Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-03 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: July 3, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board Member Mousam Adcock, Board Member Marton Jojarth, Board Member David Hirsch Absent: None. Chair Rosenberg called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. Chair Rosenberg welcomed Board Member Jojarth. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Planning Manager Claire Raybould announced there are no agenda changes, additions or deletions. Chair Rosenberg noted that the approval of minutes has no number next to it, although it is an agendized item. It will be referred to as Item 4. Planning Manager Raybould indicated it had been updated on the online version of the agenda and packet. City Official Reports 1. City Official Report Planning Manager Claire Raybould stated that on the upcoming agenda Cedar & Sage will return, Cubberley Community Center will hold a study session, and there will be an ad hoc for 3256 El Camino Real. She will find out who is assigned to that ad hoc committee. Board Members Adcock and Jojarth will be absent on July 17. If there needs to be reassignment based on the ad hoc, she will reach out to the Page 2 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Chair to coordinate that. The chair and vice chair elections, originally planned for that day, will be moved to the August 7 hearing. No new projects had been filed since the last hearing. Action Item 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 Associate Planner Kristina Dobkevicius commented that the proposed project is requesting the remodel of an existing office building and a design enhancement exception. Slides were displayed. The project site is located within the Stanford Research Park area. There are 2 existing buildings, which were constructed in 1997. No changes are proposed for the building at 925 Page Mill Road. The applicant is requesting approval for modifications to a 50,527 square foot office building and an associated surface parking lot located between the 2 existing structures. The following permits were requested: Architectural review for exterior changes and floor area reconfiguration, design enhancement exception for architectural features to encroach into the 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way and Page Mill frontages, and a conditional use permit for the office for eating and drinking service conversion on the ground floor of the existing building with alcohol service use. She outlined what the existing structure consists of. The previously clipped entry corner facing Page Mill will be infilled by relocating and realigning the structural bay closest to the 925 Page Mill building at the back. The new exterior will primarily be composed of large-format, off-white terracotta panels with varying vertical rib projections. Zinc-clad panels will complement the surfaces, be used at secondary entrances, and will accent window pairings across the elevation. 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 staircases. The design enhancement exception is requested as part of the project. The combination of dual setbacks along Page Mill and Hansen and the constraints associated with adaptive reuse presents a condition not commonly found elsewhere in the district, so the unique circumstances justify the minor encroachments as part of the broader effort to achieve a high-quality, contemporary design. The proposed projections are modest in scale and do not increase the useable floor area and present no impact to visibility or site access. The applicant requested a design enhancement exception for the zinc composite shadow boxes and vertical sunshades for the first and second floors. Stairs and associated handrails are proposed to encroach into the special setback along Page Mill and Hansen. The project includes conversion of 3,769 square feet of existing office space to an eating and drinking use on the ground floor, which is intended to serve employees within the building and the broader Stanford Research Park area. The proposed café space is permitted through the requested conditional use permit and is consistent with the Research Park land use designation. A number of existing parking spaces on the site are located within an approved Landscape Reserve area originally approved under the 1997 Page 3 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 architectural review approval action for the building at 925 Page Mill. The project will remove 43 substandard compact parking spaces and the narrow drive aisles located in the Landscape Reserve and proposes 33 code-compliant spaces and wide drive aisles. Staff found the project to be mostly in conformance with architectural review conditional use and design enhancement findings. 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 on Page Mill and Hansen. Staff finds the project to be consistent with relevant plans, policies, and regulations adopted by the City and recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project with selected modifications to the director and planning of development services. Chair Rosenberg requested disclosures. Board Member Adcock voiced that she had visited the site. There is a bus stop on the street that seems to have more of a significant presence than what she discerned from the drawings. Vice Chair Chen had no disclosures other than she visited the site yesterday. Chair Rosenberg had nothing to disclose other than she had visited the site. Board Member Jojarth remarked that he had no disclosures other than he had visited the site. Board Member Hirsch mentioned that he had no disclosures other than visiting the site. He asked if there is a sample board of materials. Chair Rosenberg declared that the sample board of materials was being passed around. Vice Chair Chen requested more context as it relates to the special setback. She noted that it is being recommended that the low wall and stairs be revised. She inquired what the setback is for and what the intent is for the special setback. Associate Planner Dobkevicius answered that the special setback is to keep the area clear of permanent structures for possible future redevelopment. The setback applies to Page Mill and Hansen, so the entire corner of the existing building is restricted by the setback on both frontages. Vice Chair Chen asked if the hardscape is allowed and if the low wall and the stairs are discouraged. Associate Planner Dobkevicius affirmed that is staff’s recommendation. The existing building has a small amount of paving and stairs along Hansen, but nothing is encroaching along the Page Mill frontage. The new design proposes additional further encroachments along Hansen with concrete plaza walls of 3 feet with umbrellas, tables, and chairs, which is the biggest encroachment. There are minor steps along Page Mill off the ADA accessible ramp. Board Member Adcock queried if there have been other projects along the secondary streets and if it is typically held at 50 feet. Page 4 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Planning Manager Raybould replied that the area on Hansen has a 50-foot setback requirement. Board Member Jojarth questioned if exceptions have been approved for other properties on Hansen. Planning Manager Raybould responded that there are some existing nonconforming, but she is not aware of any granted exceptions. Assistant Director Planning & Community Environment Jennifer Armer stated that on the corner with El Camino Real a hotel was allowed to encroach, which she explained had been done through a formal process. She believed the encroachment was for the building itself. Board Member Hirsch asked if an exception is required for landscape and/or use changes. Claire Raybould answered that any permanent structures in the setback require an exception. Removeable structures and grade-level improvements, such as paving, are allowed. Chair Rosenberg asked if the issue is the stairs or the handrail. Planning Manager Raybould answered that the issues are the stairs and the handrail. Staff’s recommendation is based on the improvements not seeming necessary to preserve access to the areas. The encroachment for the shade makes sense. Board Member Adcock inquired if the ramps have handrails and if it is allowed. Planning Manager Raybould replied staff is not aware of there being handrails for the ramp. Associate Planner Dobkevicius voiced that only the steps facing Page Mill are encroaching. Page C2 shows the ramp on Hansen, which is outside the special setback. The only encroaching element is the small stair of the ramp. Sheet A1.01 shows the setbacks. Board Member Hirsch inquired if the stairs and railings from Page Mill are in the 50-foot setback. Associate Planner Dobkevicius shared a slide showing the ramp and the stair. Board Member Adcock suggested getting the applicant’s presentation because it appears to be a walkway wrapping around the building, not a ramp. She queried if a building at the setback line is allowed stairs within the setback. Associate Planner Dobkevicius responded that the stairs are not required for entering or exiting the building. The one along Hansen is for the employees of the building to enter an amenity-like space. Planning Manager Raybould added that stairs are allowed within a setback only through an exception process or if it is written in the code that stairs can encroach. Code sections in certain zonings have Page 5 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 exceptions specifically for stairs to encroach a certain amount into a setback, but it does not apply here. Typically a building will have a staircase approach within the building envelope or buildable area. Chair Rosenberg was trying to grasp what is and is not allowed in the setback and why this small item is a potential trigger when the large patio is okay. Board Member Adcock stated the patio is not okay. Planning Manager Raybould remarked that an at-grade patio is allowed. Any improvements related to the patio that are not grade level are exceptions that must be requested. Chair Rosenberg questioned if the patio is acceptable but not the stairs to get to it unless there is an exception and what exception is being sought for approval. Associate Planner Dobkevicius responded that the request is to approve the sunshades for the vertical elements along the façade. Staff is recommending that be approved but not the patio walls, umbrellas, stairs, and steps encroaching into the special setback. They have conditions of approval asking to remove those. Board Member Hirsch questioned if a ramp is different and why stairs are allowed on the Page Mill side with railings. Planning Manager Raybould replied that requires an exception, which seems to be unnecessary as there are code compliant access points from Page Mill and Hansen. Staff is not recommending approval of those. She suggested hearing from the applicant before discussing it further. Program Director for Stanford Research Park Jamie Jarvis spoke of the Research Park providing opportunity to support Palo Alto’s economy. The vision for the project at 975 Page Mill is to adapt and reuse the existing building as a place for innovators, creators, and thought leaders to connect and collaborate. The building will draw entrepreneurs that will align with the university’s focus areas of education, climate tech, AI, and robotics by offering space for start-up accelerator, a learning studio, small offices, shared meeting spaces, and a café. Principal/Founder of Heather Young Architects Heather Young shared some slides of the designs for the project. This is a smaller subset of a larger 10-acre site. The project will remain net neutral as far as FAR in the renovation. There will be 33 new parking spaces developed, and there is a CUP and the DEE. The existing building is located only about 6 inches off the special setback on Hansen and Page Mill, and it is very close to the adjacent building at 975. They want the building to be clean, fresh, and contemporary. They desire enlarging the windows. The primary goal is to increase activity at ground plane around the building. She discussed the challenges in site accessibility. Regarding the primary entry, they want to extend the interior ground plane out of the building to enable folks to comfortably use the facility indoors and outdoors. They wish to increase the separation between 975 and 925 by removing the 24- foot bay, elevating the plazas to the interior finished floor level around the areas that face the Page Mill parking lot, and adding secondary entries facing Page Mill and another entry/exit facing Hansen. The Page 6 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 rooftop has been modified to reduce the mechanical enclosure and to allow for solar photovoltaics. To further daylight the building, a large skylight will be placed over a new interior stair. All the paved area planned north, west, and south of the building are coplanar with the interior finished floor. The setback along Hansen at the edge of the building is a required egress stair. There is a landing area and ramps with accessible access to the public way. She described the series of walkways on Page Mill going around the front portion of the building and new landscape to activate the ground plane to circumnavigate the building, which is not possible. There will be new accessible parking and a new stair coming up from the parking lot to the plaza. As for the material and finishes, the biggest change is adding an exterior terracotta rainscreen wall on the majority of the building. Existing glass will be replaced with high- performance clear glass. There will be zinc composite panel elements at the entries and between paired and enlarged windows and painted steel and aluminum trellis structures greater than 50-percent open. The 2-story green glass entry wall will be replaced with a double-height curtain wall, which will allow visual transparency between the exterior of the building and the interior café seating and upper floor office. A diagram was presented showing the areas of existing concrete panel being removed to enlarge the windows, the view coming from the parking lot with the steps, the clear entry under a second floor balcony, the double-height curtain wall, the trellis, and the terracotta panels. At the Page Mill entry, they need a retaining wall, which will be within the buildable area. The steps are for convenience. Slides were presented showing the terracotta panels; the Hansen patio with removable tables, chairs, and umbrellas; the low retaining walls and fences, which may be allowed in the setback; the steps; and the rear of the building with outdoor seating areas and the new exterior exit stair to the second floor. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Chair Rosenberg allowed the applicant 2 minutes to finish her presentation. Principal/Founder Young spoke more about the design of the terracotta panels, maximizing the window size, making the façade more timeless, and the vertical and horizontal sun fins. The building will receive a new mechanical, electrical, and plumbing system. Board Member Jojarth asked what the intended use is for the patio, if they saw the entrance on Hansen becoming a main or second main entrance to the building for a second tenant, why a wide staircase is necessary, and what the role is of the 3-foot wall and why it is necessary. Principal/Founder Young replied that the patio is for an additional outdoor resource for the building occupants. It will be the only patio on the east side. Those dropped off by the Stanford Marguerite shuttle could use this as a main entrance or the stair at the Hansen parking lot side or the Page Mill entrance or the primary building entrance. There is also a bus stop on Page Mill. The plaza is intended to encourage pedestrian access to buildings and to encourage spending time on site. As for Hansen becoming a main or second main entrance to the building, the building is designed as a multitenant building to attract smaller companies, so the concept is that the second floor will have 2 tenants and the ground floor 1 tenant. The other components of the building’s interior are to support everybody. The café and dining area will not be for just building occupants. It is desired that folks from other buildings Page 7 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 will visit the facility. There will be programming in the building to attract local SRE building occupants, not just the 975 building family. Is not anticipated that there will be a request for building signage at Hansen. It could be an easy access path. The building will have badge securities. She pointed out the potential location for the monument sign for the entire building with signage for the primary building tenants. The staircase is wide because they want it to be inviting and easy. Narrower steps will be less inviting. As for the 3-foot wall, she requested that Marco Lei speak about the trees. The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc, Marco Lei noted that there are existing trees, and the 3-foot wall is to keep the soil level for the trees at the same grade. The wall will hold up the elevation of the walkway by the patio. Board Member Jojarth asked if there is another function for the wall at Hansen and around the gate. The Guzzardo Partnership Lei replied that the wall will give privacy separation between the public sidewalk and the patio. Board Member Jojarth inquired if consideration had been given to a hedge instead of a concrete wall. The Guzzardo Partnership Lei responded that eventually the landscaping could mature to provide a security function, but it would take time for the initial plantings to achieve that. A permanent low wall will create an instant boundary for the patio space. Board Member Jojarth commented that planting more mature landscaping could provide privacy. He queried if the wall is necessary for programming, attracting small companies, and providing outdoor space. The Guzzardo Partnership Lei responded that a portion of the wall will be necessary to retain the existing soil. The continuation of the wall will jive with the overall aesthetics of the patio space and is another reason for the front wall. Chair Rosenberg questioned if the transformer is in the special setback. Claire Raybould responded that it is in the special setback. It will not be removed as it is City-owned property. Board Member Hirsch asked if the solid enclosing wall at that location is to be a separation from the unsightly transformer. Bicycle storage is a use that justifies the entry being more significant than others. Principal/Founder Young answered that the solid enclosing wall at that location is to be a separation from the transformer and it will help with sound deflection. It will give folks a sense of security as there are vehicles within 15 feet. There is bicycle storage in several locations. In addition to the transformers, there are additional boxes for electrical, traffic control, etc., to support the utilities in the area. Page 8 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Board Member Hirsch discussed bicycles possibly parking close to that and perhaps using it as an entry. It seems logical to keep the traffic getting into the building separate from the patio but an attractive connection to the building. Board Member Adcock asked if the stair is required for egress and if the patio could be the same elevation as the building instead of stepping down 4 steps. Principal/Founder Young answered that the stair is not required for egress. Assistant Director Armer stated that the patio being the same elevation as the building instead of stepping down 4 steps will not be supported. Board Member Adcock asked if there is support to build the grade up adjacent to the building. Assistant Director Armer answered that significant grading to bring the level up higher would get in the way of possible future use of the space, and staff would be concerned with that level of fill. Board Member Adcock inquired if grade will be built up for the retaining walls for the patio, if the patio could have a thickened edge instead of the wall, and what the elevation difference is between the tree being saved and the patio. She questioned if the retaining wall is necessary. Principal/Founder Young replied that grade will be minimally built up to facilitate drainage. She explained why the patio cannot have a thickened edge instead of the wall. The Guzzardo Partnership Lei responded that that the tree base is higher than the patio. The patio is closer to the grade of the sidewalk, and everything around it is higher. Everything steps down from the building to the sidewalk. The trees’ bases are about 18 inches to 2 feet higher than the sidewalk. The retaining wall is to keep the tree at a higher elevation, and the patio will be sunken. Board Member Adcock asked if the patio can be level with the tree grade. The Guzzardo Partnership Lei responded that the tree is in between the elevation of the building and the patio. If the patio is elevated, the wall would be shorter, but there would be more steps or a sloped walk to the public right of way. Principal/Founder Young stated the patio needs a 2-percent slope, so locating it lower provided for a level area. If it should be higher, it would be smaller, less usable, and less enticing. Board Member Jojarth thought a steeper slope is a good idea. Assistant Director Armer stated there is an option to consider some of these as part of the exception that is part of the request. Three findings are required. She read the findings (Attachment B of the Staff Report). There is justification for the first finding, which could be part of the recommendation. Page 9 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Board Member Jojarth noted that the patio has gates and that folks exiting public transportation will not be able to access the building through the patio. Principal/Founder Young replied the gate is not locked. It is private property. Board Member Adcock asked what the overall depth is of the fins from the face of the building. Principal/Founder Young answered that the ribs on the panel are 1 inch and the fins are 12½ inches. One façade is slightly further away from the setback from the other. She thought 1 encroached 12¼ inches and the other 11¼. They will not be an impediment to access. Board Member Adcock asked if 12 inches will provide enough shading, how the terracotta panels will be attached to the existing precast, and if the facia profile will be the same zinc color. Principal/Founder Young responded that they looked at making them longer than 12 inches, and they are working with an energy modeler and sun-study evaluation group. They are trying to find the marriage of architectural design and buildability and tying to standardize profiles for the aluminum trim at the window, which she believed can be achieved. It is a cap extension to the window, which she detailed. It is not a zinc extension but a painted aluminum extension. She explained how the terracotta panels will be attached to the existing precast. The facia is a painted aluminum facia cap at the top of the parapet. The zinc elements are the wall panels and the vertical wall panel between the paired windows. Board Member Hirsch requested a description of the zinc color and the thickness. Principal/Founder Young answered that the zinc is a very thick composite panel. The inner core is phenolic, and the inner face is metal, so it will stay fairly rigid and not warp or bend. Board Member Adcock asked what color and material the roof screen will be and if the terracotta fins will be 1 inch. Principal/Founder Young replied that the roof screen is P3 and trim color. It is a corrugated material that is 7¾-inch center to center with vertical ribbing. A corrugated panel will also be used for the exterior accessory structure, which has bike storage, etc. It will be the same color but a narrower ribbing. She believed the terracotta fins are about 1-1/8-inch wide and 1-inch thick. Board Member Jojarth mentioned that he loves the white terracotta tiles, but he asked if consideration had been given to having a variation in color to make the building less monotonous and reduce the glare. Principal/Founder Young replied that they recognized that the length of the Page Mill façade has the potential for repetition and monotony. The Page Mill entry will be stepped back to break the façade. They want to emphasize the Page Mill entry with the balcony and trellis to bring additional color and variation to the overall façade length. They did not consider more than one terracotta color. The finish is more matte than semigloss, so they are not worried about glare. Larger samples of that are forthcoming. Page 10 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Board Member Hirsch expressed that the vertical elements break up the pattern, so there is a casual feeling to the outside of the building. Additional building colors are not needed. There will be shadowing, so it will not be too bright. Chair Rosenberg agreed that the shadows and the lines will break it up nicely. She queried what the LRV is. Principal/Founder Young answered that she does not know what the LRV is. She invited the Board to their office to review the many other whites they had explored. They want to have layers of scale and texture to the overall façade, and bringing in extra color did not feel right. Vice Chair Chen understood the desire to raise the front patio and to have a more inviting plaza entrance to the 975 building. There is currently a wide walkway connecting 925 and 975. The proposed parking lot and the relocated stairs seem to disconnect 925 as originally proposed. Access to 925 does not seem ideal. She inquired why there is a desire to relocate the exterior stairs and what the impact will be to the existing pedestrian traffic pattern. Principal/Founder Young replied that the area is at grade with the runway coming out, so coming from Page Mill, one will go up and by the time the parking is reached it is coplanar. There are no steps or ramps in that area. The accessible parking has a small sloped walkway to the plaza but the majority of the sectional change happens before that part on the site. Marrying the two architectures was challenging. It is important to remove the 24-foot bay immediately adjacent. The site currently feels crowded, so removing the bay and giving the 2 buildings space is a fundamental goal. The project will not detract from the entrance when one is in the parking lot going toward that building. The 2 buildings on the same site respect each other but do not have to mimic each other. A wraparound trellis for the 925 structure is desired to embrace the landscape. Vice Chair Chen inquired if narrowing the plaza walkway will impact the pedestrian traffic pattern. Since the café will be shared with adjacent buildings, she asked if there is access from the back of the walkway to the patio. She queried if the floor area of the café, the back-of-house, and the seating area is accurate or if it impacted the calculations; if the entrance door is purposefully offset from the centerline of the exterior stairs; what the railing material will be for the exterior stairs of the rear parking lot accessing the second floor; and what the finish of the low concrete wall will be. Principal/Founder Young replied that 925 Page Mill is an R&D and manufacturing facility. Very few park in the front parking lot. They park around the building and enter at the door closest to their work area. She did not think it will impact pedestrian traffic. As for the café and access to the patio, there are doors in the glazing system and 3 at-grade connections. There are connections at the perimeter of the site. The café is meant to support those in the building, on the site, and adjacent to it. They are trying to make it as open and available as possible. She referenced Sheet A1.20 and pointed out that there are 2 doors to allow entry as well as the front door. One can also enter from the Hansen parking lot entrance and the Page Mill entrance. Regarding the floor area of the café, the back-of-house, and the seating area, a diagram was provided showing the open area and the interior circulation path to the seating and the outdoors. The path can be used from the building to the patio. It is not necessarily that folks will be part Page 11 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 of the café dining, the back-of-house, or the servery zone. As for the entrance door being offset from the centerline of the exterior stairs, part of the adaptive reuse is to retain the existing structure as much as possible. It is hoped that the way it is incorporated will add interest and variety to the building. The railing material for the exterior stairs of the rear parking lot accessing the second floor is a perforated metal panel from Bach Modern, and the pattern will be customized as close as possible to the ribbing and shadows occurring on the wall. The low concrete retaining wall will be smooth concrete. Chair Rosenberg referenced the site plan and pointed out the points of easy access and questioned if there is a higher and lower side to the ramp, why the staircase is in the special setback and not incorporated in the corner, and if the applicant is opposed to removing as many retaining walls of the Hansen patio as possible and keeping it at grade. Principal/Founder Young confirmed that there is a higher and lower side to the ramp. She explained why the staircase is in the special setback and not incorporated in the corner. They do not love the idea of removing retaining walls of the Hansen patio, and she asked if the Board would be open to considering approving the design as presented with an agreement that if in the future the special setback area is needed by the City that the stair and patio will be removed. There are a number of existing utilities in the area, and it is unlikely that the City will take more of that area. There is currently a bike lane and possibly a layby for the Marguerite. If it needs to be widened, the team would return with a modification. Planning Manager Raybould expressed that if the Board wants to consider that, staff will need direction to update the findings prior to the director making a decision, and there would be a condition of approval added. It would not be an encroachment permit. Chair Rosenberg commended the applicant on the building design. She is fond of the striations in the terracotta tiling. The adaptive reuse will be an improvement. The indoor/outdoor space is appreciated. The concept of what will occur inside the building will be beneficial to the tech community and potential future businesses arising from the area. She likes the bike structures and the paving on the Page Mill side. She cannot find a reason for the staircase to be in the bottom left corner of the sheet. If the staircase is to violate the rule, there needs to be a legitimate reason. Regarding the Hansen side patio, the issue is not the patio itself but the staircase between the patio and the building, and the Board will need to find a design exemption for that. The concrete retaining walls specifically on the side closer to Hansen sidewalk is problematic, and she is having a hard time finding exceptional circumstances needed to approve it. With the location of the building and the patio being at grade, there may be an exceptional circumstance allowing the staircase between. The tree needing support is a viable reason for having the back retaining wall. The patio space will enhance the neighborhood, but not having the retaining wall will further enhance the neighborhood presence. She hopes 925 will get a facelift at some point. Board Member Adcock found the colors to be muted but beautiful and the touch of green on the landscaping to be a nice collection of colors and proportions. She is glad the windows will be enlarged, which she wants to see in construction drawings. The wraparound trellis has a nice balance with the scale of the building. Regarding the stair and the entrance/egress plan, it does not seem essential to push the boundary. Maybe there could be a bench to break up the path instead of the stair. It will be nice Page 12 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 to have the patio on Hansen, but the concrete retaining wall in the front is too large. She suggested wooden railings, etc., to create the enclosure and to plant slightly larger plants for screening. She supported the stair for the project enhancement. She supported there being a condition that anything past the walkway be removeable. Vice Chair Chen commended the applicant on reusing an existing building. The look of the building is great and the materials are carefully sorted. The enlarged windows are appreciated. The Hansen patio will be a great addition to the site because it will enhance the indoor/outdoor experience. It makes sense to have the exterior stairs for direct access from the building to the patio, although they are within the special setback. The Hansen patio concrete wall is cold, harsh, and too enclosed. She encouraged the use of more warming materials. Board Member Hirsch commented that he is excited about the possibility of the patio, which will create a terrific use of the entire site. It could be softened by adding railing, which might relate to the gates and the metal, to the top of the concrete wall surrounding the patio. A design exception should be allowed for this feature. The connections to the walkway on the Page Mill side are inviting. He hoped a landscape will be created for folks to use. He asked where the artwork will be in the front elevation. Consideration needs to be given to lighting the art. The front of the building facing the parking lot has terrific scale. He inquired if there will be extending canopies above the series of windows opposite the window that faces the parking lot on the Page Mill side. Principal/Founder Young responded, regarding the artwork, that Jamie Jarvis presented to the Palo Alto Art Commission 1½ weeks ago. The image of the art at the rear wall of the main entry is part of their public art contribution. The Art Commission agreed that the lobby wall is highly visible. They will review the proposals with the Art Commission as the project moves forward. There will not be extending canopies above the series of windows opposite the window that faces the parking lot on the Page Mill side. Board Member Hirsch expressed that the character of that should represent what is happening inside. The extensions are for lighting and sunshades and should be of the character of the building, and he requested that the applicant explore including it on that side. The building improves the character of the whole Research Park. Board Member Jojarth remarked that the design is beautiful. He has a long list of what he likes about the building. As for the findings for the exception, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan states that start-up and incubator activity should be encouraged in the Stanford Research Park and that services should be brought to the Research Park. The project is critical. He agrees with the prior comments related to the staircase on Page Mill and the Hansen patio, but the Research Park needs to attract the aforementioned businesses. It will be a worry if scaling down the plans will prevent the occupancy of such tenants. His priority is to achieve the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. He does not want the wall to be concrete, but it may be needed for privacy to attract the desired tenants. He suggested the applicant give thought to the concerns raised related to the Hansen patio. If the applicant does not believe the space will be useable by planting mature landscaping and reducing the size of the staircase, that will be a possible Page 13 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 next step. He requested more data on the necessity of the concrete wall and the staircase. It will be perfect if the applicant can make it work with less of an infraction into the zoning code. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the project as shown with the following conditions: That the stair facing Page Mill be removed from the scope of work exemption will not be approved, that the Hansen patio be approved as designed with the exception of the front retaining wall along Hansen Way and the rear ones be as minimal as possible to retain the tree, and that the staircase between the patio and the building be approved as an exception. Board Member Hirsch mentioned that the order of the conditions listed in the motion should be reversed. He inquired what needs to be done with the wall adjacent to the streetside as there needs to be some kind of retaining wall. Chair Rosenberg responded that the one along the Hansen façade is not needed as it could be done with landscaping. If the security of start-ups should be at play, it may be that folks should not work outside or that they work in the back corner, which will have a retaining wall and a tree. Board Member Hirsch added that a major amount of landscaping may be needed. He queried if it is possible to say in the motion that the concrete element should be minimalized. Chair Rosenberg replied that the need for separation of space can be achieved with landscaping. She cannot find a reason for there needing to be physical fence. Board Member Adcock added that the concrete wall is too much, but a physical barrier of a guardrail- type finish or planter box would be fine. She is not convinced that there is a need to work on confidential material in that area. She supports the patio as it is a building enhancement that cannot otherwise be achieved. Chair Rosenberg stated that point number 3 is that the staircase between the patio and the building be allowed as it is the only possible method to get from the patio to the building, it is a safety feature to exit the building, and it will enhance the neighborhood. Planning Manager Raybould noted that those are the additional elements in terms of the findings that justify the exception. She queried if there should be direction for staff to update the findings. Assistant Director Armer suggested it be noted that the ARB recommends additional conditions be added to allow for future removal if requested by the City. Chair Rosenberg suggested adding a fourth bullet point to say that should future work be required by the City that any items within the setback will be removed. Board Member Adcock suggested it read “items not necessary to egress be removed.” Page 14 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Board Member Jojarth asked if the staircase will be allowed in the proposed form or if it can be reduced to the standard 36 inches. Chair Rosenberg responded that the wider staircase is a benefit because it is safer, more inviting, and enhances the neighborhood. Board Member Adcock remarked that as designed it made the patio more welcoming and that it lines up nicely with recess in the building. Discussion ensued related to the language of the motion. Principal/Founder Young asked if the requested CUP is approved and if the wall along Hansen can be the same material as the perforated metal railing at the interior rear stair. Assistant Director Armer replied that the ARB does not make a motion related to the CUP. It is done at the staff level. Chair Rosenberg voiced that she cannot find a reason why the wall along Hansen has to be a stationary wall, so she motioned that it be a landscape wall instead. The applicant may return with an argument for that at a later time. Board Member Jojarth questioned if that includes the other retaining walls. Chair Rosenberg answered that it references removing just the front, straight retaining wall along Hansen. SECOND: Vice Chair Chen seconded the motion. AMENDMENT: Board Member Adcock made a friendly amendment that the enclosure around the patio be an open railing-type feature no higher than 3 feet from the patio surface. Chair Rosenberg asked why it cannot be accomplished with landscaping and what the exceptional circumstance is. Board Member Adcock commented that it should be allowed because in the 2 areas where they are trying to save the trees there is not enough space to plant a privacy hedge. If the design is to consistently wrap around the patio, she does not want there to be 1 strategy on 2 sides of the patio and different on the street side of the patio. Planting hedges in that area would be disturbed the soil around the trees. Chair Rosenberg pointed out on the map the area where the retaining wall along the zigzag edge will be reduced to follow grade, so it will not be 3 feet tall the entire way, and it will be more subtle and minimal. The one along Hansen will be removed. She pointed out the area where planting is not needed. Page 15 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Board Member Adcock expressed that planting is needed because of the different elevations at the tree base and the patio. Chair Rosenberg inquired why there needs to be a setback for planting. Discussion ensued related to a setback for planting, the height of the retaining wall, retaining soil for the trees, and planting hedges instead of trees. Board Member Adcock voiced that she wants there to be an option to also plant trees, and there is not enough room to plant both trees and hedges. She discussed space needed for a railing as an enclosure for trees along Hansen. Chair Rosenberg commented that the applicant can choose how to landscape the wall – hedges versus trees. She cannot find a need for a railing and a permanent structure to be above a certain amount of height above grade. There has to be a legitimate reason that it cannot be accomplished with another method. She queried what the railing will do that the landscape will not. Board Member Adcock expressed that she wants the applicant to have an option to do railing and trees, as box hedges will create a green wall enclosure and there will not be visual openness to the patio. Activating the street to the patio will be eliminated by enclosing it with a 6-foot tall box hedge. Chair Rosenberg mentioned that a railing dividing it will also somewhat eliminate activating the street. Board Member Adcock did not agree. She compared it to railing edges for parklets. Chair Rosenberg noted that to some extent a precedent is being set. She queried how the ARB might respond to someone on Page Mill wanting to put in a patio and a railing at a later date because it is allowed on Hansen. Board Member Adcock replied that Hansen is a secondary street. She does want the allowed patio to be an extension to a private property versus a patio off the sidewalk. It is a private patio, not a restaurant outdoor seating patio. Board Member Hirsch remarked that the ask is to minimize the amount of concrete retaining wall. There is still a significant amount of design to be done on this piece. He suggested that the applicant decide what to do and then return to the ARB. Chair Rosenberg stated there may need to be an ad hoc but it is an either-or situation. There needs to be a valid reason for the design assumption. She suggested the applicant return with a potential revision to the Hansen Way fencing as long as it goes through an ad hoc and the ARB is comfortable with it. The fencing should have a maximum height of 3 feet. The applicant may need to provide renderings to validate the need for the front fencing. Principal/Founder Young welcomed the opportunity to review that with the ARB. Page 16 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Chair Rosenberg voiced there is a friendly amendment by Board Member Adcock for a potential revision of the Hansen Way fencing with a maximum height of 3 feet to be reviewed by an ad hoc committee. If the applicant wants the fencing, it needs to return through an ad hoc. If the applicant decides not to put fencing along the Hansen side, there is no need to return for an ad hoc. She accepted the friendly amendment as written. Vice Chair Chen accepted the friendly amendment. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. [The Board took a 10-minute break] 3. Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan Planning Manager Claire Raybould commented that the annotations made to the Work Plan during the April 17 ARB hearing have been incorporated and finalized in the draft presented to the ARB. Additional pictures have been added to the annual report, which is the only change made by staff since the last review. Council recently directed the ARB to review the wireless standards. Staff recommends that be added to the Work Plan. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer mentioned that it can included under one of the existing goals working on ordinance updates, etc., so it will not be a separate goal. Staff recommends adding some language referencing that as an example of the type of work that could be done. Planning Manager Raybould stated she recommends adding it under project goal 2. Because it is not resourced, staff recommends adding to the lower priority, so it will read “including review of wireless standards.” Chair Rosenberg suggested adding that. Board Member Hirsch questioned if staff came up with drawings approved by the ARB. Assistant Director Armer responded that this is a separate effort. Council was presented with an interim/temporary ordinance to modify the process for certain types of wireless facilities, specifically tiers 2 and 3 in the public right of way, for the ARB to review. Staff is working on what that will look like to get that, when possible, within the shot clock timelines required by Federal law. It will be a nuanced process that staff will implement as best as possible. In addition to that, Council directed that there be further discussion with the ARB, but it is currently not resourced so the exact time of that returning to the ARB with the other priorities will have to be considered in the coming months. As for drawings, there are no specific additional guidelines. Page 17 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Board Member Hirsch mentioned that he is interested in companies submitting drawings for prototypical ways in which they will put their equipment on the poles. He added that he is also interested in the transformer issues in the street. Assistant Director Armer noted that they have only the materials that are part of the applications that have been submitted and reviewed. Planning Manager Raybould added that the wireless standards that were not part of the noticed item and what will be reviewed cannot be discussed. The item before the ARB is what is being considered in the Work Plan. Assistant Director Armer added that Council’s direction is to add a note to the existing draft Work Plan to acknowledge review of the wireless standards and process. Placement, scale, and materials will be discussed in the future. Board Member Adcock referenced project goal 3 and asked if a Coordinated Area Plan will come before the ARB in the near term. Planning Manager Raybould answered that it is not a new Coordinated Area Plan. It is creating from the Coordinated Area Plan objective standards. She added that she is not sure of the timeline. Assistant Director Armer added that there is an Implementation Program in the Housing Element. It describes reviewing the SOFA regulations and making them objective where possible. It is also tied to a potential for allowing additional housing in that area. She believed the deadline for that is the end of 2026. The timeline for starting that has not been determined. It has not yet been assigned. Board Member Hirsch referenced streamlining objective standards and inquired if it would be a good idea to provide relevant adjustments to the objective standards for discussion with the Planning Department for Council approval in light of the Council-approved modifications to the zoning. Significant modifications have been made, and the ARB does not have objective standards (elevations, drawings, etc.) describing those. There are other aspects to the objective standards that are not applicable based on the ARB’s previous decisions. Planning Manager Raybould remarked that Council made a few modifications to the objective standards for projects using the El Camino focus area. One addresses how the step-back is to be provided for taller buildings along El Camino in particular. Beyond that, staff does not have direction. Staff wants to come back with some modifications. It is a low priority because Council has not formally directed staff to put resources toward it. Board Member Hirsch voiced that it is a missing element. Board Member Adcock requested the status of project goal 4. She queried what will likely come to the ARB for review in the next 6 months. Page 18 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Assistant Director Armer replied that the San Antonio Road Area Plan is in process. A community advisory group is being formed. Staff expects to return for initial discussion with each of the boards and commissions and with Council in the fall. She believed the San Antonio Road Area Plan will be presented to the ARB in the fall. She does not have additional details on what will likely come to the ARB for review in the next 6 months. Staff identified the California Avenue streetscape improvements as a priority item under the goal. It is anticipated that the ARB will look at the initial diagrams for the Cubberley Master Plan at the next meeting. Items will be presented as they are ready. Board Member Hirsch commented that he is on the Cubberly Board and that it is important to see the Cubberley Master Plan as it progresses. Board Member Jojarth queried if the ARB is involved with plans other than Cubberley. Assistant Director Armer answered that each area plan has different levels of involvement. Staff is managing the process, which is usually a multiyear process. In each case, expert consultants are part of the team, who prepare information and studies and do public outreach. As materials are ready for input from different boards and commissions, staff will bring those forward for discussion with the ARB as well as for public comment. There are often community and technical advisory committees to advise throughout the process. Staff tries to provide ongoing information online and email updates to interested parties as new materials become available. Staff likes to come to the ARB at different phases of a project for their perspective, particularly on site planning and design implications. She discussed the work of the community advisory group, which endeavored to have representatives from applicable boards and commissions. If there is to be feedback from the ARB, it will be presented for a full discussion. Board Member Hirsch questioned if items from previous years had been reviewed in creating this one and if what is going to Council will include all the projects the ARB voted on for the awards. Chair Rosenberg responded that items from last year were reviewed for the Work Plan moving forward. Not all the projects the ARB voted on for the awards will go to Council. It includes examples that the ARB feels are visually representative of the ARB’s impact. It is not necessarily about the architectural review awards. It is more about highlighting the ARB’s impact on specific projects. Board Member Hirsch felt that some of the illustrations do not work. The photographs of the back of Encina and the Waverly drawing do not look different from one to the other. Chair Rosenberg thought only the front façades of Encina are to be included, not the back. She suggested striking the last 2 images for Encina and the first 2 renderings of Waverly. Assistant Director Armer stated those can be removed if desired. Board Member Adcock expressed that the front of Encina is more impactful, so the last 2 images can be stricken. As for 640 Waverly, she asked if there should be 1 image without showing the difference. Page 19 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Chair Rosenberg stated that showing the 2 elevations side by side and putting the third in the same or far line is a good way to go about it and to have just the final design shown. Assistant Director Armer understood that both for 70 Encina and the first one of the Waverly Street project should be removed and that on the next page, the final design should be retained, not the initial proposal. Chair Rosenberg suggested keeping both and adding in the final design image. Board Member Hirsch remarked, related to 3265 El Camino, that the side elevation showing the front staircase and the change in materials is important. Chair Rosenberg stated that it shows exactly what was done, which allowed for a full extra height of space because the use of the project was important. The renderings are deceptive in terms of the scale. The back images help clarify the renderings, and she suggested they be on the same page. Assistant Director Armer stated the size of the left image can be reduced so the trees will be similar in size. Board Member Hirsch voiced that the materials of the other staircase were changed to be similar to the stair in the back, so those 2 relate to each other, although that drawing is not included. Board Member Adcock asked if this could be removed and have the other 2 final designs of the 2 stairs as part of the story. Board Member Hirsch suggested adding 1 in and showing the relationship of the 2 staircases as a significant change. Chair Rosenberg requested there be a page break between projects with a title/header and then showing the images and then the text. Board Member Adcock suggested that the ARB awards start on a new page. Assistant Director Armer stated that staff will take that direction. Board Member Hirsch found the next pages to work well, including Fabian Way. MOTION: Board Member Adcock moved to approve with the minor edits discussed, seconded by Chair Rosenberg. VOTE: Passed 5-0. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2025 Page 20 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Chair Rosenberg noted that Item 4 is not noted as 4 in the packet but was updated online. Board Member Adcock referenced Packet Page 53, third paragraph from the bottom, and commented that it should read “the back one,” not “the back on.” Board Member Hirsch referenced Packet Page 55 where it states “including the storage areas” and noted that it should read “including corridor recessed seating areas.” Assistant Director Armer stated she will make those amendments. Board Member Jojarth added that “fending” on Packet Page 55 should read “fencing.” MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes with the markups as discussed, seconded by Board Member Adcock. VOTE: Passed 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings or Agenda Items Chair Rosenberg declared that 2 Board members will be absent next week. She may or may not be attending the next meeting via Zoom, but she will hopefully attend in person. The August 7 meeting will be her last meeting as Chair. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer stated that all members need to be present at a meeting to conduct the Chair/Vice Chair elections. Chair Rosenberg declared that the elections will be held on August 7. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:52 a.m.