Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-16 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: January 16, 2025 Council Chambers and Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on January 16, 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 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, announced that Agenda Item 3 would be heard before Agenda Item 2. Oral Communications None City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, delivered the Director’s Report. ARB meetings were scheduled for November 6, November 20, December 4, and December 18. No items have been made available for the November 6 agenda, so that meeting may be cancelled. The packet contained the projected 2026 meeting schedule. Board Members were requested to notify staff of any planned absences. Action Item 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN‐00278] (Continued from September 18): Request by AT&T for Review of a Tier 2 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Application for a Small Wireless Facility with Modifications to the 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) Page 2 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Not Applicable (Public Right‐of‐ Way). Chair Chen asked Board Members if they had anything to disclose. Board Member Rosenberg passed by the site. Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, Board Member Hirsch, and Board Member Jojarth had no disclosures. Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, addressed the ARB. The project was located in the right‐ of‐way near 1661 Page Mill Road in the Research Park area. The following existing wireless equipment would be removed: 1 canister antenna, 1 radio, 1 equipment cabinet, related noise‐producing equipment from the existing pole, and adjacent equipment cabinet. The new proposed equipment on the pole included 3 convection‐cooled RRUs and 2 antennas. In the last ARB review, the Board asked for clarification of the volume calculations to ensure this project met the 28 cubic feet threshold for a Tier 2 small cell wireless facility, and asked the Applicant to provide alternative equipment designs such as putting more equipment in the existing cabinet with the intent of reducing equipment on the pole. The Applicant has now provided volume calculations and clarified it would be less than 28 cubic feet and therefore was considered a Tier 2 small cell wireless facility and subject to a 60‐day shot clock. The equipment on the pole was not put into the cabinet because the Applicant removed the existing utility cabinet located adjacent to the pole. Staff had been exploring with the Applicant whether the disconnect switch on the pole could be modified. The Applicant expressed to staff today that a design was worked out with the Utilities Department to move the disconnect switch into the underground cabinet. Pictures were shown of the existing pole and proposed changes. City equipment for the light and fiber would be undergrounded. Staff recommended that the ARB recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the Tier 2 Small Wireless Facility application for modifications to an existing Wireless Communication Facility in the public right‐of‐way based on findings in Attachment B and conditions of approval in Attachment C of the packet. The submitted plan did not reflect the disconnect switch being moved to the underground vault; therefore, Ms. Raybould recommended including it as a condition of approval if the ARB approved this project. Ms. Raybould noted that about 50 members of the public wrote to express their support for the comments the ARB made at the last meeting. Marc Grabisch spoke as AT&T’s representative. Mr. Grabisch wanted to clarify some misstatements made in the prior ARB hearing. General Order 95 did not apply to a City‐owned streetlight pole. There was not enough space in the right‐of‐way along with the existing underground utilities for sewer, water, electric, and communications to fit an underground vault with access that was large enough for a person to maintain the radios and have climate‐controlled equipment to provide cooling for the equipment and a safe working environment. Under the small cell order, the exorbitant cost of an underground vault for the radio equipment would make it extremely limiting to build small cell facilities, which would be a material inhibition of services. AT&T was able to remove the existing cabinet and underground the fiber connection that was in the cabinet. AT&T worked with City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) to underground the disconnect switch in a vault. Mr. Grabisch addressed the comments submitted by United Neighbors regarding 6409. The City had rights of ownership to the pole and therefore could control additional equipment outside of its permitting authority. Adding equipment typically puts light poles over the structural capacity, thus requiring a pole replacement. If a structure required a pole replacement, it no longer was a 6409‐eligible Page 3 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 facility. Mr. Grabisch wanted the Board to consider the cabinet and light pole as 2 separate 6409‐eligible facilities because wireless equipment was housed in both structures. This site was initially approved as an oDAS facility with the equipment on the pole. When AT&T went to construct the facility, it was realized that the oDAS equipment at that time required a pole with more structural capacity than the City’s standard light pole. AT&T had offered to provide a spare pole. The City did not want to have a one‐off pole. AT&T and the City decided to accommodate the oDAS equipment in a ground cabinet, which was noticeable when driving by the site. Bulky equipment cabinets in the right‐ of‐way took up space on sidewalks and caused ADA issues, so ground cabinets were typically not a preferred solution. AT&T’s initial ODAS equipment required fans. Even though it met the City’s noise standards, many residents found the fans to be a nuisance. In most cases, AT&T had now moved to convection‐cooled equipment. Taking the equipment out of the cabinet and putting it on the pole addressed these issues. The pole had limited capacity and AT&T felt they had presented as sleek of a design as possible. The radios would hardly be noticed when mounted on the opposite side of the flow of traffic because the radios would be concealed by the pole, and the electrical lines and coaxial cables coming out of the radios would be concealed on the opposite side, which made it a stealth solution. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ariel Strauss, attorney at Greenfire Law, was the counsel for United Neighbors. Mr. Strauss noted in his September 25 letter that this pole was not owned by PG&E, so PG&E and GO 95 standards were not applicable to this facility. To assess the best and highest quality design, Mr. Strauss encouraged the ARB to look very closely at this specific location on the thoroughfare, the available options, and the considerations to maintain the facility as stealth under Subsection (i)(5) of the ordinance wherever possible. The cabinet was a stealth option because it looked like a standard utility cabinet instead of a cell tower. Radios on the pole looked like cell equipment and were more conspicuous, resulting in elimination of the ARB’s future ability to regulate attachments. The FCC had been explicit that City ownership of poles in the right‐of‐way did not allow the City additional rights that would apply, for instance, if this was a City‐owned building. The small cell designation was made when an application was submitted. After 10 days, the shot clock timeline could not be changed. The submitted application was not for a small cell because it included a utility cabinet, which put it over 28 cubic feet. Mr. Strauss believed this was a 90‐day shot clock and it was very important to get this correct because it had very serious implications for the public’s right to participate and the Board’s process to ask for additional iterations. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to put on the record that she had read the many emails that the ARB had received from the public about this project. Ms. Raybould said the Applicant had expressed willingness to a tolling agreement for an additional 45 days to allow time in the event there was an appeal on this project. Mr. Grabisch did not agree with the calculation provided that determined whether it was a small cell facility. If the City preferred AT&T to put equipment in a cabinet that was bulkier than what was otherwise required for this installation, Mr. Grabisch did not believe the extra bulk should be considered in the calculation and neither should the ground pad. If Cities want applicants to do a structure that no would longer be considered a small cell facility, it was a means of bypassing federal law. Mr. Grabisch felt that the proposed design was clearly a small wireless facility. Page 4 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Board Member Hirsch posed the following questions. Was there a reason for the radios to be attached at a certain height on the pole? Could the Applicant study the possibility of a different attachment height? Was there a distance that must be maintained between the radios within the cabinet? Why did the cabinet for the radios have a funnel shape at the bottom? Could a single shroud be used over the entire structure? Why were the radios located on one side of the pole? Could the radios be located on any side of the pole without affecting the transmission signal, such as symmetrically facing outward? Was the dimension of the pole measured? Was there a reason why the Applicant did not modify the design, as requested by the Board during the last discussion on this project? Was all the wiring inside the pole going down to connect to the street connections? The drawings received were diagrammatic. Will the supplier or manufacturer of the shroud have a shop drawing or a more detailed drawing after the design approval? Will the shroud be completely around the 4 sides of the equipment or will it have an opening in the back of the box where the radio and wires could be visible within the shroud? Could the shroud be perforated? Mr. Grabisch addressed Board Member Hirsch’s questions. About 1 foot of distance between radios was necessary to allow cooler air to flow through for convection cooling and to accommodate the bend radius to avoid kinking of electrical lines and coaxial cables. If the radios were too closely spaced, hot air would rise and add to the hot air of the radio above. Enclosing all 3 radios inside an equipment cabinet would trap hot air, requiring active cooling from fans. The radio was a box. Power and fiber came from underground, fed into the pole, and exited the pole to connect to each of the radio ports. The coaxial cables on the side of the radio entered the pole and connected to the antenna on the top. The cabinet’s funnel concealed the components bending toward the port hole. The wiring would be exposed without the shroud for concealment. Putting 3 radios in 1 shroud would be big and bulky. The back of the shroud was open to allow airflow for convectional cooling of the radios. Closing the shroud completely would restrict airflow and require active cooling from fans. The proposed open‐air solution did not require fans. The Applicant could potentially look at putting mesh on the back of the shroud. The Applicant would have the shroud manufactured to the provided specifications but did not know if updated drawings with additional detail would be provided. Other equipment on City streetlight poles included solar power, battery backup, and other infrastructure. The proposed concealment design looked like the other ancillary equipment on the poles instead of wireless equipment. CPAU and PG&E could have different standards. The bottom of the disconnect switch was attached over 7 feet high to be serviceable but avoid the public from disconnecting it, and the other equipment was placed above the disconnect switch. Initially, the disconnect switch was on the pole but had been moved, so AT&T could lower the radios if the Board preferred. The radios could be raised if there was enough room for the wires to complete their bend radius into the tapered pole. Measurements were not taken of the pole’s dimensions. The Applicant could study the possibility of a different radio attachment height. Radios back to back at the same height on the pole would cause a spacing issue because the coaxial cables would feed in at the same entry point. Placing 2 boxes on 1 side and 1 box on another side would occupy space on 2 sides of the pole. It was more efficient for a maintenance person to set up to work on 3 radios on the same side of the pole rather than moving to set up to work on other sides of the pole. With the 3 radios mounted behind the pole, the Applicant believed the majority of drivers would not notice the radios when driving by because the pole would obscure the radios, although people walking by may find it more intrusive. The radios could be on any side of the pole, so the orientation could be changed. Page 5 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Mr. Switzer noted that more members of the public wished to comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. Jeanne Fleming spoke on behalf of United Neighbors. On September 18, the ARB disapproved AT&T’s application for a cell tower and directed the Applicant to return with a design that completely concealed the radios underground or in a cabinet, and to come back with accurate volume calculations for their equipment so the ARB could determine whether it qualified as a small wireless facility. AT&T returned today with a proposal to remove the existing equipment cabinet even though this cabinet could easily accommodate the radios. Ms. Fleming questioned why AT&T was determined to install radios on the side of the pole. The ARB required equipment other than antennas to be fully concealed. Approving AT&T’s submitted design would result in AT&T installing anything they wanted on that pole without the ARB’s approval. The ARB did not review or approve the plans for any of the cell towers that AT&T cited as a precedent for the proposed design. A photo was shown of one of AT&T’s cited examples that Ms. Fleming described as having huge radios on the side of the pole, a thicket of multicolored wires going up and down, and a jumble of antenna equipment at the top. If AT&T’s application included the volume calculations for the equipment proposed on Page Mill Road, the shot clock would have been 90 days because the cell tower did not qualify as a small wireless facility. AT&T should not be entitled to the 60‐day shot clock that applied only to small wireless facilities. 2. Herb B. advised the ARB to impose limits on the Applicant replacing the equipment contained in the enclosure with something more powerful and dangerous in the future. Otherwise, once the Applicant had an approval, there was no recourse if the Applicant switched the equipment. Regarding the comment about the shot clock, Chair Chen noted that the Applicant agreed to enter into a tolling agreement for an additional 45 days. Under 6409 in reference to stealth facilities, Mr. Grabisch stated that concealment elements could be expanded if they looked like the original concealment element. As long as it continued to have the look and feel of an equipment cabinet, 6409‐eligible applications could be made against it that allowed for expansion of the equipment cabinet. ARB‐approved equipment cabinets in the public right‐of‐way were 6409‐eligible for expansion. Base stations in the right‐of‐way could extend out to 6 feet. Board Member Hirsch held up a photograph of a wooden pole with wires coming out of the bottom and the radios were parallel to each other at the same height on the pole, whereas Mr. Grabisch stated previously could not be done. Board Member Hirsch asked if the Applicant could place the shrouds parallel on the pole at the same height or if the Applicant had studied that it could not be done. Board Member Hirsch pointed out that the Applicant only proposed 1 solution with 1 orientation without saying or showing whether there was any flexibility in the design. Mr. Grabisch was familiar with the applications on the wooden utility poles. Those radios, coaxial cables, and fiber connections were exposed to open air without a shroud for concealment. The Applicant could do the same radio installation on the streetlight pole as was done on the utility poles but having everything at the same height would require a much bigger, bulkier, and unsightly shroud. It might impact the pole structurally to cut a porthole large enough to fit the coaxial cables into the pole for 3 radios at the same height. When the radios were separated on the pole, a smaller opening was needed Page 6 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 for each radio. Utility poles were wider in diameter. With the proposed design, the pole provided concealment when you were on the opposite side of the pole. Radios back to back on the pole would stick out on either side of the pole as you drove along. Mr. Grabisch said the flexibility of the design could be evaluated but he felt that the Applicant had presented the best, most efficient and reasonable solution to implement. The Applicant would have to do a lot more work to determine whether the radios could be mounted at the same height or if it would affect the structural integrity of the pole. Mr. Grabisch believed the application met the City’s requirements. In Mr. Grabisch’s opinion based on his 15 years of experience, it would be prohibitive structurally to mount 3 radios at the same height on a streetlight pole. The orientation on the pole could be changed. Board Member Rosenberg referred to Sheet D1 and inquired if the curvature of the cabling had to be accommodated inside going up the pole. Mr. Grabisch replied the power wires were coming up from the bottom of the pole along with fiber, and coaxial cables exited the radio and go up. There was a bend radius to go up the pole. Radios back to back would conflict within the pole. The volume of the wiring would require too large of a hole to be cut into the pole for it to have structural integrity. Board Member Hirsch asked if there was more than 1 wire coming up and down from the radios. Mr. Grabisch answered there were ground wires and the connections from the radio to the antennas that transmit the frequencies for AT&T to provide network coverage and capacity. Vice Chair Adcock voiced the following questions and comments. Why was the proposal for 3 radios instead of 1 or 2? Could a larger radio be installed instead of more radios? Vice Chair Adcock clarified that each radio had a bundle of coaxial cable going in the pole up to the antenna, not 1 coaxial cable. On D‐1 Shroud Detail, what was the diameter of the pole in that area in comparison to the 1‐foot 2‐inch width of the shroud box? If the scaling on the drawings was roughly accurate, Vice Chair Adcock calculated the pole was about ⅓ the width of the shroud; therefore, the radio would stick out on both sides, so the pole was not concealing the radio. In the cable conduit drawing, on the side of the pole where the cables come out of the hole to attach to the radio, was it a conduit or a bundle of cables as seen in the pictures? Were there free‐air cables on the backside? If 3 radios were mounted at the same elevation, was a combined shroud possible? Mr. Grabisch addressed Vice Chair Adcock’s questions. The application was for 3 radios because of the amount of capacity and coverage required for AT&T to fill the significant service gap to provide a consistent service level of coverage for people walking, in vehicles, and in the surrounding buildings. Each radio provided 2 frequencies. Each radio had a bundle of coaxial cable going up to the antenna. The Applicant confirmed there was enough space within the pole for everything to fit. Mr. Grabisch would have to get back to the ARB on the pole diameter. The radio would protrude from the sides, and radios mounted higher up the tapered pole would protrude more. The funnel shroud was proposed to conceal the cables coming out of the radio and going inside the pole. A shroud could be put at the top where the cables connect to the antennas. On the backside, the cables are free air. Mr. Grabisch showed a photo of the view from the back as an example of an installation; the cables were open air but could not be seen. The shroud and radio shown in the photo were smaller but similar to what was proposed; the distance between the radios and the shroud was similar to the proposal. Mounting 3 radios at the same height in 1 very large shroud would be structurally prohibitive with either 3 holes or 1 large hole. Page 7 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Regarding Mr. Grabisch previously mentioning that the radio could be mounted higher, Chair Chen queried what the height constraints were. Mr. Grabisch responded that the only constraint to the installation height of the radios was structural limitation in the capacity of the light pole to support equipment, if it was a weaker portion of the pole and had extra wind loading. It was beneficial for the Applicant to mount the radio closer to the antenna because less loss occurred over the distance of the coaxial cables from the radio to the antenna. Mr. Grabisch had not checked for this specific pole’s structural height limitation but thought the radios could go higher if that was the Board’s decision. Having 3 radios and coaxial cables at the same height generated a lot of heat, the shroud for concealment inhibited airflow even with mesh, and potentially there was not enough airflow to activate the convection cooling, so more than likely it would require active cooling for the radios not to fail. Elements on utility poles were exposed open air and the coaxial cables were not concealed, so there was free airflow. Board Member Hirsch asked if the radios would function well if the shroud had ventilation on top and there was no problem with rain coming in from the top of the box. The heat coming out of the shroud would go vertically. Board Member Hirsch wondered if it was possible to leave more opening in the top of the shroud, either perforated or otherwise, for better ventilation with the radios mounted around the pole at the same height rather than vertically in a line, if the diameter of the pole was able to hold them. Board Member Hirsch questioned why the Applicant did not consider putting their own metal pole into the ground somewhere that would be specific to their facility, could control the diameter of the pole, and it would not look as unsightly, although it would require City approval. Board Member Hirsch imagined this project may be better visually if each box was mounted around the pole in a symmetrical arrangement or if all were mounted on the back of the pole higher up symmetrically in the line of the lighting, etc. Board Member Hirsch was concerned when visualizing the back of the pole. Board Member Hirsch emphasized the need for the ARB to see shop drawings that showed how the wiring goes into the pole, the diameter of pole, and diameter of the cut to see the detail of the Applicant’s design. Board Member Hirsch would have liked to have seen options, for example, mounting at X feet high or reasons for putting it where it was proposed. Board Member Hirsch felt that the Applicant had not addressed the issue of visually seeing what was on the pole. Seeing the boxes from 1 direction did not solve the problem for Board Member Hirsch because he thought it would look better out of sight higher up where people would not see the boxes when driving past the pole. The photo of the wood pole was inadequate because the Board needed to see the light fixture to know visually where everything existed on the pole. Board Member Hirsch repeated the Board’s question from the last meeting as to why this was not designed in a high‐quality way in which the Applicant had thought out all the aesthetic issues. Mr. Grabisch explained that the radios were outdoor rated and functioned well in open air. Heat would rise. Air comes from below for convection cooling to occur. When all the radios were at the same height, it almost created an enclosure with the funnel on top. The Applicant had mounted 3 radios on a utility pole at the same height but it was not an issue because they were exposed to open air. Adding concealment for the coaxial cables impeded airflow even with mesh. The diameter of the pole and the coaxial cables were the problems. The Applicant having their own pole was a less preferred solution because it would be a new structure within the right‐of‐way rather than an existing structure. Going on existing City structures generated revenue for the City because the Applicant paid for the occupation of those poles. Page 8 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Vice Chair Adcock noted the ARB typically did not see shop drawings at the planning level and she did not want to set a precedent. The top of the shroud was not shown. If the Applicant normally used the same prefabricated shrouds and had more detailed drawings, it would have helped clarify these questions for the Board. Vice Chair Adcock thought it was not plausible to have 3 radios at the same level because of space geometry but it seemed plausible to have 2 on 1 level or side and 1 on another level or side to push the radios up higher. The ARB usually did not ask applicants to provide options but the ARB expected the Applicant to take the Board’s comments to heart when coming back after a first review and attempt a better design, which was the disappointment that the Board Members were voicing. The 3 radios on the side of the pole did not budge even though the ARB previously commented about not meeting Finding 3, the expectation of high‐quality design. Vice Chair Adcock was glad to see the removal of the equipment cabinet because it was an impediment on the street to have more utility boxes of unknown content. It was better to have things on the pole and as high as possible. Vice Chair Adcock urged the Applicant to determine the tallest mounting location and shortest distance between the 3 radios to avoid 7 feet of vertical pole for 3 radios (11 feet to 18 feet). Board Member Jojarth was happy to see the removal of the equipment cabinet and putting the disconnect switch into the vault, which made the design better. Board Member Jojarth appreciated the Applicant’s effort to be present in person and agreeing to a longer comment period. Board Member Jojarth made the following requests: (1) The Applicant had not studied the diameter of the pole. The Applicant should evaluate if the radios could be mounted at a higher level and come back to the ARB with the maximum height. (2) Having the radios at the same elevation, such as on the photo Board Member Jojarth shared, seemed to be the Board’s preferred solution. Board Member Jojarth performed a Google search and saw many photos of metal light posts with 3 radios around it, so the Applicant could study if this specific light post was suitable for 3 radios at a certain height. (3) The Applicant had shown a picture of an industrial‐looking shroud they had used before. Board Member Jojarth wondered if there was a more aesthetically pleasing shroud. Perhaps a designer could design a shroud that looked good as opposed to an industrial shroud or maybe an interesting design. Board Member Jojarth wanted a conceptual drawing where he could see some artistic spirit in the design and somehow make it more pretty, not an industrial design. Board Member Hirsch asked the applicant to consider the possibility of perforated metal so the ventilation could happen all around the box, it would be an improvement, the shroud could have more openness, and it would be an element that could change the nature of the look instead of a solid box. Board Member Rosenberg was disappointed when companies do things repeatedly a certain way come to Palo Alto and say this is how they always do it and how it worked; however, Palo Alto cared and had very vocal neighbors whose thoughts and intentions were appreciated when they were protecting their city and the aesthetics. It was frustrating when the Board expressed their comments and the Applicant came back the second time with mostly the same application as the first time with no exploration or additional visuals or diagrams. Board Member Rosenberg particularly wanted to see how this looked from the roadway as you were driving and from the sidewalk as you were walking. The Applicant’s comment about it being ventilated properly and yet it was not mounted on the north side of the pole which would in theory provide the most amount of shade felt to Board Member Rosenberg like there was not a lot of afterthought when the Applicant’s comments came forward. Board Member Rosenberg wanted the radios moved higher up on the backside of the pole facing the trees to be more hidden. Board Member Rosenberg was unsure about the perforation. Board Member Rosenberg would have Page 9 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 appreciated more thought, explanation, and clarity on why this was doing what it was doing and why it was the way it was. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to make sure this was done properly but did not have the understanding that this was thought out and done with some intention. Chair Chen appreciated the removal of the existing cabinet, the undergrounding of certain equipment, and the Applicant’s willingness to work the City. Extending the deadline was a good gesture and would allow enough time for the Applicant to refine the design. Chair Chen was disappointed about not seeing any change in the side‐mounted radios compared to the previous drawings. Important information was missing from the Applicant’s investigation that should have been done at the beginning of the work, such as the diameter and structural feasibility of the light pole as well as how high the radios could be mounted. Chair Chen found the current design was not compatible with ARB Finding 3, a project with high aesthetic quality that enhanced the surrounding area. Chair Chen encouraged the Applicant to explore design options, check the highest mounting elevations, and shroud options. Chair Chen sought clarity that the ARB needed to make a decision within 60 days even though the Applicant agreed to an additional 45 days. Ms. Raybould stated that staff was looking for a recommendation from the ARB today. Ms. Raybould highly recommended that the ARB either consider approving with conditions or make a recommendation to deny with an explanation as to which specific findings the Board felt were not being met. Ms. Raybould noted the tolling agreement for the additional 45 days had not been signed yet. Staff was trying to find a Council hearing in November. If the ARB was looking to continue, there would not be sufficient time even with the 45‐day extension to allow for the full public review process, so it was likely that the Director would be forced to make a decision to move this forward without a recommendation from the ARB and presumably would continue on to Council. Board Member Hirsch wondered if the ARB could consider this application through an ad hoc to expedite this because the Board seemed to be in agreement on the details that needed to be shown. Ms. Raybould would have to consider if an ad hoc was allowed for a wireless project. Regarding the comment about items going forward without ARB approval, Board Member Rosenberg wondered if the ARB could impose a condition that would close that loophole. Board Member Rosenberg advised future applicants that when comments were put out to them, the Board expected an appropriate response. Staff explained there were constraints under federal law. It was very difficult to make a constraint in the abstract versus project by project because it depended how an application looked when it came in. Vice Chair Adcock moved to recommend this project for approval with the following conditions: 1. That the disconnect switch is fully concealed in an underground vault with cover no higher than adjacent grade. 2. Radios are installed no lower than 12 feet to the bottom of the shroud. 3. All 3 radios shall be mounted at the same elevation as high as feasible using the existing pole; if not technically feasible, then all radios to be mounted facing away from the street. Board Member Jojarth seconded the motion. Page 10 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Board Member Hirsch wanted to expand the use of material textures to allow for the option of perforated metal for an enclosure to allow more ventilation instead of 3 boxes. Board Member Hirsch thought that more texture would create a technically interesting box, which would be an improvement. Board Member Rosenberg thought the shrouds should be painted like Disney’s Go Away Green and Blending Blue instead of a bright silver but felt that changing the color or using perforation would not make it much more attractive. The motion passed 5‐0 by roll call vote. The ARB took a break at 10:23 AM and resumed at 10:30 AM. Study Session 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 2100‐2400 Geng Road [24PLN‐00356]: Consideration of a Site and Design and Conditional Use Permit Application to Demolish Four Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct 65 Three‐Story Buildings Containing 145 For Sale Townhome Units. Thirteen Percent of the Units (19 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 July 8, 2024. CEQA Status: Initial Study is being prepared. Zoning District: ROLM (E)(D)(AD) ‐ Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (Embarcadero) (Site & Design) (Automobile Dealership) Combining District. Chair Chen asked Board Members if they had any disclosures. Board Member Rosenberg, Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, Board Member Jojarth, and Board Member Hirsch disclosed they had visited the property. Senior Planner Steven Switzer said a detailed project overview was in the staff report. This project was located on the opposite side of 101 near the bay. Adjacent land uses included Baylands Park, the post office, and various office buildings. This application was for a Site and Design Permit and Conditional Use Permit for exclusive residential use in the zoning district. An SB 330 pre‐application for Site and Design was accepted on July 8, 2024, and the formal application was filed on December 18, 2024. Staff review of the submitted application had been ongoing. Per the municipal code for the Site and Design process, this would tentatively go to the Planning and Transportation Commission on December 10 for recommendation after CEQA was completed, come back to the ARB on January 15 for recommendation, and go to the Council in March of 2026. Public comments would be accepted at all public hearings and anytime throughout the review process. This project required the demolition of 4 office buildings, a substantial amount of grading, and a large number of tree removals to construct 145 townhomes (75 with 4 bedrooms, 70 with 3 bedrooms) in 65 three‐story buildings 42 feet tall. The 19 BMR 3‐bedroom units met the required 13 percent minimum. There was a vesting tentative map for the condominiums. For parking spaces, 290 were in garages and 43 on the street (70 garage spaces were tandem). This was a Builder’s Remedy project as defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 1893, so the application may not be denied based on inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan land use. The City may Page 11 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 require compliance with objective standards that would apply to the project if it was proposed on a site that allowed the density requested. The FAR was 0.97:1 with approximately 13.2 dwelling units/acre (DU/ac) density, which was permitted in the RM‐20 District, so RM‐20 standards applied to this project. The state law was 15 DU/ac or local jurisdiction, whichever was lower, so in this case it was the RM‐20 District minimum of 11 DU/ac. Under State Density Bonus Law, the Applicant may request waivers on applicable standards that prevented the project from being built at the permitted density. The requested waivers were detailed in the staff report. Mr. Switzer displayed the site plan, rendering, and elevations. The paint colors and materials were shown on the screen and available on material boards at the dais. The Board was asked to consider conformance with the RM‐20 Development Standards, Objective Design Standards, Baylands Master Plan, Baylands Design Guidelines, Site Assessment and Design Guidelines; and consider the requested waivers detailed in the staff report. CEQA review was ongoing. An initial study checklist was being prepared to determine consistency with the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff requested the ARB to conduct a hearing, provide feedback on the project, and continue to a date uncertain. Board Member Hirsch requested further explanation of the DU/ac calculation for this 11‐acre site. Mr. Switzer stated the minimum dwelling density in the RM‐20 district was a range from 11 to 20 DU/ac. The proposal was for 13 DU/ac, which was within the allowed range. The requirement with Builder’s Remedy was to at least meet the minimum DU/ac required in the zoning code. Vice Chair Adcock noted an error on Packet Page 25. Mr. Switzer acknowledged the staff report had some inconsistencies but today’s presentation had the correct information. Only the 3‐bedroom townhomes were BMR. The Board questioned if there was a requirement to spread the BMRs and adaptable units into different housing types. Mr. Switzer replied that the requirement was to have BMR units dispersed throughout the site, not concentrated in one portion of the site. It was not required that BMR units be in different housing typologies. Regarding the use of 3 different housing typologies, Board Member Hirsch wanted to know what determined a particular typology or if there was a description in the zoning for differentiated typologies. Board Member Rosenberg noted the objective standards gave examples of typologies being townhomes, apartments, and mixed use. Mr. Switzer referred to the objective standards that required townhomes to have 3 or more varying housing typologies. Staff was looking for the Board’s direction and feedback on the 3 housing typologies listed in the plan set, which were the attached multiple townhomes in 1 building, the alley‐loaded townhomes with the garage at the rear of the property, and the front‐loaded detached townhomes. Board Member Jojarth asked if there were any other specific areas where staff wanted feedback from the ARB during this study session. Mr. Switzer requested feedback on the typologies, if there were any inconsistencies with the objective standards, the known inconsistency with the general provisions for rooftop gardens for the open space provided per unit, potential design changes, and design considerations in relation to the Baylands such as landscape screening or having reduced or more emphasized horizontal lines. The considerations Page 12 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 should not preclude the development at the proposed density but the ARB may have some friendly amendments to the design to have some more consistency. Board Member Hirsch requested staff to speak to any open space requirements or undesignated public open space. Mr. Switzer noted the proposal complied with the open space requirements for the designated units. As detailed in the staff report and on the plans, there was a large interior space and some outlying areas on the property. Each townhome had a rooftop terrace or garden that met the private open space requirement in the code. The interior courtyard met the requirement for public open space. Chair Chen referenced Packet Page 25. Mr. Switzer believed Attachment C on zoning consistency provided detailed information with numbers and how the project compared to the requirements. The calculation on open space was 150 per unit and 91,000 square feet was proposed. Vice Chair Adcock queried if the 91,000 square feet was for the center space or the multiple open spaces added together. Board Member Hirsch wondered if the open space included where the electrical lines go over the unbuildable areas. Mr. Switzer answered the 91,000 was a total of all the open space provided on the site in various areas, which included open space near the Geng Road portion of the property and another open space where the property abutted the post office. Mr. Switzer believed the calculations utilized the space beyond the easement for the electrical lines. Michael Cohen, Founding Partner of Strada Investment Group, was the developer of this proposed project on an 11‐acre site that was previously developed as a 4‐building suburban office park surrounded by parking. Higher‐density multifamily could have been built on this site but the decision was made to develop 145 single‐family for‐sale townhomes largely because there was a massive undersupply of homes for first‐time homebuyers in Palo Alto, especially for families. The townhomes were 3 or 4 bedrooms in a variety of sizes, with 2‐car garages and roof decks, and many had rear or side yards. The layout and landscape plans provided a central gathering point, pocket parks, a network of pedestrian pathways, plantings, and 3 times the amount of current trees on the site, increasing from 18 percent native trees to over 51 percent, and room for additional amenities such as a community garden. Darian Wagner, Principal and Senior Architect at DAHLIN Group Architecture and Planning, continued the presentation. The plan included a diversity of typologies with a mix of 145 units (97 attached and 48 detached townhomes) dispersed throughout the site. The various square footages and price points provided attainability and affordability for different families and home types, which would result in a diversity of people living in this community. The parking and circulation were shown. Instead of being linear, the pathways were meandering sites with crossings to integrate the community. The top row of detached townhomes had open space to create a transition to the Baylands Athletic Center. The other detached townhomes interacted with the greenspace corridor. The elevations of the detached and attached townhomes were shown, all having balconies and private open space on the roof. The detached townhome materials were smooth stucco, diverse siding, and metal railings. The attached townhomes included thin brick veneer on the lower levels. Morgan Burke, Principal at The Guzzardo Partnership, presented the landscape plan. There were about 3¾ acres of vegetated landscape space throughout the site, a central open space, and 2 pocket parks on Page 13 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 either side. A fully vegetated pedestrian network would connect all the exterior open spaces. The central green included 2 open lawn spaces, a variety of seating elements for large gatherings with outdoor cooking facilities, smaller intimate spaces, outdoor game tables, and benches throughout the design. A stage element and feature trellis on the larger lawn area could be used for special events. The second lawn area was being studied and could potentially become a community garden in the future. The pedestrian circulation included slimmer decomposed granite paths that allowed residents to engage closer with the plant material. A rendering was shown of the open space. The smaller pocket park at the entrance of the project contained a decomposed granite area with park tables and overhead shade tree canopy. The larger pocket park on the western side of the site had the same character as the central green and could accommodate a large gathering with outdoor cooking facilities. Landscape amenities and materials were shown on the screen, which included unit paving and integral colored concrete. Outdoor furnishings with sustainably harvested hardwood would be selected. Plants in a variety of shapes, sizes, colors, and textures were chosen based on their drought tolerance with a focus on California native plants. A biologist selected plant material that would help create habitat on the site. PUBLIC COMMENT: Herb Borock did not believe this project was properly before the ARB because the application was incomplete. The ARB needed a complete application before starting this process. This application was submitted 10 months ago. Notices of incomplete application were sent to the Applicant on January 17, January 24, May 22, August 29, and September 4. The most recent submittal of the plan was received on September 29. The Applicant volunteered to come before the ARB early to hear the Board’s feedback. Vice Chair Adcock referred to Sheet A.7, which showed the BMR units were only the connected 3‐ bedroom townhomes although there were connected 4‐bedroom townhomes and some of detached townhomes had similar square footage to the attached townhomes. Vice Chair Adcock questioned why there were no BMR detached townhomes. It appeared to Vice Chair Adcock that there was segregation with all the detached townhomes being market rate. Vice Chair Adcock asked what was the edge‐to‐ edge spacing between the detached townhomes, if the HOA would take care of the yard between the detached townhomes, and what the intent was for the space between the detached townhomes if it would not be fenced. Mr. Cohen will further discuss the BMR units with the design team and City staff. Not having BMR detached townhomes was due to a variety of factors including a focus on size as opposed to attached versus detached, market value, and geographic diversity within the site to not aggregate BMRs in one location. The HOA would take care of the fenced side yards between the detached townhomes. Mr. Switzer added that staff was evaluating the distribution of BMR units across the site as required. Ms. Wagner thought the distance between the buildings was 8 to 10 feet. Board Member Jojarth noted on the plan there was 10 feet between the alley‐loaded detached townhomes. Regarding the teal units across the back of the Baylands Athletic Center on Sheet A.6, Board Member Rosenberg wondered if the 8‐foot typical side yard would be divided for each unit to have 4 feet or would the 8 feet be for one unit. Vice Chair Adcock noted the landscape plans did not show the allocation of the side yards. Page 14 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Mr. Cohen clarified that the alley‐loaded units had full dedicated side yards on 1 side, not shared between units. The front‐loaded units had a backyard, so the side yards would be divided for each unit to have a fenced side yard. Ms. Wagner did not have the allocation of the side yards designated on the plan but could add it for clarification. Chair Chen inquired if all the trees onsite would be removed. Mr. Burke answered yes; all the onsite trees would be removed because the site needed to be raised 3 feet to get out of the floodplain. Board Member Rosenberg questioned what the plan was for raising the site 3 feet in relationship to the adjacent properties and wanted images of what it might look like. Section C‐C said the proposed retaining wall was 6 feet +/‐ max but there was no height. A 42‐inch railing would be needed on top of a 6‐foot retaining wall. Board Member Rosenberg noted the entrance of the driveway from Geng Road would need to be sloped significantly upward quickly. Mr. Burke stated there would be a retaining wall along the property line, which he believed would be a low pony wall around the entire perimeter. Images of the proposed retaining wall could be added for the next meeting to show the material and character. Mr. Switzer pointed out that the C‐4.1 civil drawings had sections that included the height of the retaining wall along the property lines. Board Member Jojarth saw a maximum of 2 feet on A‐6. Vice Chair Adcock asked what would be between the road and the retaining wall, a sloped planting area or 6 feet of masonry. One reply from the Applicant’s team was that there would be planting in front of the retaining wall, so it would be partially obscured. Mr. Burke acknowledged that a 42‐inch railing would be needed on top of a 6‐foot retaining wall. Mr. Burke will study how to soften the retaining wall, which could be done with plant material or sloped from the back sidewalk to the retaining wall. The Applicant’s team said the lowest portion of the site was adjacent to Geng Road and, therefore, would have the highest amount of retaining and would need a railing on top of the retaining wall. The rest of the perimeter on the north and western sides averaged 2‐3 feet of retaining. There would be some planting into the bioretention basin area and adjacent to the wall for screening. The road would rise up, so the grade would be reduced as you come into the project. Board Member Hirsch asked how detention would be done for the rest of the site. The Applicant’s team explained there would be a centralized underground treatment system beneath the central courtyard area, it would not be exposed, it would be a subsurface feature with piping, and this would allow usable open space on top of it. Mr. Burke added that the detention area would have uncompacted soil and the plant system growing through it would provide the treatment aspect. Page 15 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Board Member Rosenberg highlighted the open areas on the plan on the screen and queried if anything could be done where the tower was located at the top area, such as a barbecue or picnic tables. Mr. Burke replied the top area would be vegetated but had to follow PG&E’s guidelines for what was allowed underneath, so it was not usable open space. A section detail of the stormwater system was shown on the screen, found on C‐6 in the plan set. Chair Chen asked the architect to walk through the consideration of material selections and dark colors for the townhomes. Ms. Wagner explained that most of the color was within the detached townhomes to emphasize the architecture in the community, sometimes color could be a distraction, therefore, a consistent desaturated color palette was chosen with the main colors being darker and limited to some of the accents or pop‐out elements. Board Member Rosenberg wondered if the ecological impacts were kept in mind when selecting colors because this project was next to the Baylands and there were bird migratory paths in this area. Board Member Rosenberg asked for the light reflective value (LRV) of the Snowbound color. Ms. Wagner replied that bird safety impact was taken into minor consideration for all the windows, glazing, and pop‐outs. Ms. Wagner did not have the LRV of the Snowbound color but could find out. Vice Chair Adcock noted the large expanses had very dark colors and a stark black and white pattern. Baylands standards needed to be taken into consideration. Vice Chair Adcock tried not to go super dark with roofs and walls because dark absorbs heat. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to make sure that the heat gain effect in the homes was taken into consideration and inquired if the insulation value would be increased to counteract it. Vice Chair Adcock was concerned about how dark these buildings were, although they looked beautiful in the renderings. Ms. Wagner stated there were many considerations for energy efficiency at different levels between the white and the dark as well as the complete solar heat gain but there was a lot of glazing, which was where a lot of solar heat gain comes in. There was a thermal value; it would absorb more energy because it was darker but glazing may have a bigger impact than the color, which could be confirmed and explored further with the Applicant’s energy consultant if the ARB wanted clarification. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to know what the requirements were for light values in the Baylands standards. The Baylands General Design Principles were shown on the screen, which included: The following design principles are suggested to reflect and preserve the Baylands unique landscape character. Avoid bright, reflective colors including white. Allow wood to weather to gray. Allow metals to rust to dark brown. Board Member Rosenberg queried if the Trespa wood material was true wood or engineered and if it would weather to gray. Ms. Wagner said Trespa was engineered, like a composite, so it would not weather. Mr. Switzer explained that the weathering of wood was mentioned in the Baylands General Design Principles to keep in mind the salt‐laden winds in that area when selecting materials. Page 16 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Vice Chair Adcock noted the statement in bold on the screen: Use only muted, natural colors. Vice Chair Adcock believed that was meant to minimize contrast. Black was not a bright color but it did not provide a muted effect; especially the high contrast between black and white was not muted. Vice Chair Adcock was concerned with the very bright white on the boards. Vice Chair Adcock opined that the colors on the detached townhomes were better because the dark was a much smaller percentage and the blue versus the dark gray was less of a contract but she was concerned about the bright white next to the blue. Although beige was not her favorite, Vice Chair Adcock’s personal recommendation was to have a little bit of earthier tone on the wall and minimizing contrast would be more compatible with the site. Board Member Jojarth noted the black was very dark and it stuck out more when next to the bright white. It was not included in the deck; however, Board Member Jojarth thought the first photorealistic rendering shown on the screen during the presentation had pretty colors and the white was not as visible or was not contrasting with the black. Board Member Jojarth would personally have chosen off‐ white instead of the proposed white. The gray shown in the rendering was more of a light earth gray, whereas the gray on the board was super dark, and the blue was less dark in the rendering also. Board Member Jojarth wondered if the materials board could be made to look like the photorealistic renderings shown in the presentation. On the second rendering, it looked more like gray and light gray instead of black and white. Ms. Wagner said that the colors in that tone could be adjusted and the material board made to be closer to what was shown in the rendering. Vice Chair Adcock loved the composition but thought the white in the renderings felt too bright for this particular context, especially for the pop‐ups on top the buildings that the Applicant was asking for a height increase to 42 feet. Vice Chair Adcock wanted more carefulness with regard to visibility from the Baylands. If the popups on top of the buildings were stepped back, Vice Chair Adcock recommended going a little bit darker such as a dark gray to recess the popups more. Board Member Rosenberg echoed Vice Chair Adcock’s recommendation that the popups be a darker gray so they fade. Chair Chen referred to Sheet A‐28 and asked what the materials were between the windows and dark panels. On the wood panel scheme, it seemed like the molding between the windows matched the dark color, which Chair Chen was not sure if it was a gray panel or if it was painted. On the blue scheme, it seemed like the blue color continued between the windows. Ms. Wagner said she could make the light wood color go up, as done in the blue scheme. It would probably be a cementitious trim piece that matched the siding color because it was most likely too narrow for the siding to wrap. On Sheet A‐28, Board Member Jojarth noted the stucco seemed to have horizontal and vertical black lines, whereas the lines on the side seemed more irregular. Board Member Jojarth wondered if it was part of the design and if the locations of those lines were specified. Board Member Jojarth opined the lines were a nice part of the design and wanted to make sure it would happen. Ms. Wagner replied that part of the design was to put in control joints in the stucco to address cracking and accentuate the design because they were visible lines to break up some of the stucco wall faces. Page 17 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Vice Chair Adcock asked how the horizontal joint would look when it turned the corner of the building. Ms. Wagner referred to the floorplan on A‐33 showing framing for an outwall, an articulation, and it would provide a nice shadow line of added material and framing. On A‐28, the tower element was furred out to provide some separation, so the color had a natural corner between the dark and white with a slight plane change. Board Member Rosenberg noted the top and side control joints did not align and wanted to make sure that detail did not look sloppy. It seemed to Vice Chair Adcock like a one‐off if it was only on a corner, and then the offset of unmatched horizontal control joints would not look good. The offset composition had an appeal, so if that design idea was the intent, a collection of stucco trim accessories could make it happen not only in that location but around the various buildings. Ms. Wagner acknowledged the Board’s desire to have offset of the control joints for articulation and an artistic point on the elevations. Board Member Rosenberg noted other narrow areas showed siding instead of a panel; however, Ms. Wagner mentioned earlier that the cementitious panels would be painted to match because it was too narrow. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to see consistency and clarification on where the cementitious panels would be versus siding. There was black in between the windows on the wooden color siding elevation, whereas the blue elevation showed blue in between the windows. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to understand why the wooden color elevation was done in a checkerboard and the blue was done with verticals, and asked whether there would be any black moments on the white elements. Board Member Rosenberg advised to be intentional with which one was chosen where. Ms. Wagner stated it could be cementitious panel. The details could be fine‐tuned. Sometimes a Hardie piece cannot be nailed when it was too narrow. Vice Chair Adcock thought the painted panels looked jarring in the wooden color elevation. Ms. Wagner could talk about the wood colored siding with the Trespa manufacturer and look at their minimum recommendations, and maybe consider shifting the windows. Chair Chen asked if the parapet wall had a little overhang or a different treatment. Ms. Wagner thought it was a graphical error in the depiction of the parapet. It was a straight parapet that did not need to come out. The detail should be the same as the other walls. Board Member Rosenberg took issue with the concept that a front‐loaded townhome versus a rear‐ loaded townhome were 2 different typologies. Attached versus detached were different typologies. Board Member Rosenberg looked at A.6 and asked if there had been any consideration for an apartment complex or duplexes. Mr. Cohen decided early on that a big multifamily project was not feasible. Small multifamily projects tended to be inefficient to build and get extremely complicated with an HOA. The Applicant was focused on preserving the density on the site and achieving diversity of product type by focusing on offering a wide range of unit sizes. The alley‐loaded livability of the units was different. Given the adjacency to the Baylands, the Applicant tried to keep the heights relatively low and create a coherent community. Mr. Page 18 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Cohen could consider duplexes. Mr. Cohen viewed townhomes as modern Victorians and there was a lot of diversity in that product type across the Bay Area. Board Member Hirsch thought some portion of this project should include a multifamily element where 1‐child families, downsizing couples, handicapped, elderly couples, and newcomers to the city who may stay a shorter amount of time could buy an apartment instead of a house. Board Member Hirsch suggested substituting a 4‐story multifamily dwelling with 1 and 2‐bedroom apartments in place of 50, 51, 52, and 53 and provide tenant parking below grade. Board Member Hirsch estimated this option would result in a total of 165 units, would make it a better and more appropriate community, and was not done so much in Palo Alto. There was a crisis in the city to provide units and this site had a lot of space to accommodate multifamily. Based on the proposed units being 3 and 4 bedrooms, there would be a lot of kids. Board Member Hirsch asked how many kids there might be and pointed out that the plan did not include play areas for the kids. Board Member Hirsch’s biggest concern was to mix the project and he urged the Applicant to consider providing an additional 20 units that would count toward the City’s housing requirement. Board Member Rosenberg supported Board Member Hirsch’s comments. Board Member Rosenberg commended the Applicant for proposing a community‐oriented space. Board Member Rosenberg wondered if there was any possibility to have an underground garage instead of the 6‐foot‐tall retaining wall at the front area. Board Member Rosenberg asked the Applicant to think about providing a different layout for single‐floor living for people who were aging so not everybody had to go up and down internal stairs in a townhome design, maybe 2‐bedroom units in a 3‐story building with 4 units on each floor. Mr. Switzer said an underground garage was not possible. Staff pointed out that you could not have an underground garage when you did not have mixed use. Mr. Cohen would consider finding a place for a tot lot or something more active for kids. Mr. Cohen believed that including multifamily in this project would be very difficult operationally and financially from a construction perspective. Mr. Cohen had built a project in San Mateo with stacked flats for single‐floor living particularly keeping seniors in mind and it was the most difficult product to sell in a building with an elevator. Mr. Cohen was focused on meeting the needs of first‐time homebuyers with this project, so adding multifamily may be unfeasible operationally. Mr. Cohen would be coming before the ARB on other multifamily projects and believed there would be thousands of multifamily units built in Palo Alto. Mr. Cohen was happy to go back and talk it through with the team, maybe they could make changes in bedrooms counts and other things. Mr. Cohen asked for the architect’s definition of a duplex. Board Member Rosenberg explained that a duplex had a single party wall between 2 units instead of a row of townhomes that were attached with multiple party walls. The alley‐loaded detached townhomes would utilize the side yard because they do not have a backyard, so duplexes might be better because you could potentially increase the side yard and make it more inviting or maybe it would be a front half and a back half in a square versus 2 linear 10 feet x 40 feet side yards. Board Member Rosenberg liked the idea of a playground or tot center. Vice Chair Adcock agreed that closing the gap between 2 detached townhomes to create the duplex typology and possibly providing more side yard would be a huge benefit. Vice Chair Adcock did not believe a below‐grade garage would work. Page 19 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Board Member Hirsch suggested using some of the ground floor of a 4‐story apartment building for public use space for the community to have meetings or committees, get together as a group, and share their talents to provide entertainment. Board Member Hirsch reiterated his desire for the Applicant to think about the life of the community and consider multifamily dwelling; it would change the character of the development and mixing of the population was a democratic idea. Mr. Cohen had built this type of product in other places in the Peninsula. Not everything worked on every site. This site had a series of constraints and it gets challenging. Underground parking cannot be done. Mr. Cohen learned what buyers on the Peninsula were interested in and he had recent evidence that the product proposed was attractive to first‐time homebuyers. There was a premium on diversity of unit size. Mr. Cohen acknowledged the Board’s direction to consider duplexes and the Applicant would look at the feasibility and practicality. Mr. Cohen was more likely to consider duplexes than including a multifamily component in a for‐sale product at this location. Other sites, for example in the San Antonio Road Area Plan, lend themselves for including multifamily. Vice Chair Adcock echoed Board Member Hirsch’s suggestion for a community room. Vice Chair Adcock’s first home in the Bay Area was a townhome. Especially when you live in a small or midsized townhome, having birthday parties in your house is not practical, so having a community room with an adjacent play structure added to the value of that space. Vice Chair Adcock urged the Applicant to think about having a community room and a play structure but not just a toddler play structure because kids quickly age out of it. Chair Chen liked the different locations created for open space, and guest parking was nice. Chair Chen wondered if it was possible to add another trash enclosure on the north side. Mr. Cohen explained it was built into the HOA that garbage should be kept in the garage until you put your garbage out front and a concierge service would pick it up and take it to the centralized garbage enclosure. Based on experience with other projects, it was a more efficient use of space for the garbage company to pick up at 1 location instead of the garbage truck driving through the whole site. Board Member Jojarth did not see a lighting plan and wanted to understand what light fixtures would be on the top floors, especially coming from the roof terraces. Board Member Hirsch assumed there would be landscape lighting for safety and maybe 1 light at the entrance for the roof terrace, keeping in mind the light pollution because this project was close to the bay. The lighting plan and photometric calculation were displayed and provided in the documents. Mr. Burke said there were bird safety regulations. There was no up‐lighting. The light fixtures were all down‐lit and covered, and provided adequate light and safety on the site while not interfering with the nearby wildlife. Ms. Wagner added that the lighting on the roof terraces could be limited to the entry door, which was needed for safety. All down‐lighting, dark‐sky compliant light fixtures could be provided on the building. Board Member Rosenberg was delighted to see townhomes and hoped to have multiple generations at this project. Board Member Rosenberg’s goal was to increase the distribution and diversity of the population, such as providing for ADA accessibility. Page 20 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Vice Chair Adcock asked if the code required a certain percentage of the townhomes to be convertible to accessible. Ms. Wagner replied that 10 percent of the townhomes needed to be adaptable by accommodating a wheelchair to get in the entryway and bathroom at least on the first floor. For single‐family detached, regulations allowed for aging in place, so at least 1 bedroom and bathroom, doorways, and hallways needed to be prepped to handle wheelchairs. Mr. Cohen left the meeting. Board Member Rosenberg summarized the Board’s comments. Multifamily, flats, or duplexes for variation was worth exploring. Note where and how high the grading would be; the heights, locations, and appearance of the retaining walls; where railings were needed and what the railing would look like on top of the retaining wall. More specifics were sought on the lighting analysis. Make sure the plan was compliant with Baylands regulations because this project was building on sensitive land area. Board Member Rosenberg believed the design was stunning if it was anywhere else in the city but there should be a better exploration of colors instead of bright white and dark black because this project was in the Baylands. For the next presentation, Board Member Rosenberg wanted a comprehensive understanding of what the 3 bike racks noted on the landscape plan would look like. Mr. Burke clarified there were 16 bike racks that would provide 32 spaces. Board Member Hirsch remarked that bikes could be kept in the garage. The requirement was to provide 1 bike space per unit, which the Applicant was doing when considering the garage. Vice Chair Adcock pointed out that the developer was trying to build a community where people could raise their kids, so plan the garage space to have the ability to hang bikes, hanging more than 1 bike would be fantastic. Board Member Rosenberg remarked that the ARB would ask about trash multiple times. If there was a community center, it could potentially be a place for Amazon pickups and deliveries. Board Member Rosenberg asked if a parking space was designated for loading and unloading. Board Member Rosenberg noted a U‐shaped or curved signage. The ARB wanted a better understanding of the signage. There were often rules or regulations for the size and appearance of signs. Board Member Rosenberg had multiple questions about the roof decks with regard to railings, lighting on roof decks, if fairy lights would be allowed, how would an umbrella flying off on a windy day be addressed, as well as roof deck compliance with fire codes, rules, and regulations. Board Member Hirsch emphasized there should be 3 different prototypes on this property. The Board had suggested the possibility of a duplex as an alternate third possibility. Board Member Rosenberg added that the duplexes could be side by side or over/under flats. Board Member Jojarth wanted to see different kinds of grading and felt there had to be more thoughts around grading in general including the grading inside the property, such as terraced landscaping. It had to be human grade. The Board did not understand when you are going on the road how some of the homes were elevated inside the property. Board Member Jojarth was very worried about any height of retaining wall inside the living area/park, so maybe it was better to have a slope or rocks. The perimeter retaining wall was important because it affected the property value and opportunities of the neighbors. Page 21 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 Board Member Rosenberg suggested a terraced wall with planting at the entrance to this community on Geng Road; the landscape could be more creative to make the entrance special. Board Member Rosenberg asked if a rendering of the entry could be provided to see what it would look like as you are standing at the road about to drive in, and understanding what it would look like with the grade changes and retaining walls. Board Member Hirsch echoed Board Member Rosenberg’s comment that the entry was important. Chair Chen appreciated the Applicant creating a family‐oriented community in the city, which Palo Alto needed. Chair Chen asked if a motion was necessary. Ms. Raybould stated this was an action item, so the ARB was welcome to make a motion but was not required to. The Board could not make a recommendation because the CEQA was not complete. The ARB could continue it to a date uncertain based on the comments and feedback the Board provided or as a study session. Mr. Switzer clarified this was agendized as a study session, so no motion was required. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 4, 2025 Vice Chair Adcock moved to approve the minutes as written. Chair Chen seconded the motion. Motion passed 5‐0 by roll call vote. Adjournment Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 12:23 PM.