces, one an interior courtyard
which ~il1 be a combinatiun Jf concrete paths and cru$hed granite pavir.g,
plus a group Qf trees which will occur in the central area. Thi5 area
will be equipped with benches anct pots, etc. tv give the Mediterranean
feel ing Df a: plaza. Outside, again, that terrace ..-i11 be extended out at
tnf same ele';ation and surrounded by the vin<::yat"ds plus a group of tr~es,
creatir.g an inside-outside room tne1"E' ..... hich .. ill also be furnished.
The trees in the parking lot will be selected to nave strong ~an~pies so
it will get lots of shading. Those trees ~11l also add to that layering
effect you-get as yc-u l\1ok up. It will soften tne site retaining wall at
tn~ rear and also he1p nestle the building.
On~ of the other concerns at H~e planning comissior. 111e~ti~g was the ~se
of water. 1 wanted to make sure W~ were doinSl it a::,rpropriateiy far this
Jrea. T~is drawing is a l~ttle greener than what it ~lll actually look
1i~e. Our intent is to use a drip irYigation system to irrigate this
entire perimeter area, pr~marily, including the vines and the new trees
that -.till be intr01uced along the frof,tage. "This ari!i on top on the
hillside along the perim~ter in betw€er. t~e vines tnemselves will all be
seeded w1t~ natural 9rasses. SO~ of it ~il' be down the hi11side behind
Hillview. The sh~ubs and trees ~il1 be an a drip and bubbler system, as
will t~~ vi~es. Tho~e syste~~ ~l11 all be ab:e to t~r~ed off e~entua\ly
as they get f'stablished. That lfIIi11 be a Voer,'" low water use s)'stem. The
parl::.ing lQt, 1iKe~ise, wn1 C€ on but.b1ers. and drip ;;rrigaUon, so the
parking lot, whjc~ c,o~ers a large portion of the site, W'ill also be using
minimum ~ater. The only ~ater that will really be ~sed will be in this
one torridor area, where we ~ill be using shrub materia's~ but that is a
ver, small area. It wi11 have that Mediterranean look in the plant
materials 1 so it ShOUfd be a Yery cunservath'e landscape plan overall.
As I mentioned, the actual heig~t of the retaining wall along this edge is
4-
I
f
-
IS ft'et. J know that it says 20 feet in your packet. M'e could go through
the grading plan here. This graditlg plan is actually not the current site
plan. As you wilT notice, in t~e landscape plan, there are actually three
landscape preserve stalls \tIhich we are introdu(irlg here to help soften
that wall. That occurs here i:lnd along Utis edge. 1hat allows us to
encroach a little bit farther there. In addition in our landscape
studies., we were able to mound up at the bas:e of the IIIall and turn back a
little mote behind the wall than what t;,e civil e:-.gineer has shown here.
So this wall is on11 15 feet, and we will be able to seften it a little
more thdn that.
We are also working out a~ agreement ~ith Syntex over he~e to get a
grading easement alo~g this property line. Yau ca~ see that t~esa grades
are mounding up and crest right along the property line. It really made
sense to l~wer that crest, therefore lowering the he~9ht of that retaining
wal~. and also si'Hlrtening it lengths. So that wall along this edge here
} s shorter and 1 Q,,,,er.
We are ant~cipati~g that, in addition to the vine plantings along thls
wall, because we have the generous setback in front of it, we will be able
to put in evergreen trees, primarily evergreen oak.s, which will gh'e you
an ill"lmf!diate-landscape along that walT, in addition to using ihe other
shrub materials. We think we can take care of that wall ~ith a
combination of thosi! three Hems.
Mr. keenan: In s!JImling up, I \tIouTd lik.e to poi"t out that we do have an
accurate mQdel. d~d also a color board. We have ~orked amongst ourselves
to go through those colors. J would like to ~~plain it to you, as it is
muc~ like Mirarda. I know that you remember there that we carne in 'With
the act~al color that they add to t~e concrete to g~t the effect that we
have out there. Wblle it does not look like this, this is the color that
goes in there. when J say it doesn't look like that, the end product that
W~ are trJ"~ng to achieve is something in tone similar to what you are
seeing here in terms cf the photograph. This, then, ~;ll go into the
concrete color and will be mixed. We \IIIill tne-n sandblast it it a medit..l~
sand blast, and in some cases, we ~ill also utilize the lig~t sand blast
just to rQugnen up, possibly. the base of the building, much like we did
at ,.,iranda. We 111111, as staff mentJor:ed, mock up some samples. He), win
f!<lt be full size, which is about 30 feet, but they "'ill be about 8 x 12'
like we did at Miranda, for ail of you, and 5taff and Stanford to leak. at
in terms of different sand blast textures. We are also going to be tryin3
about fOLi" or five dlfferent {:olors in tn1s range, and then you can mix
the colors. It ~~ a process that took us about a month-and-a-half at
I'hranda of tryirog different samples and different te.xtures. In the end,
we came LIP .. i1M the exact color that -we want~d, and we .. ill do it here,
too. I just wanted to reassure yow that the co1or field we ar~ 100king at
is something similar to that.
The day til-e has the variegated colors. T.'e gutt~rs and soffit area will
be copper. So the only three materials you ha\l€-in terms of the building
are copper, tile and the integral colored, sand blast2d concrete. Then of
course, YCiU have the bronze glass set ~n bronze frames.
Ms. Wilson: Would you pursue tne glass a little bit more? Are you using
glass everywhere on all buildings?
-5-
L
I
I
!
I
!
!
I
I ,
l
i
-
•
___ eAU.
o
~r. Keenan; ~es. we are using the brcnze 91 i!;SS everywhere, with the
exception of the m.ain entry, which would be clear ghss.
Ms. Wilson:
builC!in9s~
Why iTe you usin9 it in the m~re shaded areas, like bet~een
It seems like it is going to be dark In there.
Mr. Kepn~fl; This will b-2 clear. arid so ,,;11 this, and the rr;air. Erltrance.
M.i.......JO.l.1.2n: YOl.! mean the full eleyaticns?
~r. Keer.an: Yes. Tnnse are recessed underneath. That arcade wraps
around the courtyard, and those windows ~re set back and will be clear
gl aSS.
~r. Lvzwa: I haVE some qU'estions in reference tc the retaining walT. Is
this the section of the retaining \III"an that we are proposing-on the site,
on Sheet #31
Mr. i ehman: Right.
~zwa: 1 wanted to know abc:.Jt your lntention on the ffnish of tne
reta in i ng Wi 11 ?
Mr. l"!hman: It is going to be a shock.-c.f"ete. prefinished wall.
Mr. iyzwa; Okay.
Mr. lehman: This retaining ~al1 WQu1d occur both along that upper r;dg~
in that curved 1ayer form, and it ~;11 also occ.ur in this intermediate
terrace that is coming down.
Ms. lytle: let me interrupt for it minute and ask that all speakers
identify themselves before speaking. W~ need to send a transcript of this
hearing on to the council. and it is very difficult for the transcriber to
identify voices when there ;s mare than one applicant speaking for a
project.
Mr. lyzwa: I ~ou'd like to continue the reta1nin8 wall issue a little
further. As far as the coler of the shock,-crete is concerned. w~at do you
intend for that to be?
~lehm~~: ~e are looking at just a natural gray color.
Mr. lyzwa: So you were not thinking about trying to match the buiTding
color~
Mr. Lehman: No. Ule intent was to screen with the plantings.
"'r. J,.yztta: Have yot! used the shock-crete retaining wall on your prev; ous
project on Hillview or Miranda?
Mr.:.. Lehman: We did use that material.
t1!:~j .. I'JX!': And you feel that it holds up .. 11, with tim., as far as
potential cracks and everything else is concerned?
-~--------
Mr. lehman: It is a \lerj strong .... all.
~tr ____ ~: Just a:. strang liS a c;.st·in-place, in your opfnion?
Mr. Le.bmal1: res. It incorpora.tes a syst!'!-m of tie-backs which are steel
rods that go intQ the hillside ~ith a series of a~choring devices which
make it very strong. s.o it is not jus.t tensile strength of the retaining
wall, but also ~as support as wt-11.
Mr. Lyzwa; Okay. Do you intend to do the drainage with a perforatej sheet
in back of it?
Mr. Lehman: Yes.
fu:--,-_lawa; Ok.ay. ~s far as the vines on the retaining wall are
concerned, 'fInat type of 'oIlnes w111 they be and how do you intend to
irrigate them? What sort of pl.:mting process do you envision there?
Mr. lehman: What we would do is that we would introduce vines it both th~
top of the ""'211 and at the bottom of the wall.
Mr. lV7~a: ~ould you point that out to me, please?
Mr, ___ Lehman: At the bottom aTong lle-re, .. e '''''auld be working ",ith the
structural engineer to make sure that the footings are low enough so that
there ;s a generous pla~ti~9 pocket at the base of thE wall+ The
irrigation would be bubbler irrlgation. Fr0m here we would encourage batM
self-clinging vine-s and vines that w€ wou:d actually tie to the wall.
The.)' would grow up from the base of the \trial 1 .
From the top of the wall, just behind H·e back ed3e~ we would also put in
vines and ground cover shrub materials that wou1d cascade and spillover
the top of the wall. SD that will be reaching o~er the top, and it also
would be on bubbler irrigat ion. We nave plenty of 'Mater and Citn d€l h'er
that to the top of the wall. There will also be a soii cap OVEr th~
drainage material behind the wall so t,"-at there wl11 be a good growing
material for that ~lal1t material.
#'Ir. ~j'_zwa: Thank. yOLl. My other question is in refere~ce to shipping and
rece-:Vlng. in your project, I beli~v~ the last time you pointed out to me
that you had one set of doors for shipping and receiving. fs that stlil
correct?
Mr. RodrigueL: Yes.
Mr. lyzwa: There is only one ingress and egress there. Do you fE~l y~u
have enough room fer maneuverability, for instance. fOr 60-foot trucks on
site at the present time, and then is you enter and as you maneuver around
your rctainjng walls and parking spaces?
Mr. Rodrigu~_!.: Yes, we hdve had it re\liewed. We worked \!.lith the fire
department. They were the most concerned. They ha\l€' the largest rigs
that cou1d be on the site, so what we did w~s to sit down with them,
initially, and made sure trlat the grades did work., as they were worried
abollt th~ steepness, and al so we roll ed the parking and encouraged the
truck traffic to move back around t~ere, There is also a hammerhead here,
-7-
• ,
, ,
-
~er t~eir request so that they could actually ba(k in and drj~e the truck
back. out agail1. So from their standpoint, the)" are 'oIery satisfied 'With
it.
The tenant that our client is working with does not reteiv~ the larg~st
65-foot rlgs. They rl;ceive 45-foot rigs and they do have plenty of access
for them. A 63-foot fire trucK was t~e con(ern fer us, zn~ we hav~
included trIose condjtions.
HI"'.-.1:rzwa: Was the fire department s~tisfi€-d .. ·ttn the property along the
upper 90rtion ~f your site where there would be no truck access?
~_dri_~: A geod point. There is a dri\'eway trlat moves right along
here, Michael. 50 tney felt comfortab1e.
!it.....J.y.n'.!; They eouid service it from that side. I ju~t am trying to
preclude .any ullpleasant surprises dowr. the road: So your ingress/egress
width is adequate enough to handle the trucks, HI: your opinion, including
all tne radii, etc:. You feel comfortab1e """Hh thzm?
HI'" Rf,driguez: Yes.
Mr.~: What are your estimdt~d construction (csts on tnis building?
Hr. Rodr.i.S!!.~~: The shell is right now Cit roughly $63 p-er sqtJar-e fooL
Ms. Wilson: Gary. you said it ~ould not be as green as this drawing. Th!
ground that is going t~ be dirt, is it going to have the natural grasses?
lrIhat is this rea"ily going to look like? The benn is not really a berm.
It is really a grade, and that confUSEd' ft.e in thi! dra.wing> 'Diber, 1 saw
,Y{Jur secUon, I realized it isn't a berm. Could it be a little I'lill, as
is done l~wer down on Arastradero Road on one of the sites, and is very
effective. ]s that n-at possible here? It seer.:s to me it would work even
better. You hav~ a lot of cut y~u could get rid of that ~ay, too.
Mr. lehman: It wa.s very effedh'e in that senSE. Our intent was to find
a home for a lot of the step material that ~e are gen&fdting by depress~ng
these stvf1€s. T,,\s will be il 'oIery soft berm. A hem e ... oke~ images of an
artificial mound~ and probably the best ~ay to ce>crib€ it that it is just
going to roll up and make a steeper bastion along Arastradero Road, a~d
then crest and descend baCK down, creating a fJatter terrace up he~e.
Ms. Wilson: But that terrac~ is fairly natural in grade, isn't it? Or
are you regradlng it?
Mr. lehman: It "IS all being regraded. Currently, the ex.isting topography
has a fairlY uniform grade all the way up. The~ it gets a little steeper
as it goes towards the back. So this will be altered a-:',d yOIJ 111111 see a
lot more soil in the foreground.
Ms. Wilson: Are the grasses going to be allowed to grow? Ifhat is your
intent?
Mr. Lehma.n: The intent w(uld be, along the landscape corridor here, that
those grasses be left similar to what are on the adjaC'e;-,t properties,
where they are allowed to grow. They would be tillEd for fire control .
. -.. ~---;~~~
.. 4 :zIg·.
l
-
~,
Thef1 the vineyards thelt:ielyes wou1d sUll be in this area, so that would
have a tilled earth appearance under-Math th2re. This area along tne
frontage 'Would all remain in natural grass.es. Likewise tne areas arol!nd
the front where we have trees planted would a150 be left in nat~ral
grasses.
~_m.1QIl: As a point of interest, there m'Jst be a reason why the
grapevi~es are planted against the grade. Is that a tYP'cal way?
~ehman: I think tne mast interes.ting lrii!Y to look at a vineyard is to
be able to see the rows,. So we war.ted the view from the insidE" of the
building to be able to look out and perceive that geometry and see thusF.!
rows.
Ms. Wilson: Do~sn't that (reate water pY'oblems and irrigation problems?
~r. lehman: No, it doesn't. The act~al i~rigation lines will be running
with the strings. All of these will be tied ~;th cables, etc. and the
irrigation lines win be tied i:lnc:l'.ill drip right down to the base of ead
plant.
~~.aR!).~.!: I have a couple of questions for K;;on P.oa'riguez* Are you
going to be sandblasting O~ the site?
Mr. RodI1[uez: Y~s. It wi11 be m~ch more controlled than at Miranda. As
you will recal1, we lost a few panels in the earthq'Jake 1 and staff
recei· ... ed a couple of complaints, because there were two or three Saturdays
during which they were trying to g~t those panels back in place. We will
have a litt1e tighter control this time as to the hours of sandblasting.
Mr. Keenan: In an), event, it does not exceed about seven to ten minutes.
It is a much smaller bulldi~£.
Ms. DaRosa; You mentioned the roof tiles. Is it a variegated tih? ",'au
are not planning to use a mix of different colors?
Mr. Keenan: Yes, that is why I called it variegat.ed, It is net one,
uniform (0101". It wfJuld be .a mil: of their Missioi1 b1erad, which is pretty
much the same t i1 e you sel? on the campv5.
Ms .. DaRosa; $0 it is several different c.olors of tile, not different
col'ors'within the tile.
!1r~~e.nan; Yes.
Ms. DaRosa: I would now like to hear from Stanford University.
Marlete bumbera. Planrd.rL9.....9JJice, Stanford Ul'1iverstt.:r: ~e ha\,ie been
working with the applicant, and we feel that the form and mass are
achieving what you had Griginally drafted. we intend to continue to wurk.
with them as they proceed townd ~o!'King drawings to resol -ve some of the
minor details. But we are in approva.l of the bulk of the project from an
architectural standpoint.
Drew Om~.n.,.2t<ir.ford Planning Office: ~s Miirlene indicated, we have been
working with the applicant all along on the site design and landscape
-9-
iL-.--,
-
p1an. We de continue tc work with the applicant throughout the design
de'l/eToprr.ent and construction phases of the proji'ct. SO W€ ifrIIill be working
w1th them as tney refine the drawings, but as submitted. W~ are in
approva1.
~~RoSi~ r wi 11 no ..... open the publ ic Maring.
Denny Petrosia,n, 443 Ventura. Palo AJJQ: I think you all understand that
there is a very seriollS: issue involved here, ifrIIhich is ho~sing. It really
needs to be addressed. Otherwise , the r.ousing is not going to be
suitable.
I cannot help it if the planning commission did ;I'Ot do its job. YOI..l also
must make a point about conf{lnnance, regardless of what the plal'1nir,g
conmissio" did. 1 would say that this project is n(lt mitigated. To my
kr:owledge, there is no mitigatiQn permitted in the Comprel,ensive Plan.
There is nothlng documented that would even suggest that it is possible to
suggest any mitigation. We are talking about i ~itigati~n that is
;m'-ented out of thin air. Program #10 of the Housing Elemer-t says, "The
cH.v should discourage the conversion of lands. designdted as residential
to non-resicential USES." What has ~appened so far is not a
discouragement. What the planning commission has done is in dire-ct
~io'ation of the Housing Element of the (o~prehensi\je Plan. I hope that
you will not endorse that and yoursel .... as be in 'fiolatioil of the Housing
Element. Some of you may remember that there ~as a tremendous amount of
discu.s.siorl about Program no. There was hnguage th;j:t was prcpcse-d' to say
aThe city should disco~rage the conversion of lands designated as
residential to non-r2sident1al uses ~ some public benefit could be
found." Well, that language was deliberately struck. o~t, because the
public benefit itself is housir'g.
I thin~ that the ARB is on thin lce today. You are potentially passing
along a project to the City council with your blessing, predicat~d O~ i
supposed change that has not even been determined a5 being kosher, as far
as the-Comprehensive Plan goes. I don't see hew you can legally take-any
action to appro .... e this project. The D]anni~g di~ision is listed in
Program 10 as the lead agf!ncy for this program. I really think it is in
your hps as wen as in the laps of other personne1. I think it 'is very
questio:'1abT! to approv-2 a CDmprehensive-rJan chalige or even tal( about a
Comprchens;-""e Plan change for t.~e convenience of a: particular developer~
which is what is happening here. lt is not necessarily the high~st and
best use of this property. When you do a Comprehensive Plan change, that
is what YOij are talking about. What is the highest and best use of the
property? rt lS not whether this will benefit a particular developer. So r think this should have gone to the cou~cil way before now. [think that
before any more public time is spent on it, it should go to the city
council. Housing is the greatest need. That has been identified in all
of our city phnr.ing. Otherwise, why did we go through the hours and the
aggra .... ation? Why did we go throl.Jgh the CKAS process? Why did we do a
Comprehensive PTan at all? Why does t~e public bother to care? Why is
there public input? Why snQuld we, anymore?
The reason we go through this is because we ~e~d to build ~Dre housing i~
Palo Alto. There is a ~hortage of ho~sing that people can afford to 1 ive
in. There are many people who hawe alreadj used up their first and second
paychecKs on rent. '-Ie are all reading the headl ines. We all know why we
-10-
.-'L
I
i
I
I
! n
,~ I
tl ;
, i ,
, I
; I ~I , I . ,
" ..
-
hav~ the~e housing programs. We all fee! when we read the headlin~s, I
~ope. Our society is falling ap~rt. and one reason is that people cannot
find a place to l'l\le. "'hy are we taHing about v~neyads? Tne money nat
gees ir.to the reser~e fund for housIng is not supposed to come from giving
away the one resource we t'ia,lr'e for jT',aking housing pcsslole. Hat is not
where it is supposed to. corne from. !t is supposed to mitigate employmer-t
devETopment, whic~ puts pre'i5ure en existing ~Hil1sing.
So 1 hope that the ARB will ref~r this immediately to the city council.
thlnk the only co~t is ~ousing. tf the council were to decide on what
would tx: an exchange of 1 :lnd, is not morley. Money is usel ess when you
don't have tne land. The only thing that would justif,y a changi! in the
CQmpre~en.si\le Plan, cr, princip1e. would be to find anotneor piece of land.
I don't rn€an a little tiny ~trip of land alDng the Bayshore. That WGuld
be in no w~y a comparable exchange, I hope I havi! made my point. and I
hope you really will look at whether you are on firm ground. To me it is
a total violation of the Comprehensive Plan. I don't see how the findings
can be made. Thank you.
~osa: Nancy, will you answer this question t~at was raised? Can
the ARB make any recommendations for approval of a project before approval
of a Comprehensiv~ Plan change?
Ms. I vUe: ~'ou have the abi1ity to make a recommendation tD the COUl'1ciT,
~hich is all we are doing here. It would not be appropriate for you to
appro ... 'e a project. You al"e not in a position to do Sl). You are simply
maki:lg reco:rmendations on this appiicatlon. The council will, indeed,
need to conslder the issue of a Comp~ehensive Plan am2ndment, which is
part of this application. T~c project is scheduled to go forward
imrnedfately in that manner~ is a joint application. Ms. Petrosian has
certainly s.o{lken el<Jqlient1y r~garding the primary pol1cy issue of th!ls
appljcation, which is the loss of housing. 1 hope the ARB understood fr~m
the materials in your packet that the property is in conflict. we nave a
Comprehensive Plan designation for housing and a zon!ng designation for
this type of ese. It is one of the rare pieces of property 1r'1 town where
the zonin9 a~d the Comprenenslve Pla~ are not consistent. If we were not
a charter city, H would not even be legal to have that situation,
essential1y. Consistency;s required by ITI.c-st cHies irl the ~tate.
Bu! they have proposed a mltigation for tne housing loss. You may have
noticed in your list of conditions that they are doubling the normal
housing mitigation fee. We certainly .... ill be taking up the issue of
wh~th!r this is an appropriate housing sHe wh€r. they revieilf the
application. It is not lega1 for you now to make t~at i con~ition of the
project.
~Wilson: Can we pursue this a little further, beca~se
through the p1annlng cOfMlission materia1s. I was curious.
not changed on purpose, or by mistake? It seems peculiar
was this lo~phole.
as I read
Was thi s zoning
to me that there
Ms. Lytle: My understandil'1g is tnat it was intentionally not changed.
There was a great deal of opp~sition to this Comprehensive Plan amendment,
both frDm the property owner and from surrounding residents at the time
that jt was designated for ho~sing. I belie~e there wa~ direction not to
go forward with the loning amendment, and we would leave it as a sort of
-11-
-
split position until a future time w~~n an appljcation carne in. lhat is
hew we stOOd. It'5 legal for us, is ~ charter city, to hav~ it that way.
but clearly, it is a fundamental policy issue here. Is th~s an
appropriate site for ho~sing? Is it more "appropriate for the type of U~e
that is being proposed here? If it is apprODriate for this type of use as
it is zo~ed. what ;s an appropriate mitigation measure? Staff recommends
that the housing miti9atio~ fee forwarded to the council is fi~e, although
we fully appreciate the 'issue that the speaker today has raised. They
uoderstood that it is i p~imary issue, iiPd we fully support 1ook1ng for
ways to miike 'Jur housing dollars go f!.:rt~er in the Compre~ensive Plan
update. We are lOCking for ITKlre innovative solutions for housing. mixed
use projects, live/ .... ork scenarios, etc. We understand that pro'llision for
housing in the future is important for Palo A1 to.
Ms. ~tTson: The other question that disturbed me, even before I read the
planning corrmission minutf:!s, was that when this came before us on
preliminary re'lliew. there was not a whisper of this probTem. ~e had no
idea there was p~tential for housing.
Hs. lytle: It was 1n a staff memorandum that there was an inconsistency
in the zvning.
Ms. DaRosa: I will Of)W cl~se the public hearing and return to the board
for cOmlents.
Mr. Hisli: First I would like to address the inconsistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. I went back to the standards for review for the
architectural review boa~d, and read them to make sure I am c~mfortabie
with them. It says ~ere that in addition to the goals and purpDses set
forth in this chapter, the fallowing standards are to be used for tne
architectura1 re~iew board re~iew of projects within its jurisdiction. It
ljsts 15 standards for revlew, and the first one is whether the de~ign 1S
t~nsistent and compatible with .p~licabl! elements of the City of Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan. I think the way this has been add'\"essed right up
front is t~at the applicant ~IU acknowledged that 1t is not C{lnsistent,
and they are taking t~e r~commended path towards addressing that
inconsistenC,)'. I hoise .,0 probll?f71 .. ith rev~e'woin9 it on the other 14
requirements. I am completely comfortab1e wHh r€vie",ing this project
... ·ith this lr:cor;sistency. afJd r feel that the appropriate place tn work. it
out is not at the a~chitectura1 review boaYd Tevel but at the city council
le .... el. Ttlat is my feel1rlg on the issue.
To address the proposal that is before us today, the concerns that I had
at the preliminary review were around the scale and massin~ of the
bUilding, as well as some of the specific detai1s such as wtndow
fenestrati~n on the building, plus fir,;.l landSCaping scheme. I think the
applicant nas done a ~e~y good job of addre5si~g each of those issues.
am satisfied with the $oTutions, I have no r,egative ,:olTri'ler.ts at ill on
this project, and I ..-ill support it. My comments are .all c0'71plimental"1'1
and r wouTd like to hear what my fellow board mernbp_rs' f-ae1ings are. I
would recommend approval.
~.s. Wilscn: I feel as T~rJmas does, aha. As far as; the t10using is
concerned, I feel that ideally, I~nd is a better mitigation in a Situation
like this than money. I don't know how the councilor the planning staff
wili pursue t~at in th~ future, but I don't feel that that burden is
really on this board. Denny has raised an important issue.
-12-
, , -,
, ,
I
i
j
-
. ,
I h-ave been very intel"ested in livi?/work. situat1ons; in the Stanford
~esearch Park and ~a~e talked wlth Ken SChr€lber about it. My
under~tandipg tnat tQxic problems Dut there a;e rea1. and ar~ ~ery
difficult. I don't k~aw what the toxic situation is on this site, or if
you are going to be testing far it in the future, or if you are going to
go into this bllndly. I know you have done tTeanup on a lot of your ~ther
projects,
Mr. Keenan: ~t is ~hat they do in it. It is not contaminaticn. It is
the factihat they are using these facilities in the surrounding
fac.ilities. That is the issue, not "50me histor~cal P'CP.s in toe soil. It
has to do with tne ongoing facilities.
Ms. Wilson: I am comfortable with e'¥erything yo~ are doing. went up to
the EPRI iiite, toe, and you Canl10t see a thing frorr the front yard. It is
amazing the way th~y ~ave screened their property. This drawing does not
show it, but in another drawing I thought y'Ju showed wher-e your equipment
was~ and I think you are sensitive to the equipment being (los~ to tne
hillside so that the vistas are spoiled frol1' up abo .... e as far as sl!eif1g
mechanical e~uipment. Your roof is prlJh.ably the sE"nsitive area.
I am really pleased with the shared circulation yau have developed with
Syntex, and I think the two of you might develcp a little stronger entry
statement in your iandscaping down on Arastradero Road, 50 that it 15
attractive and easy to see as you are drhling up and down, as far i!S
finding an entry. Somebody stopped ",hen I was ]{loking at your site
yesterday. and was trying to get into EPRJ. He and I bath had an equally
dffficurt time trying to figure out out to do that. I don't know if the
poor guy eveT found ~t, b~cause I s~nt him in the wrong direction.
] really like the way you have developed the site for peopre. in"liting
them into the site. That is really .an ~mprovement. My only concern at
this point are your colon. I have to say that in spite? of your pleasure,
I have! high level of discomfort with the way the colors ended ~p at
Miranda. I know how h~rd ~t 1S, but I don't think that the ble~d is as
harmonious as one would like it to be. I think the colors you are ~orking
~ith here have a greater c~ance of success. I like the roof coler a~d i
lik.e tile wall coior at Mirar!da, bLit to iiie', they never fit together very
.. ell. So I am g~ing to be watching that carefully. if we are going to
review the colors ultimat~ly again . .Are we going to be seeing the
landscape plan again with more specific plant materials? The colors. ]
gua5s, we wi11 deal with on site. 1 hope you wilr get something that is
not Quite as harsh a relationship as I feel that is. That may just be me,
but r feel Qi.lite disapP<linted about that when otherwis~, it is a
terrifically elegant project. So I will be supportive of approval.
Ml"_. __ Jyzwa: First, 1 would like to address Denny's CQrrcerns. I have been
\I~ry much in support of housing in this 'I. "",n, period. I think th~
dfffiClJlty is that the :staff has do~e absolutely everything in reference
to making housing !THJre accessible and possible, other tha~ what I feel is
a floor area 1 imitation, whlch was sort of forced on the staff by the city
council years ago ..... ·hich 1 know, for a fact, does not .. ork. So that
precludes some hOUSing development in this town. I am also convinced,
because I have been doing housing, and I think I have been doing the
highest densitj housing i11 Ulis town in tr.e past five or six years. We
are n~t serious about housing, and the tity council, no matter ~hat they
-13-
•
I
~
I I·
I
i
I
I
~
!
i
saY1 are not supporting hou~it1g. Tile}' na\'e a very strong record to prove
that. Unless you addr~ss it with the city council, you ar~ net 9Ding to
get any c.l;aoge. I don't thin~ that the plaf1:Jing cormJ'issi.an Of the
arcllitectural re"iew board or the staff have enougll pr}wer to turn that
around. The only people who can do that are tile city council, a:1d thf'j'
are not dOing it. They ha~e their own reasons, but I (ertainly do not
want to hear them say again in public tnat they are i~ supp~rt of
housing. They are not in support of housing.
Ha~ing sa~d this, and putting this site aside. just the ~ho'e issue of
housing, in my opiniol1, that is where it stands. HaYing s.aid thir;, 1
think that the applicant was faced with a very difficult site tc
accommodat~ researcn and development. Reseu-ch and deve'opll',ent biJildings
are one of the mo~t difficult things to try and accommodate. This is i!
'{ery tough Site because of the grades and because of the surroundi n9
area. They have done an outstanding job in trying to marry a project into
the existing situation. They have successfully pu11ed it off. 1 etno the
rest of the board members I corrments. I am very r,luch in support of the
project, in th~ se,nse of design, wittJ W{1,at they ~aVE done here. The only
two things I would like to raise are that retaining wall. I have dor.e
scme retaining wa11s with the vine concept. It takes years before that
really wor~s tO€ way you nave described it. I would like to either see
the retairing ~all match the color of the building so that it doesn't look
so separate, ir.itially, for the first coupTe of years, or have some
stronger aSS!.iranc:e when you come b.ad iIJIIith your final landscape pian,
perhaps, that these vines ara actually going to be creeping and growing
faster than I have eVEr seen the~ do. Typically, it takes about five
yea~s) in my experience, on shock-crete or cast-in-place walls for that
effect to rea11y dG what you are $a~ing. It looks beautiful if you can
wait five yea~s, but prior to that, it looks a litt1e like the Berlin
wall. Other than t.hat, I think Y0l,.lr detailing is nlce, and I feel it is a
succEssful project.
The only thing I would ask is that 1 had C! great deal of difficulty in
trying to read the reduced dra-wings. This is a matter for staff. I think
they were reduced to a point where they are not legible. I ~ould like thE
staff to please ensure tnat if we isk for and acc~pt reduced drawings.
that tney are ro less H12l'1 haH the original size. These are crystal
cled.r, and I wanted to comp1 iment you for a very thorough app11cation.
This is reaily somethin9 that goes bt'yond what we normally see~ and it is
so helpful in reassuring us that the quality is there. It is definitely
there in the drawings. ine only thing I would ask is tha.t if yOLl reduc.e
it for us, do it half size so I can read the legend. I could not read any
of the d€tails. r feel c~mfortable ~ith the project, and I think both the
architectJre and the landscaping are very well coordinated.
Mh DaRos.a: I also sl'1are my colleagues' ccmmet.ts. The hou~ir,g mitigation
and the clarification of zoning and the Comprehensive Pian must be left to
the city cOL,men. Denn,,' Petf"o.iian ~ldS raised a very important point -
the concept of land and money, and when you nave the mOl'1ey, what do you do
with H. I would like that to get to the city council. That is a very
important concept.
I think the projett is going
is a lot of very nice detail
concerns about the cDlors at
--~c-· ....... -, .... ,~~~ -----
to be a VEry nice asset to that area. There
thHe. I .1150 share Shirley Wilson's
Miranda. I lH~ t.ne co1ors s.eparately. but
-14-
.>
--.;,'
together, U€: purpie aT1d the oraf1ge ar.d tile roof I did not feel work as
well illS ttie col<lrs you are sl~ow~n'~ here, I look forw:lrd to seeing this
projoet.
~tJ..g: You n-e-ed to make a recommendation or motion. wou1d add. if
I may, ill recorrrnendation in the planning commission conditions II and 2.
The condlt'on should be timed to be completed pr";or ta issuance of the
buildin9 pe~rnit.
Mr. lyzwa: Tnose are the planning cOlMlission conditions on Page 5-?
Ms. Lytle: Rlght. We wo~ld like you to incorporate those conditions in
your motion, as we", adding the timlng to that prior to the issuance of a
building p~rmit.
MOTION: Mr. Lyzwa: I wou1d like to make a motion for appro~al of the
project, with Items. I and 2 of ttle planning commissioll ccndltions to be
tied to the project, including the staff recommendations. The only other
thing I would like to include in that is if the project returns for
consent calendar with the landscap!ng, that we have a half-size reduction
of the drawings.
illQ!ill: By Mr. Hi s •.
Ms. Wilson; I want to clarify this. The ""landscaping is coming back. Is
the color going to be reviewed on si te? ,Yes) No. 15. Panel s of the
base COlor. I thought that statement was a little unclear. What is U1at
supposed to mean? 1s that the buildi~g color?
Ms. Weiss: Yes.
Ms. DeRQsa: There is a motion for approval of t~e project with changes to
planning commission items I and 2 that they be completed prior to issuance
of the bui1ding permit. An those in favor? That pa.sses una,"imo~s'y.
Mr. lyzwa: .~lso the model was very, very helpful.
-15 -
, i
----. --.... -'-
\D) IE.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ill)
\r'~ JUL U 1992
DEPARTMENT Of Pt.."N~~
CITY OF PAi.O ...
JUly 21, 1992
Discussion:
1050 Araslradero
Revenue Impact Ana!ysis
K<;tenan·Loveweli Ventures proposes to build a two
building research and developmen!loffice projecl to!alinQ
approximately 75,000 square feet on this 5.94 ;10 acre
parcel. The site is owned by Stanford University, is
currentiy . vacant, and will be land·leased by Keenan
Lovewell. The property is currently designated for
multipla·family dev<llopment under the Comprehensive
Plan, SO this Analysis compares projected annual revenues
to Ihe City under both a residential and R&D development
scenario.
I. Propene! R&D Developmen!:
At this date no tenant has been seie<:ted, so tha
precise use is .101 known. For purposes of this analysis,
we have assumed an office use wilh fairly intensive
computer useage. similier to the Xerox facility at 3400
Hillview.
,. Utility User's Tax CDrnpulation
a Ulility Useaga
Water .
Gas
Elsctric
Total per month average
Total Annual Utilily Cost
$550
550
17 20P
$18,300
X , 2 mon~hs
$219,600'-
b. Annual Users Tax ($219,600 x 5%) $10980
-;. , ,~'.
-------------_ .. -.. --~ .
2. Prop9rty Tax -Related Raver."",s
Estimated Assesssd
Value of Proper!y $17,400.000 2.
Property Tax Rate
Projected Annual
Property Taxes
City's Sha's of Propert)·
Taxes
__ ,J"L.Jl.Q%
$174,000
x 12~
20950
3. Total Annual Estimated Revenues $31.930
4. No sales tax revenue has been assumed, altnougr, cec1a;n R&D sales
oparations COuld be generators of .such revenue.
S. Property Conveyance taxes (occurring when a sa'e of the completed
project occurs) afe estimated at .33% or tha assessed value of
$17,400,000 or about ~5~
Notes:
I. Based on square foota~e proration of estimated a~.nual utility
costs al Xerox-facHity at 3400 Hillview. Would be cems/dered
moderaie to low usage for a fesearch company.
2. Assumes rents of $2.00 psfimo NNN, annualized and
capitalized at 9.5% with an 8% discount tor vacancy and
feSJ;rv9S. ValuatiOll method basad on discussio.1S with County
Tax Asssssors Office.
•
\
~---------
I r. Alternative Multi-Family Development:
The ,al~einatjv9 use of the site is r:1ulti-famdy residen!Jal. While
the lOr"!ing. theoreticaily permits up to 88 cOr1dom[n!um units
(1518cre), we are assum'ng a maximum of(6D)units ere feasible
given thE! limitations 01 setbacks, siopes, h9'ght limitations, and
parking requirements. The assessed value of each condominium
would be $300,000.
1. Utility User's Tax Compulation
a. Useage (based on impul from City Utilities)
Water $151u nil
Gas 30
Electric --2..S
570luniilmo
~nits
$4,200Iunitslmo
---12,month s
$50,400 year
b. Annual Us",rs' Ta> ($50,400 x 5%)
2, Property Tax -Relaled Revenues
Estimated Assessed Value of Properly
($300,000 • 60) $18,000,000
Pro pe rty Tax R ale T:fij:OO:~X~';:%:::'
Projected Annual Taxes $!8,eSe,Ooo
l'IO,o{'.i{)
City's Share of
Property Taxes x 1204%
3, Total Annual Estimated City Revenue
4. No Sales Tax Revenue
$2,520
$ 21,672
~4-,ljlg
5. Properly Conveyance taxes are estimated at .33% 01 the
assessed value of $18,999,999 or $59,400,
1';'0,0 0 0 ~ -
..
" ,
' ..
III. SUmmary
. . ~.'~-~ --
o
o
R&venuas
Fi&n
MUltifamily
-.i
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
POLICY MEMORANDUM
October 5, 1992
PI:mnl'g 0."""",,,,,,
Beth O'Connor, RCSC!t"ConsavatiO[] Rt:presentativc
I.-sc.pe Review:,
The City Council bas lOlopl«l ilIndscape water efflciency standards for !he City of Palo Allo (Ord inan", 4106,
Raiolution 7136). The Standards were adupted on Scp<ember 14, 19Y2 and bcmme effoetive on October 15,
1992. The Standards-are applicable to new and rehabilitated industrial. cummercia! and in,.<;;tliutionaI !ar.d''iCap
ing and a!1 De\!{ or rehabLlitated multi-family common areas.
The City of Palo Alto Plamting and Utilities D<partmems will beg; n '" apply these standards on Oetober 15,
1992, 10 all projects submitted for revie~.' &0 the City. The standards W1.1! apply 10 any prvjoct a: p1Of.XRd
proje:cl which has noc: been su bmiUed .fOr prelim [nary Te"r icw".
Projeds wbkh ha, .. already bc= ",bmiuoo or for which applications have already lx= obtained will be
J'C\o~ acx:oo:Iing 10 pre-existing IaOOscape g'.Jide1 ines .
... :.··:'~;:t;l~,7.~:-
~