Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-07 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, August 07, 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. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct a Seven-Story Multi-Family Residential Building Containing 197 Rental Apartments. Thirteen Percent of the Units (26 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income or Below. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy." A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on January 9, 2024. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS) AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov. 3.Chair and Vice Chair Elections APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 15, 2025 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 3, 2025 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT  AD HOC COMMITTEE  6.3950 Fabian Way [24PLN-00263]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of the Bicycle Enclosures, Exterior Design Elements, Front Entry Plaza, and Interior Circulation for a Private Education Development to Accommodate The Girls' Middle School. CEQA Status: The Previously Approved Project Was Found to be Exempt in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing).   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: August 7, 2025 Report #: 2507-5017 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 August 21, 2025 2280 El Camino Real: Jack-in-the-Box Façade improvements 660 University Avenue: Minor Project Changes RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS No new ARB projects have been 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 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 4 9 3 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 CANCELED 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 & Jojarth 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 7/17 – Chen & Hirsch 8/7 -Chen & Rosenberg 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 Revised Plans Submitted 6/23 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 Council 7/17 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 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 Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 9     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of 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) submitted 11/21/24 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) ARB 8/7 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 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 townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three 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 Ad Hoc 8/7 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 Resubmittal on 7/25 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 ARB rec. approval 7 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 4/14/25 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 rec. Approval 7/3 Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 7, 2025 Report #: 2411-3784 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct a Seven-Story Multi-Family Residential Building Containing 197 Rental Apartments. Thirteen Percent of the Units (26 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income or Below. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy." A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on January 9, 2024. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS) AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: 1. Conduct a hearing, provide feedback, and continue to a date uncertain. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application proposes an exclusively residential project including 197 residential rental units, 13 percent of which would be provided at a rate affordable to low-income households (60% of AMI) or below. The project would be located on two contiguous parcels located at 762 San Antonio Road and on an adjacent unaddressed parcel fronting Leghorn Avenue. These parcels would be merged through a certificate of compliance to create a single 77,353-square-foot parcel. The project would replace an existing truck rental business that currently operates on both of these parcels. The applicant filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 on January 9, 2024. Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable standards at the time the compliant SB 330 pre-application was submitted. In addition, the project is considered a “builder’s remedy project” as defined in the recently adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1893. Accordingly, the project may not be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the Zoning Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 11 Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project is further afforded numerous protections detailed below. Builder’s remedy applications are still subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is currently preparing an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Globe Investments, LLC and Acclaim Companies Architect:Studio T-SQ., Inc. Representative:Gary Johnson, Acclaim Properties Legal Counsel:Holland and Knight Property Information Address:762 San Antonio Road (147-05-102 and 147-05-012) Neighborhood:San Antonio HIP area Lot Dimensions & Area:147-05-102: Approximately 223 feet wide, 170 feet deep, 40,383 square feet 147-05-012: Approximately 107 feet wide, 410 feet deep, 36,970 square feet Total: 77,353 square feet (1.78 acres) Housing Inventory Site:Yes, 56 units Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees:Yes, street trees Historic Resource(s):None Existing Improvement(s):Truck rental facility including three small buildings, total of 8,628 square feet Existing Land Use(s):Truck rental Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Auto Service Center (CS) West: Multi-Family Residential (PC) East: Office (City of Mountain View) South: Office, Hotel (CS) Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 11 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Service Commercial Zoning Designation:Service Commercial (CS) with an Automobile Dealership Combining District (AD) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 11 City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Project Description The proposed project is a request for Major Architectural Review for development of an exclusively residential, seven-story apartment building with 197 housing units and two levels of above-grade parking. The project is proposed on two parcels at 762 San Antonio Road and on an unaddressed contiguous parcel, which would be merged to create a 1.78-acre (77,353- square-foot parcel). The project would replace an existing truck rental business, Hengehold Truck Rental. The project site has frontage on both San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street and is located at the boundary of the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View. Driveways are proposed on both frontages, each providing access to a different level of the parking garage. Associated site improvements include two rooftop amenity spaces, landscaping, and utility improvements. The applicant submitted a compliant SB 330 pre-application on January 9, 2024. Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable standards at the time the compliant SB 330 pre- application was submitted. The project is also being proposed in accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) (also known as Builder’s Remedy) and qualifies for additional protections as a “builder’s remedy project,” under AB 1893. The applicant’s project description is provided in Attachment C. Attachment C includes a list of requested waivers requested in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. As detailed further in this report, if the project is designed to comply with all relevant objective standards, after application of density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers, the City cannot impose conditions that would preclude construction of the project as proposed. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.77.070. Major 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 affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. The ARB’s purview of the formal application is limited by the following State law in the following ways: Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 11 Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5): The project constitutes a “housing development project,” as well as “housing for very low, low-, or moderate- income households” under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(d) states that a city cannot deny such a project or impose conditions of approval that would render it infeasible unless it makes specified findings. Among those findings are: (1) that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that cannot be mitigated. Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the City is further limited to only enforcing those objective standards that exist in a zone district or land use designation that allows the density requested. If there are no such zoning districts or general plan designations in the City, then the applicant may identify any City standards that facilitate the project and only those standards shall apply. If the project meets these identified standards, the City cannot impose conditions of approval that preclude the project from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the “base density” for purposes of State Density Bonus Law shall be the maximum density permitted for builder’s remedy projects (e.g. three times the density permitted in the zoning code or general plan). The project applicant is also able to utilize incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law when demonstrating compliance with the enforceable standards. ANALYSIS The City is still evaluating the proposed project in accordance with all of the City’s goals, policies, and regulations across its departments in addition to evaluating the project in conformance with CEQA. Staff will provide a complete review of the project’s consistency with all applicable goals and policies as part of the next report once all review and the environmental analysis are complete. However, to facilitate input on the project design, preliminary conclusions of the project’s consistency with applicable plans, goals, and policies are provided in this report. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located on the San Antonio corridor on the southeastern border of Palo Alto, adjacent to the City of Mountain View. This site wraps around an auto service shop (the Oil Changers) on the corner of Leghorn Street and San Antonio Road and abuts a one-story office building to the south along San Antonio Road. Other surrounding uses include two five-story hotels, Hotel Citrine and the AC Palo Alto Marriot along San Antonio Road. The site is across the street from The Greenhouse condominiums. On the next two blocks to the northeast, there are several entitled or proposed housing projects: 788 San Antonio Road, 800 San Antonio Road, 824 San Antonio Road, and 3997 Fabian Way. The character of San Antonio Road is continuing to transition from mostly commercial in character to more residential, through implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 11 proposed seven-story building is two stories taller than the nearby hotels, and more than 20 feet taller than existing structures on adjacent lots. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines1 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial, which states: "Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations.” Although the project is not located near a transit center, other relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage high density housing growth along this corridor. Further, the site is identified as a Housing Inventory Site under the adopted Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with relevant goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. However, staff notes that the proposed application was filed in accordance with the Builder’s Remedy provision in the Housing Accountability Act. This provision applies to jurisdictions where a compliant Housing Element has not been adopted by the jurisdiction and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Although the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element as of August 2024, the compliant SB 330 pre-application was filed on January 9, 2024, and therefore froze development standards in effect at the time of submittal. Therefore, a project cannot be denied for inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with these policies is still evaluated in accordance with CEQA to determine whether inconsistency would result in a significant environmental Impact. Housing Element Consistency One of the two parcels on which the proposed project would be located is identified as a housing inventory site. The Housing Element anticipated the development of 56 units on this proposed site, including 12 very-low income units and 11 low-income units. The project exceeds the estimated capacity by merging two parcels and redeveloping the site with a 197-unit development. Twenty-six (26) units (13%) are designated to be provided at below-market rate (BMR) at a rate affordable to low-income tenants (60% of Area Median Income or below). The project is not subject to any additional area plans, though work has begun on the San Antonio Road Area Plan which includes this site. The Housing Element identifies the maximum density for this site as 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which would allow up to 70 dwelling units on the subject property. However, the maximum density for builder's remedy projects under 1893 is three times the zoning maximum, which would be 120 du/ac. An additional 35 du/ac would also apply because the project site is in a highest resource census tract (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(C)). Accordingly, the maximum allowed density for the site is 155 du/ac. The project proposed a density of 110 du/ac is therefore allowed pursuant to State law. San Antonio Road Area Plan 1 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 11 The City initiated work on the San Antonio Road Area Plan on March 10, 2025, and is scheduled to be completed in late 2027/early 2028. They City is currently in the initial stages of community outreach and assessing current conditions. The plan will seek to transform 275 acres along the Palo Alto and Mountain View border, creating an opportunity for cohesive mixed-use neighborhoods with safe access to transportation, employment, community services, and recreation. This will be achieved by a holistic approach to the plan area, including examining allowed land uses, increasing housing capacity, and improving mobility and interconnectivity within the plan area, as well as to the San Antonio CalTrain station and City amenities such as the Cubberley Community Center and Baylands Nature Preserve. To allow maximum flexibility in designing streets, bikeways, sidewalks, and related facilities in the area plan to meet the demands of existing and new residents and visitors, it is important to maintain the existing special setbacks along San Antonio Road as much as possible during this time prior to plan adoption by the City Council. Zoning Compliance3 Attachment C includes a summary of the project’s consistency with zoning development standards, including the base CS zoning (as modified by the housing opportunity site standards under PAMC Chapter 18.14), the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Standards, and the standards that are enforceable under AB 1893 - in this case the El Camino Focus Area standards. The comparison of the CS and HIP standards are provided only for informational purposes as state law requires application of the objective standards that would apply to the project if it were proposed on a site that allows the density requested (i.e. the El Camino Real Focus Area). Additionally, Attachment E includes a summary of the project’s consistency with the objective design standards set forth in PAMC Section 18.24. Comparison to CS Zone District Standards The project is inconsistent with the following standards which are applicable to housing opportunity sites within the CS Zone District as set forth in PAMC Chapters 18.14 and 18.16: Lot Coverage (79.73% where 50% maximum is allowed for CS). Floor area Ratio (3.33:1 where 1.25:1 maximum is allowed for CS). Height (79 feet where 50 feet maximum is allowed). Useable Open Space (116 square feet per unit where minimum 150 square feet is required). Parking (252 spaces where 273 are required for CS). Additionally, the objective standards set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.24 also apply to housing development projects within the CS Zone District. The project is inconsistent with the following Objective Design Standards: PAMC 18.24.040(b)(1)(A): The sidewalk along San Antonio does not meet the minimum 8 ft paved width. (Note: it appears to be possible to widen the paving within the existing 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 11 ROW; the applicant’s attached project description acknowledges an intent to modify this to comply rather than to request a waiver) PAMC 18.24.040(b)(1)(C): The entry to the bike room south of the main entrance only has 2 feet of landscaping on one side for a total width of 10 feet, where 12 feet with 2 feet of landscaping on each side is required. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(1)(B): On the San Antonio side, the required upper floor step back begins at 52 feet 6 inches, where it must start between 33 and 37 feet when adjacent to one-story buildings. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(1)(B): On the Leghorn side, the required upper floor step back extends 45% of the frontage where 70% is required. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(3)(B): Although the footprint of interior space includes the required 64 square foot façade break, there are balconies at each level protruding into this area. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(5): The 1.78-acre site provides one housing type, where at least two are required. PAMC 18.24.060(c)(6): The awnings above the entry doors are three feet in depth, where four feet is required. (Note: it is currently unclear/not dimensioned if the awnings above the entry doors on both the San Antonio and Leghorn frontages are 4 feet, though an awning on the San Antonio side is dimensioned as 3 ft and appears to be typical/consistent.) PAMC 18.24.060(c)(7): On the Leghorn Street frontage, 83% of the frontage is dedicated to garage openings, loading entries, and utility access, where no more than 25% is allowed. PAMC 18.24.060(c)(7)(B): On the Leghorn Street frontage, the above grade parking is not lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet. PAMC 18.24.080(b)(2)(F): The third-floor common open space is 16% landscaped, and the seventh-floor common open space is 7% landscaped, where a minimum of 20% is required. Comparison to Housing Incentive Program Standards This project is not opting to use the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) zoning incentives, which may be used as an alternative to Builder’s Remedy or State Density Bonus Law. However, it is within the area that may choose to apply the HIP standards for a housing development project. Under the HIP Standards detailed in PAMC Chapter 18.14 the following standards would be modified: 100% Lot Coverage (where 50% is allowed under the CS Zone). 2.0:1 maximum is allowed for HIP (where 1.25:1 is allowed under the CS Zone on a housing opportunity site). 236 parking spaces are required where 273 are required under the CS Zone). Because the HIP does not allow the project to achieve the height, floor area, density, or other key development standards that would be necessary to allow for the project as proposed, the project continues to be proposed under the provisions of Builder’s Remedy, rather than the HIP. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 11 Comparison to El Camino Real Focus Area Standards As noted above, because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the City may only require compliance with those objective standards that would apply to the project if it were proposed on a site that allows the density requested. This project, with a proposed 3.33:1 FAR and 110.7 du/ac density, would be permitted in the El Camino Real Focus Area. Accordingly, the City may only require compliance with objective standards for the El Camino Real Focus Area. Under State Density Bonus Law, an applicant may also request a waiver from any standards that would preclude development at the proposed density. If the project is designed to comply with all objective standards that would apply to a site that allows the density requested, after application of density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers, the City cannot impose conditions that would preclude construction of the project as proposed. Notably, the project would comply, or be more compliant, with several of the objective standards as modified by the El Camino Real Focus Area, that it would not otherwise comply with under the base zoning. These include the following: The allowable FAR is 4.0:1 (proposed FAR of 3.33 complies). The minimum usable open space per unit is 100 square feet (proposed 116 square feet per unit complies). The maximum allowable height is 85 feet (proposed height of 79 feet complies) Lot Coverage allowable is 80% (proposed lot coverage of 79.73% complies) Only one type of housing is required for this size of parcel (no longer inconsistent with diversity of housing types requirement set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.24). The required upper floor stepback shall be required above 55 feet rather than needing to be designed starting at between 33-37 feet in height (proposed stepback at 52 feet six inches complies). Therefore, density bonus incentives, concessions or waivers are only requested for the applicable objective standards with which the project is inconsistent when applying the El Camino Real Focus Area standards. These requests are detailed in Attachment D. Notably, the project continues to be inconsistent with several objective standards that were detailed above. Under the Focus Area, the stepback requirements have been modified to allow a greater percentage of the frontage to be dedicated toward garage openings, loading entries, and utility access, so the project is more consistent with the code but continues to not meet the objective standard on the Leghorn frontage. Additionally, under the Focus Area standards, the objective standard requirement related to stepbacks has been modified to allow the stepback to occur higher on the façade (above 55 feet). However, under the recent amendments to the ordinance that went into effect in July, the stepback is required to be 10 feet rather than six feet. Therefore, the project under the objective standards is more consistent with this requirement with respect to the height at which the stepback occurs, but still does not comply Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 11 with all aspects of the objective standard and waivers for these requirements are still requested accordingly. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Valley Transit Authority (VTA) bus line 21 and ACE transit orange line are the nearest bus lines to the project site. The San Antonio Road Caltrain Station is located approximately 1.1 miles from the project site. Although there are no currently separate bicycle lanes on San Antonio Road, it is anticipated that as a part of the San Antonio Road Area Plan, multi-modal improvements will be proposed within the right-of-way or 24-foot special setback area on San Antonio Road. The building would include two levels of above-grade parking, with 252 spaces. The two levels are not internally connected. Access to the ground-level parking garage (118 spaces, 12 of which are tandem) would be provided on the San Antonio Road frontage from a single entrance/exit. Access to the second level of parking (128 spaces, eight of which are tandem) would be provided from Leghorn Street from a single entrance/exit. Under the Zoning Code, 273 stalls are required. However, under the El Camino Real Focus Area standards, one stall per unit would be required; therefore, under those standards the project exceeds the requirement. Bicycle parking is currently shown within a bike room on the ground floor, with access from San Antonio Road, the lobby, and the parking garage. The proposed bike parking areas holds 204 bikes, where 197 long term bike spaces are required. Twenty short-term bicycle racks will also be available, with racks near each lobby entrance. Public Art The applicant has expressed interest in providing public art on site, rather than paying in-lieu fees. They are in active communication with the Public Art staff to begin the intake process. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Processing of this application has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. The project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which are currently estimated at $10,433,165.44. 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 July 25, 2025, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 24, 2025, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. City Staff has coordinated with the City of Mountain View staff for additional review and comments, particularly regarding the portion of the Leghorn Street right-of-way which is within the City of Mountain View jurisdiction. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 11 Public Comments As of the writing of this report the City has not received any public projects related to the proposed project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project is being 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. Specifically, the City is currently preparing an Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: ARB Findings for Approval Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment D: Applicant’s Project Description and Legal Request Letter Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis Attachment F: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2321 emily.kallas@paloalto.gov steven.switzer@paloalto.gov 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     24 24 15 15Bu ng 5 g 2 g 14 Building 4 Building 3 Building 15 Building 1 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 304.8' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 287.1' 198.0' 147.6 147.0' 34.3' 345.4' 287.1' 282.3' 136.6' 118.1' 159.4' 102.4' 27.9' 159.4' 219.8' 180.6' 126.6' 97.2' 107.4' 409.8' 107.4' 409.8' 180.6' 71.8' 53.8' 62.9' 250.1' 137.7' 250.1' 744 750 765 777 720 788 748 780 762 760 SAN ANTONIO ROAD LEGHORN STREET CS(AD) CS This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Highlighted Features 0' 70' Attachment ALocation Map762 San Antonio CITY OF 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 Altoekallas, 2024-10-01 21:29:14 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 24     ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. 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. 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. 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. 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.). 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. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 25     6 1 1 5 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 762 San Antonio Road, 24PLN-00120 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.14 (CS DISTRICT FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES AND EL CAMINO REAL FOCUS AREA) Residential Development Standards Regulation Required CS (18.16)Required El Camino Real Focus Area Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None None 147-05-102: Approximately 223 feet wide, 170 feet deep, 40,383 square feet 147-05-012: Approximately 107 feet wide, 410 feet deep, 36,970 square feet Total Merged Lot: Irregular shape 77,353 square feet (1.78 acres) total Minimum Front Yard (Leghorn Street) 25 feet special setback – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 25 feet special setback – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 25 feet Street Side Yard (San Antonio Road) 24 feet special setback – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 24 feet special setback – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 24 feet Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion of proposed project; none for commercial 10 feet for residential portion of proposed project; none for commercial 10 feet Interior Side Yard None None 10 feet on all sides Max. Site Coverage 50% (19,097 square feet) 70%79.73% (61,675 square feet) Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 26     6 1 1 5 Max. Building Height 50 feet or 35 feet within 150 feet of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting Rooftop Garden features allowed to exceed height by 12 feet. Stair and Elevator overrun allowed to minimum height feasible for access. Mechanical equipment allowed to exceed height by 15 feet. 85 feet Above 55 feet in height: minimum 6 foot step- back from lower facade, for a minimum 70% of the facade length; and average setback from the property line for the entire facade shall be 20 feet 79 feet At 52 feet 6 inches the project includes a stepback of 6 feet for a minimum of 70% of the façade length. The entire building meets the 24- foot special setback. Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None, as this site is not abutting a residential zone (6) Not Applicable/not adjacent to existing residential zone Residential Density 40 du/ac per Housing Element None 110.67 DU/AC (197 units proposed) Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.25:1.0 4.0 Total 3.33:1 (257,953 square feet) 100% residential Minimum Useable Open Space 150 square feet per unit 29,700 square feet total 100 square feet per unit (any combination of common and/or private) 19,700 square feet total Common Open Space Provided: 3rd floor deck 7,179 square feet, 7th floor deck 2,145 square feet Private Open Space: All units, Typical 60 square feet – 76.5 square feet (meets 6-foot minimum dimensions). 13,547 total or 68.77 per unit 22,871 square feet total Minimum Mixed-use Ground Floor Commercial FAR None for Housing Inventory Sites No requirement None provided (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) Average setback from the property line may be calculated by taking the area between the property line and the upper facade. This area, in square feet, shall be greater than or equal to the facade length multiplied by 20. Example: 200-foot facade length x 20-foot average setback + minimum 4,000 square feet area of setback per floor. For purposes of this calculation, portions of the upper facade with a setback greater than 40 feet shall be treated as if the facade is located at 40 feet from the property line. For purposes of this calculation, roof projections and eaves up to four feet in depth shall be excluded. Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 27     6 1 1 5 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Proposed Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking One space per one- bedroom, Two spaces per two-bedroom or larger 273 spaces One space per one- bedroom unit in the El Camino Real Focus Area 197 spaces total 252 spaces 210 EVSE or EVSE ready 19 tandem Bicycle Parking 1 Long Term (LT)space per unit (197 LT spaces) 1 Short Term (ST) space per 10 units (20 ST spaces) 204 LT 20 ST Loading Space 1, for residential structures with >50 units 1 on Leghorn Street frontage Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 28     560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com Tamsen Plume +1 415-743-6941 tamsen.plume@hklaw.com Genna Yarkin +1 415-743-6990 genna.yarkin@hklaw.com Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia Portland | Richmond | San Francisco | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach July 30, 2025 Palo Alto Planning & Development 285 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Supplemental Letter Regarding “Builder’s Remedy 2.0” Pursuant to AB 1893 and the Project’s State Density Bonus Law Application – 762 San Antonio Road Dear All: This firm represents Acclaim Companies (the “Applicant”) and Globe Investments LLC (the “Property Owner”) on whose behalf we provide this letter associated with Application No. 24PLN- 00120 for development of 197 multifamily units including 26 low income units at 762 San Antonio Road (the “Project”), Palo Alto, California (the “City”). As explained in previous communication, the Project has now been transitioned to “Builder’s Remedy 2.0” consistent with AB 1893. Accordingly, the Project now includes 13% low income units. With our last submission, we included an updated Affordable Housing Compliance Plan, updated BMR distribution exhibit, updated Affordable Housing Plan Specifications form, and updated Housing Projects Additional Submittal Requirements form. In this letter, we provide the following: 1. Documentation of the Project’s eligibility for and protections under AB 1893, including our understanding of the procedure for evaluating the Project in comparison to the El Camino Real Focus Area standards (the zoning that most closely matches the Project’s proposed density) rather than the underlying zoning standards; and 2. Provides updated State Density Bonus Law requests consistent with AB 1893. AB 1893’s Protections and Its Applicability AB 1893 went into effect on January 1, 2025 and provides significant new protections for Builder’s Remedy projects. Importantly, its new protections extend to proposals, including the Project, that Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 29     July 30, 2025 Page 2 predate AB 1893’s effective date.1 AB 1893 allows Builder’s Remedy projects to include 13% low income units,2 and for in-process projects switching to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 to make modifications to their proposal.3 In addition to the above-described provisions, AB 1893 also includes the following notable protections, of which we wish to remind the City: • Local agencies may not require a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project to apply for or receive approval of a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval.4 Local agencies also may not require a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project to apply for or receive any approval or permit not generally required of a non-Builder’s Remedy project of the same type and density.5 • Local agencies may not adopt or impose any requirements (including fees), or undertaking any course of conduct, with respect to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Projects that do not apply to other projects.6 • Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Projects are deemed consistent with all applicable local standards and plans, and may not be treated as nonconforming uses.7 • Prior to AB 1893, the HAA provided only that jurisdictions could not “disapprove” Builder’s Remedy projects, or condition such projects in a manner that rendered the affordable portion of the project infeasible. AB 1893 has significantly expanded the scope of prohibited actions. In addition to prohibiting a local agency from voting to disapprove a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project, AB 1893 also prohibits local agencies from: o Taking a “final administrative action” (other than a vote) that functions as disapproval;8 o Subjecting a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 to more than five hearings;9 1 See Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(A) (as amended by AB 1893) (“For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025.”). See also Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5) (“Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, ‘deemed complete’ means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943.”) (emphasis added). 2 Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(d); (h)(3)(C)(i)(III) (as amended by AB 1893). 3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(B) (as amended by AB 1893). 4 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i) (as amended by AB 1893). 5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(ii) (as amended by AB 1893). 6 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(E) (as amended by AB 1893). 7 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) (as amended by AB 1893). 8 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(A) (as amended by AB 1893). 9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(E) (as amended by AB 1893). Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 30     July 30, 2025 Page 3 o Wrongfully determining that a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project application is incomplete in contravention of the Permit Streamlining Act;10 o Wrongfully determining that a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project preliminary application has expired or failed to establish vested rights in contravention of the Permit Streamlining Act;11 o Maintaining a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose” that functions as an “effective disapproval” of a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project.12 • AB 1893 also expands the HAA’s prohibition on unlawful conditioning. The local agency is now prohibited from imposing any condition that would render the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project as a whole infeasible (rather than just the affordable component of the project).13 The local agency is also now specifically prohibited from imposing a combination of conditions that would render the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project infeasible.14 The Project qualifies to transition to Builder’s Remedy 2.0, as demonstrated below: AB 1893 Qualifying Criteria15 Project Consistency Affordability (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(A)). The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3): 55 years for rental units, 45 years for ownership units. “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. “Housing for lower income households” = 100% of the units are lower income, excluding manager’s units “Housing for mixed-income households” = • At least 7 % “extremely low income” ; or • At least 10 % “very low income”; or • At least 13% “low income” ; or Does the project satisfy one of the applicable affordability percentage requirements? • Yes, the Project includes 13% low income units. Will the affordability of these units be ensured for the required period? • Yes 10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(F) (as amended by AB 1893). 11 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(H) (as amended by AB 1893). 12 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(D) (as amended by AB 1893). 13 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d) (as amended by AB 1893). 14 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(B) (as amended by AB 1893). 15 NOTE: This chart summarizes the statute, rather than reproducing its text exactly. Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 31     July 30, 2025 Page 4 AB 1893 Qualifying Criteria15 Project Consistency • Project contains 10 or fewer units, on a site smaller than 1 acre, proposed at minimum density of 10 du/acre “Housing for moderate-income households” = 100 % sold or rented to moderate income households Housing element compliance (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(B)). When application was “deemed complete” (this includes submission of SB 330 preliminary application or formal application)16 the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance17 with this article. At the time of preliminary application submittal, was Palo Alto’s housing element certified as substantially compliant by HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction? • No – project qualifies Maximum density (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(C)). Must comply with the greatest of the following densities (plus can add any density bonus per State Density Bonus Law): (i) The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (I) Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.218 (this is known as the “Mullen density”). (II) Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. (III) The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. Does the project, prior to the application of any density bonus, comply with the applicable maximum density? • Yes. The Project is currently proposed at 112 du/acre. The Project Site is in the City’s Housing Element site inventory, and the Zoning Ordinance has been updated to allow 40 du/acre on the site. As noted at left, the maximum density for Builder’s Remedy 2.0 is three times 16 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5). 17 See Gov. Code § 65589.55(a) (“For purposes of a local agency’s approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of a housing development project pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, a housing element or amendment shall be considered in substantial compliance with this article only if the element or amendment was in substantial compliance, as determined by the department or a court of competent jurisdiction, when a preliminary application, including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1, was submitted or, if a preliminary application was not submitted, when a complete application pursuant to Section 65943 was submitted.”). 18 “The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B). Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 32     July 30, 2025 Page 5 AB 1893 Qualifying Criteria15 Project Consistency Add 35 du/acre to the maximum summarized above, if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I) One-half mile of a major transit stop.19 (II) A very low vehicle travel area.20 (III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.”21 the zoning maximum, or 120 du/acre. An additional 35 du/acre get added because the Project Site is in a highest resource census tract. Accordingly, Builder’s Remedy maximum for the site is 155 du/acre. • The Project’s 112 du/acre complies with this maximum (and the Project could be made even more dense if desired, as part of the move to Builder’s Remedy 2.0). Minimum density (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(D)). (i) On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within 1/2 mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, cannot go below the minimum.22 Does the site have a minimum density requirement under the local zoning ordinance? 19 “‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Pub. Res. Code § 21064.3. 20 “‘(ia) Very low vehicle travel area’ means an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. (ib) For purposes of sub- subclause (ia), ‘area’ may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or grid. (ic) For the purposes of determining ‘regional vehicle miles traveled per capita’ pursuant to sub-subclause (ia), a ‘region’ is the entirety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning organization, or the entirety of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(I)(ii)(VI). 21 See HCD, 2024 CTCAC Opportunity Map (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/final-2024-ctcac-hcd-opportunity- map). 22 (I) For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, with multi-trip tickets and specific station- to-station fares. Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 33     July 30, 2025 Page 6 AB 1893 Qualifying Criteria15 Project Consistency (ii) On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or 1/2 of the “Mullen density,” whichever is lower.23 If so, does the project satisfy the statutory minimum density requirements? If not, can it be revised to do so? • Not applicable here – project qualifies Site restrictions (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(E)). The project site does not abut a site where more than one- third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16.24 Does the project site abut a disqualifying industrial site? • No – Project qualifies Zoning Comparison Under AB 1893 AB 1893 instructs that a jurisdiction may apply objective development standards to this Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project, but only those that “would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant.” And where “the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and those shall apply.” (II) For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. 23“The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B). 24 Gov. Code § 65913.16(b): (4) “Heavy industrial use” means a use that is a source, other than a Title V source, as defined by Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code, that is subject to permitting by a district, as defined in Section 39025 of the Health and Safety Code,24 pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.). A use where the only source permitted by a district is an emergency backup generator, and the source is in compliance with permitted emissions and operating limits, is not a heavy industrial use. […] (11) “Title V industrial use” means a use that is a Title V source, as defined in Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code.24 Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 34     July 30, 2025 Page 7 It is our understanding that the City’s only development standards that would allow the Project’s density of use, are for the El Camino Real Focus Area. Accordingly, in preparing the below State Density Bonus Law requests, we have evaluated the Project in comparison to the Focus Area standards, and have not requested waivers for any standards of the underlying zoning (CS). Rather, we have requested waivers from the Objective Design Standards and the El Camino Real Focus Area standards, to the extend needed. We note that it remains our underlying position that because the City is unable under the HAA to apply standards that would reduce the Project’s feasibility or its density, such waivers are not technically required under the law. They are being requested in the alternative/as additional to the Builder’s Remedy protection. State Density Bonus Law Requests We hereby make the following State Density Bonus Law requests in connection with the Project, notwithstanding the fact that the Builder’s Remedy element of the Project allows such inconsistencies, in the alternative/additional to the Builder’s Remedy. We continue to reserve the right to modify these requests or make additional requests, if warranted.25 As explained above, the below-identified waivers result from evaluating the Project in comparison to the City’s Objective Design Standards (Zoning Code Chapter 18.24) and the El Camino Real Focus Area standards (Zoning Code Chapter 18.14, Section 18.14.020 Table 3): • Waiver from 18.24.020(b)(1)(C): (C) Pedestrian walkways that are designed to provide access to bicycles shall have a minimum width of eight feet, with two feet of clear space on either side. The entry to the bike room south of the main entrance only has 2 feet of landscaping on one side for a total width of 10 feet, where 12 feet with 2 feet of landscaping on each side is required. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose 400 square feet, qualifying it for a waiver. • Waiver from 18.14.020 Table 3 with regard to upper story step backs: The requirement is a step back minimum on 10’ on El Camino Real (the major street frontage). The project provides a 6’ step-back. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose 1,120 square feet on each of the top two floors and the marketability and usability of the rooms would suffer, likely resulting in a loss of several units, qualifying the Project for a waiver. • Waiver from 18.24.050(b)(1)(B): On the side and rear elevations, the step back shall occur for a minimum of 70% of each façade length and shall occur between 33 and 37 feet when adjacent to one-story buildings. By contrast for the Project, the North elevation provides a 25 For example, we have not yet identified any incentives/concessions, but reserve the right to do so. As a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 development, the Project is eligible for three incentives/concessions. (Govt. Code Sections 65589.5(f)(6)(C)(i), 65915(d)(2)(A)). Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 35     July 30, 2025 Page 8 44.8% step-back; the South elevation provides a 35.5% step-back. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose 6,200 square feet, qualifying it for a waiver. • Waiver from 18.24.050(b)(1)(B): On the Leghorn side, the required upper floor step back extends 45% of the frontage where 70% is required. (Note: for both of these, the plans dimension all the way across the building façade, however we understand the City proposed to count only the portion adjacent to each individual frontage, so that the portions of the building “behind” the 780 San Antonio parcel do not count). If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose 1,800 square feet, qualifying it for a waiver. • Waiver from 18.24.050(b)(3)(B): Although the footprint of interior space includes the required 64 square foot façade break, there are balconies at each level protruding into this area. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose 320 square feet, qualifying it for a waiver. • Waiver from Zoning Code Section 18.14.020 Table 3, Note b: On the Leghorn Street frontage, 83% of the frontage is dedicated to garage openings, loading entries, and utility access, where no more than 50% is allowed. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 1,800 square feet, qualifying it for a waiver. • Waiver from 18.24.060(c)(7)(B): On the Leghorn Street frontage, the above grade parking is not lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose 1,800 square feet, qualifying it for a waiver. • Waiver from 18.24.080(b)(2)(F): The third floor common open space is 16% landscaped, and the seventh-floor common open space is 7% landscaped, where a minimum of 20% is required. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose 1,810 square feet of residential floor area, qualifying it for a waiver. We further recognize that the Project is currently inconsistent with Zoning Code Section 18.24.020(b)(1)(A). The sidewalk along San Antonio does not meet the minimum 8 ft paved width. The Applicant will update the plans to comply with this requirement before the Project’s next hearing. Finally, we note that for Zoning Code Section 18.24.050(b)(1)(B), specific to the San Antonio frontage, the Projects upper floor step back begins at 52 feet 6 inches, whereas the Code specifies that it should begin at 55’ feet. It is our understanding that this provision would be read to allow stepbacks to begin lower than 55 feet (but not for them to begin higher than 55 feet), and accordingly, no waiver is required. Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 36     July 30, 2025 Page 9 While the Project is not subject to Zoning Code parking requirements due to the applicability of the Builder’s Remedy, we further note that the Project is additionally entitled to the parking maximums under the State Density Bonus Law, with which the Project complies. Thank you for your continued attention to this Project, we are excited about its progress. Sincerely, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Genna Yarkin Tamsen Plume Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description and Legal Request Letter     Packet Pg. 37     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 1 Objective Design Standards Checklist The Objective Design Standards Checklist is a tool to evaluate a project’s compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.24). The Checklist is not the Zoning Ordinance. Applicants shall be responsible for meeting the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. To simplify evaluation of the Zoning Ordinance, language in the Checklist may vary from the Zoning Ordinance. (Note: sf = square feet) If a standard is not applicable to applicant’s project, please write N/A in Applicant’s Justification column. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character Check Standard Sheet #Notes (b)(1) Sidewalk Widths (A) In the following districts, public sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) is at least: Commercial Mixed-Use District: CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD: 10 ft El Camino Real: 12 ft San Antonio Road, from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road: 12 ft And consists of: A101 Maintains existing sidewalk width. Pedestrian clear path width of 8 foot minimum: 5 feet The sidewalk along San Antonio does not meet the minimum 8 ft paved width. (Note: it appears to be possible to widen the paving within the existing ROW) ☐ Landscape or furniture area width of 2 foot minimum: 7 feet ☒ If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. There is adequate space in the required setback to widen the sidewalk. ☒ (B) Public sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development parcel (e.g. on a through lot with a public access easement, leading to a commercial entry) must be at least 6 feet wide. N/A ☐(C) The width of walkways designed to provide bicycle access (e.g. pathway to bike racks/lockers) must be at least 12 feet wide, consisting of: A101 Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 38     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 2 Pedestrian clear path width (8 feet min.): 12 ft 8 inches and approximately 8 feet Clear space/buffer – (2 feet min. on each side of path, ground cover is allowed): not dimensioned, but appears to be at least 2 ft. Entry to the bike room south of the main entrance only has 2 feet of landscaping on one side for a total width of 10 feet. Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (B)(2) Street Trees 1. One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of public sidewalk length and located within six feet of the sidewalk. A101 Complies a. Length of parcel frontage/public sidewalk length: 223 ft 9 in b. Street Trees required (i.e. frontage/30 feet): 8☒ c. Street Trees provided: 6 in the planter strip and 2 within six feet of the sidewalk. (B)(3) Accent Paving Parcels abutting University Avenue between Alma Street and Webster include accent paving along the project frontages, as indicated below: N/A Brick paving at corners ☐ Brick trim mid-block ☐Parcel abutting California Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Blvd include decorative glass accent paving along project frontages N/A (B)(4) Mobility Infrastructure ☒ (A) On-site micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or on a path leading to the primary building entry; OR A101 Complies Pic k O n e ☐Existing micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is already located within 50 feet of project site and located in a public right-of-way. Pic k On e☒(B) Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. On A101 Complies Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 39     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 3 (A) arterials (see Map T-5), except Downtown, seating areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and the curb; OR ☐Existing seating areas or benches that are already located in the public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. 18.24.030 Site Access Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Through Lot Connections ☐ Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway (with public access easements) connecting the two streets. N/A (b)(2) Building Entries ☒ Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way. If there is no public right-of-way adjacent to the building, entries shall be located from a private street or Pedestrian Walkway. A101 Complies (b)(3) Vehicle Access ☒(A) Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets when they abut the property.A101 Complies ☒ (B) Except for driveway access and short-term loading spaces (e.g. taxi), off-street parking, off-street vehicle loading (delivery trucks), and vehicular circulation areas are prohibited between the building and primary building frontage. A101 Complies (b)(4) Loading Docks and Service Areas Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: ☒(A) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on façades that do not face a primary building frontage A101 Complies Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 40     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 4 ☒ (B) Loading docks and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened by a solid fence, or wall, or dense landscaping and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement/safety. A300 Complies 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Building Corner Elements (less than 40 feet in height) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses or other attached housing products that face the street shall include all of the following features on their secondary building frontage: (A) height and width of corner element shall have a ratio greater than 1.2:1. For townhomes, the width would be equal to the smaller side of one unit?N/A a. Secondary building frontage height: _____ feet b. Secondary building frontage length: _____ feet ☐ c. Secondary building frontage height to width ratio: ___ (B) minimum of 15% fenestration area. a. Total secondary building frontage façade area: ___ sf b. Secondary building frontage façade fenestration area: ___ sf☐ c. Percent of fenestration area _____ % Che c k A l l ☐(C) At least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. (b)(2)(A) & (B) Treatment of Buildings Corners on Corner Lots (40+ feet in height) Corner Buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: Che c k On e o r Mo r e wit h i n A or B A. Street wall is located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet on both facades meeting at the corner and includes one or more of the following building features: N/A Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 41     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 5 ☐i. An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25 feet of the corner of the building. ☐ii. A different material application and/or fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade. ☐iii. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the adjacent/abutting primary façade. B. An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 450 sf. The open space shall be at least one of the following ☐i. A publicly accessible open space/plaza. ☐ii. A space used for outdoor seating for public dining. Che c k O n e o r Mo r e w i t h i n A o r B ☐ iii. A residential Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space (i.e. lobby, retail, etc.) and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. Fences and railing shall be a minimum 50% open/transparent. (b)(3) Primary Building Entry The primary building entry meets at least one of the following standards: ☒A. Faces a public right-of-way.A101 Complies ☒B. Faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway.A101 Complies C. Is visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: i. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 36 sf and min. dimension of 6 feet required): ___ sf and ___ ft. min. dimension Ch e c k O n e o r M o r e ☐ii. For commercial buildings or residential buildings with seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 100 sf and a min. width of 8 feet required): ___ sf and ___ ft. min. width (b)(4) Ground Floor Residential Units A. Finished Floor Height for Ground Floor Units ☐The finished floor of ground floor residential units, when adjacent to a public right-of- way, must be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance N/A, no ground floor units. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 42     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 6 from back of walk identified in Figure 2a and 2b of the Zoning Ordinance. Calculate minimum ground floor finished floor height: ☐Setback adjacent to public right of way: 24 feet ☐ Minimum ground floor finished floor height: _____ feet 𝒚 = ―𝟒 𝟏𝟓(𝒙)+ 𝟏𝟔 𝟑 where 𝑥 = setback length from back of walk, in feet and 𝑦 = ground floor finished floor height, in feet ☐Sites with slopes greater than 2% along building façade – Average height of finished floor: _____ feet Che c k A l l t h a t A p p l y ☐Sites located in flood zones – the minimum ground floor finished floor height shall be defined by FEMA, less flood zone elevation: _____ feet B. Setback Trees Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet must have at minimum an average of one tree per 40 linear feet of facade length, within the setback area. N/A Facade length: ______ feet Trees required: ____ tree(s) (i.e. façade length / 40) ☐ Trees provided: ____ tree(s) C and D. Front Setback ☐C. Ground floor residential entries are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of public sidewalk; OR N/A Pic k O n e ☐ D. Where no minimum building setback is required, all ground floor residential units must be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of public sidewalk. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 43     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 7 Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification E. Unit Entry A minimum 80% of ground floor residential units that face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space for minimum. N/A a. Total number of ground floor residential units facing a public right-of-way, publicly accessible path, or open space: ____ units b. 80% of total units in (a): ____ units ☐ c. Subset of number of units in (a) that have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space: ____ entries (b)(5) Front Yard Setback Character Required setbacks provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible open space and meet the following: (A). Ground-floor retail or retail like uses have a minimum of 10% of the required setback as landscape or planters.N/A i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 10%): ____ sf☐ ii. Landscape or planter area in required setback: ____ sf (B). Ground-floor residential uses have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. L-002 Complies i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 60%): 3,222 sfChe c k A l l t h a t A p p l y ☒ ii. Landscape area in required setback: 3,621 sf (b)(6) Side Yard Setback Character Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 44     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 8 ☐ (A) Each detached dwelling unit shall have at least one usable side yard, at least six feet wide, between the house and fence or other structure, to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards. N/A 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet #Notes (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Planes (A) When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e. average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s), an upper floor step back shall start within two vertical feet of the average height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of six feet along both the façade on the primary building frontage and the façade facing the adjacent building, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of each façade length. A310 On the Leghorn side, the required upper floor step back extends 45% of the frontage where 70% is required. i. Proposed building height: 79 feet ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): single-story ☐ iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: 25 feet and 52 ft 6 in ☒(B) Notwithstanding, subsection (A), when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. On the San Antonio side, the required upper floor step back begins at 52 feet 6 inches, where it must start between 33 and 37 feet when adjacent to one-story buildings. However, this complies with the El Camino Real Focus Area. ☐ (C) If a project meets the following criteria, a daylight plane with an initial height of 25 feet above grade at the property line and a 45-degree angle shall be required. This daylight plane is required if all of these criteria are met: i. The project is not subject to a daylight plane requirement, pursuant to district regulations in Title 18; and N/A, no residential units abut this project. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 45     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 9 ii. The project proposes a building which is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s); and iii. The project abuts residential units in the side or rear yard. (b)(2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses When a building abuts a residential use on an interior side and/or rear property line, the building shall break down the abutting façade and maintain privacy by meeting all of the following:N/A ☐ (A) Landscape Screening. A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum one tree per 25 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. ☐(B) Façade Breaks. A minimum façade break of 4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32 sf of area (i.e. 8 ft tall minimum) for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length ☐ (C) Maximum Amount of Transparent Windows. Within 40 feet of an abutting structure, no more than 15% of the facing façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Additional windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if fixed and fully obscured (D) Windows. Within 30 feet of facing residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, facing windows on the subject site shall meet the following: (i) Window sills at and above the 2nd floor shall be at least five feet above finished floor; or (ii) Windows shall have opaque or translucent glazing at or below five feet above finished floor; or (iii) Windows shall be angled up to 30 degrees (parallel to window) to face away from the adjacent privacy impacts; and (iv) Landscape screening shall be 24-inch box size or larger and eight+ feet height at planting; 50% evergreens; and located to align with proposed second floor windows at maturity. Che c k A l l (E). Balconies: Within 30 feet of residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, balconies and decks on the subject site shall be designed to prevent views: Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 46     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 10 (i) No sight lines to the adjacent property window or open space are permitted within five feet above the balcony or deck flooring and a 45- degree angle downward from balcony railing. (ii) Submit section view of proposed balcony/deck and abutting residential windows and/or private open space. (iii) Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include: a. Minimum 85% solid railing b. Obscure glass railing c. Barrier with min. 18" horizontal depth from railing (e.g. planter) (b)(3)(A) & (B) Maximum Façade Length - facing a street or public path Buildings 70 feet in length or greater and greater than 25 feet in height For building facades 70 feet in length or greater and facing a public street, right- of-way, or publicly accessible path shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, of at least 2 feet in depth Largest façade length featuring continuous plane: Total Façade length: 342 feet 9 inches ☒ Percent of façade length without upper floor modulation (a/b) (maximum 70%): ____ % Buildings 250 feet in length or greater (A) Buildings 250 feet in length or greater, which face a public street, right-of- way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 sf and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth Total Building length: _____ feet ☐ Number of vertical façade breaks: ___ area Width: ____ feet, Depth: ____ feet, Area: ____ sf Pic k O n e C a t e g o r y Buildings between 150 feet and 250 feet in length Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 47     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 11 (B) Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 sf and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet. A310 Although the footprint of interior space includes this façade break, there are balconies at each level protruding into this area. Total Building length: 188 feet ☐ Number of vertical façade breaks: 1 area Width: 12 feet 9 inches, Depth: 8 feet 8 inches, Area: 109 sf Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(4) Special Conditions: Railroad Frontages All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting façade(s):N/A ☐(A) A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. Che c k All ☐(B) For portions of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a continuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. (b)(5) Diversity of Housing Types ☐ A diversity of housing types (e.g. detached units, attached rowhouses/townhouses, condominiums or apartments, mixed use) are required for projects on large lots: Less than one acre lots: minimum 1 housing types 1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2 housing types; or More than 2-acre lots: minimum 3 housing types G100 The 1.78 acre site provides only one housing type. 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or More Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 48     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 12 (c)(1) Base-Middle-Top ☒ Buildings three stories or taller and on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of three or more of the following four techniques: ☐ i. Variation in Building Modulation: Building modulation shall extend for a minimum 80% of the façade length feet, and shall include one or more of the following building features. ☐a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade. ☐ b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum 5 foot stepback from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade Ch e c k o n e o r m o r e i f sel e c t e d ☐ c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of 2 feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback, where stated ☒ii. Variation in Façade Articulation: Façade articulation modulation shall include one or more of the following building features.A310 Complies ☒ a. Horizontal and/or Vertical Recesses or Projections. Recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies. The recess or projection shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ b. Horizontal and/or Vertical Projections. Projections such as shading, weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies. Che c k o n e o r m o r e i f sel e c t e d ☐ c. Datum Lines. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in height or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material ☒iii. Variation in two of the following:A310 Complies ☒a. Fenestration Size Ch e c k tw o if sel e cte d ☒b. Fenestration Proportion Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 49     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 13 ☒c. Fenestration Pattern ☒d. Fenestration Depth or Projection ☒iv. Variation in two of the following:A310 Complies ☒a. Façade Material ☐b. Facade Material Size ☒c. Façade Texture and Pattern Ch e c k t w o i f sel e c t e d ☒d. Façade Color (c)(2) Façade Composition Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation, fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of three of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest: ☒A. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows or recessed panels. The recess shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth.A310 Complies ☐B. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices or decorative architectural details. Projections shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ C. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in depth, or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material. ☒D. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum 4 inches in depth.A310 Complies ☐E. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, or perforated metal screens. ☐F. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed 8 inches in either height or width. Che c k T h r e e o r M o r e ☒G. Incorporate a minimum of three colors, materials, and/or textures across the whole building.A320 Complies (c)(3) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 50     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 14 (A) Buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulation to create vertically oriented façades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade articulation and fenestration repetitive vertically oriented patterns. Depending on the length of the façade, the following standards apply: ☐ i. For continuous façades less than 100 feet in length, the façade shall have vertically oriented patterns of vertical recesses or projections, façade articulation, and/or fenestration. ii. For continuous façades 100 feet or greater in length, the façade shall include either: ☒ a. A vertical recess or change in façade plane with a minimum 2 feet deep vertical shift modulation for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm between 20 to 50 feet in width; OR A310 Complies Ch e c k O n e ☐b. A vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the vertical rhythm between 10 to 16 feet in width (B) Residential mixed-use buildings ☒i. Vertical Patterns and Modulation: Façades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration.A310 Complies Che c k O n e o r Mo r e ☐ ii. Horizontal Patterns and Modulation: Façades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length. (C) Storefronts ☒Storefront uses must express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width.A310 Complies (c)(4) Emphasize Building Elements & Massing (A)(i) Building Entries within Façade Design. Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries shall meet the following minimum dimensions: ☐a. Individual residential entries: 5 feet in width ☒b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width A101 Complies ☐c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in widthCh e c k A l l ☐d. Storefront entry: 6 feet in width Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 51     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 15 (ii) Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: ☒a. Recess or projection from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet).A101 Complies Che c k On e o r Mo r e ☐b. Weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods (c)(5) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors A. Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building.N/A, non-retail ground floor a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR☐ b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: 22 feet B. Transparency shall include a minimum 60% transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space.N/A a. Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: b. Transparent glazing area between 2 feet and 10 feet: ☐ c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 60%): ☐C. If provided, bulkheads and solid base walls measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade N/A D. Primary entries shall include weather protection by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. N/A a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): ☐ b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): ☐ E. Awnings, canopies and weather protection: (i) When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protection feature to shade the display window. (ii) Awnings may be fixed or retractable N/A (c)(6) Other Non-Residential Ground Floors ☒(A) Ground floor height must be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR match the 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building P i c k O n e☐Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 52     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 16 ☒Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: 22 feet A300 Complies (B) Minimum of 50% transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space A310 Complies Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: 1,167.33 sf Transparent glazing area: 841.33 sf ☒ Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 50%): 72% (C) Primary entries include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): 10 feet 9 inches and 10 feet☐ Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): 3 feet Awnings above both entries are 3 feet, as to not encroach into the setback. (c)(7) Parking/Loading/Utilities (A) Entry Size No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street shall be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access. On sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet. A101 Site frontage on the Leghorn side is primarily dedicated to garage openings, loading entries, and utility access. Site frontage: 223 feet 9 inches and 106 feet 4 inches Frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access: 24 feet and 88 feet ☐ Percent of frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access 10.7% and 83% (B) Above Ground Structured Parking ☐ Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path, with the exception of vehicular alleys, must be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet A101 On the Leghorn Street frontage, the above grade parking is not lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet. (C)&(D) Partially Sub-Grade Structured Parking Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 53     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 17 ☐Partially sub-grade parking must not have an exposed façade that exceeds 5 feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk.N/A ☐Partially sub-grade parking must be screened with continuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and be located within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking.N/A 18.24.080 Open Space Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Private Open Space ☒ (A) Floor area includes clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six- foot diameter.A103 Complies ☒(B) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet.A300 Complies ☒(C) Directly accessible from a residential unit.A103 Complies ☐(C) Balconies are not located within the daylight plane. N/A, no daylight plane applies (b)(1)(E) Private Open Space - Ground Floor Patios ☐ (i) RM-20 and RM-30 districts: Minimum 100 sf of area, the least dimension of which is 8 feet for at least 75% of the area.N/A ☐ (ii) RM-40 districts: Minimum 80 sf of area, the least dimension of which is 6 feet for at least 75% of the area N/A ☐ (iii) Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(b)(4)N/A (b)(2) Common Open Space ☒(A)&(B) Minimum 200 sf of area. Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter. A103 A107 Complies Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 54     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 18 ☒(C) A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. Trellises and similar open-air features allowed A103 A107 Complies ☐ (D) Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 N/A ☒(E) Common open space provides seating. A103 A107 Complies ☐(F) Common open space has a minimum 20% of landscaping.L002 3rd floor is 16% landscaped, 7th floor is 7% ☒(G) Planting in above grade courtyards has minimum soil depth of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees.L002 Complies 18.24.090 Materials Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification ☒ (b)(1) Primary, secondary, and accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from time to time by the Director of Planning with a recommendation by the ARB. See webpage for list - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development- Services/Multifamily-Mixed-Use-Objective-Standards A320 Complies 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Code Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification ☒ (b) See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Notwithstanding Section 18.24.010(c), these regulations may not be modified through alternative compliance. GB-1 Complies Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 55     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to 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 and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “762 San Antonio” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/762-San-Antonio Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 2 Attachment F - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 56     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: August 7, 2025 Report #: 2507-4982 TITLE Chair and Vice Chair Elections RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) elect a Chair and Vice Chair. BACKGROUND Section 3.1 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) By-Laws states: The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in April of each year, which coincides with the first meeting of new Board members. This election was agendized for the earliest available meeting with full member attendance following Council‘s June 2, 2025, appointment of the new board members. There is no express procedure for Chair and Vice Chair elections. Where the ARB’s bylaws and procedural rules are silent, the presiding officer may decide questions of procedure, though any board member may appeal a decision to the ARB as a whole. The process for the most recent election is summarized below: 1. Nominations for Chair are made from the floor. Board members may nominate anyone, including themselves. A second is required for the nomination. 2. The nominee states whether they will accept the nomination. 3. The Board members who moved and seconded the nomination make a brief statement on why they support the nomination. 4. Nominee(s) may also make a brief statement regarding their candidacy. 5. Other Board members may give comments or ask questions to the nominee(s). 6. The ARB will take a vote after all nominations have been made, seconded, and the nominee(s) have stated whether they will accept. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 57     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 7. A majority vote is required for confirmation. 8. The entire process is repeated for Vice Chair election. 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. 58     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: August 7, 2025 Report #: 2507-5032 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 15, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of May 15, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information  Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner  (650) 329-2321  Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 59     Page 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: May 15, 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 15, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:35 a.m. 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 Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner/ARB Liaison, provided the Director’s Report via slide presentation including an update on the upcoming meeting; 2025 meeting schedules; updates on ARB Awards; scheduled May 27 ARB interviews; and June 9 proclamation recognizing departing board members and commissioners. Mr. Switzer responded to Chair Rosenberg’s questions stating that the new members could potentially be selected at the June 2 Council meeting. A new board composition might be in place for the June 5 meeting. More than likely it will occur in July. Chair Rosenberg announced a planned absence for the June 5 meeting but might possibly be there for the second half. Assistant Director Armer recommended postponing the elections of chair and vice chair to the July meeting. Boardmember Adcock will be absent at the July 17 meeting. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 60     Page 2 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [25PLN-00027]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review of Exterior Storefront Modification, Including Façade Change, a Redesigned Outdoor Dining Area and Signage for a New Tenant, Cedar & Sage (Space #1300B, Building DD), at the Stanford Shopping Center. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). Chair Rosenberg asked if any of the board members had visited the site or had any disclosures. Boardmember Adcock visited the site and observed the plaster that remained when the previous sign was removed has a greenish tint that looks different than what is shown in the rendering. Vice Chair Chen visited the site. Chair Roseberg visited the site and had nothing else to disclose. Boardmember Baltay visited the site and wanted to disclose some dimensions taken that were different from what was on the plans later in the meeting. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site and did not take any measurements. Tamara Harrison, Contract Planner, provided a slide presentation about 180 El Camino Real including the project location, a background, project overview, colors and material board, signage considerations, key considerations and conditions and the recommended motion. In response to questions posed by Boardmember Baltay, Ms. Harrison explained the shopping center is at a parking ratio of 1 per 275 square feet. This tenant alone does not trigger a new space. The spreadsheet of the overall center is being updated. It is overparked by 21 spaces. Once the final numbers and building permit is received, if anything changes there is an overage that can be deducted from. The Transportation department determined the short-term bike parking spaces has been met and work is still being done on meeting the long-term bike parking spaces. They will not be adding any additional bike parking spaces for this tenant. When the center was originally established, it was non- compliant in the terms of bike spaces and attempts had been made to get closer to the number going along with the new tenants. The 7-foot sidewalk dimension is an existing condition and the tenant is not making the condition worse. Ms. Harrison provided responses to Boardmember Adcock’s questions explaining the bathroom condition was added because there was a question about the bathroom count that the building department had. Richard Wessells, Simon Property Group, added when the redevelopment was done and new building were built in 2016, they were in compliance with code at that time. The Building Department is believed to be requesting that the current codes be utilized and not when the building was done in 2016. Work is being done to finalize this issue with David Chung on getting this rectified. Ms. Harrison remarked further discussions will be held regarding whether or not this condition will remain and everything will be updated as necessary before any approvals are issued. Mr. Wessells confirmed Boardmember Adcock’s understanding that the Building Department is asking to remedy for the overall building outside of the limits of work. JC Clow provided a description and overview of the proposed restaurant. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 61     Page 3 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Chris Canney, Arcanum Architecture, addressed the comments about the quality of the existing plaster. Anthropologie was contacted for permission to blend that into the scope at their cost with no response. An attempt is being made to work with Anthropologie to update that plaster. A slide presentation was provided including renderings of the proposed new plaster, crosshatch, the bi-folding opening door system, the entry access portal and pivot door, the blade sign, the patio, the perimeter of the patio, dining area and retractable windscreen behind the planters, building graphics being added to the façade and heaters and lighting for the patio. Regarding comments made by Boardmember Baltay about the access aisle, the intent was to maintain the existing footprint of the patio and any corrections needed will be made. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Boardmember Baltay measured a foot less space between the edge of the curb and building and about 6 feet 3 inches clear between the row of bollards and existing 2-inch metal rail and expressed concern that it needs to be enlarged to 8 feet. Mr. Canney remarked there would be discussion with the survey team to find out what happened there. The intent was to maintain the existing perimeter. Boardmember Baltay indicated that since the 2-inch metal railing is being removed, a new standard should apply. In response to Boardmember Adcock’s questions about the façade, Mr. Canney replied the plaster will have a 1-inch deep raking and the pattern is vertical and horizontal lines. The intent is to have a deep texture with some vibrancy. Boardmember Adcock recommended the plaster needed to be more controlled than what the image presented showed. Mr. Canney explained the detail on sheet 7.8.1 is similar to reverse halo lettering. It is within the lease line. The bottom of the window on the elevation is the floor line. The LED strips will get power through the façade. There is an approved interior permit currently issued by the City of Palo Alto. The front of house, dining area, all the kitchen restrooms and back of house is remaining essentially as is. The interior in the drawings is basically new. The bi-folding doors will be top mounted. It will hand from an existing beam. An additional tube steel beam has added to support the door system. The glazing shown on 5.1 will be transparent. Mr. Canney replied to Vice Chair Chen’s questions stating the posts will be 7 x 7 and the beams will be 6 x 8. The glass windscreen will be operated with a remote. Replying to Boardmember Hirsch’s observations, Mr. Canney indicated the planters in the utility locations can be on casters to be movable. Accommodations and shifting might have to be done in the banquette area. Every reduction in the existing s does affect the feasibility and economic functioning of the restaurant. When the lease was signed, it was understood Mr. Clow would be able to use the square footage that was there which posed somewhat of a hardship to the client and his expectations of what he signed up for if that that space is reduced. They will have to design around any of the existing mechanical and utilities. Mr. Smith added drawings were received from Water, Gas, Waste to identify the substructures in front of it. For review and approval through their system, the exterior drawings will be submitted through there system. It will be routed through them to confirm the access to the utilities will not be impeded. In response to Boardmember Hirsch’s concerns about the mechanism for glass that Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 62     Page 4 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 sits beyond the line, Mr. Canney explained everything that powers the moving mechanisms is maintained within the structure of the trellis element and will not impede access. The canopy element is retractable and does not cover the entire space. It will be used just for sun shading over the banquette seating area. Mr. Smith remarked the sidewalk width is reviewed on a case-to-case basis. Increasing to the 8-feet mark would make affect the patio and cause egress issues. Boardmember Hirsch observed some unrelated signage that should be removed. Mr. Smith confirmed it would be removed. Mr. Clow responded to Chair Rosenberg’s by describing an operable windscreen system being used at another location that would be used in this project. The motors are in the valance and work with a remote. The awnings can stop and start at any point in time. Mr. Clow estimated the awnings will be operated 30 to 40% of the time or maybe a little more. The awnings are a PVC material. The fabric is very porous. The designers and engineers know the distance the heaters need to be from the awning. Chair Rosenberg commented it would be helpful to have the dimensions on sheet A8.1. Mr. Canney remarked all the clearances will be noted in the exterior permit. The Bromic heaters have a shield and a 14-inch clearance. It has been confirmed that the clearance above the linear fire feature meets standard. The trapezoidal-shaped awnings will stay fixed. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know if a two blade sign possibility so it could go around the corner for better visibility. Ms. Harrison replied in the past the two blade signs have been allowed for that reason. If the applicant’s team wants to propose that, Staff will entertain it in compliance with the sign program sizing. Mr. Canney was in agreement. Chair Rosenberg suggested the planter could be changed to something else to allow for the 8-foot clearance. Mr. Canney indicated the point of the planters is to soften the façade. If that needs to go to maintain the area, it can be entertained. It was pointed out that the clearance from the railing to the curb is well over the 8 feet. Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Adcock wanted clarification from Staff about this. Ms. Harrison stated because the railings are being removed, the patio is being placed in place of it so it is considered an existing condition. Mr. Wessells explained the building was ARB approved in 2016 which led to the assumption it would still be acceptable by giving the tenant the same patio space as what had been existing over the last 8 years. Boardmember Adcock thought it was a loose argument to say it is existing to remain when neither the railings are remaining nor the exact configuration of the existing railings are remaining. Mr. Canney responded to Boardmember Baltay’s questions stating the space heaters are a part of the awning system. To bring in enough power to utilize electric heaters, a new transformer and panel would have to be installed off the main electrical room and it would be a large economic cost. The heaters are a prefabricated system from Palmiye. Addressing Boardmember Baltay’s concerns about the curved steel canopy, Mr. Cannery commented from a design standpoint, the intent was not to modify the façade more than necessary. Boardmember Hirsch observed the variety of speakers and paraphernalia appeared junky. Mr. Canney was open to removing them if the Board gave that direction. Boardmember Hirsch advised if it is going to stay it should be improved. Mr. Canney indicated another reason for leaving it there was the inability to cut into Anthropologie’s lease space and it would leave an awkward situation. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 63     Page 5 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Boardmember Baltay observed an awkward juncture against the existing building on the bottom rendering on A0.3 and wondered if that is the design intent. Mr. Canney confirmed this was the intent without the vertical fins and existing awning and was in support of the design. Boardmember Baltay advised the awning ought to be more carefully designed to work with the radius. Applicants should be formally informed of the 8-foot walkway guideline. The shopping center does not have adequate parking. The City has to tell the shopping to bring the building up to standards and ask for some additional bike parking. Chair Rosenberg opined asking for the 8-foot space, parking, and bikes should be overall addressed. A question was posed if the 8-foot walkway was maintained, the applicant could square off the existing corner. Boardmember Baltay pointed out 12-inches or so could be gained back just by moving the bollards over. Chair Rosenberg suggested considering making the awnings all fixed. The existing canopy is fine. Chair Rosenberg wanted to see support given for working with Anthropologie to spruce up the painting. Vice Chair Chen agreed that the 8-foot walkway should be kept, advised cutting the existing steel trellis all the way for the entire dining area and working closely with the manufacturer to make sure all the details of the canopy structure are defined. Boardmember Hirsch thought the fixed awnings would be the best way to go. Having the corner cut would be a good directional thing and squaring off the corner was not a good idea. Boardmember Hirsch was not happy with the existing extending metal pieces above the whole framework around the building. A translucent or textural glass would be a better way of fixing that. There would be ways of doing that with a consistent gutter below. Boardmember Hirsch advised looking into maintaining the eight feet walkway. Boardmember Adcock described concerns with the canopy design. Using gas to heat the exterior space does not meet ARB finding #6 standards. Boardmember Baltay concurred. Boardmember Adcock agreed with redesigning the seating area to maintain the 8-foot walkway. Whether the canopy is fixed or operable needs to be thoughtfully designed depending on the hours of operation and where shading will be necessary. The retractable enclosure does disservice to the overall shopping center and pedestrians. Boardmember Adcock wanted to see a mock-up of the scratch coat type of plaster. Boardmember Baltay added the canopy would not be needed in that corner for solar protection for dinner or evening activity. The roof structure would be needed to capture the heat and get the dining ambiance. The mechanical awnings will be an added burden. Keeping the curved canopy and attaching structure to give the roof design was a possible design solution. Boardmember Baltay wanted the architects to come back with a more refined design. Assistant Director Armer queried if the Board was asking for short or long-term bike parking. The Board expressed frustration about having past discussions about bike parking that had not been resolved. Ms. Harrison agreed to look into the condition at the left of the Anthropologie store entrance to see if adding bike parking is feasible. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know more about the global bike parking plan the City was working on. Ms. Harrison explained the focus is more on the long-term bike parking. The center has moved forward to secure a bronze certification for bike parking at the center. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 64     Page 6 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Work is still being done with the Transportation Department to see what can be done in addition to that certification to make the center more bike friendly. Motion: Boardmember Adcock moved to continue to a date uncertain with refinement of the following items: 1. 8-foot walkway maintained between impediments on either side of walkway. 2. Recommend exploring alternative heating options rather than gas. 3. Revise patio enclosure and canopy to better integrate with the structure and be consistent with fixed or retractable. With the option to remove the upper canopy. 4. Provide additional information to fully describe the plaster finish. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Baltay. The motion passed 5-0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: The City Council Certified a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023 (Resolution No. 10123). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov Chair Rosenberg had no disclosures and had not visited the site recently. Boardmember Adcock had visited the site and her office is close to the site. Vice Chair Chen visited the site the day before. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site that morning and many times previously. Boardmember Baltay visited the site many times, most recently the day before. Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation about 340 Portage Avenue Master Sign Program including project location, materials, type EI – entry ID – qty 2, type PI – parking ID – qty 2, type D2 – directional wall – qty 2, type T1 – tenant ID wall – qty 1, type T2 – tenant ID canopy – qty 2, type PA and BA signs plus existing signs, compliance and recommendation. In response to questions posed by Vice Chair Chen, Ms. Dobkevicius replied one freestanding and one directory sign could be done if that was the choice. Freestanding signs are required to be under 5 feet in height. The frontage length will determine the size of the freestanding sign. There is no font size requirement for the directory sign. There will be one sign on the corner. The Cannery Palo Alto will be a primary sign but this can be replaced by a future tenant. Chair Rosenberg asked if a future tenant would have the possibility of leaving the Cannery sign and adding an additional sign above the doors of the space below the Cannery sign. Ms. Dobkevicius answered there is an opportunity to do so based on the wall size. Dustin Passalalpi added the idea is that if one tenant took it over, one sign could go in place of the property ID and potentially one overhead awning signs at their main entrance. The intent is that if there are multiple tenant signs they would be cohesive with each other and the Cannery sign would remain. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 65     Page 7 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 In response to Boardmember Hirsch’s questions, Ms. Dobkevicius replied parking was not discussed as part of this project but assumed it was assessed as part of the planned community ordinance 5559, 5596 and 5597. The parking signage is located above the parking entrances so it is directing traffic where to park. Page 10 shows the overall site plan with the signage locations. Parking is a separate structure. Page 10 of the plan set shows the covered parking garage at the western side of the site just above the building. On Park Boulevard, there are two entry ID directory signs. The original proposal from the applicant included signage along El Camino but it was within the easement area and not on their parcel so the staff was not comfortable approving signage located on a different property. To answer Boardmember Baltay’s questions, Ms. Dobkevicius responded the 340 and 380 Portage is between two busy roads so signage was indicated to direct people where to go to find specific businesses. Boardmember Baltay observed having signs like that in front of townhomes is confusing and asked why that was being allowed. Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, explained signage is needed to provide wayfinding to appropriately access the portions of the center. Boardmember Hirsch agreed it is a disservice to everyone living in the townhomes but it should be dealt with as a part of the site planning for the housing itself. Chair Rosenberg did not think it is totally incompatible with the whole master plan. Having signage on Park pointing to the direction of the Cannery is appropriate. The concept that the tenant itself is on those signs is inappropriate. Ms. Dobkevicius stated there is an easement agreement with the property on the corner of El Camino and Portage for the future tenant to put a sign; however, City of Palo Alto municipal code sign ordinance does not allow putting outside signage. There is a provision allowing for that on shopping centers but there is a minimum of 50,000 square feet of retail space requirement which the current building does not meet. Ms. Raybould indicated Staff has expressed that signage not be supported and the key concern is that while they wrote themselves an easement before selling that property, the City was not a party to that easement. It is inconsistent with the code to have signage on that frontage and. It limits the potential for redevelopment of that property the way that the signage was proposed along that corner. There are concerns about how that might limit design potential for any future project on that property. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Ms. Dobkevicius replied to Boardmember Adcock’s observations explaining the directional sign is approximately 2 square feet over the limit. There is an option to make it smaller or add an additional tenant name in which case 1.5 square foot will be added to the allowable sign area. The directional sign is supported because it meets the sign ordinance that says the sign shall be situated at least two feet inside the property line. Ms. Raybould added when the townhouses are built it will become another property but currently it is not and is being treated similar to the underlying land use designation. It is a mixed use site. It will ultimately become another property but for wayfinding purposes it is felt appropriate as part of the project as a whole. If it is approved as part of this project, the City will not ask to have the sign removed if it becomes another property in the future. Presumably if that parcel is sold, it would be an easement on that parcel. Assistant Director Armer added it would then be considered potentially existing nonconforming but would be allowed to remain or be replaced in kind. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 66     Page 8 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Chair Rosenberg observed the Board did not have too many issues with the signs but the EI signs need to be revisited and rethought. Boardmember Baltay had issue with the orange color being out of character of the Cannery building and wanted to know what the design intent was. Evan Sockalosky remarked the color palette was intended to fit with the existing Playground Global as well as the overall project working with Sobrato and the City to get to this level. Boardmember Baltay found that the sign master program works. The colors, choice of fonts and character behind it do not match the historic character of the Cannery building. Chair Rosenberg had no complaints other than the tenant signs next to the townhouse is not acceptable. Boardmember Adcock expressed the EI.1 seemed unnecessary and in an unfortunate location. Ms. Raybould noted that the other side of the future park would have a bike lane through there. The EI.2 could not jump the other side of the road. Boardmember Baltay was comfortable saying those signs should not be allowed on El Camino and the signage should be in front of the building on their Portage Avenue frontage. That fact that it will be a separate parcel is something that can be used as a condition. Boardmember Hirsch thought the location of EI.1 is appropriate but the space around it relative to the housing should be designed appropriate for the signage and the housing. The EI.2 are less important. If it is not adequate to be separate from the housing by the location, that is the first mistake but eliminating the sign is not an appropriate answer. Vice Chair Chen agreed it is necessary to add the sign along the street to clearly direct people to go into the site and find the way to parking. Vice Chair Chen was reluctant to add the EI.1 sign between the townhomes. The EI.2 design is small and encouraged allowing them to make a monument sign for visibility. Boardmember Adcock pointed out a fundamental issue in that EI.1 and EI.2 are being asked to be put on a future separate property. There are residential and business area but that does not mean a sign for a business should be put in front of a residential. Boardmember Baltay mentioned in the future the sign will not only be on separate property but will direct people across one property to another. In the future, the townhomes will have something put up to prevent through traffic. The original intent was to have traffic come in off Portage, turn down along the side of the building and go into the back of the parking garage and not to cut through. Ms. Raybould spoke to points made by Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch stating that there will be ingress/egress easements from Park Boulevard across these properties into 340 Portage. The area adjacent to the planned park will all be under public access easement making that street run through to Park Boulevard. She noted the applicant had expressed that the El Camino signs and the signs on Park were important to them to be able to find wayfinding. Staff could not justify the El Camino signage. The signage was much larger and there was not a development plan for those areas to understand what the potential might be and Staff did not want to limit that potential for that site so that was removed. The entry signs got smaller and were providing wayfinding in an appropriate way to 340 Portage. Once those Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 67     Page 9 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 townhomes are developed, it would be hard to see the development at 340 Portage potentially and people need to be able to way find to the Cannery area. Ms. Raybould wanted to ask the applicant if having a sign to the Cannery would be amenable to them. The approach could have been taken to say it is going to be a future different parcel and therefore they could not have it but what exists today is one parcel so either approach can be taken. Providing the wayfinding to that area seemed appropriate and not like it directed traffic through there. It would be unreasonable to assume that no traffic for this entire site would come from Park Boulevard. Boardmember Hirsch agreed it should say the Cannery. The tenant name should be left off. Robert Tersini, Sobrato, said it was important to have the anticipation of having the new space tenant sign and Playground Global’s tenant sign on the signage, not just the Cannery. There is concern with visibility for tenants and for guests and visitors understanding where to go. The Cannery is a marketing name for the project not committed to having the Cannery logos anywhere on the building. Once it is occupied by the tenants, the Playground Global space will be occupied and then the newer renovated R&D space will presumably have their own tenant signage so the cannery will not mean anything from a naming standpoint. The intent is to have some ability to provide tenant signage on the frontages. Some public facing signage is needed once the townhomes are built that will only be out on Park Boulevard. Chair Rosenberg observed that embracing the history of the building and by celebrating what it is would benefit the applicant. The T1 signage should be kept and the tenants should have their own signs. Mr. Tersini indicated the Cannery will always remain but the building itself might not say the Cannery. The project will continue to be referred to as the Cannery. There are exhibits and an art mural underway celebrating the history of the Thomas Foon Chew family and historic relevance of the building. The intent is that from a wayfinding standpoint, the tenants and visitors can be directed where they need to go. Mr. Tersini replied to Boardmember Baltay’s questions stating the Cannery logo would remain. The idea is that the sign gets built and installed day one. There will be blanks below the Cannery and the logo that is existing. Tenant plaques will be plugged into the sign for their logo. Ms. Raybould responded to Boardmember Baltay’s inquiries by explaining it will be a public access over private property which is different than dedicating it as a public street. Boardmember Baltay took exception when the applicant said there is not public frontage for the business aside from Park and El Camino. Regarding Boardmember Adcock’s request for clarification, Mr. Passalalpi stated only the E1 directionals would have the Cannery along the side if allowed. The sign is 7.5 inches wide. Boardmember Hirsch remarked the letters being only 1.5 inches is minor. The signpost should be the Cannery and the Cannery Palo Alto is okay for the face of the larger type. Having a monument sign with the tenants would be fine once inside. Boardmember Adcock remarked if there is a monument sign that says the Cannery on Park would be no different than putting it on El Camino because it is a similar easement on another property. Vice Chair Chen felt it is appropriate to have the tenant’s name on the entry ID. The Cannery sign on the side could be enlarged to be more visible. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 68     Page 10 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Boardmember Baltay opined that given how this is entitled, it would be reasonable to allow a directional sign on both El Camino and Park each at the end of Portage Avenue directing traffic into the Cannery. There should be just a directional sign to the Cannery, not individual businesses. The building itself needs signage that identifies it as the Cannery. He suggested designing a sign that would be appropriate to be within 10 feet of a townhome and would not affect the ability of a future building on El Camino. It was a special situation and would be fair to ask for special signs for this special campus and allow it on both El Camino and Park. Chair Rosenberg summarized the consensus: 1. EI.1 and EI.2 would have no tenant signs, be much smaller and would direct to the Cannery specifically. 2. The Board would like to get an EI.3 either on Acacia or Portage. 3. The TI.1 must remain as the Cannery Branding. 4. The Board would like to add a TI.2 to the opposite corner. 5. The Board encouraged a T2.3 above the doors going in. Instead of swapping the Cannery to being the new tenant, keep the Cannery and the new tenant should be above the canopy if there is a separate tenant. If there is not a separate tenant, it can stay blank. Boardmember Baltay did not support keeping a sign at location EI.1. Vice Chair Chen agreed with emphasizing the historic side. A monument sign would be more appropriate than a directory sign. It would be reasonable and appropriate for the directory sign to have the tenant’s name on it because the businesses would be in the middle of the other lot. The directory sign is for the visitors to efficiently find where the buildings are. Boardmember Adcock would agree if the property went all the way to Park in the long term as part of this commercial development. There is a demarcation of townhouse against Park. It provides direction to the commercial development but on the end of a townhouse property. With the future easement from the townhouse property, the Cannery sign is appropriate but not putting a tenant sign. Chair Rosenberg agreed it would be imposing on the people in the townhomes. Will Pike endorsed the concerns of Boardmember Chen. The property is a different development in nature than a retail focused, multi-tenant development. The proposed signage intends to focus on wayfinding and identification of the existing tenants. It would be an unnecessary use of space to brand a campus where they were not trying to draw in the public to a common amenity space. Having an interpretive signage program or something else implemented to describe that within the campus might be more appropriate. The colors were chosen because of the heritage of the development to give something warmer than the normal tech campus which might have cooler colors. Boardmember Baltay expressed disappointment with the way the applicant referred to the building as just another commercial building and expressed the historical significance of the Cannery. Mr. Tersini explained the comments made were not meant to be dismissive. The concern was of the project was in leasing the commercial and retail spaces of the building and having identity on a public street. The logo had been created in support of the Cannery and the intention was to continue to celebrate that with the ongoing operation of the buildings. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 69     Page 11 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Motion: Chair Rosenberg moved to continue to a date uncertain subject to the comments made by the Board. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Hirsch. The motion passed 5-0 Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 17, 2025 Motion: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 17, 2025, as drafted seconded by Boardmember Adcock. The motion passed 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Boardmember Baltay pointed out that City Council is considering modifying the objective design standards for wireless communication facilities the following Monday night. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 12:30 PM. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 70     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 7, 2025 Report #: 2507-5018 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 3, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of July 3, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 71     Page 1 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 72     Page 2 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 73     Page 3 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 74     Page 4 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 75     Page 5 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 76     Page 6 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 77     Page 7 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 78     Page 8 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 79     Page 9 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 80     Page 10 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 more matte than semigloss, so they are not worried about glare. Larger samples of that are forthcoming. 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 81     Page 11 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 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 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 82     Page 12 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 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 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 83     Page 13 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 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 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 site 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 84     Page 14 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 Board Member Adcock suggested it read “items not necessary to egress be removed.” 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 85     Page 15 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 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. 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 86     Page 16 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 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. 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 87     Page 17 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 the ARB with the other priorities will have to be considered in the coming months. As for drawings, there are no specific additional guidelines. 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 88     Page 18 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 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. 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 89     Page 19 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 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. 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 90     Page 20 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/03/25 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2025 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. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of July 3, 2025     Packet Pg. 91     Item No. 6. Page 1 of 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 7, 2025 Report #: 2507-4983 TITLE 3950 Fabian Way [24PLN-00263]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of the Bicycle Enclosures, Exterior Design Elements, Front Entry Plaza, and Interior Circulation for a Private Education Development to Accommodate The Girls' Middle School. CEQA Status: The Previously Approved Project Was Found to be Exempt in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Ad Hoc Committee take the following actions: 1. Discuss and provide direction; or 2. Confirm the revised project meets the full ARB’s direction and recommend the Director find the condition of approval is satisfied. BACKGROUND The ARB held an initial hearing for this project on November 21, 2025, and recommended approval of the project on May 1, 2025. The project was approved by the Director on May 21, 2025. In accordance with the ARB’s recommendation and the Director’s decision, the following topics were to return for review by an ARB Ad Hoc Committee: a. Consider the fencing materials of the front bicycle enclosure and its location for better integration on the site. b. Consider creating additional design elements or modifications to the exterior of the existing building. c. Consider modifications to the hardscape at the front entry plaza to create better gathering spaces. d. Improve the interior circulation to facilitate trash removal. The elements to be reviewed and discussed further by the Ad Hoc Committee are noted below, along with the applicant’s response. The assigned Ad Hoc Committee consists of Chair Rosenberg and Vice Chair Chen. Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 92     Item No. 6. Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS The Ad Hoc Committee is asked to consider whether the revised submittal (Attachment A) meets Condition of Approval #4 that was incorporated into the approval for the project for the project. The components of the condition of approval are discussed below with the applicant’s response and staff’s analysis. The Ad Hoc Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. Condition of Approval #4a: Consider the fencing materials of the front bicycle enclosure and its location for better integration on the site. Applicant’s Response: The original submission included bicycle enclosures that utilized chain link fencing and lacked the continuity in materials as the other fenced outdoor areas on the site. The ARB requested that the Ad Hoc review revised project plans for a front bicycle enclosure location and materials for better integration on the site. This submission includes a wooden vertical slat fence that aligns with the design of the other fenced areas on the site. Staff Analysis: The proposed fencing materials and integration into design satisfy the City’s high-quality architectural review findings. Staff believes that the proposed bicycle enclosure addresses the ARB’s request; and seeks the Ad Hoc Committee’s affirmation of the material selection. See Attachment A, page 2. Condition of Approval #4b: Consider creating additional design elements or modifications to the exterior of the existing building. Applicant’s Response: The ARB requested the applicant consider additional design elements or modifications to the exterior of the existing building to ensure that the new gymnasium addition is more integrated rather than simply added on. In response, the applicant revised the plans to extend the school colors across all four façades. The proposed design incorporates paint within the existing reeded concrete plaster bands on the former office building, using a creative bar code pattern that spells out “The Girls’ Middle School” name. Staff Analysis: The selected colors, Dunn-Edwards DE5397, Radiant Sunrise and DE5853, Blue Earth, match the palette of the new gymnasium and help to connect the addition to the existing building creating a more cohesive design. Staff finds the revised design addresses the ARB’s request; and seeks the Ad Hoc Committee’s affirmation that the expanded paint scheme satisfies the COA. See Attachment A, page 3. Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 93     Item No. 6. Page 3 of 3 Condition of Approval #4c: Consider modifications to the hardscape at the front entry plaza to create better gathering spaces. Applicant’s Response: The ARB requested the applicant consider modifications to the hardscape at the front entry plaza to create better gathering spaces. The original plans indicated a planting strip running along the gymnasium’s exterior wall near the front entrance. In response to the ARB’s request, the applicant revised the plans to remove said planting strip and continue the hardscape towards the wall. The existing tree and two proposed new trees will remain to provide shade to the entry plaza. Staff Analysis: Staff finds the revised design addresses the ARB’s request; and seeks the Ad Hoc Committee’s affirmation that the modifications to the entry plaza hardscape address this component of the COA. See Attachment A, page 1. Condition of Approval #4d: Improve the interior circulation to facilitate trash removal. Applicant’s Response: The original plans indicated pedestrian circulation along the proposed sidewalks on the site (Sheet A0.21). In response to the ARB’s request, the applicant revised the plans to improve interior circulation for trash removal. The updated proposal shows after-hours trash collection occurring through the gymnasium, using the door nearest to the trash enclosure at the northern corner of the site. Staff Analysis: Janitorial staff would also have access to the trash enclosure via the middle gate within the rear fenced area. Staff finds that the revised circulation path meets the intent of the condition of approval, and recommends the Ad Hoc Committee affirm the proposed changes. See Attachment A, page 1. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Project Plans 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 6 Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 94     NO P A R K I N G NO PARKING NO P A R K I N G 'S1A' 'S1A''S1A' 'S1B' 'S1B' 'S1B' 'S2' 'S6' 'S2' 'S1B' 'S3' 'S3' 'S3' 'S3''S3' 'S3' 'S3' 'S4' 'S4' 'S4''S4' 'S5B' 'S5A' 'S5A' 'S5A''S5A' 'S5A' 'S5A' 'S1C' 'S5B' 'S6' 'S2' 'S1A' 'S1B' 'S2' 'S4' 'S4' 'S4' 'S2' 'S1D' 'S3' 'S3' 'S3' 'S3''S3' 'S4' 28 26 22 21 54 42 41 40 39 30 29 27 25 24 20 52 PROPERTY LINE LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT IN PLACE PROPOSED TREE CONCRETE ACCESSIBLE RAMP WITH HANDRAILS, BOTH SIDES; 1:12 SLOPE MAXIMUM WOOD BENCH SEATING (NIC) WOOD FENCE ON CONCRETE WALL GATE FIXED TABLE AND BENCHES (NIC) MOVABLE TABLE AND CHAIRS (NIC) WOOD FENCE NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE WITH DECORATIVE SCORE PATTERN ASPHALT PAVING FABIAN WAY NOTES: 1.ALL LIGHTING TO BE DARK SKY, SHIELDED, AND DOWNWARD DIRECTED, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. T:\ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 1 9 0 . C A W - G i r l s ' M i d d l e S c h o o l \ D r a w i n g s \ G M S L a n d s c a p e . d w g , L1. 0 0 L a n d s c a p e S i t e P l a n , 7/7 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 2 9 : 0 4 P M , Miy u k i O n n a g a w a , DW G T o P D F . p c 3 , AR C H f u l l b l e e d E 1 ( 3 0 . 0 0 x 4 2 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) , 1:1 THE GIRLS' MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING 7/ 7 / 2 0 2 5 12 : 2 9 : 0 4 CONSULTANTS STAMP SHEET TITLE PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SHEET APPROVAL STAMP 3950 FABIAN WAY THE GIRLS MIDDLE SCHOOL PALO ALTO, CA 94303 RENOVATION MO, YL 24001 MILESTONE DATE 515 SWIFT ST. SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 PHONE 831.423.6040 | WWW.JLJA.COM California Landscape Architect License 3163 GL PLANNING SUBMITTAL 09/05/2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #1 11/07/2024 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 11/15/2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #2 12/30/2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #3 02/27/2025 AD HOC MEETING 07/07/2025 CODE DESCRIPTION ENTRY PLAZA ACCESSIBLE CONNECTION BETWEEN ENTRY PLAZA AND SIDEWALK (2) TWO ADA-COMPLIANT PARKING STALLS DROP-OFF AREA BICYCLE PARKING - LONG-TERM (ENCLOSED WITH 6' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE) 15 POSTS / 30 SPACES ACCESSIBLE BICYCLE PARKING 1 POST / 2 SPACES BICYCLE PARKING - LONG-TERM (ENCLOSED WITH 6' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE) 8 POSTS / 16 SPACES EXISTING FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN PREFABRICATED WOOD SKATE HALF PIPE (NIC) OUTDOOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION AREA PLANTED SHADE TREE BUFFER PARKING LOT, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA WASTE ENCLOSURE, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS EXISTING LIGHT POLE, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS ADA-COMPLIANT PATH FROM PARKING TO ENTRY PLAZA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 KEY NOTES NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE PAVING SCALE: 1"=10-0" 0 5'10'20' 52 4 8 3 3 1 2 17 14 10 916 11 12 155 CHAIN LINK FENCE 1 L1.01 PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE PAVING DETAIL 1 L1.03 FENCE ON CONCRETE WALL DETAIL 5 L1.02 L1.01 5 CONCRETE TERRACE SEATING DETAIL BICYCLE RACK DETAIL TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ) FOR TREE DESIGNATED PROTECTED BY CITY OF PALO ALTO STANDARDS 5'-0" CLR.5'-0" CLR. METAL HEADER 2 L1.01 ASPHALT PAVING DETAIL 3 L1.01 METAL HEADER DETAIL 5'- 0 " C L R . 5'- 0 " C L R . 13 FLEXIBLE AGGREGATE PAVING 4 L1.01 FLEXIBLE AGGREGATE PAVING DETAIL 'S2' 'S3''S5B''S4'SITE LIGHTING, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS 6 7 2 L1.04 1 L1.04 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN L1.00 Item 6 Attachment A - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 95     'S3''S3' T:\ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 1 9 0 . C A W - G i r l s ' M i d d l e S c h o o l \ D r a w i n g s \ G M S S e c t i o n & E l e v a t i o n . d w g , L1 . 0 4 S e c t i o n a n d E l e v a t i o n , 7/7 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 1 5 : 1 6 P M , Mi y u k i O n n a g a w a , DW G T o P D F . p c 3 , AR C H f u l l b l e e d E 1 ( 3 0 . 0 0 x 4 2 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) , 1:1 7/ 7 / 2 0 2 5 12 : 1 5 : 1 6 CONSULTANTS STAMP SHEET TITLE PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SHEET APPROVAL STAMP 3950 FABIAN WAY THE GIRLS MIDDLE SCHOOL PALO ALTO, CA 94303 RENOVATION MO, YL 24001 MILESTONE DATE 515 SWIFT ST. SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 PHONE 831.423.6040 | WWW.JLJA.COM California Landscape Architect License 3163 GL PLANNING SUBMITTAL 09/05/2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #1 11/07/2024 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 11/15/2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #2 12/30/2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #3 02/27/2025 ADHOC MEETING 07/07/2025 SECTION AND ELEVATION L1.04 2 L1.04 1 L1.04 EXISTING PLANTING WOOD FENCE ON CONCRETE WALL IN-GROUND MOUNT BIKE RACK FLEXIBLE AGGREGATE PAVING WOOD FENCE EXISTING SIDEWALK 6'- 0 " 1 SECTION AT ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING ALONG FABIAN WAY 3/4"=1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION AT ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING ALONG FABIAN WAY 3/4"=1'-0" WOOD FENCE CONCRETE WALL BEYOND PLAN 2'0'4' SCALE: 3/4"=1'-0" 1'6" WOOD FENCE ON CONCRETE WALL BEYOND GATE BEYOND EXISTING GRADE NOTE: 1.REFER TO CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, SECTION 5.106.4.2 FOR BICYCLE PARKING ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENT. AD HOC MEETING Item 6 Attachment A - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 96     ABECDFA.1A.9E.1E.9 1ST FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR14' - 0"ROOF28' - 0"C.6D.6 B.4C.4 A.8B.5C.1C.7D.3D.912 3 4 5 6 71.1 1.9 6.1 6.9 1ST FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR14' - 0"ROOF28' - 0"8ABECDFA.1 A.9 E.1 E.9 1ST FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR14' - 0"ROOF28' - 0"C.6 D.6B.4 C.4A.8 B.5 C.1 C.7 D.3 D.9 12345671.11.96.16.9 1ST FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR14' - 0"ROOF28' - 0"8 GENERAL NOTESGENERAL NOTESREFER TO AS-BUILTS FOR EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF ASSEMBLIES.REFER TO LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWING FOR GRADE ELEVATIONS.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE BASED ON AS-BUILTS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD.ALL EXTERIOR DEVICES & FIXTURES TO BE LOCATED IN ALIGNMENT OR CENTERED ON SURROUNDING BUILDING COMPONENTS. REVIEW PROPOSED LOCATIONS IN FILED WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALL.HEIGHT LIMIT: 35'EXTERIOR PAINT COLOR BAR CODE PATTERNS1.2.3.4.5.6.CONSULTANTSSTAMPSHEET TITLEPROJECT NAMEPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYCHECKED BYSHEET APPROVAL STAMP 7/8/2025 9:42:31 PMBUILDING ELEVATIONSBUILDING ELEVATIONS3950 FABIAN WAYTHE GIRLS MIDDLE SCHOOLTHE GIRLS MIDDLE SCHOOLPALO ALTO, CA 94303RENOVATION & NEWRENOVATION & NEWGYMNASIUMGYMNASIUMA4.00A4.00JK, SWJK, SWMA, SLMA, SL2400124001 1/8" = 1'-0"22 NORTH (RIGHT) ELEVATIONNORTH (RIGHT) ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"44 EAST (FRONT) ELEVATIONEAST (FRONT) ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"33 SOUTH (LEFT) ELEVATIONSOUTH (LEFT) ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"55 WEST (REAR) ELEVATIONWEST (REAR) ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULEEXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULEKEY CODE LOCATION MATERIAL BASIS OF DESIGNMANUFACTURER FINISH COLOREXTERIOR WALLSEX-1 PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER DUNN-EDWARDS DE6220 POROUS STONEEX-2 PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER DUNN-EDWARDS DE5853 BLUE EARTHEX-3 PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER DUNN-EDWARDS DE6369 LEGENDARY GRAYGLAZINGGL-1 (E) GLAZING DARK TINTEDGL-2 (N) GLAZING TEMPERED GLASS SOLARBAN 90METALML-1 (E) STOREFRONT / CURTAINWALLFRAMING ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAME BLACKML-2 (N) STOREFRONT / CURTAIN WALLFRAMING ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAME KAWNEER PERMACOAT POWDERCOATING CHARCOALML-3 ACCENT FRAME ALUMINUM BENT PLATE DUNN-EDWARDS KYNAR FINISH DE5397 RADIANT SUNRISE0'2'4'8'16'MILESTONE DATEPLANNING SUBMITTAL 09/06/2024PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #1 11/07/2024SCHEMATIC DESIGN 11/15/2024PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #2 01/09/2025PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #3 02/27/2025EX-2EX-1GL-2 ML-211NTSMATERIALS PALETTEMATERIALS PALETTE EX-3ML-3 Item 6Attachment A - Project Plans   Packet Pg. 97