Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-18 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 Council Chamber and Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on September 18, 2025, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 AM. Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Kendra Rosenberg, Board Member Marton Jojarth Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer showed a slide of the upcoming meetings. Board Member Rosenberg will be absent for the October 2 meeting. Chair Chen asked if the first few meetings of 2026 could be put on the list. Mr. Switzer agreed to add some of next year’s meetings to the list. Mr. Switzer noted the upcoming items for the October 2 meeting, which will include the second hearing for 340 Portage Ave and the Builder’s Remedy project for 156 California Ave. Action Item Page 2 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 2. Discussion of the Urban Land Institute Initiative with Palo Alto, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and Stanford related to the Palo Alto Transit Center and Designation of a Representative(s) to participate on behalf of the Board in the Urban Land Institute Initiative. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton-Gaines explained that the City was working with Stanford and the VTA regarding the downtown transit center. The VTA organized a mobility hub ad hoc committee with members of the VTA board, including Council Member Burt for Palo Alto. The Committee decided to move forward with the Urban Land Institute to do a study of the transit center area. The ad hoc was focused on short-term efforts to reactivate the space. The longer-term effort was focused on making the center an active space and encouraging transit for Palo Alto. The ULI study will take place the week of October 19. There will be stakeholder interviews on Tuesday, October 21. Staff asked for 1 or 2 members from the ARB to participate in the interviews. Ms. Cotton-Gaines read the 5 interview questions. Board Member Hirsch asked staff to describe the relationship between Stanford and the City as well as Stanford’s interest in the area. Board Member Hirsch queried if the MacArthur Park restaurant and parking lot, the building located behind MacArthur Park, and the transit center were all part of the study. Vice Chair Adcock asked what the timeline for the study was and what the short-term implementations coming out of the study would be. Chair Chen questioned if the building was a registered historic building and if the HRB would be involved in the interviews. Board Member Jojarth asked if the project considered moving the CalTrain station underground. Ms. Cotton-Gaines explained that Stanford owned the land, which the City leased and subleased. The ULI study site was a strip of land that included the VTA bus depot, the Palo Alto train station, the building at 400 Mitchell Lane, and MacArthur park. A map will be shared with the representatives and staff after the meeting. The timeline for the study will be one week. A briefing book will be shared with all participating panelists. Following the interviews, the Urban Land Institute will spend Wednesday and Thursday doing study. On Friday, the ULI will present recommendations at Council Chambers. HRB staff will be involved in the interviews. Ms. Cotton-Gaines stated there was no proposal to move the train station. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer confirmed the MacArthur park structure was a designated historic resource. PUBLIC COMMENT Lad W. owned a property directly across from the train station. Lad W. wanted to be a stakeholder or person of interest to give residential commentary on the project. Mr. Switzer said the purpose of the item was to assign ad hoc members. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer recommended the Board choose representatives, then allow each Board Member a chance to share comments before closing the item. Page 3 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 Board Member Jojarth and Board Member Hirsch were appointed to represent the ARB to the ULI Initiative. Board Member Rosenberg opined connectivity was important and suggested implementing mixed-use items like a coffee shop for the comfort of those waiting for transit. Vice Chair Adcock believed safe bike paths and pedestrian access to the station were important. Vice Chair Adcock suggested a seating area with line of sight to the trains. Chair Chen proposed providing spaces for public use at the station, such as shaded seating, art installations, or areas for live performances or special events. Chair Chen suggested a bike share program or lockers for travelers. Chair Chen cited the recently passed bill that focused on adding more housing units and recommended student housing with retail or coworking spaces. Board Member Hirsch thought accessibility issues were important. Board Member Hirsch agreed that the station was isolated and could act independently with commercial use or housing possibilities. Board Member Jojarth felt that connectivity was the biggest issue and noted it was difficult to get to the station from University Avenue. Board Member Jojarth suggested space for community services like childcare for commuters or social services. NO ACTION TAKEN 3. San Antonio Road Area Plan: Provide Feedback on Existing Conditions Analysis and Land Use and Mobility Priorities. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. Senior Planner Robert Cain mentioned the budget for the project was approved by Council in March and work had been ongoing for 6 months. Senior Associate Mitali Ganguly explained that an area plan was a comprehensive planning effort for a focused geography. The goal was to establish a vision and guiding principles for the San Antonio Road plan area. Input from the community, boards and commissions, and advisory boards were critical to form plan outcomes. The San Antonio Road Area Plan was a City-led initiative to create a 20-year vision with community input. The preliminary goals were to create a more livable community, improve mobility and safety, support sustainability, and enhance economic vitality. The plan area covered approximately 275 acres on either side of San Antonio Road. The project began in March and had 5 phases. The project was estimated to be completed by early 2028. There were 9 analysis memos being finalized in the existing conditions analysis. Board members had been presented with a summary report. The target was to arrive at a preferred plan alternative by June 2026. A slide showed an aerial view of the location, which demonstrated the area had good vehicular access from US 101 and offered a lot of development opportunities. There were a variety of different uses within the plan area and no coherent pattern of built conditions. There were distinct character areas. Individual lots were transforming from industrial/commercial use to mixed use. There was no park or similar outdoor space within the plan area, however most parts of the area were within a 10-minute walk or approximately half-mile distance from adjacent parks or open spaces. The area between US 101 Page 4 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 and Charleston was outside of the 10-minute walk to an open space amenity and was considered park deficient. The 2023-2031 Housing Element identified 53 housing opportunity sites within the plan area. The GM and ROLM zoning districts within the plan area were designated as focus areas. The City’s HIP program applied to part of the plan area. There were multiple potential projects in the development pipeline which, if all came to fruition, would lead to an estimated 750 new housing units within the plan area. About 800 housing units already existed within the plan area, with most dating to the 1970s. Some of the plan area had affordable housing units and 40 percent of the area’s residents were renters. The plan area had about 4 percent of the City’s jobs but 40 percent of the City’s manufacturing jobs. The future potential included a strong housing market for renter and ownership models which would likely attract midrise mixed-use and residential projects and an opportunity to offer housing at different income levels while supporting community amenities. Safety and connectivity were key concerns within the plan area, which was not perceived as being safe for pedestrians or cyclists. There were traffic congestion issues and significant gaps that would be addressed as part of the plan area effort. Specific intersections will be addressed. There had been 143 collisions within the plan area over the last 10 years. Access to the Caltrain station was a top concern in terms of safety and connectivity. A portion of the plan area was susceptible to sea level rise which was reflected in terms of additional flooding and groundwater seepage and will be addressed as part of the future development. Challenges identified included a limited available area for meaningful placemaking, almost all available land was privately owned, redevelopment areas were disconnected, and active development projects had already set the precedent for development along San Antonio Road. Opportunities identified included the active development projects which indicated an interest in the plan area, the area around Commercial Street and Industrial Avenue had significant property areas under single ownership, and the intersection of San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road had development potential. Ms. Ganguly had met with the PABAC, Planning and Transportation Commission, and community and technical advisory groups. October 16 will be the first pop-up to share information with the community and encourage engagement. October 23 will be the first community workshop. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Board Member Hirsch asked if there was someone on the team who was involved with commercial improvements in areas where the manufacturing industry appeared to be expanding. Board Member Hirsch clarified that part of the study was to learn how to accommodate additional uses in the industrial area and wondered how that would happen. Board Member Hirsch asked if the Commercial/Industrial area was a flood zone. Senior Associate Chris Sensenig confirmed there was an economic consultant who looked at market viability, financial feasibility, fiscal impact, etc. There were 3 different industrial areas which would likely remain as commercial. A bigger area of change was the Commercial Street and Industrial Avenue area. There was a gatekeeper project underway at Charleston Plaza with about 450 units and about 400,000 square feet of office space. There had been some aggregation of parcels in that area but more so Page 5 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 consolidation for potential redevelopment. The next stage was to work through alternatives and produce an alternative report near the beginning of the year. Mr. Sensenig confirmed the Commercial/Industrial area was a flood zone but noted there were ways to mitigate flood risk, such as by raising the finished floor or through regional mitigation measures. Mr. Cain reiterated this was a 20-year plan that would consider other sites that could transition to other types of uses in the far future. Board Member Rosenberg asked if there was a diagram or map that clearly explained what areas were owned by private entities versus the City, what areas were recently redeveloped, and which ones were primed for redevelopment. Board Member Rosenberg wanted the map on slide 15 overlaid with which parcels were privately versus publicly owned and which were individually owned versus co-owned. Board Member Rosenberg clarified that the Industrial/Commercial area was the main place that needed an open space park. Mr. Sensenig showed the map on slide 10, Zoning and Development Activity, which showed the pipeline projects and Housing Element sites. The map on slide 15, Development Opportunities, was shown. All the yellow shaded areas were parcels that had the greatest near-term redevelopment potential. All were privately owned. Mr. Sensenig explained that the Industrial/Commercial area was not being designated for future land use and the name was based on street names. Ms. Ganguly noted that there was a large aggregation of Housing Element sites along US 101. Vice Chair Adcock was concerned about displacing the manufacturing jobs the Industrial/Commercial area provided. Vice Chair Adcock asked if there was a way to incentivize allocating a portion of property to public parkland. Vice Chair Adcock asked if all the planned housing units would go toward the 2023- 2031 Housing Element. Vice Chair Adcock emphasized the need to incentivize housing for the next Housing Element cycle after 2031. Vice Chair Adcock queried what strategies there were to incentivize and grow the housing stock in the area without displacing other critical uses. Board Member Hirsch suggested miniparks as opposed to a large, aggregated area. Board Member Rosenberg noted the 750 planned housing units would almost double the population and wondered what the ultimate goal for housing was in the plan area. Board Member Rosenberg highlighted the need for utility and infrastructure increases to accommodate the population increase. Ms. Ganguly noted the economic analysis showed the largest number of job changes within the plan area had been from manufacturing to healthcare. Most industrial and commercial businesses in the area typically employed less than 50 people. Ms. Ganguly agreed displacement was an issue for the City to consider. Mr. Sensenig said there were a number of ways to incentivize parkland which will be explored through the alternatives phase, including the dedication of land, reduction of fees, utilization of park fees, the City purchasing land, development agreements, etc. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer explained what the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) was. Ms. Armer stated the sites identified within the area plan had a capacity of 1,559 units. The goal was to hear the Board’s initial thoughts to help guide and target the alternatives process. Ms. Armer confirmed the planned housing units will count toward the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City’s commitment to Page 6 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 the State was to show there was capacity and the City was not stopping housing development. Housing that gets developed, whether on an identified housing site or another property, will be counted toward satisfying the RHNA. Chair Chen asked if there were projections on what type of units would be built and if there was a way the City could provide guidance or incentives to developers. Chair Chen questioned if staff had spoken with the School District as to capacities of nearby schools. Chair Chen queried if the City planned on purchasing a park. Chair Chen suggested having designated areas for parking and rideshare loading zones. Board Member Hirsch read from the housing market conditions part of the report, which stated that successful implementation may depend on targeted incentives that encourage provision of community amenities as part of private development. Board Member Hirsch asked if that was a possibility. Board Member Hirsch wanted staff opinion on a good location for a potential centralized community space. Mr. Sensenig confirmed there were a limited number of ways the City could direct developers to build a certain unit size. There was no set direction as to open space. Mr. Sensenig wanted to get feedback from the Board regarding a location for a centralized community space. Mr. Sensenig believed the Commercial/Industrial area was one of the best options because it was in the most park deficient area and had the highest concentration of Housing Element sites furthest from amenities. The Middlefield and San Antonio Road intersection was identified as a potential location for retail. Charleston Road was a key potential location that will be looked at in an alternative. Ms. Ganguly stated staff will talk to the School District in the coming weeks. Ms. Ganguly explained that, given there were large retail centers nearby, smaller-type retail would be more likely to succeed. Such uses needed to be in easy-to-access areas with more visibility to function well and thrive, which is why intersections and along main streets were identified as potential locations. Chair Chen asked about the 24-foot setbacks. Vice Chair Adcock mentioned projects the Board recently reviewed that used some of the setback for underground garages, which limited what could be done on the surface. Vice Chair Adcock suggested public parking structures not connected to a housing site. Vice Chair Adcock opined retail needed to attract people from across town in order to flourish, which added to the car and bike parking issue. Board Member Hirsch thought there should be a unified commercial area after the residential community was in place. Mr. Sensenig noted that on the southeast side of San Antonio Road, there were challenges with using the 24-foot setback, such as large pieces of infrastructure at the back of the sidewalk, backflow preventers, utility boxes, etc. It would be expensive to change the right-of-way and move the sidewalk and curb. The other side of San Antonio Road had challenges, such as having 4 to 5 different, unique segments. The alternatives phase will look at how to provide safe pedestrian and bike access. The north side of the road had benefits but will require tradeoffs, such as street parking. Board Member Jojarth thought the number of housing in the area would be around 10,000 and was surprised it was only 1,500. Board Member Jojarth advised against assuming certain areas will stay as-is for the next 20 years. Board Member Jojarth encouraged the City to increase density in a big way, Page 7 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 particularly on Fabian Way and the Office Park. Board Member Jojarth suggested 15- or 20-story buildings. Board Member Jojarth opined the City could get concessions from developers if there was a bigger vision. Board Member Jojarth suggested adding a southbound highway access on San Antonio Road. Board Member Jojarth proposed looking at small-scale parks, especially if the City had to purchase land. Board Member Hirsch proposed a series of 10-story, interlocked buildings with an internal parkland. Chair Chen referenced SB 79 and encouraged staff to study opportunities around housing near the San Antonio station. Mr. Cain noted there was already a project to redevelop the intersections at San Antonio Road and Rengstorff Avenue, which included adding a southbound entrance at San Antonio Road. Ms. Armer said the City will look into the implications of SB 79 if it gets signed, which would go into effect July 1, 2026. The Board took a 7-minute break. NO ACTION TAKEN 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN-00278]: Request by AT&T for Review of a Tier 2 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Application for Modification of an Existing Wireless Antenna and Associated Equipment at an Existing Streetlight Pole in the Public Right-of-Way fronting 1661 Page Mill Road. CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Not Applicable (Public Right-of-Way). Associate Planner Nishita Kandikuppa stated the wireless call location was proposed on the existing City- owned metal streetlight pole No. 167 situated to the west of 1661 Page Mill Road. It was located in the public right-of-way and had no zoning designation. It was surrounded by the Research Park to the north, south, and east and Stanford residences to the west. The trees on the street were considered protected but would not be affected as part of the call location. The proposed project was comprised of modifications to an existing wireless communications site and associated equipment. The project included the removal of the existing wireless equipment, including 1 canister antenna and 1 Remote Radio Unit (RRU), and the installation of the new wireless equipment, including 2 antennas with splitters, 3 RRUs, 3 RRU shrouds, safety signage, cabling within the streetlight pole, and 1 disconnect box with shut down signage. Slides showed the site plan and existing and proposed conditions. Assistant City Attorney Aylin Bilir reviewed the relevant federal laws, including the Federal Telecommunications Act, Spectrum Act, and FCC regulations. The Federal Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), recognized broad general authority for local “decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities,” and was subject to 5 limitations, which were discussed. A slide showed references to federal regulations which provided more detail around the statutes. Projects must be reviewed within a reasonable time to comply with federal law. Page 8 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 Shot clocks were the periods of time in which a city must take final action on an application to install or modify a wireless facility. For this project, the final decision must be made within 60 days of application submittal. The project shot clock will expire on October 28, 2025. A slide showed the relevant state laws. The City divided the federal definitions of project type into 3 application tiers: Tier 1, eligible facilities request; Tier 2, non-tier 1 modifications and small wireless facilities; and Tier 3, new facilities. The City’s Tier 2 application checklist was attachment E, which was what staff reviewed to ensure the application was complete. The Architectural Review Findings was Attachment C. The Wireless Ordinance Development Standards was Condition No. 3 in Attachment B. The Projected Conditions of Approval was Attachment B. Ms. Kandikuppa explained the 2 tiers of exposure for RF emissions: occupational/controlled and general population/uncontrolled. Occupational exposure was measured at the antenna level while general population exposure limits were measured at ground level. The proposed antennas were directional, which decreased the area of potential RF exposure except at the antenna level, which was approximately 30 feet above ground level. Within 7 feet below and 37 feet in front of the antennas, the predicted RF exposure was medium to low. RF safety signage will be installed 6 feet under antennas. Multiple slides showed photos of predicted exposure around antennas. The proposed project would not be a source of new ambient noise because the units were convection cooled. The Palo Alto Municipal Code provided development regulations for wireless projects, with the criteria summarized as the following: to ensure wireless equipment utilized the smallest footprint possible; to minimize the overall mass, size, and visibility of the equipment; to utilize a camouflage design; and to be architecturally compatible. Staff determined the proposed installation met the criteria as stated in the ARB findings in Attachment C. Other considerations included the existing streetlight pole, which was grey silver and metallic. All proposed equipment would be painted in Silver-Brite Aluminum Paint to match the pole. Staff was seeking the ARB’s input on the cohesiveness and integration of the design color and material of the antenna and radio unit shrouds relative to the existing streetlight pole. The project had been reviewed by all relevant city departments to ensure conformance. Staff recommended the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings and approval conditions. Board Member Jojarth clarified the project could only be denied for aesthetic reasons if the aesthetic requirements had been published in advance and were reasonable. Board Member Jojarth asked if the objective standards were the published standards for the Board to use. Board Member Hirsch asked if this pole was a prototype that would be used elsewhere in the City. Chair Chen asked if 1 light pole could be shared by multiple different carriers. Chair Chen referenced packet page 97, which stated that WCFs should not be placed less than 600 feet away from another WCF. Chair Chen wanted to know what would happen if other carriers wanted to share the same location with AT&T. Ms. Bilir explained the objective standards had previously been published by Council and were used for review for about 5 years. However, Council had recently repealed the objective standards. Page 9 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer pulled up the Development Standards on the screen. The ARB could recommend modifications and had the opportunity to use subjective findings and standards as the basis for review. Ms. Kandikuppa stated that public right-of-way equipment was typically proposed on wooden streetlight poles, which included other transmission equipment, and any addition to those poles did not increase the aesthetic impact. Ms. Kandikuppa said projects proposed on metal streetlight poles were less likely to occur elsewhere in the City. Ms. Kandikuppa noted wooden utility poles had multiple carriers on the same pole which connected to various nearby utility boxes, however this metal pole only had an AT&T facility at the time. Ms. Bilir explained the 600 foot distance between WCFs was a prior objective standard and it was possible for an applicant to request an exception to share poles. Project Manager Justin Giarritta showed a map of the project location and a photo of the pole. Mr. Giarritta explained that part of Page Mill Road was a busy throughfare and the population in that area needed better network capacity from AT&T. Mr. Giarritta opined that by upgrading the existing equipment, service would improve for the local community, businesses, and emergency services. A slide showed the current pole and a rendering of the proposed changes. Mr. Giarritta believed the most significant changes included the addition of the radios and disconnect switch onto the pole as opposed to being in the cabinet. The lighter weight of the upgraded radios allowed AT&T to utilize that design without impacting the integrity of the pole structure or foundation. The design would be consistent with the 72 other AT&T 4G small cell sites which were upgraded with the City under a Tier 1 process over the last 18 months. A slide showed a drawing of the pole pulled from the construction drawings. The design contributed to the efficiency of AT&Ts coverage and capacity goals. The disconnect switch and meter were proposed to be moved onto the pole for safety purposes and would become more accessible should the site need to be de-energized. A slide showed existing ODAS and future small cell coverage plot maps of the location. Another slide showed the existing and proposed C-Band coverage plots. Mr. Giarritta explained the current design did not support C-Band. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Peter B., who previously served on the ARB, stated that WCFs, when mounted high on a pole or streetlight with simple design modifications, were not aesthetically objectionable. Necessary electronic equipment was often too large to be integrated within the antenna and was bulky, unsightly, and potentially noisy. Possible locations for said equipment were either mounted high on a utility pole when configured to be vertically linear and project no more than 12 inches and concealed by a shroud or other design element; in a vault below ground; or concealed in an attractive, camouflaged box-mounted container. Council enacted a set of objective standards in 2019. The ARB letter which advised Council on those standards was sent to the Board and stated that radio and power equipment, either exposed or concealed by a shroud and mounted on the side of an existing streetlight or utility pole, was not an acceptable design solution and prevented the ARB from making findings 2(e) and 3. Council recently repealed the objective standards and instead required WCF projects to demonstrate compliance with the 6 mandatory Page 10 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 ARB findings. Peter B. urged the Board to find that the pole-mounted radio equipment was not compatible with ARB findings 2(e) and 3. 2. Jeanne F., on behalf of United Neighbors, stated there was information missing from the application, including: plans with details for all associated equipment within 50 feet, including vaults and cabinets; manufacturing specs for all equipment; and volume calculations for the equipment. Jeanne F. asserted, based on calculations, that the volume exceeded the FCC’s 28 cubic feet limit and therefore was too big to be considered a small wireless facility. Jeanne F. referenced a small underground vault that Verizon had installed years ago. Jeanne F. said residents appreciated the project’s location being at least 150 feet away from any home. Jeanne F. noted that all changes AT&T had made over the last 18 months were done without the ARB’s oversight and urged the Board to direct AT&T to improve the design. 3. Ariel S., counsel to United Neighbors, opined the project location was good but there were deficiencies in the application. Ordinance Standard 1 stated that “the project shall utilize the smallest antenna, radio, and associated equipment as measured by volume technically feasible to achieve a network objective.” Ariel S. noted there was no discussion of alternatives to determine whether this was the smallest technically feasible. Ariel S. asserted that a review of the plans and measurements of the cabinet demonstrated the project did not qualify as a small wireless facility. FCC regulations defined a small wireless facility to be a facility in which the non- antenna equipment is “no more than 28 cubic feet in volume” and included everything above ground that was not the antenna and shroud around the antenna. Page 3 of the checklist required the application include “the dimensions and volume of the antenna and the dimensions and volume of other additional equipment and the overall facility.” However, the application did not describe AT&Ts above ground cabinet, which the plan stated was to remain, or the cables and brackets. Ariel S. referred to a table on the handout given to the Board which showed the equipment was over 31 cubic feet. Ariel S. believed the application was deficient and suggested the ARB deny the application. Board Member Rosenberg confirmed the Board received a handout from Mr. Strauss with the calculations. Mr. Giarritta said the submitted design was consistent with what had been done around the City. AT&T had considered putting all equipment into the cabinet but the radios were too bulky, thus this was the most feasible design. Otherwise, the cabinet would have to be rebuilt and take up more platform on the ground, which was not aesthetically pleasing. The shot clock for this project was 60 days. AT&T was not collocating with another carrier on the City’s streetlights as there would not be enough space. Chair Chen confirmed the Board had received a handout from Ms. Fleming. Board Member Rosenberg asked staff if the volume measurements exceeded the FCC’s 28 cubic feet regulation and clarified the applicant had not provided the calculations. Ms. Kandikuppa confirmed that the calculations, if not included in the plans, would have to be provided by the applicant in order to move forward. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the cabinet would remain and if so, given there was space in the cabinet used for radios, was the footprint was increasing for no reason. Page 11 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 Board Member Jojarth clarified a bigger cabinet would need to be built on the ground to house all 3 radios. Board Member Rosenberg asked if the cabinet could be built underground. Board Member Hirsch questioned if the exact same arrangement being shown had been installed elsewhere in the City. Mr. Giarritta explained the cabinet was serviced by AT&T Wireless and AT&T Wireline, so a separate application would have to be conducted within AT&T Wireline for the cabinet to be removed. All 3 radios would not fit in the cabinet, therefore AT&T proposed putting all 3 on the pole versus splitting them up or building a larger cabinet, which would be required to fit all 3 radios. AT&T had not built cabinets underground because it did not allow for the easy access AT&T required. The exact same arrangement had been installed elsewhere in the City. Board Member Rosenberg clarified that the other applications of similar design around the City had been done prior to the requirement for ARB oversight and questioned if the ARB would be setting a precedent. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the other applications reviewed by staff met the 28 cubic feet requirement. Ms. Kandikuppa confirmed that, prior to July 2025, ARB review was not required for said scope of work and as such, there had been other applications which were reviewed against the objective standards. Ms. Kandikuppa confirmed the ARB would be setting a precedent. Staff used the objective standards as a guideline but anticipated coming back with a more thorough review on how to proceed with such applications. Ms. Kandikuppa stated the other projects over the last 3 years had been Tier 1 applications which had different cubic foot thresholds. Board Member Jojarth asked if Mr. Strauss had seen the radios mounted elsewhere and if the cabinet had been installed underground. Mr. Strauss confirmed there were 5G facilities installed underground. The dimensions of the cabinet for the current application were not in the plans to explain what configurations were possible. Mr. Strauss wanted the applicant to show the current configuration and how the cabinet would have to be configured to fit the 3 radios so the ARB could decide which was visually superior. Mr. Strauss had seen the equipment placed underground and was unsure why access would be an issue as both a cabinet or underground vault would be locked. Board Member Rosenberg asked if placing items within the light pole was feasible. Board Member Hirsch confirmed the equipment shown in the drawings was larger than diameter of the pole and assumed the same equipment could not be used inside the pole. Board Member Hirsch asked if the radios were proposed at that height for maintenance purposes. Chair Chen asked if the radios could be mounted higher. Mr. Giarritta said AT&T had never placed equipment within the light pole and confirmed the proposed equipment would not fit within the pole. There were GO95 clearances that must be met, however there was opportunity to potentially change the radio heights if that would improve the aesthetics. The radios were placed at the proposed height for accessibility purposes. Page 12 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 Ms. Kandikuppa said that no specific volume calculations were provided as part of the plans but there were dimensions on sheet D1 of the project plans. Staff did rough calculations with the proposed 3 radio units enclosed within the radio shrouds, the 2 antennas atop the light mast, and the disconnect switch. Those calculations came out to approximately 10.6 cubic feet. The cabinet referenced was not included within the scope of work. Vice Chair Adcock clarified the project would introduce an additional 10.6 cubic feet. Vice Chair Adcock asserted that, since the service came from the cabinet and it was being modified by removing the radios, the calculations should include the cabinet. Vice Chair Adcock believed the space in the cabinet was being abandoned. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the City considered putting equipment on the larger poles as a way to help concealment. Vice Chair Adcock wanted the City and the applicant to look at a larger breadth of options as this was a precedent-setting project. Vice Chair Adcock wanted clarification on the benefits to having the disconnect switch on the pole versus in the cabinet. Board Member Hirsch asked if the disconnect switch was locked and how the shroud was fastened to the equipment. Board Member Hirsch questioned if it were possible to have the radios paralleled on the pole. Board Member Hirsch questioned if the No Parking signs were relocated. Board Member Hirsch asked if it were possible to contain all 3 radio units within 1 shroud. Board Member Rosenberg asked what signage would be added to the pole, where, how big it would be, and what it would say. Board Member Rosenberg queried what would happen if other carriers wanted to use the same pole. Board Member Rosenberg was concerned that other carriers could add similar units to other poles on the same street. Mr. Giarritta confirmed there would be no radios left in the cabinet, so there would be excess space. The cabinet would be used for AT&T Wireline equipment. Mr. Giarritta confirmed the disconnect switch box was locked. Only one key would be required to unlock the disconnect switch if it were on the pole versus the required two keys if it were in the cabinet. Mr. Giarritta confirmed the radios were completely covered by the shroud and referenced detail 8 on sheet D1. Mr. Giarritta said paralleling the radio units was not ideal because climbing space was required to reach the antenna. Mr. Giarritta stated the only signs AT&T was required to add were a notice and shut down sign; parking signs were under the City’s authority. The additional signage details were on D11 and D12 with location details on A3. The notice sign was located about 22 feet above the ground. All radios had been contained within a single shroud in other jurisdictions where the code stated that was the preferred method. However, PG&E standards required the disconnect switch not be shrouded with the radio units. Ms. Kandikuppa clarified the definition in the code under small wireless facilities, which stated that all other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting associated equipment on the structure, be no more than 28 cubic feet in volume. Therefore, the cabinet would count. That calculation had not been provided in the plans. Staff could request that the applicant provide the cabinet calculations. Ms. Kandikuppa said staff would review the suggestion of placing equipment on larger poles. Ms. Kandikuppa confirmed the pole in question did not have any parking signage. Ms. Kandikuppa said it was possible for other carriers to place units on different areas of the same pole mounted at different heights. Ms. Armer said if there were other applications from other carriers for the same pole, it would be reviewed in context. Council had specifically asked the ARB to discuss, consider, and make a Page 13 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 recommendation as to how these projects should be reviewed. There will be an opportunity in the near future for staff to have discussions and provide specific direction and guidance that might differ from what would be determined for this application. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the option of using 1 shroud had been presented to staff. Chair Chen asked if other options to conceal visibility, such as placing the units underground, were not feasible. Ms. Kandikuppa said the option of using a single shroud was not provided to staff but could be requested from the applicant. Mr. Giarritta explained the proposal was based on what had already been constructed in the City. Mr. Giarritta said putting the units underground was expensive and not the most feasible in terms of access. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer believed more information was needed from the applicant, especially regarding the volumes, and that finding 3 may be in conflict with the aesthetic quality. Chair Chen opined the Board needed more information to make the application complete. Board Member Rosenberg was hesitant to continue the conversation without all the information. Board Member Jojarth stated that Page Mill Road was a transit route and questioned if the Board would only be setting a precedent specific to that type of environment. Regarding the suggestion to put the units underground, Board Member Jojarth wanted to be fair and not require AT&T to do something that others, such as Palo Alto utilities, were not required to do. Board Member Jojarth opined the disconnect switch should not be on the pole. Board Member Jojarth did not want to go overboard on aesthetic standards if the same standards were not followed in other applications, such as with traffic lights. Board Member Jojarth suggested that having the 3 radio units on the pole was acceptable and wanted to balance aesthetics with the overall community benefit of better signals. Vice Chair Adcock believed this project was precedent setting across multiple types of environments and opined the applicant did not present the highest aesthetic quality design possible, as detailed in the ARB findings. Ms. Armer stated that whether a project of similar nature had been done elsewhere in the City would not be the determining factor on each project going forward. Board Member Rosenberg believed the Board could not approve the project due to the missing information from the application, the unresolved calculation issue, and the lack of high aesthetic quality. Mr. Switzer reiterated the shot clock time constraints and suggested addressing the issue again at the October 16 meeting. Mr. Giarritta agreed to the October 16 meeting. Chair Chen guided the applicant to provide clarification on the cubic footage of the project and alternative design solutions. Vice Chair Adcock wanted the radios to be as collocated as feasible with the current technology available. Page 14 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 9/18/25 MOTION: Chair Chen moved, seconded by Board Member Rosenberg, to disapprove the project with a date certain on October 16. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas None. Adjournment Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 12:06 AM.