The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-07-03 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, July 03, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900-6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 975 Page Mill Road [25PLN-00100]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow Façade Modifications to an Existing 50,527-Square-Foot Office Building and a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Fin Sun Shades to Encroach Approximately One Foot into Special Setbacks on Both Hansen Way and Page Mill Road. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Conversion of Office Space to an Eating and Drinking Use. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Research Park District (RP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov 3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2025 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT OTHER INFORMATION Public Comments PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@PaloAlto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 3, 2025 Report #: 2505-4681 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: • ARB meeting schedule • Upcoming ARB agenda items • Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review Board members are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of an ARB quorum. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 5 Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change: MEETING DATE TOPICS July 17, 2025 •180 El Camino: Cedar & Sage Façade Changes 2nd Hearing •Study Session: Cubberley Community Center Conceptual Plans •Chair and Vice Chair Elections RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS No new ARB projects were submitted since the last meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steve.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@PaloAlto.gov. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 0 3 1 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock 3/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 4/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/1/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/15/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/5/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock 8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/21/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2025 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June 3/20 – Adcock & Rosenberg July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 Meeting Schedule Assignments Packet Pg. 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Pending ARB Projects The following projects will soon be reviewed by the ARB. For more information, visit the project webpages at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 9/16/20 20PLN-00202 250 Hamilton Ave Bridge Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF. On-hold for redesign Major Architectural Review Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN-00341 24PLN-00239 660 University 680 University Mixed-Use Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi- Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2- Bedroom). NOI Sent. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six (6) story mixed-use building. The proposal includes ground floor non- residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth floor office (9,126 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed residential will include 88 units with 20% on-site BMR. ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; Applicant is revising project plans. Item 1 Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects Packet Pg. 8 Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 6/8/23 23PLN-00136 23PLN-00277 (Map) 23PLN-00003 and -00195 – (SB 330) 24PLN-00230 (Code compliant version) 24PLN-00231 (Map) 3150 El Camino Real Housing – 380 units Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of a 380- unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. Staff is reviewing the project to ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance with the State Density Bonus laws. Focus Area Compliant Application Filed 8/7/24 Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out on 8/17 ARB 11/7 Rec. approval PTC 5/14 PC Amendment 8/9/23 23PLN-00202 4075 El Camino Way Commercial 16 convalescent units Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The additions include 16 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116 Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, ARB 10/17/24, PTC & Council hearings TBD. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) reported out 6/1 Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/24 24PLN-00100 24PLN-00223 (Map) 156 California Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments sent 6/1; Resubmitted, Request for Supplemental Info Sent 7/11; Pending Resubmittal. SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24 Item 1 Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects Packet Pg. 9 Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) Ad Hoc (Baltay, Adcock) Deemed Complete 12/22/24 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San Antonio Housing – 198 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7- story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00161 24PLN-00048 (SB 330) 3781 El Camino Real Housing – 177 units Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388 Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are proposed. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048) NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 4/3/25 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00162 24PLN-00047 (SB 330) 3606 El Camino Real Housing – 335 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential housing development project with 335 units. The new residential building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40 NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 12/25/24 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 7/17/24 24PLN-00184 24PLN-00232 (Map) 3400 El Camino Real Housing – 231 units & Hotel – 92 rooms Major Architectural Review of a Builder's Remedy application to demolish several low-rise retail and hotel buildings located at 3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and replace them with three new seven-to-eight story residential towers, one new seven-story hotel, one new three story townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending Resubmittal. Item 1 Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects Packet Pg. 10 Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes existing hotel buildings will remain with one being converted to residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various (SB330) Minor Architectural Review & Conditional Use Permit 9/24/24 24PLN-00263 3950 Fabian Way Private Education Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for exterior modifications to an existing 32,919 square foot, 2-story commercial building, site modifications and a new approximately 4200 sf addition to the North side. The project also includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the change of use to private education to accommodate Girls Middle school. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. NOI Sent 10/24/2024. Early ARB 11/21 ARB 5/1 rec. approval Streamlined Housing Development Review 10/08/24 24PLN-00280 3997 Fabian Way Residential Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to deconstruct two existing commercial buildings located at 3977 & 3963 Fabian Way and surface parking lot at 3997 Fabian Way to construct a new single structure of seven stories containing 295 multifamily residential rental apartment units (8% very low- income units – 19 units), 343 parking spaces, 295 secured bike parking spaces, open courtyards, several outdoor gathering spaces, a pool area, and a rooftop terrace. The project is proposed to comply with the City’s GM/ROLM Focus Area Development Standards and is proposed in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site & State Density Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-Application: 24PLN-00111) NOI sent 1/16/25 Resubmittal 1/31/25 NOI Sent 2/21/25 Master Sign Program 11/7/24 24PLN-00322 340 Portage Av Mixed-Use Master Sign Program for the installation of 2 Project ID Monuments, 2 Entry ID's, 2 Parking ID's, 2 Directional Wall signs, 1 Brand/Tenant ID Wall sign, and 2 Tenant ID Canopy signs at The Cannery Palo Alto. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). Environmental Assessment: Pending. NOI sent 1/09/25 Resubmittal 3/27/25 ARB 5/15 rec. to continue date uncertain Minor Architectural Review 12/03/24 24PLN-00339 2280 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review for the exterior and interior remodel of the existing Jack in the Box restaurant. Modification to the exterior of the building include the removal of the mansard roof, installation of new parapets, new finishes and branding panels. No increase in building footprint. NOI sent 1/22/25 Resubmittal 2/21/25 NOI sent 3/26/25 Item 1 Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects Packet Pg. 11 Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit 12/8/24 24PLN-00356 24PLN-00357 (Map) 2100 Geng Rd Housing – 137 Units Tentative Map/Subdivision and Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the transformation of an existing underutilized business park at 2100-2400 Geng Road into a new residential neighborhood with 137 multi-family townhome units and community space. Project site totals approximately 11-acres. NOI sent 1/24/25 Resubmittal on 4/16/25 NOI sent 5/22/25 Minor Architectural Review 2/6/2025 25PLN-00027 180 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board review for Cedar & Sage restaurant (formally Terrain Cafe) at Space #1301, Bldg. DD at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new textured plaster and painted façade, new storefront glazing, and bi-folding door system, remodeled outdoor patio, new retractable canopy system, new railing, landscape planters, and new signage. Interior improvements will include partial interior remodel. No change of use, no new square footage. NOI sent 3/10/25 Resubmittal on 4/8/25 Tentatively scheduled 7/17 Minor Architectural Review 4/07/25 25PLN-00092 180 El Camino Real Commercial Request for Minor Board Architectural Review to allow for exterior improvements including painting, new entry door, glazing, patio, and new signage for proposed Ralph Lauren & Ralph's Coffee approximately 5,200 Square Foot, Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). NOI sent 5/14 Resubmitted 6/9 Minor Architectural Review 4/16/25 25PLN-00100 975 Paige Mill Rd Commercial Minor Board review for the renovation of an existing building (approximately 50,000 square feet) with no net change in the building area proposed and a request for Conditional Use Permit for a new cafe (retail service use - 3,769 square feet) with Alcohol Service within the renovated building. ARB 7/3 Item 1 Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects Packet Pg. 12 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 10 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 3, 2025 Report #: 2506-4813 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 975 Page Mill Road [25PLN-00100]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow Façade Modifications to an Existing 50,527-Square-Foot Office Building and a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Fin Sun Shades to Encroach Approximately One Foot into Special Setbacks on Both Hansen Way and Page Mill Road. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Conversion of Office Space to an Eating and Drinking Use. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Research Park District (RP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception applications based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project includes a request for Major Architectural Review to remodel an existing 50,527-square-foot office building located at 975 Page Mill Road. The project includes modifications that reconfigure existing floor area while maintaining the same floor area ratio across the site. Exterior modifications include façade changes, circulation and landscape modifications, and added vehicle parking in areas previously identified as landscape parking reserve. The modified building facades will include new shading devices and all-electric systems to meet Palo Alto Tier 2 and CalGreen standards. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is requested to allow new horizontal and vertical fins to encroach approximately one foot (12.5 inches on the Hansen Way façade and 11.25 inches on the Page Mill Road facade) into the 50-foot special setbacks on these respective streets. The Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 10 DEE also includes requests for stairwells to encroach into the required setback and the plans reflect a low wall around the patio as well as umbrellas that encroach substantially into the special setback. Staff recommends approval of the shade fins but does not recommend approval of the other encroachments. The project also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a new ground floor café (eating and drinking use). Staff finds that the project is consistent with relevant plans, policies and regulations adopted by the City and recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project, which selected modifications, to the Director of Planning and Development Services. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:The Board of Trusties of The Leland Stanford Jr. University Owner Representative:Jim Inglis Architectural Company:Heather Young, Heather Young Architects Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:975 Page Mill Rd Neighborhood:Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area:600.58 feet x 726.68 feet; 435,600 square feet (10 acres) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:California Olive Emerson Plume (a small portion of the southeastern corner of the 10-acre site is identified within the mapped plume; however, the area of work is not located within the COE plume) Protected/Heritage Trees:One protected tree (see discussion below) Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):975 Page Mill: 50,527 square feet; 34 feet 6 inches; 1998 925 Page Mill (No change): 123,628 square feet; 2 stories; 1998 Existing Land Use(s):Research & Development Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PC-4637 (Planned Community); existing Office and Hotel Uses West: RP (Research Park); existing Research and Development Uses East: RP (Research Park); existing Research and Development Uses South: RP (Research Park); existing Research and Development Uses Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 10 Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Research and Office Park Zoning Designation:RP (Research Park) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and are subject to ARB review: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 10 affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. •Design Enhancement Exception – DEE: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Section 18.76.050. DEE applications are reviewed by the staff and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. DEE projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve the DEE application are provided in Attachment B. The following discretionary application is being requested and is not subject to ARB review: •Conditional Use Permit – CUP: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Section 18.76.010. CUP applications are reviewed by the staff and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. CUP projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve the CUP application are provided in Attachment B. Site Context and Background The project site is located at the intersection of Page Mill Road and Hansen Way with the Stanford Research Park. The buildings located at 975 and 925 Page Mill Road were constructed together in 1997. The building at 975 Page Mill Road, which is “L”-shaped, is situated prominently at the corner of Page Mill Road and Hansen Way. A “clipped” corner treatment exists at the primary vehicular entrance along Page Mill Road. Utility access is provided from Hansen Way, and trash and electrical enclosures are located within a small, detached structure at the interior corner of the building. The existing structure consists of two-story concrete tilt-up panels with punched window openings and setback green-tinted glazing on most façades. The primary entry façade, facing the Page Mill Road parking lot, features a green-tinted and white spandrel glass curtain wall system above a ground-floor arcade with multiple entry doors. A large, paved plaza with small Ginkgo trees separates the parking lot from the building entrance. The building’s flat roof includes mechanical equipment screened by green standing seam metal panels set back from the edges. A gabled metal roof element defines the curtain wall entry bar and extends outward to form distinctive triangular “beaks.” This architectural vocabulary is consistent with the design of the adjacent building at 925 Page Mill Road. The scope of the proposed project is limited to 975 Page Mill Road and the adjacent parking areas fronting Page Mill Road and Hansen Way. No changes are proposed for 925 Page Mill Road. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 2. Page 5 of 10 Project Description The applicant requests approval for modifications to an existing 50,527-square-foot office building and associated surface parking lot located at 975 Page Mill Road. An existing approximately 123,628-square-foot office building at 925 Page Mill Road is also located on the same leasehold parcel. As part of the architectural reconfiguration, the previously “clipped” entry corner facing Page Mill Road will be infilled by relocating and realigning a 24-foot 6-inch structural bay closest to 925 Page Mill Road allowing for an expanded outdoor plaza between the two buildings. The overall floor area of the building (50, 527 square feet) will not change. Combined, the two buildings on this leasehold parcel will maintain a total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.39:1. The new exterior will be composed primarily of large-format, off-white terracotta panels with varying vertical rib projections. Zinc-clad panels will compliment these surfaces and be used at secondary entrances and to accent window pairings across the elevations. New walking paths, outdoor seating, and gathering areas are proposed. The existing entry plaza will be redeveloped to provide ADA-accessible parking, delivery access, and a wide central staircase marking the new main entrance. The new plaza will be at grade with the ground floor and span the full width of the building’s entry façade to facilitate seamless transitions between indoor and outdoor spaces. A new high trellis is proposed to wrap around the building’s east corner, offering shaded seating for a future café. A Conditional Use Permit is proposed to allow for the cafe (eating and drinking) use. The proposed café is 3,769 square feet, which includes both the indoor seating area and back-of-house operations. The café is intended to serve both on-site employees and workers from neighboring Stanford Research Park (SRP) properties, supporting Comprehensive Plan policies that encourage workplace amenities and active ground-floor uses. The anticipated operating hours are Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with the café closed on weekends. The existing trash enclosure will be expanded to accommodate the needs of the proposed café and to incorporate new amenity spaces for bicycle storage and site utility storage. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is requested to allow certain façade elements— specifically, zinc composite shadow boxes and vertical sunshades located at the first and second-floor windows—to project approximately 12 inches (maximum of 12.5 inches) into the required 50-foot Special Setback along both the Page Mill Road and Hansen Way frontages. In addition, the applicant proposes new stairs and handrails within both the Page Mill Road and Hansen Way special setbacks as well as a small wall surrounding an at-grade patio with large umbrellas that encroach within the special setback on Hansen Way. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 2. Page 6 of 10 ANALYSIS1 Staff reviewed the proposed project for conformance with relevant plans, policies, and regulations and finds that the project is mostly in conformance with these requirements as well as the Architectural Review, Conditional Use, and Design Enhancement Exception findings as detailed further in this section. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project, with the condition that the plans be modified to remove the stair, wall, and shade structure encroachments in the required special setbacks. Additionally, the plans are still being reviewed by some departments to address minor comments prior to approval. However, any final modifications to address these comments are not anticipated to affect the architectural design or site plan in a meaningful way. These items would need to be addressed prior to the Director’s approval of the proposed plans. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan designates the project site as Research/Office Park (RP), which is intended to accommodate a limited range of research, development, and manufacturing uses that may require enhanced access to space, light, and air within a research park setting. The designation encourages the development of premium research and development facilities, while also allowing for compatible commercial and retail services that support surrounding employment uses—subject to approval through the CUP process. The applicant is proposing to maintain and remodel an existing office building. This use is consistent with this land use designation. The project includes conversion of 3,769 square feet of the existing office space to an eating and drinking use (ground floor café) which the applicant states is intended to serve employees within the building and the broader Stanford Research Park. The proposed café, if permitted through the requested conditional use permit, is consistent with the RP land use designation. It also supports Comprehensive Plan policies by encouraging small business growth, enhancing on-site amenities, and helping to reduce auto dependency by providing convenient food service options within walking and biking distance for nearby workers: •Program L5.1.1: Explore with Stanford University various development options for adding to the Stanford Research Park a diverse mix of uses, including residential, commercial hotel, conference center, commercial space for small businesses and start- ups, retail, transit hub and other community supporting services that are compatible with the existing uses, to create a vibrant innovation-oriented community. •Policy B-4.2: Attract and support small businesses, start-ups, non-profit organizations, and professional services, which are vital to a diverse and innovative economy. •Policy B-4.3: Promote the growth of small businesses and start-ups. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 2. Page 7 of 10 •Policy B-7.4: Identify opportunities along the El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park where commercial services serving Research Park employees and visitors might be created. •Policy B-7.5: Encourage incubator businesses in Stanford Research Park. •Policy T1.19.1 through T1.19.5 to improve site amenities, prioritize pedestrian access, promote biking and public transit to reduce auto dependency. A summary of the complete project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Zoning Compliance3 Staff prepared a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards (Attachment D) and found that the proposed project complies with all applicable codes or deviates from the code in a manner consistent with the zoning ordinance (specifically through the Design Enhancement Exception Process. Design Enhancement Exception •The applicant has requested a Design Enhancement Exception for the following: Zinc composite shadow boxes and vertical sunshades located at the first and second-floor windows—to project approximately 12 inches (maximum of 12.5 inches) into the required 50-foot Special Setback along both the Page Mill Road and Hansen Way frontages •Stairs and associated handrails that encroach into the required setback on Page Mill Road and El Camino Real Additionally, although not specifically requested, a low wall and umbrellas encroach substantially into the required setback on Hansen Way. The project site at 975 Page Mill Road occupies a unique corner lot at the intersection of Page Mill Road and Hansen Way. As such, it is subject to dual 50-foot Special Setbacks along both street frontages. This dual-frontage condition creates a more restrictive development envelope along the frontages than is typical within the Research Park (RP) zoning district, where most parcels are subject to only a single Special Setback along a primary street. Additionally, unlike new construction on undeveloped land, the existing building’s layout, orientation, and massing constrain the range of feasible design solutions. The proposed sun fins are intended to enhance solar performance and provide architectural articulation. These elements would project no more than 12.5 inches into the Special Setback and do not expand the building footprint or compromise the site’s functional design. The combination of dual setbacks and the constraints associated with adaptive reuse presents a condition that is not commonly found elsewhere in the district. These unique circumstances 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 2. Page 8 of 10 justify the minor encroachments as part of a broader effort to achieve a high-quality, contemporary design. Because the proposed projections are modest in scale, do not increase usable floor area, and are located well above pedestrian level, they present no impacts to circulation, visibility, or access. However, staff does not support the proposed encroachment of the stairs and handrail, nor the umbrellas and low wall within the required special setbacks. While these features do provide additional pedestrian connections and features; ultimately these modifications that more significantly encroach into the special setback are not necessary to maintain the high quality of design for the project and do not substantially contribute to improving the design in a manner that is consistent with the DEE findings. The proposed at grade patio can still be provided with removable tables, chairs, and umbrellas. A pedestrian connection can continue to be provided from the southern end of the patio, which connects to the ADA compliant ramp to the deck, which is located within the required setback. Therefore, the proposed findings for approval in Attachment B set forth draft findings for approval of the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for the sun fins. Multi-Modal Access and Parking The proposed project includes upgrades to the site’s parking layout, circulation, and multi- modal infrastructure. Parking A significant number of existing parking spaces on the project site are currently located within an approved landscape parking reserve originally approved under a 1997 Architectural Review Board (ARB) action for 925 Page Mill Road. Landscape parking reserve areas were approved for future parking to accommodate increased parking demand but are landscaped in the meantime. The project removes 43 substandard compact parking spaces and narrow drive aisles currently located within the Landscape Reserve area and proposes 33 code compliant spaces within standard width drive-aisles within the reserve areas. Under the revised parking plane, a total of 493 parking spaces would be provided on site with an additional 106 spaces remaining in landscape parking reserve for a total of 599 spaces. The project also provides designated short-term parking zones for rideshare, delivery, and service/loading vehicles where the existing site did not provide any of these. Six new EV charging stations and eleven EV-capable spaces are also provided to support future demand. The applicant proposes 46 total bicycle parking spaces, exceeding City requirements. Multi-Modal Circulation The site is currently served by existing bicycle lanes on both Page Mill Road and Hansen Way. The project provides new accessible paths of travel from Page Mill Road and Hansen Way, linking the sidewalk to secondary entrances. A new accessible patio is also provided on Hansen Way. The new hardscape pathways are designed to wind through landscaped areas and create Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 2. Page 9 of 10 seating zones, creating a continuous pedestrian and bicycle route around the building, clearly separated from vehicular circulation areas. Trees One protected tree (tree #893) would be removed. However, a total of 46 trees are proposed for removal and eight (8) trees are proposed to be transplanted due to their location in the landscape parking reserve area. The project proposes 74 new 36-inch and 48-inch box trees and therefore meets the canopy replacement requirements. Consistency with Application Findings Staff finds that the proposed project is thoughtfully designed to align with the character of the site, while ensuring consistency in quality, placement, size, color, and illumination methods. The Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception findings are provided in Attachment B and may be modified by the ARB as needed. Although not subject to the ARB’s review, the Conditional Use Permit findings are also provided for reference. As detailed in the attachment, staff finds that the project is consistent with the relevant findings for approval. However, staff recommends that the project be modified to remove elements of the Design Enhancement Exception request that encroach into the required special setbacks other than the proposed sun fins around the windows. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT There is no fiscal or resource impact associated with this application. The application is a cost recovery project and staff time is charged to the applicant. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 20, 2025, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 19, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City, acting as the lead agency, finds the project to be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), because the proposed project includes modifications to an existing building and the changes in use will involve negligible or no expansion of the existing use. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 Item No. 2. Page 10 of 10 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain with specific direction; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft ARB, CUP, and DEE Findings Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 496-6945 (650) 329-2321 Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 4 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 22 HANOVER STREET HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY PAGE MILL R MINO REAL Ramos Way (Private) EL CAMINO REAL E 3100 Bldg 4 3120 Bldg 4A 3130 Bldg 4B 3140 Bldg 4C 755 1001 3000 630 660 642 650 640 620 7 770 312 2999 775 2951 29 3001 3075 950 845 835 700 900 920 950 850 600 620 911 050 Building 4C Building 3A VarianBuilding 3 Building 4 Building 4A BLDG 5 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 Building 2 Building 3 Building 4 Palo Alto Square BLDG 2 Building 1 A Building 7 B BLDG 1 BLDG 6 PF PC-4637 2700 855 777 620 2999 2999 3120 3120 3100 3100 3140 3140 3130 3130 950 640 640 835 835 3128 312 911 950 950 900 900 850 850 700 700 600 600 620 620 630 630 955 920 920 3051 965 976 2951290 3000 3000 303001 2780 925 925 3075 3075 845 845 755 755 7 764 76 770 770800 1001 1001 775 775 650 650 660 660 975 999 999 642 642 601 2790 2798 050 PF PC-4637 Hansen Way Substation Page Mill Rd This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Parcel 0'190' ATTACHMENT ALocation Map975 Page Mill Rd CITYOF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altokpaulau, 2025-06-11 16:34:32 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) RP Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map Packet Pg. 23 4 3 2 1 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 975 Page Mill Road/25PLN-00100 The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed remodel and reconfiguration of the existing building at 975 Page Mill Road reflect key principles of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, and relevant design guidelines. The project supports a high-quality, pedestrian-friendly environment by introducing updated architecture, outdoor seating areas, and improved landscaping. It contributes to the revitalization of an aging building while remaining compatible with the surrounding character of Stanford Research Park. The proposed uses are consistent with the land use designation and, with approval of the CUP for the eating and drinking use, the permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in the zoning ordinance. The site design improves connections and user experience through new accessible pathways, enhanced bike infrastructure, and a reconfigured entry plaza that strengthens the relationship between the building and its setting. The project complies with development standards, including floor area limits, permitted uses, and other requirements except where the project deviates from the standards in a manner consistent with the zoning ordinance. Specifically, the project includes a request for a Design Enhancement Exception that enables architectural refinement through minor façade projections that enhance building articulation. These minor encroachments are consistent with the allowances set forth in the code, with approval of the DEE. The findings for approval of the DEE are included within this approval letter. Overall, the project thoughtfully modernizes the existing structure while maintaining contextual sensitivity and supporting citywide goals for sustainability, workplace amenities, and design excellence. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: Item 2 Attachment B - Draft ARB, CUP, and DEE Findings Packet Pg. 24 4 3 2 1 This finding can be made in the affirmative, as the proposed project at 975 Page Mill Road demonstrates a unified and coherent design by creating a clear internal layout with improved circulation, ADA access, and inviting outdoor spaces for occupants and visitors. It respects existing natural features to the extent feasible, preserving all but one protected tree on the site. Where trees within landscape parking reserve area will be removed to accommodate the increased parking demand of the eating and drinking use. Tree replacement planting is proposed to replace the tree canopy in accordance with Title 8. The project uses high-quality materials and refined architectural detailing that reflect the character of the surrounding Research Park. The project maintains appropriate scale and massing, ensuring a harmonious transition to adjacent buildings, and enhances user experience through sustainable features, shaded seating, and pedestrian-friendly amenities—all consistent with the context and design intent of the RP zoning district. Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project incorporates high-quality, durable materials and a cohesive design that enhances the site's visual appeal and complements the surrounding area. The use of off-white terracotta panels with subtle ribbed textures, zinc-clad shadow boxes and sunshades, and refined glazing details creates a modern and cohesive façade. Integrated shading devices and coordinated colors provide depth, visual interest, and energy efficiency. The selection and application of materials, combined with precise construction techniques, result in a unified architectural expression that is both aesthetically pleasing and contextually appropriate for the Stanford Research Park. Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: This finding can be made in the affirmative by prioritizing safe, efficient, and accessible circulation for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. It introduces new ADA-compliant pathways, widened drive aisles, and clearly defined pedestrian zones that separate foot and bike traffic from vehicles. The reconfigured parking lot removes substandard compact spaces and replaces them with code-compliant standard spaces, while also providing short-term loading areas and electric vehicle infrastructure. Bicycle access is enhanced with dedicated parking exceeding City requirements. Additionally, site utilities and service areas are thoughtfully integrated, and outdoor spaces are arranged to support both building operations and user comfort. Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Item 2 Attachment B - Draft ARB, CUP, and DEE Findings Packet Pg. 25 4 3 2 1 The project complies with Finding #5 by incorporating a thoughtfully designed landscape plan that enhances both the building and its surroundings. The proposed outdoor spaces—including new plazas, patios, and walkways—are framed by plantings that support a cohesive and inviting environment. The landscaping complements the modern architectural design and is tailored to the building’s functions, such as shaded seating areas near the café and gathering zones along pedestrian routes. Additionally, the plan emphasizes the use of regionally appropriate, drought-tolerant species that promote sustainability and can be easily maintained, aligning with City goals for water conservation and habitat value. Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The project complies with Finding #6 by prioritizing sustainability through multiple integrated design strategies. It transforms the existing building into a high-performance, all-electric workplace that meets Palo Alto Tier 2 and CALGreen standards. Key sustainable features include the reuse of existing structures to reduce demolition waste and embodied carbon, the use of high-performance cladding systems, passive solar shading, and daylighting strategies to improve energy efficiency. Water conservation is supported through drought-tolerant landscaping, while rooftop solar panels and advanced building systems reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy. Overall, the project’s site planning, materials, and systems demonstrate a strong commitment to environmental sustainability. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft ARB, CUP, and DEE Findings Packet Pg. 26 4 3 2 1 CUP FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the Director to make a finding of approval for the requested Conditional Use Permit, the project must comply with the following Findings as required in Chapter 18.76.010 (c) of the PAMC. Finding #1: The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed eating and drinking use at 975 Page Mill Road complies with Finding #1 by enhancing, rather than detracting from, the surrounding area. The café is designed to serve on-site employees and other members of the public, including neighboring workers within the Stanford Research Park, providing a convenient amenity that supports walkability and active ground-floor use. It is integrated into an existing office site with adequate infrastructure and circulation. No adverse impacts to adjacent properties are anticipated. The project includes improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access, accessible paths, and safe vehicle circulation, thereby promoting public safety and general welfare. The project complies with the necessary requirements for waste storage and pickup. Additionally, the café’s scale and operation are consistent with similar uses in the area. Therefore the proposed use would not create nuisances or health concerns. Finding #2: The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed eating and drinking use complies with Finding #2 as it aligns with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan’s goals to promote workplace amenities, active ground-floor uses, and a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly environment. It supports the Research Park zoning district’s intent by providing a compatible retail-like use that enhances the campus atmosphere without conflicting with surrounding office uses. The project’s design and operation meet zoning requirements, including the need for a Conditional Use Permit, ensuring that the use is appropriate for the location and consistent with the City’s land use policies and regulations. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft ARB, CUP, and DEE Findings Packet Pg. 27 4 3 2 1 DEE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a recommendation of approval for a Design Enhancement Exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC. Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The subject site at 975 Page Mill Road occupies a unique corner location at the intersection of Page Mill Road and Hansen Way and is subject to dual 50-foot Special Setbacks along both street frontages. This double-frontage condition imposes a more restrictive development envelope than is typical for parcels in the Research Park (RP) zoning district, where most properties have only one Special Setback along a primary street. Additionaly, the project involves the adaptive reuse and architectural reconfiguration of an existing two-story concrete tilt-up office building originally constructed in 1997. Unlike new construction on vacant land, this site’s existing structural layout, orientation, and massing constrain the range of feasible design solutions. These constraints create an extraordinary condition requiring thoughtful interventions to modernize the building while working within established physical parameters. The proposed sunshades and shadow boxes, which modestly project into the Special Setback (a maximum of 12.5 inches into the 50 foot setback), are a direct response to these conditions. They allow the architectural design of the building to be modified in a manner that enhances solar performance and visual articulation without expanding the building footprint or compromising functional site design. These circumstance, specifically the dual setbacks and constraints of adaptive reuse, represent conditions not commonly found elsewhere in the zone and justify the minor projections as part of a broader effort to achieve high-quality, contemporary design. Finding #2: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The requested exception allows the inclusion of zinc composite shadow boxes and vertical sunshades that modestly project into the required 50-foot Special Setback along Page Mill Road and Hansen Way. These elements are integral to the building’s updated architectural design and contribute to the overall articulation, texture, and rhythm of the façades. By introducing depth and visual contrast, the projections enhance the architectural identity of the building and modernize its appearance in a manner that complements the existing context of the Stanford Research Park. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft ARB, CUP, and DEE Findings Packet Pg. 28 4 3 2 1 Overall, the exception facilitates a higher level of design quality that enhances the site’s appearance, reinforces neighborhood character, and aligns with the architectural review findings, which encourage thoughtful massing, contextual design, and pedestrian-oriented development. These enhancements would not be feasible under strict application of the setback standards, which would prohibit even minor projections of non-habitable features. Granting the exception enables a more refined and contemporary design outcome that improves the visual character of the building from both public frontages. Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The requested exception involves minor architectural projections such as zinc composite shadow boxes and vertical sunshades that extend no more than 12.5 inches into the required 50-foot Special Setback. These elements are limited in depth and are carefully integrated into the building’s design to enhance visual interest and provide functional shading. Because the projections are modest in scale, do not add usable floor area, and are located well above pedestrian level, they pose no risk to circulation, visibility, or access. Additionally, the surrounding context, composed primarily of other office buildings within the Stanford Research Park, includes wide setbacks, landscaped buffers, and generous separation between structures. The proposed projections do not encroach into pedestrian pathways or conflict with adjacent development. They serve a clear architectural and environmental purpose and contribute positively to the building’s appearance without introducing any physical or visual impacts to neighboring properties or the public realm. As such, the proposed exception is for a minor, well-considered feature that will not be detrimental or injurious to the area and complies fully with this finding. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft ARB, CUP, and DEE Findings Packet Pg. 29 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 975 Page Mill Rd 25PLN-00100 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "975 Page Mill Renovation, 975 Page Mill RD, Palo Alto, CA 94301” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on June 25, 2025, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Transportation, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit and shall incorporate the following changes: a. On Sheet A1.01 all stairs, railings, walls, and permanently installed shade structures shall be removed from the required Special setbacks along Hansen Way and Page Mill Road. b. Indoor and outdoor alcohol service areas must be clearly delineated on the plans submitted for building permit on Sheet A1.20. 4. COLORS AND MATERIALS. The final colors must align with the colors and materials approved by the architectural review board. 5. SIGNAGE. This approval does not include any signage or modifications to the approved signs on site. New signage or modifications to existing signage would be required to submit for a separate review and approval by the Planning Department. 6. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 7. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 8. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning. Contact your Project Planner, Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 30 9. At the Building Permit stage submit existing floor plans and demo plans at each level to understand the scope of work from before and after. Amend plans/details to call out 'existing' or 'new' construction. 10. Provide occupancy separation between A2 and B. 11. Core bathrooms - submit plumbing fixture calculations and show compliance with current accessibility requirements. 12. Illustrate compliance with 11b-202.4, CBC. 13. Refer to the TI plan checklist for additional submittal requirements: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development- Services/Apply-for-a-Permit/Apply-for-a-Building-Permit PWD ENGINEERING 14. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third- party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Submit the following: a. Provide a stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2024 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/2024/09/19/provision-c-3-data-form-2024/ b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 15. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 16. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. 17. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS SHEET: The Department of Public Work’s full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet shall be included in the improvement plans and the applicant shall comply with all conditions listed in the sheet. The sheet can be obtained from a staff member of Public Works Engineering Services or at the following link under “Public Works Plan Review Documents”: 18. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and- Permits URBAN FORESTRY 19. URBAN FORESTRY GENERAL: The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. No waste material or construction byproducts are allowed within the TPZ. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated, and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 31 20. TREE DAMAGE: Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation, and Inspections apply to the Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures, and arborist inspection schedule may apply pursuant to TLTM, Section 5.03.6. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and City of Palo Alto Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, Section 3.02. 21. TPZ EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY - TLTM, Sec. 3.03.6 - B5,6: Any approved grading, digging, potholing, or trenching within the TPZ of a protected tree shall be performed using ‘air- spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. (TPZ= 10x the tree diameter at 54" above grade) For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with a diameter of 2 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then CPA Standard Detail #504 shall be printed on the final plans and the buffer distances in TLTM Table 3-4, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be implemented by Contractor. Contractor must notify the Urban Forestry Section at (650) 496- 5953 in advance of conducting any approved excavation within 10-feet of any street trees (or for any protected tree on EVSE projects). Urban Forestry may choose to monitor or review the work for compliance with the City’s Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) excavation standards. 22. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, and construction scheduling as stated in the Tree Preservation Report and/or T-1 Sheet Set and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until the final landscaping or Urban Forestry inspection of the project is completed. 23. PLAN CHANGES: Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to Planning and Development Services Department for review by Planning, Public Works, or Urban Forestry. 24. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS: The final Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the location, DBH, canopy drip-line, and TPZ of all trees 4 inches DBH or greater as well as the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. T-1 SHEET SET, The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, T-1 Sheet Set (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website. A certified arborist shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement. ZERO WASTE 25. For the outdoor patio area if the project includes adding refuse bins for staff or visitors to use please indicate the number and location on the plans. See requirements below. 26. Internal/External Refuse Bins If the scope of work involves installing internal and/or external refuse bins, then following requirements apply. Refer to Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 - Requirements for owners or managers of multifamily properties and commercial premises. Any location where refuse bins will be installed shall have three bins - recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Show on the plans where the bins will be placed. The three types of refuse bins must be placed right next to each other. Provide cut sheets for the types of refuse bins (recycle, compost, and landfill) that will be used, any related millwork and colored signage. 27. Locations where refuse bins may be located include common area such as entrances, lobbies, conference rooms, back of the house kitchen, cafés, breakrooms, and dining areas (if applicable). The only exceptions are restrooms, copy areas, and mother’s room. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 32 •Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. For wall mounted bins, signage must be placed on the bin. •Copy areas and mail areas must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). •Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. •Laboratory sinks need at least a compost container. A recycling container and a landfill container may also be required depending on waste generated in the lab. 28. If refuse bins will be placed inside a cabinet, then provide cut-sheets for the millwork. The front of the cabinet doors shall have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, extending the full width of the cabinet door. If there are openings on top of the millwork then the holes need be colored. Signage must also be provided on the containers and on front of the cabinet doors. 29. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items that are acceptable to place into the bin and words or text of items which are not acceptable to be placed into the bin. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, GreenWaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. 30. Commercial: Custodial Bag Requirements PAMC 5.20.030 31. Businesses are required, if they chose to use plastic bags to line their bins, to use blue see- through bags for recyclable materials, green compostable see-through bags for compost waste and clear bags for landfill waste. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 33 Page 1 of 2 2 6 3 9 ATTACHMENT D ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 975 Page Mill Road, 25PLN-00100 Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Lot Size 1 acre (43,560 sf)10 acres (435,600 sf)No Change Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (Page Mill Rd)50 ft special setback 50 ft 49'-3/4" Rear Yard 20 ft 524 ft 524 ft Interior Side Yard 20 ft 0 ft 0 ft Street Side Yard (Hansen Way)50 ft special setback 50 ft 48'-11 1/2" Special Setback Pursuant to Code Section 20.08 50 ft 48'-11 1/2" (DEE requested) Minimum yard (ft) for the site lines abutting or opposite residential district 20 ft Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Site Coverage 30 % (130,680 sf) 28 % (120,387 sf)28 % (120,678 sf) Maximum Height 35 ft 34 ft 6inches 34 ft 6 inches Portions of a site within 150 ft of an abutting residential district 35 (4) ft Not Applicable Not Applicable Portions of a site within 40 ft of an abutting residential district 25 ft Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (174,240 sf)0.39:1 (174,155 sf)0.39:1 (174,155sf) Daylight Plane for site lines having any part abutting one or more residential districts Initial Height _ (2)Not Applicable Not Applicable Slope _ (2)Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes 1) For any property designated GM and fronting on East Bayshore Road a minimum setback of 20 feet along that frontage is established. 2) Daylight plane requirements shall be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting the side or rear site line. Such daylight planes shall begin at the applicable site lines and increase at the specified slope until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the MOR district. 3) In the MOR district, no required parking or loading space shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. 4) See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations in the ROLM and RP zoning districts. 5) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. Item 2 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 34 Page 2 of 2 2 6 3 9 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Type Required Existing Proposed Conforms? Office 46,758 sf and 120,524 sf Vehicle Parking (both sites) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 1 Office/R&D Uses: 1 per 300 sf of gross floor area Eating and Drinking Uses: 1 space for each 60 sf of public service area, plus 1 space for each 200 sf all other areas Office/R&D: total/300= 558 (975 Page Mill – 156 spaces; 925 Page Mill – 402 spaces) Eating and Drinking (3,769 sf): 34+10=41 460 +149 reserve parking spaces =609 total 493 +106 reserve parking spaces= 599 total Yes Bicycle Parking (975 Page Mill Rd only) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 1 Office/R&D Uses: 1 space per 3,000 sf 80% Long Term (LT) 20% Short Term (ST) Eating and Drinking Uses: 1 space per 600 sf plus 1 space per 2,000 sf for other areas 16 spaces 12 LT 4 ST 3+1=4 Not clear 46 spaces 12 LT 34 ST Yes 925 Page Mill Bike Parking Not Applicable 17 ST 27 LT 17 ST 27 LT Yes, to remain Loading Space Research and development projects between 100,000-1999,999 sf in size require 2 loading spaces=2 loading spaces 0 1 No; legal noncomplyi ng (project improves compliance) Item 2 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 35 ATTACHMENT E Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Architectural Review Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Scroll down to find “975 Page Mill Rd” and open the record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. You will find links to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/975-Page-Mill-Rd Item 2 Attachment E - Project Plans Packet Pg. 36 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 3, 2025 Report #: 2506-4875 TITLE Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, make any necessary revisions, and submit the finalized Work Plan to the City Council. BACKGROUND The ARB Chair is expected to prepare an annual report/work plan by the second quarter of each calendar year with help from staff and their fellow Board members. City Council reviews the plan and provides feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. The plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan and activities included in the board’s work for the next fiscal year. The Council Handbook has a template for work plan development. If new issues arise during the year, the work plan can be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval. On April 17, 2025, the ARB reviewed the first draft of the 25/26 Work Plan and provided initial comments. Said comments were incorporated into the Work Plan (Attachment A) for the Board’s review and approval. ANALYSIS An ARB annual report is required in the By-Laws and reviews the prior year, while the Council’s new work plan requirement is to look forward on the next fiscal year. A draft document including both has been prepared by the ARB Chair and staff (Attachment A) using Council’s provided template. The attached document includes a summary of the ARB’s accomplishments from last year and how they aligned with last year’s work plan goals. It also suggests new goals for the ARB over the next year. The ARB is asked to review this document, suggest updates, and add any additional tasks as needed. Council is scheduled to review this plan—as well as all Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 37 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 other board and commission work plans—and adopt any changes to this plan in September 2025. If an additional hearing is needed prior to the ARB taking action, a third hearing can be scheduled in August 2025. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Adoption of the proposed work plan is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b) because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the work plan would not have an environmental impact on the environment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft ARB 25/26 Work Plan and Annual Report AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: ARB@PaloAlto.gov. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 38 Architectural Review Board 2025-2026 Workplan Staff Liaison: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner Lead Department: Current Planning, Planning and Development Services Division About the Board The Architectural Review Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.21. Residency is not required. For the ARB webpage go to bit.ly/paloaltoARB. Boardmembers •David Hirsch •Kendra Rosenberg (Chair) •Marton Jojarth •Mousam Adcock •Yingxi Chen (Vice Chair) Mission Statement The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on the building design, site planning, landscape planning, massing and facades, material selection, lighting, signage and other related issues for most major new construction including additions and renovations that alter the exterior building face. The type of buildings reviewed include commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential. In addition, the ARB is a resource as knowledgeable observers of many varied urban environments, to assist Palo Alto as it develops area plans to accommodate additional housing. The ARB Scope of Review is fully noted in Title 18 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 under Section 18.76.020 as well as in Chapter 18.77 under Section 18.77.073. Prior Year Accomplishments •See attached summary for more information. Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 39 PROJECT/GOAL 1:Review Planning applications for conformance with ARB Findings and Objective Standards BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED This is the Board's main mission and serves to ensure the City develops high quality projects On-Going Planning staff prepare staff reports, packets and presentations. They ensure paper plan sets and material boards are ready for ARB review. Other departments, such as, City Attorney, Urban Forestry, Transportation, etc., may be required from time to time. Consultants, including CEQA consultants, may also be required. Issuance of recommendations on projects and high-quality architecture throughout the City. Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE N/A PROJECT/GOAL 2: Provide feedback to staff and Council on the creation of new guidelines, ordinances, and/or streetscapes, as directed by Council BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED The ARB has unique feedback to provide as a stakeholder as they have interest in approving the aesthetic environment of the City while also understanding constraints that architects/developers may come across when implementing standards being considered Anticipated to return to the Board in spring/summer 2025 Staff time. Council Approval Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Housing generation and feasibility. •Innovative housing structures (e.g., micro-units, intergenerational housing, aging adults, students and lower-income units, etc.) consistent with Housing Element Program 6.5. Yes PROJECT/GOAL 3: Assist the City as it considers modifications to Objective Standards; Provide feedback based on research from projects as they go through the objective standards ministerial processes. Suggest ways to better address different housing typology. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Streamline the objective standard review process and ensure that projects using the streamlined review process/objective standards conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Goals and Policies, including its high-quality design standards Provide high level modifications to objective standards to Council by the end of FY 2026; If directed by Council, work with staff to propose specific code language for Council adopted by the end of FY 2026 Additional staff at Planning so that the quality and completeness of the work is maintained. Council Approval No Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 40 PROJECT/GOAL 3: Assist the City as it considers modifications to Objective Standards; Provide feedback based on research from projects as they go through the objective standards ministerial processes. Suggest ways to better address different housing typology. HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Modifications to South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA) subjective development standards with objective standards consistent with Housing Element Program 3.7. •Modifications to address objective standards (18.24) based on review of several projects using the standards at Council’s direction. Yes PROJECT/GOAL 4: Discuss specific Coordinated Area Plans/ streetscape improvements and provide comments that the ARB would recommend exploring/implementing. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED This project would enhance implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. On-going Planning staff to help research policies and programs; coordination with long range planning section staff. Increased adherence to Comprehensive Plan policies Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •San Antonio Road Area Plan•Downtown Housing Plan •California Avenue streetscape improvements•University Avenue streetscape improvements Yes PROJECT/GOAL 5: Improve Coordination between the Architectural Review Board and other boards, commissions, and Council. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Improved coordination between boards/commissions and council to get feedback from colleagues on other boards. Provide more coordinated feedback from the City for developers. On-going Staff time. •Have staff continue to provide updates in the pending projects attachment on development proposals. •The ARB can appoint a representative to attend Council and PTC and to provide feedback on reviewed projects. No HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE No Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 41 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ANNUAL REPORT PRIOR YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ARB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 ITEMS OF NOTE •The ARB reviewed roughly 100 projects for the 2025 Design Awards and selected six winners to recognize their contributions to Palo Alto. •The ARB provided a comprehensive review and made recommendations on updates to the objective standards to better address townhome style designs and modifications to SB 9 objective standards. This work was consistent with Goal 2 of the 24/25 Work Plan. •The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to Car Free Streets Implementation Plan, specifically for California Avenue Signage. Although not explicitly identified in the work plan, this work was consistent with Goal 3 of the 24/25 Work Plan. •The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to the Lighting and Bird Safe Glazing Ordinances, Parklet designs, El Camino Real Focus Area, and Housing Incentive Program (HIP) consistent with Goal 4 of the 24/25 Work Plan. •The ARB reviewed around 20 projects, including multi-family housing with below-market units, mixed-use developments, master sign programs, and retail modifications at Stanford Shopping Center, aligning with Goal 1 of the 24/25 Work Plan. APPLICATION REVIEW The ARB prides itself on its collaborative review process, where board member’s diverse perspectives enhance proposed projects and improve Palo Alto's built environment. Our oversight has made a significant impact, as shown in the renderings section of this report, comparing initial proposals to final designs. ADDRESS/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4075 El Camino Way Assisted Living Lighting Standards (PAMC 18.40.250) Ordinance Bird Friendly Design (PAMC 18.40.250)Ordinance 525 University Avenue Master Sign Program 530 Lytton Avenue Master Sign Program 180 El Camino Real The Melt Façade 3000 El Camino Real Office Conversion 4335-4345 El Camino Real Housing (with inclusionary units) Housing Incentive Program (HIP)Ordinance 3150 El Camino Real Housing (with inclusionary units) 70 Encina Ave Housing (with inclusionary units) -Townhomes 3265 El Camino Real Affordable Housing 824 San Antonio Mixed Use (Retail and Assisted Living) 3950 Fabian Way Private Middle School Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 42 ADDRESS/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 660 University Avenue Mixed Use (Office with Housing) El Camino Real Focus Area Ordinance Architecture Review Board Awards Award Program (Occurs every 5 years) 640 Waverley Street Mixed Use (Office with Housing) 164 Hamilton Avenue Façade 180 El Camino Real Delarosa Façade California Ave Signage Car Free Street improvements City Parking Garages Signage Exceptions 180 El Camino Real Cedar & Sage Façade 340 Portage Avenue Master Sign Program Additionally, several projects were submitted for preliminary review to gather early feedback from the ARB. This early input helped incorporate key programming and design changes, streamlining the formal application process. These projects including 540 University Avenue and 640 Waverley Street. ARB RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.21.030 directs the Architectural Review Board to report annually our “concerns… with respect to the city’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as these affect the projects which the board reviews.” Our reviews are site specific, focusing on individual development proposals rather than broad policies. However, we evaluate each project in its physical and regulatory context—considering its impact on the neighborhood and its alignment with City policies, from the Comprehensive Plan to the various design guidelines. Because the ARB looks at many projects each year, and its board members have years of experience in Palo Alto, patterns emerge and specific areas of concern have been identified. Our comments this year are centered around the increasing importance of housing projects to the city. 1. Objective Design Standard Refinements. In our continuing response to recently enacted state legislation, Palo Alto previously adopted objective design review standards for housing projects, effectively eliminating architectural review on residential and mixed-use projects where objective standards can be met in order to streamline review of those applications. Several residential projects over the past years were townhouse type developments (3200 Park Boulevard, 739 Sutter Avenue, 420 Acacia, and 70 Encina). In our review, it was noted that some of the current standards focused more on larger multi-family buildings. Therefore, some aspects of townhouse style design were not fully addressed/accommodated for in the standards. Through an Ad Hoc committee we studied many local townhouse developments and have provided the planning department with recommendations to modify the Objective Design Standards to address townhome designs as well as larger multi-family designs. The ARB recommends that refinements be made to the objective standards based on implementation of the standards for a series of projects as well as with the recommendations from the ARB regarding modifications for townhome designs. 2. Coordinated Area Plans to Encourage Housing Development and Better Planning. •San Antonio Avenue: The San Antonio Avenue area is experiencing increasing residential development but our zoning regulations for the area are outdated and focused on commercial development, resulting in applicant uncertainty and long entitlement processes. The existing Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 43 one-story light industrial and commercial buildings will be substantially replaced in the coming decade. A coordinated area plan will allow us to consider larger issues such as transportation, neighborhood parks, city services, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, and integration with nearby developments in Mountain View as this area transforms. •Downtown Housing Plan: To increase housing, the downtown area needs revised standards to accommodate redevelopment of parking lots as to encourage housing additions while maintaining the vibrancy of the downtown area and its pedestrian friendly streetscape. •California Avenue: With State requirements as outlined in AB 2097 and Builder’s Remedy, the California Avenue area will experience more development then in the past. This area should have a coordinated area plan to better scope future development. 3. City Council/Planning Commission Communication. The Architecture Review Board has very little formal interaction with the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Board. Board members are forced to act on individual initiative to gain input from council members and other commissioners. Joint meetings with full boards are rarely productive; yet uncoordinated serial meetings leave commissioners unaware of feedback from colleagues on other boards. Applicants often feel that they are ‘running a gauntlet’ of approvals rather than facing a coordinated review. •Have staff continue to provide updates in the pending projects attachment on development proposals. •Take direct feedback from the ARB on reviewed projects up for Council approval where Council approval is required. The ARB can appoint a member to represent the board directly to the Council. •Request staff to schedule joint preliminary discussions between the ARB, PTC and HRB chairs/vice-chairs on projects of common interest. These ‘preliminary meetings’ would not be to review specifics of a project; rather they would serve to coordinate the review process between boards and planning staff. •Appoint HRB, PTC and Council liaisons to the ARB to facilitate open communication between boards and commissions and city council. ARB liaisons will provide a clear channel for passing information between reviewing bodies, enabling all board and commission and council members, as well as the general public, direct access to relevant information on a project-by-project basis. RENDERINGS Below are renderings of approved projects, showcasing the evolution from their initial proposal to designs with the incorporated ARB feedback. A summary of key design modifications made based on ARB feedback is also provided. 70 Encina Ave - Initial Proposal 70 Encina Ave – Incorporated Feedback Design Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 44 70 Encina Ave - Initial Proposal 70 Encina Ave – Incorporated Feedback Design •Encouraged more usable landscaped area. •Encouraged the design to better address privacy between units, including views from the public parking lot into the units. •Consideration of material choices and how the project would be visually compatible to the adjacent Town and Country. 640 Waverley Steet - Initial Proposal 640 Waverley Steet - Final Design Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 45 640 Waverley Steet - Initial Proposal 640 Waverley Steet - Final Design •The ARB provided feedback to enhance an already well-designed project, resulting in improving its interface with the neighboring building at 636 Waverley Street through reduced concrete on the façade, a clearer and more efficient parking layout, and refined landscape planting with long-term maintenance details. •The project provides a good mixed-use development, integrating office and retail spaces on the ground floor with residential units on the upper floors. 3265 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal 3265 El Camino Real - Final Design Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 46 3265 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal 3265 El Camino Real - Final Design •The ARB encouraged for a window or decorative reveal and extended around to the back of the building and for the rooftop terrace to be more engaging. •The ARB provided feedback on the internal programing and suggestions for the vehicles utilizing the stacking stalls. •The applicant incorporated feedback and also added an additional floor to the development to increase density. 4335-4345 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal 4335-4345 El Camino Real - Final Design Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 47 4335-4345 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal 4335-4345 El Camino Real - Final Design •The initial roof forms were complex and recommended to be reevaluated, while still maintaining separate roofs for each unit. This involved the removal of the third story balconies and fake roof dormers for a more simplified rooftop. •The ARB encouraged accenting the doors for more variation, but overall approved the color scheme with its subtle differences in color. 824 San Antonio Rd- Initial Proposal 824 San Antonio Rd - Final Design •Consideration of material choices and how the selected colors and materials contrast with each other. In particular, the initial selected white was too bright and contrasted with the other materials. Simplify the front façade by reducing the visual segments from 3 to 2. •The ARB encouraged the drop-off area to be redesigned in a way that did not impede the front entrance. •The ARB encouraged more simplified balcony designs in relation to their usage by residents. Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 48 3950 Fabian Way - Initial Proposal 3950 Fabian Way - Final Design •Board Members suggested that bicycle parking be relocated to the front of the building for better site circulation and adding additional skylights to provide more light into the interior of the building. •The project utilized an existing office building with a new gymnasium addition and interior improvements to accommodate a private middle school. ARB AWARDS Beginning in 1998, the awards program has been held every five years to honor the creative and responsive designs that help shape Palo Alto’s unique visual character. By recognizing these outstanding architectural contributions, the program celebrates the efforts of architects and designers who enrich the community and foster a healthy, vibrant environment. From a pool of approximately 100 reviewed projects, the following six were selected: 1700 Embarcadero Road | Mercedes Benz Dealership 3215 Porter Drive | The Hub at Stanford Research Park Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 49 620 Emerson Street | Nobu 180 El Camino Real | Sushi Roku 588 Webster Street | Arbora Apartments 3705 El Camino Real | Wilton Court Apartments Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report Packet Pg. 50 Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 3, 2025 Report #: 2505-4696 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of May 1, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@PaloAlto.gov. Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 51 Page 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: May 1, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on May 1, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:35 AM Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Peter Baltay, Board member David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation including upcoming/recently submitted items, 2025 meeting schedules and updates. The election of Chair and Vice Chair would likely occur on July 3 or potentially later. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3950 Fabian Way [24PLN-00263]: Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for Exterior Modifications to an Existing 32,500-Square-Foot, Two- Story Commercial Building. The Project Includes Revisions to the Facade, Site Modifications, and Demolition of a Portion on the North End of the Existing Building and Construction of a New Approximately 4,400-Square-Foot Addition to the North Side. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Change of Use to Private Education to Accommodate The Girls' Middle School. CEQA Status: Exempt in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 1, 2025 Packet Pg. 52 Page 2 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 Boardmember Adcock recused herself and stepped out. Vice Chair Chen disclosed having visited the site the last time but not this time. Chair Roseberg visited the site this time and had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Baltay visited the site recently and had nothing else to disclose. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site the first time had nothing to disclose. Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation including the project location, project overview, existing elevations of the office building and proposals, sections, ARB 11/21/24 comments, proposed bicycle proposed parking, proposed skylights, proposed balcony connection, proposed walkways, proposed color and materials, environmental analysis and recommendations. Monique Wood, CAW Architects, provided a slide presentation including photos of the building, ARB comments from the last ARB presentation, proposed bike parking, proposed exterior colors and the floor plans. PUBLIC COMMENT Rick Hyde, property owner at 3919 Bibbits Drive, noted that the fence between his property and 3950 Fabian Way was rotted and needed replaced and suggested while the construction was going on would be the ideal time for that. Christine Fairless, head of school at the Girls’ Middle School, advised the fence would be taken into consideration as the project moved forward. Staff responded to questions posed by the Board members. Ms. Wood pointed out that the fin sticking out around the window was the yellow accent. It was confirmed that the yellow on A4.00 was the face of the overhanging canopy that would turn the corner and go back to the building. The bicycle parking was split between the front and the back. The bike parking area was completely detached from the neighbor fence. Georgia Leung, landscape architect, added the bike parking fencing was intended to be chain link and the back on would connect to the existing fence using the back sides. The front bike parking area is sloped so there would be a little retaining wall on the back side of the front bike parking area with the fence surrounding it. The height would be six feet. Sang Eun Lee, CAW Architects, explained there would be a 2-foot overhang for the trash enclosure structure as per Palo Alto code recommendation. Mr. Switzer confirmed a trash enclosure was required to be covered with a certain overhang. The proposed design was approved by Zero Waste. Ms. Wood indicated the bike parking enclosure would be a chain link fence. The fencing detail on L1.03 was for the enclosure at the west side of the campus. There was not a detail of the fencing at the front of the campus where bicycles would be parked along the street at the time. The fence at the street would be a chain link fence. There was not an elevation of that fence. It would be the same as the back bicycle parking. That fence would enclose the outdoor space adjacent to the building. There were no elevations of any of the bicycle parking fencing. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 1, 2025 Packet Pg. 53 Page 3 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 Ms. Lee remarked the site plan originally included a trash enclosure on the south corner but because of the budget restriction and to avoid disrupting the south part of the parking lot, the accessible parking space and trash enclosure were moved to the north side of the parking lot in order to be accessible. All the site work would be concentrated on the north side. Ms. Wood added it was a grading issue that in order to get an accessible path to the trash enclosure, it would be more efficient to do it at the north end of the property. That is also where the accessible parking would be so they would share an accessible pathway to the building. Accessible parking would be maintained at the north end of the building as the main entrance would be located in that area. Ms. Wood stated there would be a striped crosswalk in the parking drive aisle at the bike parking area in the back. The sidewalk would continue all the way around to the southern and northern end of the building. Ms. Lee added there would be a gate in the middle of the west fencing. There would be a gym door from the back courtyard to enter the school through the gym door. Ms. Wood indicated the student center would be the second entrance that would be open in the morning for pick up and drop off. The janitorial staff could exit through any of the exterior doors and walk around the sidewalk around the perimeter of the building and take the crossing across the drive aisle up to the northern trash enclosure. Ms. Wood stated provided by the school indicated there was currently 6 students riding bicycles to school and historically never more than 10. Ms. Fairless did not know why more of their students did not ride bikes to school as physical activity was encouraged. About 25 to 30% were from Palo Alto and the rest dispersed across the peninsula so a lot of families did drive-in and carpool and about 25 to 30% of the students from Palo Alto biked to school. Boardmember Baltay was not entirely happy with they way bicycle parking was being done and wanted biking to be encouraged. Ms. Lee explained the kiln space would only be for teacher use. It was usually used after school or on the weekend. Ms. Lee acknowledged the location was not the best and relocating would be considered as the project developed. There was a brace frame in the location dividing the wood and metal ceramic shops. The small space was used for storage for metal shop. There was glazing in between for wood shop with the noise equipment inside. The doors on the office spaces on the second floor would have side light to let in natural light. In response to Chair Rosenberg’s suggestion to consider using small moments of color that translate across the front façade on Fabian for cohesiveness, Ms. Lee indicated there had been discussion having color on the soffit underneath the second floor but the color integration was not satisfying. Chair Rosenberg encouraged deeper exploration. Ms. Wood agreed that one of the accent colors could be used underneath the canopy. The material would all be consistent. Chair Rosenberg thought the 6-foot tall chain link fence in the front of the building was alarming, encouraged adding green striping leading to the bike path and suggested staggering the timing of parking to ensure safety of the bicyclists. Boardmember Baltay agreed the chain link fence was disturbing and encouraged moving bicycle parking closer to the entrance of the building and the trash bins to the back with a door closer to the bins. Chair Rosenberg disagreed with the idea of switching the locations of the trash bins and bike lanes. Boardmember Hirsch suggested considering more solid corner elements to the chain link fencing and coloring it black, getting the bike parking closer to the front door Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 1, 2025 Packet Pg. 54 Page 4 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 and leaving the garbage storage where it was. Vice Chair Chen agreed with reconsidering the front bicycle location to the entry plaza, lowering the fence and reconsidering the trash circulation. Boardmember Baltay commented the students should be encouraged to enter through the front door, garbage should not be carried out the front door, putting an enclosure in front took away from the building and more design work on the front façade was needed. Chair Rosenberg did not have a strong objection to the students entering through the student center. Boardmember Hirsch expressed that the front plaza might be too much planted and not enough paving. Boardmember Baltay suggested adding some uncovered bicycle racks. Boardmember Baltay supported Chair Rosenberg’s comments regarding more exploration about the color. Boardmember Hirsch felt less inclined to make the exterior changes being suggested and that it be carried inside including the storage areas within the corridor and the recesses where the students would sit. Chair Rosenberg acknowledged there might be some signage across the front to help tie things together. Vice Chair Chen agreed it would be better to carry out some pop-up colors to the existing building. Boardmember Baltay recommended appointing an ad hoc committee to keep an eye on the design. MOTION Boardmember Baltay moved to recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the project based on the ARB findings (Attachment B) and subject to conditions of approval (Attachment C) and with a condition of approval to return to an Ad Hoc to address the following items: •Front bicycle enclosure location and materials for better integration on the site. •Consider creating additional design elements or modifications to the exterior of the existing building. •Consider modifications to the hardscape at the front entry plaza to create better gathering spaces. •Improve the interior circulation to facilitate trash removal. •Work collaboratively with neighbors for fending along residential properties. The motion was seconded by Chair Rosenberg and passed 4-0-0-1, Boardmember Adcock absent. Chair Rosenberg and Vice Chair Chen volunteered for the ad hoc committee. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Downtown Parking Garage Sign Exceptions at 528 High Street [24PLN-00268], 445 Bryant Street [24PLN-00269], and 250 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN-00270]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Architectural Review to Allow Sign Exceptions for Five Projecting (Blade) Signs Across Three Parking Garages in Downtown Palo Alto. CEQA Status: Project is Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Structures) and 15311 (Accessory Structures-On Premise Signs). Zoning District: PC-4611 (Planned Community); PC-4612; and PF (Public Facilities). Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 1, 2025 Packet Pg. 55 Page 5 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 Boardmember Hirsch visited all the sites and had no disclosures. Boardmember Baltay visited all the sites, was extensively familiar with them and had no disclosures. Chair Rosenberg visited all the sites and had nothing to disclose. Vice Chair Chen visited all the sites and had no other disclosures. Boardmember Adcock visited all the sites with no disclosures. Nishita Kandikuppa, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation of the project including project locations, project overview, location 1 at 528 High Street, location 2 at 445 Bryant Street, location 3 at 250 Hamilton Avenue, location 4 at 520 Webster Street, sign frame details, LED matrix sign examples, key considerations and the recommendation. In response to questions posed by Board members, Ms. Kandikuppa stated double-faced signs would only count once. There are sign exception findings in Attachment B. The applicant team had a detail of the colors that were approved by the communications team. The color chosen was consistent with all the other wayfinding parking signage in the City. Staff would look into the font size choice. The signs were all proposed to be on the wall and the applicant was not proposing a free-standing sign. The calculations for wall sign area was included in Attachment D. The sign area is proportional to the area of the facade. The wall signs would not exceed the allowable wall area sign. Staff was asking for an exception for the projection of the sign on High Street. Stephen Evans, Chief Technology Officer for Parking Guidance Systems, provided a slide presentation of the project including introduction of his colleagues, signage locations, signage layouts and technical data, signage layouts of each sign and the font requirements, installation options and the impacts and conveniences of the signs. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. The applicant responded to the Board member’s questions about the presentation. Mr. Evans remarked that the Alma signs was not treated differently as it was assumed people were slowing down when turning into the parking garage making the font visible. The purpose of making the Civic Center sign a blade was for visibility from both directions. The size was for consistency purposes. In the parking structures where information is not seen at the street’s edge, the City opted to put the sign on the building for visibility. Mr. Evans agreed to review whether the Civic Center could be flat. Nathan Baird, Parking Manager, recalled making that sign flat impacted the visibility. The green parking signs are California MUTCD vehicle guidance signs. The blue package was recommended by a consultant years before for parking garages and lots. The ARB could request going back to green. Mr. Evans indicated everything would be located behind the City’s firewalls, communicated up to a secured cloud server and managed by a contracted third party and would be very secure from a hacking standpoint. There would be a way to turn the power off at each site if needed. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 1, 2025 Packet Pg. 56 Page 6 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 Mr. Evans confirmed the font size would be about 5.1 inches. Boardmember Adcock felt the 80 inches of screen sign was too big for the Civic Center. Mr. Evans explained the conduits would be visible from the exterior of the structure. There had been no discussion about concealing the conduit but it would be considered. The same mounting techniques would be used for all the signs. Mr. Baird commented the blade was only done where it enhanced and made sense for visibility. The broader context of the signs was to differentiate between parking spaces in Downtown or California Avenue and oscillate the availability of parking at other garages. Mr. Evans confirmed the signs are available in different sizes. The screens are 20 x 20 inches and put together to make the larger signs. Parkers look for parking as their destination and how many spaces are available. The intent is to have the information available early enough to accelerate the parking process. The optimum distance is typically between 100 and 200 feet. Boardmember Baltay mentioned a sign at the new garage on Sherman Avenue that he found very effective to which Boardmember Adcock agreed and added that the content was worth discussing. At 200 feet away, the driver would simply be looking for available parking, not the details. Mr. Evans agreed that the multi-level signs were not critical at the entrance site. The secondary layer of signs should display how many spaces were available on each ramp. The benefit of the matrix signs was the flexibility to change the graphic or message if it was not working. There was a signage plan installed within the garage to help circulation. Mr. Evans explained the graphics would be subjective and the message was flexible to the City’s needs and requirements. Boardmember Adcock questioned the necessity of having a 40 x 80 inch sign. Mr. Evans remarked the City opted to use the same type sign in every location and preferred to have more real estate than not enough to display messages. Chair Rosenberg had issue with the height and locations of the signs at the Alma Street garage. In response to Boardmember Hirsch requesting all of the possible messages that might be displayed, Mr. Evans explained that it was completely unlimited. Mr. Baird explained that the message was intended to advertise available parking but he liked the optionality and standardization offered. Boardmember Hirsch observed that as the priority was to indicate how many spaces were in a garage, the outside sign could potentially be smaller and less prominent on the street. Mr. Baird preferred having the signs all the same size but was open to a conversation about making them smaller as long as the objectives were met across the project. Mr. Evans added having the flexibility for conditional information would require additional space that a smaller sign would not allow for. Chair Rosenberg observed the Cowper Garage was compliant. The Florence side was flat and Bryant side a blade and did not find that concerning. Ms. Raybould stated one was a code compliant wall sign project and did not require any side exception or Architectural Review Board review. Boardmember Baltay thought all of the signs were not quite right and did not want to check one sign off. Boardmember Baltay opined the signs were intended to convey both detailed information and broad scale information. Detailed information was not suitable on a large sign high on a building. Therefore, the signs should be scaled and placed such that the information would be easily conveyed. The buildings Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 1, 2025 Packet Pg. 57 Page 7 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 were different and using the same signs did not fit with all the buildings. The signs were too big to be easily integrated into the buildings as designed. Boardmember Hirsch agreed that functionality was important and that the primary message was available parking spaces. As excessive information was not needed, the signs could be smaller. Boardmember Adcock agreed the content and sign were not working together. There was disconnect between the content, location and size of the signs. Vice Chair Chen appreciated the intent, high technology and flexibility for the future. The size and height of the signs was not appropriate with the intended content. The mounting height should be determined by the street trees. It was important that the availability be delivered in real time. Chair Rosenberg thought the amount of information was appropriate. The information and signage intent was valuable. It would be helpful for the sign to indicate low or no parking available. The data and information on the signs should only be about parking. Having the signs be the same would be helpful for pattern recognition. The Civic Center sign should be smaller and higher. The rest of the signs needed to be lower. The only sign that should be a blade sign was the Alma one. There were no issues with Webster and Cowper, significant issues with the placement and heights of the signs on Alma and High Street. Boardmember Adcock agreed the content was essential but the sign on the street only needed to indicate the availability of parking and not where the parking was. Boardmember Baltay wanted to suggest size changes, placing the signs flat on the surface of the buildings with the exception of the one along Alma and the signs had to be down at driver eye level from 10 or 20 feet away. Chair Rosenberg supported the suggestions. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to explore having the sign against the wall and making the color neutral. It was critical to keep the information simple. Ms. Raybould recommended hearing from the applicant and from Public Works Engineering and Transportation. Staff had not evaluated them as wall signs. Wall signs were presumed to be code compliant and would not require Board level review. Mr. Evans advocated for blade signs being more visible to the parkers. The intent was to get people off the street and into a parking garage quicker. It was agreed that the size would be reviewed and options provided. Mr. Baird agreed with the direction on the size and location and agreed there may be savings on going smaller. Mr. Baird was in agreement with working with the ad hoc and with the consultants to conform within the infrastructure direction. Mr. Baird had no preference in blade versus flat and 20 inches versus 40 inches. MOTION Boardmember Baltay moved to recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the proposed projects based on findings in Attachment B and subject to conditions of approval in Attachment C and with the following conditions: Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 1, 2025 Packet Pg. 58 Page 8 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 1. Signs shall be a maximum of 20 inches wide by 80 inches tall. 2. Signs shall be flat mounted wall signs. 3. Signs shall be maximum 12 feet in height to the top of the sign. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Adcock and passed 5-0 Chair Rosenberg made a friendly amendment to make the sign on Alma Street a blade sign. The amendment failed. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Mr. Switzer noted the 4075 El Camino project would be going before Council on May 5 at 10 PM and asked if the Board desired to have a representative attend that meeting. The ARB had recommended approval but the PTC had a differing opinion. Boardmember Baltay opined the Chair should be present. If the PTC was in disagreement with the ARB, a representative should be present. Chair Rosenberg agreed to attend by Zoom if possible. Mr. Switzer indicated the work plan list would be sent out that week. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 12 PM. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 1, 2025 Packet Pg. 59 From:Sender To:Lait, Jonathan; BuildingPermits@cityofpaloalto.org; Korwyn.Peck@cityofpaloalto.org; Chung, David; Hoyt,George; Russ.Reich@cityofpaloalto.org; Architectural Review Board Subject:Re: Unauthorized/Illegal Construction at 943 BRYANT St [24PCE-01491] Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 9:19:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi everyone, Have these people received a building permit? They showed up with a crew of 10-12 people today and started building loudly at 8am. They are currently cutting down a tree and building stuff. Thanks > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Sender wrote: >> Thank you so much for your detailed reply and follow-up. I appreciate >> your attention to the matter. >> I will keep you posted if anything changes. Apologies if I sounded too >> critical, you seem to be doing >> a great job and I appreciate you once again. Have a good rest of your >> day. >> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 2:25 PM, Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thank you for sharing this with us. I would like to share an update >>> with you. Yesterday, August 22, 2024, our City building inspector >>> visited the home where the work is occurring to verify what is needed. >>> It turns out that this type of work does require a permit. The building >>> inspector issued a Stop Work Order and made the owner aware of the >>> requirement to obtain building permits. >>> >>> I will issue a Notice of Violation and provide a timeline for obtaining >>> permits. The Notice of Violation also provides the consequences of what >>> fines could be imposed if these permits are not obtained. Even if the >>> owner decides to continue the construction work, once a permit is >>> obtained, the work will be required to be inspected. The homeowner >>> will most likely have to remove or deconstruct the work that has taken >>> place. If a permit is not obtained by the requested due date, then >>> fines will be imposed until they do one of two things: 1. Get a permit, >>> or 2. Remove all unpermitted work. >>> >>> I understand it is frustrating to observe this type of situation >>> unfold, but I would like to assure you that code enforcement and the >>> building staff is aware and working on getting this issue resolved. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Elisa Vargas, Building Inspector, CCEO >>> Code Enforcement Supervisor >>> Planning & Development Services >>> (650) 885-8565 Cell | elisa.vargas@cityofpaloalto.org >>> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 60 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 61 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----->>>>> From: >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 10:42 AM>>>>> To: Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@cityofpaloalto.org>>>>>> Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Building>>>>> Permits <BuildingPermits@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Peck, Korwyn>>>>> <Korwyn.Peck@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Chung, David>>>>> <David.Chung@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hoyt, George>>>>> <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Reich, Russ>>>>> <Russ.Reich@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board>>>>> <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>>>>>> Subject: Re: Unauthorized/Illegal Construction at 943 BRYANT St>>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be>>>>> cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.>>>>>>>>>> Non permitted construction continues.>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024, at 3:18 PM,>>>>>> Adding other parties in hopes of quick enforcement as this has been>>>>>> going on for months and even at the current moment, they are being>>>>>> extremely loud and without a permit, a great opportunity exists to>>>>>> catch them red handed.>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024, at 3:08 PM, >>>>>>> Hi,>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was on the phone with earlier, reporting an>>>>>>> unauthorized/illegal construction that has been going on at 943>>>>>>> Bryant St in Palo Alto for the last few weeks if not months.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has confirmed that they have no permit, and I have gone and>>>>>>> visited the site and confirmed they don't have the proper postage>>>>>>> and probably a lot of other violations as well.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have been a huge nuisance in the neighborhood. I'd appreciate>>>>>>> your assistance in the matter.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can find a quick video of the site attached. I have a longer>>>>>>> form if you'd like. If you have any specific things you'd like me>>>>>>> to document, I'd be happy to do that as well.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks>>>>>>> Attachments:>>>>>>> * 943-bryant-unauthorized-construction.mp4>>>>>> Attachments:>>>>>> * 943-bryant-unauthorized-construction.mp4 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 62 From: To:Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Building Permits; Peck, Korwyn; Chung, David; Hoyt, George; Reich, Russ; Architectural Review Board Subject:Re: Unauthorized/Illegal Construction at 943 BRYANT St [24PCE-01491] Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 8:41:57 AM Hi everyone, Have these people received a building permit? They showed up with a crew of 10-12 people today and startedbuilding loudly at 8am. They are currently cutting down a tree and building stuff.Thanks On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 2:47 PM, > Thank you so much for your detailed reply and follow-up. I appreciate> your attention to the matter.> I will keep you posted if anything changes. Apologies if I sounded too> critical, you seem to be doing> a great job and I appreciate you once again. Have a good rest of your> day.>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 2:25 PM, Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa wrote: >>>> Thank you for sharing this with us. I would like to share an update>> with you. Yesterday, August 22, 2024, our City building inspector>> visited the home where the work is occurring to verify what is needed.>> It turns out that this type of work does require a permit. The building>> inspector issued a Stop Work Order and made the owner aware of the>> requirement to obtain building permits.>>>> I will issue a Notice of Violation and provide a timeline for obtaining>> permits. The Notice of Violation also provides the consequences of what>> fines could be imposed if these permits are not obtained. Even if the>> owner decides to continue the construction work, once a permit is>> obtained, the work will be required to be inspected. The homeowner>> will most likely have to remove or deconstruct the work that has taken>> place. If a permit is not obtained by the requested due date, then>> fines will be imposed until they do one of two things: 1. Get a permit,>> or 2. Remove all unpermitted work.>>>> I understand it is frustrating to observe this type of situation>> unfold, but I would like to assure you that code enforcement and the>> building staff is aware and working on getting this issue resolved.>>>> Thank you,>>>> Elisa Vargas, Building Inspector, CCEO>> Code Enforcement Supervisor>> Planning & Development Services>> (650) 885-8565 Cell | elisa.vargas@cityofpaloalto.org>> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services>> >> Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 63 >> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----->> From: >> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 11:04 AM>> To: Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@cityofpaloalto.org>>> Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Building Permits>> <BuildingPermits@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Peck, Korwyn>> <Korwyn.Peck@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Chung, David>> <David.Chung@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hoyt, George>> <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Reich, Russ>> <Russ.Reich@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board>> <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>>> Subject: Re: Unauthorized/Illegal Construction at 943 BRYANT St>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be>> cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.>>>> For your information, the construction still continues and if the city>> intends to catch them after they are done, they are on the right track.>>>> As a Palo Alto resident, given how this situation is handled, I will>> probably also be likely to just go ahead with construction without>> approvals and apologize later, as it seems that's how business is done>> in Palo Alto.>>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024, at 11:09 AM, >>> Thank you, I really appreciate that.>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024, at 11:05 AM, Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for entering a 311 complaint so that we may look into this>>>> matter. We take all concerns very seriously. Our building inspection>>>> staff has been scheduled to visit the site. If found to be out of>>>> compliance, a Stop Work Order will be issued, and a Notice of>>>> Violation will be generated.>>>>>>>> Thank you,>>>>>>>> Elisa Vargas, Building Inspector, CCEO Code Enforcement Supervisor>>>> Planning & Development Services>>>> (650) 885-8565 Cell | elisa.vargas@cityofpaloalto.org>>>> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Servi>>>> ces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 64 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----->>>> From:>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 10:42 AM>>>> To: Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@cityofpaloalto.org>>>>> Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Building>>>> Permits <BuildingPermits@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Peck, Korwyn>>>> <Korwyn.Peck@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Chung, David>>>> <David.Chung@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hoyt, George>>>> <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Reich, Russ>>>> <Russ.Reich@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board>>>> <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>>>>> Subject: Re: Unauthorized/Illegal Construction at 943 BRYANT St>>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be>>>> cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.>>>>>>>> Non permitted construction continues.>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024, at 3:18 PM, >>>>> Adding other parties in hopes of quick enforcement as this has been>>>>> going on for months and even at the current moment, they are being>>>>> extremely loud and without a permit, a great opportunity exists to>>>>> catch them red handed.>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024, at 3:08 PM,>>>>>> Hi,>>>>>>>>>>>> I was on the phone with Henry Rafael earlier, reporting an>>>>>> unauthorized/illegal construction that has been going on at 943>>>>>> Bryant St in Palo Alto for the last few weeks if not months.>>>>>>>>>>>> He has confirmed that they have no permit, and I have gone and>>>>>> visited the site and confirmed they don't have the proper postage>>>>>> and probably a lot of other violations as well.>>>>>>>>>>>> They have been a huge nuisance in the neighborhood. I'd appreciate>>>>>> your assistance in the matter.>>>>>>>>>>>> You can find a quick video of the site attached. I have a longer>>>>>> form if you'd like. If you have any specific things you'd like me>>>>>> to document, I'd be happy to do that as well.>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks>>>>>> Attachments:>>>>>> * 943-bryant-unauthorized-construction.mp4>>>>> Attachments:>>>>> * 943-bryant-unauthorized-construction.mp4 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 65 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 66 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 67 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 68 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 69 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 70 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 71 Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 72 Elastomeric Membrane Roofing 07530 GenFlex Roofing Systems SPEC-DATA® and MANU-SPEC® are registered trademarks of The Construction Institute. The ten part SPEC-DATA format conforms to the editorial style of the Construction Specifications Institute and is used with their permission. The manufacturer is responsible for the technical accuracy. ©2010 GenFlex Roofing Systems, LLC. All Rights Reserved. 1. Product Name GenFlex EPDM Single-Ply Roof Membranes 2. Manufacturer GenFlex Roofing Systems 250 W. 96th Street, Suite 150 Indianapolis, IN 46260 Toll Free: 800-443-4272 Fax: 317-853-4602 Email: TechnicalServices@GenFlex.com www.GenFlex.com 3. Product Description BASIC USE GenFlex EPDM Roofing Membranes consist of a flexible sheet made from ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM) intended for use as a single-ply roofing membrane on commercial, industrial and institutional buildings. The sheet may be non-reinforced (GenFlex EPDM II), fabric or scrim reinforced (GenFlex FRM), or include fire retardant ingredients (GenFlex AFR) that improve the membrane’s fire resistant characteristics. Additional system components may include insulation, seam and cover tapes, primers, seam and bonding adhesives, sealants, membrane flashings and other related roof accessories. GenFlex requires all components of the roofing assembly to be products supplied by GenFlex Roofing Systems or approved by GenFlex. GenFlex EPDM roofing membranes can be installed in fully adhered, mechanically attached or ballasted systems in either new or reroof applications. COMPOSITION & MATERIALS EPDM is an elastomeric membrane made from ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM) intended for use in single-ply roofing membranes exposed to the weather. COLOR Black SIZES GenFlex non-reinforced EPDM is available in factory manufactured rolls in widths up to 50’ (15.2 m) and lengths up to 100’ (30.5 m). GenFlex reinforced EPDM is available in widths up to 10’ (3.0 m) and lengths up to 100’ (30.5 m). All membranes are available in 45 and 60 mil (1.14 and 1.52 mm) thickness. GenFlex AFR membrane is available in thicknesses up to 90 mil (2.3 mm). WEIGHT 45 mil membrane - 0.29 lb/ft² (1.4 kg/m²) 60 mil membrane – 0.40 lb/ft² (1.8 kg/m²) 90 mil membrane - 0.63 lb/ft² (2.8 kg/m²) INSTALLATION SYSTEMS Fully Adhered System Ideal for roofs with unusual or odd- shaped contours, where mechanical penetration of the membrane is not desirable, yet exceptional wind performance is needed. Once the membrane is positioned over the substrate, the back of the membrane and the substrate are coated with GenFlex bonding adhesive, allowed to dry, carefully rolled back into position and broomed into place. Mechanically Attached (Bar-In-Seam System) Provides exceptional strength and integrity on applications where 7.5’ or 10’ (2.3 or 3.0 m) wide GenFlex EPDM or FRM membrane is used. Mechanically Attached (Bar Cover Tape System) Uses large sheets of GenFlex EPDM membrane – up to 50’ x 100’ (15.2 x 30.5 m) – for large, open roof areas and appropriate decks. Ballasted System Perfect for installations where speed and economy are primary considerations, and the substrate is capable of supporting the system’s dead load. Slope must not exceed 2/12. Insulation and membrane are loose-laid with the membrane fastened only at perimeters and penetrations. Recommended ballast is ASTM #4 ballast, i.e. smooth, water-worn rocks. LIMITATIONS  GenFlex EPDM may be installed in environmentally acceptable conditions as specified in GenFlex current technical specifications.  Only compatible materials furnished or approved by GenFlex may be used.  The system may only be installed over GenFlex approved substrates.  The system must be installed in accordance with GenFlex’s current EPDM Technical Specifications.  Consult GenFlex Roofing Systems for membrane compatibility with foreign chemicals. 4. Technical Data APPLICABLE STANDARDS American Society for Testing & Materials:  ASTM C 1371 – Emissivity  ASTM C 1549 – Reflectivity  ASTM D 412 – Rubber Properties in Tension  ASTM D 471 – Rubber Property – Effect of Liquid  ASTM D 518 – Rubber Deterioration – Surface Cracking  ASTM D 624 – Tear Strength of Conventional Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers  ASTM D 816 – Factory Seam Strength  ASTM D1149 – Rubber Deterioration – Surface Ozone Cracking in a Chamber  ASTM D 1204 – Linear Dimensional Changes of Nonrigid Thermoplastic Sheeting or Film at Elevated Temperature  ASTM D 2137 – Rubber Property – Brittleness Point of Flexible Polymers and Coated Fabrics  ASTM D 1980 – Solar Reflectance Index APPROVALS Status of code approvals varies with roof construction used. The following and other agencies will provide approvals on GenFlex EPDM systems. See agency publications and manufacturer’s current literature for up-to-date approvals.  Building Officials and Code Administrators international (BOCA)  Factory Mutual (FM)  Underwriters Laboratories (UL)  International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)  Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI)  Metropolitan Dade County, Florida PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Refer to Table 1 for test properties. Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 73 Elastomeric Membrane Roofing 07530 GenFlex Roofing Systems SPEC-DATA® and MANU-SPEC® are registered trademarks of The Construction Institute. The ten part SPEC-DATA format conforms to the editorial style of the Construction Specifications Institute and is used with their permission. The manufacturer is responsible for the technical accuracy. ©2010 GenFlex Roofing Systems, LLC. All Rights Reserved. January 2010 TABLE 1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF GENFLEX EPDM MEMBRANE Property Test method GenFlex EPDM Typical Value Tensile Strength Before Aging ASTM D 412 1425 psi (9.8 MPa) Tensile Strength After Aging ASTM D 412 1415 psi (9.7 MPa) Elongation Before Aging ASTM D 412 450% Elongation After Aging ASTM D 412 290% Tear Resistance Before Aging ASTM D 624 200 lb/in (35 KN/m) Tear Resistance After Aging ASTM D 624 181 lb/in (31.5 KN/m) Dimensional Stability After Aging Aging = 28 days at 240 °F (116 °C) ASTM D1204 -0.7% Brittleness Temperature ASTM D 2137 -63 °F (-53 °C) Ozone Resistance, No Cracks ASTM D 1149 Pass Tensile set, max % ASTM D 412 10% Water Absorption – max mass 150 °F (62.6 °C) 7 days ASTM D 471 +1.8% Factory Seam Strength ASTM D 816 Sheet failure Weathering Resistance – Visual Inspection ASTM D 518 Pass Weathering Resistance – PRFSE. min ASTM D 518 30% Weathering Resistance – Elongation, ultimate, min ASTM D 518 200% Reflectivity ASTM C 1549 6% Emissivity ASTM C 1371 0.87% (Black) Solar Reflectance Index ASTM D 1980 0 Recycled Content – Post Consumer — 0% Recycled Content – Post Industrial — 0% Manufacturing Locations — Prescott, AR Kingstree, SC 5. Installation PREPARATORY WORK The dead load capacity of the deck and structure must be sufficient to support the load of the stored roofing materials and installed roofing system. The deck must be designed and constructed to provide removal of all water within forty-eight (48) hours after a rainfall. Substrate must be smooth, level and clean. Loose gravel on existing roofs must be removed. INSULATION INSTALLATION Insulation securement must be to current Genflex Roofing Systems’ Technical Specifications. MEMBRANE INSTALLATION Unroll and position the membrane over the approved substrate without stretching. Overlap the membrane panels a minimum of 3” (76 mm), and allow the membrane to relax for thirty (30) minutes prior to seaming or flashing. Mark the bottom of the membrane 1/2” (13 mm) from the edge of the top membrane, and fold the top membrane back 12” to 15” (305 to 381 mm) in order to apply the primer and tape. SEAM TAPE SPLICES Refer to GenFlex’s current system specifications and warranty requirements reference guide to determine where splicing membrane with adhesive is appropriate. Thoroughly mix GenFlex Primer. DO NOT THIN! A minimum of two (2) minutes of vigorous hand mixing with a wooden paint stirrer or its equivalent is required. All sources of ignition should be eliminated; adequate ventilation should exist. Clean all surfaces with a clean cotton rag, removing excess contamination prior to application of the primer. With a scrub pad and handle, apply firm pressure, and use continuous back and forth strokes to apply GenFlex Primer to the membrane along the bonding area until no streaks or puddling occurs. Allow GenFlex Primer to dry until slightly tacky to a dry finger touch. Unroll seam tape along the marks on the bottom membrane for the entire length of the seam. Note: DO NOT REMOVE THE REALEASE PAPER FROM THE SEAM TAPE AT THIS TIME. With the release paper still on the tape, hand-roll the entire strip of seam tape with a Teflon coated or hard rubber roller. Assure adhesion of the tape to the primed surface of the membrane. Allow the top membrane to fall freely onto the bottom membrane. Pull the release paper from the tape away from the seam at a 45 ° angle, ensuring contact first by brushing your hand across the top membrane at a right angle. Hand-roll the entire length of the completed seam. All caulking details will be completed per standard specifications with GenFlex Edge Caulk. Apply a continuous “high profile” bead of edge caulk at field seam intersections, Cover Tape end laps, and edge metal joints. Important: GenFlex T-Joint Covers are required over all intersections where multiple layers of EPDM field membranes intersect. SPLICES WITH ADHESIVE Using a clean cotton rag saturated with GenFlex Cleaner, thoroughly clean an area on both sheets at least 4” (102 mm) wide where the adhesive will be applied. Remove all visible talc, and maintain surfaces free from all moisture, oil, and other contaminants. Discard rags that become dirty, and replace with new rags to assure proper cleaning. Proper cleaning has been achieved when the membrane surface is dark grey in color with no evidence of streaks or discoloration. (Note: Additional cleaning will be needed at factory seams). Allow the cleaned membrane to dry completely. Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 74 Elastomeric Membrane Roofing 07530 GenFlex Roofing Systems SPEC-DATA® and MANU-SPEC® are registered trademarks of The Construction Institute. The ten part SPEC-DATA format conforms to the editorial style of the Construction Specifications Institute and is used with their permission. The manufacturer is responsible for the technical accuracy. ©2010 GenFlex Roofing Systems, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Stir GenFlex GenSplice Adhesive thoroughly to achieve a uniform mix with no marbling evident before using. DO NOT THIN! Adhesive may be applied with a 3” (76 mm) or 4” (102 mm) wide by 1/2” (12.7 mm) thick solvent resistant paint brush or medium nap roller (minimum 3/8” (9.5 mm). For brush application, DO NOT CUT brush; use a back and forth conventional painting stroke. Apply an even coat of adhesive to each membrane surface to be spliced. Avoid globs and puddles. Allow adhesive to dry until slightly tacky to a dry finger touch. As you are touching the adhesive, push straight down to check for stringing; also push forward on the adhesive at an angle to ensure that the adhesive is ready throughout its thickness. If either motion exposes wet or stringy adhesive when the finger is lifted, then it is not ready for mating, and the seam should not be closed. Flash-off time will vary depending on ambient air conditions. Once the adhesive has dried properly, roll the top membrane back on to the bottom membrane, and allow it to fall freely into place without stretching. Immediately apply pressure to bring the bonding surfaces into complete contact. Using a Teflon coated or hard rubber roller, hand-roll the entire seam area to ensure good contact between the membranes, first at a right angle toward the outer edge and then along the length of the splice. At the end of the workday, using a clean rag saturated with GenFlex Cleaner, thoroughly clean an area on both sheets at least 2” (51 mm) each way from the edge of the splice. Apply GenFlex Edge Caulk to ensure a water tight seal. Use a “high profile” bead of caulk along the entire edge of the splice. Ensure bead covers factory seams. DO NOT SCREED! Important: GenFlex T-Joint Covers are required over all intersections where multiple layers of EPDM field membranes intersect. FLASHING AND ATTACHMENTS Membrane must be attached to roof deck at perimeter of each roof level, curb flashing, skylight, expansion joint and roof penetration in accordance with GenFlex EPDM details. Perimeter flashing and flashing around vents, skylights and roof projections must be GenFlex Flashing adhered with GenFlex Bonding Adhesive, using the longest pieces practical in accordance with GenFlex details. 6. Availability & Cost AVAILABILITY GenFlex products are made available nationwide through a network of GenFlex Distributors. COST For cost information, please contact the nearest GenFlex Distributor or GenFlex Roofing Systems. 7. Warranty  Projects requiring roofing system warranties must be installed by a GenFlex licensed contractor.  GenFlex projects must be inspected by a GenFlex representative to be eligible for a GenFlex roofing system warranty.  GenFlex offers limited membrane only warranties, which are available for residential and commercial projects. These warranties may be obtained by any installer, and an inspection by a GenFlex representative is not done.  Sample warranties are available from the manufacturer upon request.  Components must be supplied by or approved by GenFlex.  Warranty covers GenFlex-supplied materials only.  Limitations in Part 3, Product Description, are required for warranty. 8. Maintenance Periodic inspection of the roof system and cleaning of drains is recommended. This will allow for proper water runoff and avoid overloading the roof with ponded water. Regular cleaning must be done in areas where contaminants potentially harmful to the roof system may accumulate, i.e., oil, grease, Freon, acids and solvents. Inform all tradespeople servicing the roof equipment that this is a single-ply roof and that they should proceed accordingly. If there is to be roof traffic for any reason, GenFlex EPDM walkway pads should be installed. Contact GenFlex Roofing Systems in writing for approval before making alterations on, adjacent to, or through the roof system. 9. Technical Services GenFlex technical personnel are available to answer telephone questions or approve details. Refer to manufacturer’s contact information referenced in section 2.0 for contact information. GenFlex Technical Specifications are available at www.genflex.com. 10. Filing Systems  Architects’ First Source for Products  Sweet’s Catalog Files  SweetSource  Additional product information is available from the manufacturer. Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 75 From: To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Switzer, Steven Subject:Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Project and Rental Practices Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 1:19:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Architectural Review Board and City Council, This letter addresses concerns regarding a proposed project that, while potentially a wonderful idea, presents two essential problems that need to be addressed before moving forward. First, the reputation of the company responsible for renting apartments within this project is not great. As of today, VRENT holds a Google rating of 2.7 stars from 79 reviews. This indicates a significant number of renters have had negative experiences, which is a serious concern for any new housing development in our city. Secondly, the city needs to implement effective rent control measures before we can trust in huge new projects that could further impact housing affordability. Without such protections, large developments risk exacerbating existing housing challenges for current and future residents. Sincerely, Item {{item.number}} 6.26 ARB Public Comment Packet Pg. 76